Category Archives: Truth

Truth

Searching for the Truth about Islam, part 3

09 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Salvation, Truth

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

On this day in 1845 a significant event took place. It was an event that would figure prominently in my own life as well as the life of many others throughout the years. The event in question was the reception of Blessed John Henry Newman from the Church of England into the fullness of the Catholic Faith. He, having been an Anglican priest, was subsequently ordained a Catholic priest and later made a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. He was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI on September 19, 2010 (which happens to be the same date, in 2004, that I was ordained as an Anglican priest). The reason he is so important for me and many others (former Anglican priests as well as laity) is that he was our forerunner. His courage of leaving all behind in order to follow his conscience in regards to his faith is something that has inspired countless people to also leave everything behind for the cause of the Kingdom of God. His writings have taught many Anglicans the Truths of the Catholic Faith. His life, in fact, is an enduring witness of the relentless pursuit of the Truth. I cannot help thinking that if he had not followed the path that was laid before him then I may not be where I am right now: a priest in Christ’s one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And, even more than that, without Newman’s witness I might not have become Catholic at all.

So, how does Bl. Cardinal Newman fit into my current series on Islam, you ask? It is because of something he wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. There he writes,

True religion is the summit and perfection of false religions; it combines in one whatever there is of good and true separately remaining in each. And in like manner the Catholic Creed is for the most part the combination of separate truths, which heretics have divided among themselves, and err in dividing. So that, in matter of fact, if a religious mind were educated in and sincerely attached to some form of heathenism or heresy, and then were brought under the light of truth, it would be drawn off from error into the truth, not by losing what it had, but by gaining what it had not, not by being unclothed, but by being ‘clothed upon,’ ‘that mortality may be swallowed by of life.’ That same principle of faith which attaches it at first to the wrong doctrine would attach it to the truth; and that portion of its original doctrine, which was to be cast off as absolutely false, would not be directly rejected, but indirectly, in the reception of the truth which is its opposite. True conversion is ever of a positive, not a negative character.

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 6th ed., 2005, p.200-1

The point that concerns us here, in regards to individual Muslims and their possibility of conversion, is here, “…if a religious mind were educated in and sincerely attached to some form of heathenism or heresy, and then were brought under the light of truth, it would be drawn off from error into the truth, not by losing what it had, but by gaining what it had not.” What this means is that those sincere Muslims who are earnestly seeking God through their religion would, if confronted with the Truth of the Catholic Faith and received it in an unbiased manner, be converted to the Truth of the Catholic Faith. This is because if they are truly searching for God, for the Truth, then when confronted with the fullness of that Truth which they seek they would not be able turn away from it. But, of course, this would depend upon them being able to hear the Gospel in a unbiased manner, meaning with no preconceived notions about the Catholic Faith. But that seems unlikely. But still, we must hold to the hope that those who have ears to hear will hear the Truth, accept it, and live it out in their lives.

Searching for the Truth about Islam, part 2 continued

06 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Salvation, Truth, Update

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Clarification on the last post…which is why this is called part 2 continued

My last post is one of those instances of pushing the ‘publish’ button too soon. If I had reflected on it more, specifically the last paragraph, then I probably would have noticed a change that needed to be made before posting it. I say ‘probably’ because I am not actually the one that noticed the problem – it was pointed out to me by my friend (who is also the one that has prompted me to write this particular series).

The paragraph in question is as follows:

If this interpretation is accurate we could therefore say that the ‘plan of salvation’ is simply God’s desire for all mankind to be saved, which is true and therefore, ‘plan of salvation’ does not somehow make Islam, or any other religion, equal to the one and only true religion established by Jesus Christ.

The problem with this paragraph centers on the wording “simply God’s desire for all mankind to be saved.” The reason that this is a problem is because the plan of salvation is much more than “simply God’s desire” for all mankind to be saved. Instead, it is God actively working throughout the entire history of mankind to bring about our salvation. Although, it could be argued that since God is pure act then His desire for something to happen is the same as the action itself. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity it should have been stated more precisely to begin with.

Searching for the Truth about Islam, part 2

03 Friday Oct 2014

Posted by in Salvation, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

What to do about Lumen Gentium 16?

I continue today my reflection on Islam that has been prompted by an email I received from a friend. In that email he brings up the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, §16, which in part states:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.

The part I am struggling with here is “the plan of salvation also includes…the Muslims”. Without explaining what is meant by “the plan of salvation” the document makes it sound like (at least to me) that all religions are valid paths to salvation. (The idea that all religions are valid paths to God makes me apprehensive and defensive, which in turn can lead to quick tempered reactions on my part. But, such reactions can obviously be counterproductive, which I will address later in this series.) But of course this couldn’t be true because it contradicts what the Church has always taught: that salvation comes to us only through Jesus Christ.

In order to try and resolve the problem of the meaning of “plan of salvation” I tried searching for a commentary on Lumen Gentium. There was only one document that appeared useful, which was by Daniel J. Castellano. And, to make sure the interpretation given to the phrase in question was valid, I tried looking up the author. I couldn't find much information but it does seem that he is very intelligent Catholic (undergrad from MIT, graduate studies at Boston University). Hopefully that means his interpretation can be trusted because I have not found anything to corroborate what he says. Below is what he has to say about the phrase in question (rest of the article here):

Since God’s “plan of salvation” is implemented solely through the Church, the Council is here asserting that the Church is linked in some way to all who believe in the Creator. This is most obviously the case with the Muslims, who share our belief in the one God of Abraham. It cannot be said that the God of Islam is another false god, even if the Muslims might differ from Christians in theological doctrines. They clearly give honor to the Creator, not a mere creature, and respect His sovereignty over all men. This ability to recognize the one God is a gift of the Holy Spirit administered through the Church. Going further, St. Paul famously commended the Athenians for honoring a mere “unknown God.” (Acts 17:23) Though they had no positive understanding of the one God as the Muslims do, they at least had the inclination to honor that which transcended their understanding of creation. This seeking is also a gift of the Holy Ghost to the Church. We should not be surprised to see this salvific activity beyond the visible structure of the Church, given the Savior’s desire for all men to be saved. (1 Tim. 2:4)

If this interpretation is accurate we could therefore say that the “plan of salvation” is simply God’s desire for all mankind to be saved, which is true and therefore, “plan of salvation” does not somehow make Islam, or any other religion, equal to the one and only true religion established by Jesus Christ.

Searching for the Truth about Islam, part 1

02 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Truth, Update

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Yesterday one of my friends sent me an email in response to my post yesterday. He made some excellent points on how to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves with Islam. There were too many points he made to discuss it all at once, especially because I do not have enough time. Therefore, it is my plan to do several posts over the next few days to work through what I have learned from my friend.

The first thing that needs to be discussed is the picture that I posted a link to yesterday. Supposedly it was a Muslim cleric who did this recently, but the website found here says that the picture was actually from several years ago and that the man responsible was in fact arrested. This information has given me sufficient doubt about the situation that I have decided to delete yesterday’s post. But let me add that the deletion of that post does not mean that I have changed my mind about Islam. I still do not believe that it is a religion of peace. Certainly there are Muslims in the world that want to live their lives in peace but I do not believe that the religion itself is peaceful. Nevertheless, in this series I will reflect more on this issue and see if there is perhaps something I am missing that has caused me to see Islam incorrectly. After all, we should never blindly hold to an incorrect understanding about anything, instead, we should always seek the Truth.

What’s right for you…

30 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by in Josef Pieper, Morality, Politically Incorrect, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

He who wishes to know and to do the good must turn his gaze upon the objective world of being. Not upon his own 'ideas', not upon his 'conscience', not upon 'values', not upon arbitrarily established 'ideals' and 'models'. He must turn away from his own act and fix his eyes upon reality.

From Living the Truth, by Josef Pieper

The quote above is from the second half of the book that is cited. The second half is titled Reality and the Good. Although I have only finished reading the first few pages, which the author titles “The Thesis”, it appears that this essay is in regards to how mankind can know right and wrong and therefore be able to do that which is good. This is evidenced by the three sentences that precede the above quote where Pieper writes, “All obligation is based upon being. Reality is the foundation of ethics. The good is that which is in accord with reality.”

When I first started this essay I had to read those three sentences several times. They seemed to me to be disjointed – that they did not fit together. It now seems to me that the reason it seemed disjointed was because of my lack of background in philosophy. After all, you cannot really understand what someone is trying to say to you unless you understand his frame of reference. But as I continued reading the thesis statement the point the author is making began to make sense to me.

In order to understand this we must first have a correct understanding of reality. First of all, mankind is not the author or definer of what is true or good, but he can come to know it. In other words, we do not create the reality in which we live, instead we exist within an objective reality. And we experience this objective reality through our sense perception. It is through our senses that we experience the things around us. 'Things' here is to be understood as the word res from philosophy. Pieper says, “Res is everything that is 'presented' to our sense perception or our intellectual cognition, all that has being independently of our thinking.” Another word from philosophy, realis, is taken from res and denotes reality. Of this Pieper says, “Reality (in the sense of realis) is the whole of being which is independent of thought.” And elsewhere says, “Reality is the basis of the good.” Also realis means “that to be good is to do justice to objective being…the good is that which is in accord with objective reality.” “All laws and moral principles may be reduced to reality.” 'Reality' here meaning objective being outside ourselves.

As a result of all of this the author makes the conclusion that this “makes impossible the attitude of always referring to oneself and to the judgment of one's conscience*, which is considered as providing the norm in each instance. We are forced now to look through and beyond our own moral judgment to the norm presented to us by the objective reality of being.” I most heartily agree with this conclusion. [*Just a side note: here the author is referring to people who use their consciences as an excuse to do whatever they want. He is not referring to the use of our conscience in the correct sense. The Church teaches that a “human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” (CCC §1800) But the Church also teaches us that we must have a well-formed conscience that “formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.” (CCC §1798) This is completely the opposite of using your conscience as a scapegoat to do whatever you want to do.]

But our modern society most certainly does not agree. The world is no longer viewed objectively by society but instead it is interpreted in a relativistic way. What I mean can be shown through an example: people who don't want to abide by traditional norms of moral behavior seem to have adopted the slogan, “What is right for you may not be right for me.” (You can replace right with moral or with good.)

Now to a certain extent this slogan is correct. For instance, if someone has cancer it would be right for them to have chemotherapy because that is one of the only methods we have to get rid of cancer. Whereas for someone else, who does not have cancer, it would not be right to have chemotherapy because to a person who is healthy chemotherapy is poisonous. Like I said, this would be a proper way to understand the above slogan.

But in saying this slogan our modern society means something completely different. For them the slogan turns everything upside down. To use the previous example about cancer – when modern society says “what is right for you may not be right for me” it isn't talking about whether or not a person should have chemotherapy. Instead, it is trying to change the rules to such an extent as to say that there is nothing wrong with cancer in the first place and that we don't need anything to fix it. Obviously, this is just crazy talk.

With this in mind we can begin to understand why our modern society is so disordered. It has left behind any idea of objective truth (like cancer is bad for you) in favor of just doing what feels right. And obviously, the chemotherapy this society needs (that being objective standards to determine morality) to fix its diseased nature would not feel right (because it would cause people to have to let go of the fantasy world they have created for themselves where right and wrong is determined by their own judgments). But nevertheless, objective truth is the only medicine that will cure us.

 

The Conformity of Our Minds with What Is

15 Thursday May 2014

Posted by in Truth

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Yesterday, while reading Leisure: The Basis of Culture, I came across a term with which I was unfamiliar: capax universi. Therefore, as I usually do, I looked it up on my iPad. This term seems to mean, at least in philosophy, that the mind has the ability to know all things. I found this definition from one of the first entries that popped up in the search engine: an article by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. This name immediately caught my attention because he happens to be the man who wrote the foreword for Leisure: The Basis of Culture, which is, of course, where the term came from that I was looking up! To this many may say that it was mere coincidence. But I do not believe in coincidence. Things like this happen for a reason and, therefore, I read the whole article.


It is interesting that the article was very similar in meaning to Leisure: The Basis of Culture, and he even mentions the book in the article. But there is one thing in particular that caught my attention. In his discussion of truth he says the following, “Truth is the conformity of our minds with what is.” By this he would not mean that the veracity of something is dependent upon human thought nor would he mean that truth only exists if the human mind has conceived it. After all, Jesus Christ is the Truth and He exists whether or not we understand Him or even if we think He doesn't exist at all. No, truth is not dependent upon the human mind. Instead, (what I think) he means is that we can and do know the truth if our understanding is in conformity with how things truly are. For example, we cannot possibly understand the truth of the universe around us if we start with the false premise that it is all here by some big cosmic coincidence. Certainly, there are many atheistic scientics that know plenty of ‘facts’ about the universe but they will never understand the truth of it until they accept it for what it really is – God's own creation.

But this understanding has consequences outside the lives of atheistic scientists. In fact, it is something every Christian needs to know and understand in order to come closer to God. If we would come closer to God then we must start with a correct understanding of the universe: God created all things – including ourselves. Therefore, we do not belong to ourselves and we cannot make our own rules concerning what is right and what is wrong. True, God gave us all free will and we can do as we please whether it be right or wrong. But to go off and blaze our ‘own’ path in the name of freedom with no regard for the truth of things (that we are creatures under Someone's authority) would be to become less than human because a creature cannot become something that it was not created to be. A mouse could not become an elephant even if it could desire to do so. And man cannot become God just because he makes up his own rules. In the end he may get some of the ‘facts’ right (like the atheistic scientist) but he will never understand the Truth.

The Rise of Aggressive Emotivism

20 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by in Dictatorship of Relativism, Morality, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The quote below is from an article by Fr. Dwight Longenecker and can be found in its entirety here. The whole thing is worth reading.

Emotivists contend that words which suggest an objective morality like “good”, “bad”, “right”, “wrong”, “should”, “ought” have no basis in reality. They are merely the emotional expressions of the speaker and that he uses these words to bully someone else to do what he wants. It’s called “boo-hurrah” morality because the morality consists of nothing more than one person saying, “Hurrah! to this” or “Boo! to that.” Morality is thus reduced to “It’s right because I said so loudly” or “It’s wrong because I objected loudly.” Emotivism excludes social, historical, cultural, spiritual, and religious considerations from the discussion of morality.

The Proof of the Resurrection

20 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by in Icons, Resurrection, Salvation, Sermons, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Sermon for the Solemn Vigil of Easter

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Tonight we celebrate the most significant event in the history of mankind – the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. And I am sure all of us here tonight believe this to be true. However, outside the walls of the Catholic Church, the world would have us believe something else. The world tells us, “Resurrection from the dead – that is sheer nonsense. That is just a story made-up by people 2,000 years ago to try to bring hope and meaning to our earthly existence. It didn’t really happen. Where is your proof?”

To this question I respond that the proof of the Resurrection is the existence of the Catholic Church. What I mean is this – the Catholic Church, and therefore no other form of Christianity, would have ever existed if Christ did not truly rise from the dead. After all, the Church was founded not just on the teachings of Christ and miracles of Christ but on the witness of the Apostles. Think about this – why would those men give their lives for Christ unless He truly was who He said He was? Jesus did not keep it a secret that He was the Son of God. He spoke openly about it and that was why He was crucified. But if He had remained dead and stayed in the tomb then what possible reason would there be for the Apostles to go around telling people that He had risen from the dead? They wouldn’t have. Instead, they would have gone back to their former lives wondering why they had followed a crazy-man around for the last three years of their lives. And, more importantly, they would have gone back to the practice of their Jewish faith.

But, they did not do that. Instead, their teaching and witness became the very foundation of the Catholic Faith. All of them, except St. John the beloved disciple, gave themselves as martyrs – a word which means witness – of the Truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And through this witness countless others throughout the ages have also given their lives in witness to the Truth of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead.

But what about ourselves? What is it that we believe? In our first set of readings tonight we heard the recounting of salvation history – of everything leading up to the advent of Jesus Christ. We later heard from St. Paul – that we have been buried with Christ through our baptisms and will, therefore, rise again with Christ. And finally we heard an account of the Resurrection of Christ from the Apostle St. Matthew. Then, to all these Truths, we have reaffirmed our belief through the renewal of our Baptismal Vows.

In those vows, those solemn promises we just made, we reaffirmed our renunciation of evil and all the works of the devil and renewed our commitment to the risen Jesus Christ. Three times we uttered the words ‘I believe’ in regards to Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church. Next, five times we promised to live out our faith in Jesus Christ with the words ‘I will, with God’s help.’ Lastly, we reiterated our commitment to all these promises by saying together ‘Amen,’ which signifies that we are truly in agreement with everything we promised.

But too often today people do not understand the seriousness of a promise, much less a promise made to God. People today routinely promise things to get what they want: for example, in business deals, in politics and in marriage. And then when we break those promises we console ourselves by saying, “Oh well, my intention was pure. Sometimes things just don’t work out the way you thought they would.” Of course they don’t! But does that mean that you can just break a promise because it is no longer convenient for you – especially a promise to God?

After the sin of Adam and Eve, God promised to send to us a Savior. He fulfilled His promise and tonight we celebrate the fulfillment of that promise – the rising of Christ from the dead and the victory over sin and death that comes with it. But if we want the benefits of that victory to apply to us then we must keep our end of the bargain. If we truly believe that Jesus rose from the dead – which is evidenced by the existence of the Catholic Church – then we will do that which we have promised.

In the end, the final question that must be answered is this – do you believe or not? If you do, then would you give your life in witness to that belief? It was this that the Apostles did in their witness to Jesus' death and Resurrection. Are you willing to do the same? Here I am not just speaking of dying the death of a martyr. Although, we should be willing to do so rather than deny Christ. On the other hand, we are all called to die to our selves: our sinfulness, our pride, our concupiscence. If we will not do this then we will not be worthy of the Resurrection to the life to come.

If we are not willing to die to our selves then we simply do not believe enough in the Truth of the Resurrection. Christ, the Son of God died for you – but He did not remain in the tomb. And He does not wish for a single one of us to remain dead in our sins. His Resurrection is an offer to each of us to rise from our own tomb of sin and death – but will you accept it?

 

A Moment of Clarity

12 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by in Salvation, Truth

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

It is ironic that the thing I went to great lengths to avoid as a student (both K-12 and college) is now one of the things that I most enjoy and desire to do – to write. My desire to write stems from the desire to be able to effectively inform others of the Faith. Specifically, I would like to be able to write like Lewis, von Hildebrand, Thomas Howard or others who I greatly admire. These men inspire me because of their great ability to explain what is in their minds and I am not suggesting that I have reached such a level (or that I ever will). But I want to try and that is part of the reason for this blog and why I am posting today about an experience I had yesterday.

Yesterday, while I was in the Chapel for Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, I was meditating on happiness and the false idols that people pursue to try to fulfill that happiness they seek. It was one of those moments that you can see the Truth so clearly, but which is always hard to put into words. Nevertheless I tried to do so and below is what I wrote immediately after this moment of clarity.

They catch a glimpse of it but instead pursue the wrong thing, thinking that which they pursue is what will make them happy. As a result, due to never pursuing the right thing they never obtain that which they truly seek – Heaven. If they end up in Hell they then can clearly see what they wanted (Heaven), but then can never and will never reach it. What on earth they could have obtained is forever lost to them.

Like I said, I am no C.S. Lewis. I have not changed any part of it in order to stay true to my initial impression. Tomorrow (if I have time) I will try to explain better what it means. Until then, perhaps I could get some feedback from you. What do you think? Does it even make any sense?

The Reason that Bad Hymns are Bad

10 Thursday Apr 2014

Posted by in Liturgy, Truth, von Hildebrand

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

Having come into the Catholic Church after being an Anglican priest I was accustomed to a certain style of music: reverent, dignified and beautiful. Upon entering the Catholic Church I encountered another style of music that did not fit the mold with which I was familiar (and which I did not enjoy.) I tried for many years to tell myself that it was just a difference in taste – that for lifelong Catholics who had grown up with such hymns it was just as good as for them as the music I enjoyed was for me. At the same time, though, there has always been something in the back of my mind telling me that it was more to it than just a matter of taste. But, I could never put that uneasy feeling into words. Not until now, that is.

As I have mentioned in a previous post, it is within the last year that I discovered the writings of Dietrich von Hildebrand. In the current book of his that I am reading, The Heart, I am nearing the end. And it is there, in Chapter One of Part Three, that I have just read something that gives an explanation to the discomfort I have always had with many modern hymns. Up to this point the author has not mentioned music, but mentions it here at the end of the book in order to make a point.

To help in conveying his message in the quote below, it needs to be understood that this book is about human and divine affectivity: Part One is titled The Human Heart and Part Two is titled The Heart of Jesus. I have not finished it yet but the Third Part is titled The Human Heart Transformed and, I would imagine, gives us an idea of what his conclusion will be – that man's heart needs to be transformed and made like unto that of our Savior. But all too often we instead try to bring God down to our level, which does not lead to our transformation but instead, stagnation.

Against the true glory of the Sacred Heart, ‘in which shine forth all treasures of knowledge and wisdom,’ the grave distortion of many hymns becomes obvious. Both in word and in melody these songs not only completely miss the divine, transfigured quality of the Sacred Heart ‘in which dwells all the fullness of divinity,’ but they even present the Sacred Heart in the likeness of a mediocre, sentimental human heart…(If you cannot tell, the author abhors sentimentality because it is not a true response of the heart.)

…It is necessary to grasp the Sacred Heart in its true glory if the nature and depth of the devotion and its classical liturgical character are to be realized, and if we are to unmask the distortion and ungenuineness in many popular conceptions of this devotion which find their expression in certain hymns and art forms, and even some prayers.

It is interesting here that he mentions not only bad word selection in hymns but also brings up the tune itself. Certainly, there are many hymn tunes that I cannot tolerate because just hearing them sounds like what I call false sincerity or what von Hildebrand refers to as sentimentality. Although these tunes do not feel genuine I am not sure how you translate that feeling into a determination that “This hymn tune is appropriate for worship and that one is not.” The words, on the other hand, can easily be compared with the teachings of the Church to see if they are genuine or not. Next, after just a few more paragraphs, he shows why this can be so devastating to us spiritually.

…If we are to understand the transformation in Christ to which our hearts are called, our eyes must see the Sacred Heart of Jesus in its transfigured quality, as the epiphany of God.

The transformation of our ethos depends upon our having a true image of Christ and of his Sacred Heart. As long as we project our own mediocrity and pettiness into the Sacred Heart and nourish ourselves with this image, we remain imprisoned in that medocrity, instead of being transformed and elevated beyond ourselves. Here as in many other instances we are faced with the great danger of adapting the revelation to our narrow outlook, and of distorting it to such an extent that the challenge to be transformed is lost. Instead of grasping the true face of Christ and the challenge of being transformed, instead of letting ourselves be drawn upward by the love of the authentic God-Man, we miss the confrontation with the epiphany of God.

Wow!!! Of course we can substitute Sacred Heart of Jesus with any other divine attribute or understanding of the Church which modern hymns get wrong or, in the least, don’t get completely right. It also doesn’t stop just with the hymns but with any false teaching of what the Church believes. These distortions – these heresies, which is what they truly are – lead us away from the Truth! And if we are led away from the Truth we are being led away from God Himself. I don't know why I didn’t see this before.

What do you, the reader, think?