January 2006 – Page 3

The Ordo Salutis

A reader writes:

I’m Catholic and have regularly been invited to join a dozen or so Reformed Calvinists for theological discussions while enjoying cigars. The next time we meet the guys want to talk about the Ordo Salutus (the order of salvation). In Calvinism it’s the call, regeneration, justification, adoption, and sanctification – all occur in that specific order. I don’t see anything so neat and tidy in the catechism about such, and I’m not certain if Augustine or Acquinas ever addressed this. I hate to attend the next meeting without a cogent way of explaining the Catholic view. Any ideas?

The Ordo Salutis is a big deal in Calvinist theology. It’s kind of one of their theological calling cards, and they devote a lot of energy to it. That’s the reason that you don’t find something equivalent in the Catechism. Other groups of Christians also don’t focus specifically on tihs concept the way Calvinists do.

For those who may not be aware, the Ordo Salutis (Latin, "the order of salvaion") is a set of stages through which each individual is held to pass on the way to heaven. The order of these stages is fixed and the same for everyone in the Calvinist view, beginning with God’s eternal election of an individual (before he even exists) and ending with his glorifcation in heaven.

Different Calvinists include different steps in the Ordo Salutis, and they debate the details of which steps precede which. They also construct what they perceive to be alternative understandings of the Ordo Salutis based on the theologies of other groups of Chrisitans. They then set about critiquing these alternative orderings. (At your next discussion you may be presented with a "Catholic Ordo Salutis" that they have constructed and want to critique.)

Here is a typical listing of the Ordo Salutis from a Calvinist perspective:

election
predestination
outward call through hearing the gospel
inward call to respond to the gospel through God’s grace
regeneration
conversion (faith & repentance)
justification
sanctification
glorification

Calvinists stress that these stages are not all separated in time. They represent the logical order of what happens in salvation but not always the chronological order. For exmaple, justification and sanctification are held to happen at the same moment in time, but–according to Calvinists–justification is logically distinct from and prior to sanctification.

To back up their understandings of the Ordo Salutis, Calvinists appeal to various biblical texts–usually in Paul.

SEE HERE FOR MORE INFO.

ALSO HERE, ESP. FOR BIBLICAL PASSAGES.

From a Catholic perspective there are several difficulties with the typical Calvinist articulation of the Ordo Salutis.

One that I would point out–though I don’t know that all Catholics would point this out–is that Calvinists frequently press biblical language beyond its limits in trying to come up with a precise Ordo Salutis. Specifically: They assume that the biblical authors are using the relevant terms in univocal senses. That means: They assume that the biblical authors use the same words in the same way all the time, so whenever Paul talks about "justification" in a discussion of salvation he always has to mean the same thing by it, and it is necessarily distinct from–for example–sanctification.

This is a problem because Paul’s language is a lot more complex than that. See the early chapters of my book The Salvation Controversy for a bunch of illustrations. (One to have in your hip pocket for the discussion is the fact that in Romans 6:7 Paul clearly uses the word "justify" in a way that overlaps with "sanctify." What he literally says in Greek in this passage is "He who has died has been justified from sin" but the context is so obviously sanctificational that most translations–even Protestant ones–will render this something like "He who has died has been freed from sin.")

This problem goes to the theological-exegetical method of Calvinists.

The next problem goes to a particular feature of Calvinist theology: Their understanding of regeneration. Calvinists conceive of regeneration as a work of God whereby God makes the person capable of responding to him in faith. Regeneration thus precedes faith, which precedes justification.

Unfortunately, they are just wrong on this one. Regeneration is an impartation of divine life that normatively happens in baptism and baptism (in the case of adults) follows faith. The paradigm for adult believers would thus be: God’s iniative of grace enabling one to respond in faith > faith > baptism > regeneration.

Expect John 3:3-5 to be a central text in debates with Calvinists concerning regeneration. See the stuff from the Fathers Know Best section of the library at Catholic.com to show patristic disagreement (which is unanimous) with the Calvinist understanding of regeneration.

It would be possible to construct a Catholic understanding of the Ordo Salutis. Unfortunately, I don’t have the leisure at the moment to do the heavy lifting needed to do a detailed Catholic articulation, but the core elements of one (for adults) might look like this:

God’s initiative of grace enabling an individual to respond to his call.
Conversion (faith and repentance)
Baptism
Regeneration/Justification/Sanctification
Glorification in heaven.

When you start wanting to get into more detail than that, though, problems arise.

First, you’ll notice that I have listed regeneration, justification, and sanctification on the same line. That is because God normally does all of these at once in time (which Calvinists will admit in the case of justification and sanctification). I don’t know that one can establish any of them as being logically prior to the others.

Second, between steps four and five there are things that happen, and they do not all happen in the same order. These include things like falling from grace and being restored to it. They also include growth in justification (a concept wholly absent from Calvinist though), and purification in purgatory for some but not necessarily all people.

Third, you’ll note that I don’t have anything prior to step one like election or predestination. This is because the Catholic Church has not mandated a single view of these matters and permits considerably more flexibility than Calvinism does. Thomas Aquinas put election prior to predestination (and love prior to election), but that’s a matter of theological opinion, not something that the Magisterium mandates.

Then you’d have to build in ways of handling the situation of infants who are baptized and baptism of desire situations and baptism of implicit desire, and you see how complex this is all gettting.

We’re now hitting the reason why Catholics (and other non-Calvinist Christians) don’t generally go in for detailed articulations of the Ordo Salutis.

God just doesn’t have a fixed order of how he applies salvation to people. Even if you assign fixed meanings to terms like "election" (and it’s not AT ALL clear that Scripture uses this term the same way in every case), God just gives some people graces at different stages than he gives others.

What you can do is describe, within limits, how God normally does it in the archtypal case, but there just isn’t a "one size fits all" paradim for this in Scripture. Calvinists are wrong to think that there is, and they fail to do justice to the complexity of biblical language and the biblical text when they assume there is.

This is why many non-Calvinist Protestants accuse Calvinists of logic chopping the biblical text on these points.

Now: If you try to explain all this, you’re likely to meet with some stock responses, such as how complex the Catholic Church makes things. There are a number of responses to this, including:

Excuse me, but your proposed Ordo Salutis is looking rather complex to me already.
Indeed, it’s more complex than it appears, since you have to have an alternate Ordo Salutis to cover the case of elect infants who die before reaching the age of reason.
And the existence of debate even in Calvinist circles about the precise sequencing of some steps shows that not every question is settled in your own movement and that different Scriptures can be brought forward to argue different positions.
Trying to work out a detailed schema of salvation inevitably is going to result in complexity because of the mysteriousness of searching out God’s ways, which is another way of saying
I didn’t make it complex. God did. You’re just not wanting to recognize the true scope of the mystery of God’s action as Scripture presents it to us, and
Despite the complexity of a detailed account, the core message of salvation can be boiled down into a very simple form: "Repent, believe, and be baptized." (And, if you need to add: "If you fall into mortal sin then repent, believe, and go to confession.")
The Catholic articulation of these matters can thus be presented in very simple, practical form that even a child can understand or it can be presented in all the enormous theological depth needed to satisfy a theologian.
If you’re having trouble keeping up with the latter, Friend Calvinist, I’ll talk slower to make it easier for you.

Hope this helps!

Dante, B16, And B15

In a speech yesterday B16 revealed that one of the influences on his first encyclical was the vision of love expressed in Dante’s Divine Commedy.

In the speech he also comments on what he was trying to express in the encyclical, and he warns people away from certain false interpretations of it.

GET THE SPEECH.

As interesting as it is that Dante would be an influence on this encyclical, it isn’t the first time that’s happened. Nor will it even be the most pronounced influence Dante has had on an encyclical. In fact,

B16’S PREDECESSOR B15 DEVOTED A WHOLE ENYCLICAL JUST TO DANTE!

I’ll be keen to see whether he actually quotes Dante in the encyclial, as he did in the speech.

We’ll know the answer to that question when the encyclical is released . . . just a few hours from now!

YEE-HAW!

Media Note

I’m supposed to be on Relevant Radio at about 11:40 a.m. Pacific (2:40 p.m. Eastern) to talk about the Michael Schiavo situation.

LISTEN UP.

Eternal Berlin

Adolf Hitler, who according to popular myth had Pope Pius XII on his payroll, [heavy sarcasm]loved the Catholic Church and "his pope" so much[/heavy sarcasm] that he wanted to build a new St. Peter’s Basilica in Berlin and had chief architect Albert Speer working up plans for the project:

"Speer built a scale model of how he planned to recreate the columns of St Peter’s Square, which encircle the piazza in front of the Basilica.

"The Moscow museum’s director, David Sarkisian, told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘The plan was for the new Berlin to be ready in 1950 after Nazi Germany had defeated the Allies.

"’Hitler would declare Germany the ruler of a world empire and at the centre of its capital Berlin was to be a recreation of St Peter’s Square in the Vatican.

"’Speer’s plans included the columns from the square and at the centre instead of a fountain as in Rome there would be a huge statue of Benito Mussolini.

"’Hitler considered the Eternal City [Rome] to be the only city in the world to rival Berlin so he wanted to better it in every way possible.’ Speer’s documents show that Hitler took a great interest in the plans and was delighted with the architect’s model."

GET THE STORY.

As a side note, for those interested in a thorough refutation of the Catholic urban legend that Pius XII was "Hitler’s Pope," I highly recommend Rabbi David G. Dalin’s The Myth of Hitler’s Pope.

GET THE BOOK.

Meeting Jesus For The First Time

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy,
You’re the only one I know who can answer this question:
In last week’s Gospel from John we read:

35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples,
36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God."
37 The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38 Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means Teacher), "where are you staying?"
39 He said to them,"Come, and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon.
40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.

But this week, we read from Mark:

14 After John had been arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God:
15 "This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
16 As he passed by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea; they were fishermen.
17 Jesus said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men."
18 Then they abandoned their nets and followed him.
19 He walked along a little farther and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They too were in a boat mending their nets.
20 Then he called them.

So: were the first disciples called before, or after, John’s arrest? Were the disciples with John at the time, or were they fishing? (Could it be that John the Evangelist is compressing time in verses 36-38?)

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here. First, the Gospels are not complete accounts of what Jesus said and did. This is something that (a) obvious from how short they are and (b) John is explicit about the point (John 21:24-25).

Second, the Gospels–like ancient books of history in general–are MUCH more flexible about chronology than modern ones are. Often ancient writers would arrange events topically rather than chronologically. SEE HERE FOR MORE INFO.

What we seem to have in this case is a statement by John about how certain apostles first met Jesus and a statement by Mark about how he formally called them to his service full-time.

I know that I wouldn’t be inclined to drop everything and follow someone full-time if I’d only just met him, even if he was held by friends of mine to be a prophet. That kind of commitment is only likely to develop over time, after you’ve known someone and gotten to trust him. It’s a significant decision that one doesn’t make on the spur of the moment.

Since this is how human relationships normally work, it’s most naturally assumed by the Gospels.

You’ll note that John doesn’t say (and neither does Mark, for that matter) that the disciples in question started following Jesus full-time. John only says that they followed him to see where he was staying that day. John even mentions that it was toward evening (about four in the afternoon). Andrew then introduces Peter to Jesus the next day (immediately after the part of John 1 that you quoted).

So the likely chronology is:

Andrew and another disciple of John the Baptist meet Jesus for the first time and follows him to where he is staying.
Andrew introduces Peter to Jesus for the first time. Andrew and Peter may or may not have been working as fishermen at this time, though Andrew was clearly a disciple of John the Baptist.
John gets arrested.
Jesus calls Andrew and Peter (together with James and John) to be disciples on a more stable and possibly a full-time basis. Andrew and Peter were both clearly working as fishermen at this time and left their profession here or soon afterwards to follow Jesus as full-time disciples.

Catholic Bumper Stickers

Have you ever seen cars with Christian outreach bumper stickers that say things like "Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven"? (Here’s one site that sells such stickers.) I’ve often thought I should keep some copies of Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth handy in my car to tuck under the windshield wiper of cars that sport such stickers. I’ve also thought there’d be a good market among Catholics for Catholic riffs on the standard Christian evangelism stickers. If anyone decides to print some up, here are my contributions to get them started:

"No Mary, no peace. Know Mary, know peace!"
"Christians aren’t perfect. Yet."
"If you died today, would you be in purgatory tomorrow?"
"Real men love Mary."
"’Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’ –Luke 1:43"
"Your life may be the only church your friends ever attend."

Please add your contributions to the combox.

Michael Schiavo Kills Wife Then Marries Mistress In Catholic Church

Terri Schiavo’s husband, Michael, has married his long-time live-in mistress.

In a Catholic church.

This is extremely problematic for the obvious reason: namely, that the Church seems to be putting its blessing on the marriage of a man who killed his wife in order to marry his mistress.

There ought to be a law against that kind of thing.

And in fact, there is.

Canon law specifically provides an impediment to prevent exactly this thing. It’s known as the impediment of crimen (Latin, "crime"). If you bring about the death of your spouse with a view to marrying another person and then you attempt marriage, the impediment of crimen makes that new marriage automatically invalid.

The Code of Canon Law provides the following:

Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.

§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.

Further, only the pope can dispense from the impediment of crimen.

Now, when Michael Schiavo and his long-time mistress (with whom he has had children while his wife was in the hospital) applied to be married in a Catholic church in Safety Harbor, Florida then either the pastor took steps to contact Pope Benedict and have the impediment of crimen dispensed–and B16 did that (fat chance!)–or the pastor authorized an invalid union under Church auspices between Michael Schiavo and his mistress, Jodi Centonze.

Either way, this must be clarified. If the pope dispensed from crimen in this case then, given the gravely scandalous nature of this union, the fact of the dispensation must become public or, to mitigate the grave scandal done by the invalid union, the competent ecclesiastical officials must make clear that the union was invalid and that the Church’s law prohibits precisely this kind of thing.

You may be thinking, "Well, there’s not a lot that could be done at this point, is there?"

And you’d be wrong. There is a canon law procedure for handling this situation.

CANONIST ED PETERS HAS THE STORY.

This situation is simply so outrageous that action must be taken by the competent Church authorities.

First, if a dispensation from crimen was not granted by the pope (as is overwhelmingly likely) then the parties are in an invalid union and they need to be made aware of this fact.

Second, members of the general public who are scandalized (in the popular sense) by the spectacle of the Catholic Church putting its blessing on a kill-your-wife-to-marry-your-mistress marriage must be given the message that the Catholic Church really takes seriously the culture of life and will not put its blessing on this kind of murderous immorality.

Just imagine what many non-Catholics must be thinking at this very moment: "I don’t see how the Catholic Church really believes in a culture of life if it’s willing to marry people who have killed their spouses in order to marry their mistresses. All its talk about protecting human life is just talk. They don’t really mean it. When push comes to shove, they’re totally happy uniting wife-killers and their mistresses in the bonds of holy wedlock."

Third, members of the Catholic Church need to have a cause of scandal (in the technical sense) removed. As medicine is now able to dramatically prolong life, many more Catholics will find themselves in the same situation as Michael Schiavo: Their spouse will be unable to advance their own interests for medical reasons, they will have power of attorney for their spouse, they will meet someone who they would like to marry, and then they will be tempted to use that power of attorney to bring about the death of their spouse "with a view to entering marriage with a certain person."

In other words, the Church must clarify this situation in order to avoid more disabled spouses in hospitals getting euthanatized so that the non-disabled spouses can get married to someone they have their eye on.

Lives really are at stake here.

If the competent ecclesiastical officials (possibly involving those in Rome) do not clarify this situation then people will die.

Those wishing to contact relevant individuals to request a public clarification of the matter may contact:

Rev. Stephen Dambrauskas, JCL
Promoter of Justice
Diocese of St. Petersburg
905 South Prospect Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756-4039

Phone: UPDATE: 727-344-1611 Also: 727-446-2326 / 442-8884
Fax: 727-446-4287
E-Mail: tribsp@tampabay.rr.com

They may also contact:

His Excellency Pietro Sambi
Apostolic Nuncio
3339 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20008

Telephone: (202) 333-7121
Fax: (202) 337-4036

Diaconate W/Protestant Spouse?

A reader writes:

I have a couple of important questions and hopefully you are the person to answer them.

I was baptized Catholic at birth and later confirmed. I have only been married once.

First, can I even contemplate entering the Diaconate program if my wife is not Catholic (she is a baptized protestant)? My wife attends Mass with me regularly, but does not receive communion, in respect to our church’s teachings.

Second, if my wife went through RCIA and became a Catholic, how long would she have to be a Catholic before I could be considered for the Diaconate program?

The fact that your wife is Protestant does not appear to create a canonical barrier to ordination to the permanent diaconate. The relevant canon simply reads:

Can. 1031 §2. A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is not married is not to be admitted to the diaconate until after completing at least the twenty-fifth year of age; one who is married, not until after completing at least the thirty-fifth year of age and with the consent of his wife.

There is nothing in there (nor does a check of parallel legal sources and commentary) requiring the spouse to be Catholic.

But there should be.

(NOTE: The last sentence signals that we are moving from canon law to theological opinion.)

St. Paul is very clear about the fact that Christ’s ministers–including deacons–need to have religious solidarity with their family. In 1 Timothy 3, he writes:

[8] Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain;
[9] they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
[10] And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.
[11] The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.
[12] Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;
[13] for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You’ll notice the reference to "The women" in verse 11. As a linguistic matter, the Greek here is ambiguous. The Greek text simply refers to gunaikas, which could be translated either "women" or "wives" since in Greek the word for "woman" and the word for "wife" are the same (gune–pronounced "gu-nay").

Advocates of women’s ordination have pounced on this verse to argue that there were sacramentally ordained female deacons in the early Church, but subsequent Christian tradition has made it clear that this was not the case. Only a baptized male can be validly ordained.

This indicates that the correct reading of gune should be "wife" rather than "woman." The passage should be understood to mean:

Wives likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.

The structure of the passage also indicates this. Paul has just been discussing the requirements for deacons who are male in verses 8-10 and he is clearly discussing the requirements for male deacons in 12-13. It is much more likely that in verse 11 Paul is stating a further requirement for male deacons (i.e., that they have wives of a certain character) than that he is swerving wildly to mention in passing a whole different group of people (female deacons) about whose requirements for ordination he is silent.

Further, we already know that Paul has the "wife" meaning of gune in mind in this passage because in the very next verse (v. 12) it unambiguously means "wife."

If we take this as established then what does the passage say regarding the qualifications a prospective deacon’s wife must have? Among other things, that she be "faithful in all things."

What Paul means by this is somewhat ambiguous. He may mean a number of things. But I find it difficult to envision Paul regarding a prospective deacon’s wife as "faithful in all things" if she did not share the fullness of the Christian faith. If she rejected certain elements of the faith of Christ then I don’t think Paul would regard her as fitting this description.

Paul clearly consider the religious affiliation of family members important. In Titus 1:6 Paul is discussing the qualifications for office of a bishop (which term seems to have been used equivalently with presbyter in Paul’s day) and he says that one of the qualifications for ordinatoin is that "his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate."

So the children of a prospective bishop/presbyter must be believers in order for him to be qualified for ordination. This means that the religious affiliation of immediate family members are relevant for prospective ministers, and this provides part of the context for Paul’s statement that a deacon’s wife must be "faithful in all things."

This is something I recognized back when I was Protestant and married to a Catholic. I wanted–deeply–to enter the Protestant ministry as a pastor or seminary professor, but I recognized that the New Testament requires ministers to have religious solidarity with their families and, even though I’m sure that I could have found someone who would be willing to ordain me even though I had a Catholic wife, I refused in conscience to seek that.

I was willing to give up my prospective career–the only thing I wanted to do in life–rather than violate this requirement. This was an ENORMOUSLY painful thing for me, but I was planning to go into law or go back to philosophy instead.

I also thank God that he hid from me the fact that I might be able to do ministry as a Catholic so that I was not tempted to convert for the wrong reasons.

It seems quite clear to me, then, that this is a principle that needs to be honored. The immediate family members of a prospective clergyman (priest or deacon) need to share the fullness of the Christian faith, which means that they need to be Catholic.

Canon law may not require this, but in my opinion sound pastoral practice does. I understand allowing mixed marriages as a concession for the laity, but Christ’s ministers are to be held to a higher standard.

Whether your local bishop (the man who would be ordaining you to the diaconate) would agree with this, I could not say.

In regard to the second question, since even having a non-Catholic wife is not a canonical barrier to ordination there is correspondingly no canonical waiting period before ordination should she become Catholic.

The ideal thing, of course, would be for her to become Catholic, and it certainly is not inappropriate for you to invite her to consider this BUT–AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT–you cannot pressure her to become Catholic so that you can pursue the diaconate. The Catholic faith must be accepted freely, without coercion or emotional manipulation on the part of a spouse.

So I would encourage you to entrust this situation to God in prayer. Your desire to serve Christ is praiseworthy, and you are not canonically constrained from pursuing ordination to the diaconate, but there are serious pastoral issues connected with your life situation that may weigh against this. You should think about all this and pray about it and seek the counsel of additional people, including the vocations director of your diocese, who can guide you further regarding the particular requirements for ordination that your local bishop employs.

The situation may be messy and complex, but that’s the kind of situation that God specializes in.

Hope this helps.

The Beatles Just Got Back Together!

No, really!

They’ve just released a new album and will be performing live in four different U.S. cities as part of a reunion tour!

Even though John and George are dead!

Oh, wait.

No, it’s not the Beatles that have just done that. It’s the St. Louis Jesuits.

The who?

No, not The Who. The St. Louis Jesuits–a group of "musicians" who in the mind of some people apparently have the same status in liturgical music that the Beatles do in actual music.

The Catholic News Service writes:

The St. Louis Jesuits, liturgical music icons from the 1970s, are back together and have released their first album in more than 20 years.

"Morning Light" is the seventh recording for the St. Louis Jesuits — Dan Schutte and Jesuit Fathers Bob Dufford, John Foley and Roc O’Connor — who were known for such songs as "Blest Be the Lord," "Lift Up Your Hearts" and "Sing a New Song."

In the mid 1980s, various assignments moved the men to different parts of the country, and Schutte left the Society of Jesus.

Since that time, all four have released successful solo CDs.

The four met up in 2001 at the 25th anniversary celebration of the National Association of Pastoral Musicians in Washington, where they sang Schutte’s "City of God." It was the first time in 17 years that they had performed together live.

Tim Manion, one of the original St. Louis Jesuits, joined with the four to sing for some of the recordings. Father Dufford and Schutte hadn’t seen him in 21 years and Father O’Connor hadn’t seen him in eight.

Fans of the St. Louis Jesuits’ music will find comfort in the songs on "Morning Light" as its sound is much the same as their earlier sound.

In the spring, Fathers O’Connor, Foley and Dufford and Schutte will do four live performances in Washington, St. Louis, Chicago and Anaheim, Calif. The group hasn’t done any public performances together in nearly 20 years.

"It’s our little reunion tour," Schutte said.

Setting aside the (intentional?) religious/secular pun of calling these individuals "liturgical music icons," the whole "rock star" paradigm that governs this article and how these malefactors are perceived speaks volumes about the current rot that passes for liturgical music.

GET THE STORY.

JOIN THE RESISTANCE.

PEEP THIS, TOO.