Glenn Beck says to run away from churches who preach social justice?

[pnewton]

Ban me! But first ban all of the nitwits who bore FALSE (as opposed to my accurate) witness against Mr, Beck in this thread.

I do not see any false wtiness, but then I might have missed it. In order to lie, one would have to accuse Beck of saying something he did not say, not take what he said literally. The interpretation of what he said and what he meant is something that can be disagreed with with being a liar.

My reply is that perhaps my wording was awkward, but when He associated with sinners, He didn’t do so to join in the sinning.

Neither does my priest promote abortion in promoting social justice. I think there is a tendancy on both sides to so cast people in such narrrow stereotypes that we assume that agreement with one issue means agreement with another issue. One can be very liberal in response to the poor and the relationship of the government and still be a strong anti-abortionists. There is nothing inherent in social justice that mandates sinful behavior. One can still help build a house with Jimmy Carter without supporting abortion.

 

[Ella]

“Social Justice” isn’t a phrase coined by Rev. Wright. It’s a term that we Catholics have used for over 100 years. Don’t let Mr. Beck’s rhetoric drive a wedge between good Catholics and the term “Social Justice”. Don’t let morality erode on the edges. Look at us. We have Mr. Beck telling people to leave their churches, their parishes, their priests, specific Catholic terms, if the words “Social Justice” is used therein, and here are many people defending this statement and claiming that what Beck literally said is not what he meant. In another discussion, we have people insisting that it is right and moral to waterboard certain prisoners if the ends justify the means. Both of these ideas, to flee from churches that use the term “social justice”, and that waterboarding is moral, come from the right, and if one disagrees with these things the accusation of being pro-abortion is used.

All I’m saying is, step back and ponder what kind of person is promoting these things vs. what the bishops, cardinals, and the Pope says. Maybe turn off that radio for a week; change the TV channel to EWTN. Read the Bible. Just for a week. This upcoming week would be perfect for that.

 

[4elise]

Neither does my priest promote abortion in promoting social justice. I think there is a tendancy on both sides to so cast people in such narrrow stereotypes that we assume that agreement with one issue means agreement with another issue. One can be very liberal in response to the poor and the relationship of the government and still be a strong anti-abortionists. There is nothing inherent in social justice that mandates sinful behavior. One can still help build a house with Jimmy Carter without supporting abortion.

Exactly… we are in so great a need today of recognizing this.
And treating those we disagree with - also with respect. I’ve just seen on the news the way some people are reacting to the health care bill… vandilism, threats… lets pray that this ends.

 

[RWMorris]

If this is a summary of the posted article, then I fear the reading problem has reared its ugly head again.

Nope. There seem to be a disagreement over the use of the term teabagger. I performed a public service and posted the definition. I don’t really care if someone calls me a teabagger. I participate in the Tea Party movement simply because I am a firm believer in low taxes and small government. There doesn’t seem to be a place in the democratic or republican party for me.

 

[RWMorris]

… All I’m saying is, step back and ponder what kind of person is promoting these things vs. what the bishops, cardinals, and the Pope says. Maybe turn off that radio for a week; change the TV channel to EWTN. Read the Bible. Just for a week. This upcoming week would be perfect for that.

Great idea. I think I might just do this.

 

[Convert66]

pnewton,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Convert66 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Ban me! But first ban all of the nitwits who bore FALSE (as opposed to my accurate) witness against Mr, Beck in this thread. *

I do not see any false wtiness, but then I might have missed it. In order to lie, one would have to accuse Beck of saying something he did not say, not take what he said literally. The interpretation of what he said and what he meant is something that can be disagreed with with being a liar.

As for your last two sentences, I agree. My caveat is that persistence in prejudice well after ample (granted, in the eye of the beholder, and I do not lack stubbornness myself) evidence to the contrary has been given, ad nauseum, is… shall we say, intellectually dishonest?

As per you first, the forum police have selectively pointed their advice towards those with views contrary to their own, which is to not quote others to excess. So, let me snip a few comments from prior pages directed towards Mr. Beck, and if you choose to, you may follow up by reading through the earlier pages for yourself and see whether there has been any bearing of false witness against him or not. I have added a few comments of my own in parentheses.

Describing him as psychotic is too generous. The man is a sociopath with no conscience and no moral grounding…

I just wrote that Glenn Beck is a sociopath, but there is another word for a sociopath that doesn’t have the root word “socio-” in it, but means the same thing: Psychopath.

That is a person with no conscience who uses people to gain money, fame and power.

He has confused communism and socialism and, with his blackboard, has mutilated the Constitution and our government, twisting them into something of his own creation, with no concern about how his viewers and followers understand what he is really all about.

…the man is dangerous…

He pretends to be a professor of logic and philosophy.
He is preaching hatred, judgment, and to a viewer who becomes engrossed in his rhetoric, deadly actions.
The fact that he doesn’t see this potential threat is what makes HIM dangerous.

The right-wing that identifies with Beck’s recent statements promotes a political philosophy of selfishness that is not compatible with Christian/Catholic teaching.

Lets pray his rhetoric does not get some one killed. I will not be suprised some one will commit murder professing on what Glenn Beck says.

(towards a Beck defender) Maybe you need to take a refresher in Reading Comprehension.

…it wouldn’t surprise me if this ‘social justice’ thing Glenn fears is more about caring for illegal immigrants than about health care reform. (implied racism?)

Mr. Beck speak and writes historical fiction but presents it as fact.

Do not be suprised some one is killed because of some one like Glenn Beck spewing hatred and fear. I sincerely pray I am wrong and nothing bad happens.

(to a Beck defender) Are you Catholic?

He has entered my list of anticatholics and right-wing reactionaries who claim to love America while caring little or nothing for the majority of Americans.

So, while I am not moved by hypocritical lectures about childishness from it’s best practitioners, nor exhortations stating rules against ad hominems by the same people engaged in them, I do think that a good, healthy dose of their own medicine is often required in order to shock the immune systems into healthy function from time to time.

I learned this the hard way while raising my ten children (aged 9-25), who, owing to their natures as actual children and, naturally, behaving like children, nevertheless have learned not to take everything that tickles their ears as Gospel, just because some well-groomed and articulate empath sought to soothe them into an atrophied view of reality.

I seem to recall many “right-wing reactionaries” (are you even aware where that characterization comes from, by the way?) insisting that our President was a Muslim based upon a literal quoting of his own words, “…my Muslim faith.” Now, surely we could agree that he did actually say that (it’s on video). But, in order to take him in an exclusively literal sense one would have to ignore the context of the conversation, the other things he has said, or his own clarifications about what he said, would they not? It would seem rather fundamental, in the spirit of fair-play and understanding, that it may be helpful for those who have intuited Mr. Beck’s meaning from his “literal words”, to extend the same courtesy rather than launching into half-baked and ill-informed caricatures.

But maybe that’s just the “right-wing reactionary” in me coming out.

All my best…

 

[catharina]

I do not see any false wtiness, but then I might have missed it. In order to lie, one would have to accuse Beck of saying something he did not say, not take what he said literally. The interpretation of what he said and what he meant is something that can be disagreed with with being a liar.
Neither does my priest promote abortion in promoting social justice. I think there is a tendancy on both sides to so cast people in such narrrow stereotypes that we assume that agreement with one issue means agreement with another issue. One can be very liberal in response to the poor and the relationship of the government and still be a strong anti-abortionists. There is nothing inherent in social justice that mandates sinful behavior. One can still help build a house with Jimmy Carter without supporting abortion.

Thanks for this post.

 

[pnewton]

As for your last two sentences, I agree. My caveat is that persistence in prejudice well after ample (granted, in the eye of the beholder, and I do not lack stubbornness myself) evidence to the contrary has been given, ad nauseum, is… shall we say, intellectually dishonest?

While I do not grant that enough evidence has been given to convince me that Beck is not anticatholic, I stated that I might give him the benefit of the doubt and start listening to him again if he is still on next year. So I did change my stance of his political point, and can see where the context indicates he meant something other than what he said.

I will no longer advise against ad hominem attacks. To summarize your last point of view, your response to the accusations of ad hominem attacks was, “They started it.” Is that the gist of what you are saying?

 

[kbkam]

No one on right that I listen to (GB and Rush) condones violence. I remember, last week, that Rep. Stupak was quoted saying his family was suffering a living hell because of all the people on the left hassling the family about his supposed pro-life stance on the health bill.

Irony of ironies-
GB is one of the only talk show hosts who unabashedly suggests that people pray.

Is this something we can agree about?

 

[RWMorris]

Sorry if my question was not clear.
I am asking you if you believe the exhortation by St. Paul to those in the early community applies TODAY to those who can not find work, or who do not have the same advantages of education, familial resources, etc…?

I wonder how people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they don’t have shoes?

I have always been under the impression that the truth is truth. If it was true then, it is true now. If St Paul is wrong now, he was wrong then. It has always been hard to improve one’s lot in life. We are all saddled with original sin, genetics, prejudices, and environment. My personal opinion is there has never been a time in world history, nor a place on earth where it is easier to “bootstrap” than the current day US. But it is never easy, and never will be.

 

[pnewton]

GB is one of the only talk show hosts who unabashedly suggests that people pray.

Is this something we can agree about?

Yes, it is good to encourage prayer. This is something that we can all agree is a good thing, whether from Glen Beck or Jack Chick, a Catholic Bishop or an Islamic Iman. It is always good to encourage one to turn to God in all things.

 

[Convert66]

I must say that my opinion of one man mentioned in this thread has moderated. I spent a good deal of the morning reading Jim Wallis’ writing (he of Sojourners fame, not to mention several NY Times bestsellers). While I disagree with his bent towards statist solutions, I certainly do not think he is some closet Marxist like Beck has claimed. Does he go too far in recommending statist solutions? By my lights, yes. But his words strike me as borne of a deep conviction and love for his fellow man, regardless of their status, and a profound love for God (such as he understands Him) and I also believe he does the best he can do to model compassion and justice. My hats off to him for equally holding the right and the left’s feet to the fire on the issue of life.

Pnewton,

To summarize your last point of view, your response to the accusations of ad hominem attacks was, “They started it.” Is that the gist of what you are saying?

Not quite. If concern for ad hominem argumentation were that important, it seems that the admonishment would flow in more than one direction. Otherwise, it just looks like a handy stick to wave around whenever one’s opinions are questioned. That is my “gist.”

Hyperbole and polemic are one thing, and perfectly acceptable to my mind, especially on a board that exists to discuss and debate sensitive issues; but, poisoning the well and character assassination, given the oft-posted admonitions against ad-hominem argumentation by it’s main perpetrators, strikes me as being… well, in the least, ironic.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

I must say that my opinion of one man mentioned in this thread has moderated. I spent a good deal of the morning reading Jim Wallis’ writing (he of Sojourners fame, not to mention several NY Times bestsellers). While I disagree with his bent towards statist solutions, I certainly do not think he is some closet Marxist like Beck has claimed. Does he go too far in recommending statist solutions? By my lights, yes. But his words strike me as borne of a deep conviction and love for his fellow man, regardless of their status, and a profound love for God (such as he understands Him) and I also believe he does the best he can do to model compassion and justice. My hats off to him for equally holding the right and the left’s feet to the fire on the issue of life.

Pnewton,

Not quite. If concern for ad hominem argumentation were that important, it seems that the admonishment would flow in more than one direction. Otherwise, it just looks like a handy stick to wave around whenever one’s opinions are questioned. That is my “gist.”

Hyperbole and polemic are one thing, and perfectly acceptable to my mind, especially on a board that exists to discuss and debate sensitive issues; but, poisoning the well and character assassination, given the oft-posted admonitions against ad-hominem argumentation by it’s main perpetrators, strikes me as being… well, in the least, ironic.
One man’s hyperbole may be another’s character assassination. I had never read Jim Wallis’s writing either but he seems to be a dedicated and moderate man. Thanks for the info.

 

[Phil_Stone]

Mr Beck can explain, rephrase, re-explain, etc. till the cows come home. If what it appears he meant changes with each version, which is presumably why he returned to the subject, what he now wants us to understand him to have meant. But what he meant when he said Social Justice is code is very clear. If he wants to retract that, that is fine, but what comes across to me is not that he is sorry that he said it, so much as that people called him out on it, and he had to run away from his position.

What some here seem to be advocating is that we should just ignore what he actually said originally in favor of what he is saying now, after people reacted to what he originally said. I don’t mind forgiving him, but forgetting is rubbish. This is Standanrd Operating Procedure for people in Mr Beck’s field. Everyone is supposed to forget what they said so they can go on to contradict themselves, or ignore what what they said implies about them personally.

The fact is that there are actual movements to seperate Christ from Christianity and attach him to Radical Free Marketism. Supporters of this movement tend to denigrate “Social Justice” and the poor, and those who seek to help them. One group in this realm is called The Family, and Mr Stupak has been living in one of their houses for years. For more information on The Family, their history and world-wide reach, see Jeff Sharlett’s book of the same name.

In this context it is worth remembering that Mr Beck would seem to demonize the churches which advocate for Social Justice by suggesting that they are being deceptive by speaking in code. As to the importance of Social Justice to The Church, the above mentioned interview with Fr. James Martin does a pretty good job of making an oxymoron out of “Catholic Libertarianism,” or the Family for Catholics.

colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/267673/march-18-2010/glenn-beck-attacks-social-justice—james-martin

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Mr Beck can explain, rephrase, re-explain, etc. till the cows come home. If what it appears he meant changes with each version, which is presumably why he returned to the subject, what he now wants us to understand him to have meant. But what he meant when he said Social Justice is code is very clear. If he wants to retract that, that is fine, but what comes across to me is not that he is sorry that he said it, so much as that people called him out on it, and he had to run away from his position. Point well made. Since people were addressing his back-tracking I tried to find the original statement again. It has been pulled by Fox on youtube and suspiciously off right wing blogs. I’m not the coomputer sophisticated, but I began to wonder myself. The original statement is the start of the thread and that still works.

What some here seem to be advocating is that we should just ignore what he actually said originally in favor of what he is saying now, after people reacted to what he originally said. I don’t mind forgiving him, but forgetting is rubbish. This is Standanrd Operating Procedure for people in Mr Beck’s field. Everyone is supposed to forget what they said so they can go on to contradict themselves, or ignore what what they said implies about them personally.

The fact is that there are actual movements to seperate Christ from Christianity and attach him to Radical Free Marketism. Supporters of this movement tend to denigrate “Social Justice” and the poor, and those who seek to help them. One group in this realm is called The Family, and Mr Stupak has been living in one of their houses for years. For more information on The Family, their history and world-wide reach, see Jeff Sharlett’s book of the same name. I have heard the author speak on various shows and agree with him that this is a distortion of Christianity. I plan to buy the book

In this context it is worth remembering that Mr Beck would seem to demonize the churches which advocate for Social Justice by suggesting that they are being deceptive by speaking in code. As to the importance of Social Justice to The Church, the above mentioned interview with Fr. James Martin does a pretty good job of making an oxymoron out of “Catholic Libertarianism,” or the Family for Catholics.
I think this guy is trying to start a revolution. Media Matter For America has an exact count of how many times he has used the word revolution. Come on, aren’t we smater than this?

colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/267673/march-18-2010/glenn-beck-attacks-social-justice—james-martin

 

[RWMorris]

The very fact that Glen Beck has had to revisit his comments several times seems to suggest social justice means different things to different people. It certainly seems to be true in the case of this thread. It certainly seems true with Catholics and many other Christians. The definition of social justice isn’t clear, even amongst our Bishops. It certainly stands to reason that the term, while moral, and a what should be a byproduct of Christian behavior, has become victim of the agendas of groups that we can hardly call Christian.

 

[oldsinnner]

File this under your “Words Have Meanings”

Profile of the Sociopath

1. • Glibness and Superficial Charm
   • Manipulative and Conning
     They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
   • Grandiose Sense of Self
     Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
   • Pathological Lying
     Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
   • Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
     A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
   • Shallow Emotions
     When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
   • Incapacity for Love
   • Need for Stimulation
     Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
   • Callousness/Lack of Empathy
     Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
   • Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
     Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
   • Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
     Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
   • Irresponsibility/Unreliability
     Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
   • Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
     Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
   • Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
     Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
   • Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
     Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

   ---

   **Other Related Qualities: **
   • Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
   • Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
   • Authoritarian
   • Secretive
   • Paranoid
   • Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
   • Conventional appearance
   • Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
   • Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
   • Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
   • Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
   • Incapable of real human attachment to another
   • Unable to feel remorse or guilt
   • Extreme narcissism and grandiose
   • May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

   (The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)​

   I’m not even going to get into “psychopath,” which is Charles Manson territory. Needless to say, Katrina, you haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. Granted your dislike of Glenn Beck, but take a few deep breaths and be a little more realistic.
   
   dj

1. 
   You just described Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Everyone proclaims ‘social justice’ as their goal. The phrase itself, means little. But I think as far as the Church goes, my understanding of why it makes people a little nervous, is who it has allowed them to get in bed with in South America where it has become a mantra of the re-branded communists.

 

[catharina]

The very fact that Glen Beck has had to revisit his comments several times seems to suggest social justice means different things to different people. It certainly seems to be true in the case of this thread. It certainly seems true with Catholics and many other Christians. The definition of social justice isn’t clear, even amongst our Bishops. It certainly stands to reason that the term, while moral, and a what should be a byproduct of Christian behavior, has become victim of the agendas of groups that we can hardly call Christian.

Must take issue with confusion “among our Bishops.” I disagree.
The Catechism is clear in defining the virtue of social justice.

(Following is taken from Post 312)

ARTICLE 3
SOCIAL JUSTICE

1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35
1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.
1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity."37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.

1932 **The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”**38 "

In calling for Social Justice, the Bishops call for conversion of the heart so that we see all men as brothers.   ARTICLE 3
SOCIAL JUSTICE 

1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority. 

I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON 

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: 


What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35 
1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims. 
1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity."37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a "neighbor," a brother. 

1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."38 " 


~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Bishops call us to a conversion of the heart.
("Do unto others... .")

 

[RWMorris]

Must take issue with confusion “among our Bishops.” I disagree.
The Catechism is clear in defining the virtue of social justice.

Really? Would you please define for me the exact meaning of the following.

(Following is taken from Post 312)

1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

Please let me know exactly how much of my income and property I am to allow the government to take and use to help the poor. Since “Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority,” please define “common good” for me.

I am not trying to be difficult, but since you said there is no confusion on this subject I would like for you to clear up mine. Please be specific. I want to do the right thing.

 

[catharina]

Really? Would you please define for me the exact meaning of the following. Please let me know exactly how much of my income and property I am to allow the government to take and use to help the poor. Since “Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority,” please define “common good” for me.

I am not trying to be difficult, but since you said there is no confusion on this subject I would like for you to clear up mine. Please be specific. I want to do the right thing.

I said there is no confusion among the Bishops.
Are you a confused Bishop? I doubt it.

I do not decide for you although I would if you were my 6 yr-old grandson.
What you decide is a decision made in prayer, between you and Our Lord.