THE Mc CARRICK COVER UP BY POPE AND BISHOPS.

McCarrick1.jpg

Settimo Cielo Catholic Hewrald

In recent days there has come back with a vengeance the case of Theodore E. McCarrick, the American cardinal first stripped of the scarlet and finally expelled from the clerical state last February, after having been found guilty by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith of “solicitation in the Sacrament of Confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and with adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.”
Reigniting attention over his case were two concomitant facts: a few statements by Pope Francis during an interview with Valentina Alazraki of the Mexican TV network “Televisa” previewed by “Vatican News” on May 28 and, on the same day, the publication of a “Report” on the relations between McCarrick and senior Church authorities written by a former secretary and confidant of his, the priest Anthony J. Figuereido.
Both of these elements, far from moving the case toward a solution, are making it more serious than ever, elevating it as the highest emblem not so much of the scourge of sexual abuse committed by sacred ministers – abuse that for McCarrick has been verified and condemned – but of the cover-up granted to some of the abusers by Church authorities, up to the highest levels. Cover-ups that in McCarrick’s case appear very extensive and far from being clarified.

Figuereido bolstered the ten pages of his report with citations from letters, e-mails, and documents never seen until now and upheld as authentic by experts consulted for the occasion.
Once again there is above all the news that the restrictions imposed on McCarrick during the pontificate of Benedict XVI were transmitted to him not only verbally, but were put down in writing in a 2008 letter from Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, at the time the prefect of the congregation for bishops, a letter that McCarrick himself wrote he had immediately “shared” with the archbishop of Washington at the time, Cardinal Donald Wuerl.
Wuerl has always denied that he knew anything at all about the abuse committed by McCarrick or the restrictions imposed on him, in practice the obligation to retire to private life. And besides, McCarrick always avoided obeying such restrictions, both during the pontificate of Benedict XVI and afterward, when on the contrary he intensified his trips all over the world, including to China, in accord with the Vatican secretariat of state and Cardinal Pietro Parolin.
Another bit of news from the report is the defense of himself that McCarrick made with respect to the accusations of sexual abuse, in a 2008 letter to then-secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone. He admitted that he had imprudently “shared a bed” with priests and seminarians “when the Diocesan Summer House was overcrowded,” but without ever having or attempting sexual relations with them, because he considered them “as part of my family,” just as he had often done with his “cousins and uncles and other relatives,” going to bed with them too but always innocently.
As is well known, this defense of himself by McCarrick – who still to this day is not known to have expressed any remorse in public – was invalidated eleven years after the guilty verdict of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.
But what remains to be clarified is precisely the responsibility of many senior Church authorities who knew about his offenses and did not do what they were supposed to.
The position, for example, of Cardinal Wuerl is today more difficult than before, seeing the revelations of Figuereido’s report.
But above all there has been no clarification of the behavior of Pope Francis. Who in the interview with “Televisa” sought to justify his conduct, while however leaving open many, too many questions.

The one who accused Pope Francis of having covered up for McCarrick was the former nuncio in the United States Carlo Maria Viganò, in his “Testimony” made public on the night between last August 25 and 26.
That night Francis was in Dublin, to close the world meeting of families. With the result that a few hours later, at the press conference on the flight back to Rome, he was asked about it by NBC journalist Anna Matranga.
Viganò had reported that on June 23 2013, in a brief face to face meeting, Pope Francis had asked for his judgment on Cardinal McCarrick, and he had replied that “at the congregation for bishops there is a file this big on him. He has corrupted generations of seminarians and priests, and Pope Benedict required that he retire to a life of prayer and penance.” Adding: “The pope did not make the slightest comment on those very serious words of mine, and did not show on his face any expression of surprise, as if he had already known about the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject.”
When Anna Matranga asked him “if this were true,” Francis replied: “I will not say one word on this.” The pope instead invited the journalists to “study” for themselves the credibility of Viganò’s accusation. And he added: “When a bit of time has gone by and you have drawn your conclusions, perhaps I will speak.” Finally, asked once again to respond, he promised, without the “perhaps” this time: “You study, and then I will speak.”
A few weeks later, in a statement on October 6, Francis made it known that he had ordered “a careful further study of the entire documentation present in the archives of the dicasteries and offices of the Holy See” concerning McCarrick. And he pledged that “the Holy See will not fail, in due time, to make known the conclusions of the case.”
But more than nine months have gone by since the case erupted, and nothing of that has yet been published.
On May 29, Cardinal Parolin said that the investigation is still underway and “once this work is concluded, there will be a statement,” without however giving a sense that this will take place soon.
But there was no clarification at all in the words Francis had to say about this in the interview with Valentina Alazraki a few days ago, the first he has said in public after the promise made on the plane on August 26.

To the questions of Valentina Alazraki, the pope replied first of all by justifying his silence and his initial decision to invite journalists to “study” for themselves the indictment by Viganò.
This because – he said – “I had not read the whole letter, I took a quick look at it and I already knew what it is.”
Actually, on the plane on August 26, Francis had said that he had read the whole thing. But now he has intimated that his negative prejudice on Viganò’s indictment concerned the person of the ex-nuncio, in his view a lowlife, seeing that “three or four months later a judge in Milan found him guilty,” seeing that “some have even written that he had been paid,” and above all seeing his “doggedness,” in the face of which the only response to make was silence, as Jesus did “on Good Friday.”
Properly speaking, that of Milan was not a “guilty verdict” on Viganò, but the settlement in civil court of a dispute among brothers concerning the distribution of a substantial inheritance. An age-old family dispute that the pope said he had known about for some time but had always kept quiet about in public so as not to “sling mud” at the ex-nuncio. And as for the suspicion of a secret pay-off, Francis immediately added: “I don’t know, not as far as I know.” The fact is, however, that he has now said both things in public, and badly, completely contradicting himself.
To the crucial question of whether he knew about McCarrick’s misdeeds or not, Francis replied as follows in the interview with “Televisa”:

“About McCarrick I didn’t know anything, of course, nothing, nothing. I have said a number of times that I didn’t know anything, I had no idea. And when [Viganò] says that he spoke to me that day, that he came… I don’t recall if he spoke to me about this, if it is true or not. I have no idea! You know that I knew nothing about McCarrick, otherwise I would not have remained silent, right?”
In a man with an uncommon memory like Jorge Mario Bergoglio, this lapse appears anomalous. And Viganò replied immediately, from the secret place where he is in hiding, accusing the pope of lying.
Whom to believe, at this point? Viganò or Francis? The answer can be given only by the documents kept at the Vatican, the nunciature, and the dioceses in which McCarrick served: New York, Metuchen, Newark, Washington.
Because, if it were true that Francis never knew a thing about McCarrick’s bad behavior, it remains to be explained how this could have happened, when at the Vatican and in the United States there were so many senior churchmen who were aware of it, for many years.
If by-the-book canonical proceedings had gone forward against McCarrick last year, this whole cover-up would have inexorably come to light.
Instead the shortcut of an administrative decree was chosen, concentrated only on the person of the reprobate.
All that remains is to wait for the publication of the results of the documentary investigation announced last October 6 and confirmed in recent days by Cardinal Parolin

47 thoughts on “THE Mc CARRICK COVER UP BY POPE AND BISHOPS.

  1. The Trenton State Prosecutor has reopened the McCarrick case and his associates including senior Irish Seminary Clerics.

    Like

    1. Teddy was good at raising the cash so he was left alone to do as he wished until the spotlight was shone on his activities and they were forced to take action. Their only regret is that Teddy canr raise money ant more.

      Like

    2. The Senior Irish Seminary Cleric is closely connected with the Cap diAgde Villa.

      Like

  2. McCarrick is as guilty as sin. It would be interesting to see if the civil authorities in the US take a closer interest in McCarrick. There are surely grounds on which they can investigate, and perhaps prosecute ? As it is, the canonical case will take forever, and is pretty toothless, and McCarrick will continue to spend out his days in penance and prayer in some monastery. I suspect he’s bemused at what all the fuss is about, and doesn’t think that he’s done anything wrong.

    But, what about Pell ? Anybody get to watch the live streaming of the first day of his appeal ? How is it going ? My money is on his conviction being overturned. The fact that it has been listed so expeditiously by the Victoria Supreme Court suggests that the Justices may think that this matter needs to be dealt with quickly because it is wrong and an injustice has been done. Also, listening and reading as much evidence as I have been able, I feel that it does not all stack up. I know lots of you don’t agree ! We will see soon enough.

    Like

  3. Pell case prosecutors have made themselves look ridiculous by saying that Pell may not have committed the offenses on the date alleged in their case but on another occasion.

    Even with the 2008 letter of Cardinal Re, if true, nothing much changes. Wuerl probably knew of the restrictions but they were so trivial as to be hardly worth remembering. The allleged restrictions remain a will-‘o-the-wisp, and the disgruntled, resentment-powered ex-nuncio is trying to make a song and dance about them to attack Francis, careless that his accusations rebound on his own head (since as nuncio he should have been imposing them, not trampling on them by feting McCarrick on at least two public occasions, a year and a month before allegedly denouncing McC to the Pope. But just as Trump went on and on and on about Hillary’s emails, so the Francis haters go on and on and on about this non-story.

    “23 June 2013: Viganò obtained a private audience of about 40 minutes with the new Pope. The former nuncio does not say that it was he who introduced the McCarrick argument – finally demonstrating that concern –
    he had never manifested up to that moment. It was Francis, who asked him a question about the former archbishop of Washington. On this occasion, we can only rely on Viganò’s memories, who would have said to the Pontiff: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Card. McCarrick, but if he asks the Congregation for the Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and
    Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance”.
    [I think the alleged 2008 letter from Cardinal Re was long forgotten by then.]
    The nuncio does not produce documents, he does not give notes to the new Pope. He doesn’t speak first about McCarrick, who has been retired for years. He limits himself to telling him that there is a dossier against him in the Congregation of the Bishops and that Pope Ratzinger would have “imposes” on him a life of prayer and penance. Viganò does not say having added anything about McCarrick not obeying and that Benedict never intervened afterwards to get himself obeyed.

    “Francis did not react, nothing, but neither did he decide to modify any “secret” decisions of his predecessor, of which up to that moment probably no one had ever spoken to him. Nor did he tell the nuncio that he intended to formally remove those presumed “restrictions”. According to Viganò, during the audience Francis asked him for a change of line with respect to the last episcopal nominations: it was necessary to designate – in short – bishop pastors, and not cultural warriors politicized to the right. The former nuncio affirms without any evidence that this idea would have been suggested to the Pontiff by McCarrick himself. In reality Bergoglio has been thinking like this for several years.

    “Viganò also received a further denial on this precise point from the former US ambassador to the Holy See, Miguel Diaz, appointed in May 2009, who in a written and signed declaration said he was surprised to have read Viganò’s statements about Francis’ words on the American bishops: “It was stunning to read this reaction from Viganò because I immediately recalled my fist meeting with Msgr. Sambi (Pope Benedict’s representative) at his residency in DC, in which Sambi expressed to me almost the same message using similar words… he said that we needed American bishops who were less political and more pastoral, not cultural war warriors”.
    Therefore, according to this testimony, already in Pope Ratzinger’s last years, the indications given to the apostolic nuncio to the United States were that of appointing pastor-bishops. Evidently the question of
    the excessive collateralism of the North American episcopate with regard to certain political positions and a certain unilateral interest only in some ethical questions was already felt to be problematic.

    “10 October 2013: Carlo Maria Viganò obtains a second audience with Pope Francis. The former nuncio says little about the meeting and the topics discussed in the press release, except that one of the topics was Cardinal Donald Wuerl, nominated Archbishop of Washington in 2006 by Benedict XVI. Viganò does not say anything about having alerted the Pontiff on the McCarrick question.”

    Like

  4. What a travesty it would be, Bp Pat, if that dirty old bugger in Australia gets off.

    Like

    1. Unfortunately, courts dispense law, and not always justice.

      Like

    2. 11.20 “dirty old bugger” — thank God it’s not you who’s dispensing justice

      Like

  5. Pat, if you were in charge of justice, am afraid it would definitely be the ‘electric chair’ for Pell. It saddens me to read so often how much hatred you have in your heart. Please read and reflect on Mt 7:1-6.
    The evidence in the whole Pell case never added up. For the law to be credible and justice to be dispensed it must be based on solid reliable facts. Anything less is in fact an INJUSTICE….regardless of who is being charged!! Like everyone else, Pell is entitled to the same protection of the law. Pat, it’s okay to say that and a sign of great maturity, in your position, to be able to say that too..

    Like

    1. I do not agree with the death penalty for anyone.
      Only God and Pell himself really know whether Pell did what he is accused of. Personally I am inclined to believe the victims.
      What I said about courts, law and justice could favour Pell.
      He could be innocent but found guilty.
      He could be guilty and found innocent!.
      The law can be an ass!

      Like

      1. Pat at 1:03 p.m.
        There is a third person, who along with God and Pell knows whether or not Pell is innocent: the surviving plaintiff.

        Like

      2. I agree. I hope he gets justice and closure.

        Like

    2. 12.49: You are right. Buckley is motivated by hatred of the Catholic Church which he deserted when his bullying ways were ended. He is full of bitterness and is not at all concerned about truth or justice. His narrative is a continuous thread of nasty, spiteful, vengeful hatred. God help him…

      Like

      1. Name the individuals Im supposed to have bullied and what I did.to them.

        Like

  6. Or the law can uphold truth and justice! Pat, it cuts both ways. Are you saying that ‘the law can be an ass’ simply because it looks like Pell’s verdict was a miscarriage of justice?
    Sorry for disturbing you Pat, better let you back to reflecting on Mt 7:1-6. Isn’t it very easy to judge and forget to have a good look in the mirror. Thanks publishing this. Peace Pat 🙏

    Like

    1. True. When I look in the mirror I see a man of contradictions, a mixture of strength and weakness. But we can judge institutions and their fruits.

      Like

      1. 1.32: Problem is Buckkey, you don’t look seriously enough. What you should see is an ugly, vundictive fool. The fact that you reluctantly see some weakness in your life does not give you any authority to smash others in their difficulties, however awful their crimes or behaviour. You have a pre-set mind about Catholic clergy, so you cannot be trusted with TRUTH. Cardinal Pell may well be innocent: that you must appreciate. Stop being the monster hater you are. Look closely at the gospel of Christ. Seriously.

        Like

      2. I do not reluctantly see some weakness.

        I publicly declare, as I always have, thay I am and always have been a sinner in all kinds of ways.

        But I have never been part of the evil Catholic clerical cabal.

        And that is why they got rid of me.

        They could not cope with being challenged and called out by my words and actions.

        Like

  7. Pat, I am SO angry today. Have a read of this:

    Like

    1. So imprtant, will blog abou it on Friday

      Like

  8. Leave +Pat alone. He is doing great work.

    Like

    1. The clerical and episcopal geezers dont think that 🐣

      Like

  9. 2.21: Buckley, you are even more delusional that I thought. You left the Catholic Church: You chose to go. Stop lying. Accept your own role in your fate. Your bullying and harrassment was totally unacceptable. Your bullying continues under the guise of a search for truth and justice. Your belief that you were disliked because of your supposed “good Christian witness” is laughable. If such delusion keeps you happy, good for you, but most of us see thriugh your sham and fakery. You, Buckley, should carefully read the gospel of Christ. You claim to imitate him but sadly you leave out many of the essentials: “Love your enemies: do good to those who hate you: do not judge: do not condemn: be compassionate as your heavenly Father is compassionate: letbhecwho iscwithout sin cast thecfirst stone….”. Do you recall these admonitions of Jesus? There is a patholigical dysfunctionality in your psyche. You are a hypocrite and an enabler of hateful, discriminatory and vengeful abuse against clerics who are better than you’ll ever be. I suggest you truly look into your heart and stop your self righteous delusion. You smash people with your words, sadly. Not of Christ – …..never of Christ.

    Like

    1. You still have not told me WHO I ALLEGEDLY Abused and WHAT I ALLEGEDLY did to them 😇

      You are obviously a clerical geezer receiving regular sexual comfort and dont want to outed or shown up.

      Like

      1. Yes it’s just vague insinuation to paint you with the same brush.

        Like

      2. 6.04: Your own words are words of judgment, condemnation, abuse of others by such judgments: your words are equivalent to those of the pharisees of Jesus’s time when you fail abysmally to notice the plank in your own eye. The fact that I or you or anyone else calls out wrong and criminal behaviour for what it is does not ever give us the absolute right to crush others with our judgments. You frequently delight and are almost thrilled with the downfall of others. There is a vengeful attitude in much of your commentary. You haven’t answered the question add to the quotes from Jesus!! As always you avoid the personal hard questioning. When challenged you castigate and put us all in the same bracket. You have set yourself up as some kind of despotic god with little regard for the humanity of others. Answer the hard questions put to you. Words when used destructively, hatefully and harshly against others is a tyranny of abuse.

        Like

      3. 7:07 he’s answered the question repeatedly and has told you he is unaware of who he is alleged to have abused.
        Have you tried looking in a mirror lately or don’t you show up in mirrors?

        Like

  10. The distraction brigade are out in force today!
    Bishop Buckley says ‘the Catholic church has done this’
    The distractors try to distract attention to Bishop Buckley. It’s a standard technique used by defenders of the institution. Variations are to generalise the problem to everywhere or to say it was a few bad apples, hence distracting attention to specific abusers rather than the system which helped them abuse.
    The really sad thing is that this distraction technique is exactly the thing which has allowed abuse to go on for so long, and these people, by using it, merely indicate that nothing has changed and indicate that the institution still does not take its abuse problem seriously!
    The news of facilitated and ignored abuse is just going to keep on coming until the institution is externally controlled by law.

    Like

  11. 6.09: Yes indeed, many of us, unjustly and unfairly are painted with the same brush!! It’s a feature of this blog. References are made to individuals, innuendos made, judgments made against so many who are good, decent and kind people. Pat doesn’t care about the reputation of others. I have rarely witnessed, if ever, any acknowledgment by Pat, of those guys who are truly committed the priesthood, other than forever talking about how great he is compared to the rest of us ‘condemned’…..I don’t believe in abusing anybody by nasty, vitriolic words.

    Like

    1. “…those guys who are truly committed to the priesthood…”. Yeah ? Show me one ! In my experience the holy ones are nutters and completely on a different planet (probably some sort of avoidance strategy to avoid the real world which is too difficult for them), and the rest are on the make and interested in their own comfort. It’s a great life, the priesthood….status, pretty much your own boss, other people paying for most of what the rest of us have to pay for out of our own pockets, “retreats” and “conferences” and “sabbaticals” and “in service training” which are really holidays, housekeepers and cooks and gardeners for free etc. etc. It’s a pity, isn’t it, that we have latched on to that and know about it these days ?! + Pat has his many faults, but by God, he earns his own way and has to work to make his keep. Unlike the rest of you, who are privileged, entitled, spoiled, rotten, corrupt, up your own arses…..I could go on !

      Just a thought about Pell on this subject. I wonder who is paying for his legal fees ? Because if it was me, I would have to fund it myself. But, I bet his are being paid by the Church in some form or fashion, as happens to any priest who gets in to trouble. Whereas it would bankrupt the rest of us, they just seem to have access to legal funds from….? Yes, you got it, essentially from you and me, suckers that we are, who fund the parish, diocese and Church. Something not exactly right about that, isn’t there ?

      Like

      1. His fees are being paid by the diocese of Sydney.

        Like

      2. 6.32: What a nasty judgment you make! You are grossly unfair and telling lies. Pat, like the rest of clerics, whom you condemn, also depends on the kindness and generosity of others for his survival. (He doesn’t deny this truth). He’s no different to the rest of the clergy. You are completely off mark to suggest that a priest is supplied with a housekeeper, a gardener, etc – all for free. His domestic bills etc..are paid for out of his monthly salary. You’re spinning a complete lie but if it suits your nasty anti clericalism, keep repeating the lie and it will be believed. I am happy with the generosity and kindness of parishioners but they know I am very committed anddedicated. However, I am not a materialist….and can survive on a basic salary. Pat can attest to his earnings (from donors) which he receives for his services, just as I do with the Revenue. Totally above board.

        Like

    2. Where have I said Im great?
      Was Jesus not speaking of you guys when he said

      Jesus’ lips are full of fierce insults for the enemies of the Kingdom of God. “Hypocrites” is a term that appears throughout the whole Gospel (fifteen times). Then there are the two related terms “snakes” and “vipers”. Add to that list “blind fools”, “blind guides”, “wicked”, “perverse”, “evil” and “cursed”.
      See your Barbie and Ken Jesus alongside those words.
      Take your church away with youand lets have Jesus’ Kingdom back.

      Like

      1. 7.26: Indeed Pat, what apt references. Suitable too for your behaviour and mentality. And I’m certain Jesus would intend his words for your ears too! The difference between Jesus and us and you particularly is that he is GOD and while Jesus called reality for what it was, he didn’t steamroll over them. There are huge inconsistencies and hypocrisy in your interpretation of Jesus’s words.

        Like

      2. Jesus detested and challenged the clerics and hierarchs of his time.

        He wants his followers to do the same to the current day ones.

        Like

      3. 7.26: Pat, take your makey up church away from us…how you are easily upset!! My God.

        Like

  12. Magna Carta's Mum 5th Jun 2019 — 7:29 pm

    Magna darling? That is a very strange film you left in mummy’s sitting room. It’s called Polyester and stars a woman who seems to be just called Divine. She stars as the mother of a dysfunctional family – her husband sells porn, her daughter is a slut and her son a criminal. Yet at meals they still say’Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts…’ while ignoring the moral morass surrounding them. It’s just like the Catholic Church!

    Like

    1. Priceless! She’s done it again!

      Like

      1. 8:09
        Who are you? You seem enamoured of my mummy.
        Are you hitting on her?
        WELL?!😡

        Like

  13. It seems to me that this blog is made up of two groups. One group is extreme, the other tries to be rational and fair minded, balanced, good commentators who try to engage in meaningful debate but who are defined as part of the ‘cabal’. The first group is led by Pat and his small cohort of nasty, vitriolic commentators, (MC being the worst) usually eliciting a litany of abuse against all clerics. The second group, lay and clerical are those who try to engage in a conversation in the hope of effecting true renewal but who are mocked, jeered at and belittled by the first group.

    Like

    1. Huh?!😲

      Like

  14. 7 54: Pat, aren’t you another hierarch of another kind? Fancy ring, cross, vestments, teeth made in Hungary……just a different name, the Oratory. And what of Jesus’s reprimand of those who use titles??? Is the title ‘Bishop’ (or titles like Father, Cardinal, Monsignor, Canon) not anathema to the gospel meaning of true service? Surely his criticisms are for you also? Or are you supreme above all others?

    Like

    1. My ring is a composition of my mothers jewellery. I bought my cross on ebay for Euros 40. I went to Hungary because I could not afford Irish or UK prices and had dental problems that could not be solved with ordinary dentistry. The title bishop is the early church title of overseeing elder, which I am. The Oratory means place of prayer. I am trying to be in line with the practices of the early Jesus church.

      Like

      1. 8.44: You have therefore created a new hierarch – with the title elder!! An overseer- think you are confused Pat!! Titles are tiltes however you dress them up. Many clerics I know live very humble, committed and Jesus-like service. Belonging to the Catholic Church does not prohibit or inhibit anyone from living like Jesus. To claim otherwise is silly. God bless our many dedicated priests.

        Like

  15. Fly on Th Wall 5th Jun 2019 — 10:20 pm

    Hi Pat Schtop apologising for your existence. Some of these boyos allegedly have sick heads that only Jesus can fix. Say a wee prayer for them hi.

    Like

    1. Good Nite hi fly.
      Logs and splinters fly and not wanting to see
      the wood from the trees. The Father at 11:06 pm
      is seeing it and telling it butt udders don’t want to
      know preferrin to bury their heads.
      Face the truth and live in the light.
      Say a wee one for me hi.
      Nite fly hi.

      Like

  16. A Priest of Northampton Diocese . 5th Jun 2019 — 11:06 pm

    Lets face up the real truth about Pat and this blog !
    Bishop Pat is not harming the Church ,or any Diocese ,
    or any other Bishop . The Catholic Church itself is doing
    a good enougth job without anyone else
    of pissing in its own tent , and destroying itself ! –

    Like

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 )

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:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close