Theo Hobson has a piece defending the disinvitation of Gene Robinson from a liberal perspective at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/05/dear_gene.html

I find it interesting that the article makes no mention of ++Akinola's threat of a Nigerian boycott because of the ABC's refusal to invite +Minns.

'The Americans are coming' is not a headline likely to endear us to the Episcopal Church. How may we assume that they will want to come, in the circumstances? One of their duly elected bishops has not been invited and several of them have previously said that there is no going back on the matter of excluding gays at any level of the Church. This will surely include, for at least some of them, the Lambeth Conference. Some here might like to think of it as bloody-mindedness if they decline. Others of us will see it as a principled stance the like of which we are daily praying for from Archbishop Rowan.

The Hobson thing isn't a defense. It's a parody.

I must say, for those who didn't get the parody, as bls pointed out, quite sad. The danger of "Catholic" ecclesiologies is exactly that they tend toward conflation of the Kingdom and the Church or in Pauline terms that somehow it is assumed that the Church on earth is operating entirely out of the New Adam when in fact we're still "betwixt and between" the Old Adam and the New, often falling, often our relating is not what God desires. The result is a tendency to say too much about the Church and therefore fail to be honest that the Church has erred and will err.

As an Episcopalian and a supporter of full inclusion in the church of ALL of God's children, regardless of their sexual orientation, I think Dr. William's shunning of +Gene Robinson is a shame. I wonder what he thinks it will accomplish as it's just more of the same homophobic attitude so pervasive in so many religions. If he doesn't find the backbone to change his mind about +Gene Robinson I hope all or most all of our bishops will decline their invitations and the American Church decline to pay for any of the costs associated with the gathering. I'd rather see the money I contribute to TEC go for mission instead of paying for tea party for the likes of Peter Akinola and his co-religionists.

We tend to forget that Bishop Robinson, back in 2004, offered to attend Lambeth in a diminished capacity if that was felt to be a way forward in keeping the peace. Martyn Minns, on the other hand, appears to expect to attend as of right. The difference in their attitudes is telling.

I agree with Deacon Charlie above - the article does not show awareness of what ++Akinola AND other Archbishops did in Tanzania and what ++Akinola has said about these infamous invitations from the ABC.......depending on what TEC does up to Sept 30th, if the ABC thinks the GS is willing to pretend there is AC unity and waste 3 weeks in Canterbury doing that, he is sadly mistaken.

I find myself agreeing with NP, for perhaps the first time since I've been reading Thinking Anglicans.

The Communion nearly lost the American Church as a result of the demands in the Primates' Tanzanian Communique. I don't think most in Great Britain quite realize that these demands amounted to a dismemberment of the American Church and were therefore quite rightly rejected.

At the moment, most in the American Church see prudential reasons for swallowing the insult offered us by +Gene Robinson's dis-invitation to Lambeth. However, additional high-handed actions by the Primates and/or spineless responses by Archbishop Williams after September 30th could decisively tip the balance in favor of separation.

Parodies have some truth in them, and I think ABC is smarter than most people think. He is still hoping for a middle ground, and measuring each move as if in a serious chess game. Those who believe that they alone fully know what God intends, such as the Akinolites, may destroy the Communion, but Cantuar is doing everything he can to foil their plots. He may succeed and I pray that he does. But in the end I do not believe that +++Rowen will ever remove the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada (or Scotland or South Africa) from communion with him personally. Some other person in his Seat might, but this man will not.

Minor point, but what's w/ the photo choice in the CT news story ("Robinson, Kunonga, and Minns left off Lambeth Conference invitation list")?

In real life, +Gene is anything BUT a Big Mouth, and I object to a photo which seems designed to suggest otherwise. :-/

*****

In the (U.S.) Black Church tradition, the "interactive sermon" has a number of wonderful responses. Best known is "A-men!" (at moments of emphatic agreement), but probably my favorite is "Wellll..."

When the preacher says something from which a *deduction* is obvious, then that is likely to prompt a congregational "Wellll..."

From the CT leader:

"If [Minns] is excluded from Lambeth, what of the Primate who consecrated him?"

Wellll...!

;-)

Thus, in not inviting the Bishop of New Hampshire to the next Lambeth
Conference, + Rowan has declared himself to be C.E.O of a multi-national
Protestant Church, and not Primus inter pares in the Catholic Church.

I prefer the Catholicity of ECUSA to the sectarianism of Canterbury.

(The Revd) J. Michael Povey
3901 Glen Oaks Drive East
Sarasota FL 34232

For Catholic and apostolic Christians, Jesus Christ is not an idea but a living body. He calls us to defend his body, Gene. Perhaps it currently feels as if you are the waste matter excluded from the body - but is this not a crucial part of bodily health? When it comes to "this very natural process, the dichotomy of inclusion/exclusion is transcended. You are part of the body that excludes you. May God grant you the wisdom to see this.
Yours,
Rowan."
Ha Ha! really quite funny. I laughed when I got to this part of Mr. Theo Hobson's piece.
I am in the middle on this and many issues in our communion/church. Arguments are too strong (and in some cases poor constructed) on both sides.

While I understand the inclination to boycott Lambeth due to the treatment of the duly elected, confirmed, consecrated and installed Bishop of New Hampshire, I can only reiterate that it woulod be an enormous tactical error - on par with the misguided choice to give way to the bullies at the last meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council.

Given the determination of the Prince Bishop of Abuja to recreate Anglicanism in his own intolerant image, the presence of American, Canadian, Scottish, South African etc. Bishops at the party is essential - even were it to turn out a losing cause.

Besides, the PBOA has been overreaching himself of late, what with his ill-advised rant about civil legislation in the US and UK, not to mention his attempts to make it illegal in his homeland to say nice things about gay people.

Don't know, Malcolm French+. I agree, it's better to be in communion than not, but given the present way the Anglican Communion operates -- its vulnerability to a power grab by one faction of the Primates, in particular -- isn't it better to let the thing fall to pieces now, in order to form a more perfect Communion after the dust has settled?

Rowan Williams exercises the art of governance by such gossamer gestures as issuing or not issuing invitations. He keeps all parties murmuring, reconsidering, repositioning, etc. and the entire long-drawn-out process has a deflationary effect. The hotheads and secessionists tire and the controversies lose steam, and in the end the church keeps on calmly as before. Indeed, the vast majority of worshippers possibly never even noticed the controversies in the first place.

I suppose some know history better than I but Rowan Williams'actions/inactions/plotting/failure to communicate seems similar to Charles I and we all know what Parliament did to him now, don't we?

Let's accept that the ABC has an extremely difficult job here. I believe he is trying to be faithful to his calling. Even when I don't agree with some of his actions.

ECUSA was well aware that the VGR consecration was not supported by much of the Communion, and proceeding would do damage to relationships and 'bonds of affection'. ECUSA proceeded, and now we see yet another visible result. VGR said he'd participate in a reduced capacity, so why is he now making such emotional statements of outrage?

I didn't think Gene Robinson had made emotional statements of "outrage", but of being disappointed.

Of course you can offer a sacrifice but still be disappointed when your friends actually call on you to make it.

Whatever you think of the man, a little understanding of his feelings and a little Christian charity wouldn't go amiss.

I think Gene Robinson's "emotional statements of outrage" are to be read as an expression of hurt on behalf of gay Christians and those in his diocese and General Convention who elected, confirmed, consecrated and installed him. This overrides his own personal disappointment.

He just wanted to get on with the task of serving the diocese of New Hampshire. The fact that he has come to represent gay Christians must be a tremendous burden, but is a consequence of the overblown reaction to his consecration from some quarters.

"I agree, it's better to be in communion than not, but given the present way the Anglican Communion operates -- its vulnerability to a power grab by one faction of the Primates, in particular -- isn't it better to let the thing fall to pieces now, in order to form a more perfect Communion after the dust has settled? " - Charlotte

Unlike Charlotte, I feel that any failure, whether by TEC or Canada or Scotland or Wales or or Ireland or South Africa or others, to offer to fully participate at this time would simply benefit the fundamentalists.

Those extremists seek to convert the historical Anglican Communion into a Calvinist/Baptist plant, and the absence of those Provinces, which most correctly model our Anglican roots, would simply benefit Akinola and his now-declining number of Primate supporters.

Let there be the inevitable conflict, as has occasionally happened throughout history, and then let the split occur, if it must; the more moderate parts of the AC would benefit by having bold advocates of the historical AC take principled, and thoughtful, stands within the Lambeth process.

As I reflect on +++Rowan's latest decision to exclude +Robinson,et al., I am reminded of something I heard once: "If you try to be all things to all people you can't be anything special to anyone in particular." +++Williams' problem, among others, is similar to that of President George Bush: When it becomes apparent that he is headed in the wrong direction, he redoubles his effort in that direction.

I find the idea that we could attempt to "form a more perfect Communion" troubling.

If Rowan is playing a subtle game (pace Fr J o L) I'm afraid the 'collateral damage' and fallout needs to be factored in and he cannot be let off the hook as easily (and commendably loyally) as Fr. Joe does. Throughout his recent ministry Rowan has been too timid. It is not just this issue. Pre the invasion of Iraq it was quite clearly an unjust and immoral war and though Rowan did not support it he did not condemn the evil in the way it should have been. Passionately. Unequivocally. Not weighing up the effect on relationships with government etc. For Christians there was no question about its immorality and Rowan was too self censoring. At the time I believed there were weapons of mass destruction but that Iraqi military capabilities had been so degraded by regular bombing sorties that this was an effective way of managing the horrors of Saddam.
I remember being angry at the ABC at the time, and unlike Fr. Joe I don't think now is the time to take the pressure off this good but wrong headed and vacillating archbishop when it comes to the Lambeth Conference

Gosane

"When it becomes apparent that he is headed in the wrong direction, he redoubles his effort in that direction."

LOL

Thanks for the rope to justify brining in this ditty.

A friend of mine shared this website with me which has a series of George W. Bush quotes http://www.banterrific.co.uk/articles.php?var=16

I've paraphrased one of them for the Anglican Communion

"'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country (Communion) and our people, and neither do we.'"

Erika Baker, I'll try to clarify. I was punning on the Preamble to the United States Constitution. The Constitution was our second try at a governmental structure after independence from Great Britain. The first, the Articles of Confederation, didn't work well, so we tried again. The Constitutional Convention recognized that the first structure wasn't working, and tried to make a better one, a "more perfect union."

I think the Anglican Communion is in a similar situation right now; hence the calls for a Covenant. So far, we have a draft of a Covenant that would only make things worse, a power grab by a small faction of the Primates, and an attempt to dismember the Episcopal Church. Something isn't working right. In order to remain in Communion with one another, the present structure, such as it is, probably has to be scrapped, and we all have to start over again with a different structure.

This part of it, for me, is simply about polity, the particular, historical, human construct through which we express our Communion with one another.

Jerry has done a good job in responding to the question directed to me by Charlotte.

I'd add one further point.

Despite the noise and rage of the Prince Bishop of Abuja and his fellow travellers, we really don't have a clear sense of the mind of the rest of the Communion. It is worth noting that the "conservatives" failed to get certain resolutions passed at the last Anglican Consultative Council meeting despite the voluntary abstention of the American and Canadian delegates. Akinola speaks for an extremist minority within the Communion, and not even for many who might actually agree with him on the specifics of "the issue."

I don't know what will happen to the Communion at the end of the day.

At a certain level, it won't matter. Whatever the outcome of Lambeth 1.10, I shall go back to my parish church the following Sunday and the holy sacrifice will be offered to the honour and glory of Almighty God in grateful thanksgiving for the many benefits received at his hand by the sacrificial death and glorious resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."

But let that split not come because some of us chose not to come to the table and engage in the issue.

As much as I understand the desire of some to boycott in solidarity with Gene New Hampshire, I am utterly convinced that it would constitute a massive failure of leadership.

By all means, let there be an act of solidarity by those so inclined - wearing a rainbow ribbon, skipping the social events, whatever. But let it NOT be staying away from the table.

The only way the "conservatives" can win is if the "liberals" walk away.

Thank you for that, Charlotte, I had indeed missed the allusion to the political structures in the US.

Neil’s assessment of Fr Joe’s analysis has something to say. Apart from the fact that Fr Joe is an eminent Roman Catholic theologian with a deep perception of Anglicanism’s current struggle and hence owes no “loyalty” to Rowan.

But we are seeing amongst some of the smaller bit players in this drama a sudden lurch to “loyalty” in the light of the invitations to Lambeth. These invitations are being perceived as a return to the pre-Dar es Salaam Communiqué position, a minimalist exclusion attempting to isolate those on the very extreme while consolidating the centre. This is undoubtedly helped by a large number of Provinces and Primates themselves already reflecting deep uncertainty at the past performance and future role of the Primates Group within the Communion as they contemplate the Covenant.

It seems that TEC will have to do very little by October 1st to justify themselves and most seem to think that KJS is willing to lead them there. The conservative Americans are waking up to the fact that their attempt to re-shape the Communion has reached the end of the road for the time being and they have not emerged where they hoped to be.

Liberals are telling each other that “for the sake of inclusivity” we must rollover now on all the “collateral damage”, bite the pillow and accept that this is the best deal for all. I must say some of their language takes my breath away.

Fr Joe’s first comment does pick up on the present mood. The demand from the Global South for a “final solution” to the “gay problem” before Lambeth 2008 is impossible, the debate continues, in the meantime TEC will not immediately consent to ordain any more Gene Robinsons.

Those of us who point to the fact that many Anglican Provinces are keen to press forward with a “final solution” at a local level are being told that the Listening Process is being put centre stage in Communion life and ignoring it will not be an option. Many progressive groups have already been captured by this.

Yes, Fr Joe, I think you have it - I would guess that the only real threat to the present strategy is if Akinola’s power base has been grossly underestimated – or if some of those who have been sitting on the side-lines manipulating now join the fray and start to play hard ball.

Perceptive analysis as usual from Martin Reynolds. Many thanks. I guessed Fr. J o L is not an Anglican but was using the notion of loyalty in a wider sense. The ABC has an impossible job, and MR as his friend, and all other natural allies would wish him success. But that is why the Iraq comparison is pertinent, because we should all have been literally bashing doors down to prevent it. And we should all also shiver at some of the Vichy language Martin has heard from liberals recently.

"Liberals are telling each other that “for the sake of inclusivity” we must rollover now on all the “collateral damage”, bite the pillow and accept that this is the best deal for all. I must say some of their language takes my breath away."

You can say that again!

Look, I don't know if language like the above constitutes an anti-gay smear, or a camp gay *reclaiming* of an anti-gay smear, but between this "rollover and bite the pillow", and the typical ConEv "gay agenda shoved down our...", can everybody please just DROP all the forceful (non-consensual?) sexual allusions?? Their humor is wan at best, but mainly all they do is, um, thrust more sensationalism into an already too-passionate conflict. Enough!

"The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us." - Primates (Feb 2005)

Except when it occurs in the Anglican Communion, it seems.

Neil, membership organisations such as LGCM have a clear mandate to work towards achieving our goals and not betraying the principles that constitute our articles of association. We cannot settle for less than the best or for a compromise that leaves our members vulnerable, second class Christians.

We are also unusual in that we are trans-denominational constituted into several caucuses with the work of just one – Anglican Matters – involved here. Savi Hensman does a first class job of heading up that caucus and as her writings tell, she has her finger on the Anglican pulse.

Many of the progressive groups we work with are exclusively Anglican and have no membership base and though they do sterling work they are often the fief of one or two strong personalities who have limited or no real accountability. Their ability to manoeuvre and accept compromise is therefore more whimsical and depends on a different set of principles and personal agendas. We can sometimes convince them to move in a direction we might favour but there are powerful forces enticing them elsewhere.

These groups have themselves deeper agendas and gay inclusion may only be peripheral to their main purpose. Perhaps the most tempting offer that can appear is to become an “insider” – the complex gossamer web Fr Joe describes has many agents – and sometimes these agents invite those on the edges to see themselves as part of the greater game. – We have all seen how quickly the poacher can become the game-keeper!

You can rely on LGCM, Neil, not to fall prey to these temptations as I hope our much reported recent statement makes clear. Though we stay open to talk to all!

On the Iraq front, I cannot recall a war that has been begun with such a prominent display of opposition from an Archbishop. Nor an Archbishop who has continued in that opposition thereafter, this is what the No 10 spokesman said of Rowan ongoing criticism of the war:
“Downing Street said Dr Williams' views on the war were well known and it had nothing further to add.”

But perhaps I have missed something here Neil?

Hugh of Lincoln captures perfectly what we said in LGCM’s last commentary.

Hugh, this dissonance reaches back to Lambeth 1998 when the travesty that emerged (1.10) called on Anglicans to listen to their lesbian and gay brothers and sisters after the Lambeth Fathers had themselves refused to listen to those very voices that had been specifically gathered there for them to hear!

The words of the Dromantine Communiqué you quote ring as hollow now in the light of Gene’s rejection.

When I was a young man (and a RC) our local priest would say from his permanent seat in the local pub in an alcoholic haze – “Don’t do what I do – do what I tell you!”

Anglican bishops seem set on the same course.

Martin - Rowan was leading the march in memoriam anti salvery. Was he to be seen on any anti war march?

I see from today's "Telegraph" that Gregg Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone, misleadingly described as "a senior Anglican conservative", has put in his two-cents-worth on the Lambeth invitations, stating "unless there is a major shift there are going to be significant absences from Lambeth". Please, can someone give me any idea of membership of the Southern Cone? Is it, as I sneakingly suspect, like ACI, "three guys and a website", or is it of a size to justify the grandeur of bishop Venables' pronouncements? The only thing I remember about the Anglican Church in Argentina is the fast footwork of an earlier bishop (Cutts?)to ingratiate himself with the Argentine junta during the Falklands crisis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/29/nchurch29.xml

The Anglican Communion website has the following, which isn't much:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=S5

The Province does not seem to have a website, though all of the dioceses seem to.

While there does not appear to be a large Anglican population to the province, and while a quick tour of the diocesan sites suggests to me a little too much focus on chaplaincy to expatriate Englishmen (Diocese of Peru's website is in English, not Spanish) it really isn't fair to compare them to that bit of inflated irrelevance the Anglican Communion Institute.

careful Lapin - TEC ain't the biggest province so criticising the Southern Cone for its size may not be the best issues to bring up in order to attack an evangelical Primate

Malcolm - I'd already checked the Communion website, to no avail, which is why I posted my inquiry. I do appreciate your looking.

NP - I'm very much on to the Radical Right tactic of re-framing a question or completely changing the subject whenever an awkward topic is raised. In no small way, I owe my heightened awareness on this approach to your own efforts on TA, though Ms. Hayes over at StandFirm is in a class of her own on this one. My question relates to numerical membership of the province of the Southern Cone, which is strangely opaque, not to say difficult to find, not that of TEC (glad to see you using that acronym, by the way) which is openly published and easily and freely available.

Come on, Lapin - stay on topic here......so, Lambeth invitations - the question is whether the AC is going to have its agenda set by a small liberal part of it and pay the price of Nigeria+Uganda+ the beautiful Southern Cone and others leave.....I do not believe that Rowan's track record (J John, TWR, Tanzania) should give you much comfort as to which way he will, in the end, go.

I'm on topic NP. G. Venables, with the seven dioceses that make up the quaintly-named "Southern Cone", is trying to come on like a major player in the lead-up to Lambeth. Which makes it fair to inquire how senior this "senior Anglican conservative" actually is. I'm also, having seen it three times thus far, on to the fact that your tactic of the day is to keep parroting that TEC is "small". There are smaller provinces, NP. Let's move on, shall we?

The Province of the Southern Cone is geographically vast, stretching from Peru to Tierra del Fuego, yet with a flock no larger than your average English deanery.

No wonder Venables has so much time on his hands to lecture the rest of the Communion.

(A point made by Stephen Bates in 'A Church at War' p. 163)

Hugo Lindum said of the Southern Cone
a flock no larger than your average English deanery.
No wonder Venables has so much time on his hands to lecture the rest of the Communion.

I believe the good English Phrase 'a dunghill cock' might be the one we're looking for here?

It's quite difficult to find much that's concrete on the Southern Cone. There's a brief biographical page for the presiding bishop on the Communion web site, which lists his consecutive postings and indicates that his university education consists of a 1974 CertEd from London University. Fr. Jake posted some informative stuff last December:

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-there-plan.html

In citing Fr. Jake in my last post, I should have noted his observation that "the Southern Cone has about 20,000 communicants". 20,000 communicants. Some province! "Senior Anglican conservative" my eye!

So, Lapin - you want to judge who is a "Senior Anglican" by the numbers the represent???

You have no sense of shame, do you, NP? Size was a big enough issue in these parts around 7:30, two mornings back: "counterlight - the majority you speak of in TEC is a tiny minority in the AC - you do realise that??" NP, Wednesday, 30 May 2007; 7:45am BST. "TEC ain't the biggest province so criticising the Southern Cone for its size may not be the best issues to bring up in order to attack an evangelical Primate." NP, Wednesday, 30 May 2007; 7:33am BST

Yes, NP, I'll factor in the numbers that he represents when attempting to determine whether I'm dealing with a "senior Anglican" or with "Oz, the Great and Terrible", the more so when there's damn-all else to judge him on, other than sanctimonious pronouncements and an ongoing, very well-established fondness for border-crossing - in contravention of Windsor, not to mention that "definitive" Dar es Salaam communique. Not like there's much of a track record otherwise, is there? Scholarship, maybe? The Roman Church is hemorrhaging members to other churches in Latin America, as the pope acknowledged just a couple of days back. And how is the Province of the Southern Cone profiting by this frenzy of communicant border-crossing?

Do me a favour, NP. A couple of days back, on a separate thread, you stated that "people who believe what I believe the Bible teaches are being asked to repent or exit the AC". I have asked you several times to back up this statement, and for some reason you continue to fail to do so. Do me a favour and answer, NP. Who's asking these folk to "repent or exit"?

Lapin - you are misunderstanding me twice -

1) I was pointing out that you should not start to bring nos into the argument because the nos in the AC are vastly against TEC's position;

2)the whole point is that nobody is asking me (or +Duncan or ++Akinola) to repent and come into line with biblical or AC teaching...because we have not departed from it - TWR and Tanzania were not directed at ++Akionla (although you may bring up the never-ending "listening" process as if the issue has not been considered for decades already in the AC)

(I know you may also bring up border-crossings but you can see the ABC's muted reponse to that issue given it is a symptom of the crisis in the AC since GC2003. There is no equivalent to the Tanzania Communique against ++Akinola and other Archbishops fighting to keep the AC faithful to its own scripturess and resolutions)

NP - previewing for sense before hitting the "post" button can be a good idea. I have read and re-read your May 30th post to Erika Baker, and if you tell me that this is the meaning of what you wrote, I believe you. It is less than clear from the wording.

Abp Williams' response to just about everything is "muted" - witness the Lambeth invites and the status of the bp of New Hampshire. He can fairly be described as a Fat Lady who has yet to sing - let alone to indicate the aria and the key.

"the never-ending "listening" process as if the issue has not been considered for decades already in the AC"

I've asked before, I'll ask again, "Mr. Obey Lambeth as though it were one of the Seven Councils", what form did the listening process take in your parish? Since you are sick and tired of listening, I assume it was pretty exhaustive, and you are now well aware, though you show no evidence for it, how it is not your message that must change, but they way you preach it. So go ahead, describe all the listening your good Christian parish did in obedience to the stated will of the Church at successive Lambeths. If you can't, stop claiming to be tired of listening to something you have never even understood the purpose of listening to, much less actually did.

From 'The Spanish Inquisition' by Joseph Perez:

"...the accused who appeared before the Inquisition were presumed not innocent, but guilty. It was up to them to prove to the contrary.

"The inquisitors wanted confessions. The whole procedure was geared to this end. Whatever the testimony and evidence presented against the accused, that was not judged to be sufficient; it was essential that the accused acknowledge his guilt and that he do so publicly, just as he was expected to express his repentance in public: this was one of the purposes of an auto da fe."

No doubt this is how the listening process is regarded in some quarters.

Look at the number of Evangelicals who will speak of the listening process in terms of being convinced of something. It is obvious that, for them, the only purpose of asking them to listen to gay people is to make them change their minds and support full inclusion. This of course they are unwilling to do. Thus, they see no point in doing it. As to expressing repentance in public, well of course, I mean what's the point of someone repenting if the 'perfecti' don't get to watch and feel holier.