New Sherwood

Pope Francis turns Sistine Chapel into corporate playground

PorscheParty
Pope Francis likes to say that God is full of surprises. Actually, it is Pope Francis who is full of surprises, and they just keep coming fast and furiously. Like a Porsche. These days they are coming so fast that I’m more surprised when there is a day without papal surprises. In any case, the latest jaw-dropper: The Holy Father is renting out the Sistine Chapel to Porsche AG for one of their corporate galas. This is part of a new initiative for soliciting corporate donations for the pope’s charity projects. The article states that the Vatican wants to retain the visitor cap at six million per year to protect the artwork: that means more wealthy corporate executives, and fewer regular Catholics on pilgrimage.

“Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” – Luke 18:8

Advertisements

October 17, 2014 - Posted by | Uncategorized

45 Comments »

  1. …at least they’re not “neoplatonists??!?” or “crypto-level brians??” or whatever “slang-term-of-the-day” it is I am. Ugh…no wonder my hair’s grey (or is it “g-r-a-y??)

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Dave Heath | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  2. “How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor.” – Pope Francis

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Blogmaster | October 17, 2014 | Reply

    • “How I would like a church that is Porsche and for the Porsche.”

      Fixed.

      Liked by 3 people

      Comment by A.A.E. | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  3. “How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor.” – Pope Francis
    If the corporations will come into the sanctuary, the poor will be banned from the same sanctuary. Therefore, no poor church for the poor.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by twoheartswa | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  4. MMMM, the smell of fresh simony bums in the morning

    Like

    Comment by Mighty Joe Young | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  5. “How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor….except for the Germans and their Church tax salaries. That’s OK.” – Pope Francis

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by drprice2 | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  6. Ha – and you all keep accusing him of being a socialist! Obviously, he is a first class capitalist!!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by c matt | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  7. Yet in a way it is consistent–though I don’t say this as a compliment. Francis disdains the treasures and beautiful artwork of the church. He sees it as deserving to exist only to the extent that it can be turned to some pragmatic end. Thus the idea that this is a classless, tacky thing for him to do carries no weight with him whatsoever. And the desire of real pilgrims to see the chapel is of no value to him. He sees the latter as mere superstition which does no good to the poor or for any other pragmatic end that he values. To rent out the Sistine Chapel is just a smaller version of melting down the gold owned by the Vatican and giving it away to some good cause. It is part of a generally socialistic and materialistic approach. Nothing beautiful has higher symbolic or spiritual value. It is all, at most, there only to be _used_ if it can be for some earthly cause he deems worthy. And if it can’t be, it’s existence as a treasure is unjustifiable.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Lydia | October 18, 2014 | Reply

  8. I made an its/it’s error and hit “publish” before catching it. How embarrassing. :-)

    Like

    Comment by Lydia | October 18, 2014 | Reply

  9. I visited the Sistine Chapel a number of years ago, while Benedict was Pope, and it was a tourist trap disaster. Packed to the gills, guards yelling at people not to take pictures … I can’t really describe how dreadful it was, with one of the treasures of Christendom being treated like Space Mountain at Disneyland. I wouldn’t be surprised to find gum stuck to the underside of the altar.

    At least wealthy corporate patrons will take better care of it than Joe Public. Democratically allowing everyone in is a disaster. Tickets should be expensive enough to keep the volume of visitors low, with perhaps some special ‘free’ tickets for a small number of pilgrims and poor. You can’t just let crowds of modern jackasses swarm these sacred places without turning them into a profane circus, or worse.

    The only time I’ve ever watched someone smoke during Mass was at St. Peters, that same week.

    Like

    Comment by Zippy | October 18, 2014 | Reply

  10. This Fortune article gives interesting insight into the Vatican’s operating finances (HT Paul Cella). N.B. that, at least when I was there, entrance to the Sistine Chapel was part of what you got with your museum ticket. The museum itself was great, qua museum. I’ve already attempted to describe my visit to the chapel.

    With about $300 million in annual operating revenues, the Vatican is roughly the size of (actually a bit smaller than) a second-tier bicycle manufacturer like Cannondale; and is a financial gnat next to a top-tier bike maker like Trek. Compared to Google or Exxon, the Vatican is like a local gas station owner compared to Don Henley or Jerry Seinfeld or some other rich celebrity.

    Like

    Comment by Zippy | October 18, 2014 | Reply

  11. Errata — meant to use Giant Bicycles as the top tier example.

    Rough annual revenues:

    Vatican – $300 million

    Giant Bicycles – $2 billion

    Google – $60 billion

    Like

    Comment by Zippy | October 18, 2014 | Reply

  12. At least wealthy corporate patrons will take better care of it than Joe Public. Democratically allowing everyone in is a disaster. Tickets should be expensive enough to keep the volume of visitors low, with perhaps some special ‘free’ tickets for a small number of pilgrims and poor.

    You are right, Zippy, that controlling numbers of visitors is critical to keeping the things’ value. However, there are plenty of ways of doing that without making it a reserve for the rich. Lotteries for those who apply early, prizes of free tickets for certain school (and other) groups that prove special worthiness, even handing out time-stamped tickets the morning of – until you run out of times – works fine. All sorts of national treasures manage with these techniques. You can even marry up taking profits from rich groups with democratic intent by using part of the profits to pay travel costs of very worthy poor groups that couldn’t otherwise actually take advantage of their free tickets (i.e. “scholarships”).

    The Church either should never accept gifts of art – even of magnificent churches – because the wealth could have been “sold and given to the poor”, or, if she does accept such gifts she should maintain them under the agreed understanding with which they were given: the Church as steward so that the art can benefit the many – but benefit them as art, as something beautiful and noble which lifts the heart and mind to God. Needless to say, the former option is the Judas approach.

    Like

    Comment by Tony | October 20, 2014 | Reply

  13. Tony:

    However, there are plenty of ways of doing that without making it a reserve for the rich.

    Not without going broke. The financial reality is that you either have few tickets at high prices or many tickets at low prices.

    Like

    Comment by Zippy | October 21, 2014 | Reply

  14. I am not following that: stadium seating has no problem seating a few at high price and many at low price. You simply provide “better” access for the higher price: smaller groups, after hours, longer viewing, presentations by highly acclaimed artists, whatever. I was not proposing that ALL the tickets be for free, only that most of the tickets (however many there ought to be consistent with preserving the Chapel) be available to those of modest means, (like the current prices) instead of wholly reserved for the rich.

    Like

    Comment by Tony | October 21, 2014 | Reply

  15. I suppose I have a different take on this. First, I don’t think the Vatican should be charging visitors at all. Second, if numbers are an issue, visitors should be restricted to those attending religious services. And there should be religious services ALL DAY long, back to back. But no more tourists. That’s the problem, right there. It’s a chapel, not a museum.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Blogmaster | October 21, 2014 | Reply

  16. Tony:
    You can’t reduce volume and maintain revenue without increasing average ticket price. That’s simple math.

    Jeff:
    That might be the ideal, but if you are going to forego the operating income you either have to replace it from somewhere else or cut costs (that is, fire people, since labor is the largest expense in almost every operating budget). The Forbes article is pretty informative here.

    Like

    Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014 | Reply

    • Any idea what the operating budget is for the chapel alone? Like any other chapel, there would be donations from worshipers. Pass the plate. With so many services and visitors I think they could generate plenty. But if that isn’t quite enough, the Vatican should subsidize. Remember, this corporate donation initiative isn’t even intended to fund the chapel’s expenses, but other charity programs.

      Like

      Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014 | Reply

  17. Jeff:
    According to the Fortune (not Forbes, my bad) article I linked above, $130 million a year comes from the museums-plus-chapel. What would happen to that revenue stream if the Chapel were ‘dissociated’ is probably a difficult question to answer, but if I have the numbers right that is nearly half of the Vatican’s operating revenues. So it appears to be a financially nontrivial question, and you certainly aren’t going to raise that level of money passing the plate. The Chapel is not that large, so even a constant stream of Masses with a plate passed isn’t likely to touch numbers like that.

    Like

    Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014 | Reply

    • I don’t know, Zippy. I just looked up the annual operating budget of St. Patrick’s Cathedral – $3.5 million. The cathedral gets more than 5 million visitors per year, which is comparable to the Sistine Chapel. And all tours are free of charge.

      Like

      Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014 | Reply

      • Going out on a limb here, but if I had to guess I would surmise that the Sistine Chapel is much smaller and less expensive to maintain than St. Patrick’s.

        Like

        Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014

      • $3.5 million is chump change next to $130 million. And again, offhand I’d guess that the Chapel is far smaller, having stood there myself. That was its most striking (in the sense of least expected) feature to me personally. If that’s right then comparable numbers of visitors makes the point that far too many people are being crammed into far too small a space.

        I’m not reaching a particular conclusion here without more data; in fact it is my most basic point that folks should not jump to conclusions without fully understanding the situation.

        Like

        Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014

      • Jeff:
        If your concern is maintenance cost of the Chapel specifically you haven’t grasped the situation. The museums (Chapel included) are profit centers which provide half of The Vatican’s total operating revenue. Set the makntenance cost of the Chapel itself to zero; you haven’t changed a thing except to increase its importance as a revenue producer.

        Like

        Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014

      • I get that, Zippy. But I have a visceral objection to the idea of the Sistine Chapel being relied upon as a “revenue producer”. It’s de-sacralizing if not desecrating. And it opens the door to all manner of abuses.

        Like

        Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014

      • I hear you Jeff. It should be noted though, in fairness, that using the chapel to produce operating revenue didn’t start with Francis. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Francis, but in this instance he seems to be guilty of doing a better job at what other Popes had already been doing for quite some time.

        Like

        Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014

  18. Zippy, your numbers could be refined quite a bit. The city-state side of the operation is as follows:

    Last year the city state spent around $332 million and collected $377 million, for a “profit” of $45 million.

    The $130 from the museum / chapel is just about 35%.

    The religious / curial side of the operation is as follows:

    For 2013 the Holy See posted revenues of $315 million and expenses of $348 million, for a $33 million deficit. Since 2007 the total shortfalls have totaled $56 million.

    So totals run around $700 M. the $130 from museum plus Chapel fees is around 18% of the total. It is not easy to replace that kind of portion, but that’s nowhere near the 1/2 that Zippy alludes to. I find it amazing that the dioceses around the world only bear about 4.5% of the total, I would say that’s a feature ripe for adjustment. Headquarters operations should be supported more fully by the local entities: a person could suggest that in theory, the local Churches should be responsible for all (non-city-state) costs that arise other than from running the diocese of Rome itself as a diocese.

    In terms of the principle of the matter, it seems very, very problematic to charge a fee specifically for visiting a chapel: “and make not the house of my Father a house of traffic.” In the past the fees were for the “museum plus chapel”, which at least makes it possible to claim that the core fee structure is for the museum. The new events in the chapel for the ritz with a fee undercuts that notional treatment.

    If the primary question is “should we charge fees for visiting the Chapel”, you can argue that fees needed for sustaining it are (barely) permissible, and collections freely offered in excess may be used for maintaining the Vatican as a whole. Yet the Church has often directed entities NOT to charge even for things that technically may bear a charge, when they are closely associated with things for which no charge is allowed, just so as to avoid the appearance of contamination by giving the appearance of charging for that which may not bear a charge.

    If the primary question is “how shall we pay for all of the Vatican’s operations,” surely the question arises alongside: “which operations shall we cut first if we don’t have the money for them?” Surely tourist operations should not take precedence over fundamental governance and worship activities, and so cutting tourist operations should be considered except to the extent they are (a) consistent with overarching principles, and (b) profitable, and in that order;?. So if the only way that you can maintain various tourism activities including Chapel tourism is by charging for it over and above the cost of maintaining the Chapel itself, then it seems rather obvious that’s not a good enough reason to levy such charges in the face of Christ’s warning.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Tony | October 22, 2014 | Reply

    • I think there are many, many possibilities for making up a shortfall – even of $130MM – apart from turning the Sistine Chapel into a profit-center. The Peter’s Pence collection alone generates $70MM per year. It was over $100MM in 2006. The Vatican just needs new priorities.

      Like

      Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014 | Reply

    • Jeff:

      I think there are many, many possibilities for making up a shortfall – even of $130MM – apart from [keeping the] the Sistine Chapel [as] a profit-center [as has been the practice for at least the past few papacies]. The Peter’s Pence collection alone generates $70MM per year. It was over $100MM in 2006. The Vatican just needs new priorities.

      Yeah, sure. Any armchair keyboard warrior can conjure $130 million out of the air in the context of a sub-$1B operation. What could be simpler?

      It becomes harder to take your guys’ concerns seriously when you refuse to take reality seriously.

      Like

      Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014 | Reply

      • The Vatican Bank administers $6 billion in assets. Maybe some of that would help? But no matter, Zippy: if preserving the Sistine Chapel for it’s intended use means the Vatican losing a big chunk of revenue, then I’m fine with that. There is a God, and He honors such things.

        Like

        Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014

      • We’re off on a bit of a tangent. That’s OK, but back to the topic: Pope Francis’ new initiative of trading use of the Sistine Chapel for large corporate “donations” (we dare not call it “renting”) is NOT for the purpose of funding Vatican operations, but for the pope’s own philanthropic work. That’s a whole ‘nother level of a problem.

        Like

        Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014

      • Jeff:

        The Vatican Bank administers $6 billion in assets.

        You do understand that administering $6 billion in assets does not mean that the bank or the Vatican itself owns $6 billion in assets, right? If a bank manager spends depositors money that is theft.

        Also, even if those were the Vatican’s assets to spend, which they are not, there is a radical difference between liquidation of assets and operating income. Once you spend it is is gone, and will not help you fund continuing operations into the future.

        The priorities you guys talk about are all costs. It costs money to govern, worship, help the poor, pay employees, etc etc etc. Those are all ongoing costs which don’t go away. In order to fund them you have to have constant sources of income.

        It is all well and good to say “I don’t care, it is worth firing a lot of people, helping fewer of the poor, holding fewer Masses, and generally getting by with less, no matter what that entails, in order to change the way things have worked for generations w.r.t. the Chapel”.

        But most sane people would not be willing to sign up to the “no matter what that entails” bit; and none of us here actually know what those consequences are, although from what we do know they are sure to be material.

        Like

        Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014

      • Jeff:

        … is NOT for the purpose of funding Vatican operations, but for the pope’s own philanthropic work.

        Money is fungible. More income means you have more to give to the poor.

        You just don’t get it.

        Like

        Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014

      • “You do understand that administering $6 billion in assets does not mean that the bank or the Vatican itself owns $6 billion in assets, right?”

        Good point, but the Vatican is reported to own around $15 billion in assets, and I would imagine that some of that is administered by the Vatican Bank. But I don’t know. The point being, Zippy, is that the Vatican is not without other income-generating resources. I’m just throwing that out there. I really don’t give a fig what it costs to return the Sistine Chapel to full-time religious use. As I said, there is a God, and He can make up the difference if Vatican accountants can’t figure it out.

        Like

        Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014

      • Jeff:

        I really dont give a fig [who starves]…

        Yes, well, and I really dont give a fig about the opinions of people who don’t give a fig about the consequences of the prudential choices they advocate. So unless you’ve got an argument that what the Church has been doing with that one small room inside a much larger building for generations is intrinsically immoral, your views should be set aside as irrelevant and histrionic.

        Like

        Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014

      • “Money is fungible. More income means you have more to give to the poor.”

        True, but is anything justified in order to give money to the poor? Some things are more important. The worship of God is certainly more important. Renting out the Sistine Chapel for profane use – or any place consecrated for divine worship – in order to generate money for the poor is just a Godless, faithless, filthy way to go about things. (Nevermind that I do not trust this pope’s “philanthropic” programs to be Catholic in any sense).

        Like

        Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014

      • ” … your views should be set aside as irrelevant and histrionic.”

        I hate losing old friends, but you’ve worn out your welcome here for a while.

        Like

        Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014

  19. Tony:

    Zippy, your numbers could be refined quite a bit.

    Sure, whatever. You can lump the city-state and the Holy See together without changing orders of magnitude. Doing so changes nothing material about the discussion.

    If the primary question is “how shall we pay for all of the Vatican’s operations,” surely the question arises alongside: “which operations shall we cut first if we don’t have the money for them?” Surely tourist operations should not take precedence over fundamental governance and worship activities …

    You still have it upside down. Tourist activities are not a net cost, they are a source of income. “Cutting” them is like quitting your job, not cutting expenses. “Cutting” them means you either have to stop spending the income they produce or replace it from somewhere else.

    Like

    Comment by Zippy | October 22, 2014 | Reply

  20. It seems to me that Jeff made an excellent point about this rental not being for purposes of Vatican operating expenses but rather that it is part of an _additional_ charitable fund-raising effort by the Pope. I don’t think the “fungibility” point is really responsive to what Jeff said. While it is true that, indeed, this _is_ apparently raising extra money to give to the poor (indeed, one needn’t even invoke fungibility to say that, since the money is apparently going directly to a designated charity), so what? What Jeff’s point shows is that the whole discussion of Vatican operating expenses in the context of _this_ story is a red herring. _This_ story isn’t _about_ the Pope’s doing what is necessary to keep Vatican operating expenses going. _This_ story is about the Pope’s doing something additional that wasn’t done before–namely, renting the Sistine Chapel to Porsche corporation–to raise _extra_ money for some cause he deems worthy. If one doesn’t think that extra money raised for that worthy cause is worth the distasteful nature of that particular rental, then everything else is beside the point. If one doesn’t find the rental distasteful in the first place, then of course one will think it’s no problem to do the rental to raise extra money for that cause. Everything else is just a distraction from what looks to me like that fundamental divide.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Lydia | October 22, 2014 | Reply

    • Precisely, Lydia.

      Zippy’s original point seems to have been “the Sistine Chapel is already being used for generating revenue, so what’s the problem?” Perhaps without intending to, he did help shed some light on the problem: the profit-center mentality is already established there. If it was employed cautiously before – avoiding scandal because of plausibly religious motives on the part of the Chapel’s paying visitors – all caution is thrown to the winds with an irreverent man like Francis at the helm.

      Like

      Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014 | Reply

  21. Although to be fair I should say that it appears that you and Tony are taking a rather more sweeping stance regarding the use of the Chapel for tourist purposes, and that strong position does (I suppose) tend to introduce the larger questions of how much revenue loss is acceptable if tourism is downplayed and whether it can be made up elsewhere.

    Zippy is right that administrators of large institutions have a grave responsibility not to bring things to rack and ruin and cause lots of collateral damage to the innocent unnecessarily. At that point we have both an empirical and a moral question. Empirically, will the consequences really be as dire as predicted (or how dire will they be)? Morally, what counts as “unnecessarily”?

    Like

    Comment by Lydia | October 22, 2014 | Reply

    • “Empirically, will the consequences really be as dire as predicted (or how dire will they be)? Morally, what counts as ‘unnecessarily’?”

      Great questions to discuss and debate. I might reluctantly go along with a limited degree of paid tourism – there is legitimate historical, cultural, and artistic interest in the Sistine Chapel that is not motivated by the Faith – but it must be treated as a place consecrated for divine worship at all times, and furthermore, any contrary impression must be scrupulously avoided, lest the faithful be scandalized. That’s really where the line needs to be drawn. Apparently, the appropriate reverence has been lacking for quite some time.

      Like

      Comment by Blogmaster | October 22, 2014 | Reply

  22. The Vatican Museums and Sistine Chapel are open to tourists from 8:30am to 4:00pm, Monday through Saturday. How many Masses could be celebrated in this Chapel during those times? Divine Offices? Rosaries? According to one website, there are presently no public Masses offered in the Sistine Chapel at any time.

    Like

    Comment by Blogmaster | October 23, 2014 | Reply

  23. Zippy is right that administrators of large institutions have a grave responsibility not to bring things to rack and ruin and cause lots of collateral damage to the innocent unnecessarily.

    Quite right, Lydia. But administrators of charitable enterprises have an even MORE fundamental duty before that of maintaining the entity as a going concern: not to undermine the very concept and nature of the enterprise with actions that defy its principles. So, if it were to be found that charging to visit a chapel were inherently disruptive of the principles that stand alongside Jesus’ sweeping the Temple of merchants, then we would have to say: better to go to ruin for lack of support than to destroy yourself internally.

    However, there is yet another principle that comes into play for institutions, especially charitable ones: don’t spend money you don’t have. Each year the Pope spends millions on charitable causes, out of the $ 700M or so total budget. In 2013 it was $50M. Hey, if you don’t have it, don’t spend it. Suppose you cut the museum tour down to 10 Euros instead of 16, and cut the Sistine Chapel off the tour, and take a hit of $50M in revenue. OK, we can accommodate that hit by simply not spending the $50M that Francis spent on charitable causes. If it is inappropriate to charge for visiting a church, and you can see a way of “maintaining operations” within that budget constraint by simply no longer spending the money that was bringing in on charitable works, you have a financially viable option.

    To return to my earlier comment: the 4.5% support from dioceses apparently comes from the voluntary collections taken up there, mainly as “Peter’s Pence.” (They need to ditch the name, apparently people still think that a penny is a worthwhile contribution.) Well, that’s a model that can change. My diocese (and I have to assume others probably do the same) levy a “charge” on my parish of a certain portion of the weekly contribution, just off the top. As its share of what people give the parish. And it’s more than 4.5%. I understand that legally (under state law) there is a difference in structure in the relationship between a diocese and its parish, and the Vatican and a diocese. But that legality aside, the rules of canon law can be written to recapitulate SOMETHING of the same notion.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Tony | October 23, 2014 | Reply

  24. “But administrators of charitable enterprises have an even MORE fundamental duty before that of maintaining the entity as a going concern: not to undermine the very concept and nature of the enterprise with actions that defy its principles. So, if it were to be found that charging to visit a chapel were inherently disruptive of the principles that stand alongside Jesus’ sweeping the Temple of merchants, then we would have to say: better to go to ruin for lack of support than to destroy yourself internally.”

    It’s funny you should say this, because it recapitulates a debate I was having on Facebook this week about Christian colleges that continue to employ faculty who teach that homosexuality is morally licit. I was arguing exactly what you are arguing here on that point: Better for the college to close its doors, if that were the price, than to keep putting itself forward as a Christian institution and taking parents’ money under that pretense while its faculty use its classes to undermine the morals of the students on this fundamental issue. Not that I agree either with my FB friend that Christian schools would be sued into nonexistence (and all the innocent faculty and their families suffer, etc., etc.) if they stood firm on that issue. There are legal protections in place for explicitly Christian institutions to require good faith adherence to their own statements of faith. But *even if* it came to that, then so be it. Otherwise the school is just a sham.

    Your argument here reminded me of that. But here, as there, the empirical prediction of “it would all come tumbling down” is also open to doubt.

    Like

    Comment by Lydia | October 23, 2014 | Reply

  25. Here’s an example of what I mean: my diocese, not a specially large one, has an annual budget of $30 million. Say the average is more modest, $20M. There are 2800 dioceses around the world, but let’s say that 500 of them are too poor to help pay for the Vatican. If the rest of the dioceses pay just 1% of their intake to the Vatican, that would be $460M in revenue. I assure you that 1% is a FAR lower rate than my diocese’s “share” of the parish’s intake each week. A set-up like that would take care of the entirety of the “religious” side of the Vatican’s budget.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Tony | October 23, 2014 | Reply


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

%d bloggers like this: