Vatican's Manner of Excommunication Is Rude :)

[trickster]

I am titling my post in a light hearted manner…but I have a serious question if anyone can get me up to speed on this.

I have a heard a number of theologians who have been excommunicated and there seems to be a tread happening; (1) normally when theologians were in problem city with the Vatican they were given warnings, silenced and even de-frocked but never directly excommunicated; there seems to be a more fundamentalist attitude at the Vatican that by-passes this progressive discipline and excommunicates right away and (2) the reason for excommunications are not given…people apparently just recieve a letter stating that they have been excommunicated!

My reaction to this is twofold; (1) why the move towards excommunication in practice that never was practiced the way it is now and (2) isn’t it kind of sad and “rude” that people are kicked out of our faith community without even a reason why - seems to me that for a church who talks the talk of “the dignity of life” ought to practice that honoring the human person by excommunicating in a more kind manner…at least people should have the right to know where they are in error or heresy or what it is that got them the excommunication.

One priest I know simply embraced post-modern theology and promoted original blessing (which was an Old Testament teaching much newer than Augustine’s original sin stuff) and the other was simply an Australian priest who was public about supporting gay marriage at the state level…

Anyways, I put it out there cause I don’t understand how excommunications have become so unkind…

Trickster
bruce

 

[Mike30]

I am titling my post in a light hearted manner…but I have a serious question if anyone can get me up to speed on this.

I have a heard a number of theologians who have been excommunicated and there seems to be a tread happening; (1) normally when theologians were in problem city with the Vatican they were given warnings, silenced and even de-frocked but never directly excommunicated; there seems to be a more fundamentalist attitude at the Vatican that by-passes this progressive discipline and excommunicates right away and (2) the reason for excommunications are not given…people apparently just recieve a letter stating that they have been excommunicated!

My reaction to this is twofold; (1) why the move towards excommunication in practice that never was practiced the way it is now and (2) isn’t it kind of sad and “rude” that people are kicked out of our faith community without even a reason why - seems to me that for a church who talks the talk of “the dignity of life” ought to practice that honoring the human person by excommunicating in a more kind manner…at least people should have the right to know where they are in error or heresy or what it is that got them the excommunication.

One priest I know simply embraced post-modern theology and promoted original blessing (which was an Old Testament teaching much newer than Augustine’s original sin stuff) and the other was simply an Australian priest who was public about supporting gay marriage at the state level…

Anyways, I put it out there cause I don’t understand how excommunications have become so unkind…

Trickster
bruce

I somehow dubt that anyone is ever unaware as to why they are excommunicated. I find that very hard to believe Bruce. Very hard indeed.

 

[St_Francis]

They are not kicked out of the “faith community.” They are simply not permitted to receive the sacraments, and all they have to do to lift the excommunication is recant their views.

Generally there has been conversation ahead of time; it’s just that we don’t know about it. Like at work, a boss might take someone aside and discuss something a few times but with no change, the boss fires that person. To others, this may seem to come out of the blue, because the boss was discreet about the previous actuons.

 

[Petaro]

I am titling my post in a light hearted manner…but I have a serious question if anyone can get me up to speed on this.

I have a heard a number of theologians who have been excommunicated and there seems to be a tread happening; (1) normally when theologians were in problem city with the Vatican they were given warnings, silenced and even de-frocked but never directly excommunicated; there seems to be a more fundamentalist attitude at the Vatican that by-passes this progressive discipline and excommunicates right away and (2) the reason for excommunications are not given…people apparently just recieve a letter stating that they have been excommunicated!

My reaction to this is twofold; (1) why the move towards excommunication in practice that never was practiced the way it is now and (2) isn’t it kind of sad and “rude” that people are kicked out of our faith community without even a reason why - seems to me that for a church who talks the talk of “the dignity of life” ought to practice that honoring the human person by excommunicating in a more kind manner…at least people should have the right to know where they are in error or heresy or what it is that got them the excommunication.

One priest I know simply embraced post-modern theology and promoted original blessing (which was an Old Testament teaching much newer than Augustine’s original sin stuff) and the other was simply an Australian priest who was public about supporting gay marriage at the state level…

Anyways, I put it out there cause I don’t understand how excommunications have become so unkind…

Trickster
bruce

Get your facts right before tilting at windmills. The Australian priest has been on every left wing media outlet outraged at his excommunication. He had been defrocked for supporting women priest; gay rights and then had set up his own church and continued with his saying of “Mass” deluding a faithful few away from their faith… and you support him? He had been given every warning in the book. I think you will find that no one is surprised when they find themselves excommunicated; I don’t mind error, Do research first accuse later.

 

[TK421]

Pagans are polite. Christians are kind.

Excommunication is not like failing an exam and it’s not something that happens accidentally. It’s harsh and it needs to be harsh, because the Church is essentially telling the person “you are on the road to Hell”. It’s the final message the father gives to his prodigal son before he ventures off into a far country. You can’t just have priests wandering around publicly defying the Magisterium and expect the Church to be quiet about it. There was no confusion or lack of education on the matter. The priest knows the doctrines and presumes himself wiser than God. He could have had the humility (and really, what we here on Earth call “humility”, those in Heaven probably call “common sense”) to recognize his own limitations, but he didn’t. He also could have shown the consistency to simply leave the Church on his accord since he doesn’t agree with Her, and he didn’t do that either.

 

[JReducation]

Yes there have been excommunications without warnings. It is the right of the Pontiff to excommunicate and he need not give you a reason. One of the cases that the OP mentions the person has been told not to bother recanting. There is no appeal.

Now, let’s look at the facts. If one has been doing something that the Church has been denouncing for a long time, such as promoting gay liaisons, abortion, women’s ordination or simply contradicting the pope left and right, one does not need a pink slip telling you that you’re heading for trouble. You know that you’re in trouble. And if you’re an intelligent adult, you know that you can only push the envelop so far before someone pushes back and pushes hard. If it’s not one pope it will be his successor.

The one case in Australia, by his own admission, was not new. The priest had held dissenting positions in matters that we (clergy and religious) have been told we cannot dissent and we cannot have an opinion different from that of the Church, because these are non-negotiable issues: women priests, abortion, and gay marriage. The Church can’t give you wiggle room on these points. From what I read, correct me if I’m wrong . . . the person participated in some service involving women priests. Probably, if I understood it correctly, he celebrated mass while suspended. Remember, I can only speak about what I read.

I don’t know if he had done this many times or not. This is all I read in an interview with the priest. I would think that if he was excommunicated it was not something that he did once. The fact that Pope Benedict’s attention was on other matters and this was not addressed does not mean that the Church was being nice. The Church was busy. Pope Francis came in and he issued the excommunication with no appeal.

No appeal means that the person has no right to a hearing. A hearing would be the place where one would recant or prove his innocence. It’s unfortunate, but we have to accept it as it is, because it’s the pope’s right.

An excommunication does not dismiss one from the Catholic faith. The effects are as follows: the person may never receive the sacraments, he may not serve the Church in any capacity such as a lector, catechist or other. In the case of a priest, he is laicized.

We have to understand laicized. A priest never truly becomes a layman. Once you’re ordained a deacon, you’re a cleric for life. To be laicized means that you clerical state, not your ordination, is taken away. By the way, we don’t defrock anyone except in movies. Defrock was simply the old term for laicised. He can no longer use the title Rev or Father. He may not dress as a priest. He may not celebrate any of the sacraments, not even in the privacy of his home.

In the event of an emergency where a priest is not available, this man’s faculties are restored for that singular event so that he can absolve from sin a person or persons in danger of death. That’s why I say one never becomes a layman. One lives as a layman, because you live outside of the clerical state. If you die excommunicated, you die outside the Church.

Let’s go back to no appeal, because this worries people. No appeal means no trial or hearing. It does not mean that the person cannot ask forgiveness of the pope and that the pope cannot forgive. The pope is your only recourse if you want to participate in the life of the Church and die inside the Church.

What happens to the soul of such a person? That’s up to the mercy of God and the choices the person makes. In other words, the person still has moral obligations. Just because you’re outside of the physical Church does not mean that you no longer have to believe what the Church teaches and no longer have to live a moral life. You have to do those things and you must place yourself in God’s merciful hands like any other person outside the Church, until such time as the excommunication is lifted. As I said, it can be lifted by the pope. The person must ask forgiveness of the Holy Father.

Again, I do not know the details of the individuals involved other than what I read in an article where they interviewed the Australian priest. However, as all articles, part of it quoted the priest and parts of it were comments and observations by the writer. I believe what the priest said, that he was excommunicated without a written warning. I take the writer’s comments and observations with a grain of salt. Not that the writer is lying, but most writers are not well educated in matters of canon law, even if they are Catholic.

One may say that this is rude or unfair. Those are opinions and everyone may have one until the Church says that this is an opinion that you may not have. The fact is that this power comes from Christ himself. The pope can bind and unbind, forgive sins or withhold forgiveness. Just because one pope does not use this power does not mean that other cannot do so.

I know that in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre there were many letters going back and forth before the excommunication. People may be referring to that case. In that case, the archbishop was talking about doing something contrary to law. As long as he was just talking about it, Rome had the luxury of sending letters and asking him to back down. When a deed is done, there is no backing down. The horse is out of the barn as they say. Now you have to go to Peter and ask for his forgiveness.

 

[trickster]

I somehow dubt that anyone is ever unaware as to why they are excommunicated. I find that very hard to believe Bruce. Very hard indeed.

I do too Mike30, that is why I am asking… I will find the articles and cut and paste them on this post, soon as I find them…It doesn’t sound like just excommunicating without any reason…doesn’t make sense…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

They are not kicked out of the “faith community.” They are simply not permitted to receive the sacraments, and all they have to do to lift the excommunication is recant their views.

Generally there has been conversation ahead of time; it’s just that we don’t know about it. Like at work, a boss might take someone aside and discuss something a few times but with no change, the boss fires that person. To others, this may seem to come out of the blue, because the boss was discreet about the previous actuons.

“recant” sounds rather draconian and medieval But St Francis… I think you are correct…I sense that there must be some sort of idea…I think the priest in Australia thought that he might be defrocked but he was surprised to be outright excommunicated…

Bruce
Trickster

 

[trickster]

Get your facts right before tilting at windmills. The Australian priest has been on every left wing media outlet outraged at his excommunication. He had been defrocked for supporting women priest; gay rights and then had set up his own church and continued with his saying of “Mass” deluding a faithful few away from their faith… and you support him? He had been given every warning in the book. I think you will find that no one is surprised when they find themselves excommunicated; I don’t mind error, Do research first accuse later.

Petaro, ease up here… I believe I said in the first sentence “if someone could get me up to speed on this”…that is got to be a good indicator that I am not trying to make any points; I’m just asking a question based on the facts that I do know…It’s not just the Australian priest I am talking about… I am talking about many theologians who have been excommunicated, there is a pattern emerging…and if it is true that there is no process, then that is not respectful, even if it comes from the Vatican itself…

No one is accusing anyone, I am simply stating an impression that I have based on what little I know…that is the whole point of this thread is to get up to speed…ok Petaro

I am happy that you are such a fierce warrior for the church though…

Bruce
Trickster

 

[Mintaka]

He set up a dissident church away from the bishop, which is schism.

He let his EMHCs give Communion to non-Catholics and even to a dog. That’s sacrilege and heresy.

And he’d been doing this stuff for years and years and years, and been warned repeatedly by the bishop, by the bishop’s removal of his faculties, and by the Vatican sending him tons and tons of letters asking him to appeal if he had any reasons for his actions at all, or to repent and be forgiven if he was ready to change…

People like this always say they’re surprised. But it’s not like they haven’t been warned and given plenty of time to change their minds. The Vatican moves slowly and sends tons of paperwork to these people. Often they actually send investigators to talk to them. All the canon law rules are easily available on the Internet, too.

If this guy was surprised by the outcome, then he’s also surprised by the sun coming up in the morning.

 

[trickster]

Yes there have been excommunications without warnings. It is the right of the Pontiff to excommunicate and he need not give you a reason. One of the cases that the OP mentions the person has been told not to bother recanting. There is no appeal. … I know that in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre there were many letters going back and forth before the excommunication. People may be referring to that case. In that case, the archbishop was talking about doing something contrary to law. As long as he was just talking about it, Rome had the luxury of sending letters and asking him to back down. When a deed is done, there is no backing down. The horse is out of the barn as they say. Now you have to go to Peter and ask for his forgiveness.

Hi Reducation thanks for that explanation…so in otherwords, by the time it gets to an excommunication with out reason it is because there were many things done prior to the decision, right? I haven’t read to much about the Australian priest, but I know that many theologians honestly think they are right and the church is wrong, that I can’t understand either… The other theologian I was thinking about when I posted this thread was Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox…and I like most of his work cause of his sense of eco-theology and the principles he talks about in Creation Spirituality cause I sense that there is enough nexus between what Matthew is saying, what Native spiritiuality and the church are saying that an Aboriginal Theology can be developed…

A lot of post-modern theologians are interesting to me cause they are trying to look at things from the realm of experience in our time and place and read that against the context of the church teaching; most theologians play with ideas and our church supports that…but I would think that the line in the sand is when those ideas that we play with become unorthodox, right?

I like Guttierez and Liberation Theology but I understand why the marxist base of it had to be dropped, that still leaves a lot of value doesn’t it…same with Matthew fox’s work, Ratzinger thought parts of it were wrong and yet i remember his writing acknowledging the good parts of Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox’s work too…

Yet Matthew Fox, too was excommunicated…anyways, I always look forward to your ideas and I consider you my on-line virtual professor, since I cannot go to theology school…but I have been accepted by the Dominican University College to do my B.Th next September so I am looking for that solid catholic academic setting too…

Blessings and Cheerz

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

He set up a dissident church away from the bishop, which is schism.

He let his EMHCs give Communion to non-Catholics and even to a dog. That’s sacrilege and heresy.

And he’d been doing this stuff for years and years and years, and been warned repeatedly by the bishop, by the bishop’s removal of his faculties, and by the Vatican sending him tons and tons of letters asking him to appeal if he had any reasons for his actions at all, or to repent and be forgiven if he was ready to change…

People like this always say they’re surprised. But it’s not like they haven’t been warned and given plenty of time to change their minds. The Vatican moves slowly and sends tons of paperwork to these people. Often they actually send investigators to talk to them. All the canon law rules are easily available on the Internet, too.

If this guy was surprised by the outcome, then he’s also surprised by the sun coming up in the morning.

Well the sun does indeed come up Mintaka…yes, the point of this posting was to get me up to speed on excommunication…and the simplistic notion that if there is no sense that one is doing wrong and getting excommunicated, that would indeed be rude treatment by the Vatican…but it sounds like - from what everyone is saying - is that excommunicatin tends to be the last resort when efforts to talk, rationalize and silencing, etc, have not been successful…this australian priest sounded like he was invested in his own beliefs at the cost of giving up orthodoxy and that he was a political priest in that he wanted to change the church by wearing a clerical collar and (probably in good intention on his part) trying to expand our generations understanding of what Jesus was talking about in his time and place in history…

 

[JReducation]

Trickey et al,

Here’s the thing. I’m a religious brother. I have a doctorate in theology. I have religious formation behind me. I am not a novice. I know what the Church teaches. I know where the Church draws the line.

Let’s take same-sex marriage. I have read newspapers. In every state and country where this has come up, the Church has said that redefining marriage is not negotiable.

Do I really need a warning letter from Rome?

What is the letter going to tell me that I don’t already know?

That’s like saying that I need a warning letter from the District Attorney because I’m stealing from my company. Yeah right!

 

[trickster]

Trickey et al,

Here’s the thing. I’m a religious brother. I have a doctorate in theology. I have religious formation behind me. I am not a novice. I know what the Church teaches. I know where the Church draws the line.

Let’s take same-sex marriage. I have read newspapers. In every state and country where this has come up, the Church has said that redefining marriage is not negotiable.

Do I really need a warning letter from Rome?

What is the letter going to tell me that I don’t already know?

That’s like saying that I need a warning letter from the District Attorney because I’m stealing from my company. Yeah right!

Hey JReducation; my name is Trickster not tricky I chose that name because as an aboriginal person it speaks to me about conversion of consistently transforming from one state to another…we have coyote’s that form parts of many tribal group legends…that’s why I chose that name…

Yes, my understanding has been really helped by this thread…that is the reason I asked the question in the first place…

I will be starting a B.Th in September 2014 and I am 56 years old (hope I have enough brain cells to do this) because “ideas” including “theological ideas” can be liberational or oppressive and for me as an aboriginal person that sphere still needs to be decolonized. As an example, many indigneous people only think of the terrible treatment Native American and Aboriginal Canadians recieved in the residential school, when clearly the church’s message is much, much more than that. … our church stands clearly against the abuse of children and thankfully the church is addressing those issues.

The reason I ask questions like the excommunication thing is that an unclear understanding of it on the part of any person, really allows the media to further confuse our minds with respect to what the actual excommunication thing is about…

Always nice to hear from you

Take care

Bruce Ferguson
TRICKSTER

 

[trickster]

Trickey et al,

Here’s the thing. I’m a religious brother. I have a doctorate in theology. I have religious formation behind me. I am not a novice. I know what the Church teaches. I know where the Church draws the line.

Let’s take same-sex marriage. I have read newspapers. In every state and country where this has come up, the Church has said that redefining marriage is not negotiable.

Do I really need a warning letter from Rome?

What is the letter going to tell me that I don’t already know?

That’s like saying that I need a warning letter from the District Attorney because I’m stealing from my company. Yeah right!

As a sideline, how do you as a theologian view postmodern theology…eco-theology…those are two areas that I sense can influence the development of an aboriginal theology…that bridges native spirituality and catholicsm…the other writer I am influenced by is Presbyterian Bishop Charles Stevenson I think… who has written about the notion fo the North American Old Testament…I would be curious to get your take on the emergence of these theological frameworks…or do you stick strictly with systematic theology?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[robwar]

As a sideline, how do you as a theologian view postmodern theology…eco-theology…those are two areas that I sense can influence the development of an aboriginal theology…that bridges native spirituality and catholicsm…the other writer I am influenced by is Presbyterian Bishop Charles Stevenson I think… who has written about the notion fo the North American Old Testament…I would be curious to get your take on the emergence of these theological frameworks…or do you stick strictly with systematic theology?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

why don’t you start a new thread with those issues. you are off topic from your original question.

 

[JReducation]

As a sideline, how do you as a theologian view postmodern theology…eco-theology…those are two areas that I sense can influence the development of an aboriginal theology…that bridges native spirituality and catholicsm…the other writer I am influenced by is Presbyterian Bishop Charles Stevenson I think… who has written about the notion fo the North American Old Testament…I would be curious to get your take on the emergence of these theological frameworks…or do you stick strictly with systematic theology?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

My area is Ascetical and Mystical Theology. At least that’s what it was called in my day. Today, many universities call it Spiritual Theology, same thing.

I have never heard of eco-theology. However, I will tell you this. When I was going through the system, back in the 70s, there were all kinds of “theologies”. Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, Native American Theology and the classical branches of theology.

I’ve always had a little difficulty creating a branch of theology because there is a new thought out there. I don’t see what a branch with a special name is going to bring to the table that is not already on the table.

Theology cannot invent truth. Theology is faith seeking understanding. Understanding of what? Understanding of itself. It’s not that it discovered some new revelation or new truth and it has to understand it.

For example, when we say “systematic theology”. That’s just a descriptive name for dogmatic theology. The difference is in approaches. In one situation you stress the systems and in the other you place the stress on the truths and you just trust the system even though you wouldn’t be able to do it on your own. It’s like math. I can teach you the multiplication tables by rote. That would be dogmatic. I can teach you to add and as you go along you figure out that if you add four three times you get 12. That’s systematic theology. In both cases you’re going to learn that three fours equal 12.

If you move along to Spiritual Theology, what are we talking about? We’re talking about the practice of virtue, the effects of Grace and God’s redemptive activity in the individual and in the community. Basically, you’re learning how one becomes a saint. Do you need dogma to become a saint? No. Do you need to believe what the Church believes? Yes.

Someone like St. Bernadette could become a saint, because she did everything that Spiritual Theology says one must do in order to go to heaven and God did everything that Spiritual Theology says he does in order to help us get there. St. Bernadette knew neither Spiritual Theology nor Systematic Theology. She professed to believe what the Church taught, even if she did not understand it. She practiced virtue, even though she had no idea how grace operated in her soul. But she experienced its effects and that was enough.

That’s my reason for being shy of creating new branches of theology. Because I really wonder if we truly need them. The fact is that most saints can’t answer the Baltimore Catechism. I’m remembering another saint, St. Clare of Assisi.

Clare was a well educated woman. She knew math, languages, scripture and some catechism. She knew how to read and write in Italian, French and Latin. That’s quite an accomplishment for a woman of the 13th century. During her lifetime the term “transubstantiation” was coined. And the term “Immaculate Conception” was also coined and it was hotly debated by the Franciscans and Dominicans.

I bet you $5.00 and a keg of beer that Clare had no idea what either of those meant. However, Clare had such a powerful devotion to the Blessed Sacrament that she thwarted off a bunch a rapist soldiers by raising a ciboria over the monastery wall. She created perpetual adoration for her nuns, long before the rest of the Church had it. She was also praying Marian prayers and hymns long before the Rosary existed. Did she need a Eucharistic Theology or a Marian Theology? Not at all. Did she need a Franciscan theology to understand Francis? Not at all. In fact, she understood him better than he understood himself. She often told him what God wanted from him. He, like a small child in a state of wonder would look at her and go, “Ohhhhhhhhh” :newidea:

 

[Starrsmother]

To keep this to 25 words or less–I’ll simply say that it’s about time! Any priest who is pro gay marriage knows in his heart and soul that he is not in line with church law. They choose to do so anyway and they cause scandal everywhere in their path. I keep hoping that our pope will work his way around to excommunicating Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi too.

 

[Elizium23]

This is reminding me of an online game I play where people regularly come to the forums screaming “I wuz band 4 no rezun!!1”

I think that “no reason given” is a mischaracterization of what happens here and others have demonstrated why. I will be the first to admit that when I have gotten in big trouble, sometimes it is hard to see the reasons why, but hindsight is 20/20, and if I step back and think about it, I can point to the events leading up to my trouble and realize that people have tried to intercede and intervene and pull me back from the edge, but I did not listen. Young children need to be told the reason for being disciplined because otherwise they will not learn from the experience, but when we become adults we are expected to have a properly formed conscience and, barring mental illness or the like, we have an understanding of actions and consequences thereof.

It is super-amusing that someone calls the Vatican of this particular pontificate rude. It seems more like a Benedictine epithet, perhaps the mean old Emeritus’ curia still lingers on and you resent that element of it. But come on. Rome is a government (among other things, let’s not reduce it) and governments reserve the right to be harsh when the situation calls for it. I look around and I see many conservatives complaining about how lax Rome is when it comes to dissenting politicians and dissenting religious and ad-libbing priests, and then just one of them gets the hook, and it’s the liberals with a spittle-flecked nutty about the mean old men in dresses calling the shots.

Look at it this way. You can’t arrest all the speeders and throw them in jail. But you set up a speed trap and pull a few over and the rest of them fall into line, scared straight. Hopefully the people close to this one excommunicated Australian priest will re-examine their doctrine and consciences and come to the conclusion that obedience is better than Hell. In my diocese, one sister excommunicated herself over an abortion. This had lasting fallout and sent a very clear message that our bishop meant business about being pro-life. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back and I hope and pray that others saw the error of their ways, not wanting to end up like the good Sister, and recanted pro-abortion views rather than excommunicate themselves too.

Also remember as I hinted above that some excommunications are latae sententiae. This means that the commission of the very sin causes the excommunication automatically. The Church may make a determination that it happened but it doesn’t need to call a tribunal or issue a sentence, the penalty is already in effect.

 

[JReducation]

To keep this to 25 words or less–I’ll simply say that it’s about time! Any priest who is pro gay marriage knows in his heart and soul that he is not in line with church law. They choose to do so anyway and they cause scandal everywhere in their path. I keep hoping that our pope will work his way around to excommunicating Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi too.

That’s a little more tricky. We have to be careful not to create martyrs in the court of public opinion. It can boost their position in the public’s estimation. People love martyrs, even those who are not true martyrs. That would come out looking like the bully Church picking on two faithful Catholics who are concerned about women’s rights and women’s health issues. Instead of fixing a problem, there is the potential of strengthening the culture of death. The Church has to navigate around this one with consistency, prudence, and do what she has to do, but do it at the right moment.