Pope Francis is destroying the Catholic Church

Do we need a new pope?

  • YES - like yesterday!

    Votes: 235 90.7%
  • NO - he's alright.

    Votes: 24 9.3%

  • Total voters
    259
  • Poll closed .

Elipe

Woodpecker
10[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,* but only those to whom that is granted.
12Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Matthew Ch. 19


32I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [...]
38So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better. 1 Corinthians Ch. 7

The tradition of celibate priests is very important to allow for the utmost importance of shepherding his spiritual family. If he has a biological family, his time and attention is divided (priests must be available all the time for things like giving Last Rites). With a wife and children he must choose between fulfilling his duty as priest, and being a present and supporting father (does he choose to spend more time preparing his homily for Sunday or go catch his son's baseball game?). Also, when Christian persecution happens, priests are to lead by example by giving their lives and continuing their faith without fear. That is infinitely easier to do without familial bonds. Homosexuality occurs due to sexual abuse, lack of a father, or a decedent culture that facilitates unrestrained lust. Jesus, the Saints, Tesla, etc. were all made stronger by choosing to be celibate. Choosing that path does not give rise to homosexual feelings unless you never mastered your lust in the first place, in which case you have no business thinking about the priesthood anyways.

And I counter with:
1 Timothy 3:1-13 said:
Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
and
Titus 1:5-9 said:
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
I've bolded the more relevant parts of those passages.

Being married and with children teaches you stewardship like nothing else does. Church leaders are supposed to be stewards, not missionaries. The leaders send the missionaries, and the duty of a missionary is to be itinerant, which is good and proper for unmarried men whom are fully dedicated to the spread of the Lord's Word. But priests, who are clearly in the duty of being church stewards, function best when they put down good, strong, long roots in their communities so that they may manage it as a spiritual steward. This is why you call them Fathers, is it not - so that they are like a spiritual father of a household?

On the question of priestly duties vs familial duties, one certainly hopes that a Christian society would structure itself around maintaining schedules that permit a priest to manage both the affairs of his family and the affairs of his church. Why do you suggest that this is a problem for priests when it's absolutely never a problem for the vast majority of male occupations? Even the office beta that gets called in at 3 AM to rescue the production server from a catastrophic crash finds ways to make time for his children, and this is in a society that is openly hostile to childrearing! If a society of anti-natalists can make it work for their children, why wouldn't a Christian church?

What you are teaching with respect to celibacy is unbiblical because you are applying it to the wrong people. It is not priests that should be celibate, but monks and missionaries, men of the fringes. Many are called, but few are chosen. It is better to be the few that have the gift to sustain celibacy, because their faith is all the stronger for it, but they should not be made stewards over others, because they themselves have no experience or proof of headship.

Paul's own words in the verses I quoted above even stated that these requirements were made in order to ensure that the Church would not fall into scandal.

You disregard those words at your own risk.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
Why do you suggest that this is a problem for priests when it's absolutely never a problem for the vast majority of male occupations? Even the office beta that gets called in at 3 AM to rescue the production server from a catastrophic crash finds ways to make time for his children, and this is in a society that is openly hostile to childrearing! If a society of anti-natalists can make it work for their children, why wouldn't a Christian church?

Obvious answer : it's not working. Perhaps you can point out a few lucky exceptions, but our times are not renowned for producing healthy environments for children or stable families. Even Hollywood movies or TV series (which have so much propaganda and lies in them) cannot help correctly portraying families as hindered by today's organization of work.

To claim that being a wage slave in a capitalist system helps you fulfill your role in the family is delusional. At best, you can minimize the damage.
 

Elipe

Woodpecker
Obvious answer : it's not working. Perhaps you can point out a few lucky exceptions, but our times are not renowned for producing healthy environments for children or stable families. Even Hollywood movies or TV series (which have so much propaganda and lies in them) cannot help correctly portraying families as hindered by today's organization of work.

To claim that being a wage slave in a capitalist system helps you fulfill your role in the family is delusional. At best, you can minimize the damage.
I didn't say being a wage slave helps you fulfill your role in the family, I said that people still make it work, and based on the ratio of sane to insane people, it mostly works out. Obviously, being a married priest with family brings extra stresses on top of fulfilling your role as a married father, but it's no more or less stressing than the typical office beta father and husband, who still on average produces decent, well-adjusted members of society.

What "doesn't work" is broken families with divorced parents, absent fathers, and a ruling caste of pedophiles that are going absolutely out of their ways to spread degeneracy to kids. Having to work the 8 - 5 grind isn't why people's kids turn rotten.
 
@AnonymousBosch, I don't agree with your take on the Pope and Taylor Marshall, but I think you make a good point about the power of the media we consume to pervert our minds, and the general lack of care we give to our media consumption. I've been thinking about this myself, though not from a perspective as theologically informed as you. I've had Fr Ripperger's videos on my to-watch list for a while, but you've motivated me to start listening to them.
I’m well aware. It’s well documented that child abuse creates homosexuals.
Hence the saying homosexuals reproduce through child abuse.
Can’t remember which Marxist said it but it went along the lines of to destroy facism we must sexualise the children.

Anyway. Marriage for priests was allowed until about 800 years ago in the western Catholic Church and was still allowed in the east. It’s not a new precedent and it would attract a lot more younger clergy.
The idea is that if you're Catholic and a homosexual, the priesthood is likely to be a relatively more appealing vocation compared to marriage than for a heterosexual, since if you're homosexual and were married to a woman, you'd be married to someone to whom you're not sexually attracted. So, there will be disproportionately many homosexual priests. If you allow married men to become priests, you'll get more heterosexual priests who are also likely more traditional.

There's not really great statistical evidence that I know of on the sexual preferences of priests, but some Catholics I've spoken to have said it's not unreasonable that half of priests are homosexual, at least by their guesses in their diocese. One piece of statistical evidence I found interesting (can't remember the citation) was that from one American diocese where a list of all abuse cases were tabulated, almost all of the abuse was between priests and boys, and 80% of the cases were between priests and boys over the age of 14, which suggests that the underlying problem in that diocese may be active homosexuality to the same or greater extent than child abuse.

In some sense, this proclamation by the Pope in favor of civil unions might backfire. Homosexual priests may leave the priesthood in favor of now Church-approved civil unions, and homosexual men discerning the priesthood may opt for the more appealing civil union.

To be honest, I agree with the Pope's general point that Catholics ought to think carefully about how best to include homosexuals into Christian/family life. It would be a difficult cross to bear to be a gay man who wants to live chastely. I just think that homosexual civil unions are probably inappropriate in the same way that pre-marital heterosexual cohabitation is inappropriate - they both are highly likely to lead to sin.

I'm going to keep it short in regards to celibacy and the Roman Catholic Church...The Roman Catholic Church has had ZERO problems with celibacy since the time it was instituted... The Church has had many, many Saints, Martyrs, those who spread the faith far and wide in this world etc. This was literally never a problem until the 1960s and Vatican II passed...

You are arguing for Priest to have relations with women, ie, get a wife, because your mind is filled with Sexual thoughts from the culture we are in. This is understandable and I am not necessarily calling anyone a COOMER here, but I will say that if you think the solution to todays problem is simply to "let priest marry", I really do not know what to tell you. I have yet to meet anyone irl or online that has stated "Gee, I would really love to be a Priest but that darn celibacy rule has ultimately made me decide not to" IS THAT THE REASON WHY MEN RIGHT NOW ARENT BECOMING PRIEST? OR is it because we live in a degenerate culture, a failing civilization where we are virtually living in a Pagan, Atheist culture, where no one cares for Christianity?

I get it, us normal people cannot imagine living without sex forever...but realize that this was never a problem until after vatican II. It is real ignorant to argue for allowing Roman Catholic priest to marry when that is not the root cause as to WHY no one wants to be a priest. You are completely missing the bigger picture. Again, it is important to realize that the Catholic Church has not had a problem getting young men to be priest until after VII. That should clue people in as to the root cause of the issue.


EMJ weighs in; agrees the Spanish speaking Father whose clip shared earlier in this thread.


RVF has an excellent track record of sniffing out media BS going back years (Media treatment of Trump being the most obvious example, but there are other classics such as mattress girl, Virginia Rolling Stone Mag rape hoax, COVID skeptics thread, etc), but for whatever reason, many here seem to have a blind spot for this when it comes to media coverage of the Pope and perhaps even Catholicism.

All of the MSM outlets that we have spent years calling liars, the "enemy of the people" and triple bracketing come out in unison with a "Wow! Pope approves gay marriage!" narrative and nobody here even double checks! Instead we get multiple pages and necro-bumped threads of dog-piling. Really makes you think. :hmm:

Good point. I will admit, I am guilty of this. Looking at the actually translation, the word "Convivencia" just means co-existing. He never refered to civil unions... We have nothing to worry about in regards to him openly supporting sodomy, but I still am weary about the Jewish-made documentary overall. I just wish the Pope would come out and clarify these things and nip them in bud before they get out of control like it did yesterday.

Strange to me that everyone is ganging up on Orthodoxy now and married priests. I'm sorry you had one bad Orthodox priest but it's ridiculous to attack Orthodoxy based on the supposed masculinity of one particular priest. I'd also like to point out there's plenty of married Catholic priests in the Eastern Rite, and these assessments of married clergy are completely unfair. In Orthodoxy we have both married and unmarried priests. I go to two parishes regularly. One is a large parish with hundreds of Sunday attendees. The other is much smaller, with dozens. The smaller parish has a married priest, and the larger has an unmarried one. This is what these parishes asked for. The unmarried priest has more time to tend to his excessively large church, and the married priest is able to give better advice to married individuals regarding their relationships and their children. Orthodoxy also has a much larger ratio of monastics and priests to laity in the US compared to Catholicism, and that obviously helps the laity.

@FactusIRX why are you bringing up Jay Dyer and a priest on his server? Who cares what that priest's wife did? Stuff happens. I'm glad that priest is evangelizing to younger people and inquirers, especially since Jay's discord channel has gotten hundreds of new inquirers and catechumens in the past three weeks.

No one is ganging up on Orthodoxy. People are merely telling their experience and countering to other users who budge their way in here, arguing for married priest. He brought up Jay Dyer and the priest because it is an example of married priest. Simple.
 

Benedictus

Newbie
@Elipe
I read over the passages you quoted and found that you must be using a Protestant translation. In Catholic Bibles instead of "faithful to his wife" it says that he is only to have one wife, meaning that he has not married more than once. This was allowed so that the faith could grow from the small numbers of Christians at that time, and the fact that many converts already had a wife. This doesn't mean that bishops should have wives (St. Paul instructed it was better to not marry like himself). Unmarried priests have and always will be the highest form shown throughout tradition which follows the example Jesus set.
Why do you suggest that this is a problem for priests when it's absolutely never a problem for the vast majority of male occupations?
It is a constant problem for every father to decide how to divide his time at work and at home. My father is a CEO and an absolute workaholic, but he is a good man. I enjoy the financial benefits but it bothers me that I don't have any memories of us just throwing the football around as a kid. Priests without families don't have to choose. Whatever they do it is in service of their spiritual children. Their work is fatherhood.
 
No, I'm worried about committing the mortal sin of Reviling, as discussed by Universal Doctor of the Church St Thomas Aquinas (ST II-II, q.72) which is against Charity, and, since God is love and has told us to love one another regardless of accidentals, I do my best to do so.



You just called the Pope - God's Chosen Authority on earth to whom we owe honour and respect regardless of Accidentals of his sinful state or not under the Law of Charity - a 'diabolical faggot' (ST II-II, q.72, a.1-2).

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3072.htm

You believe yourself in Just in doing so, but you lost your Justification by doing what you did, meaning, you are now damned to hell under Justice, since Reviling is a mortal sin. The Demons now have legal right to your soul because they successfully manipulated your emotions to move your Will so they could legally entrap you. There are a few mild exceptions to derision, but the End of your action has to not arise from the need for revenge due to the emotion of anger. I'm guessing you read the media, and got angry - which is why your post reads 'Leftist' - which made you believed you then had the right to revile to Pope. Legally, you don't. God has made it very clear in his discussions with the Sainted Mystics of the Church, that Church Authority has to be obeyed regardless of the perceived holiness of the Priests, and their Sacramentals are all valid, for God will not take out their lack of holiness on the Laity who trust Authority. It's in book after book after book on authority: the desired place of the laity by God is docility and obedience.

So far nothing I have read would lead me to condemn the Pope, however, how bad would the Pope need to be to justify reviling him?
 
Spanish speaking Priest plays the clip of Francis' comments and does a line-by-line translation.


Priest says that the Pope has been misinterpreted and has had his words twisted by the media.

"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or made miserable over it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered."

The Priest says that the Pope was saying this in the context of a person being disowned by their family, not in the sense of two adult homosexuals starting a family of their own.

This was my interpretation also upon first reading the article.
 
This was my interpretation also upon first reading the article.


The archbishop of Argentina stated "Convivencia" and "civil union" is the same thing in Argentina, where Pope Francis is from...

It never ends, folks. Pope Francis is a master of ambiguity and he cannot give straight, concise answers

For those who cannot speak spanish, run the article in a translator

First paragraph translated by Google, but I can assure you it is correct:

"Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, Archbishop of La Plata (Argentina) and theological advisor to Pope Francis, implied that for the Holy Father the terms "civil coexistence" and "civil union" are the same legal recognition for "very close unions between people of the same sex ”.

Through his Facebook profile on October 21, Bishop Fernández said that "what the Pope has said on this issue is what he also held when he was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires."


An English article speaking on what the Archbishop above said..

www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-homosexuality-comments-heavily-edited-in-documentary-no-vatican-comment-on-civil-unions

It never ends. Which is why I get AB's point to "not worry" about this and concentrate on your own interior life. To a certain extent that is true, but we simply cannot turn a blind eye to Pope Francis' ambiguity and the Vatican failing to clarify things.
 

Enigma

Hummingbird
Gold Member
The "Oriental Orthodox" and "Coptic Orthodox" split from the entire Church when they refused to accept the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

In the case of the Copts, the split took place specifically within Alexandria, Egypt.

Why is that notable? Because until 444, the Patriarch of Alexandria was St. Cyril, who led the fight against Nestorianism and is considered a saint and doctor of the Roman Catholic church.

Not long before that, it was Saint Athanasius, who led the fight against Arianism and is also a saint and doctor of the RC church.

So, was Alexandria RC or not? If not, at what point between 444 and 451 did it become Eastern Orthodox? And at what point did it change back? And how was it EO when the EO church body supposedly didn't even exist until hundreds of years later?

These are the types of absurd mental gymnastics RCs have to engage in to justify their system. Their claims don't hold up historically, nor do they hold up by today's standards, when Orientals and Copts can't take communion at EO churches but can take communion at RC churches.

Orthodoxy doesn't deny that bishops can fall into heresy. That's why we don't claim any of them are supreme or infallible.

I have a lot of sympathy for the sincere, truth-seeking Roman Catholics who are understandably very troubled by all of these developments. The silver lining is that these issues are becoming more and more obvious every day and allowing people to see things more clearly.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
The archbishop of Argentina stated "Convivencia" and "civil union" is the same thing in Argentina, where Pope Francis is from...
...
My family is from Argentina and I have spent lots of time living there.

"Convivencia" simply means living together. The term is usually applied to couples, but can technically also apply to a group of brothers or friends who live together.

Maybe "convivencia" has another, separate, legal definition that I am unfamiliar with. I am not too familiar with how the laws and courts work over there.
 

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Choosing that path does not give rise to homosexual feelings unless you never mastered your lust in the first place, in which case you have no business thinking about the priesthood anyways.

I don't think the issue is so much that being celibate causes one to have homosexual feelings, but that a profession where men are forbidden from marrying is naturally going to be attractive to homosexuals who come from conservative societies where men are otherwise expected to marry and where homosexuality is not accepted. Ironically, the greater acceptance of LGBTQITIOSDGLKQ(3423%!L in society at large could help reverse this somewhat as there is no longer any real social stigma to being homosexual and so those men will not seek out the priesthood as a cover.
 
I'm going to keep it short in regards to celibacy and the Roman Catholic Church...The Roman Catholic Church has had ZERO problems with celibacy since the time it was instituted...

The truth, in this case, is the exact opposite. When the Gregorian reforms in the 11th demanded that priests to divorce their wives, there was a huge pushback against it. And as soon as clerical marriage was stamped out, clerical concubinage became such a common phenomena that later councils had to repeatedly denounce it. The last Roman Catholic bishop of Iceland, His Grace Jon Arason, was martyred together with his sons by the Lutherans, and his situation was hardly unusual.

Reading Church history through primary sources will usually give a very different take on modern crises than the internet will.
 
My family is from Argentina and I have spent lots of time living there.

"Convivencia" simply means living together. The term is usually applied to couples, but can technically also apply to a group of brothers or friends who live together.

Maybe "convivencia" has another, separate, legal definition that I am unfamiliar with. I am not too familiar with how the laws and courts work over there.

Good info. In checking my previous post, it looks like I forgot to include the Spanish Article. Here it is:

 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
Huh, and once again, it turns out to be hysteria over deliberate manipulation of an interview in the film, where three entire paragraphs are clipped down to three sentences.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ntary-no-vatican-comment-on-civil-union-88210

Whomever could have guess the media takes statements and heavily edits them to present the narrative they've already decided? If only anyone here had experience in observing this pattern again and again and again...

His points on civil unions here are perfectly logical, because it does not necessarily imply sexual activity.

I'm moving on. God bless.
 

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
Isn't it more simple than all of this confusion? Like Kallistos Ware giving interviews to shady people and speaking on questionable topics, especially non-dogmatic ones, Jorge seems to not so infrequently fall into the same traps - yet this is dogmatic. Those of us Orthodox didn't like things like that, for the questionable language, but also for Ware granting the interview. I remember it quite well. While Ware has a sentimental following and is a learned man, the Bishop of Diokleia is not exactly the "Pope" - a big issue for Roman Catholics and others since the RCs claim so much about this figure. We should always be mindful of this fact.
 

Chains of Peter

Woodpecker
No, I'm worried about committing the mortal sin of Reviling, as discussed by Universal Doctor of the Church St Thomas Aquinas (ST II-II, q.72) which is against Charity, and, since God is love and has told us to love one another regardless of accidentals, I do my best to do so.



You just called the Pope - God's Chosen Authority on earth to whom we owe honour and respect regardless of Accidentals of his sinful state or not under the Law of Charity - a 'diabolical faggot' (ST II-II, q.72, a.1-2).

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3072.htm

You believe yourself in Just in doing so, but you lost your Justification by doing what you did, meaning, you are now damned to hell under Justice, since Reviling is a mortal sin. The Demons now have legal right to your soul because they successfully manipulated your emotions to move your Will so they could legally entrap you. There are a few mild exceptions to derision, but the End of your action has to not arise from the need for revenge due to the emotion of anger. I'm guessing you read the media, and got angry - which is why your post reads 'Leftist' - which made you believed you then had the right to revile to Pope. Legally, you don't. God has made it very clear in his discussions with the Sainted Mystics of the Church, that Church Authority has to be obeyed regardless of the perceived holiness of the Priests, and their Sacramentals are all valid, for God will not take out their lack of holiness on the Laity who trust Authority. It's in book after book after book on authority: the desired place of the laity by God is docility and obedience.

According to ST II-II, q.76, a.3, I'm allowed to call you foolish in my correction of you for not knowing this when presenting yourself as a Legal Authority who knows better than the Pope (Objections 1-3) but I have to balance this with Charity and not seek personal satisfaction, which is why I've been training myself to strip emotion of my responses for months now, hence my gradual falling away from the political threads, because even if people think I'm not writing emotionally, they ascribe intention that isn't there. Frankly, I find prudence dictates most of the time on here to simply remain silent.

What Jay Dyer did in his tweet is known as the sin of Derision (ST II, q.75). Functionally, he's committing the same sin as, say Stephen Colbert or Donald Trump does regularly. Legally, he's damned, if his fascination with esoteric knowledge hadn't already done so. Unfortunately, Christians, regardless of denomination, are all falling into this sin, believing themselves to be Just, which is why I stay off social media, and, under Legalism, there are many threads on here that will damn those who take part in them. This is why, when I posted a picture the other week of Protestants pretending the Masonic Washington Monument was the wailing wall, I took care to just note my confusion about trying to make logical sense of the whole situation, rather than intending to simply mock them.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3075.htm

Luckily, all of this is balanced out by Mercy. Show mercy, and mercy will be shown to you. Love one another as I have loved you. Drive the urge to condemn from your heart, and simply lead by example. Say the Pope was in error. Under the Law of Charity, I'm not to 'virtually stone' him for transgression. I would also recognise under authority it is not my place to correct him, which would be the place of those higher up in the Church structure. I keep focused on what I did here: avoiding personal sin believing I'm holy.

Understand: you need to confess this sin before you receive the Eucharist, and, in the spirit of forgiveness, I strongly-encourage you to work on Mortification to get your emotions under control.
What if you're wrong about whether Bergoglio is pope? Has the thought ever remotely crossed your mind?
 

Chains of Peter

Woodpecker
What is the argument for him not being Pope?
The answer lies with BXVI invalidly resigning the Papacy. Popes can and have resigned, but by Canon Law, he must totally resign the office--no more white cassock, no apostolic blessings, no more calling yourself Pope.

Furthermore, a resignation made out of substantial error, fear or simony is invalid--per Canon Law. Arguably Benedict resigned out of two of those three conditions: fear, because the Vatican is corrupt as heck and could have attacked him or his (now deceased) brother, and error in the sense that he attempted to create a bifurcated Papacy in the sense that he would remain a "spiritual" pope while someone else does the pope work.

Any conclave that is held while a valid pope is still living is automatically invalid, so by this line of argumentation, Bergoglio is not Pope.

Ann Barnhardt is the main proponent of the "Benedict is Pope" party. For the longest time I didn't care about the who-is-pope situation but after the Pachamama debacle and banning Easter, I had to seriously take another look. But more serious scholars are taking this matter seriously like Dr. Edmund Mazda. Previously, Fr. Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Center supported it but he has passed away.
 
Top