Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

[rlg94086]

The bishop who taught me Fundamental Scripture for one and the Mngr. who taught me Canon Law.
It is nothing to be scandalized about. It does not mean that women are going to become priests. Don’t worry. The difference is that the teaching on women priests is not a teaching that comes from revealed truth. CST is a body of teaching that comes directly from revealed truth. CST belongs to moral theology.
Also be aware that I am not advocating for ordaining women. I am not a crazy liberal. I am just a centrist Catholic who loves moral theology.

Names, links and quotes, please. I don’t believe that any bishop or monseignor told you that the the question of all-male priesthood is somehow less infallible than the Social Doctrine of the Church. I appreciate that it might be what you believe and may even think that is the way it was explained to you, but I would like to read it for myself.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Finally, I will repeat again that positions taken by the USCCB are NOT the voice of “the bishops”. One or two lay bureaucrats or some committee person publishes something and it may or may not be the opinion of anyone other than his own. That is a big problem with the USCCB; probably nearing reform but not there yet. I can’t speak for all the bishops any more than the USCCB bureaucrats ought to purport to do it. But I do know my own bishop is absolutely not on “all fours” with things like the two-bishop critique of the Ryan plan. Then there’s Ryan’s bishop who did not think it was contrary to Catholic teachings. It might be added that even those two bishops who critiqued the plan did so only on two bases and did not intend the publication of their letter in which they said it.

Ridgerunner, the USCCB IS/ARE the bishops. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is THE voice of the American bishops. The USCCB is in perfect union with Rome. It is not a rogue group of bishops. What you said would be like saying that the NYPD is not the New York Police Department. I hope I have misunderstood what you wrote.
The U.S. bishops are unified in their opposition to the Ryan plan except for 2 or 3 bishops. It is not the other way around.
The lay people who work for the bishops at the USCCB only have a consultative voice in the Conference. Nothing comes out of the USCCB that has not been discussed in conference.

 

[jwinch2]

catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Names, links and quotes, please. I don’t believe that any bishop or monseignor told you that the the question of all-male priesthood is somehow less infallible than the Social Doctrine of the Church. I appreciate that it might be what you believe and may even think that is the way it was explained to you, but I would like to read it for myself.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/

There are levels of teaching in our Church. One is called articles of faith. That is the stuff that we have in the Creed.
Then there is infallible teaching which is a that has been made infallible by the Pople speaking on it. The subject of infallible teaching is always about faith (the Creed) and morals and comes from revelation (Scripture)
Then there are a whole bunch of different levels of teaching that you do not have to believe as a matter of your salvation. These different levels of teaching are called “theological notations.” the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

As a matter of discipline and a matter of our baptism, it’s only the first few that we are “morally” required to really struggle with.

After you study this stuff for a bit it becomes tedious. Knock yourself out if you like.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

So, two things…

1. You didn’t provide anything quoting a bishop that says the Social Doctrine of the Church is greater revealed teaching than the all-male priesthood.
2. Note the wording of the link you provided:
   “Catholic social teaching emerges from the truth of what God has revealed to us about himself.” Are you claiming that doctrine that emerges from revealed truth is the same as revealed truth and/or infallible teaching? There are a lot of doctrinal teachings that “emerge from” revealed truths.

I know these distinctions are very subtle. The subtlties are not well displayed when we take teaching a bit from here and a bit from here. It is very helpful to study this stuff together with other topics.
For example, it is almost impossible to really get the beauty of our liturgy without having studied Christology or the Conter-Reformation.

So, CST, like I have said belongs to Moral Theology and the foundation of moral theology is revealed truth which is, among other things Scripture.

So, here in the U.S. we use the Western Latin form of the Mass, but in Egypt they use the Eastern Coptic form of the Mass. They are both Mass and perfect in every way. But when you go to an Eastern Mass, you will know in the first 2 seconds that this is something very different than what we have in the U.S.
The reasons that the Masses have developed differently are not found in Scripture but the reasons are important enough to make the Mass develope in different ways.
So we have two Masses or the “breaking of the bread” which we know is a revealed truth. But the forms of the Mass can be different but both are very high forms of Truth, but not from Scripture.
In the same way, we have the teaching of Jesus about how to treat the poor. Therefore it is a revealed truth that we treat the poor like Jesus did. But we do not have Jesus teaching us anything about priests. To boot, the things we have about priesthood coming from Paul are so undeveloped and the meaning of the word priest from the first of Paul’s letters to the last of his deutero-letters that we can not say with any certanty what priest meant back then. So the teaching on the priesthood is not revealed.

There are all kinds of seconday but very important teachings that we get from Scripture such as the Trinity. But the Trinity is not mentioned directy in Scripture. The elements of the Trinity are all found in Scripture, but it was only revealed with prayer and study. (This is a whole other story)
So, CST is a matter of doing what Jesus did. CST has a direct line to Scripture. The details of the priesthood are not as clear as CST. That is why CST is a bit higher, so to speak.
My point is that CST is not an optional element of Church teaching for anyone who wants to be a serious Catholic Christian. The male priesthood is a very important and very, very old teaching but it is not untill the patristic or maybe the late apostolic period that we start to get a clear understanding of the roots of the Catholic priesthood. We know more about what a bishop was in the biblical period than we do priesthood. But sometimes the word bishop and priest were confused becouse the words can come from Greek or Hebrew. Hebrews had a very different understanding of what a priest was in the 1st century. So it’s very difficult to know for sure what the word priest meant.
All of this is made even harder to teach when you hear about the development of deacons. Yikes!!!

 

[JimG]

I guess I understand: twenty centuries of Church teaching on the priesthood might just change; but spending money we don’t have is a moral imperative direct from Jesus! Forgive me for being a little skeptical.

 

[rlg94086]

I guess I understand: twenty centuries of Church teaching on the priesthood might just change; but spending money we don’t have is a moral imperative direct from Jesus! Forgive me for being a little skeptical.

Not wasting my time any further…

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I guess I understand: twenty centuries of Church teaching on the priesthood might just change; but spending money we don’t have is a moral imperative direct from Jesus! Forgive me for being a little skeptical.

CST does not say that we should spend money we don’t have. What it does is help us understand what our priorities should be. It’s just as much about asking questions as it is giving answers. The problem is that if we are not asking the right questions, the answers will be very confusing.

There is something that sets Catholics apart from many other Christians. We don’t look to the Bible for definitive answers to every question that enters our heads. Instead we let the constant reading of Scripture and interactions with the Sacraments and our lived experience help us see how we should live which brings us to asking questions.

For me the questions around our budget is how can we make our budget reflect the interest we know that Jesus had for the people he met. For these kinds of questions the Church has historically turned to the Gospel of Matthew and the synoptic Gospels. We can see how Jesus treated the poor and how he chided the political powers for not doing their job well. We can look at these relationships to see how we measure up.

There is also a lot we can learn from the OT as well about how God treated people.

We have as much money as we need in this country. The questions are, are we spending it ethically, are the people who have access to power well oriented and not greedy.

A Catholic Christian should have a very different set of motivations and priorities than does many of the voices we encounter in the media today.

I am always a little uneasy when I hear voices that what to blame the poor for being poor. Calling them lazy and if they would only work as hard as I do…Or if I hear that we don’t have enough to help the poor.

CST is not saying that we should just sell everything and give to the poor, although Jesus does say that to a rich man, what CST says is that one of the first things we do as a country as we talk about economic policy is consider how what we are about to do will come to bear on the poor. If it is not good for the poor…it is ultimately not good for the country.

 

[estesbob]

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/

There are levels of teaching in our Church. One is called articles of faith. That is the stuff that we have in the Creed.
Then there is infallible teaching which is a that has been made infallible by the Pople speaking on it. The subject of infallible teaching is always about faith (the Creed) and morals and comes from revelation (Scripture)
Then there are a whole bunch of different levels of teaching that you do not have to believe as a matter of your salvation. These different levels of teaching are called “theological notations.” the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

As a matter of discipline and a matter of our baptism, it’s only the first few that we are “morally” required to really struggle with.

After you study this stuff for a bit it becomes tedious. Knock yourself out if you like.

I am a little confused. it appears you are saying that the Male only priesthood can change but that the Ryan Budget being immoral is infallibly revealed and binding on all catholics?

 

[rlg94086]

I am a little confused. it appears you are saying that the Male only priesthood can change but that the Ryan Budget being immoral is infallibly revealed and binding on all catholics?

Well sure, Bob. You just have to look at the Bible, where Jesus “chided the political powers for not doing their job well.” Oh wait…I can’t think of a single passage.

 

[JimG]

CST does not say that we should spend money we don’t have. What it does is help us understand what our priorities should be. It’s just as much about asking questions as it is giving answers. The problem is that if we are not asking the right questions, the answers will be very confusing.

There is something that sets Catholics apart from many other Christians. We don’t look to the Bible for definitive answers to every question that enters our heads. Instead we let the constant reading of Scripture and interactions with the Sacraments and our lived experience help us see how we should live which brings us to asking questions.

For me the questions around our budget is how can we make our budget reflect the interest we know that Jesus had for the people he met. For these kinds of questions the Church has historically turned to the Gospel of Matthew and the synoptic Gospels. We can see how Jesus treated the poor and how he chided the political powers for not doing their job well. We can look at these relationships to see how we measure up.

There is also a lot we can learn from the OT as well about how God treated people.

We have as much money as we need in this country. The questions are, are we spending it ethically, are the people who have access to power well oriented and not greedy.

A Catholic Christian should have a very different set of motivations and priorities than does many of the voices we encounter in the media today.

I am always a little uneasy when I hear voices that what to blame the poor for being poor. Calling them lazy and if they would only work as hard as I do…Or if I hear that we don’t have enough to help the poor.

CST is not saying that we should just sell everything and give to the poor, although Jesus does say that to a rich man, what CST says is that one of the first things we do as a country as we talk about economic policy is consider how what we are about to do will come to bear on the poor. If it is not good for the poor…it is ultimately not good for the country.

I have certainly not been blaming the poor. As Ridgerunner noted in a prior post, the government has done little for the truly poor, providing the most benefits to the middle class.

Not only that, but many government programs have induced even more poverty by facilitating single motherhood and absentee fathers. And by not giving parents the power to choose their own schools, it has foisted upon the poor the worst possible education outcomes.

But the key fact is that the government DOES spend money it doesn’t have. It couldn’t operate for a single day without spending money it doesn’t have! Do you really think that continuing such a Ipolicy will do anything to help the poor?

We are not in a normal business cycle nor in a normal debt cycle. By failing to stem the tide of debt, we put every poor person in the country–indeed, in the world–in worse danger, and threaten to make the middle class poor as well. If there were a way to fix that short of serious cutbacks I would be happy. Because cutbacks will hurt the economy. But a debt crisis implosion will be much much worse.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

Things coming from Catholic Answers do not inspire a huge amount of trust in me. However Bishop Brom’s stamp makes it free of heresy and is safe to read and is dated 2004. Just in the last 2 or 3 years there has be a bit of a back pedal of this from Benedict XVI. I am trying to remember from what office of the Vatican came the conversation. The question was whether or not it is an infallible truth. So JP2 wanted it to be an infallible truth but he never made the proclimations that is a necessary part of the form of infallible teaching. So the question came up, why didn’t the pope make it a truly infallible teaching. Rome did not say anything about this question for a long time. Then some office in Rome offered the explination that it is not definitive teaching out of Scripture and the Pope never suppressed this answer.

There are 3 modes of infallible teaching:

1. 
   *]an infallible ex cathedra definition by the pope (this need not follow a consultation with the College of Bishops, though this was the practice in the two clear cases of such a definition, the Immaculate Conception (Pius IX, 1854) and the Assumption of the BVM (Pius XII, 1950);
   *]a solemn definition by a valid ecumenical council of the Church (e.g. the dogmatic decrees on the divinity and humanity of Christ etc, at Nicaea and Chalcedon and many other dogmas); and
   *]a constant teaching, not with any specific definition or formula, by the College of Bishops while dispersed around the world, but maintaining communion with the pope, that a doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith and must be held definitively as such by all the faithful (an example would be the Resurrection of Christ).So where the question stands right now is the prohibition against women priests is not a “formal” infallible teaching and it’s biblical foundation has been questioned and never settled.
   
   The teaching of women’s ordination has never met any of these three modes. The question is, why.
   There could be all kinds of reasons Rome is not setteling this question right now. Perhaps there migh be some kind of ecumenical deal in the works, or they could be getting ready to make the “formal” declaration. When I say “formal” I don’t mean the kind of formal like as in a fancy dinner party. I mean “formal” as in philosophical “form” and in Plato.
   So, just like in the Mass, for it to be valid it has to have all of the right “forms” like bread, wine, priest (male) and Scripture. If one of these things is missing or is not the right form, like grape juice and not wine, the Mass would be illicit. So, at the moment the we have an illicit infallible teaching.
   You might also notice that the Pope “formally declared” that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. This is very technical juridical language. A formal decaration is not the same as a declaration of infallible teaching. And if the Church can theologically and morally justify ordaining women it can then give itself the power to do so.
   The theologian who asked the question was not trying to support womens ordination. He was trying to settle a substantial flaw in the teaching.
   I think we are witnessing history in the making in classical snail’s pace Church speed. When I look at the Christological debates in the early patristic period, I can see this same process happening. Sometimes it can take us hundreds of years to find the theological language to express something well.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I have certainly not been blaming the poor. As Ridgerunner noted in a prior post, the government has done little for the truly poor, providing the most benefits to the middle class.

Not only that, but many government programs have induced even more poverty by facilitating single motherhood and absentee fathers. And by not giving parents the power to choose their own schools, it has foisted upon the poor the worst possible education outcomes.

But the key fact is that the government DOES spend money it doesn’t have. It couldn’t operate for a single day without spending money it doesn’t have! Do you really think that continuing such a Ipolicy will do anything to help the poor?

We are not in a normal business cycle nor in a normal debt cycle. By failing to stem the tide of debt, we put every poor person in the country–indeed, in the world–in worse danger, and threaten to make the middle class poor as well. If there were a way to fix that short of serious cutbacks I would be happy. Because cutbacks will hurt the economy. But a debt crisis implosion will be much much worse.

I didn’t say that you were blaming the poor. I was only trying to explaine how I distinguish worldly commentary and Catholic commentary. I did not mean to imply anything about you personally. Sorry if it came across that way.

I am not sure I understand what the term “truly poor” means.

I also do not like the way things are now. I would like to see our national budget structrued on much more Catholic principles.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Well sure, Bob. You just have to look at the Bible, where Jesus “chided the political powers for not doing their job well.” Oh wait…I can’t think of a single passage.

Matthew 23:29-39

29　"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, 30　nand you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ 31　oThus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; 32　now fill up what your ancestors measured out! 33　pYou serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna? 34　q Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, 35　so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36　Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
The Lament over Jerusalem. 37　r"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!s 38　tBehold, your house will be abandoned, desolate. 39　uI tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’　"

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Matthew 23:29-39

29　"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, 30　nand you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ 31　oThus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; 32　now fill up what your ancestors measured out! 33　pYou serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna? 34　q Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, 35　so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36　Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
The Lament over Jerusalem. 37　r"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!s 38　tBehold, your house will be abandoned, desolate. 39　uI tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’　"

Robert, how bout this?

I suspect this might help you think of at least one passage…Oh wait…you don’t have to think because I found it for you. It took me about 4 seconds to think of this passage.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I am a little confused. it appears you are saying that the Male only priesthood can change but that the Ryan Budget being immoral is infallibly revealed and binding on all catholics?

No, that’s not what we were talking about. The women’s priest thing came up because a few post back someone made the comment that was something like Catholic Social Teaching is kinda secondary catholic teaching. I was trying to make the point that Catholic Social Teaching is in fact central to anyone who wanted to be a serious Catholic. So we got into a discussion about levels and weiths to Truth.

Go back a few posts if you want the whole story.

 

[KSU]

Per ljpgoodwin:
QUOTE"The male priesthood is not an article of faith. It is a discipline…it is not a revealed teaching…Catholic social teaching is somewhat higher than the teaching on women priests and liturgy… The USCCB is in perfect union with Rome… The U.S. bishops are unified in their opposition to the Ryan plan except for 2 or 3 bishops…The lay people who work for the bishops at the USCCB only have a consultative voice in the Conference. Nothing comes out of the USCCB that has not been discussed in conference… the things we have about priesthood coming from Paul are so undeveloped and the meaning of the word priest from the first of Paul’s letters to the last of his deutero-letters that we can not say with any certanty what priest meant back then. So the teaching on the priesthood is not revealed…Things coming from Catholic Answers do not inspire a huge amount of trust in me. However Bishop Brom’s stamp makes it free of heresy and is safe to read and is dated 2004. Just in the last 2 or 3 years there has be a bit of a back pedal of this from Benedict XVI…There are 3 modes of infallible teaching… [and]The teaching of women’s ordination has never met any of these three modes. The question is, why… a substantial flaw in the teaching. END QUOTE

ljpgoodwin, you would do well to consider the old saying: When you are in a hole, stop digging.

 

[markomalley]

Ridgerunner, the USCCB IS/ARE the bishops. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is THE voice of the American bishops. The USCCB is in perfect union with Rome. It is not a rogue group of bishops. What you said would be like saying that the NYPD is not the New York Police Department. I hope I have misunderstood what you wrote.
The U.S. bishops are unified in their opposition to the Ryan plan except for 2 or 3 bishops. It is not the other way around.
The lay people who work for the bishops at the USCCB only have a consultative voice in the Conference. Nothing comes out of the USCCB that has not been discussed in conference.

That’s not quite accurate.

First, there are very, very specific limitations as to what a conference of bishops can and cannot do. In the area of legislation, Canon 455 covers those limitations:

Can. 455 §1. A conference of bishops can **only **issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.

§2. The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.

§3. The conference of bishops itself determines the manner of promulgation and the time when the decrees take effect.

§4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.

Doctrinal declarations (such as Archbishop Weakland’s “Economic Justice for All” or Bishop Blaire’s letter) are covered by Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos, which states in its complementary norms:

Art. 1. – In order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops referred to in No. 22 of the present Letter may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the Conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote.

Art. 2. – No body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium. The Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it.

As the Holy Father said to some Brazilian bishops a couple of years ago:

The Bishops’ Conference therefore coordinates the Bishops’ efforts and intentions, becoming an instrument that enables each to share his burdens; but it must not become a parallel or substitute of the ministry of each one of the Bishops. In other words it must neither change its relationship with the respective particular Church or with the Episcopal College nor make itself an intermediary between the Bishop and the See of Peter.

The bottom line is that if Archbishop Weakland writes a document, it’s his document (unless the norms in Canon Law or Apostolos Suos are followed). Likewise, Bishop Blaire. And so on and so forth.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

That’s not quite accurate.

First, there are very, very specific limitations as to what a conference of bishops can and cannot do. In the area of legislation, Canon 455 covers those limitations:
Can. 455 §1. A conference of bishops can **only **issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.

§2. The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.

§3. The conference of bishops itself determines the manner of promulgation and the time when the decrees take effect.

§4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.
Doctrinal declarations (such as Archbishop Weakland’s “Economic Justice for All” or Bishop Blaire’s letter) are covered by Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos, which states in its complementary norms:
Art. 1. – In order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops referred to in No. 22 of the present Letter may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the Conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote.

Art. 2. – No body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium. The Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it.
As the Holy Father said to some Brazilian bishops a couple of years ago:
The Bishops’ Conference therefore coordinates the Bishops’ efforts and intentions, becoming an instrument that enables each to share his burdens; but it must not become a parallel or substitute of the ministry of each one of the Bishops. In other words it must neither change its relationship with the respective particular Church or with the Episcopal College nor make itself an intermediary between the Bishop and the See of Peter.
The bottom line is that if Archbishop Weakland writes a document, it’s his document (unless the norms in Canon Law or Apostolos Suos are followed). Likewise, Bishop Blaire. And so on and so forth.

Thanks Mark, I am guessing that is your name. Go back and look at the comment I was responding to and my comment will make more sense. It’s been a while since I have seen Weakland referred to.Your addition more clearly states what I was saying.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Per ljpgoodwin:
ljpgoodwin, you would do well to consider the old saying: When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Thanks KSU, I’ll keep that in mind next time I find myself in a hole!