Pope Francis: if you are in a state of mortal sin, you cannot receive Communion

[KMG]

This document delineates the problems of AL better than anything out there.

https://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English_1.pdf

 

[KMG]

Why? Cardinal Napier’s question about polygamy makes the same exact point. Why special consideration for adultery and not other sins?

 

[KMG]

And African polygamists see no problem whatsoever with their polygamy. Apples and apples.

 

[BlackFriar]

Why do you consider the above quote nonsense KMG?
You call on “tradition”, yet the above theologian also calls on the same “tradition” you do to prudentially change the ancient practise re Communion for some remarried as an “emergency” measure.

Are you more learned than he in discerning what truly is Church history/tradition on this matter?

 

[BlackFriar]

Why? Cardinal Napier’s question about polygamy makes the same exact point. Why special consideration for adultery and not other sins?

Reread the 1972 steering document I provided you and the answer should be clear.
In fact, traditionally (which seems to be your authority for your views) the Church has made time limited “emergency” exemptions in the past when missionising new lands with very different marriage customs.

You seem to deny this tradition.
Have you ever closely studied Church history on these sorts of matters?

There is little political need to reconsider exempting certain groups engaging in grave matter unless the percentages are high and there is risk of losing generational Catholics rather than gaining and changing their views away from that of their poorly formed parents. There seems to be little risk of that with same sex couples.
Unless of course they start adopting large numbers of children. Then something might be possible.

 

[KMG]

Read the Filial Correction.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The correctio filialis does nothing more than delineate the problems that a minority of theologians and pastors have with the document. There are other theologians who are, likewise, still in good standing with the Church who have no issue with the document. Have you looked into what they have to say? Have you read AL itself?

 

[BlackFriar]

I longer have any respect for your views sorry KMG.
You clearly aren’t engaging in a reasoned two way discussion.
Nor do you let contrary facts stand in your way.

Whatever anti Pope Francis agenda you are trying to promote here I suggest you have turned off 95% of any unbiased persons reading your “contributions”.

BTW the author of the above 1972 quote on prudentially allowing Communion to some remarried couples was of course Cardinal Ratzinger after a detailed survey of traditional teaching and practise since apostolic times.

Therefore in denying AL’s prudential decisions you not only oppose Pope Francis but also Pope Benedict.

God bless, I am done with you.

 

[billy15]

Without wading too far into this very long and protracted thread that many have observed from the sidelines, I’d like to chime in with two points.

First, I completely agree with Black Friar and Deacon Jeff regarding your conduct here in this thread, KMG. You aren’t engaging in a reasoned two way discussion and you’re not presenting your case very well. Also, your comment on a possible “Pope Francis II” is absolutely “Disrespectful, disingenuous and wholly inappropriate.” There was no reason for that, and it greatly hurt your credibility.

Second, the text referred to in post 95 from then-Cardinal Ratzinger was actually retracted by Pope Benedict XVI. A new conclusion to this essay, which no longer suggests that the divorced and remarried can receive the Eucharist, was rewritten in 2014 for the release of a new series of books republishing his theological writings. In the new 2014 edition of this 1972 essay, it is noted that “the contribution has been completely revised by the author.”

To see a full translation of the Pope Emeritus’ updated version of the essay (his “Retractatio”), as well as a full translation of the original version of the essay as posted above in this thread, click here and scroll down to “The new conclusion of the 1972 article, rewritten by Joseph Ratzinger in 2014”. The first few paragraphs are below, which already show a change from what was posted above. Pope Benedict adds quite a bit in the new version, so it’s good to read that in its entirety:

The Church is Church of the New Covenant, but it lives in a world in which there continues to exist unchanged that “hardness of … heart” (Mt 19:8) which drove Moses to legislate. So what can be done concretely, especially at a time in which the faith is being watered down more and more, even within the Church, and the “things with which the pagans are concerned,” against which the Lord warns the disciples (cf. Mt 6:32), threaten to become ever more the norm?

First of all, and essentially, it must proclaim the message of faith in a convincing and comprehensible way and seek to open spaces in which this can be truly lived. The healing of “hardness of heart” can come only through faith, and only where this is alive is it possible to live what the Creator had destined for man before sin. This is why the main and truly fundamental thing that the Church must do is to make faith living and strong.

At the same time, the Church must continue to seek to plumb the breadth and boundaries of the words of Jesus. It must remain faithful to the mandate of the Lord, and cannot even stretch it very much. It appears to me that the “clauses of fornication” that Matthew added to the words of the Lord handed down by Mark already reflect such an effort.

 

[BlackFriar]

Second, the text referred to from then-Cardinal Ratzinger was actually retracted by Pope Benedict XVI. [A new conclusion

You are quite right, this observation should have been added to balance out some of the observations I made re a young Fr Ratzinger acting more freely as scholar and theologian in 1972 than as Pope Emeritus 45 years later.

Some further observations however do seem in order also.
Despite the quickly “syndicated” use of the emotive word “Retraction” by certain originating media parties I have extensively searched in vain to find any objective reference to PBXIV himself describing his revision of the conclusion of that 1972 document as a “retraction”.

I would also advise caution re the Sandro Magister website. It clearly has a more than minor bias against the Pontificate of Pope Francis that one quickly recognises and tires of after reading a handful of articles. The only reason I frequent the site is because the owner is Italian and is almost always the first to report on any new controversy coming or about to come out of the Vatican. He also has the invaluable assistance of Philip Sherry who translates his Italian sources into English.
However I always sit down with a tumbler or two of salt before reading his latest reports.

I further note that when a source in any way supports his somewhat jaundiced eye re the Pontificate of PFI such articles are repeateded almost in full - as is the case with this Revision/Ommission of the 1972 article in PB’s recently published collected works… However when it is not so then he will cherry-pick decontextualized sentences that appear to make his point. The bias is so palpable it is almost tabloid in nature.

But back to the 1972 article. I do agree that PB has lost his original enthusiasm for the changes in Communion practise he seemed quite positive about back in 1972 before the burdens of office.
However I don’t see how that evolved reticence is anything more than prudential. Nor do I see how that can reverse his very scholarly survey and conclusions re the historical and traditional landscape re the variety of approaches the Church actually took in practise. There was certainly no “perennial” or unified approach to this difficult matter in practise.

It therefore goes without saying that if Communion practice varied historically, especially under “emergency conditions”, then to say there has always been a perennial counter “doctrine” prohibiting the practise is facile and not helpful.

Yes, in the end Pope Benedict does seem to have gone very quiet on the matter, yet he has never denied his actual findings re the doctrinal icompatibility of a change in practise should the Church so decide. He clearly sees the issue as primarily prudential in nature - one that he has reversed his position on it seems.

Pope Francis on the otherhand has in fact advanced the very same prudential arguments that Fr Ratzinger proposed in 1972 but dropped during his own Pontificate.

That to me looks like a work of the Holy Spirit, blowing as and where it will when the time is right.

 

[billy15]

I wanted to reply to a couple of your points, Black Friar. First, I don’t want to discuss the Sando Magister site. The only reason I linked to that website is because, as you pointed out, Philip Sherry is a great translator. It was basically the only site easily accessible that had the full text and translation of both versions of the 1972 document.

Also, I wouldn’t say that Pope Benedict has gone quiet on the matter, but that his view on this evolved, and evolved to the point that he was thinking with the mind of the Church. Instead of being reticent, or having a feeling that he couldn’t “Act more freely”, Pope Benedict changed his mind on the issue, and did so quite resolutely. Keep in mind he wrote this before the Synod on the Family in 1980, and the synod’s concluding document, Familiaris consortio. He admitted long before 2014 (and his papacy) that that document (FC) corrected the viewpoint that he held as a young theologian in 1972. In his opening relatio to the synod in 1980, Cardinal Ratzinger said,

“The problem of divorced and remarried persons, who are truly faithful and desire to participate in the life of the Church, is one of the most difficult pastoral concerns in many parts of the world. It will be up to the synod to show the correct approach to pastors in this matter.”

A few years later, in 1991, canon lawyer Fr. Theodore Davey quoted the relevant parts of Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1972 document in the 7/21/1991 issue of The Tablet as he tried to find support for the view that certain couples living more uxorio could receive the Eucharist. In a letter to the editor of the same magazine in the 10/26/1991 issue, Cardinal Ratzinger disagrees with Fr. Davey’s conclusions and labels his “suggestions” as no longer tenable in light of FC 84. Cardinal Ratzinger replies that what he had previously written were not “norms in any official sense”, but instead “formed part of a suggestion I made as a theologian in 1972. Their implementation in pastoral practice would of course necessarily depend on their corroboration by an official act of the Magisterium to whose judgment I would submit… Now, the Magisterium subsequently spoke decisively on this question in the person of the present Holy Father [St. John Paul II] in Familiaris consortio.”

Far from going quiet on the matter, Cardinal Ratzinger (again, long before he was pope) distanced himself from his former viewpoint and saw things much differently once FC reaffirmed the teaching of the Church (which was unified, seen upon study) on the reception of the Eucharist by those who live with someone other than their legitimate spouse more uxorio.

 

[billy15]

Notice he does not support Cardinal Kasper’s proposal on giving certain people who fall into this group an “OK” to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Cardinal Ratzinger states his position (and that of the Church’s) even more forcefully in the CDF’s 1998 document “Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by [the] Divorced and Remarried”. He writes:

"[Some] say that theological notions of epikeia and aequitas canonica could serve to justify, from moral theology as well as juridically, a decision of conscience at variance from the general norm. …

"Epikeia and aequitas canonica exist in the sphere of human and purely ecclesiastical norms of great significance, but cannot be applied to those norms over which the Church has no discretionary authority. The indissoluble nature of marriage is one of these norms which goes back to Christ Himself and is thus identified as a norm of divine law. The Church cannot sanction pastoral practices - for example, sacramental pastoral practices - which contradict the clear instruction of the Lord.

“In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.”

For what it’s worth, I do not believe that Pope Francis has deviated from constant Church teaching in AL. In their pastoral letters, bishops such as Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Sample, Bishop Steven Lopes, Bishop Pedro Daniel Martinez Perea and the Polish bishops’ conference (among others) have all maintained that Pope Francis is in continuity with his predecessors regarding the reception of Holy Communion, and they also maintain that AL does not allow some of those divorced and remarried now living more uxorio to receive the Eucharist. This would go against the clarification of the Church’s teaching found in the CDF’s 1998 letter that “The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.”

So considering all this, especially that Pope Francis and AL are in continuity with the Church’s Magisterium on this issue, I do agree with some of Cardinal Mueller’s past observations:

“It is not Amoris laetitia that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpreters of it.”

"Unfortunately there are individual bishops and whole episcopal conferences that are proposing interpretations that contradict the previous Magisterium, admitting to the sacraments persons who persist in objective situations of grave sin. But this is not the criterion for applying Amoris laetitia. …Amoris laetitia can and must be interpreted in an orthodox way in the unity of Catholic tradition.

 

[BlackFriar]

his view on this evolved, and evolved to the point that he was thinking with the mind of the Church.
I think he has always wanted to think with the mind of the Church at the different stages of his life and given his different roles demanding different freedoms and responsibilities. The issue of course is deciding exactly what the mind of the Church is over time. I don’t think he has ever clearly claimed enough clarity in himself to definitively decide what that might be or even could be even when he was Pope and had every opportunity to do so.

that document (FC) corrected the viewpoint that he held as a young theologian in 1972.

Well this is a little vague and the quote you provided (“its up to the Synod”) does not seem to “correct” anything other than, like Card Kasper, he will go with the Church. His 1972 article makes the possibility of a Communion case (based on history), it doesn’t say it should be the case.

A few years later, in 1991, canon lawyer Fr. Theodore Davey quoted the relevant parts of Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1972 document in the 7/21/1991 issue of The Tablet as he tried to find support for the view that certain couples living more uxorio could receive the Eucharist. In a letter to the editor of the same magazine in the 10/26/1991 issue, Cardinal Ratzinger disagrees with Fr. Davey’s conclusions and labels his “suggestions” as no longer tenable in light of FC 84.

This also is somewhat vague. I would be interested in a link to the referenced docs if you have them. I am not seeing Pope Benedict’s views on the matter as monolithic but many layered with multiple arguments that even in 1992 he opined needed to be investigated further. The separate arguments need to be teased out to see exactly what status each has.
Regardless, the very fact he made this appeal confirms that in 1992 he saw no clear doctrinal “no no” to the issue. I accept he demonstrated a significantly more pessimistic tone re prudential advisability of a change in practice.

Now, the Magisterium subsequently spoke decisively on this question in the person of the present Holy Father [St. John Paul II] in Familiaris consortio.”

Well that needs considerable unpacking I think if you are trying to make the case you seem to be making .

Far from going quiet on the matter, Cardinal Ratzinger …

I didn’t mean to suggest he said nothing, I meant to suggest exactly what you stated: “he distanced himself” from his former viewpoint. But what does that mean? That is what I was trying to unpack above. As I opine, he distanced himself from his prudential suggestions of 1972…but how can he distance himself from his actual scholarly and historical findings which form the bulk of his 1972 article. he didn’t. It is clear the Church has not actually had a perennial or unanimous practice, praxis or “doctrine” on the matter. That was his clear scholarly finding. I have not seen any evidence he has “distanced” himself from that research or his immediate theoretic conclusions.

 

[BlackFriar]

CONTINUED…

and saw things much differently once FC reaffirmed the teaching of the Church (which was unified, seen upon study)

Well, that again is a fairly generalised assertion without specific content - I am willing to look at your sources for concluding this? The problem with using FC as some sort of definitive silver bullet is that AL contradicts this interpretation and so renders the assertion sterile. The only logical out for this dilemma is to say one of the Popes is wrong…or both are making definitive yet non infallible personal prudential judgements on matters of discipline. Either way, the possibility of a doctrinal clarification being on the table seems to me to be 100% ruled out. For how can two Popes disagree on a doctrinal matter if it has allegedly been definitively settled by one of them (and the other is in error). The doctrinal issue therefore still remains to be clarified (if indeed it isnt now already settled in favour of Communion being more loosely linked than traditionally assumed).

 

[BlackFriar]

Notice he does not support Cardinal Kasper’s proposal on giving certain people who fall into this group an “OK” to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Cardinal Ratzinger states his position (and that of the Church’s) even more forcefully in the CDF’s 1998 document

I agree, I do not go along with Cardinal Kaspers use of Epikeia type arguments either. Nor does the good Cardinal himself! Like Card Ratz he has always professed to align with the final views of the Church (see his 2017 Youtube interview) and was flying kites to raise a dialogue as instructed to by Pope Francis.

The epikeia argument was only one of a handful Card Ratz mused over in 1972 and was still mentioning them in 1992 as requiring more research (though in 1992 it was clear he saw little merit in the epikeia approach).

We also need to understand that Cardinal Ratzinger distinguishes between what is “lawful” (or not) re marriage and what is tolerable due to hardness of heart even in the Church.
Then there is the additional matter of Communion linkage. Notice that in your 1998 quote he is only ruling out (intrinsically impossible) Communion for those whose first marriage is certain. That does not exhaust all cases or remarriage. These remaining ones are those that Pope Francis addresses in AL.

For what it’s worth, I do not believe that Pope Francis has deviated from constant Church teaching in AL.

No doubt that is because you do not accept (what is for me the objectively incontrovertible) meaning revealed by the ArgentinianGuidelines approved by PFI.

they also maintain that AL does not allow some of those divorced and remarried now living more uxorio to receive the Eucharist.

As above I saw that coming a mile off .

 

[BlackFriar]

This would go against the clarification of the Church’s teaching found in the CDF’s 1998 letter that “The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.”

Well if there is an apparent contradiction then there are other equally valid ways to resolve the matter rather than go with one’s own pre-set views (i.e. AL cannot be saying what it seems to be saying).

It is objectively quite clear to me, and always has been, that AL does in principle open Communion possibilities in some cases. I don’t expect you to agree given what you state above.
But given that my position is at least as valid as your own then the logical consequences I now put before you must be considered as equally possible.

Namely, there is no contradiction because:

1. the CDF 1998 doc is not saying what you believe it to be saying.
2. PFI’s AL trumps a mere CDF letter. Non infallible departments do make mistakes in very complex matters, just as Aquinas didn’t get everything right.

As above I go for point 1 above.
Yes, if an individual in their conscience believes their prior marriage was valid then they may not receive Communion while in a 2nd irregular marriage. I think we can all agree with that.

It also means there are many more irregular situations where couples believe their Church marriage was not in fact valid even if that cannot be found by a Tribunal.

 

[billy15]

I would be interested in a link to the referenced docs if you have them. I am not seeing Pope Benedict’s views on the matter as monolithic but many layered with multiple arguments that even in 1992 he opined needed to be investigated further. …

Unfortunately, I could not find the entirety of the letter online. This was the most complete version that I could find. Nonetheless, I don’t find this vague at all. Of course this issue can be investigated further, and it has, but
not at the expense of dispensing “a norm of divine law”; that is, having those divorced and remarried members of the faithful receiving the Eucharist.

billy15:

Now, the Magisterium subsequently spoke decisively on this question in the person of the present Holy Father [St. John Paul II] in Familiaris consortio.”

Well that needs considerable unpacking I think if you are trying to make the case you seem to be making

Well the “case” isn’t being made by myself, but by Cardinal Ratzinger. The Cardinal points out that FC reaffirmed the teaching of the Church, which is not compatible with what the Cardinal was suggesting in the original conclusion of his 1972 text.

It is clear the Church has not actually had a perennial or unanimous practice, praxis or “doctrine” on the matter. That was his clear scholarly finding. I have not seen any evidence he has “distanced” himself from that research or his immediate theoretic conclusions.

Well, he obviously did not see it as clear, as he rewrote his conclusion. The evidence is from my original post; what was changed was precisely that, his conclusion. That doesn’t invalidate what he said earlier in the essay, but it is apparent that he has drawn new conclusions compared to what he had concluded in 1972.

Also, on the contrary, many maintain the Church does have “a perennial or unanimous practice, praxis or “doctrine” on the matter.” Which leads me to your next point…

 

[billy15]

Well, that again is a fairly generalised assertion without specific content - I am willing to look at your sources for concluding this?

It was fairly generalized, and for space. But yes, I am happy to send you my sources that have led me to this conclusion. There is a lengthy and very in depth (but not exhaustive) treatment on this subject given by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. entitled “Divorced and Invalidly Remarried Catholics: The Magisterial Tradition”. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find an online version of this essay, and it seems that it’s only available in print in a subscription based magazine. It was just written this past summer, by the way. In this case, I don’t think it’d be right to share photocopies publicly, but if you’d like, I can send you a PM with pictures of my personal copy. I don’t mind sharing with you. (And if anyone else is interested, feel free to send me a PM).

Essentially, what Fr. Harrison argues is this: "Does the Church teach infallibly the following proposition (P)?
Divorced Catholics practicing sexual intimacy in an invalid second marriage may never be granted sacramental absolution, and may never receive Holy Communion.

Please note that I do believe that certain couples who are divorced and invalidly married can possibly receive the Eucharist as long as there is no possibility of scandal, as St. John Paul reaffirmed. I also believe that those couples who keep “slipping up” (i.e., they resolve to live as brother and sister and practice continence, but fall into sin) can still receive the Eucharist after receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation. Many people often commit the same sin over and over again. This does not mean they don’t have a firm purpose of amendment. If they do have contrition for their sin (in this case, adultery or sex with someone who is not their spouse) and have a firm purpose of amendment, nothing is stopping them from receiving absolution. What Fr. Harrison refers to are those couples who do not see their adulterous actions as sinful; therefore they can’t receive absolution if they aren’t sorry for their sins. I know this was brought up a bit earlier in this thread, so I wanted to raise this point.

Anyways, Fr. Harrison concludes that this proposition (P) is definitively proposed through the Church’s universal and ordinary Magisterium, and therefore infallible. He quotes many authoritative Church documents from the year 305 through the present day.

 

[billy15]

The problem with using FC as some sort of definitive silver bullet is that AL contradicts this interpretation and so renders the assertion sterile.

Are you saying that AL contradicts FC 84’s interpretation when you say “this interpretation”? FC is not a “silver bullet”. As I mentioned, it simply reaffirmed Church teaching, as did the CDF’s 1998 letter, so I reject your view that it could be in error. You would have to show where Cardinal Ratzinger supposedly made a mistake. But there were many other documents and declarations of the ordinary Magisterium regarding access to Holy Communion for those divorced and remarried living more uxorio. And per the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium 25), these declarations by the ordinary Magisterium are infallible.

BlackFriar:

…the possibility of a doctrinal clarification being on the table seems to me to be 100% ruled out. For how can two Popes disagree on a doctrinal matter if it has allegedly been definitively settled by one of them (and the other is in error).

Based off of your final comment in post 112, I take it, then, that you disagree with the bishops I had listed. You would more follow the interpretation given by Bishop McElroy, Bishop Elbs, the Maltase Bishops and others, it appears. Again, it’s not that one of the popes (St. John Paul or Francis) are wrong, but that “confused interpreters… are proposing interpretations that contradict the previous Magisterium.”

You note that the CDF’s 1998 letter “is only ruling out (intrinsically impossible) Communion for those whose first marriage is certain. That does not exhaust all cases or remarriage. These remaining ones are those that Pope Francis addresses in AL.” And also that “there are many more irregular situations where couples believe their Church marriage was not in fact valid even if that cannot be found by a Tribunal.”

First, we have to realize that the Church recognizes all marriages as being valid until proved otherwise. An internal and subjective determination of “conscience” does not and cannot determine if a marriage was valid or not. If a tribunal finds that the marriage is valid, then the marriage is deemed valid. In the case of a couple that hasn’t gone before a tribunal to determine the marriage’s validity, then the first marriage must be assumed valid until the tribunal can make a decision, no matter how long that may take.

It is objectively quite clear to me, and always has been, that AL does in principle open Communion possibilities in some cases. I don’t expect you to agree given what you state above.

Your expectations are correct.

You also mentioned that I “do not accept [the] meaning revealed by the Argentinian Guidelines approved by PFI.” That’s not true. I believe the Argentinian Bishops’ Letter can be read in an orthodox way consistent with past magisterial teaching, but with some difficulty (which is problematic), as noted in this study.

 

[billy15]

But here’s the thing. We’ve been told again and again that there is no change in the Church’s teaching, that Pope Francis has changed nothing (and by changing nothing I mean “faith and morals”, or fides et mores.) For just one example, Cardinal Donald Wuerl was adamant in saying:

The pastoral implications of Amoris laetitia have been the object of much attention, and some controversy. The hermeneutic required for a fruitful appropriation of the document’s teaching on this point is based on the understanding that none of the teaching of the Church has been changed: This includes the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage, the directives of the Code of Canon Law, and also the role of individual conscience in the determination of personal culpability.

The exhortation does not create some sort of internal forum process in which a marriage can be annulled, or in which the objective moral order can be changed. Instead, the exhortation places greater emphasis on the role of the individual conscience in appropriating those moral norms in the person’s actual circumstances.

The judgment of conscience of an individual believer does not replace or change the objective teachings of the Church, but it does address his or her culpability before God for their actions.

Now, His Holiness his definitely showing us in AL how to be merciful to others, but I do not maintain (as you and others do) that there are “new possibilities” for those who have not gone through the annulment process. Such a notion would contradict what bishops the world over have been saying, that AL has changed nothing regarding faith and morals. As an aside, Fr. Harrison explains what that term "fides et mores actually pertains to:

"n the context of the term fides et mores, fides means ‘faith’ in the narrow sense of speculative (purely intellectual) beliefs such as those we profess in the Creeds, while mores, in contrast, covers all practical, behavioral norms and customs that Catholics are to observe; and the Church can discern some of these customs or practices to be immutably necessary for integral Catholic living and so teach this fact infallibly. Examples of such infallibly enjoined practices that are not also part of the natural moral law would be the observance of Sunday instead of Saturday under the New Covenant, and the need for infant baptism.”

This is why the withholding of the Eucharist to such divorced and remarried couples is much more than a matter of mere discipline. Again, I’m more than happy to send you Fr. Harrison’s treatment privately if you’d like to read it for yourself in order to see the sources he cites.