In my previous epistle (thanks for that line, Johnny Cool), I went on at length with what I thought was the main scandal facing the Catholic Church today: infidelity to its core teaching about human sexuality. I promised to move from diagnosis to prescription, so here it is.
First, the leadership of the Church (the Pope and the Bishops, world-wide) must commit to radical transparency with respect to the various sexual scandals of the past. While I understand their previous reticence and the importance of not confusing allegations with convictions, the grudging release of data or acknowledgment of wrong-doing has only made the situation worse. Leaders who were guilty must be laicized. Those who were complicit in abetting the abusers need to publicly confess and submit resignations, which the Pope can accept or reject based on the individual circumstances. Since this is not a legal proceeding, but rather a moral one, the default position must be suspicion: too many lies have been told for too long.
Turning to the various dioceses and orders, I would suggest a similar approach. Two years ago, Pope Francis suggested some Catholics might not be validly married, since it was unclear if they had a proper understanding of what marriage entailed. I would suggest (humbly) the Pope build off this approach by reconsidering whether priests have been validly ordained, given their understanding of the priesthood and its vows. This would enable the removal of priests who have failed to live up to, or adequately profess, the teaching of the Church with regard to human sexuality. Bishops and superiors (who have already survived the inquiry mentioned in the previous paragraph) should be directed to conduct comprehensive reviews of the clergy to this end: either ensuring adherence to the Church’s doctrine, or offering the option for removal from the priesthood.
Looking specifically at the United States, I have always opposed the intrusion of secular authorities into the Church’s inner workings. However, I believe the situation there is now so grave that law enforcement should use their authorities to enforce transparency, protect the public, and punish offenders and enablers. These authorities should not exceed established limits with respect to rights, evidence, and statutes of limitation, but should prosecute to the full extent of the law within those limits.
For the faithful in the pews, we must come to come to grips with our own complicity. All of us who winked at adultery, tolerated pornography, accepted contraception or even abortion played a part in this debacle. If you don’t see the connection, go back and read Humanae Vitae, then celebrate its 5oth anniversary by re-committing to its Truth. We need to confess our sins, accept responsibility, and do penance. I suggest committing to daily prayer and regular fasting; I am doing so and it is something anyone can do. Some argue the faithful don’t need to do penance in this matter, since the clergy are at fault; I disagree. The literal meaning of compassion is to “suffer with” and since the perpetrators and victims are our fellow Catholics, we must suffer with them. Even if none of the other things I suggest come to pass, we can do our part. Prayer and fasting are very powerful tools.
The entire Church militant (the Church in this world) should unite in a global act of penance. Perhaps a day-long fast, or a prayer novena for forgiveness, along with acts of collective and individual penance. I would like to see our clergy leading this effort, and especially the Princes of the Church joining in by relinquishing some of their luxuries: fine houses, travel, whatever.
Back in the early 2000s, American Catholics referred to the sexual abuse revelations as “the long Lent.” I would posit the long Lent has morphed into an extended Via Dolorosa. The only possible response to such a situation is to take up one’s cross and bear it. Some will turn away; always have, always will. It will be difficult, and embarrassing, and painful.
We are a Church of sinners, desperately trying to be a Church of saints. In the end, we are reassured by the admonition that “my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
As a cradle Catholic, you might imagine the last few months have been especially hard for me, and you would be right. I have felt a variety of emotions: deep compassion for the many victims of clerical abuse; sympathy for the vast majority of faithful priests; roiling, righteous anger at those who hid the abuse, attacked the victims, and perpetuated the sins; and charity towards anyone who finds faith shaken by the news.
One feeling I did not experience was shock. I admit, after I read the entire report from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s grand jury, I did feel sick to my stomach. It is 1,356 pages of non-stop perversion, lying, and cover-up, and while it is available here, for once I do NOT recommend reading it. Take my word, it is horrible. Horrible, but not shocking to me, because some fourteen years ago, I read another document which confirmed me in the suspicion that more was coming.
Near the end of the revelations coming out of the Boston Archdiocese about the sexual predation which occurred there, the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference chartered the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City College of New York, known for their investigative and forensic faculties, to gather the relevant data about the crisis in the United States. This report, known as the John Jay Report, was published in 2004. While it has none of the terrible specificity of the grand jury finding, it has three hundred pages of dispassionate and comprehensive analysis.
I was not surprised that the institutional Church tried to avoid bad publicity: this is classic institutional behavior, even if the institution in question claims to be holy. What jumped out at me from that report was the simple fact that so many Church leaders at all levels avoided punishing even the most unrepentant repeat offenders. At the time, some clerics offered the defense that they followed the reigning psychological treatment which emphasized therapy. That was true, and for a one-time event even defensible. But many of the offenders came out of therapy and re-offended, and the Church leaders just kept repeating their original mistake. It seemed clear something else was going on here. What it was, was an appalling lack of fidelity among Catholic clergy.
That lack of fidelity was to the Church’s teaching on sex. Which has been very simple and consistent: sex is a gift from God for the procreation of mankind and the bonding of married couples, two inseparable conditions. Period. End of sentence. Exclamation point. Which means it is (1) only between a man and a woman, (2) only permitted when those two are married, and (3) only allowable when the act is open to the possibility of new life.
This was always a hard teaching, and Jesus doubled down on it when he added that even thinking about sex with someone else, when married, was adultery! Of course, human history was rife with transgressions of this hard teaching, but all Christian denominations held to it as true, even as they practiced mercy when the faithful inevitably sinned.
That all changed during the sexual revolution. The notion that anybody could live without sex, or should do so for even a period of time, was stood on its head. Now, everybody should have as much sex, with anybody/anything/nobody as they want, without any consequences. Abstaining from sex in any way is considered unnatural and perverse. The only sin is to deny oneself sexual pleasure.
The Catholic Church maintained its original teaching, most famously in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humane Vitae. This is one I do suggest you read, as it is only thirty-one paragraphs and has some of the most amazing predictions of what would (and did) happen as a result of the sexual revolution. The teaching was not well received, including by yours truly. Like many Catholics, I didn’t read the encyclical even when I became an adult, and I rejected the teaching as old fashioned and incoherent…without ever reading it. Many Catholic clergy had to deal with Catholics (like me) in the pews who were openly hostile to the Church’s doctrine. In fact, some of those same clergy that hoped for a change in Church teaching were themselves engaging in sexual acts, and excusing themselves by the same reasoning that the sexual revolution provided.
Now mind you, I know many otherwise intelligent people who have told me that the Catholic Church’s problem is that it is obsessed with sex. Funny thing is, I have been going to Mass more than once a week for over fifty years, and I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard sex mentioned in Church. Of the roughly 300 Papal Encyclicals written in the last 300 or so years, sex is the subject of only a handful. Sex is mentioned in 33 paragraphs of the 900 pages of the Catechism, and most of those references are to the “fact of” two different sexes. I challenge anyone to watch one evening’s worth of cable TV and count the number of sexual ads, comments, situations, and graphic acts, then tell me who is obsessed with sex.
If you read the John Jay report, and the recent report by the German Catholic episcopate, you will see some data ignored by the press coverage. Most of the victims were adolescents older than twelve, indicating ephebophilia rather than pedophilia as the predominant problem.* Between 70 and 80% of the victims were adolescent boys; all the perpetrators were men. This indicates, as the German report points out, that the formation process for Catholic clergy attracted an unusual number of men who have same-sex attraction and underdeveloped sexual maturity. These are just data.
These same men, corrupted by their own lust, proved unable to defend or even explain the Church’s traditional teaching. They emphasized excuses, extenuating circumstances, and mercy without repentance, because that is what they themselves desired. Some continued to rise into positions of power, and looked out for those who were like-minded. Some Bishops looked the other way, either because they were implicated or they lacked the courage to profess the Church’s teaching in the face of ridicule. And the scandal spread. All this was clear back in the early 2000s, yet ignored.
The problem was not the Church’s teaching, which proved to be best for all concerned in the long run. Once I finally read Humane Vitae, I saw its logic and reason and self-evident holiness, which contrasted remarkably with the state of society after the sexual revolution. The problem was not clericalism, that is the treatment of those ordained as somehow better than others, for in fact the clergy was behaving exactly like most of the people. The problem was infidelity. And infidelity should rarely surprise us.
Among the original Apostles, one was a betrayer complicit in murder. Another had so little faith he responded to the Good News of the resurrection with a literal “habeus corpus?” Two counselled calling fire down on one’s enemies, and were overly concerned with having choice seats at the heavenly feast. All but one ran away when the going got tough. Their first-among-equals was called Satan by the Lord Himself, denied Jesus thrice, and even at the end had to be reminded to have faith (“quo vadis?”).
“Put not your trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3), even Princes of the Church, apparently.
I’ll posit what all this leads me to believe in a future post.
*In case the terms are unfamiliar, pedophilia is a sexual crime of power where the perpetrator sees the victim as an object to control; ephebophilia is a sexual crime where the perpetrator sees himself as sexually equal to an immature victim. In the first case the attackers rarely show remorse or awareness of the victims; in the latter case, the perpetrators often express their “true attachment” to the victims.
Today we descend into the morass that is individual rights. You can’t get far in today’s news without running into alleged right’s issues. NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. Restaurateurs denying customers service based on politics. Neo-Nazis marching in the Capital. Talking heads often serve up these incidents as right’s issues; Face Book is full of smarmy posts claiming “rights” and directing those who disagree to get over it and shut up. Here is a dose of reality.
The rights in question are those in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. These rights limit the ability of the federal government to do things (“make a law respecting an establishment of religion”, for instance). Most of them deal with the rights of the accused (Forth through Eighth Amendments), while the Ninth is a catch-all stating there are more rights than those listed, and the Tenth indicates those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the States and the people. An interesting point: these rights have nothing to do with citizenship. They are negative, in that they tell the government what NOT to do, or the amendments refer to persons, not citizens. Thus the Supreme Court has held that anybody on the territory of the United States has such rights (including terrorists, Nazis, and those here illegally)! The Fourteenth Amendment directed that the existing rights may be incorporated to the States, meaning (on a case-by-case basis) state governments (and local ones too) have the same limits when it comes to individual rights. So the federal (or state, or local) government cannot deny neo-Nazis a permit to march (“peaceably assemble” according to the First Amendment) despite the fact they are neo-Nazis. The government can regulate how and when, and place certain restrictions (e.g., no baseball bats), but that is all.
So the first question you have to ask is “is a government trying to deny someone something?” If the answer is no, then there generally is no right’s issue, right? Not so fast, my friends. The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act articulated rights protecting individuals from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These protected classes of people cannot be discriminated against not just by government, but also by those offering public accommodation (bars, restaurants, taxis, etc). So now you have to look at whether the individual claiming a right’s issue is a member of a protected class, and was singled out on that basis, and was there a public accommodation. Thus it is okay to have a dress code requiring men to wear a tie in your establishment, as long as ALL men have to wear a tie (not just Asians, for example). Can you throw someone out of your restaurant because they are working for the White House? Yes, since political party is not a protected class. If you throw out only women from a certain political party, now you’ve done it, you have (arguably) violated their civil rights (sex is a protected class).
What about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem? There is a Supreme Court case holding that the government cannot make persons participate in patriotic rituals (such as the Pledge of Allegiance), but that only applies to the government. Contrary to a certain President’s tweets, there is no government activity here. No one is coming to arrest the players, and they are free to kneel. Likewise, their managers or owners may decide to take action against them for doing so. Player contracts contain all kinds of behavior and teamwork clauses which let managers/owners fire them for all kinds of off-the-field issues. If the owners only disciplined African-American players, that might constitute a civil rights violation. As it stands now, there is no rights’ issue here. Want to make this issue really hard? What if you went to a game with a sideline pass, and you decided to join in by kneeling during the Anthem? You are a customer, not a player, but your ticket has terms and conditions which might enable the owner to throw you out for misbehavior. I doubt they would ever do this, as it would be needlessly antagonizing their own fans. Just showing how complicated this can be!
Finally, people with disabilities have similar protections, and during the Obama administration, the federal government argued that the protections afforded to sex also extend to sexual orientation and gender, although this contention was never determined in court and has been abandoned by the current administration. Not to mention, states cannot reduce or constrain individual rights, but they are free to add to them, so in some cases actions which are permissible under federal law are deemed illegal discrimination under state law. Clear as mud?
Let’s review. If you come to my house for a party and crack a Notre Dame football joke, I can order you out, and if you do not comply, I can call the police and have you arrested (for the sake of this example, pretend I am in the United States, as we would all have a good laugh at the idea of calling the Mexican police under such circumstances). My house is not a public accommodation, and your freedom of speech goes just as far within my walls as I say it does. Move my party to a public venue as a ticketed event, and I may still be able to throw you out for the joke, but I better not do so only to people of color, or women, or Hispanics, or Methodists, or Canadians. Or especially dark-skinned, Hispanic, Methodist women from Canada. Change this event to an official recognition ceremony at the White House honoring Notre Dame’s next football national championship (I know, I know, I should live so long), and I (or really the White House) cannot even prohibit you from wearing a “Notre LAME” sweatshirt to the event.
Your rights are inalienable, to borrow Thomas Jefferson’s original phrase. They come from “your Creator” according to the Declaration of Independence, they pre-date all government, and all legitimate government must abide by them. Many of the right’s issue today are really civility issues, as people try to get noticed, send a message, or stake out a position. That does not make those messages or positions invalid, but it also doesn’t make them right’s issues.
By now you have no doubt heard about Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known as AMLO (“ahm-low”) the President-elect of Mexico who will take office on December 1st. He is an interesting character, and worth getting to know better, as he portends major changes in Mexico.
AMLO came from a middle class Mexican background. Like any politician in Mexico, he began as a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which ruled the country as a single party state for most of the 20th century. In 1988 he left the PRI for a left-wing splinter party which became the PRD, and it was as a PRD candidate he rose to national prominence as the ‘mayor’ of the federal district, Mexico City. He won in the 2000 wave election that turned out the PRI for the first time. Then called the Distrito Federal or DF, the Mexico City region (now CDMX) is the largest metropolitan area in the Western Hemisphere and dominates Mexican politics. For comparison, Mexico City has 21 million inhabitants; Guadalajara is the second city with about 4 million. While AMLO espoused many socialist programs, he governed as a pragmatic leader. He was budget conscious, increased social spending for the most vulnerable, partnered with business leaders to renovate major areas of the city, and reduced crime.
Coming off a successful audition in Mexico City and a 70% approval rate, AMLO ran for the federal presidency in 2006 as a coalition PRD candidate; he received about 35% of the vote but lost by one-half of one percent to the PAN candidate, in an election many thought was manipulated to defeat him. He subsequently protested the result, and lost much of his popularity for appearing to be a sore loser.
AMLO ran again in the 2012 Presidential election and finished second, as Enrique Peña Nieto brought the PRI back to power. Sensing that party politics was part of the problem, AMLO split from the PRD and formed MORENA, a non-party Movement for National Regeneration. MORENA swept to power on a populist wave in the recently completed 2018 election, leaving all other parties in tatters.
López Obrador moderated some of his earlier positions, supporting NAFTA, allowing for some de-nationalization of the oil monopoly (PEMEX), while continuing to argue for higher minimum wages, increased social spending, an end to the war on drugs, and an end to endemic corruption. He remains a fiery orator, easily offended, and enjoys staking out maximalist positions without explaining how he will implement them. For instance, he suggests that corruption will end based on his personal example as a man of modest means (he will not live in the presidential palace, flies commercial, and declined police protection as a candidate).
Many have speculated on how the populist leaders north and south of the Río Grande will get along. President Trump has used Mexico and Mexicans as a handy foil to blame. Surprisingly, his attacks made little difference down here, and the historic election results were mainly due to popular discontent over drug violence, political corruption, and the main parties inability to do anything about either. Presidente López Obrador will have his hands full with his mandates on corruption and violence. There is actually much the two leaders can agree on, if they can look past the need to play to nationalist memes (easier south of the border than north).
There will be tough language and occasional flare-ups, for sure. However, there are important areas where the two Presidents’ interests coincide. Presidente López Obrador wants a stronger Mexican economy that keeps Mexicans home, which would be good news to President Trump, who also argued that Mexican auto workers get paid too little, which fits neatly with Presidente López Obrador’s support for higher domestic wages. Both men want stronger national economies and may be more willing to cut a bilateral trade deal as a result. If they can rise above “the wall” rhetoric, US approval for a guest worker program might be a good quid pro quo for better Mexican control of its southern border.
The last time US- Mexican relations seemed headed for a major positive change was when President George W. Bush (former Texas Governor) teamed up with newly elected Presidente Vincente Fox (conservative PAN party leader and former Governor of Guanajuato). That progress was sidetracked within a year by the terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001.
Perhaps the time is ripe now: stranger things have happened!
While we were on pilgrimage, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held forth its opinion in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), popularly known as the “anti-gay bakery case.” I would like to revisit it now, because the popular views of the court’s ruling (both for and against) were so misinformed as to be unintelligible, and to consider what this case portends with respect to the ongoing crisis of incivility.
First, to the facts of the case. It is important to understand that what I write in this paragraph is not an opinion of mine or anyone else. The facts of this case were never in dispute: neither the plaintiff nor the defendant disagreed about them. Those facts were: Mr. Phillips was a Colorado baker who makes both normal, daily bakery items and custom-ordered designs. Mssrs. Craig and Mullins were a homosexual couple living in Colorado and planning to get married in Massachusetts, and they went to Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a custom cake to celebrate their impending nuptials. Phillips refused to create such a cake, due to his religious beliefs that marriage was only between a man and a woman. Phillips admitted he had no religious obligation to refuse them normal service, and offered any off-the-shelf product to his customers. Mssrs. Craig and Mullins filed a civil complaint before the CCRC contending that Phillips violated Colorado’s law against discrimination. The CCRC held Phillips in violation of the statute and fined him.
SCOTUS held for Phillips, the plaintiff, voiding the penalties applied to him by the CCRC under Colorado law. Conservatives of various stripes hailed this as a victory for personal religious liberty; progressives cited it as a legitimization of hate. Most news coverage highlighted these viewpoints, even though both views were wrong. Let me explain.
The plaintiff’s case relied heavily upon freedom of speech, and only secondarily on freedom of religion. Phillips’ argument was that making a custom cake was artistic expression (already held to be freedom of speech by SCOTUS), and he could not be compelled to express a belief (gay marriage) he did not hold simply because his services were for sale. While all the opinions discussed this issue, it was not the basis of the decision. Writing for the 7-2 majority (an important point, that), Justice Kennedy never resolved the discrimination vs. religious liberty issue, although he did concede that freedom of speech was at risk. What he focused on was the CCRC ruling, or more specifically, what the CCRC did and said in making that ruling. This is where it gets very interesting.
Citing the transcripts of the CCRC hearings, Kennedy found that the commission–which is responsible for protecting against all unjust discrimination, including anti-religious discrimination–had in fact engaged in anti-religious hostility. Commissioners “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” One commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”
I mentioned the outcome was 7-2. Unlike some of the controversial 5-4 SCOTUS decisions recently announced, Masterpiece Cake shop’s majority included Justice Kennedy (who established Gay rights in his former majority opinions) along with Justices Breyer and Kagan! The last two published a concurring opinion which emphasized that it would be ok for a state to punish the baker’s refusal, but in this case the state had engaged in religious hostility. Thus this aspect was not narrow, and the outcome even more striking.
Contra much public reporting, this case neither established a religious exemption for behavior nor legalized hate. What it did do was more important, in my opinion. SCOTUS held that suggesting religious believers, even individual ones, cannot express and act on their views in public is a form of anti-religious bigotry. Further, suggesting “religious people” are inherently no different than Nazis or slave holders is inappropriate. One can hear these arguments made regularly on social media. It is heartening to know that in the United States, such views are beyond the pale, and subject to civil sanction.
Civility demands we not question each other’s motives. Everyone is free to bring ideas forward for consideration, and those ideas will fail or succeed based on the merit in them. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., hoped for a nation where one was not judged by the color of one’s skin, but on the content of one’s character. It goes without saying our ideas should not be judged by the religion (or irreligion) of whoever proposes them, but by the quality the ideas possess.
Those who regularly follow my blog know I rarely venture into political commentary, as that field is overgrown with poisonous weeds and nasty critters. Sometimes, stuff happens that you just can’t ignore; this is one of those times.
The current US administration policy requiring the separation of illegal migrant children from their parents–for whatever reason–is an abomination. The DHS Secretary and others claim that this is simply the inevitable result of a series of court findings and laws passed under previous administrations. That is a technicality, and irrelevant. If it were the case, the separations would have commenced back in January 2017. Attorney General Sessions has admitted part of the reason is ‘to send a signal’ to deter further illegal immigration. You do not send a signal by mistreating children, unless you are the Mob, or MS-13.
This is an administration choice: a conscious policy decision. It must be reversed.
Why is the administration doing this? I contend that President Trump is irritated that he cannot get his border wall funded by Congress. Further, the policies of President Obama set a precedent that children illegally entering the country would be treated more favorably, and this predictably caused the latest immigration challenge of minors (with or without parents) arriving at our borders. It was a crisis in 2014; it is less so today, but still a challenge. We must be honest about the conditions that created the opportunity for this vile policy.
All that said, nothing justifies the current policy: it is abhorrent. We have to come to grips with several real issues.
First, the Unites States cannot accept all families and children who are threatened by violence in their native lands. It sounds sweet, but it cannot be. Thus we have to give our immigration officials guidance to determine who does qualify for asylum under such circumstances, and who does not. This will be hard, and will result in some sad cases. Anybody who wants to join the argument must answer the question “where would you draw the line?” If you just want to post pictures of children crying, you disqualify yourself from the debate. Posit a solution.
Second, we need to clearly publicize our policies in those countries which are the primary source of such immigration, mostly in Central America, and we need the cooperation of local governments with our policy. We also need to improve our relationship with Mexico, as this is the means for such migration and when we have poor relations, the Mexican government feels no need to assist us in reducing it.
Third, we probably need to fund President Trump’s wall. Notice I didn’t say “build it,” just fund it. It won’t work; I explained why here. But as long as it remains unfunded, he will continue to search for ways to leverage any issue into a trade for funding. That is what is happening now, in my opinion. It is a huge infrastructure project, it won’t get done anytime soon, and we can pull the funding as soon as the chief proponent is gone.
Fourth, we need a rational policy for temporary workers from Mexico. We had a good guest worker program (Bracero) for years until President Kennedy went along with spiking it in the 1960s. Re-institute it, which will immediately improve the US- Mexico relationship, help ICE re-direct to more important matters (like violent criminal aliens), and provide needed workers in agriculture (we are approaching full employment, meaning soon there will be more jobs than people to do them).
Fifth, whatever rules we come up with for families with asylum requests, or for entering illegally, we will need to have some way to detain them. Anyone arguing to resume the failed “catch-and-release” policy of past administrations is being irresponsible. While there is no immigrant crisis, the notion that we can simply detain such people then release them in the country until they eventually (could be years!) get a hearing is unworkable. Think it doesn’t cost us much? It led to the Trump phenomenon. Ponder that for a moment. Therefore, detaining families or unaccompanied minors is going to mean some type of camps, and we need to be clear-eyed about the conditions. They need to be safe, secure, and comfortable (remembering the standard of comfort migrants expect). The camps we have now are pretty good; don’t believe me, read this from the Washington Post. When we compare them to the Holocaust we undermine the case. The camps are not the problem; the stupid, immoral policy is the problem.
I will not apportion blame in this case; there is plenty to go around. Both sides are playing to their bases, using images and sound-bites to fire up the crowd. Since Mr. Trump is President and the Republicans are in control of both houses, it is incumbent on them to lead. The Democrats must stop using this issue as a tool for the mid-term elections. If anyone really cares about the people, the children, they will stop scoring political points and act, by compromising.
This is difficult, not impossible. This is unspeakable, not unsolvable.
During my social media sharing of our adventure on the Camino Frances to Santiago de Compostela, some asked me what was my spiritual goal for becoming a pilgrim. I had a ready answer: to give thanks and praise to God for a life filled with blessings. After all, what can we give God: He needs nothing from us. He desires our love, and merits our praise and obedience. but how do you operationalize that, especially during retirement?
So I chose to go on a pilgrimage as a sign of respect and obedience and faith: God has given me so much, I should accept what He has in mind in this endeavor, too. I naively anticipated spending a lot of time in prayer at exquisite, ancient churches, long hikes on a smooth trail under a favorable sun, deep discussions with fellow pilgrims about the meaning of life.
What is that old saw? “If you want to make God smile, tell him your plans.”
What my wife and I got was something far more physically and emotionally challenging than we anticipated, despite many hours of training and over a hundred-and-fifty practice miles of hikes in the mountains of Mexico. The biggest challenges proved to be the keys to what God wanted me to learn, or at least that’s what I have discerned upon further reflection. Those challenges were: first, the overly positive view of the camino I absorbed from guidebooks and online sites, and second, the relentlessly, freakishly bad weather which seemed to follow us like Joe Btfsplk! (Lil’ Abner character if you don’t know; he always has a rain cloud over him)
(Blogger’s note: I covered this first learning point once previously here, so if you want to skip forward, please do. Go to the paragraph which begins “The second challenge was the weather.”)
Some who walk the camino have a remarkable spiritual experience that helps clarify the rest of life. They truly love the camino and want others to have the same type of experience. They often go back and do multiple routes or the same route multiple times, learning new things all the time. In their passion for what the camino has provided to them, they have a tendency to overlook how the camino might be experienced by other new pilgrims. They begin to describe steep hills as “gently rolling terrain,” forget about the dreadfully bad trail conditions going up and downhill, or just how truly dangerous the weather can get. I took such advice without the necessary grain of salt, and we (my wife and I) found ourselves in some very bad circumstances.
Up and down and rocky: this was a good part!
When we survived these situations, my relief quickly changed to anger, then rage. Neglecting to mention such challenges, or minimizing them, puts people at needless risk. This isn’t a question of “learning to overcome challenges”; as a former soldier, I know how that works, and it doesn’t involve exposing others to risk by failing to inform them. During my long camino hiking days, I wondered why God led us into such situations, and was I overreacting? Anger is a tricky emotion, as it can easily lead to all kinds of sin. I kept coming back to the notion of righteous anger: anger that is justified. Think Jesus with the money-changers in the Temple, Saints James (yes, Santiago himself) and John calling for vengeance, or “wipe the dirt from your feet” (Matthew 10:14).
Why would the Lord want me to experience such anger? What could it teach me? Prompted by the Holy Spirit, the thought occurred to me that I was tasting a small sample of God’s righteous anger at humanity as we fail him day after day after day. His justice would seem to necessitate severe punishment, and yet He relents, due to His Divine Mercy. My take was I was given this taste of divine anger to learn how to show divine mercy. Long way to go on that one, but at least I think I know what I am working toward.
The second challenge was the weather. If we had experienced even average weather for May in Spain, our camino would have been more enjoyable. I have to admit, the weather reminded me of the major military exercises I was involved with over 30 years ago in Germany (ReForGer, anyone?). It seemed like those exercises always occasioned long periods of gloom and rain. Bad weather is just one of those things that can affect any trip: so what?
I love puddles
This one was harder to understand. The poor weather interfered with my ability to pray as much as I intended: I had to focus on the slippery trail, the foggy route, or how hard the rain was falling. We had to spend more time on simple things like doing laundry, or finding something warm to drink, and less time visiting shrines or taking in the beauty of the countryside. So my initial reaction was that the bad weather was just bad luck.
When I returned home, one conversation I had on the walk up the mountain to O’Cebreiro kept coming back to me. The weather was cool that morning, and the fog dissipated. The clouds were thick but nonthreatening, permitting a little better view of the climb ahead of us and the valley behind us. For once, I was a little less obsessed with the weather, but still tired and not looking forward to the long uphill climb.
O’Cebreiro
Another pilgrim approached me along the way; I recognized him as someone who had been staying in some of the same towns, someone we had passed or had passed us numerous times. As he passed by me, I gave him a lackluster “Buen camino” and he responded with a hearty “it sure is! What a lovely day.” “Really?” I intoned. He explained that this is one of his favorite parts of the camino, and the weather was perfect for it. He had walked the Camino Frances several times, the earliest being back in the 1980s, before it was so popular. He remembered when O’Cebreiro, our goal for the day, was little more than a church and a few barns on top of the mountain. Now it’s a quaint little purpose-built village of bars, albergues, shops, and that church.
I admitted that I wasn’t feeling that warm, fuzzy glow about the camino he clearly was. He took that as a challenge. “Where else can you get a view of beautiful mountains and lush green valleys like this?” he asked. He didn’t expect my retort: “From my house.” “But what about the weather?” he parried. I replied, “Clearly better at home. I would be in shorts and sunglasses at home.” “Fair enough,” he continued, “but here on the camino you can meet total strangers and make quick friends over a meal, or a walk. Can you do that where you live?” Why, yes, I thought, that is exactly like where I live! But I didn’t say it: I simply smiled and told him, “Ok, buen camino!”
Home
That conversation eventually came back to me as a second spiritual growth point. Many people fall in love with the camino because it is so different from where or how they live. That wasn’t going to happen for me, because I already experience those advantages every day. I went on the camino in thanksgiving for blessings received: God was showing me that it need not necessarily have been that way. It is easy to accept blessings and become accustomed to them, especially when they seem so constant. I think the constant bad weather was a little reminder to enjoy what I already have, and to not take it for granted.
So I met my spiritual goals, even if it didn’t work out the way I anticipated. Pilgrims like to talk about finding “your way” on the camino. Sometime we have to remember what Jesus said: “Yo soy el Camino…”
As someone who just completed my first (and probably only) Camino, I want to take advantage of the perspective fresh in my mind to offer some thoughts to those considering taking on their first Camino Frances. I will approach this topic as objectively as possible, and try to note where my experience might have been unique, or what the general lesson is one should draw from my specific experience.
Nice trail; where’s the giant rolling ball?
First and most importantly, do research and training. On the latter, get all your gear, try it out and wear it in. If there is one area in which I would not economize, it is gear. Hike in varying weather, and do a lot of hills, not just up and down a mountain (like we did). Hike several (at least three) days in a row. Yes, there are people who just go and do the Camino. I was 19 once (and stupid), and just went and “did” a marathon. I even finished. It wasn’t fun. Training will make your actual Camino more enjoyable. My take away is there were far more hills than I expected, and far worse trail conditions, neither of which were adequately depicted in maps, guidebooks, or online. The worst trail conditions
Anybody need a rock?
occur on the steepest up and downhill portions, arguing for stronger ankle and sole support than you might otherwise use, and the use of hiking poles. Also consider buying shoes larger than usual to account for swelling of your feet. Make sure you practice whatever shoe/sock/treatment you select to prevent blisters and it works for you over long distances.
As to research, here you have to be careful. The obvious approach is to buy a guidebook and find a Facebook site and join a community like www.caminosantiago.me for info. One thing to remember is that online sites are full of other first-timers like you and Caministas, people who love the Camino. Think about it: those who quit the Camino, or hated the experience, are not hanging around to re-live it online. People who love something tend to overlook its flaws, so you have to take that into account. You can find lots of encouragement online, but also people who will tell you the trails are pretty good, the hills are all manageable, and that there’s always a cafe open in the next little town. They love the camino (which is a beautiful thing); they remember it that way, but they are romanticizing the Camino.
As to a guidebook, the online sites like Gronze or the Camino Pilgrim app are far more current and useful. I had two copies (different editions) of the infamous John Brierly “practical and mystical” guide to the Camino Frances, and they were practically and mystically useless. Mr. Brierly may be the world’s leading Caminista, but his “maps” are full of inaccuracies, which is an unpardonable sin for a guidebook. I only read a few of his “mystic” commentaries, which I found to be of Hallmark greeting card depth. If this works for you, great! His historical coverage was very good to excellent. If you are really dying for more Camino info, borrow an old Brierly edition from a friend or get one out of the library, but do not waste money buying this book, or ounces carrying it.
Consider “why” you are going on a Camino, and be as specific as you can. This may seem silly, but as you walk, you’ll face choices that will require you to revisit the “why?” So you need to have the answer in your pocket. Is it to walk every step from St. Jean to Santiago? To cross the Pyrenees? To be like a medieval pilgrim (more on that soon)? To get in shape? To get away from it all? To find yourself? A combination of these? Figure it out as best you can before you set off on the journey. It will make the decisions easier.
This one may be controversial: start in Pamplona. Why? Because it is easy to get to, it skips some awful trail time and very unpredictable weather, and it is a neat city to spend a day or two getting over jetlag. St. Jean is achingly cute, but hard to get to: right now there is no train (the line is out) and the bus is often oversubscribed. It leaves you to start with the difficult Pyrenees crossing, which can be very inclement: we had 2-3° Celsius, heavy fog, and howling wind on May 3rd! The bomberos rescued two pilgrims there with hypothermia the end of May. If you start at St. Jean, you’ll need to pack for cold weather you may not face for a while and the long downhill into Roncesvalles is prime territory for falls, blisters, and other trouble. It is not worth it, unless your goal requires crossing the Pyrenees (see earlier comment about “why?”)
Very cute
Some related thoughts: yes, the Camino Frances “starts” at St. Jean Pied de Port, but what does that even mean? When you drive somewhere, do you insist on driving to the “start” of the road? It is worth considering what a medieval pilgrimage was like, versus some idealized version we may have today. Pilgrims started from home. They walked because that was the only way to get there: you had to be rich to have a horse, and to keep it fed on such a journey. So don’t make a walking fetish out of their necessity! Do you think a medieval pilgrim turned down a cart ride to the next town? They walked the route of least resistance, begging or offering to work for room and board. The point was not to suffer, because life itself was already full of suffering. The point was to place yourself entirely in God’s hands, either as penance, or in thanksgiving, or in praise, and let whatever happens, happen. Guess what? Many pilgrims died on the way (to the oft quoted “the Camino provides” I always wanted to say “what? an early death?”). So you should probably disabuse yourself of the notion you will be recreating a medieval pilgrimage. It frees you to have your own Camino.
About that phrase “the Camino provides.” Now I know this phrase is shorthand for the spirit of goodwill one encounters on the way, but I think it is a little misleading. The Camino is a route. It is inanimate. It provides nothing. Sometimes, perhaps many times, other people provide help when it is most needed: other pilgrims, hospitaleros, locals. But do not think the Camino will provide. Consider this thought: if you choose not to carry Compeed for your blisters, and you get some blisters, you can sit and wait for help. But if the pilgrims following you all expect the Camino to provide, they will not have Compeed either! So help yourself by preparing with a few key items, which even if you don’t use, you can share. Among these are Compeed, pain reliever, anti-diarrheal, extra water, salt, sugar, cold meds, and antihistamines, and appropriate snacks. Most of these are things you can get at the next farmácia, but if you need an AD now, the next farmácia is always too far!
Try different lodging arrangements for the first two weeks, then select what you like best and schedule out three to four days in advance. Municipal and parochial albergues and donativos are great ways to meet people and save money, but if you want to stay in them, invest in some high quality earplugs or noise cancelling headphones. You will hear snoring the likes of which you never thought possible.
Splurge!
Private albergues, pensions, and hostals cost more and provide some privacy. You may decide to continue mixing it up after the first few weeks; just remember to keep scheduling out your reservations; once you hit Sarria it is essential, due to crowding.
Find an eating rhythm that works for you and Spain. In the smaller towns you can find places which cater more to pilgrim hours; in the big cities not so much in my experience. Many pilgrims get up early (0600) and have a small breakfast, get walking, stop mid-morning for a second breakfast, do lunch around 1330 and then dinner at 1930. Some pilgrim restaurants will serve a pilgrim menu (prix fixe) at lunch, some at dinner. Remember there is a siesta time in the later afternoon when even bars may close, and other hours where only tapas are served. Watch out for when breakfast (desayuno) is served, and especially for Sunday morning, when very little is open.
Consider taking shortcuts of all types. What!? No real pilgrim takes a shortcut: oh, but they did, and still do! Bring too much gear? You can ship it forward from any post office (Correos) in Spain. Have too much stuff to carry up that hill tomorrow? You can ship your backpack forward to the next stop. Notice a route where you are 500 meters from the next town, but the Camino zigs two kilometers to pass a church or Roman bridge? Go straight to the town, if you like.
Worth the extra time
Another even-more controversial idea: use the bigger cities as a way to make up time while extending your city-visit time. Big cities have buses, trains, and taxi routes. As you approach a big city (Burgos or León, for example), catch mass transit going in to avoid hiking the suburbs, and the same on the way out. Take the time you save (which could be as much as a day or two) and stay in the city. It is a shame to walk through a magnificent city like León and hurry through it. Don’t like the repetition of the entire Meseta, or the nasty downhill into Ponferrada? Skip some or all. Again this might seem like heresy, but do what fits in with your schedule and personal goals, not what everybody else does or a Camino purist suggests. You will hear people say “it’s your Camino” but that phrase sometimes comes with an implied “tut-tut” when what you have decided to do does not meet with the other person’s ideal Camino. Here is the plain fact: everyone walks their own Camino, and no one walks the same Camino twice. It is just “the way” to where you are going. Be confident in your choices.
Know what weather most affects you, and prepare to mitigate it. I can easily handle hot weather and rain; I find cold rain and wind unbearable. You can’t prepare equally for all the weather possibilities, especially in the Pyrenees and Galicia. For the outlier weather, you might consider rummaging in the “give-and-take” box at your albergue. Take something, wear it as needed, get it washed, and either drop it off or return it.
Ugliness wins!
Fight the urge to leave behind something about you on the Camino. Graffiti is ugly, tasteless, and illegal regardless of what it says. Some like to place rocks on everything. Making a stone-pile arrow to point the way? Very cool! Piling rocks on every route marker? No. Sometimes those markers are the only place to sit down for miles! You will see some nice permanent memorials to recent pilgrims who died on the way; others add pictures and papers and toys from their loved ones to these memorials, which is
Let it be
touching, but eventually results in a wet pile of rubbish. Some pile up rocks as little altars; perhaps they anticipate small druids coming behind them? Here’s a suggestion: if you have this urge, find some larger flat rocks and make a seat. I guarantee you pilgrims coming along behind you will bless you everyday. Better still, use your sharp ended poles to pick up trash; carry a spare bolsa with you and dump it when you take breaks.
On a related but delicate topic, you will probably do as bears do and poop in the woods at some point. Some pointers: do not stop, drop, and roll. First, identify a relatively private spot. Second, use the heal of your shoe to kick (back and down) a small dent in the ground: it might take several kicks. Aim and fire. If your aim was bad, use your TP to get your product in the hole. Place the TP there too, then kick dirt back over the hole and move on. I guess this word hasn’t gotten around, based on the elephant burial grounds I stumbled into off the Camino!
The fewer clothes you bring, the more you will rely on laundry. This means to keep your pack light, you become more vulnerable to whether (your next stop has laundry services) or weather. Sure, under some circumstances you can just wear the same clothes again, but do you really want to? We had cold, wet weather nearly the entire month of May. We could always hand wash our clothes, but that meant wearing clean wet clothes in the morning. Sometimes the dryers worked, sometimes not. In the bigger towns, we usually found a laundromat, which was always clean, well-equipped, and cheap. I strongly encourage pilgrims to consider this option, as it only cost about an hour of time and six Euros for warm, clean, dry laundry.
Finally, a comment about pain, suffering, and discouragement. You’ll encounter all of them on the camino. Some suggest this is the heart of the Camino, this is how you discover something about yourself: they did. If that is the case for you, I can assure you, the Camino will indeed provide. You don’t need to seek pain out, or add to it. One of the main lessons I re-learned is we all have our limits, and they are all different. When well-meaning enthusiasts are telling you to just keep going, keep carrying, it’s not that bad, remember all those pilgrims who didn’t make it, back then or now. Yes, push yourself, but recognize your limits, and finish your Camino, according to your goals, under your rules. Buen camino!
Here’s a collection of thoughts I had walking in the rain across Spain. I was too tired most nights to flesh them out and post them, but they lingered in my mind, so here they are now. If they are half-baked, put them back in the microwave for a few minutes and see if they make more sense.
Extroverts probably enjoy the Camino more then introverts. Introverts can certainly find quiet time and walk alone, but for extroverts, the Camino Frances is like an extended, adult summer camp. Every 100 meters or so, there is a brand new friend you can share your life story with, and who will share theirs with you! Look, we already have something in common: we are on the Camino! Extroverts can overshare with little worry, pledge to be BFFs, then move along to the next fellow pilgrim. That has to be very attractive to extroverts!
Oooh, friends!
The single biggest variable in whether you will enjoy your Camino is this: do you really like the great outdoors? Yes, I know, Captain Obvious talking here, but in all the reading and research I did before the Camino, I never saw it put that way. You’re spending 8-12 hours outside every day. If you are an outdoors person, you will find a way to love the heat, the cool, the rain , the fog, the mud, the dry, the pollen, the manure, and (ahem) eliminating in public. If you’re not such a person, these things will wear on you. Simple as that.
I love puddles!
John Brierly of guidebook fame had a social media post the other day where he was defending his inclusion of “mystic” guidance in his books because he feared that pilgrims were losing the notion of pilgrimage as something more than a hike. I am sympathetic to his view, but he misses the religious forest for the mystic trees. Would-be pilgrims come primarily from a variety of advanced, industrialized societies that are increasingly secular. You can’t take someone steeped in non-religious or anti-religious culture and give them a few mystic thoughts for their walk in the woods and get a “pilgrim.”
99.9% of the Bicigrinos (bike pilgrims) are wonderful people who ring bells, shout “buen Camino” and share the trail well. Those that weave through the walkers at 30 kph on treacherous downhill sections without warning? Saint James would like a word with you.
Northern Spanish cuisine, in which I include Basque and Galician, is very simple but delicious: high quality ingredients without many additional spices or sauces. It restored my faith in peppers as something not to be feared, just enjoyed.
Speaking a little Spanish goes a long way on the Camino. Just mastering a combination of por favor, buenas-, gracias, ay-perdon, lo siento, and donde will help immeasurably.
Some pilgrims (apparently) carry things like Sharpie’s in order to write something profound and permanent in public. Don’t. You are not profound, even after a pitcher of sangria. Nor are you witty, or original, or encouraging, or motivating, or appreciated, when you scrawl or scratch something on a fence, tree, rock, or whatever. Just walk, por favor.
No.
How many more pilgrims can the Camino Frances sustain before it becomes a Disneyfied charicature of a pilgrimage? The numbers keep increasing, and the way from Sarria at times resembles the walk toward a football match from a distant parking lot. It is ok for now, but continues to grow at a steady rate.
The Camino will redefine the meaning of the word “hill” for you. Mountains will still be the same, but from now on, when someone says “there’s a hill” you will go all Crocodile Dundee with a “that’s not a hill, this is a hill” story from the Camino.
I got very angry several times out on the Camino: not just mad, but downright seething. It was always due to bad information provided to me, that led in turn to either bad advice or bad decisions, which could have been dangerous for my wife and me. I prayed about why this was happening. Certainly God didn’t want me to accept this with equanimity (“hey, we could have been seriously injured, but no harm, no foul!”). No, this was righteous anger, and it was our very own pilgrim St. James, one of the sons of thunder, who asked Jesus to call lightning down on evil-doers. In a moment of clarity, the Holy Spirit inspired this thought in me: my righteous anger was a tiny taste of that which God experiences every day, as we promise to do better and then fail Him time and again. His justice would demand severe punishment, but his Divine Mercy is fathomless and unrelenting, if we only ask for it. So He forgives us. My anger was just a prelude to learning how to be more merciful, just as God is merciful.
Angry like this guy
One of the big mysteries of the Camino is “will the Botafumeiro swing when I reach Santiago?” Here is a good clue. Around 1030, go to the museum and get a Pilgrim’s ticket and walk around. When you get to the 2nd level, the cloisters, walk around the courtyard to where the entrance to the Sacristy is (it is marked, but with a Prohibida sign). If there’s a brazier out in the corner of the courtyard and it has charcoal heating up, the Botafumeiro will swing at the end of Mass. You can use the side entrance from the museum to go directly into the cathedral and see the Botafumeiro, then return to the museum.
Look, a clue!
I will have one final Camino post, a wrap-up for those considering doing the Camino.
Those who suffered through my last commentary (Everything you know is wrong III) learned about the US Republic, but you probably left the blog wondering “what was that all about? Did Pat drink some bad tequila?”
The answer to the second question is “no” (because there is no bad tequila), but here’s the answer to the first question.
The fact that the US is a Republic based on a Constitution has two important implications: one about the document itself, the other about the people it serves.
Americans hold their Constitution in high regard. We are right to do so, as intelligent observers around the world have commented on its simplicity, its insight, and its longevity. But the document is not magical. It works not just because it was brilliantly designed, but because it was ideally matched to the culture and characteristics of the American people (circa 1791).
Freed America slaves who returned to Africa to establish the nation of Liberia borrowed large parts of the US Constitution to little success. The US Constitution begat similar efforts in 19th century Latin America, post-Great War Europe, and post-colonial Africa, again with mixed success. The US Constitution was a unique match of brilliant political theory and informed citizenship.
What was the indispensable characteristic of that citizenry? Here the founders were unanimous: virtue, or as we call it today, morality. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, and George Washington wrote about it. Samuel Adams said “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” John Adams said, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private virtue, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” and added “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And these are just the pull quotes. All the Founding Fathers wrote and spoke about how important the virtue and morality of the American people were. This is not to say the Founders or the citizens were saints. Those same Founders tolerated America’s original sin–slavery. The candidates and their supporters in the Presidential election of 1800 engaged in far more slander than anything any candidate said in 2016!
Rather, the comments about the virtue or morality of the American citizenry described their common understanding of right and wrong. While the United States had no established religion, its people broadly accepted a code of conduct based on Judeo-Christian values. Even the Founders, many of whom were Deists, held the same beliefs, as Deism was a Christian off-shoot (heresy is the technical term). This morality, these virtues, matched uniquely with the Republican government developed under the Constitution.
Back at the beginning of the Republic, the American people had a common conception of right and wrong, even if those same citizens were individually more or less virtuous. Today, our citizens are just as likely to have different levels of virtue, but there is no common understanding of how to measure right and wrong. Religious participation continues to dwindle, and many organized religions follow, rather than lead, public mores. Some argue religion has no right to a voice in American government: a point historically inaccurate and (frankly) bigoted. Nevertheless, I would concede that religion has mainly lost its voice, while no alternative voice has succeeded it.
Instead, we have replaced a shared public morality with an individualistic one. As Justice Anthony Kennedy put it in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” There is little room for me to compromise with you when you have the right to define the meaning of the universe.
All of which leads to my final point: many of the problems we as Americans identify today are actually only symptoms of the real problem: the lack of a common morality. Our Republic requires it. Arguments about policy are just about politics (the art of compromise), while arguments about morality are good versus evil, and compromise is immoral. You can see this play out in issue after issue today: gun control, abortion, free speech, police violence, marriage, welfare, etc.
This is not a call to return to the days of that good, old-fashioned religion; a culture can never return to its past. This is more a caution. America has only once experienced a similar moral debate: slavery. The issue was fundamental to concepts ranging from individual freedom and human rights to property, states’ rights, and habeus corpus. It took a bloody civil war to address that issue, and another one-hundred years to finish the argument.
I trust I have made a case for why our Republic needs a shared morality. I wish I had an easy answer for how we regain one. I have not heard anything beyond some platitudes thus far. I am open to good ideas: I know I am praying on this already.
As Paul Harvey used to say, my friends, “and now you know the rest of the story.”
By now you have no doubt heard about Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known as AMLO (“ahm-low”) the President-elect of Mexico who will take office on December 1st. He is an interesting character, and worth getting to know better, as he portends major changes in Mexico.
hundred-and-fifty practice miles of hikes in the mountains of Mexico. The biggest challenges proved to be the keys to what God wanted me to learn, or at least that’s what I have discerned upon further reflection. Those challenges were: first, the overly positive view of the camino I absorbed from guidebooks and online sites, and second, the relentlessly, freakishly bad weather which seemed to follow us like Joe Btfsplk! (Lil’ Abner character if you don’t know; he always has a rain cloud over him)
