Saturday, January 9, 2016

Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord please don't let me be misunderstood
The Animals 1965

From the very first day that he stepped out on the balcony of St Peter's, there have been those who have been horrified at Pope Francis. As a matter of fact, a blog headline on that first day of his pontificate read "The Horror". Even though the only actions the Pope had taken, as the Pope, at that time was that he wanted to dress and live simply, he waved and he asked for prayer. Even so, from that day to this, for nearly three years many have done whatever they can to prove that Pope Francis is not the man for the job. Every breath he takes, every move he makes, every single day and every word he says, they've been watching him. Watching for every misstep, watching for every misspoken word or mistranslation, watching for every analogy that might not hold up. Scrutinizing every  homily for the most minuscule perception of inconsistency. Then using those perceived inconsistencies to prove that Pope Francis is not worthy to be pope. Not only is he not worthy through an impression of ineptitude but rather they contend that he is an intentional heretic and a danger to the Church. They are then completely justified in turning others against him.

I have begun to get the reputation of a pope defender of none renown. I don't have enough people reading my blogs to claim any renown. Even so there are a couple of people who have Googled me and have seen that I have defended the Pope on more than one occasion. Those who wish to challenge my position often resort to a question like "Oh, so you just (blindly) think everything the Pope does is just swell?" Not necessarily. But I do give him the benefit of the doubt when something controversial is reported and I investigate. More times than not I find that while it may be said that the Pope is possibly unorthodox in style he is not heterodox in what he has said or done. I try to discover what the Pope may have been intending to teach me. I also know, if he makes a mistake, that "all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose"(Rom 8:28). So when the Pope makes a mistake, even if he is out and out wrong, I am not afraid the Church will come crashing to the ground. I believe that the Holy Father loves God and has been called according to his purpose, that Jesus sanctifies his Bride the Church and that the Holy Spirit is active in guiding it. I do not expect perfection from the Pope, I know that he is human. The Church does not teach that everything that the Pope says and does will be perfect, that it will not be subject to human flaws. The Pope's intentions are good. I believe, however, that he is often deliberately misunderstood. Some may say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That may be so. But right back at ya. It could also be said that to justify turning others against the Vicar of Christ, through intentions that we might consider good, a grave matter as well.

The words of the Holy Father are often challenging. They require us to dig a little deeper and think a little harder. Knowledge and understanding are more easily retained when we have to seek it for ourselves rather than having it spoon feed to us. I think that we don't always want to put that much effort into it. We prefer to be spoon fed a pablum of Vatican clarifications of the Pope's words and intent. I wonder sometimes, is the Pope really that confusing? Because I am not confused by him. I wonder if it is truly a matter of ambiguity and lack of clarity or if many are confused by him plain and simply because they are being told that they are supposed to be? I do know that the Pope is often misunderstood. I also know with certainty that there are times that this is intentionally and deliberately so.

Recently such misunderstanding has surrounded the homily that Pope Francis gave on the Feast of the Holy Family. There are some that have determined that the Pope said that Jesus sinned or that he required forgiveness and mercy due to sin. I have read that homily and can say that even on the face of it, Pope Francis said no such thing. A couple of bloggers that I know have written some very good articles explaining things, both men far more astute and erudite than I in the areas of theology and apologetics. The first being Scott Eric Alt's article "Does the Pope Really Think Jesus Sinned" and a second piece by Dave Armstrong "Pope Francis Espoused a Sinning Jesus? Think Again"

My perspective comes from that of your common every day pew sitter. Speaking as an average Catholic I think you can give most of us a little credit as to having a certain amount of intelligence and at least an elementary knowledge of Church teaching. We also can handle a bad analogy from the Pope or something that might be misspoken without getting all shocked, shaken or jeopardizing our faith. Most of us do have the ability to interpret something that might be unclear through something that has been previously made clear. The Church teaches that Jesus was fully human in everything except sin. That has been made clear. The Pope has said it, as well, more than once as referenced in the two articles I have mentioned. The Pope does not then have to clarify that in every homily. He might be able to assume that would be the default understanding. Unless, of course, you are looking to find fault with something that he said.

Our Holy Father, in his homily, spoke of the family as being on pilgrimage together specifically in worshipping and praying together. He spoke as well of the importance of mercy in the family and that family is "a privileged place" of giving and receiving forgiveness and "experiencing the joy of forgiveness."  He then used the gospel of that day, the finding of Jesus in the temple, and related it to the human experience within this context. Although I would recommend reading the entire homily in order to clearly understand the context of Pope Francis' words, the following is the portion that seems to have been the source of misunderstandings.

At the end of that pilgrimage, Jesus returned to Nazareth and was obedient to his parents (cf. Lk 2:51).  This image also contains a beautiful teaching about our families.  A pilgrimage does not end when we arrive at our destination, but when we return home and resume our everyday lives, putting into practice the spiritual fruits of our experience.  We know what Jesus did on that occasion.  Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him.  For this little “escapade”, Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents.  The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.  Mary’s question, moreover, contains a certain reproach, revealing the concern and anguish which she and Joseph felt.  Returning home, Jesus surely remained close to them, as a sign of his complete affection and obedience.  Moments like these become part of the pilgrimage of each family; the Lord transforms the moments into opportunities to grow, to ask for and to receive forgiveness, to show love and obedience.
In the Year of Mercy, every Christian family can become a privileged place on this pilgrimage for experiencing the joy of forgiveness.  Forgiveness is the essence of the love which can understand mistakes and mend them.  How miserable we would be if God did not forgive us! Within the family we learn how to forgive, because we are certain that we are understood and supported, whatever the mistakes we make.

The word "sin" is not actually used within the homily, not once. The Holy Father does use the word "mistake". Within context, however, it seems that he is speaking about our experiences in families and not speaking of Jesus. Most of the objections seemed to arise from the use of the word "escapade" and the idea that Jesus may have asked for the forgiveness of his parents.

You may find the use of the word "escapade" to be a little cheeky. Then again, the word is enclosed in quotation marks indicating the Pope was probably being a little tongue in cheek and not literal. Lord help us, however, if our faith can be shaken on a cheeky reference from the Pope. Then again, have any of us been in a situation like that, where we couldn't find one of our children? Not through sin or fault but because of a miscommunication or misunderstanding? Then, after they are found safe and sound the story is told at family events as an "escapade"? I can relate a story from my own family. My sister and her son became separated at the mall. Often we tell our children to stay where they are when they become separated and wait for us to find them. My nephew, thinking the one place his mother would have to return to would be the car, went out to the parking lot, got in the car and waited patiently for his mother to find him. He was completely unaware of the furor going on inside of the mall as my sister searched frantically for him with the help of mall security. Did my nephew sin? Of course not. He did what he thought would be the right thing. Eventually he was found safe and sound. This "escapade" is now part of the lore related at family events.

In a similar way, Jesus thought that he was in a place where his parents could find him. He answered a call to be in his father's house. When Mary and Joseph found him they expressed that anxiety, without sin. Any parent who has lost a child for more than a minute understands the profound depth of that kind of distress, as well as the depth of relief when they are found.  In answering his parents some have said that Jesus was challenging them with a higher calling to be in his father's house. I think, however, that it was possible that there was merely some surprise there. "I had no idea. I honestly believed that if you couldn't find me you would know that I would be in my father's house and would be safe there." Honoring your father and mother is a commandment. The Lord holds that commandment in high enough regard that the keeping of it will bring you long life and the answers to your prayers. So could Jesus have asked forgiveness because of his parents distress? To honor his father and mother? Jesus often did what was right because it was right. He did many things to demonstrate humility, obedience and because they were required by the commandments. So I find it completely credible that Jesus may have said "I'm sorry you were so worried." and his parents may have responded "We are sorry that we did not understand,"

Have you ever said you were sorry not because you were at fault due to sin, but because of a misunderstanding or miscommunication? Have you said your were sorry because it was the right thing to do? Have you said you were sorry because, even though you were not at fault, not to do so would have been a matter or pride? Have you ever said you were sorry because the other person might need to hear it? I have. Jesus who was perfect, and his parents who were of far greater virtue than me may have as well. Sometimes asking for forgiveness is an act of humility. And sometimes when we ask for forgiveness we are actually extending mercy rather than requiring it.

"Let us not lose confidence in the family!  It is beautiful when we can always open our hearts to one another, and hide nothing.  Where there is love, there is also understanding and forgiveness.  To all of you, dear families, I entrust this most important mission - the domestic pilgrimage of daily family life - which the world and the Church need, now more than ever."

These are the final words of the Holy Father's homily. I believe we should take them to heart and extend them to the Pope as well. We should, through charity, first seek understanding regarding what the Pope says and does. Sometimes he may very well be wrong. In this case, I do not believe that he was, nor do I believe that his message was as confusing that some would have lead us to believe. His words did not put into question the teaching that Jesus was without sin. Nor did they cause me to doubt his divinity. The default position in reading this passage of scripture is that Jesus was without sin and that Marty did not sin as well. The default position with the Pope should be to seek orthodoxy first. Unless of course one chooses to be obstinate in misunderstanding him.

He's just a soul whose intentions are good.
Oh, Lord please don't let him be misunderstood.

For what it's worth.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Headlines, G-Spots, Hoax and Hype

Put the words "female sexual" anything with the word Vatican and you've got yourselves a headline that will certainly pique the interest of many. That's the function of a headline, to intrigue and interest the reader enough that they will then read the article. However, often in today's world of scrolling and trolling on the internet many readers don't go beyond the headline. So it is that headline that tells the story for them and what might actually be in the article or what actually might be the truth really doesn't matter much. The damage has been done with a provocative headline. Often sensationalism is used in either subject matter, language or style. Designed to startle, to deliberately create controversy or to excite and please vulgar taste, sensationalism overly hypes or exaggerates events. They can contain biased impressions which may or may not cause a manipulation of what the truth is but definitely persuades the reader to view an event in a particular way. It is quite possible to whip people into an emotional frenzy through sensationalistic headlines. Sometimes creating tempests in teapots and mountains out of mole hills. When it comes to the Vatican and sex these headlines can cause many Catholics to clutch their pearls, fetch Miss Pitty her smelling salts and start breathing into paper bags as their confidence in the Church ebbs away. Looking to the storm they are overcome and begin to sink below waves of fear and anxiety. Because if the Church is as scandalous as the headline suggests then what confidence can one have in it? Often the damage in stories that are approached in this manner, to the confidence of the faithful, the reputation of the Church, and collaterally done to others outweighs any benefit that might be found under the auspices of truth or the exposure of wrong doing.

Recently, right before Christmas such headlines began to appear on the internet. Some of them quite explicit.

Secrets of the G-Spot Unravelled by the Vatican

Plastic Surgery Conference at Catholic University in Rome to Explore Female Sexual Pleasure

Theology of the Lady Parts (this article has been removed)

G-Spot Papacy

Learn Secrets of the G-Spot at College Linked to Vatican

Catholic University to reveal nuns secret of the female body

Theology of the Clitoris ( This article been removed)

Vatican FacePalm: Make Plans To Attend Genitalia Enhancement Class

Female Genital Conference Comes to Vatican City

Get a Better Sex Life Via The Vatican's Catholic University

Vatican Invites Expert to be Greeted by Pope Francis and Give Lessons to Amplify Their G-Spots

The story seems to have been broken by The Daily Mail. Subsequent early reports seemed to piggy-back on this article as their only source and then began to link and reference each other. Then it was a hoax. Then it wasn't a hoax. Blogs were written, blogs were retracted, there were mea culpas given and mea culpas taken away. There was hype, there was bias, there was immature prurience.  Much of what was printed was the product of the playground of suspicious minds in its exaggerated  and sensationalized over-sexualization. I get that coming from the secular sources. That's sort of how they are. Some of them are not going to pass up the chance to give the impression that the Catholic Church has an element of celibate old men who are obsessed with sex because they aren't having any. Or because they think all Catholics are obsessed with sex due to the fact that the oppressive nature of Church doctrines severely limits our sexual freedoms. Catholics of course know better. Right?

So let's get to the story. Before we do, I would like to say a couple of things up front. The Pope was not really involved. Nor any involvement with nuns.  The Vatican is not giving classes on finding G-Spots and enhancing female sexual pleasure. What happened was that a group of doctors are holding their First World Congress in the city of Rome this coming April. They reportedly would be using the conference center at the Augustinian Patristic Institute as their venue. Is that it? Why the hoopla? You said there was sex. What were they, gynecologist or something? Well, as a matter of fact...

The Congress

The medical group holding the congress is the ESAG, European Society of Aesthetic Gynecologist.  They specialize in cosmetic gynecology. Some of what they do is to reconstruct, to restore and to repair. Some of their procedures, however, are purely cosmetic for the purposes of appearance or sensation. The president and founder is Dr. Alexandros Bader. In October they announced that they would be holding the1st International Congress of the European Society of Aesthetic Gynecology in Rome in April and that the venue would be the Patristic Institute Augustinianum. There would, of course, be lectures and videos of procedures along with booths set up by various companies involved with medical supplies and equipment. Most of it standard conference stuff. The cost for participants would include fees for the event ranging from €150.00 to €690.00, €95.00 for a dinner, a stay at a 4 star hotel and air fare. Most conferences and congresses also include social events and this one is no different. They begin to advertise a Vatican link and imply an inside tract to some Vatican events. These include a papal audience, a papal blessing, a tour of the Vatican gardens and St. Peter's Chapel. Their brochures and website contain Vatican imagery and it was implied that the conference itself would be in Vatican City. The Patristic Institute is linked to the Vatican. They also advertise that there will be many events in Rome as the city will be celebrating Rome's birthday. Some of their claims may have been exaggerated advertising. Since making headlines they have removed the Patristic Institute as their venue from a bluevents site and their website, merely saying that the event would take place in Rome. They have removed any reference to anything besides social events occurring in Vatican City. A spokeswoman for the event said the conference venue was not within the walls of the Vatican City. “There are plenty of foreigners coming from all over the world and they want to be close to the centre of Rome, that’s all,” she said. Hence the Vatican references to draw attendance.

The Vatican Link?

The Patristic Institute is linked to the Vatican, especially in proximity. It is right next door just outside the walls of Vatican City. It is an institution of higher education of the Catholic Church in Rome. It is responsible for the study of patristic theology - the history and theology of Church Fathers. It is associated with the Pontifical (under the direct authority of the Holy See) Lateran University. The Congregation of Education, a part of the Roman Curia, has overview of the Institute. The Congregation of Catholic Education of the Vatican City State is an organization overviewing Catholic seminaries, schools and educational institutes as well as all universities, faculties, institutes and schools of higher education. Although the Vatican has direct authority of the Patristic Institute, I doubt that Vatican or Curia officials have much to do with the day to day arrangements for the conference center. The Patristic Institute would have been the one allowing the ESAG to use its facilities. They offer their conference center  for conferences and congresses regularly.

The Papal audience, tour of the Vatican Gardens, etc, upon further investigation, were apparently part of a tourist package. It was to be the weekly general audience not a private audience. The general audience is public and is attended by thousands. You do need a ticket to attend but the tickets are free. My brother and his wife took our mother to Rome recently. They managed to tour many parts of the Vatican without any inside connections to or special consideration from any Vatican officials. They attended a general audience. You might get close enough to get a really good picture of the Pope like my brother did.

But that is far from a personal or private encounter with the Pope.

At the end of the audience the Pope imparts his Apostolic Blessing upon the crowd which also extends to loved ones that are sick and suffering and blesses any religious articles. This Apostolic Blessing in no way endorses any person or group who may be in the crowd.

The social events or tourist package were the only things that would be going on inside of Vatican City. There is no evidence that the Pope and/or the Vatican had invited, sponsored or endorsed the group or that the Pope himself would be greeting them nor giving them a special or personal blessing. The conference itself was reportedly being held at the conference center of the Patristic Institute outside of Vatican City. A hands on course with live cases, that apparently was the main fodder for the salacious headlines, is actually a 3 day course to be held after the Congress itself, at yet another separate location according to a statement by the ESAG and its website.

The Hype

Some may feel that a just-the-facts-ma'am rendition of this story possibly downplays a certain incongruity in the fact that a Catholic Institution would allow its facility to be used by this particular group of doctors. Some may feel that it would have been wise or prudent of the Patristic Institute to take a pass on this particular event to avoid even a hint of impropriety. Some types of cosmetic surgery most certainly are seen as encouraging sexual promiscuity and as objectifying women, which does not coincide with the Church's teaching on sexual purity as well as those on human dignity. These would be valid opinions and valid concerns. And I would agree with them. That would, of course, be assuming that the Patristic Institute realized it. It is completely possible that they merely booked an event with what they thought were medical professionals. It is also assuming that the event was actually booked at all.

I will say that some Catholic bloggers did not go over the top and tried to stick to facts. Although few  were able to avoid the somewhat sophomoric nudge, nudge, wink, wink entendre of the term hands on expressed in scare quotes. Even when quotation marks or italics weren't used there was still an air quoted quality about the way it was written. Some, however, went so far as to elicit images of women being thrown akimbo on conference tables. Again, any hands on procedure with live cases would have been inappropriate in connection with the Patristic Institute. But further investigation has revealed that the 3-day hands on course would not be connected with the Institute at all, but instead would occur after on the days following the Congress.

Writing about this as a controversy would have been appropriate. Expressing the concerns I have previously mentioned would have been appropriate. This story could have been told with maturity and without sensationalizing and over-sexualizing. That is a far cry from many of the headlines and blogs that were actually written. I wonder if a dissatisfaction with the current papacy caused some to jump the gun on this story without thoroughly investigating it. Especially in early reports. I wonder if that dissatisfaction caused some to prematurely jump on a bandwagon to criticize the Vatican and then exacerbate the tone set by the Daily Mail. It took a cursory investigation to find out that the Papal Audience that was reported was a general audience and not a private one. Most Catholics know what the general audience is and that there are guided tours of the Vatican gardens. Why not clear up that discrepancy, as well as any others, rather than allow hand wringing over the Pope personally greeting sex experts and having tea with them in the Vatican gardens? Why was the exaggeration and the inflammatory sexual language necessary at all if not to encourage outrage, hand wringing and a dissatisfaction with the Vatican? Although many of the headlines were not technically deceitful, I would say that they misled in their provocative and colorful language in order to evoke an emotional response. Shouldn't Catholic writers set a higher standard of integrity, fairness, charity and self-discipline?

The Hoax?

Maureen Mullarkey wrote a piece for the Federalist. The Patristic Institute contacted the Federalist to correct the story saying that there would be no ESAG conference. The Federalist then removed the story and Mullarkey wrote an apology on her blog stating that the whole thing had been a hoax and that she had "allowed my distaste for this grotesque pontificate to get the better of me." Whether or not the Patristic Institute referred to it as a hoax is unclear and as yet unsubstantiated. Did they actually say "hoax" or was that just assumed because of their denial. So far only bloggers have used the term hoax. Father Federico Lombardi, of the Holy See Press Office, is reported as having issued a disclaimer as well. Although the source of the quote appears to be an interview in an Italian blog and I have yet to find an official Vatican source or press release for it. A couple of  blogs then removed their articles and others issued an oops as well.

If it was a hoax it would have been an elaborate one. It is possible that Dr. Bader and the ESAG indulged in some hype that they then had to back track on and remove from their websites. A couple of bloggers began to question the credibility of the denial issued by the Patristic Institute based partially on the fact that the Daily Mail was letting their article stand. It also seemed unbelievable to them that a reputable and reportedly world renowned doctor would risk his reputation on a hoax.  The blogger that pens the blog St. Cobinian's Bear, decided to dig deeper and contacted Dr. Bader. Based on this contact and Dr. Bader's assurance that he had documentation that there had been an agreement with the Patristic Institute, people began to believe that between the Vatican and Dr. Bader, Dr. Bader was the most credible. It is now being reported that the Patristic Institute, embarrassed by the bad press, reneged  an agreement with the ESAG and then lied about it. Apologies were withdrawn , oopsies were retracted and blogs began anew. 

The Story Ends

Dr. Bader and the ESAG have issued a press release announcing the change in venue for the 1st World Congress. Siting "a series of recent misleading articles, which reported defamatory inaccuracies, resulted in an unfavorable response and finally cancellation of the venue rental." According to the statement, the ESAG continues to claim that they indeed had an agreement with the Patristic Institute and had been completely upfront about their topics before hand and that the Institute were the ones who backed out. They claim to have the documentation to back that up. However, they have not been willing to make that documentation public.

It seems that both the Patristic Institute and the ESAG are sticking to their story, yet neither has ponied up and proved it. According to the St. Corbinian's Bear blog who was in contact with Dr. Bader, the ESAG has lawyered up and the Patristic Institute is not responding to his inquiries. Of course, if there had been no agreement in the first place, there would be no way for the Patristic Institute to prove it, besides a denial. You cannot usually produce documentation for something that never happened. It may just be that the burden of proof would be with the ESAG.

Did the Patristic Institute lie and then Father Lombardi doubled down on that lie? Did Dr. Bader and the ESAG advertise a venue that they had not yet procured? We may never know for sure. Many believe that it had to be one or the other. Either one is lying or the other has to be. Would that life were always so black and white, so cut and dried. There are many possible scenarios here. If there had been an agreement, maybe both the Institute and Dr. Bader should have been smart enough to understand the PR nightmare their association would have presented. It certainly would have saved the besmirching of either's reputation. It would have saved a lot of virtual ink as well. It is possible that there was something scheduled at the Patristic Institute, either signed and sealed, tentative and penciled in, or merely being discussed. Then both were embarrassed by the bad press. So the ESAG let the Institute withdraw, both parties actually relieved to put an end to it. When the Institute issued its disclaimer, if they said "there is no event scheduled", they may technically have been telling the truth. Because at that time no event was scheduled. It would have been a fudging of the truth. We would, of course, and should expect better from the Institute. They should have been better than that. Rather than try to get off on a technicality, admitting a mistake would have been a far better choice. Assuming that is, indeed, what they did. It is possible that the ESAG fudged a little on their advertising as well. Which is why, according to their statement, the ESAG "understands the situation and has made the decision to organize the Congress at a different venue in Rome on the same dates as scheduled." It may have been a way for everyone to save face. They seem far more interested in the defamation of the articles written than in any breach of contract with the Patristic Institute. Then further embarrassment ensued with the renewed blogging with allegations of  hoaxes and accusation of lies. Those may have been directed more at the Vatican, yet fell on the ESAG as well. It is possible that Dr. Bader and the ESAG feel that far greater damage was done to their reputation by articles and blogs than in anything the Patristic Institute may or may not have done. Their statement seems to indicate as much and that any legal action, if taken, "against everyone for any direct and indirect damages suffered due to malicious, defamatory and generally tortious conduct." would be directed toward the defamation of the articles. That, of course, are my own personal thoughts. I will let the reader decide for themselves.

Which leads me to my final thoughts and commentary. As Catholics we should be able to write about an event without manipulation. To tell it straight  and let others decide for themselves. If you can't tell by my comments so far, I was as much dismayed by how this was written about as I was by the events themselves. There seemed to be a lack of integrity, definitely a lack of restraint, and a lack of fairness in the narrative presented. It did not, in my opinion, properly reflect a true Catholic character. I think we could have done better. I think we should have done better. It might be said that Catholics were not any worse or more inaccurate than everybody else. But that is exactly my point. We are not everybody else. We are not the other kids. We, in fact, belong to our Lord Jesus Christ and everything we do reflects on him and his Gospel. Everything we do should be for the honor and glory of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And we should act as if God were our editor and every word we write would be presented directly to him. Because, in fact, it is presented before him. We aspire to a more excellent way, follow the golden rule, check the wooden beam in our own eye before the splinter in another and know that the measure which we measure will be measured out to us. We measure ourselves not by whether or not we were technically accurate but by the impact we know and intended in our hearts  to have on another. If the Patristic Institute and the Vatican lied then shame on them. But we need to set the same standard across the board. There is enough shame to go around. In a zeal to find fault with the Vatican many wrote with absolutely no regard to the collateral damage of their words.

I commend those who tried to investigate, who tried to stay ahead of the pack in digging deeper. I commend those who may have joined in at first but later realized that things were getting out of hand and toned down their rhetoric. None of us is perfect. But rather we should learn from this and next time just do better. Because we are supposed to be better. Many may have been too quick to follow what was misleading. Many may have been too quick to resort to the salacious and the sensational. Many  may have been too quick to misrepresent. Many may have been too quick to disregard the reputation of another. Many might have been a too quick to yell liar. I have the feeling, however, that sure as I'm sitting here, that show most likely will go on again. Let's hope that when it does self-discipline, virtue, integrity to truth, fairness, charity and a regard for others does not allude us.

For what it's worth.