Why can't Fr. Jenkins be fired?

[elts1956]

tqualey;5347619:

Hi, Bro JR,

Your last post was also excellent - and responded in with kindness and understanding to a very angry post.

You refer to me as being angry; please allow me to explain my feelings.
I am upset to hear thousands of babies murdered every day, not just in America but all over the world.
If I am upset and I’m a far cry from perfect, than how upsetting is it for God.

Imperial, we Catholics are going through a very rough time right now. Not only are we challenged from without by pro aborts, with media who give slanted views, but also to the dropping away of beliefs of the Church by some within the Church. By some people and institutions that have been weakened by relativism and pride which we would have never thought would be so tainted. I have felt betrayed, frustrated and angry at my helplessness. I want to go out right NOW and fix everything “I” think has gone wrong in the Church and some of its representatives. I want to take all those babies that are being killed and bring them home with me. Unfortunately/unfortunately? I lack the power to do so.

This afternoon at Mass I had a little talk with Jesus. I told Him I was going to trust Him that all will be right, even if it doesn’t work out the way I want it to, that we/I were in His hands. That His way of getting things to happen are different and much better than mine. And He calmed me and I knew He was there.

I’m not saying we should sit and do nothing, but I know I am going to have to listen to that voice I hear every once in awhile and do so more often.

 

[JReducation]

Imperial, we Catholics are going through a very rough time right now. Not only are we challenged from without by pro aborts, with media who give slanted views, but also to the dropping away of beliefs of the Church by some within the Church. By some people and institutions that have been weakened by relativism and pride which we would have never thought would be so tainted. I have felt betrayed, frustrated and angry at my helplessness. I want to go out right NOW and fix everything “I” think has gone wrong in the Church and some of its representatives. I want to take all those babies that are being killed and bring them home with me. Unfortunately/unfortunately? I lack the power to do so.

This afternoon at Mass I had a little talk with Jesus. I told Him I was going to trust Him that all will be right, even if it doesn’t work out the way I want it to, that we/I were in His hands. That His way of getting things to happen are different and much better than mine. And He calmed me and I knew He was there.

I’m not saying we should sit and do nothing, but I know I am going to have to listen to that voice I hear every once in awhile and do so more often.

This is called contemplation. We hear the voice of God within the depths of a soul willing to surrender to God’s will and cooperate with it.

The Camaldolese have a wonderful passage in their rule, “If you want to save the world, leave it and forget it.” I often wondered what that meant. When I was wrong I thought it was wrong. Now that I’m an old man, I can see the wisdom of these holy men.

The world is to be placed in the hand of God, because we must be like Mary and choose the better portion. If we try to be like Martha we end up complaining to the Lord, when we should be at his feet adoring him.

What you did was what Mary did. You sat before the Lord and you let him take over. You have opened yourself to be used as his little pencil with which he will write the next word of love and consolation for the suffering and the vulnerable. This is total poverty, the total surrender of our will and our desire to fix the world.

We must be responsible citizens of this world. To be responsible citizens, we must first be men and women of trust. We must trust that God will show us the way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[elts1956]

This is called contemplation. We hear the voice of God within the depths of a soul willing to surrender to God’s will and cooperate with it.

The Camaldolese have a wonderful passage in their rule, “If you want to save the world, leave it and forget it.” I often wondered what that meant. When I was wrong I thought it was wrong. Now that I’m an old man, I can see the wisdom of these holy men.

The world is to be placed in the hand of God, because we must be like Mary and choose the better portion. If we try to be like Martha we end up complaining to the Lord, when we should be at his feet adoring him.

What you did was what Mary did. You sat before the Lord and you let him take over. You have opened yourself to be used as his little pencil with which he will write the next word of love and consolation for the suffering and the vulnerable. This is total poverty, the total surrender of our will and our desire to fix the world.

We must be responsible citizens of this world. To be responsible citizens, we must first be men and women of trust. We must trust that God will show us the way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It’s a wonderful feeling. :heaven:

 

[tqualey]

Here is an update link from the US Catholic Bishops as reported in the National Catholic Reporter: ncregister.com/daily/bishops_back_darcy_on_notre_dame_scandal/?utm_source=NCRegister.com&utm_campaign=2499f1e217-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL&utm_medium=email

If nothing else, I think our US Shepherds will have some additional policies in place by the time Notre Dame University has its next commencement exercise.

God bless

Tom

 

[Marsha_Adams]

For all we know, Fr. Jenkins may be begging for his food on his knees in the community refectory for a year, just a speculation.

If the Holy Cross Brothers are anything like the Holy Cross Sisters across the street from them, Fr. Jenkins has probably been given a gold medal and will be elected as Provincial Superior in the very near future. That isn’t just me being snide and mean, I have knowledge of the Sisters and their general opinions.

 

[mdgspencer]

I am puzzled by some recent posts. The question raised at the beginning of this thread is whether Father Jenkins should be fired. This isn’t a matter for his religious order to deal with, privately or not. The Board of Trustees at Notre Dame would decide this, which would mostly be comprised of lay people. It is not an internal concern of an order.
I have been considering the objections of several people who believe that this is a matter that it is best we be silent about, and that in fact it should be quietly dealt with with the religious community. I have been considering this over the last day, and there is something that could be said for this view. But at the same time, I wonder, if this is so, why has the local bishop publicly objected to this event? In fact, a good many U.S. bishops publicly and adamantly objected to this event, and said so to the press, which has quoted them,.In fact, one bishop in the South had a mass of reparation for this event and he said publicly that he was having a mass of reparation for the honoring of a pro-abortion politician by Father Jenkins and Notre Dame.

 

[tcm22]

I am puzzled by some recent posts. The question raised at the beginning of this thread is whether Father Jenkins should be fired. This isn’t a matter for his religious order to deal with, privately or not. The Board of Trustees at Notre Dame would decide this, which would mostly be comprised of lay people. It is not an internal concern of an order.
I have been considering the objections of several people who believe that this is a matter that it is best we be silent about, and that in fact it should be quietly dealt with with the religious community. I have been considering this over the last day, and there is something that could be said for this view. But at the same time, I wonder, if this is so, why has the local bishop publicly objected to this event? In fact, a good many U.S. bishops publicly and adamantly objected to this event, and said so to the press, which has quoted them,.In fact, one bishop in the South had a mass of reparation for this event and he said publicly that he was having a mass of reparation for the honoring of a pro-abortion politician by Father Jenkins and Notre Dame.

I think the thread changed direction once it became clear that the Board of Trustees wasn’t going to take any action against Fr Jenkins. The question then arose of whether and to whom he is accountable in his role as a Priest and member of the Holy Cross order. The consensus to this point, with some great (name removed by moderator)ut from JREducation, is that, barring action by the University, Fr Jenkins’ Superior in the order is the only one who could reasonably be expected to hold Fr Jenkins accountable for his actions.

 

[imperial]

I am puzzled by some recent posts. The question raised at the beginning of this thread is whether Father Jenkins should be fired. This isn’t a matter for his religious order to deal with, privately or not. The Board of Trustees at Notre Dame would decide this, which would mostly be comprised of lay people. It is not an internal concern of an order.
I have been considering the objections of several people who believe that this is a matter that it is best we be silent about, and that in fact it should be quietly dealt with with the religious community. I have been considering this over the last day, and there is something that could be said for this view. But at the same time, I wonder, if this is so, why has the local bishop publicly objected to this event? In fact, a good many U.S. bishops publicly and adamantly objected to this event, and said so to the press, which has quoted them,.In fact, one bishop in the South had a mass of reparation for this event and he said publicly that he was having a mass of reparation for the honoring of a pro-abortion politician by Father Jenkins and Notre Dame.

Thank you for weighing in on this thread, why can’t Fr. Jenkins be fired?
Jenkins was thrilled with the presence of a pro abortionist
Yet thousands of people all over the word even atheist were disgusted to see a holy priest, Fr Weslin being arrested. It was a disgrace.
Mr Jenkins should be sacked

 

[JReducation]

Mr Jenkins should be sacked

With all due respect, I am obliged to offer some fraternal correction here. Until someone in authority says so, John Jenkins’ title is not Mister. His titles are

Fr. because he is a presbyter

Rev. because he is ordained

Br. becasue he is a religious

Rev. Dr. because he is a Doctor of Sacred Theology.

Many of us, including clerics and religious, strongly disagree with Fr. Jenkins’ decision, but no one has the authority to dismiss the fact that the man is ordained and a consecrated religious.

Only the Holy Father himself can dissmiss a man from the clerical state and from religious life.

If we Catholics begin to strip our clerics or our religious of their proper titles, we sent an wrong message to those who are not Catholics, especially Protestants. We’re sending a message that says that the Sacrament of Holy Orders or that the solemn vows of a male religious can be dismissed because they don’t tow the line.

This is theologically, scripturally and canonically impossible. Only the Pope can do that. We’re not Prostants who hire and fire their pastors and ministers at will. We’re Catholics. We live by rules that are part of a sacred tradition, even when someone fails to tow the line. We continue to believe that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is an indellible mark on the ordained and that religious vows consecrates the brother (in this case) to Christ in a most intimate way that cannot be undone by man, but can only be dispensed by his Vicar.

This is our faith. This is the faith of our Church and the faith of our anscestors.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Christopher68]

I have read the entire transcript of Fr. Jenkins speech where he introduced the President. I may be in the minority here, but to me it seemed like it was a very reasoned and well-thought-out speech.

 

[tcm22]

I have read the entire transcript of Fr. Jenkins speech where he introduced the President. I may be in the minority here, but to me it seemed like it was a very reasoned and well-thought-out speech.

Fr Jenkins is a very educated man. I have no doubt that any speech the man gives is well-reasoned and thought out.

Unfortunately his thinking failed to account for the position of the USCCB regarding the bestowing of honors on pro-abortion figures, nor the public scandal associated with a (nominally) Catholic university honoring someone like Obama who is so publicly opposed to Church teaching on the sanctity of life. This thread has demonstrated (in large part to the fabulous contributions of JReducation) that their is little that the Church can do to hold Fr Jenkins accountable if his own order does not with to do so.

At the risk of sounding anti-intellectual (which I am decidedly not), it’s probably worth noting that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was incredibly well reasoned and thought out. That doesn’t make it any less evil.

 

[JReducation]

Fr Jenkins is a very educated man. I have no doubt that any speech the man gives is well-reasoned and thought out.

Unfortunately his thinking failed to account for the position of the USCCB regarding the bestowing of honors on pro-abortion figures, nor the public scandal associated with a (nominally) Catholic university honoring someone like Obama who is so publicly opposed to Church teaching on the sanctity of life. This thread has demonstrated (in large part to the fabulous contributions of JReducation) that their is little that the Church can do to hold Fr Jenkins accountable if his own order does not with to do so.

At the risk of sounding anti-intellectual (which I am decidedly not), it’s probably worth noting that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was incredibly well reasoned and thought out. That doesn’t make it any less evil.

I’ll go on record saying that the decision at ND, represented by Fr. Jenkins, was a very poor one that caused more headaches than it was worth. Now . . . that being said, I also have to admit that I do not know the man personally. Therefore, I can’t judge his motives. I can only take at face value the explanation that he gave and say that I disagree with his explanation.

I do not beleive that he is an evil person, because this has not been proven. I do not believe that his intentions were evil, because this has not bee proven.

So, what has been proven? If we listen to Fr. Jenkins’ explanation and to the bishops statement in San Antonio, what has been proven is that the university’s administration (which includes Fr. Jenkins) acted contrary to the statement of the bishops. But there is the other side of this coin too. The bishops themselves are not sure if the statement is clear enough and they also admit that they did not engage those religious and clergy who work outside of the jurisdiction of the dioceses.

When you have a nation that size of the United States and you have thousands of religious who are not subject to the authority of the bishops except in matters of faith and morals, you have the duty to make sure that your statements are clear enough so that there is no doubt that you are specaking on matters of faith and morals. In addiition, the USCCB has an office for religious. And by its own admission, the USCCB did not engage the religious superiors when they made this statement.

Now . . . the national conference of bishops of any nation is free to make pastoral statements regarding faith and morals without applying for approval from the religious superiors in their country. Given the large numbers of men and women who are under the jurisdiction of these major superiors and not under the jurisdiction of the bishops, it would be prudent and an act of courtessy for the bishops to communicate to the major superiors their decision on this matter and to ask these superiors to act in communion with them in enforcing it among their subjects. The bishops themselves admitted that they had not done so. They admitted that they had assumed that the statement was clear enough and now they are wondering if it was.

I’m not blaming the bishops for what happened at ND. But I am stating that there needs to be better communication between the USCCB and the Conference of Religious Superiors. If this is done properly, then the bishops have all the leverage that they need to hold the religious superiors accountable, not to the local bishop, because canon law does not allow this, but accountable to the teachings of the Church. As it stands, with the two bodies acting as if the left arm did not know that the right arm existed, the only link between the bishops and the religious superors are canon law and the Holy Father. It does not need to be this way.

I’m speaking from personal experience. In the diocese where I work, my community is involved in ministry that is not within the jurisdiction of the diocese. However, the bishop and the major superior have had an on-going relationship based on mutual respect that goes back 40 years. When the bishop has something that he wants to promote in the diocese and our brothers or other religious are not really bound to follow, he invites the religious superiors whose members work in his diocese, but not for is diocese, to a meeting where he explains what is coming and how the religious can support him. There has never been a situation where the religious communities have refused to support the bishop. There have been individual religious, like Fr. Jenkins, who have acted contrary to the wishes of the bishop. However, given that the superior agreed to cooperate with the bishop, this places the individual religious in a disciplinary situation with his superior to whom he or she does owe obedience.

In other words, if the superior says that we will support the bishop’s plan to pray the rosary every Saturday outside an abortion center, the religious must comply or face the heat.

If the bishops and the superiors had coordinate this statement. The religious superiors would have probably agreed that that no one should have such honors and Fr. Jenkins would have had to face his Provincial Superior for defying his will.

I hope this is not too confusing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Christopher68,

Not to make too bit of a issue of this… but, wouldn’t you think it odd for someone like Fr. Jenkins pesented a unreasoned and poorly thought out speech? Even the snake in Genesis 3 had some interesting words. But the trouble is, Fr. Jenkins missed the big picture - and for one entrusted with such a leadership responsibility - this is a profound and truly disappointing experience.

I have read the entire transcript of Fr. Jenkins speech where he introduced the President. I may be in the minority here, but to me it seemed like it was a very reasoned and well-thought-out speech.

God bless

 

[CoachSTL]

I have read the entire transcript of Fr. Jenkins speech where he introduced the President. I may be in the minority here, but to me it seemed like it was a very reasoned and well-thought-out speech.

Christopher,

What I am hearing from you is that because a speech is well reasoned and well thought out, it justifies the decision by Fr. Jenkins and his staff, the leaders of a Christian School the honoring of a man who is not opposed to making abortion legal?

Let me ask you this question. Do you think that it would be appropriate for the Chairman of BIRTHRIGHT to present to President Obama an honorary award for any reason?

 

[elts1956]

I’ll go on record saying that the decision at ND, represented by Fr. Jenkins, was a very poor one that caused more headaches than it was worth. Now . . . that being said, I also have to admit that I do not know the man personally. Therefore, I can’t judge his motives. I can only take at face value the explanation that he gave and say that I disagree with his explanation.

I do not beleive that he is an evil person, because this has not been proven. I do not believe that his intentions were evil, because this has not bee proven.

So, what has been proven? If we listen to Fr. Jenkins’ explanation and to the bishops statement in San Antonio, what has been proven is that the university’s administration (which includes Fr. Jenkins) acted contrary to the statement of the bishops. But there is the other side of this coin too. The bishops themselves are not sure if the statement is clear enough and they also admit that they did not engage those religious and clergy who work outside of the jurisdiction of the dioceses.

When you have a nation that size of the United States and you have thousands of religious who are not subject to the authority of the bishops except in matters of faith and morals, you have the duty to make sure that your statements are clear enough so that there is no doubt that you are specaking on matters of faith and morals. In addiition, the USCCB has an office for religious. And by its own admission, the USCCB did not engage the religious superiors when they made this statement.

Now . . . the national conference of bishops of any nation is free to make pastoral statements regarding faith and morals without applying for approval from the religious superiors in their country. Given the large numbers of men and women who are under the jurisdiction of these major superiors and not under the jurisdiction of the bishops, it would be prudent and an act of courtessy for the bishops to communicate to the major superiors their decision on this matter and to ask these superiors to act in communion with them in enforcing it among their subjects. The bishops themselves admitted that they had not done so. They admitted that they had assumed that the statement was clear enough and now they are wondering if it was.

I’m not blaming the bishops for what happened at ND. But I am stating that there needs to be better communication between the USCCB and the Conference of Religious Superiors. If this is done properly, then the bishops have all the leverage that they need to hold the religious superiors accountable, not to the local bishop, because canon law does not allow this, but accountable to the teachings of the Church. As it stands, with the two bodies acting as if the left arm did not know that the right arm existed, the only link between the bishops and the religious superors are canon law and the Holy Father. It does not need to be this way.

I’m speaking from personal experience. In the diocese where I work, my community is involved in ministry that is not within the jurisdiction of the diocese. However, the bishop and the major superior have had an on-going relationship based on mutual respect that goes back 40 years. When the bishop has something that he wants to promote in the diocese and our brothers or other religious are not really bound to follow, he invites the religious superiors whose members work in his diocese, but not for is diocese, to a meeting where he explains what is coming and how the religious can support him. There has never been a situation where the religious communities have refused to support the bishop. There have been individual religious, like Fr. Jenkins, who have acted contrary to the wishes of the bishop. However, given that the superior agreed to cooperate with the bishop, this places the individual religious in a disciplinary situation with his superior to whom he or she does owe obedience.

In other words, if the superior says that we will support the bishop’s plan to pray the rosary every Saturday outside an abortion center, the religious must comply or face the heat.

If the bishops and the superiors had coordinate this statement. The religious superiors would have probably agreed that that no one should have such honors and Fr. Jenkins would have had to face his Provincial Superior for defying his will.

I hope this is not too confusing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

There are times when I think people, including well schooled ones such as Jenkins, get lost in their intellectual abilites and confuse themselves seeing many paths when there is only one. Whether or not the USCCB were clear in their statement regarding (even nominally) Catholic Universities being under the obligation of following their (the Bishop’s) instructions of not honoring pro abortion pols., there is still a basic truth here, was it morally right, or wrong for bo to be invited?

Now the Bishops themselves are confused as to whether their statement was specific enough. Did it contain all the wording needed to help the folks at NDU make the best decision? Do they REALLY have to tell Catholics, including Catholic members of a university faculty, when to go right and when to go left in each and every step?

Something the administrators, Jenkins and perhaps many of the Bishops themselves, have glossed over, is what the leaders of the Church who know her teachings and philosophy have said before. Decisions of morality must be made using the guidance of well formed conscience. Even children caught with their hands in the cookie jar know what that is.

In a simpler time with simpler answers, the question wouldn’t even have arisen.

 

[Christopher68]

I have read the entire transcript of Fr. Jenkins speech where he introduced the President. I may be in the minority here, but to me it seemed like it was a very reasoned and well-thought-out speech.

Further to my comments from above:

I did NOT state a position on whether or not I thought it was appropriate for ND to confer an honorary degree on President Obama.

I only said that I have read the transcript of his speech in its entirety, which is something many in the ‘fire Fr, Jenkins’ crowd likely have not done - and that I thought his speech was reasoned and well-thought-out. His speech reaffirmed Catholic principles, while stating that we are more likely to win converts by appealing to their better natures as opposed to just telling someone that their position is wrong and condemning them. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[tcm22]

Further to my comments from above:

I did NOT state a position on whether or not I thought it was appropriate for ND to confer an honorary degree on President Obama.

I only said that I have read the transcript of his speech in its entirety, which is something many in the ‘fire Fr, Jenkins’ crowd likely have not done - and that I thought his speech was reasoned and well-thought-out. His speech reaffirmed Catholic principles, while **stating that we are more likely to win converts by appealing to their better natures as opposed to just telling someone that their position is wrong and condemning them. **That was the point I was trying to make.

I think this is a strawman argument. With some rare and unfortunate exceptions, the pro-life movement in the United States has been incredibly peaceful, prayerful, and respectful even in the face of the horror of the abortion industry.

We can’t be afraid to say someones position is wrong and condemn it, particularly if it is something so completely at odds with Catholic moral teachings. Are we afraid to tell people that murder, adultery, and pedophelia are wrong? Do we not rightly condemn those things? Why is abortion different?

This idea that winning the moral battle over abortion depends not on the truth of the message but on the way it’s delivered is just wrong-headed. Call a duck a duck! If we truly believe that man is born with an innate understanding of the natural law, a conscience, and an implicit understanding of right and wrong, then our message needs to focus on truth, not whether it is somehow appealing. Truth is the best way to appeal to people’s better nature. Sugar coating the message just empowers those who dismiss the truth if it rubs them the wrong way.

A moral stand by ND to refuse to honor Obama would have been a much better message than presenting him with an honorary degree preceded by a well reasoned speech that no one will remember.

 

[mdgspencer]

Is this idea relying on an earlier post? I presume that you have some source saying that the bishops are confused, as to whether their statement directing that Catholic schools should not honor pro-abotion politicians was specific enough.

Now the Bishops themselves are confused as to whether their statement was specific enough. Did it contain all the wording needed to help the folks at NDU make the best decision?

 

[Christopher68]

I think this is a strawman argument. With some rare and unfortunate exceptions, the pro-life movement in the United States has been incredibly peaceful, prayerful, and respectful even in the face of the horror of the abortion industry.

We can’t be afraid to say someones position is wrong and condemn it, particularly if it is something so completely at odds with Catholic moral teachings. Are we afraid to tell people that murder, adultery, and pedophelia are wrong? Do we not rightly condemn those things? Why is abortion different?

This idea that winning the moral battle over abortion depends not on the truth of the message but on the way it’s delivered is just wrong-headed. Call a duck a duck! If we truly believe that man is born with an innate understanding of the natural law, a conscience, and an implicit understanding of right and wrong, then our message needs to focus on truth, not whether it is somehow appealing. Truth is the best way to appeal to people’s better nature. Sugar coating the message just empowers those who dismiss the truth if it rubs them the wrong way.

A moral stand by ND to refuse to honor Obama would have been a much better message than presenting him with an honorary degree preceded by a well reasoned speech that no one will remember.

Again, I was not responding directly to ND’s decision to honor President Obama. I would agree that honoring him was likely not the best decision. But we’ll have to agree to disagree about Fr. Jenkins speech and the tactics he suggests. In my life, I’ve always responded favorably when people use reason and logic to convince me of something, as opposed to someone who would simply condemn me for not believing as they do.

Why is abortion different, you ask? Because 99.9% of the population would agree that murder and robbery are wrong, but for many people abortion is not a black and white issue. By simply condemning them for their beliefs that are different than Catholic teaching, I suspect that their natural tendency is to push us away as opposed to embracing our beliefs. I am not saying that ‘truth’ should not be spoken. But engaging someone in dialogue and trying to convince them of our position is a lot more effective than just hammering them over the head with our beliefs.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TCM22,

I think you have captured the flavor of what really needs to be addressed.

I think this is a strawman argument. With some rare and unfortunate exceptions, the pro-life movement in the United States has been incredibly peaceful, prayerful, and respectful even in the face of the horror of the abortion industry.

We can’t be afraid to say someones position is wrong and condemn it, particularly if it is something so completely at odds with Catholic moral teachings. Are we afraid to tell people that murder, adultery, and pedophelia are wrong? Do we not rightly condemn those things? Why is abortion different?

This idea that winning the moral battle over abortion depends not on the truth of the message but on the way it’s delivered is just wrong-headed. Call a duck a duck! If we truly believe that man is born with an innate understanding of the natural law, a conscience, and an implicit understanding of right and wrong, then our message needs to focus on truth, not whether it is somehow appealing. Truth is the best way to appeal to people’s better nature. Sugar coating the message just empowers those who dismiss the truth if it rubs them the wrong way.

A moral stand by ND to refuse to honor Obama would have been a much better message than presenting him with an honorary degree preceded by a well reasoned speech that no one will remember.

Maybe this is a yearing for that ‘simpler time’ - but, for goodness sake, we are going to choke on how well we slice 'n dice the rationalizatons presented here. About all we can hope for is that other Catholic Colleges and Universities do not decide to honor the President - or our pro-abortion nominal-Catholic Vice-President - or Secretary of Health and Human Services - in a similar way.

God bless