Review of The New Ukrainian Catholic Catechism

[Peter_J]

                 Originally Posted by **Peter J**

If that’s what it means, then I agree with you that it’s impossible. One cannot be fully Eastern Orthodox without being in the Eastern Orthodox Church – and, likewise, I would object if an Anglo-Papalist claimed to be fully Roman Catholic.

 

[twf]

If that’s what it means, then I agree with you that it’s impossible. One cannot be fully Eastern Orthodox without being in the Eastern Orthodox Church – and, likewise, I would object if an Anglo-Papalist claimed to be fully Roman Catholic.

Some would argue (myself included) that Eastern Catholics can, ideally, better represent authentic Eastern traditions than the Orthodox. If we truly believe in the primacy of Rome/Peter and the necessity of being in communion with that see to be fully Catholic (as many Fathers testify to and the Catholic Church professes), then it stands to reason that the Orthodox, as venerable as their faith and praxis are, must lack something that Eastern Catholics do not. I strongly believe, as do many Latin Catholics (and some of our Eastern/Oriental brothers - take Marduk on this board for example), that in 99.9% of cases the Eastern and Latin faith can be reconciled as distinct, but equally valid, expressions of the same underlining Truth. We must admit, however, that there are certain issues that simply can’t be reconciled. Take divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox believe that the Church can dissolve a valid sacramental marriage and that the faithful can then enter into a second valid sacramental marriage; the Catholic Church teaches that a valid sacramental marriage can only be dissolved by death. Both cannot be right. This is a serious issue with very profound practical consequences. Is divorce and remarriage part of the authentic Eastern tradition and something that Eastern Catholics should seek to embrace? I don’t see how it can be…otherwise the Catholic Church is wrong and the Orthodox Church is right - on this very important issue of faith and morals. I have seen debates in the past (on this forum and elsewhere) where it has been argued that a second sacramental marriage is a novelty that was introduced into the Byzantine East many centuries after the apostles, and that in the early centuries, even if divorce and remarriage was tolerated (as it was in the West as well), the second marriage was always a civil affair…there was no liturgical celebration of a sacrament…no priestly blessing…no crowning… Why must we assume that the Orthodox are infallible and that only the Orthodox possess the fulness of Eastern Christianity?
Take the Melkites - the canonical patriarch of Antioch left the Orthodox communion for the Catholic communion in the 18th century - so to my mind the Melkites have just as much claim to the Eastern tradition as any Orthodox community… the Melkite Church does not grant a second sacramental marriage…is this a Latinization or is this simply a return to an earlier Eastern model?

Disclaimer: I mean no offense to our Orthodox brother and sisters whatsoever. I hope the word ‘novelty’ doesn’t offend…but in all fairness, I can’t count the number of times that Orthodox posters have labelled key Latin doctrines and practices as ‘novelties’…we sometimes are given the impression that Orthodoxy has not changed since the Last Supper…while Latin Catholicism has gone off on an almost limitless number of wild tangents .

 

[Peter_J]

Some would argue (myself included) that Eastern Catholics can, ideally, better represent authentic Eastern traditions than the Orthodox.

That makes sense, of course, but the question of whether someone is better than the Eastern Orthodox is completely separate from the question of whether someone is Eastern Orthodox. Saying “John is Eastern Orthodox” isn’t the same as saying “I like John’s beliefs”. To borrow a passage from C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity:

The word gentleman originally meant something recognizable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-“Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John? They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is a “gentleman” simply becomes a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A “nice” meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

 

[Peter_J]

[cont.]

If we truly believe in the primacy of Rome/Peter and the necessity of being in communion with that see to be fully Catholic (as many Fathers testify to and the Catholic Church professes), then it stands to reason that the Orthodox, as venerable as their faith and praxis are, must lack something that Eastern Catholics do not. I strongly believe, as do many Latin Catholics (and some of our Eastern/Oriental brothers - take Marduk on this board for example), that in 99.9% of cases the Eastern and Latin faith can be reconciled as distinct, but equally valid, expressions of the same underlining Truth. We must admit, however, that there are certain issues that simply can’t be reconciled. Take divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox believe that the Church can dissolve a valid sacramental marriage and that the faithful can then enter into a second valid sacramental marriage; the Catholic Church teaches that a valid sacramental marriage can only be dissolved by death. Both cannot be right. This is a serious issue with very profound practical consequences. Is divorce and remarriage part of the authentic Eastern tradition and something that Eastern Catholics should seek to embrace? I don’t see how it can be…otherwise the Catholic Church is wrong and the Orthodox Church is right - on this very important issue of faith and morals. I have seen debates in the past (on this forum and elsewhere) where it has been argued that a second sacramental marriage is a novelty that was introduced into the Byzantine East many centuries after the apostles, and that in the early centuries, even if divorce and remarriage was tolerated (as it was in the West as well), the second marriage was always a civil affair…there was no liturgical celebration of a sacrament…no priestly blessing…no crowning… Why must we assume that the Orthodox are infallible and that only the Orthodox possess the fulness of Eastern Christianity?
Take the Melkites - the canonical patriarch of Antioch left the Orthodox communion for the Catholic communion in the 18th century - so to my mind the Melkites have just as much claim to the Eastern tradition as any Orthodox community… the Melkite Church does not grant a second sacramental marriage…is this a Latinization or is this simply a return to an earlier Eastern model?

Disclaimer: I mean no offense to our Orthodox brother and sisters whatsoever. I hope the word ‘novelty’ doesn’t offend…but in all fairness, I can’t count the number of times that Orthodox posters have labelled key Latin doctrines and practices as ‘novelties’…we sometimes are given the impression that Orthodoxy has not changed since the Last Supper…while Latin Catholicism has gone off on an almost limitless number of wild tangents .

That’s a bit more than I want to get into in this thread.

 

[dvdjs]

The brutality of truth is not from the one who proclaims it, but rather the one who hears it and cannot accept it.

Try this: The brutality of an assault is not from the attacker but from the one who receives it an cannot endure it. See the problem?

Would the manner this criticism was written bother you if the points given was something you agreed with? A good test of truth.

A good test of truth is truth.

While there are times that one might be provocative to engage a stubborn opponent, this is a case of engaging fellow churchmen, who have the same interests even if they might disagree about methods. And the reviewer goes far beyond stimulus to gratuitious insults. What could be gained by that?

And regarding your truth-test: the fact that one might cheer on brutality if one likes the underlying message is not an indicator of truth, but is better considered a wake-up call to issues in one’s own thinking.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m sorry Phillip, but I don’t know what other term to use besides OICWR types. I’m referring to the people who dominate and moderate the 3 or so online forums dedicated to Eastern Christianity, several bloggers, as well as many who post here. Most are converts who wish to see the Eastern Churches become identical to the Orthodox Churches, and a high percentage of them eventually leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy. My intention was not to be rude, but the fact remains that many people online refer to themselves on a regular basis as “Orthodox In Communion With Rome”. I simply added “types” to that.

That’s what I see on this forum for the most part. You do have a few posters who sort of “defend” Catholicism, but most to me seem to be “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.

I know a couple of trads who were raised Eastern Catholics (not converts). They love both rites. One women in particular attends daily Liturgy, but she also attends our TLM on some Latin feast days. She asks the intercession of both Eastern and Western saints. When it comes to major feasts, if both the Latin and Eastern observe during the same period, she observes the Eastern feasts/fasts. But otherwise she enjoys both the Latin rite and Ukrainian Byzantine rite. She does say the Filioque. She lovessssssssss her Rosary.

She identifies herself as a Catholic, first and foremost. If you get to know her and especially if she is talking about mass, she’ll mention she is an Eastern Catholic.

In my opinion, she is a perfect example of an Eastern Catholic.

Sometimes, I get the impression (and some have pretty much said it), that some Eastern Catholics are only biding their time until they can return back to their mother churches.

I hope this attitude is not the norm.

 

[Peter_J]

TrueLight, I’m afraid I don’t see the point of your example – unless you subscribe to some kind of one-size-fits-all approach.

 

[jwinch2]

That’s what I see on this forum for the most part. You do have a few posters who sort of “defend” Catholicism, but most to me seem to be “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.

I would suggest that the reviewer linked to above seems to fall into that category, but I also see many Eastern Catholics on this forum who do not.

In my opinion, she is a perfect example of an Eastern Catholic.

I respectfully disagree. To me, that seems like a person, who while very devout, is dangling their feet in both ponds rather than being in one or the other. I have no problem with an Eastern Catholic attending Mass or praying the Rosary, but it is hardly in keeping with their own valid and august expression of the Faith. If the question is what makes someone a good “Eastern” Catholic then I think you have to look to the Eastern Tradition as your benchmark. If the question is what makes someone a good Catholic, then she sounds like exactly that. I wish I had her level of dedication.

Also, that is not to say that one cannot borrow devotions, etc. from either tradition. I personally say the Jesus prayer all the time in an effort to follow the teaching to “pray always”. However, that is not a criteria that I would use to determine who good of a Roman Catholic I am. Does that make sense?

I do believe however, as I am confident that you do, that both Eastern and Western Catholics should profess the same dogma albeit differently at times. As noted earlier, it comes down to what communion really means. If it is simply eucharistic communion that is one thing, but if it is the sharing and profession of a common faith, that is another entirely. I was under the impression that it is supposed to be the latter.

Sometimes, I get the impression (and some have pretty much said it), that some Eastern Catholics are only biding their time until they can return back to their mother churches.

I hope this attitude is not the norm.

I have that impression sometimes as well. Thankfully, not always. There are several Eastern Catholics here on CAF who do not seem to have that attitude including the person who did the translation of the above review. As an example, on another thread when the discussion turned towards whether or not the UGCC Catechism would affirm papal infallibility this was his reply:

The Ukrainian Catholic Catechism actually does that? I can’t believe it…

…The only thing that would be of interest to me in studying this Catechism is not whether it affirms or denies this or that Catholic dogma p), but how it presents those that we Eastern Catholics already believe . . . Hopefully, we believe them all!

What is unbelievable is the number of those who find such affirmation a shock, as if the catechism was supposed to have come out with something, well, not Catholic…

Peace of Christ,

 

[Peter_J]

I respectfully disagree. To me, that seems like a person, who while very devout, is dangling their feet in both ponds rather than being in one or the other. I have no problem with an Eastern Catholic attending Mass or praying the Rosary, but it is hardly in keeping with their own valid and august expression of the Faith. If the question is what makes someone a good “Eastern” Catholic then I think you have to look to the Eastern Tradition as your benchmark.

Again here, I would be a tad cautious b/c I think this question might lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach to Eastern Catholicism. But as long as you don’t mean it that way, then I agree.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Perhaps I misunderstood the review, but I didn’t take anything the reviewer said as being upset that certain Catholic (and I mean “Catholic” in the full sense of the term, not just the “Latin/Roman” sense) teachings were not denied; i.e. Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, etc. Rather, he seemed more disappointed that those teachings were not presented according to a proper Eastern/Byzantine understand, utilizing the teachings of the Eastern patristic Fathers as well as various other Eastern saints and teachers throughout the ages. Rather, the Catechism simply seems to parrot or copy what the CCC says.

If this is, in fact, the case - and I’ve heard from others who have read the original that it is - then I myself am rather disappointed. The UGCC had an amazing opportunity to explain the essential dogmas that are embraced by ALL Catholics, East and West, in an authentically Eastern way so as to present a truly Eastern/Byzantine approach to the one Faith and thereby demonstrate the “unity in diversity” that is so often celebrated among Catholics. But it sounds as though that opportunity has been lost.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Very interesting choice of words. I think that we should be faithful to our authentic “traditions” - that is an organic process - rather than to a “heritage”. The latter approach too often elevates reading about experience of a select few over the organic experience of the integrated experience of the church reflected in its traditions. We don’t study our religion, we live it.

My apologies for the lack of clarity. I tend to use “heritage” and “traditions” interchangeably. I can see now that that is a mistake.

That being said, I disagree, somewhat, to the claim that we don’t study our religion, we live it. The fact is that we do both.

I would like to understand more what “organic experience” means. I hear tons of talk from lots of people trumpeting phrases like “organic development” and such. But I’ve yet to hear anyone actually define what “organic development” or “organic experience” means. From what vague notions people have conveyed to me, the phrases could be used to either defend the persistence of Latinization among Eastern (and Oriental) Catholics. Similarly it could be used to defend the process of de-Latinization. So until I understand clearly what “organic experience/development” means, I can’t really comment any further.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Sometimes, I get the impression (and some have pretty much said it), that some Eastern Catholics are only biding their time until they can return back to their mother churches.

I hope this attitude is not the norm.

This impression is, in part, accurate and even laudable. But it must be understood properly. I’ve heard a number of bishops say that the vocation of the Eastern Catholic Churches is “to disappear.” By this they mean that in the event of reunion between Rome and the East/Orient the Eastern Catholic Churches will rejoin their Orthodox mother Churches. The Melkite hierarchy (and I believe the Ukrainian as well, but I won’t swear to it) have already said that in the event of reunion, they will all defer to their Orthodox bishop counterparts. In other words, they will vacate their own Sees in deference to the Orthodox bishops.

This is why so many Eastern Catholics - both those born Eastern Catholic and those who came to Eastern Catholicism later in life - are so gung-ho to restore their authentic Eastern heritage. Many see it as their vocation in order to prepare themselves and their Church for reunion with their Mother Churches.

 

[jwinch2]

Again here, I would be a tad cautious b/c I think this question might lend itself to a one-size-fits-all approach to Eastern Catholicism. But as long as you don’t mean it that way, then I agree.

Perhaps I should have been more clear and added, “within the Tradition of their particular Church” or something along those lines.

Peace,

 

[ConstantineTG]

If that’s what it means, then I agree with you that it’s impossible. One cannot be fully Eastern Orthodox without being in the Eastern Orthodox Church – and, likewise, I would object if an Anglo-Papalist claimed to be fully Roman Catholic.

Then perhaps we should start being honest with ourselves and one another and say it out loud. We cannot authentically live the Eastern (Orthodox) faith in the Catholic Communion. If we want communion with Rome then we are Roman Catholics with an Eastern Rite. If we want authentic Eastern spirituality, then we should become Eastern Orthodox.

Some would argue (myself included) that Eastern Catholics can, ideally, better represent authentic Eastern traditions than the Orthodox.

More often than not the complaint by Eastern Catholics is Latinizations. And even in many cases where the traditions are already authentically Eastern, the underlying spirituality is still Western. I know I haven’t been to all Eastern Churches and parishes around the world, but this is the impression I am getting from my limited interaction with people and also with my very own experience.

If we truly believe in the primacy of Rome/Peter and the necessity of being in communion with that see to be fully Catholic (as many Fathers testify to and the Catholic Church professes), then it stands to reason that the Orthodox, as venerable as their faith and praxis are, must lack something that Eastern Catholics do not. I strongly believe, as do many Latin Catholics (and some of our Eastern/Oriental brothers - take Marduk on this board for example), that in 99.9% of cases the Eastern and Latin faith can be reconciled as distinct, but equally valid, expressions of the same underlining Truth.

And that seems to be where the problem lies. The Orthodox do not reject the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but of course they want it in the context of the First Millennium. Many Eastern Catholics believe it this way as well. The problem here is that is not what the Bishop of Rome is saying, that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. We all get this quips about, “yeah, we’ll study that and do that,” but the fact is what the Catholic Church teaches is in Vatican I. Are we in communion with the Pope if we do not accept Vatican I fully and without reservations? At least the Orthodox says it clearly and plainly, unless the Pope himself is exercising his primacy according to what it was in the First Millennium, and clearly teaches this is the case, they are not in communion with him. I’m starting to feel like the SSPX, and I do not like the SSPX. We claim to be Catholics yet we do not fully accept what the Church teaches. We say we are in communion with the Pope yet put a lot of qualifiers. I love the Pope and I love the Papacy. But if we are denying everything that he teaches today, we’re not being truthful to ourselves and to the Pope. And love shouldn’t lie.

We must admit, however, that there are certain issues that simply can’t be reconciled. Take divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox believe that the Church can dissolve a valid sacramental marriage and that the faithful can then enter into a second valid sacramental marriage; the Catholic Church teaches that a valid sacramental marriage can only be dissolved by death. Both cannot be right. This is a serious issue with very profound practical consequences. Is divorce and remarriage part of the authentic Eastern tradition and something that Eastern Catholics should seek to embrace? I don’t see how it can be…otherwise the Catholic Church is wrong and the Orthodox Church is right - on this very important issue of faith and morals. I have seen debates in the past (on this forum and elsewhere) where it has been argued that a second sacramental marriage is a novelty that was introduced into the Byzantine East many centuries after the apostles, and that in the early centuries, even if divorce and remarriage was tolerated (as it was in the West as well), the second marriage was always a civil affair…there was no liturgical celebration of a sacrament…no priestly blessing…no crowning… Why must we assume that the Orthodox are infallible and that only the Orthodox possess the fulness of Eastern Christianity?

It is not as simple as how you presented it to be. I asked an Orthodox priest about this and he gave me a very good explanation. Divorce is not part of the Eastern faith, but the Eastern theology on marriage does give way to divorce. And let us also be honest here, Catholic annulments are 90% of the time divorce. How many times have you seen a man and woman been married for years, have 3-4 kids, then suddenly get an annulment. Suddenly their marriage was invalid from the beginning? It makes marriage nothing more than a legal contract where you can argue into its validity or not. The Catholic side isn’t really doing a bang-up job protecting the sanctity of marriage. I personally know a few people who have gotten annulments that made me scratch my head how they got it in the first place. I don’t see how a priest or bishop in the Orthodox Church accepting the penance of one who “dissolved the undissolvable” and allowed for a second marriage be any different from the throngs who have gotten a Catholic annulment. If it wasn’t a shotgun marriage or you got drunk and got married in Vegas, how else can your marriage be invalid?

Take the Melkites - the canonical patriarch of Antioch left the Orthodox communion for the Catholic communion in the 18th century - so to my mind the Melkites have just as much claim to the Eastern tradition as any Orthodox community… the Melkite Church does not grant a second sacramental marriage…is this a Latinization or is this simply a return to an earlier Eastern model?

Good question. But again are annulments compatible with the non-legalistic view of the East on marriage? So if an Eastern Catholic Church accepts annulments, then they are Latinized.

Try this: The brutality of an assault is not from the attacker but from the one who receives it an cannot endure it. See the problem?

A good test of truth is truth.

Which is true. But to claim something as not true on the sole basis that offends you doesn’t mean it is not the truth. It could mean that you simply cannot accept the truth. The truth is the truth, no matter how it is presented. So it doesn’t matter if it comes with a box of chocolates and flowers or a flaming sword.

While there are times that one might be provocative to engage a stubborn opponent, this is a case of engaging fellow churchmen, who have the same interests even if they might disagree about methods. And the reviewer goes far beyond stimulus to gratuitious insults. What could be gained by that?

It worked for me. It has awoken me to some of the facts that it seems we are in denial of. And that is we’re latinized to the core. Or that authentic Eastern Catholic spirituality is not and can never be the same as authentic Orthodox spirituality.

And regarding your truth-test: the fact that one might cheer on brutality if one likes the underlying message is not an indicator of truth, but is better considered a wake-up call to issues in one’s own thinking.

Like you said, the test for the truth is the truth. So it shouldn’t matter how it is presented, it is still the truth. It doesn’t become the truth only if it comes in a nice way.

That’s what I see on this forum for the most part. You do have a few posters who sort of “defend” Catholicism, but most to me seem to be “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.

I know a couple of trads who were raised Eastern Catholics (not converts). They love both rites. One women in particular attends daily Liturgy, but she also attends our TLM on some Latin feast days. She asks the intercession of both Eastern and Western saints. When it comes to major feasts, if both the Latin and Eastern observe during the same period, she observes the Eastern feasts/fasts. But otherwise she enjoys both the Latin rite and Ukrainian Byzantine rite. She does say the Filioque. She lovessssssssss her Rosary.

She identifies herself as a Catholic, first and foremost. If you get to know her and especially if she is talking about mass, she’ll mention she is an Eastern Catholic.

In my opinion, she is a perfect example of an Eastern Catholic.

Sometimes, I get the impression (and some have pretty much said it), that some Eastern Catholics are only biding their time until they can return back to their mother churches.

I hope this attitude is not the norm.

I, and I hope others as well, are not denying that there are people who can be happy and spiritually fulfilled with the way things are. If this is the way Eastern Catholicism is, then fine. There is nothing wrong with that. But if we are here saying that Eastern Catholicism is this and that, namely everything Orthodox spirituality is plus communion with the Pope, then we are either in denial or delusional. Western spirituality will always be part of the Eastern Catholic Church, it is what being in communion with Rome is. We are of one body and one blood flows through our veins. We have to accept that for what it is. If we do not like that, then we are in the wrong Church, in the wrong communion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This impression is, in part, accurate and even laudable. But it must be understood properly. I’ve heard a number of bishops say that the vocation of the Eastern Catholic Churches is “to disappear.” By this they mean that in the event of reunion between Rome and the East/Orient the Eastern Catholic Churches will rejoin their Orthodox mother Churches. The Melkite hierarchy (and I believe the Ukrainian as well, but I won’t swear to it) have already said that in the event of reunion, they will all defer to their Orthodox bishop counterparts. In other words, they will vacate their own Sees in deference to the Orthodox bishops.

This is why so many Eastern Catholics - both those born Eastern Catholic and those who came to Eastern Catholicism later in life - are so gung-ho to restore their authentic Eastern heritage. Many see it as their vocation in order to prepare themselves and their Church for reunion with their Mother Churches.

Maybe some of us should start going back to our mother Churches right now. Just thinking out loud here

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps I should have been more clear and added, “within the Tradition of their particular Church” or something along those lines.

Peace,

Oh, I didn’t mean it like that.

 

[Peter_J]

Then perhaps we should start being honest with ourselves and one another and say it out loud. We cannot authentically live the Eastern (Orthodox) faith in the Catholic Communion. If we want communion with Rome then we are Roman Catholics with an Eastern Rite. If we want authentic Eastern spirituality, then we should become Eastern Orthodox.

The “Eastern (Orthodox) faith”?

 

[jwinch2]

Oh, I didn’t mean it like that.

Then I have no clue what you are talking about. Can you clarify please?

 

[ConstantineTG]

The “Eastern (Orthodox) faith”?

What else is the basis of Eastern praxis and theology if not the Orthodox?

 

[dvdjs]

Perhaps I misunderstood the review…

He starts out with a curious complaint against the CCC, that is uses the Apostles Creed, a use that he terms an “anti-Orthodox lapse”. And so on. While he may not veer into heresy, he seems more interested in showing his attitude.

If this is, in fact, the case - and I’ve heard from others who have read the original that it is - then I myself am rather disappointed. The UGCC had an amazing opportunity to explain the essential dogmas that are embraced by ALL Catholics, East and West, in an authentically Eastern way so as to present a truly Eastern/Byzantine approach to the one Faith and thereby demonstrate the “unity in diversity” that is so often celebrated among Catholics. But it sounds as though that opportunity has been lost.

I think it is worth waiting to see what is stated in its fullness, and what is not. The review has elements that seem highly argumentative and suggestive that the full story is not being told so as not to get in the way of venting complaints - some of which are a bit idiosyncratic, and very personal.