Last Friday, Steve Skojec reported on the eloquent and piercing response written by the German-speaking professor, Josef Seifert, as published by Professor de Mattei’s website Corrispondenza Romana. It seems that more and more conservative Catholics are taking heart and seeing it necessary to raise their own voices in opposition to the direction in which Pope Francis is now trying to take the Catholic Church.
Now we have learned that another well-known U.S. philosopher and former dean of the School of Philosophy of the Catholic University of America, Jude P. Dougherty, published a similar critique on 1 June in the Catholic newspaper The Wanderer. In the context of the pontificate of Pope Francis, Dougherty chose as the title of his article – “Deliberate Ambiguities” – which already sums up a whole strategic method — namely that of deceit — but by means of intentional equivocations that are much more difficult to criticize. As Dougherty puts it:
Authors and telecasters use it when they are not sure of the facts. Politicians often employ it in creating legislation that subsequently permits freedom of contradictory interpretation by courts, regulators, and prosecutors. Pope Francis, who never speaks clearly, uses it to such an extent that in doctrinal matters what was certain before has become problematic.
With reference to the recent truly piercing revelations by Archbishop Bruno Forte, Dougherty says: “Forte offered the opinion that with the promulgation of Amoris Laetitia, in effect, the reformers in the camp of Walter Cardinal Kasper got what they wanted.”
Encouraged by the courageous and clear statement of the German philosopher, Robert Spaemann, the U.S. philosopher makes clear his own critical view of Pope Francis. He first quotes Spaemann:
Every single cardinal, but also every bishop and priest is called upon to preserve uprightly the Catholic discipline of the sacraments within the realm of his responsibility and to confess it publicly in case the Pope is not ready to make corrections….In the years to come it may take a later Pope to officially make things right.
Dougherty then adds his own critique of Amoris Laetitia, as follows:
Examining the text of Amoris Laetitia we find that footnote 315 calls attention to the fact that in an objective situation of sin it is possible for the miscreant to be subjectively innocent. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
“In order to commit a mortal sin, grave matter is not enough; full knowledge and deliberate consent are also required.”
Here is the dilemma. A confessor may become aware that a penitent has not confessed a sin because he has no idea that it is a sin. If this be the case, the penitent can validly receive absolution. But the confessor is obliged to set matters straight by correcting the malformed conscience and by guiding the penitent through the process of forming a correct conscience. The key question then becomes: “Can this doctrinally well-founded practice be extended to the divorced and remarried?” The answer is “No.” The penitent, once made aware that his conduct is at odds with the teaching of the Church, must refrain from Holy Communion. [emphasis added]
Professor Dougherty here makes clear where the ambiguities of Pope Francis seems to start. He calls it “Pope Francis’ ambiguous teaching on marriage and the family as well as on other matters”; and he stresses that such conduct “has the effect of undermining confidence in the moral authority of the Church.” In defense of Robert Spaemann’s own critique, Dougherty points out that Spaemann speaks in the tradition of the natural law “which he represents and to which the Church herself is accountable.” He continues by clearly explaining the high value of the traditional Church’s moral teaching:
The Church did not invent morality, but over the centuries it has promulgated the highest moral principles known to mankind. Clearly, discipline related to the divinely instituted sacraments is her province. Through the sacraments she has taught and promoted personal moral behavior. That achievement has contributed beyond measure to the creation of Western culture.
With a poignant tone, Dougherty also points out that now, in a time of turmoil, we are even more than ever in need of clear moral teaching: “At a time when Europe is under siege by a militant Islam, the West needs the moral voice of the Church more than ever. Regrettably, at her highest level she seems disengaged, uncertain in the exercise of her traditional authority.” [emphasis added]
The American philosopher then concludes his own terse and trenchant Catholic witness with his objections to a pope who seems to undermine the Church’s core teachings on marriage and the family, and he does it with a forceful call to the laity for their further resistance:
The stakes have never been so high. With mainline Protestants capitulating to the liberal Zeitgeist, the Church alone can teach authoritatively. Proper diagnosis is the first step in the cure of any illness. Perhaps that is subtly underway as lay voices are raised against an uncertain leadership. [emphasis added]
We might be reminded here of our much-cherished Bishop Athanasius Schneider who repeatedly has said in the recent past that “this is the hour for the laity.” Catholic journalist Edward Pentin as also recently published on his Twitter account recently another critique of Amoris Laetitia, including the following words: “The Church’s hierarchy ‘seems to have entered a strange paralysis’; where are the ‘true prophets’?”
In the face of so much reticence or “paralysis among the Church’s hierarchy,” it indeed appears that more and more courageous and well-informed lay voices are now coming forth from thoughtful men such as Professor Jude Dougherty.
Dr. Maike Hickson, born and raised in Germany, studied History and French Literature at the University of Hannover and lived for several years in Switzerland where she wrote her doctoral dissertation. She is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits.
Her articles have appeared in American and European journals such as Catholicism.org, LifeSiteNews, The Wanderer, Culture Wars, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Apropos, and Zeit-Fragen.
Jude Dougherty is an exemplary Catholic. I had the privilege of attending the School of Philosophy at CUA during the end of his period as Dean there. I remember fondly how much more Catholic it was in the Philosophy area than in the Religious Studies and Theology areas. It’s gotten a bit better since the 1990s, but it’s still largely true that if you want clear thinking about these things, you go to philosophers (Spaemann, Dougherty) or historians (De Mattei), not theologians, who have drunk too much of the Kool-Aid.
I don’t wish to be a downer, but weren’t something like a million signatures gathered and given to the Pope recently? I believe the goal was to retract or correct AL, or something like it. I’ve never even heard a mention of it. He can summarily ignore the laity dissenters, dismiss them with a wave of his papal hand and a public criticism about how Pharisaical we are, and that we’re going to Hell for disagreeing with him. Laity are surely important, everybody should be writing letters to their Bishops, but we don’t have the visibility of a Bishop or Cardinal. Even were 10,000 faithful Catholics were to get together and protest, the media would just ignore it, as they do Pro-Life rallies, and it’s as if it never happened.
I could be completely wrong, I often am, but it seems to me it is going to take highly placed Bishops and Cardinals to begin to speak out publicly, using words as pointedly direct as can possibly be uttered.
Many thanks to Professor Dougherty for expressing his concerns. I hope more people are inspired to voice their concerns by his example.
They will take notice of the laity when they stop taking their wallets out for them. There should be a global “giving strike” on the feast of Ss.Peter & Paul. Everybody should drop a note in the collection which says “Not a penny more until you revoke AL”.
Money-changers. Jesus was spot-on, of course! Maybe the laity should make whips and drive them out of their ecclesiastical offices! Justified anger. Justified consequences? Either way, Deacon Augustine, this is the hour of the laity- papal idolators notwithstanding. Perhaps the Angel of Death will rid Christ’s Holy Church of these wolves in sheep’s clothing. If so, I hope all these wayward prelates (Francis included) repent before then. I pray they will.
This is a good idea…except the Protesatholics or Cathotesters would not follow suit and possibly pick up the slack from the generally poorer (just a guess here), large family, single income, home-schooling real Catholics?
What would Peter say if he walked this earth?
I like your idea. What a witness to these two saints who died so that future generations would live in Christ’s Church.
Can we circulate something like this? Can we make such a petition and pass this on to everyone we know?
The only thing you will continue to hear in this time of mass apostasy, is crickets. A few brave priests are speaking up, but bishops, heck no! Most of them are NWO oriented, they love Francis!
“We might be reminded here of our much-cherished Bishop Athanasius Schneider who repeatedly has said in the recent past that “this is the hour for the laity.” ”
Sorry, but this just p*sses me off!!! These men have shirked their responsibilities!! It’s THEIR hour!!! THEIRS!!!!!!!!
“They have abandoned the Fort, those
who should have defended it.” (St. John Fisher)
STOP telling us it’s our “hour”!! WE are the ones writing letters and begging for help from
our Bishops for the last fifty years!
The ONLY Archbishop who didn’t shirk his duties was Archbishop Lefebvre. He spoke up, spoke loudly and directly!! AND he led as well as protected his sheep, the laity!!!
Who held the Fort
Till the Calvary came
Fighting for all
In His Holy Name?
Who fed the sheep
As the pastures burned dry?
A few Good Shepherds
Heeding their cry.
Who led the charge
‘Gainst heresy’s Huns
Defending the degreed
To His lowliest ones?
Who battened down
The hatch of the barque
To warm cold souls
From shivering-seas dark?
“Who?” mocks Satan
Delighting in doubt
Fills you with questions,
Never lets you find out.
“Hoc est enum
and for many…” who kept
The dead words – Te Deum!
It’s the laity’s hour to follow the true shepherds and support them!!!!!!
I take from the good Bishop’s remarks that it is the “laity’s hour” because he understands just how deep and wide the corruption in the hierarchy is…and that it will take us as well as the very few really Catholic bishops to make changes. IDK….but that’s my take.
JPII also made similar remarks about the “laity’s hour” on several occasions.
As to the extent of the depth of corruption in the hierarchy, however, we really should have been alerted to this in 2002. We were told back then that
1) the victims of the clerical abuse crisis were 80%+ post-pubescent males.
2) We were also told in no uncertain terms that “homosexual orientation” did not predispose men to paedophilia any more than “heterosexual orientation” did.
If both of these statements are true, then the only logical deduction to make from them is that, in those countries where these statistics prevail, over 80% of the hierarchy is homosexual. These last two synods would bear out that this is the level of corruption we are faced with – at least in the west. (Remember that over 50% of the bishops voted in favour of the pro-sodomite paragraphs.)
When so many men are so fully compromised with the devil in such a fundamental way, our present predicament is not at all surprising.
It is “our hour”, according to the last permitted public interview of Sr Lucia of Fatima with Fr Fuentes on December 26, 1957:
“… Father, we should not wait for a call to the world from Rome on the part of the Holy Father to do penance. Nor should we wait for a call for penance to come from the
Bishops in our Dioceses, nor from our Religious Congregations. No, Our Lord has often used these means, and the world has not paid heed. So, now each one of us must begin to reform himself spiritually. Each one has to save not only his own soul, but also all the souls that God has placed on his pathway….”
Full Text from the original Spanish:
I believe Bishop A. Schneider deserves respect! He and just a handful of other true Prelates have been fighting the corruption and destruction of our holy mother church and have not been able to fight against the evil that’s there. Bishop Schneider does not deserve this comment coming from you!!
I certainly am grateful to Bishop Schneider for his remarks about AL, but we have to be realistic here – Bishops Schneider is on his own and he needs back-up from other Bishops & Cardinals which has not been forthcoming. The laity have no influence at all, although very willing to support those who have in calling for a council to sort out this Papacy. The Popes & Hierarchies since Vatican II are Modernists and that is the real evil that has overwhelmed the CC & must be killed at the root. Consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as per Her instructions is an absolute MUST.
“He and just a handful of other true Prelates have been fighting the corruption and destruction of our holy mother church and have not been able to fight against the evil that’s there.”
That’s there job!
The ONLY Archbishop who didn’t shirk his duties was Archbishop Lefebvre.
He did shirk his duty.
His duty was to remain true to Catholicism and to maintain the Bond of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and he had a deal signed with Ratzinger – The Protocol – that would have allowed him to continue the praxis of his brand of tradition but he reneged on the deal and run oft and started his own petit ecclesia.
He is not a role model or a saint; he is a cautionary tale for those who think they can let the cup pass them by.
O, and all of the propagandistic lies promoted about him by the sspx are obviously inane for he was not within a galactic distance of Saint Athanasius who was never excommunicated nor ever consecrated his own Bishops for his own petit ecclesia.
“…the claim that the Society is schismatic based on one thing alone, the decree Ecclesia Dei Adflicta which has been superseded in every way. It is based on the fact that the late Holy Father said the 88 consecrations were a “schismatic act”. He did not say that the Society was formally in schism, only that the act was schismatic. After that others picked up the ball and ran with it.
Now the “excommunications” decreed in 88 have been lifted (I don’t accept that they were valid, but that is a completely moot point at the moment), which means the source of the alleged schism would also be removed likewise. Schism is a canonical penalty which resulted from the imposition of a canonical punishment (the so-called excommunications), and with those being lifted, the effects are also lifted. So assuming the excommunications were valid, they were lifted which means as a consequence the Society could not today be in schism, if at some time they were. If you don’t agree with the society, the correct description would be they “disobey” the Pope, not that they are in schism.
You also have to look at instances where the Vatican and some local bishops have allowed clergy and religious to transfer into the SSPX or an order affiliated with the Society. How could the Vatican support a nun entering a “schismatic” society?”
“His duty was to remain true to Catholicism”
Pope’s don’t lift excommunications from non-Catholics or would “the Vatican and some local bishops” allow “clergy and religious to transfer into the SSPX” if they didn’t consider them Catholic!
Even PF said they were not schismatic but Catholic & has helped them in South America. The initial’ excommunication’ could be argued as invalid IF Vatican II itself was invalid due to huge Modernist influence & subsequent takeover of the leadership of the CC. All our problems go back to that council which the next pope will have to deal with once and for all.
You aver: “…the claim that the Society is schismatic based on one thing alone, the decree Ecclesia Dei Adflicta which has been superseded in every way. It is based on the fact that the late Holy Father said the 88 consecrations were a “schismatic act”. He did not say that the Society was formally in schism, only that the act was schismatic. ”
You are wrong:
c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)
If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre
Schism of Lefevbre
See last paragraph:
Dear Long Skirts. A schism does not make you a Trad, it makes you blind.
Your false claims here today prove it.
Long skirts avers: Pope’s don’t lift excommunications from non-Catholics…
4. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother” (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:
A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.
B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.
Ok, that is far more than enough for today.
IANS does not want it thought of him that he is enjoying beating-up on a lady 🙂
“IANS does not want it thought of him that he is enjoying beating-up on a lady :)”
“a lady”?!! …Thanks, IANS, for always knowing exactly what compliment I’m fishing for. 😉
Christopher A. Ferrara POSTED: 9/2/11
“The statement also specifies, quite portentously, that as individuals the priests and bishops of the Society are no longer under any canonical penalty that would prevent them from exercising their ministries as priests and bishops.”
“Rorate Caeli has reported that on May 28, 2011 Father Daniel Couture, the Society’s District Superior of Asia (whom I had the privilege of assisting during a pilgrimage in Japan), was delegated by Bishop Fellay to accept the vows of Mother Mary Micaela, who has transferred from the Congregation of the Dominican Sisters of New Zealand, a Novus Ordo congregation, to the Dominican Sisters of Wanganui, established by Bishop Fellay. The report notes that Mother Mary “had special permission from the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes in Rome to do this.””
I love the Church
With all my heart
Have watched the wolves
Tear her apart
Have watched the wolves
Confuse and lie
Attack the sheep
Leave them to die
But who am I?
A simple poet
So I must show it
And show it how?
Sometimes not pretty
When I crank out
An angry ditty
A stubborn mule
I’ll not help fuel
Like when deny
His Presence real
Or even kneel
But then the Holy Ghost
Says “Show ’em”
To write a poem
So that is when
And why at Mass…
God gives me poems
To kick their *ss!
Dear Long Skirts. We may disagree but IANS has ALWAYS admired you as a Mom and as a woman of steely conviction.
O, and you write some damn good poetry
Thank you, IANS, I know we don’t agree but please pray for me and I will pray for you. It’s not easy being a b*tch.
I love the idea of me and thee praying for each other for what is not to like about a woman who is deadly serious but maintains her self-effacing sense of humor
You are a scholar and a gentleman!! God bless you always!!!
Thank you, it’s sad Archbishops Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer were the few with guts to defend the faith. It’s nice to see more speak vociferously in their defense. The only Bishops left with true Catholic Voices are found in SSPX.
Lefebvre and Mayer were no different than the draft dodgers who ran away to Canada to avoid the draft and then walked around wearing army gear.
Those two run oft in the heat of battle and wore their trad vestments boasting only they had the faith.
No, the rest of the Bishops of VII (involved with the council) who knew what was going on was wrong, were the draft dodgers. They didn’t have the guts to stand up to what was wrong. Letting the heretics try to destroy the Faith via the disastrous alterations to the Mass was treasonous. Until the rush to “canonize VII,” all the great saints and Doctors of the Church came from the TLM.
Your defense is toothless. Everything Archbishop Lefebvre defended was sound, definitive Catholic Doctrine. Many agreed with him, but lacked the guts to forcefully protest for fear of losing their positions. Ratzinger, particularly during that time, was squarely in the progressive camp, had very unorthodox views, could not be trusted…and enough of everyone praising JPII. His warped prayer meetings and participation in pagan religious ceremonies certainly helped us to where we are now.
VII is the schismatic religion.
You are one of a legion of former Catholics he corrupted.
It is clear you do not think it necessary to belong to the Catholic Church but, rather, it is enough for you to find this or that Bishop who arrogates unto his own self Divinely-Constituted authority and tells you what you want to hear.
How are you any different than a soi distant traditionalist who lives in the diocese of an orthodox bishop as one many members of the orthodox church?
They also don’ need no stinkin’ pope.
Of course, you do not even see how it is he corrupted you – and millions more like you- for a schism does not make you a trad catholic, it makes you blind.
I agree with you on one thing; with all your bluster you are nowhere near Spartacus.
He saved the Traditional Latin Mass from the oblivion that the reformers intended for it.
In 1980, Pope Saint John Paul II solicited responses from the Bishops about the Tridentine Mass and that was eight years before Lefebvre was excommunicated for consecrating bishops but he is rarely acknowledged as being involved in the restoration
It is true that propagandistic polemics have resulted in acceptance of the myth about Lefebvre – that he alone is responsible for the existence of the 1962 Roman Missal but the plain and simple truth is that Mons Lefevbre was indifferent about the Mass at Econe.
“Ecône: Didn’t You Always? A question:
‘Isn’t this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?’
The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until the September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not in French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular – without reading them first in Latin.)
“It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.
“The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of
• what the Archbishop liked, and
• what one did in France.
“These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the ‘Rite of Ecône,’ a law unto itself…
“As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today …
“At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely…”
The Roman Catholic, by Fr Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.
A contemporary of Bishop Richard Williamson, Fr Daniel L. Dolan was one of nine U.S.A. Society priests expelled from the Society in 1980 by Archbishop Lefebvre “…. because “they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII” “Catholic”, Nov 83, p.3
IANS knows the myth can not be penetrated by facts because the myth is largely ideological and ideology is as impossible to correct using facts as it is impossible to correct a delusion by appeals to reality.
This comes as no surprise given the fact of lack of Dogma since Francis’s papacy
I fear it is too late, unless the Pope speaks very clearly to this confusion and chaos and puts it to rest. But he will not, since he has not by now.
I heard the same talk from a young seminarian as from Francis’s mouth, ” One cannot change dogma, but change practice.” Verbatim. Now where did that come from?
Then this young man goes on to say that a man and woman cannot be expected to live chastely so as to avoid adultery and should possibly be given Holy Communion so as to receive the graces. What about shack ups, i ask?
Well, he goes on to say, that all depends. My heart just sank.
No, it is really too late now. But always good to hear the Truth reinforced.
Matthew relates in regard to Peter’s betrayal, Christ’s words (quoting a prophet) similar to “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.”
He also says, a little earlier, (something similar to) “if that time were not shortened …. even the elect [… would be in danger]”
Then there is the half of the maidens who’s lanterns have oil (and shine light) who are allowed to the feast.
Whether or not this is that time, who can say? But the test we are presented is certainly similar.
The silent apostasy of our Bishops.
Many are very vocal in their heresies.
Evangeline, below, true, true, double true. What’s the point of signing petitions, attending rallies and conferences with 40 in a room. Though he’s a silly little man, it’s like the Bernie Saunders’ electorate, voting in their millions, knowing the end game has been rigged.
Influence! What influence? You influence that (the riggers says) and I’ll influence this. After, Joe can influence over there. All done we can huddle in some Swiss canton and cobble a new configuration of influences.
Seems I’m in a sour mood this morning Yet willing to listen. Please, tell me how one can out-influence the influencers? I don’t have the time or money to cabal vacation in Switzerland.
Is our only out the one thing we can never influence, the arrival of the near perfect papal personality (the cult of personality being part of the problem)? Or, must we burden the weight of the crushing wall that has crashed upon us – that this a a generational civilizational thing, whose opening and closing is far beyond our lifetimes. If so, our only duty – outside of revolution – is simply to trod and thread.
It seems so unmanly, though.
Maybe by “hour of the laity” he means distinguished lay theologians, canonists, philosophers. I’m just a Catholic in the pews with no influence whatsoever. I’ve written to my Bishop asking him to reaffirm Catholic teaching in his diocese, got nothing but cricketts.
This isn’t a political party, after all. I could stop my Sunday contribution, but aren’t we supposed to contribute financially to the Church?
Maybe consider giving it to your local pregnancy help center–these people work tirelessly to save Moms and their children by providing them with shelter, medical care, food, clothing, etc. Or your local food bank, which has been a Godsend for me. (There are usually Catholic-run food banks, and many Catholics run, or are employed by, pregnancy help organizations.)
Maybe give it to an orthodox, religious order
I read tonight (I think in Crisis – not certain though) about how Mother Theresa was able to reach the unreachable – converting a narcissist to religion away from the “right to feel good.”
That, I’m wondering about might be the method of presenting uncompromising and radical truth. She did that, but in her instance she was undeniably a font of loving compassion. Everything we the general public knee about her persona was predicated on her radical compassion. While some did vilify her, it’s pretty difficult.
And what we need to witness is the Word, Christ, who equated himself with the Truth but who we also know (e.g. John) IS love.
Might one day that the full armor of God is interwoven, dependant on love – without which one is nothing?
This needs to be thought out by better minds than mine, but perhaps we are mindful of and feeling it but not saying enough love? We know love is to seek the best for the other and we present Catholicism for that purpose. But might we be missing ostentatious expression of simplest love when we do? It could seem gimmicky if it’s not genuine and perhaps even when it is….
Just another idea.