The Solemnity of Christ the King points to true leadership


“I came into the world, to testify to the Amen/truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” So ends the Gospel for the Solemnity of Christ the King at our Cathedral in Reno Nevada. This passage alludes to John 10:1-16, the story of the Good Shepherd. “The gatekeeper opens the gate, the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name, he leads them. As he drives out all his own, he walks ahead, and the sheep follow him; they recognize his voice.”

The Gospel for the Solemnity of Christ the King also has a passage misquoted often, “”My kingdom does not belong to this cosmos. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my sailors would be contending for the prize of keeping me from being handed over to the Jews.”

Fundamentalists often interpret this to mean that legions of angels from heaven would fight for Jesus if Jesus’ nation were of this cosmos. Jesus is speaking in terms of a nation of sheep, a domesticated non-violent animal. If Jesus’ nation were of this cosmos, his subjects would be like the other subjects of this cosmos. They would be running for guns and clubs to behave like the other nations. We are not; we are sheep.

We look at American Defense Spending. The US spends $739 Billion in defense spending. The remaining nine nations of the top ten defense spenders spend a total of less than $500 Billion each year. America is not a Christian Nation. We are not a nation of sheep, but of goats, a consumer nation, which eats everything. Matthew 25:31-Matthew 26:1 is the address to the nations. In that address, Jesus compares sheep with goats. Farmers often put goats in with the sheep as goats have horns and a nasty temper. When coyotes and other predators come near the herd, they deal with the goats. Jesus’ herd is a herd of sheep, not goats.

We see the same message in the First Reading for the Solemnity of Christ the King. Daniel has just given us the image of the prior nations. The first was like a lion, but with eagle’s wings. The second beast was like a bear; raised up on one side, and among the teeth in its mouth were three tusks. I looked and saw another beast, like a leopard; on its back were four wings like those of a bird, and it had four heads. To this beast dominion was given. In the visions of the night I saw a fourth beast, terrifying, horrible, and of extraordinary strength; it had great iron teeth with which it devoured and crushed, and it trampled with its feet what was left.

Last, we see one like a Son of Man. In Hebrew, “Son of Man” simply means a human being, like the rest of us. This is Daniel and Jesus’ definition of the ideal king. It comes from Deuteronomy 17:14-17:

When you come into the land the Personal Name, your Almighty Judge, gives you, “I will set a king over me, like all the surrounding nations,” you may set over you a king whom the Personal Name, your Almighty Judge, chooses. From among your own kindred you may set over you as king; you may not set over you a stranger, no kin of yours. He will not have a great number of horses; nor make his people go back again to Oppression to acquire horses. Nor will he accumulate a vast amount of silver and gold.

Our King, our ruler is to be like the rest of us. He is not the great and horrible thing over there. He is the person like us, here. He is not to be about military power, but he is the gatekeeper who invites all to join us in the great pasture here on earth. Jesus also tells us in John 10, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

We must learn to listen to the other sheep in the cosmos. We must first look to the shepherd, and then listen to the other sheep. We do not force our religion on others. If God calls the other nations, they will hear his voice and follow. The pasture entices the nations to follow him. We show the other nations our garden. If they hear the call of God, they will follow. If they are a conquering nation, Rome conquered Israel, and Christianity conquered Rome, not with violence but by being sheep. Always remember that.

The Feast of Christ the King and the five non-negotiables


In the great Cathedral debate in Reno Nevada of 7 November of this year, affirmative stated:

“Those opposed to Catholic Action, as a nation, support a culture of death. Voting for someone opposed to Catholic Action is a grave matter, willingly agreed to and with full knowledge. Pope Pious X censors those who argue Mother Church should change her teaching to conform to the spirit of the age.’ He wrote this in 18…99, in address to Modernist Conservatives of his time.”

The negative argued, “Modernism refers to liberal doctrine.” The liberal doctrines to which he refers did not exist when Pope Pious X wrote in 18…99. The affirmative continued, “New opinions are new opinions, coming from Modernist Conservatives or Liberals of today.” He also noted, George Gallup reports on his website:

The percentage of Americans identifying as Roman Catholic stayed within 20% and 30% over the last 60 years. Catholics were 22% of the U.S. adult population in 1948. That percentage rose reaching its high point in the 1970s, when the U.S. population was nearly 30% Catholic. In the last several years, Gallup’s estimate has been Catholic 22% to 23%.”

He also may have noted, CNN ran an article on the church’s decline, and four of their top seven reasons for Catholics leaving the church tie to conservative politics. A person in the audience asked the affirmative speaker, “What do you refer to when you accuse conservatives of being modernists?” The affirmative responded, “The five non-negotiables.”

The conservatives in the room howled, “This is official doctrine!”

“The five non-negotiables,” as five rules set apart from the rest are not official doctrine. This Sunday is The Solemnity of Christ the King and it highlights what is wrong with The Five non-negotiables as doctrine. God is not in it.

Before stating his position on modernist conservatism, affirmative stated, “Our understanding of right and wrong is what re-orients us in a time of crisis, when the world is surreal and the rules do not seem to apply. It must be simple, allowing no exceptions. It must focus upon God first, and his property second, in particular what he made in his image, each other. It must focus upon life as lived in the image of God.”

The readings for the Sunday before the debate relate Jesus’ words when asked to define basic right and wrong. “Hear you who struggle with God, God is Almighty, God is One; Love God with all your hearts, with all your animate being, and with all of your measure.” “How do we love someone who already has everything?” “By respecting what is his, in particular what he made in his image. This is the true non-negotiable.” This, and not some conservative five- non-negotiables is the solid base upon which to build Catholic morality.

This Sunday is The Solemnity of Christ the King. Pope Pius XI established the feast in 1925 to address secularism, which leaves God out of man’s thinking and living and organizes his life as if God did not exist. This is the modernism, which affirmative attacked in the debate. The feast proclaims Christ’s rule over individuals, families, nations, and governments.

If we follow this Shema, Mark 12: 29, Deuteronomy 6:4-9, and the Ten Commandments, as Jesus understood them, with Deuteronomy 5:1-7 as the First Commandment, we have that foundation of right and wrong we are looking for.

“The Personal Name, our Mighty Judge, cut a Social Contract with us at Mt. Sword; not with our ancestors did the Personal Name cut this Social Contract, but with us, all of us, alive, here, this day…” Remember, “I am the Personal Name your Almighty Judge, who brought you out of the land of Oppression, out of the house of menial labor.” Remember your oppression, and remember your rescue. When you see others suffering, do something.

This understanding re-orients those in a time of crisis, when the world is surreal and the rules do not seem to apply. Escapees from oppression in Europe originally stood at Mt. Sword the first time. The focus is upon the mountain and God who speaks from that mountain. From that remembrance of escape from oppression comes all that follows.

As affirmative related, our understanding of the Physical Presence in the Eucharist comes from this understanding of Deuteronomy 5. There is no room for secluding five rules from the others, and apart from Mt. Sinai and setting them as more important from all the others. The issue is not about whether these five rules still apply. They do! It is one of focus. If we correct the focus, we will follow these rules the conservatives want as source and summit, but God, and his rescue of us will be source and summit, and this necessitated the debate in the first place.

When will we learn to listen?


In our Pledge of Allegiance, we pledge to defend the republic. St. Augustine defines “Republic” in terms of an orchestra. Professional singers have a way of cupping their hands as they sing, so they can hear the other singers. Otherwise, they do not blend their voices and the work suffers. We must listen to the other side, not to their solution, but to their cry. Father Ron Olsen is famous for that gift. The conductor decides the tune.

The Trinity is the conductor of our orchestra and he sets the example by listening. We find examples of this in many places, two of which stand out. The first is the story of the Good Samaritan.

St. John, relates in the story of the Good Samaritan how Jesus is tired from his journey, when he meets a Samaritan woman at a well. Jesus has no compelling reason for talking with this woman. She is not Jewish and the Jewish people at the time were very ethnocentric. In Mark 7:25 we have the story of the Syrophoenician woman who Jesus does not want to talk with because she is not Jewish, and she is a she. Jewish men at the time did not converse with women either.

If the story happened today, we would expect the story to occur at some bar in some rusty old town, or in some inner city ghetto. The poor woman would be “Poor White Trash,” or “Poor Trash,” of some other ethnic group.

Another term is “Trailer Trash.” Good people do not converse with this kind. Jesus sets a new example. He does talk with her. As the story progresses, we find Jesus knows what type of woman she is. She is the poor trash who marries, has children, kicks her husband out, then goes out, and gets another. She lives off the largess of the community.

Unlike the conservatives of the time, and our day, Jesus sees in this woman’s behavior a person who is searching for something and not finding it. Jesus also notices how this woman is well schooled in her religious faith. We notice how Jesus never quotes Torah with its rules to this woman. She already knows the rules.

In the November 7 debate at our Cathedral in Reno Nevada, the affirmative speaker made the comment: We sacrifice life and other’s salvation, and for what? Over the past 32 years, I have tried to find the conservative understanding of basic right and wrong, without success. There are more exceptions than cases where the rule applies. Our basic understanding of right and wrong is what re-orients us in a time of crisis, when the world is surreal and the rules do not apply.

The Samaritan woman lives in a time of crisis, when the world is surreal and the rules do not seem to apply. To fill the void she feels in her heart, she looks outside of the rules. The conservative leadership of her day, and ours, insists upon pointing to the rules, then getting frustrated when the poor do not listen. Jesus comes with another way.

If the discussion occurred today, conservatives would correct Jesus for not mentioning the HHS Mandate. Instead, Jesus first, talks with her about who she is as a human being. Then, as soon as he confronts her on her lifestyle, he immediately returns to discussing the common ground in their faith traditions.

We see a similar discussion in the healing of the paralytic. A group of four drops a paralytic down from a roof. Jesus retorts, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” In no place does St. Mark tell us what the “Sin” is, or even if he really has one. This child could be a victim of child abuse, no more guilty of any crime than the rest of us. Jesus asks, “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, pick up your mat and walk’? Which is easier to say? Both choices have exactly seven syllables, and neither is a tongue twister. There is no need do mention an HHS Mandate.

The answer is in the attitude of the speaker. Jesus’ choice is empowerment. Forgiveness causes gratitude, which gives the direction for this child to move so he can go on to live a happy and productive life. Not so, the conservative’s choice. He picks up his mat, and walks, to where, and then what? This requires more direction and more words. The conservative choice leaves them in control, and requires more words; their choice does not stop at seven syllables.

If this child is a victim of child abuse, he requires changes in his world for him to walk again. He needs o understand that his efforts in the past, which did not bear fruit, will bear fruit now. This is not something Jesus can do. This is for the community to do. This is where conservative leadership fails, then and today.

The conservative solution is where, as the affirmative in the 7 November debate at our Cathedral relates; the US has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its prison population. The conservatives created a world where 5% of the population accounts for 50% of the healthcare costs, and most of these costs are from the poor.

The conservatives grumble about the HHS Mandate. If they had been listening for the past 32 years, they would have learned about the unnecessary suffering of the poor for those past 32 years. They would have looked for solutions, which include making sure all employers, pay a living wage, in this country and overseas. With a living wage, the poor could have purchased their own health insurance and there would be no need for the silly mandate. There would be no need for the large and growing prison industry with all of its costs.

In the debate of 7 November, the conservatives presented some so-called five non-negotiables as if they were Catholic doctrine. They are not. In “The Sanctity of Human Life from Conception to Natural Death, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila does his very best to defend the doctrine.  He does not quote any such encyclical. He does quote EVANGELIUM VITAE and he does quote our Catechism, both of which argue mankind in made in the image of God and therefore is entitled to respect. His quotes do not support some five non-negotiable, which state some lives are more important than others, because they are not born yet.

The affirmative in the debate was right in asking, “When will we learn to listen.”

Answering Tough Questions & Mr. Holland’s Opus relate to our trying times part 3


There is no one who does not wish to have peace. Those who make war desire nothing but victory desire, to attain to peace with glory. What else is victory than the conquest of those who resist us? When this is done there is peace. With the desire for peace wars are waged. Peace is the end sought for by war. Every man seeks peace by waging war, but no man seeks war by making peace. They who intentionally interrupt the peace only wish it changed into a peace that suits them better. They do not wish to have no peace, but only one more to their mind.

When men separate themselves from the community, they do not effect what they wish, unless they maintain some kind of peace with their fellow-conspirators. Robbers take care to maintain peace with their comrades, that they may with greater effect and greater safety invade the peace of other men…

He makes it his aim to be at peace with his wife and children; their obedience to his look is a source of pleasure to him. If this is not rendered, he chides and punishes; to secure the calm peace of his home. Peace cannot be maintained unless all the members of the domestic circle be subject to one head, such as he himself. If a city or nation submit itself to him, to serve him in the same style as he had made his household serve him, he would no longer lurk in a brigand’s hiding-places, but lift his head as a king. St. Augustine City of God Book 19 Chapter 12

In the Answering Tough Questions debate of 7 November, the affirmative made some points.

“Our basic understanding of right and wrong is what re-orients us in a time of crisis, when the world is surreal and the rules do not seem to apply. Our post election buzz points to a coming crisis in America, a surreal world, where the rules to not seem to apply. Our basic understanding of right and wrong must be simple, allowing no exceptions.”

To define faithful discipleship, we must define the role of government. “All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

Deuteronomy 30 relates, “This Mitzvah, I give you today is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart… Choose life!” All life is life in potentiality. We increase life or we decrease it.” Life as potentiality, as lived in the image of God is our definition of life

Catholics believe in the Physical Presence, rescuing us, as a community, for the first time, each time, we celebrate the Mass. Jesus’ Last Supper was Pasach and was pregnant with all the customs and meanings going with it. Deuteronomy 5 begins as an address to the nation. God rescues those who struggle with God, as a nation. He calls us to love him, as a nation. Our heritage means remembering our oppression, in 19th century Europe, as nation, and our working in the sweatshops of the early 20th century, as a nation.

Our post election buzz includes the financial cliff about to engulf our nation at the first of the year. Both sides want peace, on their terms. Neither side looks to the basic principles of right and wrong or asks the questions, “What is the purpose of government?” “Who are we as Americans?” These basic answers would tell us what to fund. Then we could tax ourselves to pay for these expenses.

The affirmative in the November 7 debate related, “The Greek word for a house is “Oikos,” from which we derive, ‘Economy.’ ‘Baal’ is the Hebrew word for the head of the house. Throughout history, the name has changed; the identity has not. Baal’s alternative names include Hermes, Mercury/god of merchants and thieves, ‘The Market,’ and, as a recent candidate stated:

The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.’

Adam Smith wrote, ‘He is led by an invisible hand …’ This speaking of ‘led,’ leadership is ‘Thought,’ by something greater than oneself, another head of the household.

The conservative focus as is worship of this invisible hand. They also support Ares, in Latin, Mars, god of war. The US spends $739 Billion in Defense each year. The rest of the top nine countries, combined, spend $89.9 Billion. The conservatives worship this invisible hand and Mars in the name of Christianity. If you do not worship the invisible hand and Mars, you cannot be a good Christian.

This put off the liberals, those not believing in Baal or Mars. They want a separation of church and state, as the church is presented by the conservatives. They do not see their foundation as promoting life lived in the image of God, and are out of balance. Neither side is able to look to their basic understanding of right and wrong, or the foundation upon which we built our nation to guide us in the budget process.

Can we right ourselves in time to avoid the fiscal cliff? As the affirmative related about the next election, in two years:

We have 250 Catholic colleges and universities and 26 law schools, combined, graduating 70,000 students each year. We cannot find one to run for public office? Are our universities failing that badly? Lawyers are present who complain they cannot find true pro-life candidates. If you cannot find the solution in the world, the solution is in the mirror. You are the solution you are looking for. God demands, “Get busy!” Should a true pro-life candidate run, voting for them is Catholic Action/faithful discipleship.

 

Answering Tough Questions & Mr. Holland’s Opus relate to our trying times part 2


In the Answering Tough Questions debate of 7 November of this year at our Cathedral in Reno Nevada, one analogy seemed to have credence between both sides. The example was of a baseball game. Seventeen kids want to play baseball but have no ball, bat, gloves, or other tools required to play the game of baseball. Then an eighteenth child climbs the fence from the gated community nearby. He has all the balls, bats, gloves, and related materials to play the game. The game begins.

As often happens amongst children, the eighteenth child decides to dictate the rules to his advantage. Although he is not a good pitcher, he decrees that he be in the glory position, pitcher. He decrees the strike zone to be wide when he is pitching and narrow when he is batting. When a player on his team catches the ball, it can be on the first hop to create an out. When the other team is batting, the player must catch the ball while standing, and not on the first hop.

The questions presented by the affirmative speaker were: (1) who owns ball, bat, gloves…? (2) Who owns the game? (3) If you should be the uncle of the rich child and see this travesty, what would you do? We all agreed, the rich child owns the equipment to play the game, but all the players own the game. The vocabulary was slightly different, but all agreed that all came to the game with skill sets and for getting something out of the game. One conservative was so steeped in Thomistic thinking, he insisted the goal was virtue. So much for academics, we are talking about baseball and the game of life and business.

In the debate, the affirmative speaker presented very disturbing figures:

Before 1981, the percentage of income going to the poorest 50% of the population was between 25% and 27% of all income. The percentage earned by the top 5% was steady at between 14% and 17%. When conservatives were in control of the White House, unemployment was slightly higher, between 4% and 7%. When liberals ruled, the rate lowered a bit to 3%.

Something radically changed after 1981, and it is directly attributable to Kemp/Roth, and the changes to the tax code afterward. Unemployment shot up; many economists now say the unemployment rate we took for granted under Truman and in the late ‘60s is impossible. The US changed from being the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. We had plenty of funds for the war on poverty until ’81. After 32 years, we are now broke. We can no longer fund the programs we took for granted a third century ago.

The conservatives argued they are not libertarians so do not want to be clumped among those supporting no government. At the same time, their favorite alleged saint was the very president who foisted this economic policy upon us. The rich child, the one who climbed the fence with balls, bats, gloves and the like insists they own the game, the business they run, so have the right to set the rules to their advantage. As a result, the affirmative speaker presented these facts:

45,000 including 28,000 children in their first year of life die each year from a lack of affordable health care. 2,000 people lose their lives in New Orleans because some do not want to invest in infrastructure. 50 million people live a living death of poverty in food-insecure households while 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth. 30,000 preborn who die each year because of a lack of pre-natal care.

The US already has 5% of the world’s population, 25% of its prison population. At the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, ‘in 11” 146 people died. The Hamlet Chicken Processing Plant Fire was in ‘91, again behind locked doors. Twenty-five people died. In Wisconsin last year, the governor locked his employees inside the State Capital. Two years ago, we had the Deepwater Horizon Disaster; eleven died. Under regulation contributed. The conservative’s desire to under regulate resulted in the Monongah Mine disaster in ‘07. 362 died. The Sago Mine disaster was in ‘06. Twelve died.

One conservative argued that the governor did not intend for his employees to burn in a fire. The fact remains; New York was commemorating the One Hundred Year Commemoration of Triangle Fire while this governor locked his employees inside the building. He knew it could happen and chose to engage in this culture of death anyway.

In May of ’73 another conservative governor, Jim Rhodes sent over tired troops to Kent State University and directed they violate a dozen well-established procedures. Four died and thirteen were seriously injured. Did Jim Rhodes know these students would die? Of course not. Did the conservative celebrate the deaths and brag the students earned it? Yes! One student was a member of the Reserve Officer Training Corps, ROTC, and supported the governor and the war in Vietnam. We can expect the same, should a fire have broken out at the Wisconsin Capital Building. One conservative did complain at the debate, how the conditions were right for a fire.

The conclusion is clear; the conservatives have no legitimate claim to being pro-life. The person arguing for the negative in the debate argued the conservatives are not modernists as Pope Pious X defines the term. Again, if the shoe fits, wear it. Pope Pious X was describing the rich robber barons of his time, the business owners who wanted to define the rules of their corporations to fit their interests. As Uncle Sam, we the people have the moral obligation to correct these wayward children and bring them back into the republic, something the conservatives at the debate oppose.

Answering Tough Questions and Mr. Holland’s Opus relate to our trying times


“Humanae Vitae came forty-four years ago. It is time to get back to our Catholic roots. While we engage in another forty-four years of talking points, God’s children are dying, and God is angry.” So ended the affirmative at the Answering Tough Questions at Our Cathedral this November 7, 2012. Upon returning home, the movie on the tube was Mr. Holland’s Opus, a movie that included the negative impact of Kemp/Roth, along with the tax and budget mania of the ‘80s, the turn of the century and the conservative push for the same in present time.

It is sad to report, but given the choice of a penitential look at the past 32 years and asking the role they might have played in the poverty and suffering coming from the events of those years, and sticking with their current agenda, they chose their current agenda. The affirmative’s point was very clear; each side, right and left, engages in its talking points. Their side is not serious about a solution. Talking points is so much easier.

The US Department of Census Reports on the number of abortions each year, and it reports the rate went up or remained steady from 1974 until the Presidency of Bill Clinton. After that time, it has declined every year, regardless of who the president was. 86.2% of all abortions are performed on women earning less than $60,000 per year. 48.2% are performed on women earning less than $30,000 per year.

Abortion rates are clearly tied to poverty. That means any meaningful attack on the abortion rates to bring them down to the Catholic and Christian ideal of zero, must include an attack on poverty. The conservatives made it clear that for them the only acceptable issues are what they call the Five Non-negotiable Issues, of which abortion is one. Poverty is not one of those issues. That means, even though an attack on poverty is required to bring down the abortion rates, they are not willing to attack poverty. George Gallup reports on his website:

The percentage of Americans identifying as Roman Catholic has stayed within a range between 20% and 30% over the last 60 years. Catholics were 22% of the U.S. adult population in 1948. That percentage rose reaching its high point in the 1970s, when the U.S. population was nearly 30% Catholic. In the last several years, Gallup’s estimate has been Catholic 22% to 23%.”

The conservatives choose to blame the decline on church identification upon the so-called liberal interpretation of Vatican II. Vatican II opened on 11 October 1962 and closed on 8 December 1965. Clearly, the Second Vatican Council did not cause the decline in church identification, neither did Humanae Vitae or other papal encyclicals. Properly interpreted, these documents support social justice and this brings non-Catholics into the church.

CNN ran an article on the church’s decline, and four of their top seven reasons for Catholics leaving the church do tie to conservative politics. These included the church stance on homosexuality (2), Perception church hierarchy is too closely tied to conservative politics (5), Church’s stance toward divorced and remarried Catholics (6), the status of women (7).

Jesus does have clear statements about divorce and the affirmative speaker did make very clear how the church’s teaching does not change. The church also has very clear teaching about homosexual behavior.

Look at the context of at least one of those passages, Romans 1:17 through chapter 2. This passage breaks into two parts. In the first part, St. Paul plays the role of the revivalist minister. They do this; they do that; they do the other thing; they know better, so they earn their way to perdition. That is the Romans 1 section. Romans 2:1 begins a new section to the same passage. “You are without excuse, each of you passing judgment. By the standard you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.” The rest of the passage excoriates the Romans and us for judging others before we look at ourselves. That is what the rest of Romans is about.

In the debate the affirmative showed election results, also from CNN, showing how the marginalized and the poor, put off by the conservative diatribes, went on to form their own, home based churches. They are now separated from the Eucharist and the Catholic faith. These are the people who voted for the liberals in the past election. As a result, we now have the second two term liberal president in a row, who supports everything our church opposes, but he does support pro-life for them.

As the affirmative pointed out, the solution is not changing Catholic Social Doctrine. The word of God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The solution does include how we package that faith. The affirmative in the debate related from Psalms 72 and 82, along with the liturgy of the hours, how we need to promote life, as life lived in the image of God for all people.

If we promote life, life lived to its fullest, as our focus, if we promote Vatican II, we can bring these people we chased away back into the church and eliminate the ills we as Catholics, conservative and liberal, so much detest. Until then, conservatives will argue against abortion, while they promote it with their economic programs, and liberals will argue against intrusion in their lives, while they promote that intrusion with their wayward lives. Look forward to 44 more years of the same.