Diocese of Rome’s guidelines for ‘Amoris laetitia’. Wherein Fr. Z rants, offers solution.

0-holy-communionAt the end I offer a solution.  But be patient and read.

Sandro Magister provided an English translation of key parts of the Italian document issued by the Vicar of Rome, Card. Vallini (who runs the Diocese of Rome while the Pope popes), outlining how to implement the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.  Italian original HERE

Here are the paragraphs that concern the most controversial aspect of Amoris laetitia, that is, whether Communion can be given to those who are civilly divorced and remarried without any declaration of nullity of previous marriages, that is to say are, objectively, living in an adulterous relationship and who have not yet chosen the “brother and sister” path.   My emphases and comments.

“The text of the apostolic exhortation does not go further, but footnote 351 states: ‘In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.’ The pope uses the conditional, so he is not saying that they must be admitted to the sacraments, although he does not exclude this in some cases and under some conditions [the underlining is in the text of the presentation – editor’s note]. Pope Francis develops the previous magisterium in the line of the hermeneutic of continuity and of exploration, and not in discontinuity and rupture[!] He affirms that we must travel the ‘via caritatis’ of welcoming penitents, listening to them attentively, showing them the maternal face of the Church, inviting them to follow the path of Jesus, helping them to mature the right intention of opening themselves to the Gospel, and we must do this while paying attention to the circumstances of individual persons, to their consciences, without compromising the truth and prudence that will help to find the right way.

“It is most important to establish with all these persons and couples a ‘good pastoral relationship.’ That is to say, we must welcome them warmly, invite them to open themselves to participate in some way in ecclesial life, in family groups, in carrying out some service, e.g. charitable or liturgical (choir, prayer of the faithful, offertory procession). [So, people who are in objectively irregular situations, apparent to other people, can have liturgical roles?  And note that “e.g.”.  The one’s mentioned are not the only ones, it seems.  How about distributing Communion?] In order to develop these processes it is more valuable than ever that there be the active presence of pastoral worker couples, and this will also be of great benefit to the climate of the community. These persons – the pope says – “need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church” (AL, 299).  [Sincere question: Will making them feel so confortable also remove their incentive to rectify their situation?  But if they can’t/won’t rectify their situation… we admit them to Communion?]

“This is not necessarily a matter of arriving at the sacraments, but of orienting them to live forms of integration in ecclesial life. [NB: Even though they are in an irregular situation, they are still obliged to attend Holy Mass on Sundays, etc.  They are also obliged to confess their sins once a year. However, if they will not say with sincerity that they intend to amend their lives, they can’t be absolved.  And though Father can be fooled, God cannot be fooled.] But when the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, meaning when their journey of faith has been long, sincere, and progressive, it is proposed that they live in continence; [NB: HERE IT IS…] if this decision is difficult to practice for the stability of the couple, [that is, living as brother and sister in continence] ‘Amoris Laetitia’ does not rule out the possibility of accessing penance and the Eucharist. This means a certain openness, as in the case in which there is the moral certainty that the first marriage was null but there are not the proofs to demonstrate this in a judicial setting[I’ve never worked in a tribunal… but how do you arrive at a moral certainty without proofs of some kind?] but not however in the case in which, for example, their condition is shown off as if it were part of the Christian ideal, etc. [That last part… “ma non invece nel caso in cui, ad esempio, viene ostentata la propria condizione come se facesse parte dell’ideale cristiano, ecc.”  Ummm… I think that word salad means something like they have to avoid the appearance that this set up (objective adulterers) is somehow in keeping with Christian morals.  This is, I think, the Kasperite “tolerated but not accepted”.  Their situation (adultery) is not “part of the Christian ideal”.  Adulterers receiving Communion is “not part of the Christian ideal”.   But we are going to give them Communion anyway.]

VI) “How are we to understand this openness? Certainly not in the sense of an indiscriminate access to the sacraments, as sometimes happens[Indeed it does!  And it is going to continue to happen, probably more than ever now because they will claim the cover of Amoris laetitia.  Am I wrong?] but of a discernment that would distinguish adequately case by case. Who can decide? From the tenor of the text and from the ‘mens’ of its Author it does not seem to me that there could be any solution other than that of the internal forum. In fact, the internal forum is the favorable way for opening the heart to the most intimate confidences, and if a relationship of trust has been established over time with a confessor or with a spiritual guide, it is possible to begin and develop with him an itinerary of long, patient conversion, made of small steps and of progressive verifications.  [Sincere question: If Fr. Spike works with Bill and Sue and they together decide that they can receive Communion, and if they do this in the internal forum, then how is Fr. Spike supposed to explain to people who know Bill and Sue why they can receive Communion?  How to avoid scandal?  I have an idea about this.  See below.]

“So it can be none other than the confessor, at a certain point, in his conscience, after much reflection and prayer, who must assume the responsibility before God and the penitent and ask that the access take place in a discreet manner. In these cases there is no interruption of the journey of discernment (AL, 303; ‘dynamic discernment’) for the sake of reaching new stages toward the full Christian ideal.”  [So the ultimate goal is either separation of the couple or living in continence and… AND… avoiding scandal.  Don’t forget the issue of scandal in this.]

The document bobs and weaves, but, from what I can tell, it says, yes, Communion can be given to them.  That is, Communion can be given to people who are, at the time of Communion, more than likely not in the state of grace.  Right? Isn’t that what is being said?

Let’s review:

it is proposed that they live in continence; if this decision is difficult to practice for the stability of the couple, ‘Amoris Laetitia’ does not rule out the possibility of accessing penance and the Eucharist.

That “this decision is difficult to practice” means that the couple who are not married are still having adulterous sexual relations.  That “for the stability of the couple” must mean that without sexual relations they are not a “couple”, and that it is, for one reason or another, important that they (who aren’t married) stay together and have sex together. No?

However…. If they have entered into a process with a priest who as helped them to see what their situation is according to the teaching of Christ and His Church, then they know that what they are doing is wrong.  They know that they have committed a mortal sin.  They know that are not properly disposed to receive.  Wouldn’t that be part of what the priest must help them to understand?

But… they can receive anyway?  Am I missing something?

Let’s say that Amoris laetitia is being properly interpreted here.  Let’s say that the Pope really did intend this.  This is, after all, the Pope’s diocese, right?  This must be what this Pope really wants.  This must really show the mens of Pope Francis.

How do we work with this?

We get the whole bit about “graduality”.  We get the whole thing about “for the sake of reaching the full Christian ideal”.   We also can imagine that the situation being described is going to be relatively rare.

I cannot see anyway around this. It must be either one way or the other.  It is either 1) that they say that they will not live in continence as brother and sister, or 2) they say that they will try to live in continence as brother and sister.  If they say they won’t, and they don’t, they cannot be admitted to Communion. They must not approach to receive Communion.  That would be a mortal sin and a sacrilege.  If, on the other hand, they say that they will try, really try, if they confess their sins and really intend to live in continence, they probably can be admitted to Communion – remoto scandalo – provided that scandal is avoided.

Fr. Z’s Solution:

If, in those rare circumstances when such a couple might be able to receive Communion, why not give them Holy Communion outside of Mass in the rectory?  That would avoid scandal.  Right?

Think about it.  If reception of Communion is so important to them because they a) really understand what the Eucharist is… WHO the Eucharist is and b) the reflect on the Four Last Things and c) they are on this “journey” and living in continence, etc., then they should be willing to attend Mass according to their obligation (like everyone else) but not receive during Mass so that they will avoid even a small risk of giving scandal.  If they have charity toward their neighbors, they would want to avoid scandal and putting the priest in a tough spot.  Right?

They should be thrilled to receive Communion but out of sight, in the rectory, away from public view.   Right?

But it must be asked: What is it that they really want?  Is it the Eucharist?

What does reception of Communion mean to them?  Is the moment of Communion fully about reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, Savior and King of Fearful Majesty?  Or is Communion about being with other people, sharing a moment together, being part of the group, being affirmed as they are?

What does Communion mean?

Is reception of Holy Communion now about something other than getting to heaven?

I keep turning this over and over in my head, asking:  If they really get the Eucharist, the full implications of receiving as Paul describes in 1 Cor 11:27 (“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”), if they really get the Four Last Things, then … would they really want to put at risk their eternal salvation?

If they have been working with a sound priest who helps them to understand what mortal sin is, what matrimony is according to the Church’s teachings, would they really want to receive Communion in their irregular state?

Let’s say that they get all these things.  Let’s say they decided to live in continence because its the right thing to do, because of their love of the Lord and out of their desire for graces of Communion in the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of their Savior.  Let’s grant this scenario is possible.  Fine.  There may be times when they fail in their determination to live in continence and they have sexual relations.  They go to confession and start over.  Fine.  That’s what we all do when we sin in any way.  We go to confession with a firm purpose of amendment and start over with God’s help.  They might be living in a very near occasion of sin, but perhaps there are legitimate reasons for that, such as the care of children, etc.  Okay.

But…

The issue of scandal is still going to loom over this.

My solution might be the way to go: Communion in private, outside of public Mass, away from observing eyes.

QUAERITUR: We must ask of ourselves as a Church a hard question. Has reception of Holy Communion come to be about something other than getting to heaven?

PS: As I have written before, faithful priests will continue to do what they do, and faithless priests will continue to do what they do.  The divide between them will grow greater and unity between parishes and dioceses will diminish.

Further reading: lifesitenews.com and onepeterfive

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Diocese of Rome’s guidelines for ‘Amoris laetitia’. Wherein Fr. Z rants, offers solution.

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    Father Z reaches the same conclusion as I have, but as far as his analysis in itself goes, two comments :

    [That last part… “ma non invece nel caso in cui, ad esempio, viene ostentata la propria condizione come se facesse parte dell’ideale cristiano, ecc.” Ummm… I think that word salad means something like they have to avoid the appearance that this set up (objective adulterers) is somehow in keeping with Christian morals. This is, I think, the Kasperite “tolerated but not accepted”. Their situation (adultery) is not “part of the Christian ideal”. Adulterers receiving Communion is “not part of the Christian ideal”. But we are going to give them Communion anyway.]

    He’s wrong here, and I said so, but I’m in the naughty box it seems.

    Those words in fact refer to those cases where people will NOT be admitted to Holy Communion.

    Less important in Father Z’s analysis, because he has himself come to the same conclusion — but this is one that some others are liable to misinterpret, for there is a potentially confusing mistranslation in the English version he’s using :

    Ma quando le circostanze concrete di una coppia lo rendono fattibile, vale a dire quando il loro cammino di fede è stato lungo, sincero e progressivo, si proponga di vivere in continenza; (So, this section refers to those who have made a sincere commitment to a life of continence) se poi questa scelta (poi here is being used in its strong meaning, so that this doesn’t just mean “then if”, but this phrase means : if after they have made this choice [of sexual continence]) è difficile da praticare per la stabilità della coppia, Amoris laetitia non esclude la possibilità di accedere alla Penitenza e all’Eucarestia

    In other words, a commitment to a life of sexual continence is here presented as necessary for access to the Sacraments, which can include the Sacrament of Reconciliation etc after occasions where the couple may fail to follow that commitment despite sincere attempts to do so. As Father Z proposes, and is actually already present in the text.

    ——————

    The only other material exception proposed in the document is in the “complex cases” that the Argentine Bishops already referred to — and have here been made more explicit :

    This means a certain openness, as in the case in which there is the moral certainty that the first marriage was null but there are not the proofs to demonstrate this in a judicial setting

    This clearly refers to situations of putative nullity of a first marriage, which cannot however due to (whichever) circumstances beyond control be canonically annulled (the most likely scenario being hostility against the process by one of the spouses).

    “Putative nullity” means that the cases described in the Canon Law of inability to provide the Sacrament of Marriage are clearly present, but the Church Court either has not (or cannot, for external reasons) declare(d) a marriage to be null.

    ——————

    No “Communion for Adulterers” is authorised by the document, though it does not go so far as to describe it as “extremely scandalous”, as the Argentines did.

  2. mmvc says:

    ‘He’s wrong here, and I said so, but I’m in the naughty box it seems.’

    One can only be thankful that you can correct Fr Z and his Italian here. ;o)

  3. JabbaPapa says:

    Father Z’s Italian is very good FWIW 🙂

    … but refined constructions like “ma non invece nel caso in cui, ad esempio, viene ostentata la propria condizione come se facesse parte dell’ideale cristiano, ecc.” — can be challenging even for educated Italians.

    More importantly — apart from the above comments, his analysis of the document is basically excellent.

  4. JabbaPapa says:

    I mean — it is extremely unusual to see “ad esempio” used so elegantly, where “ad” is given its full semantic value.

    Father Z’s Italian is good — Cardinal Vallini’s is deeply refined.

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/10/10/archbishop-points-to-troublesome-misuses-of-popes-teaching-on-family/

    US Archbishop seeks to correct misinterpretation of Amoris Laetitia in pastoral letter

    Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland has written a pastoral letter seeking to correct what he called “troublesome” misuse of Pope Francis’ recent apostolic exhortation on the family and family life.

    The pastoral letter, released on October 7, is titled “A True and Living Icon: Reading of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ in Light of Church Teaching.” In it, Archbishop Sample said that Pope Francis’ exhortation, issued in April, has rightly been lauded by Catholics and non-Catholics alike for its pastoral approach.

    The image of the church as a “field hospital,” the archbishop wrote, is a potent reminder of the services provided by priests, deacons and parish staffs, as well as the wounded that they care for.

    But the archbishop went on to write that media in particular have drawn false conclusions from “Amoris Laetitia.”

    “While the exhortation does not contain any change in church teaching regarding marriage and family life, some have used ‘Amoris Laetitia’ in ways that do not correspond with the church’s teaching tradition,” Archbishop Sample wrote.

    The archbishop highlighted what he sees as the three most common ways readers have gotten the original exhortation wrong.

    First, he wrote, the media and others have used “Amoris Laetitia” to argue that conscience legitimises actions that contravene divine commandments.

    “Conscience is not a law unto itself, nor may conscience rightly disregard or supplant the commands of God as taught by the Church,” Archbishop Sample wrote in response. While the church won’t seek to replace a person’s conscience, he added, it is important to know that consciences can err and need to be formed.

    “Encouraging or silently accepting an erroneous judgment of conscience is neither mercy nor charity,” the archbishop wrote.

    Second, Archbishop Sample rejected the notion that under certain conditions, there can be exceptions to absolute divine prohibitions. While the church follows the example of Jesus and offers mercy and accompaniment to people in “irregular” situations and unions, the church is not the arbiter of moral norms given by God, he wrote.

    “The indissolubility of marriage is a precious and essential teaching of the church, revealed by Jesus and cherished in our unbroken tradition,” Archbishop Sample wrote, explaining that the teaching is not just a rule, but “a beautiful, sacramental and spiritual reality.”

    Third, the archbishop said that human frailty does not exempt people from divine commands, an idea he said some have wrongly taken from “Amoris Laetitia.”

    “While authentic pastoral care always accompanies people in their suffering and frailty, some have misused the exhortation’s rightful insistence on the logic of mercy to claim that objectively wrong acts can be accepted, even perhaps sanctified, if a person judges he or she cannot do differently,” Archbishop Sample wrote. To claim individuals can’t change is to deny the power of grace, he added.

    The pastoral letter, addressed to the people of western Oregon, quotes Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI and St John Paul II.

    Archbishop Sample has led the Archdiocese of Portland since 2013 and before that led the Diocese of Marquette, Michigan.

    His pastoral letter will not be the last word on “Amoris Laetitia” in western Oregon, the archbishop said. He expects guidelines to emerge that will help the church support families and married couples.

    The archbishop cautioned against describing church moral teaching on marriage as only policies and rules, when the teachings are always about salvation in Jesus Christ.

    The title of the letter comes from the archbishop’s belief that the family is “an icon of God’s own communion and graciousness.”

    Archbishop Sample closed the letter by referring to the Gospel story of the woman caught in adultery. While Jesus does not condemn the woman, he does command her to turn away from her life of sin.

    “Mercy opens the door to truth,” the archbishop concluded, “and the truth of a new life in Christ will set her free.”

  6. mmvc says:

    Here’s an excellent analysis from Canon Lawyer Dr Ed Peters. Although it was written in the wake of the Buenos Aires directive, it could equally well be applied to similar ‘guidelines’ such as the one highlighted in the CP&S post above. Hopefully the advice given in the last paragraph (point 3) will be widely heeded:

    Canon 915, the modern (yet resting on ancient roots) norm that prohibits ministers of holy Communion from giving that sacrament to Catholics who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin” does not expressly name divorced Catholics living in their second (or third, or fourth, or fifth…) ‘marriages’ as examples of persons ineligible for holy Communion, but they have long been the ‘go-to’ example of those covered by the canon. Even its harshest critics generally conceded that Canon 915 applies to divorced-and-remarried Catholics—the emotional hardships associated with such cases being, in some critics’ minds, a good argument for abandoning the norm.

    Now, in his unequivocal endorsement (“There are no other interpretations possible” [!]) of a leaked draft of some Argentine bishops’ plan for implementing his document Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis has neither ‘abrogated’ Canon 915 nor ‘interpreted’ it out of existence (both being the sort of technical operations the pope shows little interest in). Nevertheless, his action will likely make it harder for Catholic ministers, who remain bound by canon law even in stressful cases, to observe Canon 915 at the practical level.

    Basically, the Argentine draft (assuming it is still a ‘draft’) directs ministers of holy Communion (chiefly parish priests) to work through concrete cases impacting access to at least three sacraments (Matrimony, Penance, and the Eucharist), guided not by the Church’s accumulated pastoral wisdom as summed up in norms like Canon 915 (which seem not even not to be mentioned!), but instead by a line of endlessly malleable considerations phrased in verbiage redolent of the 1970s. If some pastors after the publication Amoris were already being told by irate parishioners that ‘Pope Francis says you have to give me Communion’, what might they expect in the wake of his sweeping approval of this Argentine interpretation of Amoris?

    Fundamentally the Argentine draft stumbles, I suggest, in the same way as does Amoris, namely, in thinking that an individual’s subjective, albeit sincere, conclusions about his or her eligibility for Communion per Canon 916 trumps the Church’s authority, nay her obligation, to withhold the sacrament in the face of certain objective, externally verifiable conditions per Canon 915. I shall not rehash that argument here, but we should be clear: compromising the well-established interpretation of Canon 915 in the case of divorced-and-remarried Catholics necessarily calls into question the law’s applicability to cases of, say, ‘loving’ couples cohabitating outside of marriage, the ‘compassionate’ promotion of abortion or euthanasia, ‘honest’ persons entering “same-sex marriages”, and so on.

    Where from here?

    1. It is hard to see how the Argentine bishops can tone-down a document that Francis has already warmly endorsed, but, who knows?, maybe they might “clarify” it in some way that lets Rome in turn “clarify” its endorsement.

    2. The Argentine document itself has some supposedly restricting language which might be invoked, but frankly, I don’t think that will be much help to pastors. Consider, for example, the requirement that one must, among other things, be “unable” to obtain a declaration of nullity before being allowed holy Communion. But think about this—what if one is “unable” to obtain an annulment precisely because there is no proof of nullity? Does losing one’s bid for a declaration of nullity suddenly make one eligible for holy Communion despite remarriage? Most of the rest of the allegedly cautionary language, such as that to “avoid understanding this possibility as an unrestricted access to the sacraments”, is platitudinous—no one seriously thinks that the Church approves “unrestricted access to the sacraments” so an admonition against such access is pointless.

    3. As hard as it might be to follow, my basic advice to ministers of holy Communion in the context of divorced-and-remarried Catholics is to ignore the coming furor over the pope’s endorsement of an ambiguously worded document from some local bishops, and just follow the law of the Church, which is quite clear, unless and until that law is formally changed, at which point (if it comes to that) we will sit down and figure out what the new law directs.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    Canon 915, the modern (yet resting on ancient roots) norm that prohibits ministers of holy Communion from giving that sacrament to Catholics who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin” does not expressly name divorced Catholics living in their second (or third, or fourth, or fifth…) ‘marriages’ as examples of persons ineligible for holy Communion, but they have long been the ‘go-to’ example of those covered by the canon. Even its harshest critics generally conceded that Canon 915 applies to divorced-and-remarried Catholics—the emotional hardships associated with such cases being, in some critics’ minds, a good argument for abandoning the norm.

    Ed Peters is one of the few people cited by the anti-Francis brigade who truly is eminently respected as a genuine lay authority.

    However, as can be seen from both Cardinal Vallini’s document, either properly understood in the original or properly translated/interpreted, and a close reading of the (admittedly far less well-written) Argentine document, a commitment to a continence against sexual intercourse, and therefore adultery, is the expectation in these cases, and this simply does NOT constitute obstinate perseverance in grave sin given that such an undertaking requires both recognition of that sin and an undertaking towards penitence.

    Now, in his unequivocal endorsement (“There are no other interpretations possible” [!]) of a leaked draft of some Argentine bishops’ plan for implementing his document Amoris laetitia

    Monseigneur Sample is right — misinterpretations of Amoris Laetitia suggesting that it “supposedly” permits this or that gross abuse against the Sacraments and against the Tradition of Holy Church are objective misuses of “the exhortation’s rightful insistence on the logic of mercy to claim that objectively wrong acts can be accepted, even perhaps sanctified“.

    Error has no Rights ; therefore no objective, material, or Sacramental Error can constitute a correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.

    Particularly NOT when the Roman Pontiff has complimented the Argentine Bishops’ clear denunciation of the particularly scandalous notions in question, nor when the Vicar of Rome has so clearly established a commitment towards continence as the condition sine qua non, within a pastoral openness to these objective sinners, for any access to the Sacraments.

    I think, mmvc, that you simply have not realised yet what Cardinal Vallini’s document is actually saying.

    Nevertheless, his action will likely make it harder for Catholic ministers, who remain bound by canon law even in stressful cases, to observe Canon 915 at the practical level

    Why ? How ?

    By Magic ?

    Those “liberal”-“progressive” Catholic clergy who openly defy the Church on Canons 915 and 916 will not suddenly find themselves in obedience to those Canons as a result of Amoris Laetitia. But then nor will any ultra-traditionalists who materially defy Canon 912 suddenly be in agreement with the Law by calling for a “rejection” of that document.

    Canons 915 and 916 concern those who have been either formally or automatically excommunicated by their actions, and who have not by actions of penitence and Confession been returned to the state of Eucharistic Grace.

    Neither wrongful, anti-Traditional interpretations of Amoris Laetitia nor ideologically biased misreadings of episcopal documents can ever possibly constitute any manner of “justification” for objective evils and blasphemies against the Flesh and the Blood of our Lord in Holy Eucharist.

    Consider, for example, the requirement that one must, among other things, be “unable” to obtain a declaration of nullity before being allowed holy Communion. But think about this—what if one is “unable” to obtain an annulment precisely because there is no proof of nullity?

    Apart from Dr. Peters’ manifest Charism for the proper Interpretation of the Law, which is objectively beautiful in its Service to God and Church alike, his Spanish and his Casuistics are OTOH deficient.

    The Argentine Bishops condemn the sort of cases he refers to, as being particularly scandalous, whereas those who have been abandoned by their spouses in conditions that the Canon Law itself describes as constituting Sacramental invalidity are not always able to obtain a judgment of nullity from the Church Courts.

    Regardless, as the document from Cardinal Vallini shows far more explicitly, commitment to continence on the part of these remarried is the intention of his Ordinary instead of the exact opposite.

  8. mmvc says:

    Apart from Dr. Peters’ manifest Charism for the proper Interpretation of the Law, which is objectively beautiful in its Service to God and Church alike, his Spanish and his Casuistics are OTOH deficient.

    Oh dear!
    And yet, what he writes, makes perfect sense to me.

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    And yet, what he writes, makes perfect sense to me

    What he writes is an almost textbook case of overinterpretation.

  10. mmvc says:

    almost
    Phew, what a relief!

  11. Tom Fisher says:

    Phew, what a relief!

    Nicely put mmvc 🙂

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