Inés San Martín

Mar 6, 2019


ROME – Cardinal Ricardo Ezzati of Santiago, Chile, and the archdiocese he leads are being sued for $500,000 for covering up a case of rape that allegedly took place in a bedroom of the local cathedral.
The accused priest was said to have a “practically out of control” homosexual lifestyle and faces allegations of abusing at least one minor. He was suspended from ministry in 2016.
A 2015 preliminary report from the church of Santiago established that Father Tito Rivera had a “habitual homosexual behavior, seriously immoral and practically out of control.”
In 2015, Daniel Rojas, 40 at the time, went to the cathedral looking for financial help to buy medicine for his daughter. Instead, according to Rojas, Rivera took him upstairs, through a long corridor, into a bedroom, gave him a glass of water, and soon after, Rojas said he had no control over his body.
The criminal complaint, published by Chilean media outlet Radio Bio Bio, includes a graphic description of what allegedly happened after the priest returned from the bathroom in his underwear and raped Rojas. The archdiocese found the original allegation, filed in 2015, days after it happened, to be credible.
Rojas’s partner didn’t believe him, accused him of having a gay affair, and kicked him out of the house. He tried to get psychological help from the Church, but said he had doors closed in his face, with priests accusing him of lying, and ever since has been living on the streets.
In 2016, he went back to the cathedral when Ezzati was hearing confessions, and told him what was done to him. The cardinal reportedly gave him a hug, told him to pray for Rivera, and had another priest give him the equivalent of $50.
The man heading a preliminary investigation by the Church in 2015, Father Walker Acuña, determined in July of that year that the testimony of Rojas was “credible,” and that his wasn’t the only complaint against Rivera.
One of Rivera’s altar boys, trying to clear his name after he was accused of stealing a chalice, presented photos and videos of the priest having sex with eight other men, one of them a minor, in the bedrooms located on the second floor of the cathedral.
Another witness, also a priest, said that in 2011 a mother had come forward accusing Rivera of “sexually initiating” her son when he was 16.
The photos and videos presented by a man identified as “F” were received by Acuña and Father Óscar Rivera Soto. Soto is the former chancellor of the Archdiocese of Santiago, and was removed from his post in early 2018, after confessing that he had sexually abused some of his nephews, all of them minors.
RELATED: Cleric in Chile who recorded sex abuse charges reports himself

According to a statement released by the archdiocese on Tuesday, after the news of the suing against Ezzati were made public by the media, the church first received an email against Rivera in 2011 for abuse of minors, but after investigating the allegations, they couldn’t “reach the person who did the complaint.”
The statement also said that a diocesan investigation was opened in June 2015, and that in Sept. 2016 the local church requested the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that only deals with allegations of abuse against priests when they involve minors, for further instructions on what to do.
It was only then, at the suggestion of the CDF, that the archdiocese began an actual canonical investigation into Rivera, who confessed to having had gay relationships. Ezzati gave him a 10-year suspension from ministry. However, less than a year later he was authorized to celebrate weddings.
It’s unclear why, if the allegation of abusing a minor was also deemed credible, he’s been only temporarily removed from ministry, but not from the priesthood.
A dossier on Rivera compiled by the archdiocese includes not only the allegations made by Rojas, but also several other witness statements, including that of the dean of the cathedral, Monsignor Juan de la Cruz Suarez. He’s the man picked by Ezzati to replace him in reciting the Te Deumlast year, after the cardinal decided to step down from the celebration after being summoned by the state prosecutor investigation for allegations of abuse cover-up.
De la Cruz Suarez confessed that he “knew that [Rivera] used the bedroom of the second floor to bring young men in,” and that he’d advised the accused priest to “be careful,” and that he was the one who gave Rivera the keys.
“Rivera was always surrounded by personal altar boys, young men from middle-lower class, and that the father of one of them had accused Rivera on Facebook of abusing their son. He says that at the time the archbishop [Ezzati] ordered him not to give work to Tito Rivera in the cathedral,” the file says.
In mid-2018, after a series of scandals exploded in the Chilean Church, Rojas decided to find out what had happened with his allegation.
He’d never been informed that because of him, Rivera was removed from ministry, even though the archdiocesan complaints office had his e-mail. After asking about his case and being sent back with no answer, he received three emails, all of which clearly stated that his allegation was found credible.
In 2018, he decided to go to civil authorities and sue Rivera and the archdiocese, naming Ezzati. The cardinal has been called in to testify more than once on other cases, but so far has avoided doing so.
Speaking with TV network 24 Horas, Rojas said, “I don’t need for them to buy me a plane ticket to meet the pope, nor to stay in the best hotel in Rome. I’m not looking for millions, the only thing I’m looking for is truth and justice.”
Sandra Pinto, Rivera’s lawyer, said that it’s “impossible” to believe that the priest could have abused the man, as he’s “weak,” and already in 2015 he was “in very bad condition, coming in and out of the hospital.”
She also challenged the truthfulness of the allegation, saying that a person who lives in the streets is “normally a person with several mental problems.”
However, the lawyer did acknowledge that Rivera could be defined as a person who had “some homosexual behaviors and also heterosexual ones, as do the majority of priests.”
An association of lay people in the capital, called Laicos de Santiago, has demanded that Ezzati be removed from his position as archbishop. He has presented his resignation to the pope twice: When he turned 75 three years ago, and again last year, when every Chilean bishop offered their resignation en masse during a visit to Rome in May. During that encounter, Pope Francis gave them a text in which he accused them of cover-up, destroying evidence, and generally mismanaging allegations of clerical sexual abuse.
The spokesperson of Laicos de Santiago, Osvaldo Aravena, said that Ezzati has been the one “leading, because when he had the opportunity of handing in information, he remained silent.”
“I believe that the only thing left to do: Let justice be done, and, in effect, those who’ve abused and covered up these grave crimes pay with prison.”

Phillipe Barbarin: French cardinal guilty of abuse cover-up.


Barbarin was found guilty of failing to report allegations of assaults by a priest in the 1980s and 1990s.

He denied the charges. His lawyers now say he will appeal against the verdict.

Barbarin’s sentencing comes as the Catholic Church reckons with a new wave of abuse scandals.

Barbarin, who held the position of Archbishop of Lyon, was not present for the verdict. During the trial, he told the court: “I cannot see what I am guilty of. I never tried to hide, let alone cover up these horrible facts.”

What are the abuse claims?

The claims relate to alleged abuses committed by priest Bernard Preynat, who is now 73 and who ran a boy-scout group in the Lyon area for many years. Dozens of men say he sexually assaulted them as children.

Mr Preynat lawyer’s has said his client has admitted the allegations, but that the statute of limitations has expired. French officials argue that some of the offences can still be prosecuted and a criminal case has been opened against the priest.


These cardinals are falling one after another – like a house of cards.

Groer, O’Brien, McCarrick, Wuerl, Pell and now Azzita and Barbarin.

These guys are proof that the higher you climb in the RC church, the more corrupt, compromised and immoral you are.

In order to climb the RC tree you have to sell your soul to the devil of lies, denial, and moral bankruptcy.

To rise up the tree is to move away from God’s grace and spiritual realities to be bound by the chains of ambition, power, and other earthly rewards.

There’s a cleansing afoot.

God is using the civil authorities to punish and purge the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Blessed be the name of The Lord!


Yes, the higher these Christ-betrayers climb ecclesiastically, the more morally revolting they become, and the more distant from God.
And the defection begins at ordination, when these Judases vow to obey a man, but not the God-man.


For the umpteenth time: The vow at ordination does not mean they obey man over God. For a composite, which would have us all believe it is “intelligent”, you really do show yourselves to be thick-skulled and moronic.


As usual, people like you miss the point: whether or not ordinands are wholly, partly, or never faithful to that evil, idolatrous vow, each FREELY AND WILLINGLY takes it, in itself a grave sin, and a betrayal of Christ.
The vow is not qualified in any way (to allow for the exercise of personal conscience), but insists on absolute, unquestioning loyalty to a bishop and to his successors. This word, ‘loyalty’, was explicitly used by Pope Emeritus Benedict when he ordained men in Rome during his pontificate.
Under obedience to a bishop, Fr John Brady (later Cardinal…) co-conspired to conceal the sexual abuse of boys by Fr Brendan Smith. Even today, he justifies his conduct through ‘holy’ obedience.
You are being obtuse. Which is what I should expect from a Christ-betraying, Roman Catholic priest. And this is , undoubtedly, what you are.


Bishop Buckley made such a promise when he was ordained a priest. Did that make him a Judas or Christ-betrayer?


Anyone who sexually abuses a child betrays Christ, and anyone who covers up the sexual abuse of a child, also betrays Christ. It isn’t rocket science!

Is it a promise or vow to a bishop?


I did indeed. But sadly I soon discovered that obedience to God comes before obedience to men. It has been a great challenge.




Power and control.

It is on these twin pillars that ecclesial omertà rests, making the institutional Chuch stand isolated from the world (and better able to conceal such trifles as the sexual abuse of children).

The priests who post here in defence of the vow of obedience they took at ordination are actually confirming my point about Roman Catholic priests: that their loyalty is first to the institutional Church and second to Christ.

One example of this? How many of these priests publicly protest the corruption and abuses of the Vatican? Of their bishops?

How many priests publicly criticised Noel Treanor for spending such a huge sum of parishoners’ money rennovating/refurbishing his modest home on Somerton Road?

Priests console themselves with the highly sentimental notion that they are serving God (‘Christmen’, as Fr Gerard McGinnity ambitiously refers to them in the title of one of his books), but, when it comes to the moral crunch, their eyes are firmly Romeward.


When a new priest came to our parish about 26 years ago, he boldly stated that his loyalty was to the bishop and then to his fellow priests…..that’s interesting…I thought.


Does + Nichols have reason to be worried ? I think he might.
Thanks to IICSA we know that some of his handling of abuse and its victims in the Birmingham Archdiocese when he was the bishop fell short of the mark and he was put under some painful grilling about what happened, how, when and why. And he looked and sounded distinctly uncomfortable.
Next, he is implicated in the decision not to apply the proper and agreed procedures to an investigation in to CMOC, which was further frustrated by the Pope terminating the case. Two other bishops, Portsmouth and Northampton, had to go over + Nichols’ head to get the matter moved on to Rome.
So, although + Nichols himself is far from an abuser, he has overseen during his time as a leader in the Church, some very suspect issues. Perhaps the time has come for him to move aside and go in to retirement ? He’s already complaining about how he is got at every time he says something because the the evil which is child abuse lodged in the Church. Well, who let it in, Vinny ? And don’t trot out the line about the Devil being responsible. You have been in charge in some form or fashion since you were barely out of junior seminary, so maybe some of it comes down to you ?
We need a new generation of leaders, although God knows who they are or where they will come from. One would have hoped that through all this crisis that there would have been clergy who would have raised their heads and made it clear that the Church has a clear duty to do the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, and that one of those ways was to begin to think of some drastic action to the very structures of the Church, to hierarchy, to clericalism, and to the way power and authority are exercised in the Church. But, I haven’t hear them, have you ? No ! Because they are fearful for their futures and for their careers, of being seen to be disloyal, of having to be put under the withering gaze of displeasure of + Nichols, who is the Queen Bee of the Bishops’ Conference.
The best leadership and ideas I have seen for quite some time from a Christian leader come from + Pat. Yes, he is vilified, belittled and sidelined by the Church, but he says the things that the Church and its leaders should be saying. Prophets are always despised in their own country.


Civil authorities is the way to go hi. Tis the season of th ashes. Wickets are falling. What about th Irish snakes though Time for st Patrick to shake thauld shamrock again but


Mornin fly, hi; begorra fly, the snakes are needing a shakin dose of th aul shamrock agin fly hi.
They’re back witha vingence.
Civil authorities is takin a long time to get goin hi. Th ashes are needin sackclothin as well.
Hi fly, bye.


Every one of these monsters in collars must be extirpated from the clerical state.

They have emptied the pews.

They have emptied seminaries.

They have emptied Divine Faith from the hearts of little ones and thereby have put the little ones’ souls also in danger of eternal perdition.

Unless these duplicitous monsters genuinely repent and show true contrition, the collar which they so mocked and scorned during this life will burn into their damned necks for all eternity in the never-ending flames of hell.

Pray the Holy Rosary to enable Our Lady finish the job which she has just begun.

Pray like you have never prayed before!


According to Vatican insider, Pope Francis has stated; ….’ Gods compassion and mercy are not infinite ; often, in fact, this becomes the justification for doing whatever one wants. Don’t be so reckless,so reckless to believe you’ll be alright.
‘…Don’t wait to convert yourself to the Lord, don’t postpone it from day to day because the anger of the Lord will suddenly burst forth…’ the Pope warned.


10.04 I believe we’ve gone past the priority of empty pews. My friend Incy Wincy says alot of her friends have moved onto the pews in a good few churches. We need a new St Paddie with a modern shamrock. Its basic evangelism and a mop and bucket to clean up the pre existing poopies hi. And they left their presbyteries and laptops and followed Him. I wonder but.


Hello fly, hi; begorra fly, funny you should say that cos my friends itsy bitsy and teeny weeny were sayin much the same. Time to drop everything, a good spring clean and follow the yellow brick road. No looking over the shoulder. There’s no knowing where we’re going,but we’ll get there when we get there, and we might find a few new St. Paddies on the way.
Bye fly Hi.


There is now an unstoppable chain reaction of exposures of deep corruption. The bishops have been side-lined by the press and civil authorities. They are incapable of being reactive or active, let alone proactive, so one by one they are being dragged into the open and shown to be liars and hypocrites. The only thing that is going to bring the Church through this crisis is the truth, yet it is the truth to which the Roman Catholic Church is a stranger, and frankly I doubt that the Orthodox and most Protestant bodies are any better. The truth here concerns the reality of human sexuality, and most of our woes come from the Church‘s desperation to maintain centuries of erroneous teaching in order to protect its credibility as the source of truth. Well, now its credibility has been shattered, and the heat will only get turned up higher. Sometimes things necessarily have to get broken, and what needs smashing now is the Church’s pride. Please God, let there be one bishop who will step forward and say we got it wrong – not just about handling abuse but the whole insane system of lying about sex in order to maintain authority. Well, where has that got us? It would be great if Nicholls say could now be a hero. What now has he got to lose, and he could go down in history in a blaze of glory as the Cardinal who told the truth? If the worst comes to the worst, he‘s still got the caravan. Just imagine: Elsie‘s trailer park could become a shrine to the St Thomas Moore de nos jours. Dream on!


Yes, there is a sense that things are unravelling at an unstoppable speed, and there is a momentum to things. You are right 10:39 in your assessment of the duplicity and lies that have been at the foundation of the Church’s stance on so many issues, in particulate sexuality.
Have a look at an essay by Andrew Sullivan (fiercely gay and fiercely Catholic) in The New York Magazine:
which looks at the endemic hypocrisy and duplicity at the heart of the Church, and in some of its most senior members, in particular over the issue of gays in the Church.
What we really do need is somebody to stand up and say, yes, we got it wrong, we know we have got it wrong for a long time, and we have hurt so many people, and failed to protect the most vulnerable. And this is what we are going to do about it….
Perhaps someone like + Nichols could stop feeling so sorry for himself, and have the balls to stand up and say that, and say how we can move forward. He is not a stupid man, and he knows the illness, and I reckon that he knows the cure. But, ambition, vanity, arrogance and careerism have been at the heart of his mission over decades. Maybe now that he is toast in career terms, and is not going to go anywhere else (no, he won’t be Pope, and no, he won’t be heading to Rome to take up a senior position !) except early retirement, perhaps he could summon up the courage to say it as it is, without fear or favour. And, other bishops could do the same.
Andrew Sullivan gives us a bit of a clue as to what they might say: “The crisis is so profound, the corruption so deep, the duplicity so brazen that only a radical change will help. Ending mandatory celibacy is no longer an option. It’s a necessity. Women need to be brought in to the full sacramental life of the church. Gay men need to be embraced not as some manifestation of “intrinsic moral evil” but as human beings made in the image of God and capable of mutual love, care, and support. Gay priests with integrity need to be defended as strongly as the hypocrites need to be exposed and expelled. Francis is nudging the church toward this more humane and Christian future, but the more he does so, the more fervently this nest of self-haters and bigots will try to destroy him.”
It would be good to hear + Nichols and others saying something similar, rather than hedging their bets, guarding their words, thinking of their position and careers…..


Oh, and the reason usually given by bishops for being so cautious is that they don’t want to disturb the faith of the people. Well, I don’t think that’s a good enough reason any more. We are already acutely disturbed and scandalised by what we have seen. Speaking some truth will hardly scandalise or upset us any more than already !


Excellent replies at 11:03am and 11:06am. There is also article below from 1968 re the bishops’ response to Humanae Vitae well worth reading in light of today:
NB how the thing that most concerned them was loss of authority. Well they have certainly lost that now, and this is where 50 years of lying and cover up have got us. You might also recall a lovely photo a few weeks back of the corpulent figure of John Cardinal Cody of Chicago – described by Andrew Greeley as a psychopath. He was one of several US Cardinals who flew ( 1st class ) to Rome to urge Paul VI to excommunicate all dissenters. Cody himself had a long term mistress to whom he channelled diocesan funds to keep her in fur coats and silk knickers. Cushing of Boston also dishonored himself. Sadly Franny Spellman had gone to further glory the previous year, but his successor, Cooke ( also now being pushed for sainthood and another queen ) obligingly took the hard party line as ( cp Vincent and the Soho Masses ) he had not yet scored his Cardinal‘s hat. What a bloody fool and total disaster Paul VI was. Is he a saint yet? They come so fast and furious, one loses track. And as for Montini…. gay, dear? Me, dear? No, dear! All of them, then and now, liars.


MC, Yea…check it out on Vatican Insider La Stampa/eng; article titled ‘Lets dominate our passions, Gods mercy is not infinite’ by Salvatore Cernuzio.

Apologies for not providing the link.


KC, I’ve just finished reading (well, speed reading) that link.
Francis’ homespun theology is an implicit denial of the doctrine of Original Sin (vitiation of the human will to overcome alone the ‘passions’ he spoke of); it is neo-Pelagianistic.
I’ll go further: if, according to Francis, God’s mercy and compassion are not infinite, then neither is his love. Which (have you cottoned on yet?) in turn means that God himself is not infinite, since John states that God is love.
Francis little homily that day showed him not only a heretic, but an unbeliever.


I would add to 11.3 and 11.6 that perhaps a real job wd help too….no more sponging off the faithful.
If you have a vocation … boys and girls…get a job and minister to your chose faith during your free time..Just like those of us who devote so much of our energies and time to the gaa


These deviant clerics would not have lasted five minutes in a secular working environment because of stringent workplace protocols against any form of sexual intimidation or abuse.

It really is unbelievable that these guys have been allowed to wreak havoc, for years with impunity, under the watch of bishops and cardinals who are meant to be our moral guides and teachers of the Truth.


Magna Carta at 1:03pm. No. It is you who are being obtuse and moronic. You are talking the greatest load of nonsense. In absolutely no way, does the vow taken at ordination, in any way whatsoever, mean that priests obey bishops before God. If a priest chooses to obey an immoral “command”, he is morally culpable for it because his vow of obedience DOES NOT mean that he obliged to do something wrong or sinful.


Can something wrong or sinful occur by a priest, out of fear of disobedience to the bishop and possible consequences for the priest?
Does that or has that happened, or can you envisage a situation where that might happen?
What are the boundaries around the ‘vow to the bishop’?


@2:52pm: Only if he’s a total eejit, brainless and ball-less.

The vow of obedience is to facilitate the pastoral service of the faithful – the priest as collaborator with the bishop.

It is not a promise to help a bishop cover up crime as the “Carta” loons are trying to maliciously suggest.

It practically means that the priest will go, where the bishop asks him to go, to serve the people. It is simply to cooperate for the smooth running of a diocese, so that the pastoral needs of ALL the people are met – nothing more and nothing less.

It is perverse to attempt to put any “sinister” motive to it, as the truly twisted “Magna” Composite is trying to do and constantly banging on about.


As I said earlier, that evil, idolatrous vow is unqualified; there is no provision in it for exercising personal conscience. Total obedience is expected of ordinands.
Ordinands know this beforehand, and yet they take the vow regardless.
You all know that you cannot make such provision yourselves, otherwise your ordinations would not have occurred.
Take ownership of your betrayal, for heaven’s sake man!


Carta, to put it very simply and in language that is clear: you are talking pure and unadulterated shite.


I always got the impression that if you disagreed with the bishop he moved you to another parish. If he took a deslike to you he would keep you on the run.


So that evil, idolatrous vow of obedience is pastoral in nature and purpose?😅
I suppose this is why, on foot of orders from his bishop, Fr John Brady, with other priests, conspired to keep secret the sexual abuse of young boys while allowing a paedophile, Fr Brendan Smith, to escape justice and to abuse again, and again, and again…
Yes, obvious pastoral purpose was being exercised here, and in literally countless, similar cases.
Grow up, you utter fool!😠
Or are you just another lying, cowardly, Roman Catholic priest, who can’t face the truth that he has wasted his life by giving it to the institutional Church rather than to the God of this church?😆


Oh, for pity’s sake, more displacement tosh from the Chief Shepherd, sadly. I see that he’s saying that ultimately he thinks that the abuse scandal is the work of the Devil, and that God is now using this crisis to cleanse the Church:
“Still, do not be discouraged,” he told the priests. “The Lord is purifying his bride (the church) and is converting us all to himself. He is putting us to the test so that we would understand that, without him, we are dust.”
Oh yeah ?! And in the meantime this same God has allowed all these innocent children to be abused so that he can use this as a means of purifying his Bride, The Church ?
Why, oh why, cannot people like Francis and + Nichols and others who are inclined to speak such self-justifying and displacement rubbish just realise for once that this has nothing to do with The Devil, or with The Gays, or with God testing us. This has to do with what the Church has created for itself over the centuries, its clericalism, its exceptionalism, its sense of entitlement, its immunity, its privilege, its abuse of power and authority….I could go on !
The Church needs to look at itself, rather than outside, for reasons why it is in the mess it is in. And, it needs to start reforming PDQ, otherwise others will take it upon themselves to do so, as we are seeing in places like IICSA, in State investigations in to the actions and behaviour of priest and bishops, and in the proactive way that authorities are prepared to bring Church people to book.
I’ve had enough of the spiritualising of this problem. It simply has to do with greedy men thinking that they could have what they wanted and get away with it. The blame lies with you lot, the clergy and the bishops, not with God, or The Devil, or The Gays or anybody else you want to finger. And, some of the blame lies with us, the faithful, for being so damned stupid for so long and letting you get away with it. But, now we are aware and on guard, and we are furious !


You are misguided. The triumph of evil is always, in essence, the choice of an individual between right and wrong: between God’s way and man’s way. Each of these abuses and scandals was the choice of individuals to choose wrong – and some to choose wrong over and over and over again. This is ‘sin’ – choosing man’s way, not God’s. It isn’t ‘clericalism’ or any other ‘ism’, it is a succession of individuals making choices for wrong over right. Man cannot be absolved of his individual responsibility for his choices.
God is not to be held responsible for “allowing” evil things to happen to children. The individual priests and bishops who did the evil or didn’t intervene to stop it are responsible. If God has had a bellyful and this evil is now being brought to light then Hallelujah. Francis is personally responsible before God for every time he turned a blind eye, and for every position of power he gave to a prelate who was choosing evil over good – choosing their own way over God’s.
The sheer amount of wrong chosen by clergy now coming to light is mind-boggling. And each of those clergy will answer for it personally to God.
As you seem a political person rather than a believer in God you should also know ( and to pre-empt your criticism this is not to deflect from the morass of evil chosen by clergy) that each choice made by everyone – politicians, parents, voters and yourself is also always a choice between good and evil, between God’s way and man’s, and the totality of those choices is evident in the society they produce.
To blame ‘isms’ is always deflection. I am responsible for the choices I make and you are responsible for the choices you make. We have been given free will, and the consequences of how we exercise it are eternal.


I just keep thinking of the priest in Galway that was put through Hell in the past year for reporting a safeguarding issue. I had really hoped things had changed. They haven’t. The accused priest is swanning around with his housekeeper offering Mass here, there and everywhere. They are like Lord and Lady Muck. Both the current and previous incumbent in Galway along with their Hitler (the Diocesan Secretary) are going to be knee high in sh*t if it goes public.


7.41: Well spoken. The Magna Carta creation is an absurd reality. It’s propensity for loud screaming in abusive, long tomes is a display of self adulation and importance, the musings of someone absorbed in a world of isolation from real people.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: