A Prominent German Theologian and Friend of Pope Benedict Warns of the Danger of Schism

By Robert Moynihan:

The Spaemann Interview

The Catholic News Agency (CNA) news service (which is connected with the late Mother Angelica’s EWTN Catholic television network), has bureaus in a number of countries, and a journalist in the bureau in Germany, Anian Christoph Wimmer, has just published an interview with Spaemann. It appeared in German first and is now out in Italian thanks to the Vatican journalist Sandro Magister. (link)

Spaemann is a professor emeritus of philosophy at the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich. He is one of the leading Catholic philosophers and theologians in Germany. He lives in Stuttgart. His latest book published in Italy was God and the World. An Autobiography in the Form of Dialogue, published by Cantagalli in 2014.

Here is my own English translation based on the Italian.

It is worth noting that Spaemann is the same age as Emeritus Pope Benedict, who turned 89 in April.

Spaemann: “It’s chaos made into a principle with the stroke of the pen”

 

 

 

 

The following is a translation of the interview on Amoris laetitia that Spaemann (photo) gave exclusively to Anian Christoph Wimmer for the German edition of the Catholic News Agency on April 28:
Professor Spaemann, as a philosopher, you followed closely the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Many believers today are asking whether the post-Synodal Exhortation Amoris laetitia of Pope Francis may be read in continuity with the teaching of the Church and of these Popes.

Prof. Robert Spaemann: For most of the text that is possible, even though his line leaves room for conclusions that can not be made compatible with the teaching of the Church. In any case, Article 305, together with footnote 351, which states that the faithful “in an objective situation of sin” may be admitted to the sacraments “because of mitigating factors,” directly contradicts Paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio by John Paul II.

What was John Paul II’s central concern?

Spaemann: John Paul II declares human sexuality “real symbol of the giving of the whole person” and, more precisely, “a union that is not temporary or ad experimentum (“for an experiment”). In Paragraph 84 he affirms, then, with total clarity that the divorced and remarried, if they wish to receive communion, must give up the sexual acts. A change in the practice of the administration of the sacraments would therefore not be a “development” of Familiaris Consortio, as Cardinal Kasper holds, but a break with its essential teaching, on the anthropological and theological level, regarding marriage and human sexuality.

The Church does not have the power, without there being a prior conversion, to give a positive value to sexual relationships, through the administration of the sacraments, dispensing “in advance” the mercy of God. And this remains true no matter what the judgment may be of these situations whether on the moral level or on the human level. In this case, as in the case of women priests, the door here is closed.

Could one not argue that the anthropological and theological considerations you mentioned could perhaps be true, but that the mercy of God is not bound to these limits, but connects to the concrete situation of each person?

Spaemann: The mercy of God is at the heart of the Christian faith in the Incarnation and Redemption. Certainly the gaze of God falls upon every single person in that person’s concrete situation. God knows every single person better than that person knows himself or herself. The Christian life, however, is not an educational exhibition in which one moves toward marriage as toward an ideal, as it seems it is presented in many passages of Amoris laetitia. The entire scope of relations, especially those of a sexual nature, has to do with the dignity of the human person, with the person’s personality and freedom. It has to do with the body as the “temple of God” (1 Cor 6:19). Any violation in this area, no matter how frequent it may have become, is therefore a violation of the relationship with God, to which Christians are called; it is a sin against His holiness, and always and continuously is in need of purification and conversion.

The mercy of God consists precisely in the fact that this conversion is made continuously and ever again possible. This mercy, certainly, is not bound within certain limits, but the Church, for her part, is obliged to preach conversion and does not have the power to go beyond the existing limits by the administration of the sacraments, causing, in this way, some violence against God’s mercy. This would be proud arrogance.

For this reason, the clerics who stick to the existing order do not condemn anyone, but take into account and announce this limit with regard to the holiness of God.

It is a healthy proclamation.

To accuse them unjustly, for doing this, of “hiding themselves behind the teachings of the Church” and of “sitting on the chair of Moses… to throw stones at people’s lives” (Paragraph 305), is something that I do not even want to comment on. I note, just in passing, that this text is exploited, playing on a deliberate misreading of that Gospel passage. Jesus says, in fact, yes, that the Pharisees and scribes sit on the chair of Moses, but he stresses that the disciples have to practice and observe all they say, but do not live like them (Mt 23:2).

The Pope would like us not to focus on the individual phrases of his exhortation, but on the work as a whole…

Spaemann: From my point of view, focusing on the passages cited above  is entirely justified. Before a text of the papal Magisterium, one cannot wait for people to rejoice because it is a nice text and pretend not to notice decisive sentences, that change substantially the teaching of the Church. In this case there is only one clear decision between yes and no. Give or withhold Communion: there is no middle way.

Pope Francis in his text repeats that no one can be condemned forever…

Spaemann: I find it hard to understand what he means. That it is not licit for the Church to personally condemn anyone, let alone eternally — which, thank God, she cannot even do — is something quite clear. But, when it comes to sexual relationships that objectively contradict the ordering of Christian life, then I really would like to know from the Pope after how long and under what circumstances an objectively sinful conduct turns into a conduct pleasing to God.

Here, then, is there really a rupture with the traditional teaching of the Church?

Spaemann: That it is a rupture is something that is seems obvious to any person capable of thinking who reads the texts in question.

How was it possible to come to this rupture?

Spaemann: That Francis positions himself at a critical distance from his predecessor, John Paul II, was already seen when he canonized John Paul together with John XXIII, when he deemed unnecessary for the latter the second miracle that, instead, is canonically required. Many have rightly perceived that choice as manipulative. It seemed that Pope Francis wanted to relativize the importance of John Paul II.

The real problem, though, is an influential current of moral theology, already present among the Jesuits in the 17th century, which supports a mere situational ethics. The quotes of Thomas Aquinas used by the Pope in Amoris laetitia seem to support this line of thought. Here, however, the fact that Thomas Aquinas knows objectively sinful acts, for which admits of no exception linked to situations, is obscured. These acts include disordered sexual behaviors. As he had done already in the 1950s regarding the Jesuit Karl Rahner, in an essay that contains all the essential arguments, still valid today, John Paul II has rejected situation ethics and he condemned it in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

Amoris Laetitia also breaks with this magisterial document. In this regard, moreover, do not forget that it was John Paul II who made the theme of his pontificate divine mercy, dedicating to divine mercy his second encyclical, discovering in Krakow the diary of Sister Faustina and, later, canonizing her. He is her authentic interpreter.

What implications do you see for the Church?

Spaemann: The consequences can be seen already. Growing uncertainty, insecurity and confusion: from the episcopal conferences to the last parish priest in the jungle. Just a few days ago, a priest from the Congo expressed to me all his despair in front of this text, and the lack of clear guidance. According to the relevant passages of Amoris laetitia, in the presence of not-better-defined “extenuating circumstances,” not only the divorced and remarried may be admitted to absolution for sins and communion, but everyone living in any “irregular situation,” without requiring them commit themselves to abandon their sexual conduct and, therefore, without full confession and without conversion.

Every priest who holds to the sacramental order hitherto in force may undergo forms of bullying from their faithful and be put under pressure by their bishop. Rome can now impose the directive that from now on only “merciful” bishops will be appointed, bishops who are willing to soften the existing order.

Chaos has been erected as a principle with the stroke of a pen.

The Pope should have known that with such a step he splits the Church and leads her toward a schism.

This schism would not reside at the periphery, but in the very heart of the Church. God forbid.

One thing, however, seems certain: what seemed to be the aspiration of this pontificate — that the Church would transcend her “self-referentialness” in order to go out to meet persons with an open heart — with this papal document has been destroyed for an unforeseeable length of time.

One must now expect a secularizing boost and a further decline in the number of priests in large parts of the world. One can easily verify that, for some time, that the bishops and dioceses with an clear attitude in matters of faith and morals have the highest number of priestly vocations. It must be borne in mind here what St. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians: “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor 14: 8).

What will happen now?

Spaemann: Every cardinal, but also every bishop and priest, is called to defend in their own field of expertise the Catholic sacramental system and to profess it publicly. If the Pope is not willing to introduce corrections, it will be up to the next pontificate to put things back in place officially.

 

See also Maike Hickson’s article on OnePeterFive

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to A Prominent German Theologian and Friend of Pope Benedict Warns of the Danger of Schism

  1. In the first paragraph we read: “…Anian Christoph Wimmer, has just published an interview with Spaemann.” This is both bad manners and poor journalism and/or sub-editing. I knew that I was about to read something about Professor Robert Spaemann but not everybody would have known that.

  2. JabbaPapa says:

    Spaemann is objectively wrong.

    In this case there is only one clear decision between yes and no. Give or withhold Communion: there is no middle way.

    Whilst any notion of “a middle way” is nonsensical (but then really, he’s just putting up a strawman here, isn’t he), no, this most certainly is not a simple yes or no question — as is demonstrated by the fact that not one of the core texts on the question treats it as such, and no not even the Scriptures.

    There are divorced and remarried Catholics who are no longer living in a state of adultery and who have completed the necessary penitential and moral corrections to their lives to be readmitted to the Sacraments.

    Oh and BTW — it is Pope Martin V who 600 years ago clarified that the divorced-remarried are not excommunicated, but Spaemann seems to disagree on this question by trying to fabricate a non-existent black & white exclusion from the Sacraments which would constitute exactly the opposite of Martin V’s Magisterial teaching on the question, as we are obligated to accept it given the wording that this Pope used in his establishment of these facts.

    I really would like to know from the Pope after how long and under what circumstances an objectively sinful conduct turns into a conduct pleasing to God.

    Another strawman.

    A situation of mortal sin ceases to be mortally sinful upon the event of a change in that situation.

    As everyone knows.

    Whereas to read Amoris Laetitia through the eyes of a hermeneutic of rupture, as Spaemann clearly has, is a Modernist attitude that has been condemned multiple times by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI.

    Spaemann is in other words accusing others of a rupture in doctrine that he is in fact himself implicitly guilty of in this analysis !! Case in point : Spaemann: That it is a rupture is something that is seems obvious to any person capable of thinking who reads the texts in question.

    It is extremely irresponsible on his part to have so publicly claimed heresy on the part of Pope Francis.

    Many have rightly perceived that choice as manipulative. It seemed that Pope Francis wanted to relativize the importance of John Paul II.

    An extremely silly conspiracy theory.

    Here, however, the fact that Thomas Aquinas knows objectively sinful acts, for which admits of no exception linked to situations, is obscured.

    Except that the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas do not, in themselves, constitute some sort of “magisterium” that the Church is bound to submit herself to, no matter how valuable those teachings may be.

    Amoris Laetitia also breaks with this magisterial document

    Which is implicit Relativism — how is the Encyclical Veritatis Splendor magisterial in a manner that Amoris Laetitia is not ???

    Spaemann simply wishes to pick and choose among the various Papal teachings accoirding quite obviously to his sole personal opinion, which is the very crux of all Modernist Error.

    Instead, we are clearly required to interpret Amoris Laetitia as we would any other Encyclical, including of course Veritatis Splendor, in the Light of the Deposit of Faith, and with the eyes of a hermeneutic of continuity, not such errors of so-called “rupture”.

    Adulterers and others in states of unrepentant mortal sin cannot be admitted to the Eucharistic Communion — to claim that some alleged “ambiguity” in some footnote could change that, despite the fact that it says exactly nothing to that effect, is grossly erroneous.

  3. toadspittle says:

    “It seemed that Pope Francis wanted to relativize the importance of John Paul II.”
    Really? Why? “Seemed” to whom? (No prizes for guessing)
    What would Francis have to gain from that?

  4. kathleen says:

    At one point in the interview Professor Spaemann replies to a question with the words “I find it hard to understand what he [Pope Francis] means.”

    I laughed out loud at that response. That is the one overriding dilemma we have in the Church today; in any or all of his homilies, exhortations, pronouncements… we all ask ourselves: WHAT DOES HE MEAN?

    All sorts of explanations follow – such as Spaemann’s and Jabba’s totally conflicting ones above – but in reality, nobody really knows what he is getting at. Pope Francis is a master of double talk.

    Welcome folks to the REIGN OF CONFUSION.

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    kathleen, very often, the Pope’s rhetoric is used as a means to get people thinking, questioning, and talking — rather than his two immediate predecessors more overtly magisterial approach to their speech and writing.

    It’s a perfectly fine rhetorical tactic, and was frequently used by the Christ Himself BTW, and St Paul, and St Thomas Aquinas (!!), except that those looking for a structured exposition of what they should be instructed to think will not find it in that sort of rhetorical usage.

    Still — if you want a literal answer to the question “what does he mean ?”, it would be : he wants people to think about these questions and their difficulty.

    Not only is it a good way of opening up debate, but it’s also a very good way of finding out who might misuse the opportunity for debate to start preaching heresy, disobedience, rupture, or whatever. It also gives the other Bishops and Faithful an occasion to defend the orthodoxy in a more distributive and personal manner.

  6. kathleen says:

    “if you want a literal answer to the question “what does he mean ?”, it would be : he wants people to think about these questions and their difficulty.”

    Okay, one can “think about” the unfortunate situations of people who have gone astray and now want to amend their lives; they need all the help and encouragement the Church’s members can offer them. But that means helping them/us see error and evil for what it really is. It is NOT the equivalent of looking for ways for them to receive the Sacraments while they remain living in mortal sin. In fact to do so would be cruel, putting their immortal souls in danger, and is in total contrast to Our Lord’s teaching. Mercy presupposes repentance of one’s sins first, and a following firm purpose of amendment. ALWAYS.

    Real love and care for others means telling them the truth, not confusing them by pretending that there are other ways round Magisterial doctrines.
    There are plenty of other (non-dogmatic) matters that can be discussed in the Church without these appalling current attacks on her unchangeable teachings.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    putting this here from the other thread, which is about the SSPX

    Looking some more into this, I can see that the individual explanation from Cardinal Schönborn that the Pope was likeliest referring to is the following one, in Italian : http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2016/04/08/0241/00531.html#sch

    Si pone naturalmente la domanda: e cosa dice il Papa a proposito dell’accesso ai sacramenti per persone che vivono in situazioni “irregolari”? Già Papa Benedetto aveva detto che non esistono delle “semplici ricette” (AL 298, nota 333). E Papa Francesco torna a ricordare la necessità di discernere bene le situazioni, nella linea della Familiaris consortio (84) di San Giovanni Paolo II (AL 298). “Il discernimento deve aiutare a trovare le strade possibili di risposta a Dio e di crescita attraverso i limiti. Credendo che tutto sia bianco o nero, a volte chiudiamo la via della grazia e della crescita e scoraggiamo percorsi di santificazione che danno gloria a Dio” (AL 305). E Papa Francesco ci ricorda una frase importante che aveva scritto nell’Evangelii gaudium 44: “Un piccolo passo, in mezzo a grandi limiti umani, può essere più gradito Dio della vita esteriormente corretta di chi trascorre i suoi giorni senza fronteggiare importanti difficoltà” (AL 304). Nel senso di questa “via caritatis” (AL 306) il Papa afferma, in maniera umile e semplice, in una nota (351), che si può dare anche l’aiuto dei sacramenti “in certi casi”. Ma allo scopo egli non ci offre una casistica, delle ricette, bensì ci ricorda semplicemente due delle sue frasi famose: “Ai sacerdoti ricordo che il confessionale non dev’essere una sala di tortura bensì il luogo della misericordia del Signore” (EG 44) e l’eucarestia “non è un premio per i perfetti, ma un generoso rimedio e un alimento per i deboli” (EG 44).

    First, Cardinal Schönborn refers explicitly to Pope Saint John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (84) as describing the continuing guidelines of the Church in these matters.

    Familiaris Consortio Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

    Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

    However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

    Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

    Basically what the Cardinal is suggesting is that one needs to read Amoris Laetitia, on this particular question, on the basis that it is a pastoral text intended to provide concrete advice on how to interpret and implement the provisions of Familiaris Consortio 84, in which case it is easy to see that the principle meaning of “the help of the sacraments may also be given “in certain cases”” is also to be read in the light of Familiaris Consortio 84, which tells us that “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

    I’m sorry that such good people as Spaemann and yourself are confused by these complexities — and Cardinal Schönborn BTW quite clearly and explicitly details the reality of the complexities that are inherent to “irregular unions” almost by definition, and that clear-cut yes or no black or white “solutions” are unachievable universally — and one is of course revolted by the attempts of some others, in Germany for example, to simply ignore these complexities and claim that the Exhortation gives some sort of blanket permission of universal communion for one and all regardless of their mortal sins — but it is still perfectly inaccurate to claim that the Pope, the Magisterium, or the Holy See have all given their permission to engage in such blasphemy and heresy against the Lord and against the Faith.

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    Dearest kathleen — in the interest of a healthy balance between the traditionalist and orthodox positions, would you please consider posting this : http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-pope-francis-joy-of-love-hamant-yv-0417-20160430-story.html ?

  9. kathleen says:

    Thank you for this, Jabba.

    I’ve just read the article, and your: “in the interest of a healthy balance… etc.” is a very good way of putting it!😉
    Yes, we would be glad to post it for all our visitors to see. There are already two posts up today, and I see another is scheduled for tomorrow morning, so some time later on in the afternoon perhaps.

    BTW, I’m sorry I never responded to your comment (^) of 30th April @ 16:06. I meant to do so, but have been so busy with family over this holiday weekend that I never got round to it.

    You quoted from John Paul II’s outstanding Familiaris Consortio (re: its mention in one of Cardinal Schönborn’s presentations that Pope Francis could have been referring to in his in-flight audience with journalists), but I remember hearing that it was precisely this document (FC) that barely got a mention during the two Synods on the Family, thanks to the progressive Cardinals taking it off the table apparently! Probably too orthodoxly Catholic for them, but it’s amazing the Pope allowed this. There were many among the more orthodox Cardinals who were very displeased and indignant about its incomprehensible absence.

    Have you seen this latest news? – “El cardenal Müller recuerda en Madrid que ningún Papa puede cambiar la doctrina sobre los sacramentos”. (Translation for non-Spanish speakers: “Cardinal Müller in Madrid: not even the Pope can change [Church] doctrine on the Sacraments.”)

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    I remember hearing that it was precisely this document (FC) that barely got a mention during the two Synods on the Family

    I think it was mainly the English-language Press Officers during both parts of the Synod who strived hardest to push a “progressive” agenda, including on topics (“teh gayz”) that reportedly were being completely ignored by the Synod Fathers as irrelevant to marriage.

    Cardinal Müller : En este sentido, el cardenal alemán ha recordado que cuando una persona está «en pecado mortal» tiene que recibir el sacramento de la penitencia y que esto «no lo puede cambiar el Papa ni un concilio ecuménico».

    Good. I was hoping that some doctrinal clarifications against the more “adventurous” interpretations of “the footnote” would be forthcoming after his audience with the Pope.

  11. JabbaPapa says:

    And : el Papa pide a la Iglesia es pensar cómo se puede integrar a estas personas que «saben que viven en una situación incorrecta pero que quieren acercarse a la Iglesia»

  12. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 7:06

    Well, yes, exactly… What have the “gayz” (who fancy calling their perverse shacking up a “marriage” on par with true marriage) got to do with a Synod on the Family? Nada de nada!😉

    And @ 7:08

    Dear Jabba, there are really some very straightforward answers as to how to integrate people who live apart back into the Church. Nobody is excluded from praying, or from attending Mass (without receiving Holy Communion) even if they are struggling in objectively sinful lifestyles.

    Real solutions for full integration once more? If an annulment cannot be granted, how about: “Go and sin no more”, for instance? Live apart, or like brother and sister until perhaps one day you can marry? In His great love for men, Our Lord is constantly calling sinners to repentance – to pick up the cross and follow Him. That is the signpost to Heaven.

    It is our rejection of the cross that is our problem. We thereby look for ways round these so-called “irregular situations” (that in reality are adultery or fornication) that avoid the cross, and that is an impossibility.
    We have been so mollycoddled in our current times (unlike former generations), so unused to suffering and disinclined to making sacrifices, that we search for easy solutions that often, in these cases, simply DO NOT EXIST.

  13. JabbaPapa says:

    Indeed, kathleen

    One quibble though :

    these so-called “irregular situations” (that in reality are adultery or fornication)

    Well again : http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/cardinal-muller-amoris-laetitia-is-in-line-with-previous-teaching-on-communion/

    But Cardinal Müller said the footnote did not specify the divorced and remarried. “Without going into details, it is enough to point out that this footnote refers to objective situations of sin in general, not to the specific case of civilly remarried divorcees. The situation of the latter has peculiar features which distinguishes it from other situations.”

    My reading of Amoris Laetitia in French (the French translations of Church documents are usually very high quality, almost systematically better than the English ones) certainly suggested to me that the Pope’s comments therein, except where specifically detailed, was referring by “irregular situations” and “imperfect situations” to a variety of circumstances not necessarily involving sexual sins, nor sins against the Sacraments.

  14. kathleen says:

    Yes, okay Jabba – thanks for that clarification. I hope and pray that is correct, and that the famous footnote was referring to all sorts of complicated personal “circumstances” in general, I really do.

    Cardinal Kasper appears to think it refers to the divorced and remarried though. And in fact that AL is the first step in the Pope’s plan towards changing the “mentality” of the Church!!
    Oh, so the Church’s “mentality” doesn’t fit in with that of Pope Francis’, according to Card. Kasper? The whole idea is just too scandalous for words.

    Is he making it up? Or simply living in cloud cuckoo land? (You know, that “wishful thinking” that sometimes makes people fool themselves, and which I mentioned yesterday.) Or does he know something we don’t?

    Cardinal Walter Kasper told a German newspaper last week that Pope Francis agrees with his approach to admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion and that the pope doesn’t intend to “preserve everything as it has been” in the Church. […]

    Pope Francis is changing the “mentality” of the Church, Kasper said, because such changes are necessary before structural changes. Kasper said that Pope Francis wants “a more humane,” “merciful face of the Church.”

    (P.S. We’re scheduling the post you suggested for tomorrow. Two articles were already published by my team-mates today by the time I looked in.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s