Rorate Caeli Confesses Its Fascism...

Did anyone else see this on Rorate Caeli today? Ridiculous:

When a group of priests whine publicly that their superior is being "authoritarian", we must admit that our immediate reaction is to defend the superior; and when the "climate of fear" decried by these priests is a "climate" of "internal police" related to, shall we say, "homosexual matters" - well, then we are absolutely certain that the superior is correct and that whatever he is doing is certainly in the right direction.

So when someone is accused of being authoritarian, their gut sympathy is to side with the accused authoritarian? And when there is a climate of homophobia and "policing" they're absolutely certain what he's doing is correct?

I mean, I'm all for rooting out those who would make a mockery of the priesthood and Christian morals, but an atmosphere of authoritarian repression based around insinuations about sexuality is just McCarthyism, it sounds like.

I don't know if the situation in Rome is actually like that; the priests complaining may indeed be liberals whining that their party is over. But for Rorate Caeli to gleefully knee-jerk sympathize on the terms outlined above...is everything that's wrong with non-renegade reactionary traditionalism and conservatism in the Church today.

Ain't It Funny How Time Slips Away...

Lay Ministers? That Doesn't Even Compute

I've discussed before how the logic of the clergy as a sort of caste apart from the laity has led to the bizarre situation of a sort of "middle class" in the Church and/or the liturgy (with permanent deacons straddling an awkward territory in between).

And I do mean "and/or," as the two don't necessarily overlap entirely; the religiously literate "lay clergy" I've discussed (and of which I'd count myself and probably the readers of this blog), and the sort of lay "tribunes" who absurdly "represent the laity" in the sanctuary as readers and altar-women and EMHCs...are often two separate groups of people, two different mentalities (the "lay clergy" are, frankly, often balk at the idea of volunteering for such roles.)

I was reminded of these strands of thought at the church I've been attending near my temporary lodging recently, where besides the priest, there are like twelve chairs in the sanctuary, filled with women in albs and secular clothing. The latter are readers (not even vested in anything; secular lay clothing apparently being taken as befitting the Liturgy of the Word according to Protestantesque notions), but the former don't even have any particularly discernible role (children act as the actual altar servers) until it comes time for distribution of communion when most of them are EMHCs. The rest of the time they loom there like some Grand Council of Emasculation on their haughty thrones, as if present merely to assert the final symbolic castration of the poor already institutionally eunuchized priest.

But again, as I said in that post of mine on lay readers, the logic behind lay "participants" in the liturgy (or even just making arbitrary lay people, especially women, be visible in the sanctuary) seems to:

...come from some idea that if the priest just appropriated the role for himself, then he would be limiting the opportunities for "participation" on the part of the people. And at Sunday Masses especially (with readers, altar servers, EMHC's, having lay people bring up the gifts at the Offertory, etc) they seem to act like the liturgy is some sort of audience-participation game-show where getting as many people involved as possible is ideal. The priest just doing the readings himself would be "exclusivist" or something like that...

But, of course, 98% of the congregation is still not involved "actively" like that. They can't be. There's only going to be one reader, a few servers, a couple people carrying up the gifts, a handful of EMHC's. So in some ways it is just as "exclusive" as ever; it's just exclusive to a privileged group of [...] volunteers, a self-selected group, rather than to just clerics.

The justification given, then, is usually that the lay participants in the sanctuary "represent" the rest of us, and that we will feel like we are participating through them, that we will identify with them.

Of course, this is ironically indicative of an extremely entrenched clericalism. Because it implies that we in the pews couldn't possibly identify with the priest. Oh no, he couldn't possibly adequately represent the congregation in the sanctuary, so we need to have some plebeian tribune up there to represent "our" interests, to be the laity's proxy in the liturgy.

But of course, that's all "clergy" are in the end. That's what priests are: simply members of the church appointed to act as the representative of the congregation before God in the sanctuary, just as Christ was the mediator between God and Man. This idea that lay people need to see another lay person in the sanctuary to identify with in their participation, instead of identifying in participation with the priest himself, stems from an essentialization of the clergy as objectively different than the laity in caste, rather than as being defined precisely as simply the community's representative in the sanctuary.

And even when the priest is taking the role of the Other during liturgy (ie, in persona christi)...the Eastern churches, at least, then use the deacon as the symbolic mediator between him and the congregation (like the Church is between us and Christ), as the congregation's proxy or point of identification. Not some random unvested lay person (and certainly not a woman) waltzing up there and inserting the profane and secular into the sacred.

And that's just the point: all "clerics" ultimately are, traditionally, are those deputized (that's what an ordination is; a deputization) for public ministry in the church, being appointed as a public representative of the Church, a public "pray-er," able to act in the name of the whole church community in liturgy. It's exactly because they are clergy that they can represent the rest of us. If lay people feel they aren't adequately represented by a cleric, or women by a man...well, I really don't know Whom they think mediates between them and the Father.

And of course, this is why there were minor orders. These roles were devolved from the functions originally proper to the diaconate and made a class of minor clerics to fill various public functions in liturgy and the church. This idea after Vatican II of "lay ministries" (instituted lector and acolyte) is a paradox, as all "clerics" are...are members of the church instituted to be public ministers in liturgy! That's what "clergy" are. Only the essentialization of the clergy as a "class" earning their keep by full-time work for the Church and bound by celibacy and other obligations ruined this logic.

To me, the idea of an "instituted" acolyte who is specified as specifically a "lay ministry" as opposed to clergy is an insane idea, as all the minor ordination was, actually, was just such an "institution" or deputization to fulfill that role in liturgy. And limiting the "instituted ministry" to men makes this idea of essentially "lay" ministries in liturgy even more absurd (especially when you do allow female "substitutes," but not the actual institution; this creates, like, two bizarre extra layers between the "real" clergy and the just-plain-laity).

Of course, the Vatican II logic may be based on the Sacrament Orders being divinely established in only three grades, and thus on an attempt to make the hierarchal constitution of the Church more "theologically" based. But the minor orders and subdiaconate were creations of the Church, sacramentals, that devolved from the diaconate...so who cares? Can't there be legitimate development beyond the "essentials" like that? And besides, if they really wanted to stick to that logic then...they should have just ordained all acolytes and lectors as deacons!! (Rather than trying to establish them as essentially "lay" ministries).

Of course, this really all started long before Vatican II by having unordained lay servers. Why not just ordain them to acolyte? If all a minor ordination is, basically, is delegating someone to take a certain function in liturgy as a publicly deputized representative of the Church in public prayer...isn't a boy delegated to serve at the altar already basically that? So why make the distinction regarding withholding the minor ordination?

Well, because the clerical state was essentialized as something else (and something more worldly, and attached to benefices and such). Because the minor orders became just a stepping stone in seminaries to "real" clergy-hood (ie, celibate, bound by the Office, etc). So we deputized a second class of lay men to "substitute" for real clergy, even though that's all clergy are! (Someone deputized to serve in liturgy). The history here is sad and frustrating and illogical.

I imagine a world where all sorts of men from the parish are ordained to the minor orders (or even the major!) rather than this idea of needing lay "substitutes" or (bizarrely) "lay ministers" according to a radically altered notion of the lay/clerical distinction. Of course, that would require a notion of the clergy not bound by celibacy (which minor clerics actually weren't!) or having it be a full-time job or caste requiring all sorts of markers of distinction. But I've discussed all this before; we need a small parish model fully stocked with volunteer clerics (of all orders) truly drawn from men in the community.

I'll follow up soon with another post on the question of women in all this.

Two Articles

A friend sent along two articles. The first is about priests who "disappear." I'd take it with a grain of salt, as it seems to sympathize with the obviously guilty (and megalomaniacal) Fr. Corapi, but it's an interesting read nonetheless. The second is about how the seminary system is practically designed to foster sociopathy. Something I've discussed before.

Mention on New Liturgical Movement

It looks like our profile has just been raised quite a bit! There was a post all about one of mine on New Liturgical Movement today!!!

Check it out. It basically revolves around the premise that the "reform of the reform" is more than about wearing maniples at the New Mass. That I'm wrong to say that the "reform of the reform" is about putting lipstick on a pig or "gussying up" the Novus Ordo, and that it does in fact involve a desire for substantial alterations to re-traditionalize the texts of the Missal itself.

However, at that point, the description given makes it hard for me to distinguish "reform of the reform" from a more "purist" traditionalism. If "reform of the reform" is basically going to involve creating an edition from the new that largely resembles the old, I have a hard time seeing in what sense this is a "reform of the reform" rather than just a sort of slow gradual reversal of the reform. I cannot identify in the description given any substantial way in which "the reform" is preserved as reform at all under such an approach (or, at least, under the ideal "final product" that is seemingly imagined).

I made the following response to the post in the comments, and will repeat it here:

You haven't answered my essential objection, though:

If you basically prefer all things traditional, and if the imagined "reform of the reform" liturgy winds up looking more like 1950 than 1970...why must the Novus Ordo be our "starting place" as opposed to starting from an edition closer to what we imagine the "final product" must be?

I mean, if you're supporting the Old Offertory, Old Lectionary, Old Collectary, Old Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Old Last Gospel, Old Rubrics...in what sense is "reform of the reform" rooted in the reformed edition rather than going back to a traditional edition??

Is it merely the vernacular? That wouldn't take decades, you could use the English Missal or Anglican Missal which already exist (and whose style would also be an "ecumenical" move vis a vis the Anglicans). Is it expanded scripture "somehow"? You could use the 1967 Ferial Lectionary, which again already exists.

In reality, what I've seen the term "reform of the reform" associated with is Latin Novus Ordos (and, at the same time, a perhaps exaggerated enthusiasm for the new English translation), the Watershed chant propers, minor architectural restorations, and the so-called Benedictine altar arrangement.

I fail to see how what you describe in this post is "reform of the reform" rather than traditionalism. Once again: if you support the Old Offertory, Old Lectionary, Old Collectary, Old Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Old Last Gospel, Old Rubrics...in what possible sense is this taking the New (ie, "the reform") as your reference point for reform rather than the Old??

Methinks there is a lot of doublespeak going on, and that this form of "reform of the reform" crowd, at least, are really basically traditionalist who want to pay lip-service to the Novus Ordo (even while imagining the elimination of everything that makes it New in the first place) for the sake of remaining "diplomatic" with the mainstream Church, or because they feel uncomfortable saying we need to scrap that failed project entirely. Even though the final product they imagine could probably be achieved much more efficiently by simply "starting over" with a pre-reform "saved copy" rather than trying to back-edit the Novus Ordo (the only purpose of which, it seems to me, is essentially political, is saving face for the institutional church).

Conscience Obliges, It Doesn't Permit

A brief post today to answer a claim that heretical Catholics sometimes make when one questions their status as Catholics-in-good-standing. Namely, the plea of "conscience."

If you try to tell Catholics who dissent (or at least disobey) on matters like women's ordination, sexual morality, even stuff like fasting days and holy days of obligation...that, then, they aren't really being Catholic, the usual canard you'll hear is that their "conscience" excuses them. "My conscience doesn't see anything wrong with this, so it's allowed and you shouldn't try to stop me!"

However, I would point out that the nature of conscience is to oblige, not permit.

An example should prove this is true. On the one hand, let's say you have a Muslim or Jew who is faced with a pagan persecutor trying to force them to eat pork. If they refuse to do so, even in the face of martyrdom or whatever then, in my mind, you have a true hero of conscience (even if I disagree that there is actually anything wrong with eating pork.) Their conscience obliged them not to do something, and they didn't even in the face of intense pressure.

On the other hand, let's say you have a Christian or atheist or whatever who goes to Saudi Arabia and gets caught eating pork chops. "Hey, it's my conscience!" they claim. "I'm not Muslim, I don't believe there's anything wrong with it. You're violating my conscience by punishing me for eating pork."

This person is no hero of conscience. He's a whiny little bitch. True, his conscience may not forbid him from eating pork. But "not forbidding" is a long stretch from obligating, and just because your conscience doesn't forbid something...doesn't mean you have to do it.

In this case, the idea that there is some positive right to engage in eating pork just because your conscience doesn't forbid it...reveals the absurdity of a notion of conscience that invokes it for permission rather than obligation. That invokes it to lessen a burden on yourself as opposed to binding you to it.

If the Saudis want to ban pork because of cultural and religious reasons, they are free to do so, and this isn't "violating" anyone's "conscience" just because they have a taste for pork!! It would only be violating conscience if someone belonged to a religion where eating pork was somehow morally mandatory. A Christian would be simply a fool to flout this there, not a hero of conscience.

A Christian who refuses to worship an idol because their conscience obliges them not to, or who insists on attending Mass on Sunday because their conscience demands it even in the face of persecution...is a hero of conscience. A Christian who says, "My conscience lets me do this, so I'm going to, and you're violating my conscience if you try to make me stop!" has made a mockery of conscience and those who truly follow it.

Conscience is violated when someone tries to make you do something you feel you are obliged not to, or to stop you from doing something you feel you are obliged to do. It's not violating conscience to try to stop people from doing something they feel is merely allowed or permitted by their conscience (but not morally obligatory). And actually I think a lot of these people know that, deep down, and so they trump up all sorts of convoluted rhetoric for the purpose of convincing themselves that they are, in fact, not merely allowed to do what they want, but even positively obligated! This is how a conscience is killed.

Seeing the revoking of recognition of true Catholic status from those who dissent or disobey as some sort of "persecution" against their "conscience" is just about the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. Unless someone is convinced they're morally obliged to fornicate or ordain a woman or not go to Mass on Sunday...the idea that their conscience merely doesn't forbid these things for them should earn them no sympathy. They know the rules, they have no right to be recognized as a Catholic-in-good-standing, and invoking "conscience" in this absurd and self-indulgent manner doesn't change that.

Once again: it is the nature of conscience to oblige rather than permit. Pleading "conscience" is about what you feel you are morally required to do or not do, not merely what you don't particularly feel is forbidden. So, don't make a mockery of conscience, please.

Ratzinger on Relativity (Not Relativism)

From our old pal Joseph, in 1990:

In the last decade, creation’s resistance to allowing itself to be manipulated by humanity has emerged as a new element in the overall cultural situation. The question of the limits of science, and the criteria which it must observe, has become unavoidable.

Particularly emblematic of this change of intellectual climate, it seems to me, is the different way in which the Galileo case is seen.

This episode, which was little considered in the 18th century, was elevated to a myth of the Enlightenment in the century that followed. Galileo appeared as a victim of that medieval obscurantism that endures in the Church. Good and evil were sharply distinguished. On the one hand, we find the Inquisition: a power that incarnates superstition, the adversary of freedom and conscience. On the other, there’s natural science represented by Galileo: the force of progress and liberation of humanity from the chains of ignorance that kept it impotent in the face of nature. The star of modernity shines in the dark night of medieval obscurity.

Today, things have changed.

According to [Ernst] Bloch, the heliocentric system – just like the geocentric – is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: ‘From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”

Curiously, it was precisely Bloch, with his Romantic Marxism, who was among the first to openly oppose the [Galileo] myth, offering a new interpretation of what happened: The advantage of the heliocentric system over the geocentric, he suggested, does not consist in a greater correspondence to objective truth, but solely in the fact that it offers us greater ease of calculation. To this point, Bloch follows solely a modern conception of natural science. What is surprising, however, is the conclusion he draws: “Once the relativity of movement is taken for granted, an ancient human and Christian system of reference has no right to interference in astronomic calculations and their heliocentric simplification; however, it has the right to remain faithful to its method of preserving the earth in relation to human dignity, and to order the world with regard to what will happen and what has happened in the world.”

If both the spheres of conscience are once again clearly distinguished among themselves under their respective methodological profiles, recognizing both their limits and their respective rights, then the synthetic judgment of the agnostic-skeptic philosopher P. Feyerabend appears much more drastic. He writes: “The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.”

From the point of view of the concrete consequences of the turning point Galileo represents, however, C.F. Von Weizsacker takes another step forward, when he identifies a “very direct path” that leads from Galileo to the atomic bomb.

To my great surprise, in a recent interview on the Galileo case, I was not asked a question like, ‘Why did the Church try to get in the way of the development of modern science?’, but rather exactly the opposite, that is: ‘Why didn’t the church take a more clear position against the disasters that would inevitably follow, once Galileo had opened Pandora’s box?’

It would be absurd, on the basis of these affirmations, to construct a hurried apologetics. The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation and from being inscribed in a still greater form of reason …

Here, I wished to recall a symptomatic case that illustrates the extent to which modernity’s doubts about itself have grown today in science and technology.

I think Ratzinger makes some very good points here. Adopting a world-view based purely on the ease of calculations rather than due to a divine (or even just humanist) perspective is the beginning of pure naturalism and materialism. The whole "Galileo" narrative stirred up in the past couple centuries is essentially a political and ideological one.

Of course, neither he nor I are claiming that Aristotelian physics was "right" overall (it is wrong on many points!) nor that it is essential to the Faith (though, the reason Galileo was put on trial for the question of orbit and not, say, his proving heavier things don't fall faster than lighter ones...clearly had more to do with Scripture than with Aristotle). Still, this video may help those not naturally inclined to Physics understand why "the earth revolves around the sun" and "the sun revolves around the earth" are ultimately equally valid formulations (albeit the latter requires to much more complicated calculations regarding the other planets):

Saint of the Titanic

In the wake of the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, I've seen a spike in articles on the Catholic-webs about Fr. Mychal Judge. There seems to be a certain popular veneration for him as, basically, "The Saint of 9/11." And I'd say rightly so.

This reminds me of my opinion that the modern canonization process is too bureaucratic and hard for anyone but religious orders to afford and navigate. I have expressed being disturbed by the fact that, in the first millennium, martyrologies contain possibly tens of thousands of saints (albeit, many martyrs) but that from when the process was centralized (until Pope Blessed John Paul II, at least) there were only a few hundred added for the second millennium.

Certainly, I think, even if "universal" canonization (called an infallible declaration of "dogmatic facts" even!) remains ultramontane and in the hands of the curia and Pope...we could have more local saints again by decentralizing beatification (which approves someone merely for local veneration anyway, so I don't exactly understand why the process has been made "federal").

I doubt Fr. Judge will be officially raised to the altars either way, if only because of the politics surrounding his sexuality, and potentially heterodox statements he may have made related to that (and, if he were a proven and public heretic, then, while I certainly won't deny personal holiness, I'd tend to agree with with-holding any sort of official recognition).

But, still, his case reminds me of another holy man in the life of the Church who is not officially canonized but whose story remains nevertheless inspiring (and who might be venerated as a saint or blessed if the process wasn't so bureaucratic!)

I'm speaking of Fr. Thomas Byles who died aboard the RMS Titanic the night of its legendary doom:

Of the very few passengers willing to brave the cold, Father Byles had been reciting the Breviarium Romanum, fully dressed in his priestly garb, while walking back and forth on the upper deck at the moment the Titanic struck the iceberg. He acted bravely in his capacity as a spiritual leader of men. Descending to the third class and calming the people, Father Byles gave them his priestly blessing and began to hear confessions; after which, he began the recitation of the Rosary. He then led the third class passengers up to the boat deck and helped load the lifeboats. He gave words of consolation and encouragement to the woman and children as they got into the boats. As the danger became even more apparent, he went about hearing more confessions and giving absolution. By all accounts, Father Byles was twice offered a seat in a lifeboat but refused. After the last lifeboat was gone, he went to the after end of the boat deck and led the recitation of the Rosary for a large group kneeling around him of those who were not able to find room in the boats. Father Byles also exhorted the people to prepare to meet God. As 2:20 a.m. approached, and the stern rose higher and higher out of the sea, Father Byles led the more than one hundred people kneeling before him in the Act of Contrition and gave them general absolution [...] Father Byles died in the sinking. His body was never recovered [...] On a trip later that year, Katherine and William traveled to Rome where they had a private audience with Pope Saint Pius X, who said that Father Byles was a martyr for the Church.

Though he cannot be publicly venerated either on the local or universal level, we are free to privately venerate anyone we have a certain moral certitude is in heaven, and I do not hesitate to privately venerate Fr. Byles as a heroic priest and cure of souls, nor would I hesitate to pray "Father Thomas Byles, ora pro nobis."

My Memory Has Just Been Sold

A classic poignant lesson, methinks, in how things once so wonderful or valuable (or threatening) in our eyes can, at last, be cheapened or revealed pathetic. And yet how this disenchantment can actually be life-affirming and liberating. Poetic and tragic, really, but optimistic too!

Feels Like A Good Day

For a lot of reasons!

First, this article. "A respected former Catholic bishop in Ireland is calling for an end to clerical celibacy in the wake of the sex abuse scandals that have rocked the church worldwide, and says he finds it 'heartbreaking' that some prospective priests turn away from the calling because of the celibacy rule." Yay! Good for him! I agree entirely.

Second, this: "the Holy See could, for the first time, admit that these aspects fought by the 'Integrists' are not considered as 'essential' to the Catholic faith to the point of keeping outside the Church those who do not admit them. And that what is foundational to the Catholic faith for twenty centuries is the sole [aspect] considered fundamental for communion with the Holy See, and not the interpretation from the last Council to this day."

Yes!!!! This is what I have been saying all along. That the SSPX and the Vatican could "agree to disagree" by clarifying that issues like religious liberty and ecumenism are prudential questions, not a matter of doctrine. That Vatican II's "teachings" on these matters were suggestions about pastoral approach, but not dogma or anything like that, and that people are free to advocate the opinion that the modern approach is a bad approach.

This would also greatly help resolve the cognitive dissonance so many Catholics seem to have over the apparent 180 that was made on these questions after Vatican II. If they are not doctrinal, but rather prudential "diplomatic" questions of administrative and pastoral approach...then a change neither needs to be explained (nor explained-away with neocon mental gymnastics), nor agreed with, as there can always be debate about such prudential questions.

Fr. Z puts it unusually well when he says, "People of good will can differ on theological points and still remain in unity. People of good will can attain unity even when they disagree on matters which are by no means clear. The history of the Church’s great Councils underscores this fact. How many times have I written that the so-called 'Feeneyites' were able to be in union with the Church but without having to abjure their position about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The theological problems the SSPX has with the Second Vatican Council or the Holy See or anything else, don’t necessarily need to be the absolute obstruction to unity. Questions of the role of the Church in the modern world or religious liberty are really hard. There is room for debate and disagreement. It is possible for people of good will to disagree about whether or not the fruits of Vatican II were all wonderful. There is a precedent for closer union even when we consider the theological concerns some SSPXers might be harboring."

I've used the Feeneyite example myself before (being myself, counter-intuitively, both a Feeneyite-sympathizer and a soft-universalist-sympathizer). The reconciled Feeneyites were not required to accept the salvation of the non-water-baptized as if those streams of speculation (desire, blood, invincible ignorance, etc) were dogma, and they were allowed to continue personally holding that God didn't save any outside the actual Sacrament. They merely had to agree that their rigorist interpretation, while indeed tolerable, was not the only one tolerable. That while Revelation didn't positively include the salvation of any but the water-baptized, it also didn't positively exclude it either.

I myself suggested that a similar detante could be reached between the SSPX and the Vatican. Reaffirm certain principles (like, on the one hand, that error has no rights and, on the other, that true belief cannot be coerced by force) but then otherwise both sides should admit that the practical questions about how the Church should deal with other religions and/or the State...is a prudential question on which Catholics are free to differ in opinion.

Making it clear that the way things worked in the past was not "intrinsically wrong" or something like that, and that the SSPX support for that ancien regime is okay, would also help reconcile the Church with her own past (a hermeneutic of continuity!) even for those of us who are more inclined to believe that the current approach on these matters is probably better at least in the contemporary circumstances.

Finally, this about Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. The Russian Orthodox have basically said that, if the church property dispute in Ukraine can be resolved, "as soon as we have this understanding, we will be ready to begin preparations for such a meeting" between the Pope and Patriarch of Moscow! Now, as Fr. Z describes (albeit rather sneeringly), the property situation is sticky, and there are some serious questions of justice there...but let's all pray that this roadblock to such a major step towards reunion can be lifted, and that it truly is the final one.

All around, a good day filled with good news!