Catholic teachings, Fundamentalist mindset

[manualman]

The definition of ‘fundamentalist’ is so loose these days that it IS hard to know what the OP is decrying without examples. I can understand not wanting to restart old thread controversies here, but the discussion is far too vague for any consensus to develop or anybody to learn anything.

For example, I would hope we could all agree that its a bit nutty to get all upset when women wear pants instead of ankle length skirts, at least as far as seeing it as a moral teaching issue (I’ll grant that we can argue the prudential wisdom, but won’t on this thread!). Is that the kind of thing referred to?

Is the OP alleging that trad catholics are ‘fundies’ when they argue for a return of communion rails? Is it a manifestation of fundamentalism to suggest that perhaps the posture of receiving the Body of Christ ought to be rather radically different than that of receiving a Big Mac? Is that rigid and unthinking or is it a thoughtful manifestation of the catholic teaching that the accidents (look it up) of liturgy should give hints about the substance?

I’m glad the OP clarified that the issue isn’t one of defying clear church teaching. But some examples really would help since the word ‘fundamentalist’ in common vernacular now means anybody who shapes his convictions to match the teachings of his religion rather than the other way around!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Hmm, I am thinking (since I have had issues along these lines myself) that the OP is probably referring to one of two things, or perhaps both of them. One is that many people on CAF seem to have a “take or leave it” approach to “admonishing the sinner”. Instead of really getting down to reach people at their level, they say “this is the TRUTH and if you can’t take it, too bad”. I suppose that may be par for the course in the “Moral Theology” forum, but I’ve seen it take place in the Family Life and other forums as well.

I also agree that many people (and this is not just CAF posters) feel more comfortable judging people for sins that they themselves are not tempted to commit. For example, the harsh judgment levied not just against sexually active homosexuals, but anyone who identifies himself as “gay”, repeated statements that the state of being “homosexual” is in itself sinful, and the approach some people take of homosexuals as a group being the “enemy” not deserving of any charity or compassion (for example, the recent suicide of a teen who identified as homosexual was taken as an opportunity to just rail against how “the homosexual lobby” was going to use this case to further their cause…not that this was completely inaccurate, but the way it was expressed seemed quite insensitive). There often seems to be an “us against them” mentality where the priority is not evangelizing or converting people, but simply defeating them; a mentality that seems to be far more political or military in nature than fit for a religious forum.

Or, the OP may be referring to people who make statements that they imply are “true” Church teaching when they’re not; for example, a mother can only work for pay if the alternative is starvation; a couple can only practice NFP if another pregnancy might cause death, disability or destitution; all parents MUST either send their children to Catholic school or homeschool them; dating is inherently sinful, while courting isn’t; a female must be under the authority of some man (either father, husband or other male relative) from birth to death; marrying a non-Catholic is sinful (as opposed to just a bad idea), etc, etc, etc. Or, people who state things like, “I’m living in a shack without running water with five kids, homeschooling them all, and I’m not even tempted to use NFP; if I can do it, you can do it.” I tend to call that a holier-than-thou attitude, but I guess some might call that a fundamentalist one

Another example I just thought of is, the recent news about how a pregnant woman decided to forego chemotherapy for cancer and died shortly after the birth of her child. While most posters expressed admiration for the woman’s sacrifice, there were some who felt compelled to point out that the woman was not married, and seemed to think her committing the sin of premarital sex totally cancelled out her later heroic actions (which aren’t even required by Church teaching…yes, St. Gianna Molla was canonized, but from what I understand, if she had chose to undergo treatment for her illness, she would not have been sinning). That’s the kind of attitude that seems more in tune with Westboro Baptist Church types than Catholics with compassion.

 

[Nate13]

Hmm, I am thinking (since I have had issues along these lines myself) that the OP is probably referring to one of two things, or perhaps both of them. One is that many people on CAF seem to have a “take or leave it” approach to “admonishing the sinner”. Instead of really getting down to reach people at their level, they say “this is the TRUTH and if you can’t take it, too bad”. I suppose that may be par for the course in the “Moral Theology” forum, but I’ve seen it take place in the Family Life and other forums as well.

I agree with this, if this is what the op is referring to. When someone asks “what does the Church teach on X issue” it makes complete sense to quote from the Catechism or encyclicals. When someone asks “why does the Church teach this” the Catechism or encyclicals are good starting points for a discussion, but something more is required while using those as a platform. True apologetic’s requires getting inside someone’s head and trying to view the problem from their perspective so you can find the best way to reach out to them.

The take it or leave it approach does make sense when someone asks what the Church teaches. I know a lot frustration occurs when we can’t even have a discussion about why the Church teaches something because we haven’t even been able to agree that X is what the Church teaches. At that point there isn’t much else you can do except say “take it or leave it”.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I agree that the “take it or leave it” approach probably does work for someone who is just asking a question of fact as to “what is Official Church teaching?” or perhaps a non-Catholic who wants to engage in debate over some abstract concept. However, I think that one problem is that often, newbie posters (sometimes I still feel like one myself) post in the wrong forum, that many people post in the Moral Theology and really are seeking personal advice. Such posts are likely more suited for Family Life or some other forum. I’ve often noticed that people start out asking what seems to be an impersonal question, but later reveal that they have a personal stake in the answer.

It also seems that some people just don’t feel comfortable engaging in debate, so they just throw a bunch of Bible quotes, Catechism quotes, or perhaps quotes from some notable saint at a poster, and hope that makes an impact in some way. Honestly, while I do appreciate the effort, many “official” Catholic sources are also very dry and hard to understand. Especially when Catholic definitions differ from secular definitions, such as the word “lust”. I think most such posters do have good intentions, but I don’t think this “toss some quotes at someone” approach really is that effective.

 

[Nate13]

I agree that the “take it or leave it” approach probably does work for someone who is just asking a question of fact as to “what is Official Church teaching?” or perhaps a non-Catholic who wants to engage in debate over some abstract concept. However, I think that one problem is that often, newbie posters (sometimes I still feel like one myself) post in the wrong forum, that many people post in the Moral Theology and really are seeking personal advice. Such posts are likely more suited for Family Life or some other forum. I’ve often noticed that people start out asking what seems to be an impersonal question, but later reveal that they have a personal stake in the answer.

It also seems that some people just don’t feel comfortable engaging in debate, so they just throw a bunch of Bible quotes, Catechism quotes, or perhaps quotes from some notable saint at a poster, and hope that makes an impact in some way. Honestly, while I do appreciate the effort, many “official” Catholic sources are also very dry and hard to understand. Especially when Catholic definitions differ from secular definitions, such as the word “lust”. I think most such posters do have good intentions, but I don’t think this “toss some quotes at someone” approach really is that effective.

Very true. A possible way to help combat this might be to have an official Catholic dictionary of terms that are often used in discussions. Then there is a known starting point with which everyone can work from. I can definitely attest to the amount of time wasted because of misunderstandings.

This might be a good place to start: newadvent.org/cathen/

 

[severus68]

Hmm, I am thinking (since I have had issues along these lines myself) that the OP is probably referring to one of two things, or perhaps both of them. One is that many people on CAF seem to have a “take or leave it” approach to “admonishing the sinner”. Instead of really getting down to reach people at their level, they say “this is the TRUTH and if you can’t take it, too bad”. I suppose that may be par for the course in the “Moral Theology” forum, but I’ve seen it take place in the Family Life and other forums as well.

I also agree that many people (and this is not just CAF posters) feel more comfortable judging people for sins that they themselves are not tempted to commit. For example, the harsh judgment levied not just against sexually active homosexuals, but anyone who identifies himself as “gay”, repeated statements that the state of being “homosexual” is in itself sinful, and the approach some people take of homosexuals as a group being the “enemy” not deserving of any charity or compassion (for example, the recent suicide of a teen who identified as homosexual was taken as an opportunity to just rail against how “the homosexual lobby” was going to use this case to further their cause…not that this was completely inaccurate, but the way it was expressed seemed quite insensitive). There often seems to be an “us against them” mentality where the priority is not evangelizing or converting people, but simply defeating them; a mentality that seems to be far more political or military in nature than fit for a religious forum.

Or, the OP may be referring to people who make statements that they imply are “true” Church teaching when they’re not; for example, a mother can only work for pay if the alternative is starvation; a couple can only practice NFP if another pregnancy might cause death, disability or destitution; all parents MUST either send their children to Catholic school or homeschool them; dating is inherently sinful, while courting isn’t; a female must be under the authority of some man (either father, husband or other male relative) from birth to death; marrying a non-Catholic is sinful (as opposed to just a bad idea), etc, etc, etc. Or, people who state things like, “I’m living in a shack without running water with five kids, homeschooling them all, and I’m not even tempted to use NFP; if I can do it, you can do it.” I tend to call that a holier-than-thou attitude, but I guess some might call that a fundamentalist one

Another example I just thought of is, the recent news about how a pregnant woman decided to forego chemotherapy for cancer and died shortly after the birth of her child. While most posters expressed admiration for the woman’s sacrifice, there were some who felt compelled to point out that the woman was not married, and seemed to think her committing the sin of premarital sex totally cancelled out her later heroic actions (which aren’t even required by Church teaching…yes, St. Gianna Molla was canonized, but from what I understand, if she had chose to undergo treatment for her illness, she would not have been sinning). That’s the kind of attitude that seems more in tune with Westboro Baptist Church types than Catholics with compassion.

great post. Well said.

 

[CopticChristian]

It seems to me, having spoken to a great many American Catholics, especially converts, on this forum, and having lived among a strong supportive Catholic community in the UK before being thrust into the much more individualistic world of American life, that there is a social issue nobody is addressing.

Namely, that some American Catholics, particularly of the more conservative sort, are applying ways of thinking about Catholic moral teaching that are drawn from Bible-only Fundamentalist Protestant churches. Substituting the Catechism for the Bible, they won’t accept any advice or practice unless it is supported by direct quotes from Church documents, and believe that there is a simple and unchallengeable correct answer to every moral question ‘in the book’. Its as if for Scripture and Tradition they read, Scripture and Church Documents.

My experience with those who lead faithful but joyful Catholic lives, including many wise priests and nuns from Catholic cultures in Britain, Ireland, Poland, Mexico and Nigeria, is that it isn’t supposed to be that way. The Catechism is to inform our conscience, encyclicals are for spiritual reading, not for ‘proof-texting’. I know I have been prone to this kind of legalism myself. I just thought it was worth exposing this to the light and letting people make their own minds up.

I have read and followed the post. For the most part each has contributed what they think/believe to be liberal, conservative or fundamental. Paul was a Fundamentalist as was Jesus.

I ask, you have been asked, to name a few of the issues you have found that you noted that these topics were addressed as Fundamentalist.
4
5.

Just give me 5 or so. I want to know what the topic was and what the Fundamentalist bent was. I cannot undertand your perspective without example.

 

[Bookcat]

As a Christian…a Catholic …

Let us embrace, and profess and live the fullness of the Catholic Faith!

Let us be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in us to those who ask!

Let us follow Jesus of Nazareth with great joy!

Let us “put off the old man” and “put on Christ”…

Let us read and study and love the Sacred Scriptures prayerfully (lectio divina)

Let us study the Teachings of the Church, the Catechism and documents of the Church with enthusiasm and joy and in the right way.

Let us love one another and seek to bring others the joy of knowing Christ!

Let us live the* “life”* we have in him and propose him to others…for he is our hope and our true life!

Let us live our baptism!

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060108_battesimo_en.html

Let us “renew our minds!” our “way of thinking”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html (keep reading…the whole thing…about the renewal of the mind etc)

 

[CopticChristian]

As a Christian…a Catholic …

Let us embrace, and profess and live the fullness of the Catholic Faith!

Let us be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in us to those who ask!

Let us follow Jesus of Nazareth with great joy!

Let us “put off the old man” and “put on Christ”…

Let us read and study and love the Sacred Scriptures prayerfully (lectio divina)

Let us study the Teachings of the Church, the Catechism and documents of the Church with enthusiasm and joy and in the right way.

Let us love one another and seek to bring others the joy of knowing Christ!

Let us live the* “life”* we have in him and propose him to others…for he is our hope and our true life!

Let us live our baptism!

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060108_battesimo_en.html

Let us “renew our minds!” our “way of thinking”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html (keep reading…the whole thing…about the renewal of the mind etc)

Amen, we wait.

 

[Rich494]

I agree that there can be an element within the Church that takes this very legalistic view.
Good or bad, I won’t say for it depends on the individual and how they approach the matter.

However, consulting such documents etc has good many uses.

The good comes from the ability to consult the various documents for the purposes of learning and for resolving differences. For the deepening of ones faith and resolving matter that disturb the peace of the spirit.

After all, as St Paul says in one of his letters to Timothy, such things are useful for teaching, for correcting, for rebuke, and preparing one for all good things.

Peace
James

The Spirit of God said through Paul that all Scripture is useful. Not other writings of the church.

 

[Rich494]

God through the Holy Spirit moved Paul to write "that all Scripture is good for teaching correction, etc. Not other writings of Church people.

 

[Blossoming]

Politics aside, I also see what passes for fundamentalist Christian dogma being put forth as Catholic dogma in various threads, various ways, often.

I think people who are not Christians might not grasp the vast differences between, say, Baptists or Pentacostals, and Catholicism. When such people who are not and never have been any kind of Christian at all try to come off as Catholic, I think they mix this stuff up by accident, imo. That is my guess as to why.

 

[Abu]

Rich494 #52
God through the Holy Spirit moved Paul to write "that all Scripture is good for teaching correction, etc. Not other writings of Church people.

Try to get to know the Bible, which you have because Christ’s Catholic Church gave it to the world by defining which books, and no others, comprise the Word of God.

Not only is the Pope Christ’s Supreme Vicar but His Church teaches us through Her Sacred Scriptures.

When you accept Christ’s Church you will then have His Mystical Body the pillar and ground of the truth – “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19). Those who continue to deny Christ will be denied by Him to His Father in heaven (Mt 10:13).

Would you deny St John and St Paul Too?
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! We are redeemed by Christ’s Passion and Death (heaven was opened); we are not saved until we co-operate with Him.

 

[Debora123]

Hmm, I am thinking (since I have had issues along these lines myself) that the OP is probably referring to one of two things, or perhaps both of them. One is that many people on CAF seem to have a “take or leave it” approach to “admonishing the sinner”. Instead of really getting down to reach people at their level, they say “this is the TRUTH and if you can’t take it, too bad”. I suppose that may be par for the course in the “Moral Theology” forum, but I’ve seen it take place in the Family Life and other forums as well.

I also agree that many people (and this is not just CAF posters) feel more comfortable judging people for sins that they themselves are not tempted to commit. For example, the harsh judgment levied not just against sexually active homosexuals, but anyone who identifies himself as “gay”, repeated statements that the state of being “homosexual” is in itself sinful, and the approach some people take of homosexuals as a group being the “enemy” not deserving of any charity or compassion (for example, the recent suicide of a teen who identified as homosexual was taken as an opportunity to just rail against how “the homosexual lobby” was going to use this case to further their cause…not that this was completely inaccurate, but the way it was expressed seemed quite insensitive). There often seems to be an “us against them” mentality where the priority is not evangelizing or converting people, but simply defeating them; a mentality that seems to be far more political or military in nature than fit for a religious forum.

Or, the OP may be referring to people who make statements that they imply are “true” Church teaching when they’re not; for example, a mother can only work for pay if the alternative is starvation; a couple can only practice NFP if another pregnancy might cause death, disability or destitution; all parents MUST either send their children to Catholic school or homeschool them; dating is inherently sinful, while courting isn’t; a female must be under the authority of some man (either father, husband or other male relative) from birth to death; marrying a non-Catholic is sinful (as opposed to just a bad idea), etc, etc, etc. Or, people who state things like, “I’m living in a shack without running water with five kids, homeschooling them all, and I’m not even tempted to use NFP; if I can do it, you can do it.” I tend to call that a holier-than-thou attitude, but I guess some might call that a fundamentalist one

Another example I just thought of is, the recent news about how a pregnant woman decided to forego chemotherapy for cancer and died shortly after the birth of her child. While most posters expressed admiration for the woman’s sacrifice, there were some who felt compelled to point out that the woman was not married, and seemed to think her committing the sin of premarital sex totally cancelled out her later heroic actions (which aren’t even required by Church teaching…yes, St. Gianna Molla was canonized, but from what I understand, if she had chose to undergo treatment for her illness, she would not have been sinning). That’s the kind of attitude that seems more in tune with Westboro Baptist Church types than Catholics with compassion.

EXCELLENT POST!!! Thank you for so eloquently putting into words what so many of us have such a hard time expressing. God bless you.

:clapping:

 

[Debora123]

I agree that the “take it or leave it” approach probably does work for someone who is just asking a question of fact as to “what is Official Church teaching?” or perhaps a non-Catholic who wants to engage in debate over some abstract concept. However, I think that one problem is that often, newbie posters (sometimes I still feel like one myself) post in the wrong forum, that many people post in the Moral Theology and really are seeking personal advice. Such posts are likely more suited for Family Life or some other forum. I’ve often noticed that people start out asking what seems to be an impersonal question, but later reveal that they have a personal stake in the answer.

It also seems that some people just don’t feel comfortable engaging in debate, so they just throw a bunch of Bible quotes, Catechism quotes, or perhaps quotes from some notable saint at a poster, and hope that makes an impact in some way. Honestly, while I do appreciate the effort, many “official” Catholic sources are also very dry and hard to understand. Especially when Catholic definitions differ from secular definitions, such as the word “lust”. I think most such posters do have good intentions, but I don’t think this “toss some quotes at someone” approach really is that effective.

Excellent.

 

[manualman]

God through the Holy Spirit moved Paul to write "that all Scripture is good for teaching correction, etc. Not other writings of Church people.

You don’t see the fallacy in that argument? Oy vey!

If this passage says what you THINK it says, then you had better quickly figure out which books of the bible were written AFTER 2 Timothy and RIP them out of your bible!

After all, anything written after that moment must be ‘just documents’ by your logic. Right? You would be morally required to learn what PAUL considered to be Scripture and to ONLY consider those sources authoritative. How could Paul be referring to Scripture that hadn’t been written yet? He was writing to real people living in his time.

The real meaning of that passage is that a christian is NOT complete without a working knowledge of the Scriptures. Any other interpretation obliterates chronologically later books of the bible (or perhaps the whole New Testament if Paul was defining Scripture as just the OT in his day since the canon of the NT was far from definite at the time).

 

[CopticChristian]

The Spirit of God said through Paul that all Scripture is useful. Not other writings of the church.

So when you examine that statement, what Scripture is Paul writing about…look closely, it is the Old Testament for the NT had not been written in its entirety and declared to be Scripture…so then according to you the other writings of the Church that were later written and declared to be Sripture could not be Scripture because Paul is speaking of the OT.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It seems to me, having spoken to a great many American Catholics, especially converts, on this forum, and having lived among a strong supportive Catholic community in the UK before being thrust into the much more individualistic world of American life, that there is a social issue nobody is addressing.

Namely, that some American Catholics, particularly of the more conservative sort, are applying ways of thinking about Catholic moral teaching that are drawn from Bible-only Fundamentalist Protestant churches. Substituting the Catechism for the Bible, they won’t accept any advice or practice unless it is supported by direct quotes from Church documents, and believe that there is a simple and unchallengeable correct answer to every moral question ‘in the book’. Its as if for Scripture and Tradition they read, Scripture and Church Documents.

My experience with those who lead faithful but joyful Catholic lives, including many wise priests and nuns from Catholic cultures in Britain, Ireland, Poland, Mexico and Nigeria, is that it isn’t supposed to be that way. The Catechism is to inform our conscience, encyclicals are for spiritual reading, not for ‘proof-texting’. I know I have been prone to this kind of legalism myself. I just thought it was worth exposing this to the light and letting people make their own minds up.

I am not sure I quite agree with a good part of this.

First of all, let’s talk about culture a little and Fundamentalism. Being from the UK, you are surely aware that American Fundamentalism came here from the British Isles. It’s a cultural remnant, largely brought here by the Scots-Irish and the Scots. It should not seem so very strange.

Second, to the extent Catholics in the U.S. might, to some, seem pedantic and book-driven, it has to be recognized that this is largely an Irish inheritance; a cultural thing. But it isn’t all bad. I have long (jokingly, but not entirely so) said that one ought to be taught one’s Catechism by Irish nuns; that one should have an Italian confessor, a German pastor, a Polish sub-pastor in charge of parish activities, and a Haitian priest or nun as a spiritual director.

(One must realize too, that to the extent Irish or German or Polish or Italian ways have been imported, they were imported quite some time ago and might not be reflective of the ways the people in the “Old Countries” are today. Probably aren’t.)

Whatever has happened in the Church in the UK (regarding which I am largely ignorant), it has to be recognized that in the U.S. there are a lot of inherited cultural influences on Catholics, and they vary from person to person and from place to place.

But one also has to realize that places like CAF are often “debating societies”, though not always. Unfortunately, there has been a dearth of real catechesis in the U.S. for a long time, and those who really do know what the Church teaches can become somewhat pedantic about what it teaches and what it doesn’t, precisely because they do not want to see error spread in here. If one looks at the number of people who look at these threads and the number who actually post, one sees that the former outnumber the latter by about ten to one. Now and then, you will see posts that are sort of “pastoral” in their approaches to moral issues, but by and large, people simply do not want Church teachings to be misunderstood by those who are watching but who do not engage.

One can add to that the fact that the current “secular wave” in this country does invite resistance among those who wish to be faithful to the teachings of the Church. One does not have to read very many threads to realize that canoodling with secular materialism is a virulent contagion.

 

[michelleds]

Seriously awesome ridgerunner

 

[Faith1960]

I’m sorry, but in defense of the Original Poster above,
he never said that he thought that the Catholic Church was
full of nothing but Liberals.
Where did you get that idea?

I understand what he is talking about, to a degree.

I for one, doctrinally, am a very conservative, orthodox Catholic.
I accept fully the teachings of the scriptures and the magisterium.
But I also believe that there is a wideness in God’s mercy,
a wideness that some (not necessarily many, and certainly not all)
orthodox Catholics SEEM not to share in their very harsh judgmentalism
of people who fall. I’ll give an example. I don’t agree with or condone,
at ALL, what Father Corapi has done in abandoning the priesthood and becoming
instead the “Black Sheep Dog” complete with motorcycle jacket and newly-
jet black beard. But I will not condemn this man harshly nor encourage others to
do so, I think there should be fervent prayer for Father Corapi to return to the priesthood, and less almost-sadistic foaming at the mouth at him over his “disobedience.”
Yes, he is being disobedient, but people didn’t have to go on and on and on about it.
He has not denied one single doctrine of the Catholic faith.
Quoting Canon Law, scripture, and church documents in order to condemn the man,
is going way too far, I think. This is just one example. I have never seen Catholic conservatives turn on Hans Kung with the ferocity that they turned on the fallen
Father Corapi. That REALLY surprised me.
I wonder if the Original Poster had similar examples in mind when he wrote his post about fundamentalistic attitudes. Fundies tend to believe that you cannot lose your salvation no matter how wickedly you unrepentantly sin, but are the first to call for severe punishments and the death penalty (not realizing that if they are RIGHT about nobody being able to lose their salvation no matter what, then inflicting the death penalty on a wicked but born-again Christian DOESN’T really PUNISH him or her, but instead sends them STRAIGHT to the heights of heaven!!!).
Also, because a Catholic is sincerely in error and disagreement with a particular church teaching, doesn’t make him a liberal. It makes him wrong on THAT POINT, but it doesn’t make him a “liberal.” LIBERALISM is an ISM, it is an overall rebellious state of mind, not an error here and there, or a sincere but mistaken belief that the church is wrong. These people we have to pray for and be very merciful to. They are not on the same level, at all, as groups like Catholics for Free Choice, and even THOSE people we should offer prayers for for THEIR repentance if at all possible.
The Heart of God, is MERCY.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

What a refreshingly wonderful post here on CAF, today!