Cardinal Kasper: Can the ‘remarried’ now receive communion? ‘Yes. Period.’

 

By Jan Bentz, October 24, 2016 , LifeSiteNews

maxresdefaultIn a recent publication of the German journal Stimmen der Zeit (Journal for Christian Culture), Cardinal Walter Kasper published an article calling Amoris Laetitia a “paradigm shift” in the Church’s teaching.

Amoris Laetitia: Break or Beginning” is the title of a recent scientific article by Kasper in which he analyzes the post-synodal exhortation and provides his opinion on the right hermeneutic in reading it.

In the first part called “Discussion regarding the binding character,” Kasper critiques Cardinal Raymond Burke for his statement that post-synodal documents by the Pope are not necessarily binding. Instead, Kasper states, “This position is refuted by the formal character of an Apostolic Exhortation as well as its content.”

According to Kasper – and indeed he is right, as evidenced by the post-synodal discussions concerning the document – critiques of Amoris Laetitia boil down to the question of “remarried” divorced Catholics receiving Communion.

As Kasper points out, the question is addressed by two different camps: One opinion is held by “conservatives,” some of whom (including German philosopher Robert Spaemann) see Amoris Laetitia as a break from the tradition of the Church, whereas others (including Cardinal Gerhard Müller) say the publication does not change the position of the Church.

Another (held by Italian theologian Rocco Buttiglione) says the doctrine of the Church is developed further but not on the line of Pope John Paul II. Yet others acknowledge a “careful development” that is paired with a lack of “concrete guidelines.” The last position among the “conservatives” is Norbert Lüdecke (Canon Law, Bonn, Germany) who says it is up to the individual conscience of the remarried divorced person to decide if he or she may receive Communion or not.

Kasper goes on to cite Buttiglione that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn presents the “decisive interpretation.” This citation refers back to a publication in  L’Osservatore Romano. The same position is taken by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ in La Civiltà Cattolica, among whom Kasper wants to count himself.

Kasper critiques the “alleged confusion” as having been caused by a “third party” who has “alienated themselves from the sense of faith and life of the people of God.” He continues to say that “behind the pastoral tone of the document lies a well thought-out theological position.”

The Cardinal praises the “realistic, open, and relaxed way of dealing with sexuality and eroticism” in Amoris Laetitia that does not seek to “indoctrinate or moralize.” “With a grain of salt, one can say that Amoris Laetitia distances itself from a primarily negative Augustinian view of sexuality and turns toward an affirming Thomistic view on creation.” Kasper repeats his opinion that the moral ideal is an “optimum,” yet is unreachable by many. “Oftentimes, we have to choose the lesser evil,” he states, “in the living life there is no black and white but only different nuances and shadings.”

Amoris Laetitia does not change an iota of the teaching of the Church, yet it changes everything.” The text provides ground for believing – so says Kasper – that the Pope, and with him the Church, moves away from a “legal morality” and toward the “virtue morality” of Thomas Aquinas.

Afterward, the Cardinal presents his own complex interpretation of Thomistic teachings concerning virtue and moral law in concrete situations. He bases his opinion on prudence as the “application of a norm in a concrete situation.” “Prudence does not give foundation to the norm, it presupposes it,” Kasper writes. He draws the conclusion that the “norm” is not applicative mechanically in every situation, but prudence is needed as fits the case.

With reference to Familiaris Consortio (No. 84), Kasper states that “remarried” divorcees are not anymore punished with excommunication but instead are “invited to participate as living members of Church life.”

Instead of choosing the path of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (“who had adhered to John Paul II’s decision”) to not allow “remarried” divorced Catholics to receive Communion and instead to insist that they practice abstinence in their sexual relations, Pope Francis “goes a step further, by putting the problem in a process of an embracing pastoral [approach] of gradual integration.”

Amoris Laetitia envisages which forms of exclusion from ecclesiastical, liturgical, pastoral, educational, and institutional services can be overcome,” Kasper explains. He posits that when John Paul II gave permission for remarried divorced to receive Communion – if they lived as brother and sister – this was “in fact a concession.” The Cardinal reasons this by saying, “Abstinence belongs to the most intimate sphere and does not abolish the objective contradiction of the ongoing bond of marriage of the first sacramental marriage and the second civil marriage.”

Kasper further denies the magisterial content of the provision: “This provision obviously does not have the same weight than the general norm; anyhow it is not a final binding magisterial statement.” In Kasper’s eyes, John Paul II’s request opens up a “playground” between the “dogmatic principle” and the “pastoral consequence,” which Amoris Laetitia tries to widen.

Another argument Kasper tries to use to justify allowing “remarried” divorcees to receive Communion is the distinction between “objective mortal sin” and “subjective culpability.” He insists that Pope Francis “emphasizes the subjective aspects without ignoring the objective elements.” Kasper also alludes to the fact that sometimes people are not able to be convinced of an “objective norm” because it seems to them to be “as insurmountably estranged from world and reality.”

“The conscience of many people is oftentimes blind and deaf to that which is presented to them as Divine Law. That is not a justification of their error, yet an understanding and mercifulness with the erroneous person.”

Therefore, Kasper states that “Amoris Laetitia lays the groundwork for a changed pastoral praxis in a reasoned individual case.” Yet he also says the “Papal document does not draw clear practical conclusions from these premises.” According to Kasper, the Pope leaves the question open, and the very fact of leaving it open is “in itself a magisterial decision of great consequence.”

Kasper explains that the direction of Pope Francis is clear: “One does not need to focus on footnotes. Much more important is that the gradual integration, which is the key topic in question, is directed essentially towards admittance to the Eucharist as full-form of the participation of the life of the Church.”

Kasper quotes Francis’ statement from an in-flight press conference on April 16 wherein he responded to the question if in some cases remarried divorced can receive Communion with the poignant words: “Yes. Period.” This answer is not found in Amoris Laetitia but ‘corresponds to the general ductus.’”

According to Kasper, this statement is in full accordance with Canon Law (915 CIC/1983) because it does not negate that “obstinacy to remain in mortal sin” can supposedly be judged in individual cases, and in some cases be excluded. It is even up for discussion whether an objective mortal sin is present in the given case.

He adds that the cause of scandal is not necessarily having a person who lives in a second civil marriage receive Communion. Rather, in such a situation, “not the admission but the denial of the sacraments is creating scandal.”

Update: Here’s Fr Z’s take on this

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Cardinal Kasper: Can the ‘remarried’ now receive communion? ‘Yes. Period.’

  1. johnhenrycn says:

    BS baffles brains, for which JabbaPapa is Exhibit “A”. I will never read anything written by Kasper.

  2. JabbaPapa says:

    cripes you’re tedious jh …

    As Kasper points out, the question is addressed by two different camps: One opinion is held by “conservatives,” some of whom (including German philosopher Robert Spaemann) see Amoris Laetitia as a break from the tradition of the Church, whereas others (including Cardinal Gerhard Müller) say the publication does not change the position of the Church.

    The Prefect of the Congregation is not in “a camp”, his job is to provide the correct interpretation of such documents.

    “Oftentimes, we have to choose the lesser evil,” he states

    What utterly shameful gibberish that man spouts …

    According to Kasper, the Pope leaves the question open, and the very fact of leaving it open is “in itself a magisterial decision of great consequence.”

    More gibberish — neither the Catechism nor the Canon Law, excluding adulterers from the Sacraments, have “changed”, and their clear instructions are not an “open” “question”.

    He’s just spreading lies.

    Kasper quotes Francis’ statement from an in-flight press conference on April 16 wherein he responded to the question if in some cases remarried divorced can receive Communion with the poignant words: “Yes. Period.”

    NOPE, that wasn’t the question — which was “are there new possibilities for the divorced-remarried”. And indeed, the Exhortation proposes a new approach for the pastoral accompaniment of such persons.

  3. johnhenrycn says:

    Yeah, well I look forward to when good Pope Francis slaps Kasper upside the head for his “utterly shameful gibberish”. Sometime before the next synod which you say “WILL NOT!!” consider the concept of married priesthood as a universal option.

  4. mmvc says:

    Well JH, as a commenter chez Fr Z mused:

    “I don’t know….just as the last “Synod on the Family” was quickly hijacked into the “Synod on Communion for Adulterers”, I could see this “Synod on Young People, the Faith and Discernment of Vocation” turned into something like ‘Synod on Married Priests.'”

  5. GC says:

    Jeff Mirus at CatholicCulture.org wrote this today:

    It is now reasonably clear (in a bizarre sort of way) that Pope Francis is seeking to implement the Kasper Proposal through the reception of Amoris Laetitia, without magisterially admitting it.

    In exactly the same way, if it is somehow true that Amoris Laetitia manages not to change one very important thing while at the same time changing everything, then we are dealing with sleight-of-hand—or perhaps smoke and mirrors.

    And if that is true, the Church has a significant problem which none of us can solve, despite our best efforts. It will have to be solved by the next pope.

  6. johnhenrycn says:

    “…we are dealing with sleight-of-hand…”

    There’s actually a Catholic card cheating game called Three-Cardinal Monte, involving Kaspers, Daneels and the most recent addition to that stacked deck, Cupich.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    Sometime before the next synod which you say “WILL NOT!!” consider the concept of married priesthood as a universal option.

    It is idiotic to carry on about something that is a simple matter of established fact.

    https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/10/06/161006b.html

    The Holy Father, after the customary consultation with the episcopal conferences, the sui iuris Oriental Catholic Churches and the Union of Superior Generals, as well as hearing the suggestions of the Fathers of the last Synod assembly and the opinion of the 14th Ordinary Council, has established that in October 2018 the 15th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops will be held, on the theme: “Youth, faith and vocational discernment”.

    The theme, an expression of the pastoral care of the Church for the young, is consistent with the results of the recent Synod assemblies on the family and with the content of the post-Synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Its aim is to accompany the young on their existential journey to maturity so that, through a process of discernment, they discover their plan for life and realise it with joy, opening up to the encounter with God and with human beings, and actively participating in the edification of the Church and of society.

    FYI “vocational discernment” does NOT mean “entering the priesthood”.

    It’s hardly my fault if you prefer to take your “information” from nutjob conspiracy theory whackos, extremist quasi-schismatic “liberal”-“progressive” “catholics”, and extremist factionalist holier-than-thou-and-catholicker-than-the-Pope ultra-conservatives instead.

    GC :

    Jeff Mirus at CatholicCulture.org wrote this today:

    It is now reasonably clear (in a bizarre sort of way) that Pope Francis is seeking to implement the Kasper Proposal through the reception of Amoris Laetitia, without magisterially admitting it.

    No it isn’t — it is extremely clear that there is a very active “liberal”-“progressive” faction in the Church that will seek by any and all means available to propose warped interpretations of Magisterial teachings so as to push their worldly-minded political agendas.

    This can even be proven through the wikileaks stuff : https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-leaked-e-mails-show-george-soros-paid-to-influence-bishops-during

    Meanwhile, if you look at the Pope’s actions, they support no such thing —

    His Vicar, Cardinal Vallini, makes it clear in his pastoral guidelines for the Roman Diocese that a commitment to continence is the necessary prerequisite for any access to the Sacraments by the divorced-remarried, and that adulterers and those who claim that various forms of extra-marital sexual relationships might be consistent with Catholicism are barred from the Sacraments.

    This is the genuine model for the proper pastoral application of the Exhortation regarding this “question” ; Kasper is just fighting some rearguard action at this point, and from his own words it is clear that he knows it, because his “arguments” fly in the face of all reason.

    I mean — He adds that the cause of scandal is not necessarily having a person who lives in a second civil marriage receive Communion. Rather, in such a situation, “not the admission but the denial of the sacraments is creating scandal.” ?????????

    Even he has abandoned the so-called “Kasperite solution”, and has reverted back to his straightforward heretical opinion that everyone should be admitted to Communion regardless of their situations.

    Father Z’s comments on Kasper are good – http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/10/card-kasper-its-a-scandal-to-deny-communion-to-adulterers/ ; and if anything, don’t denounce that Cardinal’s gibberish quite strongly enough.

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae : (this is NOT a translation BTW, the original of the letter is in English)

    The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

    We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the same Author and Master, “the Only Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father.”-John i, I8. They are adapted to all times and all nations, as is clearly seen from the words of our Lord to His apostles: “Going, therefore, teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.”-Matt. xxviii, 19. Concerning this point the Vatican Council says: “All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”-Const. de fide, Chapter iii.

    Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.

    The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places. (VOL. XXIV-13.) The Church has, guided by her Divine Master, a kind and merciful spirit, for which reason from the very beginning she has been what St. Paul said of himself: “I became all things to all men that I might save all.”

    Kasper is an Americanist.

  9. mmvc says:

    Kasper is an Americanist.

    He is also – according to Pope Francis – “a very sharp theologian”.

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    Sorry, link to the Encyclical : http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm

    Here is how the Pope defined Americanism (bolded section, first paragraph) :

    But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state.

    In the apostolic letters concerning the constitution of states, addressed by us to the bishops of the whole Church, we discussed this point at length; and there set forth the difference existing between the Church, which is a divine society, and all other social human organizations which depend simply on free will and choice of men.

    It is very similar in many ways to Modernism as such ; except that it is of a collective “social” nature, whereby the doctrine of the Church is supposed to be decided by the political activities of those belonging to her, and interpreted by individual “conscience” (i.e. not a divine conscience properly formed by Faith, humility, and Prayer, but a secularist “conscience” invented by people’s own minds), and according to the democratic principles of “secular states” AKA those of the United States of America, hence Americanism.

    Kasper’s Americanist ideology is nowhere more obvious than in :

    As Kasper points out, the question is addressed by two different camps: One opinion is held by “conservatives,” some of whom (including German philosopher Robert Spaemann) see Amoris Laetitia as a break from the tradition of the Church, whereas others (including Cardinal Gerhard Müller) say the publication does not change the position of the Church.

    Another (held by Italian theologian Rocco Buttiglione) says the doctrine of the Church is developed further but not on the line of Pope John Paul II. Yet others acknowledge a “careful development” that is paired with a lack of “concrete guidelines.” The last position among the “conservatives” is Norbert Lüdecke (Canon Law, Bonn, Germany) who says it is up to the individual conscience of the remarried divorced person to decide if he or she may receive Communion or not.

    … but it is very troubling to see that LifeSite seem to agree with this notion of political factionalism, because it partakes of that very same Americanist Heresy to imagine that this is how doctrine should be “debated” or “determined”.

    It is also quite bizarre to see those who think that “it is up to the individual conscience of the remarried divorced person to decide if he or she may receive Communion or not” being described as “conservatives” !!! No — such people are either Modernists or Americanists, and in any case, such opinions have been formally denounced as Heretical on multiple occasions.

  11. JabbaPapa says:

    Kasper is an Americanist.

    He is also – according to Pope Francis – “a very sharp theologian”.

    L’un n’empêche pas l’autre — so was Martin Luther.

  12. mmvc says:

    L’un n’empêche pas l’autre — so was Martin Luther.

    “…the new pope addressed a huge crowd in the square — and as a surprised Kasper watched on television, he heard Francis praising him as a “very sharp theologian” and effectively blurbing his work: “That book has done me so much good,” Francis said.”

    Let’s hope that Martin Luther won’t do the pope ‘so much good’ when he participates at next week’s celebration in Lund

  13. JabbaPapa says:

    Well, the official line from the Vatican about this Lutheran affair next week is that it’s to be understood on our part as simply a remembrance of the 500 years, but that the commemoration aspect of it is concerned with the 50th anniversary of the ongoing common dialogue.

    I don’t really buy that one myself.

    I am NOT looking forward to the inevitably “exciting” articles about it that will no doubt be produced from certain areas of the blogosphere …

  14. mmvc says:

    I am NOT looking forward to the inevitably “exciting” articles about it that will no doubt be produced from certain areas of the blogosphere …

    Don’t seek them out then. Skip them. Tout simplement.

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    Don’t seek them out then

    I don’t “seek” them — but I find that exposure to them is forced upon me by access to the internet.

  16. kathleen says:

    No wonder this creepy modernist, Card. Kasper, that our deluded Pope calls “a great theologian” 🙄 , was smirking all over his face just before Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia was delivered after the Synods on the Family. He knew he’d got his own way in the end, and that the ambiguity in its passages on Communion for those in “irregular situations” could be twisted to justify his heterodox agenda.

    Do the liberal, worldly cardinals like Kasper, Marx, Daneels, Cupich, etc, who once swore they would shed their blood if necessary to defend the purity of the Church’s doctrines and dogmas, think they can fool God? Do they have no “fear of the Lord”? Are they really convinced that the Church got it wrong for twenty centuries till they stepped onto the scene of Church history?

    What a great “Spring-cleaning” is going to be needed to root out all this dissent and factionalism among the highest ranks of the clergy when our next (longed-for) strong and holy Pope is elected to the Chair of Peter!

  17. JabbaPapa says:

    He knew he’d got his own way in the end

    He didn’t — and I view this hissy interview as little more than a chucking out of toys from his pram.

  18. JabbaPapa says:

    What a great “Spring-cleaning” is going to be needed to root out all this dissent and factionalism among the highest ranks of the clergy when our next (longed-for) strong and holy Pope is elected to the Chair of Peter!

    One can naturally complain if one feels like it about a present Roman Pontiff and a current Curia, but do be careful dearest kathleen — the notion of deferring to some hypothetic actions of a future Pontiff to justify present disagreements was denounced as being heretical long before the Council of Trent.

    Unless and until a Pope might declare and strongly defend some heresy to which is attached the penalty of automatic excommunication latae sententiae, or unless and until he might be deposed by a sitting Ecumenical Council, or other such deeply grave circumstances, a Discipline is required of our Faith and Catholicity against the absurd notion that hypothetical future doctrines might somehow be valid in present times, or that we might owe our obedience to some Popes of the Past or Future, rather than the Present.

  19. JabbaPapa says:

    meanwhile, this is the sort of wrecking ball actually being deployed against Holy Church by these Heretics :

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32157

  20. mmvc says:

    What a great “Spring-cleaning” is going to be needed to root out all this dissent and factionalism among the highest ranks of the clergy when our next (longed-for) strong and holy Pope is elected to the Chair of Peter!

    I agree, Kathleen. Moreover, I believe that many faithful Catholics are also hoping and praying for the current mess to be sorted out by a future strong and holy Pope, or indeed by Our Lord Himself.
    And I don’t believe for one moment that by doing so, you or I or anyone of them is sailing close to the wind of heresy.

  21. kathleen says:

    “Unless and until a Pope might declare and strongly defend some heresy to which is attached the penalty of automatic excommunication latae sententiae, or unless and until he might be deposed by a sitting Ecumenical Council, or other such deeply grave circumstances, a Discipline is required of our Faith and Catholicity against the absurd notion that hypothetical future doctrines might somehow be valid in present times, or that we might owe our obedience to some Popes of the Past or Future, rather than the Present.”

    I must be a bit thick, but I don’t understand what you are getting at here, Jabba.

    I was not referring to “hypothetical future doctrines” at all, but hoping that a future Pope will condemn many of the errors and evident heresies we are being bombarded with these days, and that after cleaning up the Curia of its un-Catholic infiltrators, he will preach the whole Truth without ambiguities. A purification from “the smoke of Satan”.
    We cannot hope now that Pops Francis will ever be capable of doing any of this. 😦

  22. JabbaPapa says:

    I was not referring to “hypothetical future doctrines” at all, but hoping that a future Pope will condemn many of the errors and evident heresies we are being bombarded with these days

    erm, a condemnation of what you perceive as errors and heresies by a future Pope is precisely “hypothetical future doctrines”, given that a condemnation is itself a doctrine.

    We are bound, in Faith, to an obedience of the doctrinal and disciplinary teachings of present times, which include those of the past, in the Catholic Tradition.

    BTW, Bishop Bergoglio actually did a fairly good job in Argentina of cleaning up his Diocese and Archdiocese of “its un-Catholic infiltrators”, so on that score at least, don’t lose hope.

    And BTW — if the SSPX in Argentina is officially recognised by canonical right, it’s thanks almost completely to Cardinal Bergoglio / Pope Francis who personally ordered it. The granting to the SSPX Bishops of Ordinary powers to freely ordain men into the priesthood is also very likely to be by the personal order of the Pope, directly against the wishes of many in the Curia who still openly campaign for a stark condemnation of the Fraternity. Reportedly, a draft decree declaring the SSPX to be in formal schism was presented to the Pope for signing, which he angrily refused, responding “They are Catholics !!”

    You should be wary of calling for condemnations of errors and heresies, given that the massive task of cleaning out the Curia and reforming it is by no means finished, and these are the sorts of condemnations that the Vatican Clericalists still wish for.

  23. kathleen says:

    erm, a condemnation of what you perceive as errors and heresies by a future Pope is precisely “hypothetical future doctrines”, given that a condemnation is itself a doctrine.

    We are only talking about these last three and a half years or so of non-binding “errors” emanating from some of the words and actions of Pope Francis (plus a few of his closest allies in the Curia), none of them proclaiming to be ex cathedra magisterial teachings. So how then could a condemnation of these “errors” of Pope Francis from a future truly orthodox Pope be termed “a doctrine”? If anything, it would surely be seen as no more than a return to the fullness of Catholic Truth.

    We are bound, in Faith, to an obedience of the doctrinal and disciplinary teachings of present times, which include those of the past, in the Catholic Tradition.

    Exactly! It is those same supposedly unchangeable “doctrinal and disciplinary teachings” that appear to be on the table and up for discussion under this Papacy. Precisely this bombshell is what is causing such widespread confusion everywhere in the Church, and outrage from traditional Catholics.

    In all fairness though, I agree with your points about Pope Francis’ surprisingly positive attitude towards the SSPX, having often expressed similar thoughts myself. It is just one of those strange paradoxes in life, that a Pope of an undeniable liberal (even, modernist) bent should be so favourable to a conservative, deeply traditional fraternity of priests!

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