Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[grotto]

shs-aod:

The “screening process” you allude to was put in place by the afore-mentioned Bishop Untener. (strike one…)

The last time I looked, the choir-loft was about 150’ away from the sanctuary. You’re not nearly as close as you would like some of us to believe. In fact, you’re dangerously close to embarrassing yourself. You really don’t want to go there… (strike two!)

You broached the subject in this forum, not “Frommi”, not me.

Now, by your personal fiat it’s suddenly “not for that purpose”.

You’re not a malicious “liar”, and nobody has accused you of such. You are, however, hopelessly ill-informed on this matter.

Wanna’ continue this matter on an e-mail or PM? I’m easily accessible…

You really don’t want to go there… trust me. (strike three!!)

---

I think if you are in Port St. Lucy, Florida you have been out in the sun too long.

Your post is beyond acceptable and infers you are threatening some form of repercussion (and I am not talking of a musical type) towards someone who is expressing, civilly, in a discussion.

An apology is owed - I am dismayed that a moderator has let your post slip by.

 

[Illini]

As this conversation is beginning to be heated, I thought it would be a good idea to refer to the law of the Church to settle the matter.

Frommi, you appear to be quite sincere in your belief that a bishop has wide authority to regulate liturgical practices in a diocese. However, this authority is quite constrained and is not nearly as broad as you seem to think.

Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the devine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity; it is for the same or another competent authority according to the norm of can. 838 sec. 3 and 4 to decide what pertains to their licit celebration, administration, and reception and to the order to be observed in their celebration.

CIC 841 (1983).

Can. 838 sec. 1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.

Sec. 2. Is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

Sec. 3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.

Sec. 4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.

CIC 838 (1983) (emphasis added). While a bishop has some authority to regulate the liturgical life of the diocese, Canon 838 makes it clear that this authority is limited. The liturgical abuses described in this thread could not have been legitimately approved. To view just one example:

frommi:

We go back to lay preaching, when the Bishop, as moderator of the word, can allow that.

According to these posts, lay persons have been not just preaching, but giving homilies in the Diocese of Saginaw for some time. Frommi appears to believe that Bishop Untener has the authority to allow this practice. However, this is not accurate:

Can. 767 sec. 1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself *and is reserved to a priest or deacon, *is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.

CIC 767 sec. 1 (1983) (emphasis added). This rule was in place long before Redemptionis sacramentum reminded all bishops of its existence. Unless you can find something supporting a bishop’s authority to ignore canon law, it would appear that, if Bishop Untener endorsed or tolerated this practice, that action was an error.

This is why so many in Saginaw have been upset over clearly improper liturgical practices tolerated by the late Bishop Untener, and why they are hopeful for a new springtime with Bishop Carlson.

-Illini

 

[Illini]

frommi:

The bishop removed him from ministry before DALLAS, and in what was quite a departure, APOLOGIZED for his actions. Something people are still waiting for a certain red-hatted individual who got a retirement job in Rome to do.

 Actually, Cardinal Law has publically apologized for his conduct on numerous occasions. I though we were not supposed to look into the state of one's soul, or engage in *ad hominum *attacks, and instead forgive those who trespass against us.

-Illini

 

[ekindermann]

Illini:

As this conversation is beginning to be heated, I thought it would be a good idea to refer to the law of the Church to settle the matter.

Frommi, you appear to be quite sincere in your belief that a bishop has wide authority to regulate liturgical practices in a diocese. However, this authority is quite constrained and is not nearly as broad as you seem to think.

Unless you can find something supporting a bishop’s authority to ignore canon law, it would appear that, if Bishop Untener endorsed or tolerated this practice, that action was an error.

This is why so many in Saginaw have been upset over clearly improper liturgical practices tolerated by the late Bishop Untener, and why they are hopeful for a new springtime with Bishop Carlson.

-Illini

Thanks Illini! :clapping:

 

[shs-aod]

frommi:

The Diocese of Saginaw has not paid out one red cent to a victim of pedophilia. No priest ordained by Ken Untener has been accused of such a thing.

I’m sorry but that needed to be cleared up.

I rest my case…

 

[frommi]

Illini:

This is why so many in Saginaw have been upset over clearly improper liturgical practices tolerated by the late Bishop Untener, and why they are hopeful for a new springtime with Bishop Carlson.

-Illini

Again, if you consult with someone who actually knows canon law, you would see and learn that a Bishop is the MODERATOR OF THE WORD for his diocese. Which gives him a great deal of latitude.

Once again, if the numerous complaints to Rome about the practice did not find Rome springing into action, the reality is that the actions were not WRONG.

They may have made some of you uncomfortable…but they were not WRONG.

They may have been different that the diocese of wherever, but they were not WRONG.

It’s the lack of understand of collegiality in the church that leads to so many of these problems.

But again, I don’t know why we have to look at Robert Carlson like he is the “fixer” of the Diocese of Saginaw.

Robert Carlson will not be Kenneth Untener. And that’s a good thing.

But just stop grinding axes with a dead man. Recognize the good he did, and move on.

Remember that all bishops are sent in the name of the church to govern and shepherd. And we are supposed to be obedient to their decisions. Not run to Rome everytime we’re upset by something.

 

[ekindermann]

shs-aod:

I rest my case…

What case?! What is your point here in this forum and thread?! You haven’t been involved in these discussions and then you come in a start throwing insults! You certainly aren’t helping frommi win friends and influence anyone. I’m sure he’d agree.

However, now I see your original offensive post has been removed - very good!

Why don’t you more carefully read all posts before you butt into a discussion and start flaming the people here?

"In addition, the diocese and several parishes have paid a price for that decision that money will never remedy. " - singerlady

I don’t know very much about the situation - as singerlady said - this is not the purpose of this thread, but just because he didn’t ordain him, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be culpable for allowing him to come here, KNOWING about his past. And just because the diocese hasn’t been sued, or had to pay out $$ doesn’t mean it handled the situation, or other situations, correctly.

Go back out in the sun, leave us up here in our winter wonderland - Or if you are going to stay, then be nice!:tsktsk:

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

Again, if you consult with someone who actually knows canon law, you would see and learn that a Bishop is the MODERATOR OF THE WORD for his diocese. Which gives him a great deal of latitude.

Once again, if the numerous complaints to Rome about the practice did not find Rome springing into action, the reality is that the actions were not WRONG.

They may have made some of you uncomfortable…but they were not WRONG.

They may have been different that the diocese of wherever, but they were not WRONG.

They need to make a smilie that has high blood pressure. :banghead: Frommi, you still haven’t responded to my direct questions about the placement of confession in relation to first communion, nor about the invalid/illicit matter…those things are WRONG, aren’t they? Or is that just silly little, unimportant stuff to you? Don’t let those pesky sacraments get in the way?

 

[frommi]

ekindermann:

They need to make a smilie that has high blood pressure. :banghead: Frommi, you still haven’t responded to my direct questions about the placement of confession in relation to first communion, nor about the invalid/illicit matter…those things are WRONG, aren’t they? Or is that just silly little, unimportant stuff to you? Don’t let those pesky sacraments get in the way?

To start…yes…I think its pesky and relatively unimportant because I don’t think a drop of honey for baking purposes causes Jesus to skip over a church that is celebrating the eucharist. For heaven’s sake…sometimes its made to sound like there are churches trying to consecrate raisin bagels.

To finish…no, those things weren’t “wrong”…there was an indult granted for the order of the sacraments (since revoked…but the revocation happened after Bishop Untener passed away).

We established a year ago that I think too many of us let to many things get in the way of our celebrations of the sacraments.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

To start…yes…I think its pesky and relatively unimportant because I don’t think a drop of honey for baking purposes causes Jesus to skip over a church that is celebrating the eucharist. For heaven’s sake…sometimes its made to sound like there are churches trying to consecrate raisin bagels.
Make it sound silly all you want, but the sacrament DOES NOT HAPPEN (according to the Church) if the matter is invalid. That’s not opinion, nor up for your judgement, as much as you want it to be. (and um, I hate to say it, but as for the bagels, I have heard that it has, indeed, gotten that bad).
To finish…no, those things weren’t “wrong”…there was an indult granted for the order of the sacraments (since revoked…but the revocation happened after Bishop Untener passed away).
Wrong - the revocation happened WAAAY earlier than that, like years, like decades! and we weren’t supposed to be doing it. So, sorry, you are WRONG there, too. Here’s a quote for you:
After having attentively considered the matter, and keeping in view the wishes of the bishops, the Sacred Congregations for the Discipline of the Sacraments and for the Clergy, by this document do declare, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, Paul VI, that experiments of this kind, already carried out for two years, must have an end put to them simultaneously with the dosing of the 1972-1973 school year and, for the future, the decree, , must be obeyed everywhere and by all.

Given at Rome, the 24th day of May, 1973.
and the site from whence it comes: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CCLSANCT.HTM

And please, don’t miss this:
The following note was issued with the letter:

To the doubt proposed: “Whether it is allowed after the declaration of May 24, 1973, to continue to have, as a general rule, the reception of first communion precede the reception of the sacrament of penance in those parishes in which this practice developed in the past few years.”

The Sacred Congregations for the Sacraments and Divine Worship and for the Clergy, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, reply: Negative and according to the mind of the declaration.

The mind of the declaration is that one year after the promulgation of the same declaration, all experiments of receiving first, communion without the sacrament of penance should cease so that the discipline of the church might be restored, in the spirit of the decree, Quam Singulari.

From the Vatican: 31 March 1977
Which is from: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_19770331_penance-communion_en.html
We established a year ago that I think too many of us let to many things get in the way of our celebrations of the sacraments.
So read and weep, but then be glad, because now that you know the TRUTH, it can set you free! You are letting your pride, willfullness and ego get in the way of being Catholic. I will continue to pray for all of us. Thanks for the civil answers to the questions. Beth

 

[Illini]

frommi:

Again, if you consult with someone who actually knows canon law, you would see and learn that a Bishop is the MODERATOR OF THE WORD for his diocese. Which gives him a great deal of latitude.

Once again, if the numerous complaints to Rome about the practice did not find Rome springing into action, the reality is that the actions were not WRONG.

They may have made some of you uncomfortable…but they were not WRONG.

They may have been different that the diocese of wherever, but they were not WRONG.

It’s the lack of understand of collegiality in the church that leads to so many of these problems.

But again, I don’t know why we have to look at Robert Carlson like he is the “fixer” of the Diocese of Saginaw.

Robert Carlson will not be Kenneth Untener. And that’s a good thing.

But just stop grinding axes with a dead man. Recognize the good he did, and move on.

Remember that all bishops are sent in the name of the church to govern and shepherd. And we are supposed to be obedient to their decisions. Not run to Rome everytime we’re upset by something.

 

[Illini]

That didn’t work. Let me try this again.

frommi:

Again, if you consult with someone who actually knows canon law, you would see and learn that a Bishop is the MODERATOR OF THE WORD for his diocese. Which gives him a great deal of latitude.

Do you have a citation showing that a bishop, as “Moderator of the Word,” has the authority to disregard canon law reserving the homily to a priest or deacon? “You just don’t know canon law” is not a citation. I am not a canon lawyer but I am a civil lawyer.

Once again, if the numerous complaints to Rome about the practice did not find Rome springing into action, the reality is that the actions were not WRONG.

Not so. Assuming Rome did not intervene (are you sure the Vatican has not done anything??), that could simply mean that the CDW was being patient with bishops and others who tolerate or promote liturgical abuses. Despite the painting of the Vatican by “progressives” as ruthless inquisitors, it lets a lot go for reasons if its own choosing.

However, I suggest that naming Bishop Carlson to succeed Bishop Untener and publishing Redemptionis sacramentum are strong statements that changes need to be made, both in Saginaw and worldwide.

It’s the lack of understand of collegiality in the church that leads to so many of these problems.

Agreed; it seems that far too many both within and outside of the episcopacy think “collegiality” means “I can do what I want.”

But just stop grinding axes with a dead man. Recognize the good he did, and move on.

I’m not grinding axes. I’m just an observer who has never met either man. I note that our bishop was one of Bishop Untener’s closest friends and we have nowhere near the types of abuses discussed on this forum.

Remember that all bishops are sent in the name of the church to govern and shepherd. And we are supposed to be obedient to their decisions. Not run to Rome everytime we’re upset by something.

There is an appeal process for many of a bishop’s decisions. And Redemptionis sacramentum actually encourages the laity to ask that the norms be followed, with appeals to Rome if necessary.

-Illini

 

[frommi]

Ekinderman…Illini…

This is why message boards are just the wrong places for some of these conversations…I think…

Regardless, I do appreciate the civility of the conversation here so far.

I also appreciate Canon Law, and Liturgical Law, and happen to think I know a good deal about the latter, if very little about the former.

I do live in the world that says there is no reason for Catholics to harbor such hard feelings with each other over the posture for prayer…I do not live in one that prefers constant correction…it’s just not of my nature.

Personally, I’m not a liturgical hippie…I don’t really like rock and roll masses, polka masses, etc…but I also think going back to latin chant would be taking things a little too far.

There’s a middle ground between the Pange Lingua and “They’ll Know We Are Christians”.

I wish I could find a copy of the pastoral letter that Bishop Carlson wrote on the liturgy (the Sioux Falls website removed it), and post it here, along with a talk Bp. Untener gave on liturgy to the National Pastoral Musicians convention…they are very very similar. (There I go breaking my “no comparing” rule).

I don’t even know what else to say right now about most of this…

 

[grotto]

I don’t even know what else to say right now about most of this…

---

Suggestion: Begin with admitting you have been wwwrrrrronnng about there being authority to insist First Holy Communion take place before receiving First Confession? You need to acknowledge when you have been given the correct and true response to your misguided propaganda. For some obvious reason, you do not respond when you have thrown down your agenda talking points and then have to eat them. .smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_4_12.gif

 

[frommi]

grotto:

I don’t even know what else to say right now about most of this…

---

Suggestion: Begin with admitting you have been wwwrrrrronnng about there being authority to insist First Holy Communion take place before receiving First Confession? You need to acknowledge when you have been given the correct and true response to your misguided propaganda. For some obvious reason, you do not respond when you have thrown down your agenda talking points and then have to eat them. .smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_4_12.gif

I’m working on a measured response…research takes time.

And maybe you could start by not feeling the need to sit in Limbo Cove and throw grenades my way.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

And maybe you could start by not feeling the need to sit in Limbo Cove and throw grenades my way.

Limbo Cove: That sounds like a tropical island paradise!

http://www.ilovehou.com/twonicknames/gifsite/july02/hulahula.gif

But grotto is correct: Some of us still await answers to our questions. If you do not wish to respond to them, please say so.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

Dear Frommi,
I took me about 3-5 minutes to google “first confession before first communion” and then follow two links to get the very accurate documents that addressed your accusation that my information was WRONG (if I remember correctly?:

They may have made some of you uncomfortable…but they were not WRONG.

)
Now, once again, after you are directly corrected in your misunderstandings of what is right and wrong, you revert back to vague, philosphical ponderings about what kind of “world you live in”

I do live in the world that says there is no reason for Catholics to harbor such hard feelings with each other over the posture for prayer…I do not live in one that prefers constant correction…it’s just not of my nature.

Regarding whether Catholics shouldn’t “harbor hard feelings over posture” I agree, which is why a priest should not have embarassed me so by interrupting the Mass to direct my children and I to stand. And “posture for prayer” was not the current subject (although it has been an issue, especially for me) rather it was clear cut examples of incorrect practices in the diocese, given because you want us to admit that bishops just “do things differently with different styles” and not that one bishop allowed abuses.
Regarding “constant correction” - if there is something wrong regarding the reception of sacraments, it needs to be corrected! If there is something wrong with the matter used for Eucharist, making the sacrament invalid - therefore nonexistent - IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED! People are there to receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, not what someone thinks might be the Lord, but what Jesus, through HIS CHURCH says is HIS BODY!
People are at Mass to have the Scripture broken open by the one whom HIS CHURCH says has the special powers of the Holy Spirit to explain that Word. Not my neighbor’ opinion of that Word, he may have spent lots of study and preparation, she, being a nun and having authority because of position (pastoral admin) is not the same as having the gifts of the Holy Spirit given in ordination - another Sacrament given to us by Jesus.
You don’t want to admit that there were abuses, and the fact that we hope they are corrected - which can then LOOK like a comparison between the two bishops - bugs you to no end.
Specific abuses have been listed, cited, discussed, defended and condemned on this forum and the other two or three that we’ve exchanged on, and we keep going around and around.
#1)An abuse is named,
#2)you try to say it is not an abuse,
#3)you are shown to be wrong by church documents,
#4)you then revert back to the vague philisophical posturing mentioned above.
#5)Then we start all over again.
Sometiems we’ve gotten ugly, other times (which I hope will continue) are civil and polite - but you must know that this constant “game” is tiring and frutrating.
Now if you are truly in search of truth: then accept it. And I should do the same. If shown evidence that Bishop Untener did good things, then I should applaud those things. If I show you, and (do not forget - painfully) describe how that has hurt me and my family, you should be sad about that for us (If you are truly charitable) You should not want us to have to travel so far for Mass, to avoid the nun giving the homily and saying that “one day women too may be priests”, or to actually receive Jesus in the Eucharist and not just homemade bread, or to be allowed to kneel reverently in the presence of Our Lord, instead of being ordered to stand. Where is your charity, understanding, and desire for justice for me?
As for this:

I also appreciate Canon Law, and Liturgical Law, and happen to think I know a good deal about the latter, if very little about the former.

I don’t know what to say about that. I would think, being the lowly self taught laity person that I am, (as compared to someone like yourself) that the two would go together, complement each other, certainly they would not contradict each other?!
I had to do some major cutting due to length so please see next post for my conclusion!

 

[ekindermann]

Continued from previous post… Really the only defense of these abuses is to argue whether the new GIRM or Redemptionis Sacramentum should have been implemented immediately or wait for the new bishop, which is what happened. And we’re still waiting - hopefully Lent.
There is even argument over whether or not Redemptionis Sacramentumspelled out anything new OR just reiterated what was already supposed to be. The latter was my understanding.

With that, I suggest all concerned reread (or for the first time read) the following taken from:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

still too long so more cutting…just go read the whole thing in its entirety. I kept what I thought were the most substantial points:
4.] “Certainlythe liturgical reform inaugurated by the Councilhas greatly contributed to a more conscious, active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful.”[10] Even so, “shadows are not lacking”.[11] In this regard it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.
[5.] The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart. A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the Sacred Liturgy, in which Christ himself wishes to gather his Church, so that together with himself she will be “one body and one spirit”.
[6.] For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”.
[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”.
[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. [22] which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

continued in next post…

 

[ekindermann]

still too long, so here’s the rest, although edited for length, taken from: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.[23] Indeed, if the bond were to be broken… it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. …the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.[26]
[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.[27] On the contrary, anyone who acts thus… even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, …and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage…arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,[29] but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.[30] The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.[31]
[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful…Likewise, the Catholic people have the right … Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.[32]
[13.] All of the norms and exhortations set forth in this Instruction are connected… with the mission of the Church…namely concern for the salvation of souls.[33]

ok, I’m done, and I won’t (I don’t think) do that again. I know the mods don’t want us writing dissertations here. But as frommi said it is hard on these forums (at times) to get clarity, so I tried.
And you are right frommi: measured responses take time.

 

[frommi]

Let’s try this…

What of unbaptized children who have reached the age of discretion? They receive all 3 sacraments of initiation at one time. They have no opportunity for confession because of this.

"The law of the Church obliges confession for those in serious sin. It also asks that children confess before first communion. Taken to a conclusion, it looks like the law expects young children to commit serious sin so they can confess before first communion.
It is difficult to conclude that the law uniformly obliges confession before communion in every case. In fact, if a child were coerced to confess sin, it would cast doubt on the validity of the sacrament. People have a right to the sacraments and ministers must not refuse them.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church said it stronger: “Children must go to the sacrament of penance before receiving holy communion for the first time” (1457). *Must * go. But it cites canon 914 as its source. That is not precisely what canon 914 says. In fact, that’s not even what the catechism says. In Latin, the catechism uses the verb “debent”. “Debent” need not mean “must”. It can also mean “ought to” or “should”. But the English translation makes it look like the catechism has strengthened the law of the Church." (Turner, Paul)

Seems like your typical grey area to me.