Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Prodigirl]

The sexual union and sexual intercourse are referring to a marital act. Deliberate suppression does not mean choosing to have sex at an infertile time. Openness to new life refers to not messing with the act to render the act closed to life.

Choosing to interpret the words of the Bishops as being contradictory to other words of the same Bishops (and the pope and others), when that is clearly not the only interpretation, is the most unreasonable interpretation you could make. Would not other statements of the same bishops and Popes not suggest that, just maybe, you’ve picked the wrong interpretation?

Hey, the Bishops said it, I didn’t.

NFP is a pretty primitive and easily abused method of family planning, especially if 98% of Catholic women surveyed by Guttmacher said they’d tried other forms of birth control. I guess you’re talking about the 2% who really apply themselves, heart and soul, to NFP, and I guess you believe the 98% are living in a state of mortal sin. Wow, that doesn’t bode well for the Church, does it? What will happen if they teach their Catholic daughters and nieces and neighbors about the efficacy of the various methods they’ve tried? This is how revolution starts. This is not, however, how evolution starts.

 

[underacloud]

why would i choose words that suit your argument?

They don’t need to suit my argument. But they should be words we can have some agreement on. You claim to want to understand our position, but a discussion can only proceed when terms have a common understanding. Any term subject to equivocation should be either set asside or clearly defined.

In the realm of Catholic moral theology, your prior sentence does not make sense. If you want to have discussions on a Catholic moral theology forum, you should make an effort to use terms that can be agreed upon and relevant to the forum you are participating in.

By your definition of contraception, anyone not currently having sex is contracepting.

if fertility were merely “observed”, what’s the basal thermometer and the charting and the multiple-times-a-day mucus testing all about?

They are about observation. They do not suppress fertility.

Are you really trying to argue that a basal thermometer suppresses fertility?

 

[Rau]

Hey, the Bishops said it, I didn’t.

You might like to read more from the US Bishops here:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/

You continue to base your argument on words (intentionally misinterpreted) rather than meaning. Earlier in this thread, you read Pope Paul when he referred to “Man” (as would be used in the sentiment “man does not live on bread alone”) to be referring to “men” (as in the male of the species). Was that just playing a word-game, or did you really misunderstand?

The extract you quoted from the US Bishops comes from some separate paragraphs of text, but here is a wider segment from which I believe you’ve taken part of your quote above. Note the heading:

*What does this have to do with contraception?

A husband and wife express their committed love not only with words, but with the language of their bodies. That “body language”—what a husband and wife say to one another through the intimacy of sexual relations—speaks of total commitment and openness to a future together. So the question about contraception is this: Does sexual intercourse using contraception faithfully affirm this committed love? Or does it introduce a false note into this conversation?

Married love differs from any other love in the world. By its nature, the love of husband and wife is so complete, so ordered to a lifetime of communion with God and each other, that it is open to creating a new human being they will love and care for together. Part of God’s gift to husband and wife is this ability in and through their love to cooperate with God’s creative power. Therefore, the mutual gift of fertility is an integral part of the bonding power of marital intercourse. That power to create a new life with God is at the heart of what spouses share with each other.

To be sure, spouses who are not granted the gift of children can have a married life that is filled with love and meaning. As Pope John Paul II said to these couples in a 1982 homily, “You are no less loved by God; your love for each other is complete and fruitful when it is open to others, to the needs of the apostolate, to the needs of the poor, to the needs of orphans, to the needs of the world.”

When married couples deliberately act to suppress fertility, however, sexual intercourse is no longer fully marital intercourse. It is something less powerful and intimate, something more “casual.” Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity. The total giving of oneself, body and soul, to one’s beloved is no time to say: “I give you everything I am—except. . . .” The Church’s teaching is not only about observing a rule, but about preserving that total, mutual gift of two persons in its integrity.

This may seem a hard saying. Certainly it is a teaching that many couples today, through no fault of their own, have not heard (or not heard in a way they could appreciate and understand). But as many couples who have turned away from contraception tell us, living this teaching can contribute to the honesty, openness, and intimacy of marriage and help make couples truly fulfilled.*

source: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/married-love-and-the-gift-of-life.cfm

A few paragraphs later, the Bishops say:

*Are couples expected to leave their family size entirely to chance?

Certainly not. The Church teaches that a couple may generously decide to have a large family, or may for serious reasons choose not to have more children for the time being or even for an indefinite period (Humanae Vitae, no. 10).

In married life, serious circumstances—financial, physical, psychological, or those involving responsibilities to other family members—may arise to make an increase in family size untimely. The Church understands this, while encouraging couples to take a generous view of children.

What should a couple do if they have a good reason to avoid having a child?

A married couple can engage in marital intimacy during the naturally infertile times in a woman’s cycle, or after child-bearing years, without violating the meaning of marital intercourse in any way.

This is the principle behind natural family planning (NFP). Natural methods of family planning involve fertility education that enables couples to cooperate with the body as God designed it.*

 

[Rau]

Are you really trying to argue that a basal thermometer suppresses fertility?

I am searching for an understanding of the motivation for Prodigirl’s argument that does not amount to believing she merely plays a word-game (despite appearances that she does)!

I guess you could say that seeking to delay a pregnancy (say, by 1 year) by means of NFP is reducing the “fecundity of the marriage”? *

The question then is - is that morally wrong based on any Catholic teaching? The Church teaches that there is nothing wrong with that so long as you have a good reason to do that. The Church says (paraphrasing) - “We encourage you to be generous in giving of yourself, your time and your resources to raising children, and to have a bias to that end, but you must (“responsible parenthood”) balance that against the other obligations in your life, including health, ability to educate and care for your current family, and so forth”.

Prodigirl’s most recent error (IMHO) was to interpret the Bishops’ words **against/B] “suppressing fertility” to be the same thing as in my example above. It is patently clear (if one is objective) that it is not the same when you read their words in total. Clearly they are referring to reducing the fertility of an act (the specific instance) at the time of that act - which NFP cannot do - that can only be done by IUDs, Condoms, “coitus interruptus”, Pills, and the like [Physical and chemical means as referenced by the Bishops below]:

Again, from the Bishops:

"Is there really a difference between using contraception and practicing natural family planning?**

On the surface, there may seem to be little difference. But the end result is not the only thing that matters, and the way we get to that result may make an enormous moral difference. Some ways respect God’s gifts to us while others do not. …

When couples use contraception, either physical or chemical, they suppress their fertility, asserting that they alone have ultimate control over this power to create a new human life. With NFP, spouses respect God’s design for life and love. They may choose to refrain from sexual union during the woman’s fertile time, doing nothing to destroy the love-giving or life-giving meaning that is present. This is the difference between choosing to falsify the full marital language of the body and choosing at certain times not to speak that language.

The Church’s support for NFP is not based on its being “natural” as opposed to artificial. Rather, NFP respects the God-given power to love a new human life into being even when we are not actively seeking to exercise that power…"*

 

[underacloud]

I am searching for an understanding of the motivation for Prodigirl’s argument that does not amount to believing she merely plays a word-game (despite appearances that she does)!

Have you reviewed her first entry into this thread (as quoted below)? I do not believe, despite her protestations, that she has any genuine interest in understanding the Catholic position better, but merely to attack it, as duplicitious and illogical.

While I’m happy - time permitting - to offer a defense of the teaching, or help her understand it if that is her goal, her continued use of language that cannot be agreed upon, and means different things to the Church and herself, makes the discussion pointless.

I think I will opt out from here. I think all that needs to be said has been.

If this is doctrine, why then does the Church endorse natural family planning? Shouldn’t this be a total abomination because it sidesteps openness to life, as a human manipulation of fertility? Shouldn’t Catholics simply be prepared to “receive what God gives them”??

I view this with great cynicism. It’s this kind of talking out of both sides of the mouth that drives me to feelings of deep disgust with the duplicity of the teachings of the Church.

I am ready. Bring on the apologists and the great big broom to sweep logic under the rug.

 

[Rau]

Have you reviewed her first entry into this thread (as quoted below)? I do not believe, despite her protestations, that she has any genuine interest in understanding the Catholic position better, but merely to attack it, as duplicitious and illogical.

I suppose a person can approach an issue, a debate, to argue a currently held position. Nothing wrong there - no need to be setting out on a mission to understand the other guy’s perspective.

But there is I think an obligation to use language properly, and to form judgements, interpretations and reasoning fairly on the facts and circumstances (real, not asserted) and not obfuscate, misrepresent, take quotes out of context, and so forth. Of course, productive debates generally involving people searching out the common language, common principles and identifying the particular points of differences.

The “disgust”, inclination to vomit, etc that Prodigirl has expressed over the relevant Church teachings (as she understands them…) is not likely to be just the result of an objective reading of them. No doubt other issues are uppermost.

 

[Prodigirl]

You might like to read more from the US Bishops here:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/

You continue to base your argument on words (intentionally misinterpreted) rather than meaning.

No. I am not misinterpreting or misrepresenting anything. I fully understand the context and the meaning of the words.

Earlier in this thread, you read Pope Paul when he referred to “Man” (as would be used in the sentiment “man does not live on bread alone”) to be referring to “men” (as in the male of the species). Was that just playing a word-game, or did you really misunderstand?

No. Since you did not have the courtesy of quoting verbatim, I must work here off memory; but I can assure you, when it said “men” instead of “man” (as in “mankind”) I meant MEN as opposed to WOMEN. These are not word games; I’m simply shining another light on the fuzzy, feel-good tone posed by doctrine and dutifully regurgitated by the faithful.

The extract you quoted from the US Bishops comes from some separate paragraphs of text, but here is a wider segment from which I believe you’ve taken part of your quote above. Note the heading:

What does this have to do with contraception?

A husband and wife express their committed love not only with words, but with the language of their bodies. That “body language”—what a husband and wife say to one another through the intimacy of sexual relations—speaks of total commitment and openness to a future together. So the question about contraception is this: Does sexual intercourse using contraception faithfully affirm this committed love? Or does it introduce a false note into this conversation?

Married love differs from any other love in the world. By its nature, the love of husband and wife is so complete, so ordered to a lifetime of communion with God and each other, that it is open to creating a new human being they will love and care for together. Part of God’s gift to husband and wife is this ability in and through their love to cooperate with God’s creative power. Therefore, the mutual gift of fertility is an integral part of the bonding power of marital intercourse. That power to create a new life with God is at the heart of what spouses share with each other.

To be sure, spouses who are not granted the gift of children can have a married life that is filled with love and meaning. As Pope John Paul II said to these couples in a 1982 homily, “You are no less loved by God; your love for each other is complete and fruitful when it is open to others, to the needs of the apostolate, to the needs of the poor, to the needs of orphans, to the needs of the world.”

When married couples deliberately act to suppress fertility, however, sexual intercourse is no longer fully marital intercourse. It is something less powerful and intimate, something more “casual.” Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity. The total giving of oneself, body and soul, to one’s beloved is no time to say: “I give you everything I am—except. . . .” The Church’s teaching is not only about observing a rule, but about preserving that total, mutual gift of two persons in its integrity.

This may seem a hard saying. Certainly it is a teaching that many couples today, through no fault of their own, have not heard (or not heard in a way they could appreciate and understand). But as many couples who have turned away from contraception tell us, living this teaching can contribute to the honesty, openness, and intimacy of marriage and help make couples truly fulfilled.

source: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/married-love-and-the-gift-of-life.cfm

EXACTLY. I did not misquote; I abbreviated because there are already too many words here scrambling to defend what, to me, is indefensible.

A few paragraphs later, the Bishops say:

Are couples expected to leave their family size entirely to chance?

Certainly not. The Church teaches that a couple may generously decide to have a large family, or may for serious reasons choose not to have more children for the time being or even for an indefinite period (Humanae Vitae, no. 10).

In married life, serious circumstances—financial, physical, psychological, or those involving responsibilities to other family members—may arise to make an increase in family size untimely. The Church understands this, while encouraging couples to take a generous view of children.

What should a couple do if they have a good reason to avoid having a child?

A married couple can engage in marital intimacy during the naturally infertile times in a woman’s cycle, or after child-bearing years, without violating the meaning of marital intercourse in any way.

This screams contraception to me. ** I do not ask you to agree.**

This is the principle behind natural family planning (NFP). Natural methods of family planning involve fertility education that enables couples to cooperate with the body as God designed it.

I see absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between keeping egg and sperm from combining through NPF and keeping egg and sperm from uniting through condom use.

 

[underacloud]

I suppose a person can approach an issue, a debate, to argue a currently held position. Nothing wrong there - no need to be setting out on a mission to understand the other guy’s perspective.

I have no issue with that. It just helps understand better why agreement on words cannot be found. If one is trying to understand, one makes the effort to learn the meaning of the words being used by the other. If one wants to win an arugument, one will not likely cede ground on the meaning of the words they wish to use.

But there is I think an obligation to use language properly, and to form judgements, interpretations and reasoning fairly on the facts and circumstances (real, not asserted) and not obfuscate, misrepresent, take quotes out of context, and so forth. Of course, productive debates generally involving people searching out the common language, common principles and identifying the particular points of differences.

Yes. But I think at this point in the conversation it’s clear that terms are not going to be agreed and that we’re merely going round in circles.

My suggestion to Prodigirl is that if she wishes to attack the Church’s teaching here as being illogical (her contention), she should restrict herself to the terms used in the actual teaching and to show where, in the teaching, the logic fails.

The “disgust”, inclination to vomit, etc that Prodigirl has expressed over the relevant Church teachings (as she understands them…) is not likely to be just the result of an objective reading of them. No doubt other issues are uppermost.

I presume so. Unfortunately, there are many people who feel disgusted with the Church for reasons other than the actual teachings (and some for the actual teachings). No doubt many of them have good grounds for the way they feel. Hopefully God can overcome for such people the shortcomings of those in the Church who have let them down.

 

[Prodigirl]

I have no issue with that. It just helps understand better why agreement on words cannot be found. If one is trying to understand, one makes the effort to learn the meaning of the words being used by the other. If one wants to win an arugument, one will not likely cede ground on the meaning of the words they wish to use.

Yes. But I think at this point in the conversation it’s clear that terms are not going to be agreed and that we’re merely going round in circles.

My suggestion to Prodigirl is that if she wishes to attack the Church’s teaching here as being illogical (her contention), she should restrict herself to the terms used in the actual teaching and to show where, in the teaching, the logic fails.

I presume so. Unfortunately, there are many people who feel disgusted with the Church for reasons other than the actual teachings (and some for the actual teachings). No doubt many of them have good grounds for the way they feel. Hopefully God can overcome for such people the shortcomings of those in the Church who have let them down.

Thank you, Messrs. and/or Mmes. No ground won or lost ~ just as I expected.

 

[Prodigirl]

" … just the result of an objective reading of them."

There is no objectivity. Perception is everything.

 

[Prodigirl]

Originally Posted by underacloud View Post
“Are you really trying to argue that a basal thermometer suppresses fertility?”

If a basal thermometer has the power to reveal optimum fertility, it is, conversely, also powerful enough to discourage intercourse. I am arguing that once a woman knows she is ripe for conception by using the many tools of NFP and the time-consuming obsession with trying to know as certainly as possible when she is most fertile, she can then take that information and use it as a contraceptive: in refusing to have sex with her husband despite his demand for it, or in re-calculating days when she is not as likely to conceive so that she might submit to intercourse with him with less fear of conception (which, come on, is always there with NFP). The basal thermometer and the other tools of NPF give her information on which she might base her decisions to NOT have intercourse. This is called contraception - trying to control conception and non-conception. * It is in the intent of the human being(s), not in the doctrine of the Church.* If the husband is particularly forceful about it, her anxiety will be compounded by guilt and shame.

Jeez, you guys seem to subscribe to the false notion that every couple married in the Church lives happily ever after and communicates with each other on sexual matters totally frankly and honestly. T’ain’t so.

Not a great Friday night in the House of Love.

 

[Rau]

Please explain how this is not a word game:
"Pope Paul VI in HV originally:

"With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them … "

Prodigirl then tell us this means (in her view)…

I read this to mean that **men **(not “man”) should not demand any “approved” sex act from **his **partner. If both partners are wanting to engage in intercourse, they may do so, with absolutely no thought as to the appropriate time in her cycle. If a child is conceived, great, they go with it; if not, great, no sweat.

I then explain how the usage of “man” is to be understood (which is how it has been used through copious Church literature, philosophy, prayers, and the like). *

Rau:

“man” is a reference to “we humans”, not the male of the species… I’m sure you’re familiar with that usage.

and now you say:

Prodigirl:

but I can assure you, when it said “men” instead of “man” (as in “mankind”) I meant MEN as opposed to WOMEN.

But, it is the Pope’s words that you have sought to interpret, and **he said **“man” (as in “mankind”), not “the man” or “men” (as in the male of the species / the husband). What **he **said is the point here!! And he is saying that responsible parenthood means using your brain (the brains of both parents!), not just going with your innate drives (the drives of both parents)! He goes on (in his next paragraph) to point to the factors that may weigh against one pursuing those innate drives at this time.

It’s as though you’d like to pretend the Pope was counselling husbands specifically. [Though even then, the following sentences of your interpretation have utterly no connection to the Pope’s sentence you quote…]*

 

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by underacloud View Post
“Are you really trying to argue that a basal thermometer suppresses fertility?”

If a basal thermometer has the power to reveal optimum fertility, it is, conversely, also powerful enough to discourage intercourse. I am arguing that once a woman knows she is ripe for conception by using the many tools of NFP and the time-consuming obsession with trying to know as certainly as possible when she is most fertile, she can then take that information and use it as a contraceptive: in refusing to have sex with her husband despite his demand for it, or in re-calculating days when she is not as likely to conceive so that she might submit to intercourse with him with less fear of conception (which, come on, is always there with NFP). The basal thermometer and the other tools of NPF give her information on which she might base her decisions to NOT have intercourse. This is called contraception - trying to control conception and non-conception. * It is in the intent of the human being(s), not in the doctrine of the Church.* If the husband is particularly forceful about it, her anxiety will be compounded by guilt and shame.

Jeez, you guys seem to subscribe to the false notion that every couple married in the Church lives happily ever after and communicates with each other on sexual matters totally frankly and honestly. T’ain’t so.

Not a great Friday night in the House of Love.

Once again you are using terms (particularly contraception) in a way that means we can only keep talking past each other.

eg you say “she can then take that information and use it as a contraceptive”.

I would say “she can then take that information and use it to decide to avoid sex and thereby not risk an unwanted pregnancy at that time”.

You think the two are equivalent. I do not, and the Church doctrine does not.

Are we able to leave it there? Agree to disagree?

 

[Rau]

If a basal thermometer has the power to reveal optimum fertility, it is, conversely, also powerful enough to discourage intercourse.

Intercourse is quite rightly influenced by one’s readiness for a child. That’s a part of responsible parenthood.

I am arguing that once a woman knows she is ripe for conception by using the many tools of NFP … she can then take that information and use it as a contraceptive: in refusing to have sex with her husband despite his demand for it, or in re-calculating days when she is not as likely to conceive so that she might **submit to intercourse *with him with less fear of conception (which, come on, is always there with NFP). The basal thermometer and the other tools of NPF give her information on which she might base her decisions to NOT have intercourse. This is called contraception - trying to control conception and non-conception. * It is in the intent of the human being(s), not in the doctrine of the Church. If the husband is particularly forceful about it, her anxiety will be compounded by guilt and shame.

Factually - decomposing what you are saying - this is entirely accurate. Where the debate goes off the rails (possibly one of a number…) is that you use a definition of contraception that includes all the measures the Church considers immoral ***by their nature ***plus some others. We are quite OK with influencing control over the timing of conception - our only issue is means employed. As the Bishops said, don’t “falsify” the language of sex, but it is OK to choose not to “speak” it.

I note it is kind of interesting that you seem to take as a premise - an assumed environment - that the husband is “demanding sex” while the woman is seeking to resist, or that (at other times) the woman “is submitting”. There indeed does not sound like much love in the marital relationship you envisage here. Husband and Wife are supposed to be a team.

 

[Rau]

Once again you are using terms (particularly contraception) in a way that means we can only keep talking past each other.

eg you say “she can then take that information and use it as a contraceptive”.

I would say “she can then take that information and use it to decide to avoid sex and thereby not risk an unwanted pregnancy at that time”.

You think the two are equivalent. I do not, and the Church doctrine does not.

Because the Church uses the word Contraception - Prodigirl insists that they must “really” mean the same thing she means. She has not yet grasped the key point - we are OK with taking certain kinds of measures to reduce the chance of pregnancy. Our objection to contraception (Pills, condoms, etc.) is NOT that they reveal an intent to reduce the chance of conception this month..

We draw a distinction based solely on the means. Prodigirl considers the means irrelevant and only sees the result/intent (say, ‘let’s not get pregnant this month’) as the same, and therefore declares the measures to be of no moral difference.

 

[underacloud]

Because the Church uses the word Contraception - Prodigirl insists that they must “really” mean the same thing she means. She has not yet grasped the key point - we are OK with taking certain kinds of measures to reduce the chance of pregnancy. Our objection to contraception (Pills, condoms, etc.) is NOT that they reveal an intent to reduce the chance of conception this month..

We draw a distinction based solely on the means. Prodigirl considers the means irrelevant and only sees the result/intent (say, ‘let’s not get pregnant this month’) as the same, and therefore declares the measures to be of no moral difference.

Yes, that is my impression of her position, and my impression of her misunderstanding of ours.

I would suggest this is also why she sees no semantic difference. To her, because she sees them as equivalent, any attempt to differentiate them is “playing semantics”, which she accused me of. To us, because we see them as different, the way the terms are defined and used is important in describing the differences. Define them one particular way, and the whole doctrine changes.

In short, the moment one of us agrees with her use of the term contraception to describe NFP - bang, the doctrine disappears into thin air (which is what she is arguing for of course).

I believe I understand her perspective. But until she understands the difference in the way the Church uses the term “contraception” vs her own use of it, I don’t think she will ever understand our perspective. And by now I have spent enough energy trying to help her understand it (and/or defend it). I’ll sign off.

God bless to all.

 

[Rau]

Ultimately, the issue need not be more complex than the distinction between the “means” and the “ends”.

In some matters, it may be that the “ends” are intrinsically evil. Sometimes it is the “means”.

Consider the following:

1. Avoiding pregnancy “this month” is not intrinsically a good or an evil objective.
2. There may be good reasons to avoid.

On these two statements (unadulterated and not reworded!) , I believe Prodigirl and I would agree.

 

[Jaaanosik]

False! I am open to life, but I don’t want my wife to get pregnant. If she did get pregnant, I would be happy, though.
…

This goes for both sides, I use condoms and if my wife got pregnant I would be happy.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik:

We don’t have to intend conception every single time.
It’s OK to make the marital act infertile.

Those are two separate statements. Could you please connect the dots for me, and explain how the second statement follows logically from the first? And make your premises as clear as possible?

It follows from the first sentence that the object - act of contracepting is morally neutral.
The intent is - unitive love giving sex.
The circumstances are - it’s within the marriage.

Counter arguments:

• the contraception is not morally neutral; the contraception is intrinsically evil
  The Church takes bad intent and circumstances, packages it together and proclaims an act intrinsically evil - see the mutilation. When we ‘unpack’ - separate the bad intent and circumstances from the act then we get allowed amputation.
  From this point of view saying the contraception is intrinsically evil is irrelevant. It does not stand unless there is a double standard. That would put the Church in a bad position.
• the intent is supposed to be unitive aspect and procreative aspect
  The procreative aspect means how to have sex in a natural way - no barrier, man finishes in vagina.
  First, just calling a way of having sex an intent or an end is illogical.
  Second, going back to the car example, do we really move on the foot all the time? It’s OK to use a human invention for a licit purpose/end - unitive love giving sex within marriage.
• the marital act is total gift of self, the contraception breaks that
  The condom creates a barrier and it does not allow a sperm to come to the date with an ovum
  The NFP makes sure that the ovum does not come to the date. It’s a different way how the date does not happen.
  NFP couples know that a woman has more to offer. They hope that the full gift of herself does not happen. Calling this state of mind as a total gift is illogical.
  It leads to split personalities. I’ve seen it.

Let’s talk about any counter arguments you might have.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I am checking out. I’ll be back on Monday.