Bishop Robert Barron Has Misled Ben Shapiro

BARRON

Ben Shapiro recently had Bishop Robert Barron on his show. You can watch the full interview here. I want to draw our attention to one very specific question posed to the Bishop.

@ minute 16:45

Shapiro : “I’m a Jew. I follow the Law. Can I go to Heaven”?

Barron: “Yes…the Catholic view…go back to the 2nd Vatican Council says it very clearly….I mean Christ is the privileged route to salvation…that is the privileged route….However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicitly Christian faith can be saved….it might be received according to your conscience….Now that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism…We would still say the privileged route and the route that God has offered to humanity is the route of His Son…but no, you can be saved..uh…even Vatican II says that an Atheist of good will can be saved…..because in following his conscience…John Henry Newman said the conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ in the soul…it is in fact the voice of Christ…when I follow my conscience, I’m following Him..whether I know it explicitly or not…so even the atheist of good will can be saved”.

What to make of this answer?

Well, for starters, I think that his answer, objectively, is as good as telling Ben Shapiro that he is alright to continue as a Law-keeping Jew, as long as his conscience guides him, and he should make it to heaven regardless of whether he accepts Jesus as Lord and Messiah of Israel or doesn’t. Thus, objectively speaking, Barron’s basic answer to the question is explicitly opposed to the answer given to this question by Jesus Himself and the Holy Spirit speaking through the Apostle Paul. When a Jew asked our Lord “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life”? (Matt 19:16-22), our Lord responded saying, “..keep the commandments”, to which the Jew responded “I have kept all these”. Then, Jesus said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, then come, **follow Me**” (Mark 10:21). Notice our Lord includes following Him as something which the man lacked on his pursuit to attain eternal life. Barron concealed this to Shapiro, and to the watching world.

Secondly, after St. Paul had preached in a Synagogue in Antioch about the fulfillment of God’s promises in Jesus’s resurrection from the dead on the Sabbath, the Jewish people had rejected his message, and contradicted what Paul had said. Then, Paul responded with the following: “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of eternal life, we are now turning to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). Notice, St. Paul says that the Jews, by unbelief, have condemned their souls. He says they have “judged themselves unworthy of eternal life”. For Paul, disbelief to the revealed and spoken gospel of the Lord certainly had an affect on their spiritual destiny. And yet Barron conceals that aspect to Shapiro, and the watching world.

Christ Himself could not have been more clear when he commanded the Apostles saying, “Go and preach the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Whoever does not believe, will be condemned (Mark 16:15-16). St. John writes: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). The Quicunque Vult, otherwise known as the “Athanasian” Creed, states: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith“.

Even Lumen Gentium, the document of Vatican II most devoted to the subject of ecclesiology and soteriology, states the following: “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” (14). If we read that carefully, Vatican II is saying that it is **commanded** by the Lord Jesus as necessary to exercise faith in the one true gospel and to receive sacramental Baptism for the destiny of eternal life. Consequently, anyone who rejects the Lord’s command cannot be saved.

When he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said the following in Dominus Iesus: “This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism ‘characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another”. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a GRAVELY DEFICIENT situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation“. In other words, even in the elastic, speculative, and vastly liberal statements in Vatican II and its post de facto clarification documents, there is the added note that those outside the Church, and especially those disbelieving in the Lord Jesus, are in a gravely dangerous predicament if they fail to investigate and conclude in agreement with the data of divine revelation as promulgated by the Catholic Church.

Barron has misled Shapiro by not even mentioning that he is bound by the Law of God to believe in the Lord Jesus, be baptized, and join the Catholic Church. Focus was placed on conscience, and its liberties; rather than the necessity of one’s proper formation of that conscience in light of God’s revelation. As our Lord said, those who disbelieve will be condemned. That is not an emotional reaction of our Lord. It is a promise of condemnation. And yet Barron is here completely concealing this from the public. Why? Is is awfully misleading. It would be like if someone were to ask a Priest, “Father, I’m living with my girlfriend, having sex outside of marriage…am I eternally screwed”? and the Priest responds, “Naw…just make sure your not in mortal sin by doing it”. Um? Misleading, to say the least.

To make matters even worse, he brings Blessed John Henry Newman to the fore, as if his oft cited comment on the conscience being the Aboriginal Christ would somehow endorse this crypto-indifferentism (yes, I realize Barron attempted to exclude relativism) . Newman would have been disgusted with the way Barron answered this question. On the contrary, Newman was zealous to convert his close associates in the Oxford Movement (the movement of High-Church Anglicans or Anglo-Catholics). He did not call people into the Catholic Church as if it were a more “privileged” option among the world religions. On this point, the late Fr. Stanley Jaki summarized Newman’s position on this quite well after having read all his letters to converts:

Therefore, he felt not only that they [Anglicans] had a grave responsibility to nudge them forward in that move so that they might save their souls. This and nothing else was in Newman’s eye the sole rationale for conversion. He did not call others into the Church as if it were a fuller depository of truth and a more satisfying source of spiritual experience. For him, belonging to the Church was a matter of life and death, eternal in both cases. His letters to converts convey his visceral conviction about a truth which was an existential truth in his eyes….Newman’s theological discourse was existential because he kept in focus that one’s eternal existence was at stake in the decision about whether or not to convert. He singled this out as his sole reason for converting. As a Catholic he never ceased to underline this point by calling prospective converts’ attention to the Roman Church as the ‘”One True Fold’, that is, the only legitimate framework of salvation. He never referred to other Churches as partial realizations of the true Church. He resisted any such trend as promoted in his day. by some Anglicans and Catholics..All his life Newman kept returning to the phrase, ‘One True Fold’, and especially in his dealing with prospective converts” (Newman to Converts: An Existential Ecclesiology, Pg. 8-9)

None of this, however, comes as a surprise. Barron has already been on the record for suggesting, alongside Hans Ur Von Balthasar, that we can have a reasonable hope that all men are saved and awaiting the resurrection unto everlasting life. I’ve written about this extensively elsewhere here and hereNow, to the one who will balk at this critique and insist that Bishop Barron does not deny anything I’ve said, I will say this. And? If he doesn’t deny it, why did he conceal this from Ben Shapiro? I understand there is a need to be ecumenical, and to build bridges, etc,etc. But to short change your dialogue partners by concealing the whole truth for the sake of those bridges, there is a disorder in methodology, and ultimately a malfunction in the Lord’s commission to make disciples of all nations.

40 thoughts on “Bishop Robert Barron Has Misled Ben Shapiro

  1. “Conceal” is used 5 times. Is the bishop actively hiding something?
    What does “follow me” mean?
    As St. Padre Pio once said something to the effect of, ‘You will be surprised at the souls you will find in heaven’.
    St. John Vianney once consoled a woman whose husband took his life, telling her “He is saved” and to pray for the soul.
    We must trust in God’s infinite mercy and understanding of each man, woman and child’s heart.

    God bless you.

    • One day the saintly Curé d’Ars was visited by a Protestant gentleman. The good priest, thinking he was a Catholic, began to speak to him about Our Lord and the Saints, as he was accustomed to do with all who came to see him.

      H029_st-john-vianney.jpg – 31073 Bytes

      The Cure d’Ars did not have the ecumenical spirit
      As the man rose to leave, the Saint gave him a medal as a small remembrance of his visit.

      The gentleman said to him: “Dear sir, you have given a medal to one who is a heretic – at least, I am a heretic from your point of view. But although we are not of the same religion, I hope we shall both be in Heaven one day.”

      St. John Vianney took the man’s hand in his own and, giving him a penetrating look, answered: “Alas, my friend. We cannot be together in Heaven unless we have begun to live so in this world. Death makes no change in that. As the tree falls, so shall it lie.”

      “But, my good Father,” replied the other, “I put my trust in Jesus Christ, Who said, ‘He that believes in Me shall have eternal life.’”

      The priest answered: “Jesus Christ said many more things than that. He also said, ‘He that does not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.’ And he also said, ‘There shall be one fold and one shepherd,’ and He made St. Peter the chief shepherd of His flock.”

      Then he added, “My dear friend, there are not two ways of serving Jesus Christ. There is only one good way, and that is to serve Him as He Himself desires to be served.”

      Saying this, the priest left the man. But these words sank deeply into the Protestant’s heart, and led him to renounce the errors in which he had been brought up, and he became a fervent Catholic.

      • Kurekong,

        Thank you for reading and commenting.

        I used the word “conceal” because I know that Bishop Barron is immersed in the historical theology of Catholicism (NT, Origen, Irenaeus, Augustine, Maximos, Aquinas, and the counter-reformation studies), and so he knows that the Church has always wanted to warn people of the coming wrath, and one’s need to convert to the truth in light of it so that they can ensure their salvation.

        And yet, here he gives off the impression that one can just be a Jew or an Atheist of “good will”, and make it into heaven.

        This is why I described Bishop Barron’s act as one of “misleading”. He did not speak any heresy quite outright. Perhaps, at worst, it is a camouflage heresy. But I chose not to assume that, nor be able to determine that from just the video. I will say that Barron’s teaching on the subject, and particularly his method of delivery, is extremely dangerous to souls. I gave 2 more links toward the end which attempt to show this.

    • I take that to mean that in other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc,etc…there are elements of truth which cannot be flushed in our attempt to engage the mind of their devotees. For example, if a Buddhist says that they hold to the golden rule “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, we would not want to negate that, but respect it. Now, we may argue that the human race needs the grace of Christ to live it out as intended, but we would not shoot the propositional truth down. Another example would be how the Jews believe in Monotheism, that God is eternal, that He is personal, etc,etc. We would want to assert that this is a point of respectable agreement, however much the Jew is in danger of the coming judgment in light of his being non-Christian.

  2. Thank you, Erick. Good post. I think that Bishop Barron has “reduce[d] to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation” (Humani Generis, No. 27).

    As Father Harrison has pointed out, if the Jews do not need Faith in Christ for salvation, then nobody does.

  3. Bishop Barron cannot be reconciled with historic Catholic dogma. Neither can Vatican2.

    He is the stereotypical Vatican2 RC church leader. He echoes the current (and previous) pope’s opinions,
    but there IS NO WAY
    to reconcile his views (nor Vatican2) with these historic views which clearly teach that there is no salvation without submission to the pope and being in communion –

    Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445):
    “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

    The utter disconnect and contradiction is why I can no longer be Catholic. What is accepted today was condemned 75 years ago.

    • David Fincher, you are going to disconnect from the Catholic Church that you know to be necessary for salvation – because others deny this truth? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Jesus is with His Bride to the end of the world, even if it is reduced to a meaningful few members. “I can no longer be Catholic,” is what all heretics and schismatics and apostates have used as an excuse for cutting themselves off from the Sacraments.

  4. I must say, your picture do go rather well with your opinions. At least the Bishop would sit down with the tax collectors. You can thank God that you are not like the Bishop.

  5. My guess is Shapiro knows more about true Catholic teaching than Bp Barron. Shapiro is a serious Jew.

    The question was rhetorical. Shapiro knows the Catholic answer, even if Barron doesn’t.

  6. Does all Israel mean all Jews, blood descendants of the patriarch Jacob – Israel?
    Romans 11:26-27 King James Version (KJV)
    26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

  7. Eric,
    I to am a revert back the Catholic Church.
    But I think Bishop Barron answered the question perfectly.
    Here is his reply to the same accusation
    “The clear teaching is that someone who, through no fault of his own, is following the natural law according to the dictates of his conscience can be saved. I’m not saying he will be saved or that it will be easy for him to be saved–simply that it’s possible. Take a look at Redemptoris Missio, para. 10 from St. John Paul II. That is what I was teaching during the interview.”
    That is exactly what he said in full context.
    It is in Gods hands for salvation.
    Sometimes you may use a hammer. Sometimes not so hard. But the truth is, that if someone

    That same message is in the Baltimore Catechism, in small print.
    What if a man in the middle of the Amazon, in the year 970, died a good man. But never heard the name Jesus. Would he have a chance to be in Heaven?
    Calvinist teaching, no.
    Catholic teaching, it is in Gods hands.

    • The issue is not a man in the Amazon, 970 AD. The issue is an orthodox practicing Jew of high intelligence in mass media info-driven America, 2018 AD.

      The answer is no. The Jew *cannot* be saved with any hope of heaven because they explicitly reject the Advent of Jesus Christ and the efficacy of His perfect sacrifice in expiation for their sins.

      There was a day when Bishops evangelized the world for Jesus Christ and His Gospel. We now live in a day when the Laity must evangelize their Bishops and then also the world.

      Those who remain truly ignorant of Jesus Christ crucified and risen – perfect sacrifice, our Savior, through no fault of their own, have a chance at heaven. That has always been true since St.Paul wrote Romans 1.

      But willful ignorance and rejection of Jesus for the sake of another …. will result in certain condemnation to hell. That message is the Divine Commission commanded by Jesus Christ Himself.

    • Eric, that is the heresy of Pelagianism. All men need sanctifying grace to make them supernaturally good. If a man has good will God will get the Faith to him, if just its essentials, i.e., the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation and Redemption. In emergency, accepting just this, one could be baptized. Anyone can baptize.

      • Eric, If I read correctly (second language speaker here), Brian is just giving the specific name to the misleading answer that Bishop Barron gave to Shapiro.

        Also, thanks for posting this. I was under the impression that the Bishop was wrong, but since I am returning to the Church after being absent for 40 years, I wasn’t so sure.

        On a related note, I was mostly excited to see Shapiro talk to a catholic priest, specially after that “Rubin Report” where they, together with Dr. Peterson talked about something vaguely christian and clearly forgetting the Roman See. I replied asking about which of the 9 thousand protestant denominations were they alluding to, and added a bit of Matthew (16:18) to the mix.

  8. I would suggest reading Romans 2 ,Bishop Barron is correct . You have God in a little box and his mercy only extends to Catholics .

  9. I agree, this response from the Bishop was inadequate, however regarding his opinion that one can hope that all are saved what is one to make of the words of our Blessed Mother, the Fatima prayer, which we recite at the conclusion of each decade of the Holy Rosary: “lead all souls to heaven especially those in most need of thy mercy”? If one can licitly pray for it, one can licitly hope for it, yes?

    • Hey Chris!

      Yes it is fine to pray that because part of “leading souls” to heaven first involves healing the will of the sinner in order that He might choose Christ and Heaven. However, God often respects the decision of our will and if it resolves to remain in rebellion, well then it will not be saved. So yes we pray for God to initiate and lead all men to heaven. But that does not entail that we are praying for God to disregard their rebellious wills and saved them anyway. Far from it. The very process of salvation begins with the healing of the will, which many reject for themselves. Effectively, we want God to convert all sinners to Himself, but we know that God has also spoken clearly of men who resist unto their utter and eternal ruin.

  10. So… pretty much you agree with what Fr. Barron did say, but you wish he would have said more.

    And so because of this you charge one of your Bishops, anointed by God, of false motives, even of deliberately misleading someone to “build a bridge”.

    Are you 100% sure of this charge that you’ve made? Because if you aren’t, then you should not venture off into the territory of assumptions. Even with this post I see hallmarks of rash judgment and calumny (CCC 2477: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm#2477), which are expressly forbidden by the 8th Commandment.

    Now, if you are 100% sure of this charge you’ve made of the Bishop, then wouldn’t the best course of action be to report him to the proper Church Authorities for Bishop Barron breaking the 8th Commandment, rather than committing the sin of detraction (also CCC 2477) against the Bishop?

    You charge your priests and bishops of this generation with watering down the message of Christ, yet you and other Catholic Bloggers of this same generation stain Christ’s name when you engage in breaking His 8th Commandment all over the internet, for the sake of expressing your opinion. You are walking, albeit slowly, the same steps Martin Luther did.

    • @ Webmaster-David are you for real? Do you not clearly see how Barron contradicts Christ? Have you ever bothered to find out what Christ teaches?

    • Webmaster David,

      <>

      It is not that simple. Fr James Martin SJ also will be caught saying something “technically” right, but that hardly defends him in his misleading heresy, i.e. same-sex couples do not have to repent of their relationship in order to have eternal life. Thus, saying something technically true while leaving out necessary data which is associated with a proper understanding is not , ipso facto, free of problems.

      <>

      What did St. Paul say to the Churches of Galatia when they come across anyone, even an “Apostle” or an “Angel from heaven”, if they fudge the gospel? That’s right – “let him be anathema” (Gal 1:6). I say this only to counter your premise that Bishops can’t ever be criticized. In fact, St. Paul opposed St. Peter to his face…publicly. Modern folks with poorly formed consciences would think Paul should have taken Peter aside privately. Non-sense.

      <>

      And what is my charge? I say Bp Barron “misled” Mr. Shapiro. And I think he did. I am willing to defend it, and I have no regrets for making such a public claim. What evidence do you have that I am wrong?

      <>

      Perhaps. But we know the “proper authorites” are not going to do anything. They already permit him to spread the false teachings of Hans Ur Von Balthasar. Bp Barron willfully participated in the LA Congress on Education in 2017, which involved many liberal dissident persons to promote their heresies, and Word on Fire made no quam about their associating with it. Archbishop Gomez it so blame? Sure, but that only strengthens my assumption that the “proper authorities” will not do anything. Heck, Pope Francis will not even investigate the claims of Archbishop Vigano. What tactical precedent, therefore, do you suggest exists in notifying the “proper authorities”?

      <>

      Am I wrong? You’ve provided no evidence to believe so. Even Luther was given the benefit of argument and debate on several occasions (c.f. Eck, Cajetan, Worms).

  11. Pingback: Santa Claus Is A Superhero Too – The Mike Church Show – CRUSADE Channel

  12. It seems to me @BishopBarron actually affirms salvation is only through Christ. The privileged way is through the Church Jesus Himself founded on St. Peter. But as Jesus says in Mk 9:38 “whoever is not against us is for us” so those who follow Christ in conscience are also saved

    • The Jews were the chosen people. Every other people were not of the chosen. The Jews went through the wilderness to the promise. God gave them His law and made His covenant with them. Among those who were not of them were the Samaritans. The Jews despised the Samaritans. Jesus said the Good Samaritan kept the law. The Levite and priest passed by the victim of robbers. Levites are the priests. The outsider kept the law of love. Maybe today He would tell the parable differently. Maybe today He would say to Catholics it was the Good Baptist, or Mormon, or Jew who loved neighbor. He came to the immoral Samaritan woman. Many Samaritans believed, because of what she told them. Believed what? That Jesus is the foretold savior. He says to those who think they are chosen that prostitutes will enter the kingdom before them.

      • I agree that Christ would not write off the spiritual status of a Baptist just because he was outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. However, he would also inform these that there is something “lacking”, as he told the inquiring Jew in the example I gave in the article.

  13. I love Bishop Barron, he’s really helped me grow in my faith, as a teenager/young adult. I think he’s wrong to say we have a reasonable hope that Hell is empty. I’d like to see him debate someone on that. But otherwise he’s solid. He’s inspiring. He was a great rector of the seminary here in Mundelein and a great bishop, it seems.

    I really don’t think telling Ben Shapiro outright that he should convert would really have done much? Like … I dunno. I’m conflicted here. I don’t think that’s a wise evangelizing strategy, especially when he’s not talking *just* to Ben. It’s an interview that will be published to others, and I don’t think many would take kindly to that. I just dunno. It’s conflicting for me. I would have given the answer the Bishop gave if posed that question, out of tact. I guess it’s a question of balancing tact and the cold hard truth?

    • “I really don’t think telling Ben Shapiro outright that he should convert would really have done much? Like … I dunno. I’m conflicted here. I don’t think that’s a wise evangelizing strategy…and I don’t think many would take kindly to that”

      Thanks for your comment Mr. Johnson. And I have to agree that Bishop Barron has helped me in *many* ways in the past, especially in my early formation as a Catholic. However, it has been at least 2 years that his liberal side has come out, and it is dissappointing. Saying that its possible that all men are saved (all dying in a state of repentant faith and free of mortal sin) and that we actually have a *reasonable* hope that this is the case, is not only misleading, it contradicts the written word of our God. Of course, there are Catholics, taking queue from Hans Ur Von Balthasar (& Co.), that would disagree with me. That’s fine. But if I may express my opinion on the matter, I’ve given two links towards the bottom of my article (where it says “here and here”) which give my Scriptural arguments as to why His excellency is fatally mistaken.

      On this answer to Ben Shapiro – I agree that tact must be used. But, God help me, I cannot see any favorable argument to defend that communicating to people that they have options, despite their knowing about Christ and His holy Church, and that, through their own free formation of conscience, is extremely dangerous. At the very least, he should have communicated that Mr. Shapiro stands under divine sanctions to obey the gospel call to faith, baptism, and Imperial obedience to the Lord Jesus. That is, after all, how St. Paul finished his own public address to the Athenians on Mars Hill (Acts 17:30-31). If we want to give ourselves a Biblical precedent for approaching pagans and non-believers, surely this Mars Hill address is a good paradigm. But Barron is not even speaking to pagans, but to a Jewish man who is devoutly adherent to the Mosaic Torah. There is even *more obligation* to inform this man that he is without salvation if He rejects Christ.

      Recall, God does not permit us to fudge the gospel, nor any of its offensive challenges, because of an impending failure of evangelistic success. Sure, Christ said to be wise as serpents, and we should use tact (1 Cor 9). St. Paul says as much. But when it comes to short changing our listeners, or molding the truth such that the message is subtracted from, would be the other ditch we can fall into.

  14. Pingback: Bishop Barron on Atheist’ Ethical Passion | Erick Ybarra – Credo Ut Intelligam

  15. I would say you are being too critical of the good bishop’s words and intent. His words are faithful to our teachings. He qualifies, correctly, the distinctions you are trying to wedge into this post.

  16. Pingback: The “Spirit of Assisi” Must Be Burned | Erick Ybarra – Credo Ut Intelligam

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