Catholicus - diarium in tela

In principle I support the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (or TLM as many followers call it but that also stands for The Leprosy Mission so probably not a good idea, though since many bishops continue to treat them like lepers maybe the coincidence is a happy one).  The problem is I get so far with the Mass and then something like the photograph above happens and I think, "no, that's just silly - there is no reason whatsoever for the rubric requiring the chausable to be held out in this manner.  It doesn't help the priest with the elevation, in fact it may well distract him.  It's a vestige from a time of different vestments and yet it's still done.  And don't get me started about the paten.  Hidden under the corporal, wrapped up by the sub-deacon.  What's that all about?  In days of yore when there was a Carmelite Rite all sorts of peculiar things happened with the paten:

The subdeacon kneels, and gives the paten uncovered to the deacon, together with the veil, after the 'Sed libera nos a malo' in the Lord's prayer. The embolism, which follows, has certain ceremonies peculiar to that rite. The deacon kisses the shoulder of the celebrant and hands him the paten before the words 'da propitius'. The priest kisses the paten, and continues with the prayer... the kissing of the paten cannot be an act of devotion to the vessel on which the sacred Host will be laid, as the Host is never placed on the paten in the Carmelite rite, unless some ceremony ... has disappeared. Perhaps, however, sufficient reason may be found from the fact that the paten is placed on the altar 'seorsum ad corporale'. At the words 'Ope misericordiae, the celebrant touches his left eye with the paten, and at 'Et a peccato simus liberi', his right eye. Finally at 'Ab omni perturbatione, he signs himself with the paten, and replaces it on the altar near the corporal.

Anyway, that's just me being ornery.  The purpose of my post was to give the schedule for the Extraordinary Form for the Eucharistic Congress.  Some interesting talks and it shows there's more to the congress than gathering, bells and being nice to Protestants.

Sunday 10th June: 2nd Sunday after Pentecost

10.30 a.m. High Mass (Music by St Kevin’s Schola)

3.30 p.m. Blessed Sacrament Procession and Solemn Benediction

Monday 11th June: St Barnabas

9.30 a.m. Solemn Pontifical Mass. Celebrant: The Most Rev. Terrence Prendergast, Archbishop of Ottawa

(The Lassus Scholars will sing Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcelli)

7.30 p.m. Evening Devotions: Rosary, Novena to Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, and Benediction.

8.15 p.m. Talk in the Parish Hall: “Apostle of the Trenches: The Life and Spirituality of Fr William Doyle, SJ”

Speaker: Mr Patrick Kenny, Editor of fatherdoyle.com

Tuesday 12th June: St John of San Facundo

8.00 a.m. & 8.30 a.m. Low Masses

11.30 a.m. Conference in the Parish Hall: “The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist”

Speaker: Fr Armand de Malleray, FSSP

7.00 p.m. High Mass. Celebrant: Fr Armand de Malleray, FSSP

(The Lassus Scholars will sing Palestrina’s Missa Brevis)

8.15 p.m. Talk in the Parish Hall: “Prayers and Religious Folktales from the Irish Oral Tradition”

Speaker: Dr Pádraig de Paor, Dept. of Irish and Celtic Languages, Trinity College Dublin.

Wednesday 13th June: St Anthony of Padua

8.00 a.m. & 8.30 a.m. Low Masses

11.30 a.m. Conference in the Parish Hall: “Understanding Transubstantiation”

Speaker: Fr Armand de Malleray, FSSP

[7.30 p.m. In the RDS: Blessed Sacrament Procession]

Thursday 14th June: St Basil the Great

8.00 a.m. & 8.30 a.m. Low Masses

[10.00 a.m. In the RDS: Confessions]

7.00 p.m. High Mass. Celebrant: Fr Gerard Deighan, Adm., Chaplain to the Dublin Latin Mass Community

(The Lassus Scholars will sing Victoria’s Missa O Quam Gloriosum)

8.15 p.m. Talk in Parish Hall: “Beauty and the Sacred” Speaker: Dr Mark Dooley, Philosopher and Author

Friday 15th June: Sacred Heart of Jesus

8.00 a.m. & 8.30 a.m. Low Masses

11.30 a.m. Conference in the Parish Hall: “The Mass as Sacrifice: Old Testament Perspectives”

Speaker: Fr Gerard Deighan, LSS

7.00 p.m. High Mass and Solemn Benediction. Celebrant: Dom Mark Kirby, OSB, Prior of Silverstream Priory, Stamullen

(Music by St Kevin’s Schola)

8.15 p.m. Talk in Parish Hall: “Eucharistic Spirituality”. Speaker: Dom Mark Kirby, OSB

Saturday 16th June: Saturday of Our Lady

 9.00 a.m. Low Mass (Confessions before/during Mass)

10.30 a.m. – 5.45 p.m. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament

4.45 p.m. – 5.45 p.m. Holy Hour and Solemn Benediction with Confessions throughout the hour

(Music by Piccolo Lasso)

Sunday 17th June: 3rd Sunday after Pentecost

10.30 a.m. High Mass

(The Lassus Scholars will sing Lassus’ Missa Bell’ Amfitrit’ altera)

[2.00 p.m. In Croke Park: Statio Orbis]

 

Fr. William Holtzinger plays the "Good Shepherd" during Mass with his poodle Benny at St. Anne's Parish, Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, 29th April, 2012.

At Mass in County Down on Sunday morning.  The priest said Mass reverently and preached well, I thought.  But there constant running around.  There was a sacristan and her minions who all seemed to be patrolling relentlessly.  There was a children's liturgy, which meant the children had to parade out, receiving a large bible as they went.  Then they paraded in again, and four of them explained what the gospel had been about.  There was a gospel procession.  And an offertory procession.  And they were fine but the church was round and the procession had a sort of bogus air you get when you process from one place to another that's right beside where you started.  We had many extraordinary ministers of holy communion, all crowded round the altar, far too close, and far too early in the proceedings (why do they have to come up before the priest's communion?).  And then it was badly organised with not enough communion in each "bowl" with the result that EMHCs were returing to base and helping themselves to more.  Not well done.  There was a decent enough folky choir.  But the highlight was the offertory "hymn".  It was "The Life that I Have", a poem much beloved by a dean of Maynooth.  And entirely inappropriate for Mass.  The words are:

The life that I have
Is all that I have
And the life that I have
Is yours.
The love that I have
Of the life that I have
Is yours and yours and yours.
A sleep I shall have
A rest I shall have
Yet death will be but a pause.
For the peace of my years
In the long green grass
Will be yours and yours and yours.

On the face of it, it sounds okay in a St Louis Jesuity sort of way, that is unless you know the origin of the poem.

Most of us will have heard it read at the end of Carve Her Name With Pride, a war film about Violette Szabo, a British/French spy, captured and tortured by the Nazis.  So it suggests a martyr theme.  And while Violette was undoubtedly an extraordinarily brave women who was fighting on the right side in a mostly righteous cause, she wasn't a martyr.

That said, the poem isn't even about her life offering - it's a secret code poem.  It was written by a British code expert, Leo Marks, and given to Violette to help her code and decode messages.  Little did he know it would be being sung at Mass in a Down church some 70 years later.

The Daily Mail is reporting that the first ever slice of cake from the wedding of Kate and William has attracted bids of almost £1,500 as fans of the royal two vie to get their hands on the royal memorabilia.

With two weeks still to go on the auction, the bidding stands at £1,453 - but as is customary, the auction house expect a flurry of last-minute bids to push the value much higher by the time bidding closes on 24 May.

The boxed fruit cake, supplied to online auction house PFC Auctions by an anonymous seller, was among 650 pieces of wedding cake given to guests at the afternoon reception of the royal wedding held at Buckingham Palace last April.

Now who do we know who was at the royal wedding and might be needing a bit of extra money to fund his early retirement?

For those who take an interest in such matters (you know who you are), the Guest List for the royal wedding has a peculiar order.  The order of precedence seems to be ignored, or is there some secret list that places the Prince of the Asturias above the King of Norway:

The Prince and Princess of the Asturias
The Crown Prince of Bahrain
Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde of Belgium
The Sultan of Brunei and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Hajah Saleha
King Simeon II and Queen Margarita of the Bulgarian
The Queen of Denmark
King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie of the Hellenes
Crown Prince Pavlos and Crown Princess Marie-Chantal of Greece and Prince Constantine of Greece
Sheikh Ahmad Hmoud Al-Sabah of Kuwait
Prince Seeiso Bereng Seeiso and Princess Mabereng Seeiso of Lesotho
The Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Raja Permaisuri Agong of Malaysia
Prince Albert II of Monaco and Miss Charlene Wittstock
Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco
The Crown Prince and Princess of The Netherlands
The King and Queen of Norway
Sayyid Haitham bin Tariq Al Said of Oman
The Emir of The State of Qatar and Sheika Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned
King Michael I of Romania and Crown Princess Margarita
Prince Mohamed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia and Princess Fadwa bint Khalid bin Abdullah bin Abdulrahman
The Queen of Spain
The King of Swaziland
The Crown Princess of Sweden and The Duke of Västergötland
Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand
The King of Tonga
The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi
Crown Prince Alexander and Crown Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia
The Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia.

[Editor:  I think you'll find they're in alphabetical order].  Oh, yes.  Hardly the done thing for royalty though, is it?

And why does the Most Reverend Gregorious, Archbishop of the Greek Archdiocese of Thysteira and Great Britain come before the the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Some listener feedback I received after my first EWTN radio appearance last week:

I was impressed by your dispassionate tone, as well as your easy command of the facts, (killing off the retired abbot notwithstanding). Not sure where the empathy issue came up for whoever. I think you would find it easier in studio rather than on the phone. I would have no hesitation in putting you on the radio at any time if you were not such a right wing nut job! It was a longer interview than I expected but I think that it will have informed rather than inflamed which seems out of character for a crazed right wing ‘bloggist (sic).

---
I really thought the interview was excellent.  Your approach was cool, reasonable, informative and very much dragnet- “just the facts”  I think the contrast between Kenny et al’s inaccurate unfounded rant is worth noting.  I also think you have to do it like that as the media would not give you an easy ride, like they gave Kenny.
 
I thought you made several excellent points- poor church management, priest from orders able to roam free, why the kid had to swear the oath etc.
 
On the point of empathy I thought you were a little too cool when describing the kid who was interviewed by Cardinal but I think you corrected that as you got into your stride.  Specifically you could have referred to the “brave child/kid” rather than “the child”. I think Kathy’s gushy approach made you seem cooler than you were. Is she always like that or did she feel the need to compensate for you? Don’t know.
 
I read your self-criticism on the blog.  All your points were rubbish you have a nice conversational style and you came across well.
 
Do more of this.  The Church needs apologists and you were great.

---
I thought the interview was brilliant.

---
You did exceptionally well, a natural...this won't do much for your humility but you were really good.  No fluffing your words or sentences.  Well done...more work coming your way, I'm sure.

---
You said is as it is without making more or less of what happened.  You spoke well.  I was impressed.  You spoke intelligently and simply.

---
Finally got to hear your invertview - excellent!

The Left Hand of Darkness has kicked off his re-election campaign with a somewhat underwhelming rally in Ohio State University, Toledo (birthplace of Katie Holmes and Jamie Farr "Corporal Klinger"). 

Remember those huge rallies from four years ago, the crowds spilling out, the standing room only, the "yes we can".  Seems we can't anymore.  The hall holds about 20,000. The organisers got people out of their seats to fill the arena floor but not before the first photos leaked.

He's also decided to gamble on gay "marriage" - a risky strategy indeed - must show how desparate the advisers are getting.  Presumably he thinks it will galvanize his liberal base and get them out to support and vote. Perhaps.  But it's more likely to galvanize his conservative opponents and get them out to support Romney who can now get the double bonus of being against gay "marriage" and in favour of States Rights.  It is also likely to divide the black vote.  The evangelical black voters who gave him a bye the first time are unlikely to do it again.

Fr Martin Henry has an interesting letter in tomorrow's Irish Catholic:

In the current tug of war on the fate of Cardinal Sean Brady, it is frequently stated that he is now suffering from what is termed a “loss of moral credibility”.  As I understand it – or maybe misunderstand it – Christianity teaches, albeit dogmatically, that only one human being has “moral credibility”, namely the Sinless One, Jesus Christ. Or as Friedrich Nietzsche put it: ”In reality there has been only one Christian, and he dies on the Cross.”  It seems to me that Catholic Christianity tries, rightly or wrongly and however inadequately, to do justice to this belief by distinguishing, where members of its clergy are concerned, between the office and the person, in terms of where true authority lies.  It lies with the former, not the latter.  Beyond the intense personal suffering al all those involved for almost the past 40 years n this never ending nightmare, the present debate appears to have a wider significance.  What is at stake is the Catholic distinction between office and person.  It may well finally be decided to abandon this distinction. At which point, one should perhaps send in the receivers.

Yours etc,

Rev. Dr Martin Henry,
Lecturer in Dogmatic Theology,
St Patrick’s College,
Maynooth, Co. Kildare.


I do get his point and I think it has some merit.  But I would make a distinction between "having authority", a more objective thing, and "teaching with authority", which is more subjective. 

In the time of Christ, the scribes had authority, but Jesus taught with authority and was seen to do so.  It is  interesting that the same Greek word, 'exousia', which is translated 'authority' in Mark 1:22 and 27 also occurs in 1 Cor 8:9, where it is translated as 'liberty'.  Perhaps this gives us a way in to a distinction.  For there is no doubt that Sean Brady has the full authority of a bishop.  It's just that, in recent times, Irish bishops have been poor in using their authority.  Sean Brady has authority, but has he the liberty to teach?

Teaching is not like other sacramental activities which work  ex opere operato;  its truthfulness may be guaranteed by the office (one hopes) but not it's impact or efficacy.

May what St. Gregory Nazianzen said of St. Basil the Great be said of all bishops (priests and deacons): “A sermon of Basil’s was like thunder, because his life was like lightening.” (Orat. 20)

I made my debut last week as an official Catholic Commentator and Bloggist on EWTN Radio - a programme called Celtic Connections hosted by Kathy Sinnott.  I was speaking about the BBC programme on Cardinal Brady and the reaction to it, as well as the censuring of Fr Brian D'Arcy.  It was a little nerve wracking particularly as I was doing it by telephone while my children wondered in and out of the kitchen looking for last food before bedtime.  But I thought it went well enough.  Of course one spots one's repeated phrases such as "I suppose" and a ghastly moment when I began by saying "there are two sides to this", but could only remember one.  And a factual error when I said the Abbot of Kilnacrott from Brendan Smyth's day was dead and he's in fact very much alive, aged 81 and calling for Cardinal Brady to resign.

Anyway, the cartoon and song above.  A listener contacted me after the show in an attempt to burst my bubble of debutorial delight to say that I lacked empathy - it seems I stated the facts coldly and rationally and was emotionally uninvolved.

Thank you very much, says I - that's what I was going for.  You can listen for yourself here - my bit starts about  two minutes in.

At the risk of labouring the point, the recent Brady affair must seriously call into question the whole approach to child abuse reporting adopted by the Church. 

My parish in Drogheda has a Parish Safeguarding Representative to whom one reports abuse.  He or she forwards any complaints they receive to Diocesan Designated Liaision Person.  He then forwards complaints to An Garda and/or the HSE.  He is assisted by the Advisory Case Management Committee. 

The State document, Children First, suggest members of the public with concerns about a child should contact the Children and Family Service of the HSE.  If that's not possible, or the danger is more immediate, they should contact An Garda.

I really think the Church should consider retaining its new child protection structure for training and advice purposes, but be crystal clear that they have no role in receiving reports of abuse.  It's much cleaner and safer for the Church.  The public go to the HSE (or Garda) and the HSE can contact the Diocesan Designated Person. 

Under the current Church procedures, a person who raises an issue of concern has no way of knowing if the issue passes through the various Church stages and is passed on to the HSE/Garda.  Will the public have sympathy if a priest in ten years time says "I told the parish safeguarding representative all my concerns about the Parish Priest;  it's not my fault she did nothing about it"?

So, as predicted, Garry O'Sullivan, managing editor of the Irish Catholic, has now bought the publication from the Agricultural Trust (Irish Farmer).  Not sure if it's himself alone or with other backer.  The new address is "St Mary's, Bloomfield Avenue, Dublin 4".  Lots of people are based there already - CORI, Progressio Ireland, Catholic Ireland.net

There is a little history between us, but I wish him well.  It's not easy risking your own money.  The Irish Catholic has good points and bad, but I think it's better to have it than not.  In the current media market, if it goes under it will not be replaced by something better, that's for sure.

I wonder will the mission statement change:

“To truthfully present and promote the Catholic Faith and highlight in a thought provoking manner the religious, social and moral issues of the day that affect our readers and the broader faith community.”

A well placed high-level source has told me that he has information that serious consideration is being given to the appointment of Bishop Noel Treanor, currently Bishop of Down and Connor, as co-adjutor Archbishop of Armagh.

This would allow Brady to go with some dignity, as he previously requested the appointment of "another bishop" and the Holy See can interpret this as a request for a co-adjutor, rather than for an auxiliary which it probably was.

By appointing an existing bishop as co-adjutor it prevents the risk of appointing another risky candidate at a rush to Armagh as happened with Sean Brady in the first place.

It is unclear whether Noel Treanor would continue as administrator of Down and Connor.

Sean Brady would, of course, continue to remain a Cardinal, allowing him some dignity and some responsibility
as a member of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Pontifical Council for Culture.  And until he turns 80 he'll remain a papal elector.

03 May 2012

Dear Chief Constable,
 
I refer you to the recent 'This World' programme broadcast on the BBC and dealing with child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.
 
It appears from the said programme that Cardinal Brady, in 1975 and since, was in possession of knowledge of serious allegations of criminal activity against a named priest(s), as well as knowledge of victims and likely victims. In consequence, I wish to enquire if, having regard to his obligations under Section 5 of The Criminal Law act (NI) 1967, at any time Cardinal Brady's apparent withholding of information has ever been investigated? Moreover, will such now be investigated, as I believe it ought to be.
 
I look forward to hearing from you.
 
Yours sincerely,
Jim Allister, MLA.

Original here.

The country is divided into, I think, five groups now:

1. Catholic-hating secularists who want Brady to resign as a blow to the Church;
2. Liberal Catholics who want Brady to resign as a blow to the Church;
3. Orthodox Catholics who want Brady to resign to help save the Church;
4. Orthodox Catholics who don't want Brady to resign because they don't want a victory for groups 1 and 2;
5. Friends and genuine admirers of Brady who don't want him to resign.

Various people are of course now using this situation to attack the Pope.  "Brady wants to resign but the Pope won't let him" because you know, everything is the Pope's fault.  Here's the thing.  If you decide to resign you resign - you announce it, you pack your bags, you stop functioning.  In courtesy you tell the Nuncio first but then you announce it.  It's not easy and you have to think through all the elements.  For example, you can stop being Archbishop of Armagh, President of Episcopal Conference (time for bishops to elect one freely I think) - but harder to stop being a Cardinal.  And perhaps the best way forward now is some half-way house.

We had a bit of the "still just doesn't get it" in Brady's statement yesterday as BBC reports here:

"The commentary in the programme and much of the coverage of my role in this inquiry gives the impression that I was the only person who knew of the allegations against Brendan Smyth at that time and that because of the office I hold in the Church today I somehow had the power to stop Brendan Smyth in 1975.

"I had absolutely no authority over Brendan Smyth. Even my Bishop had limited authority over him. The only people who had authority within the Church to stop Brendan Smyth from having contact with children were his Abbot in the Monastery in Kilnacrott and his Religious Superiors in the Norbertine Order."

Okay we get the point he is making - he's being blamed for being Archbishop of Armagh today as if that gave him power in 1975.  But the big missing element in the whole affair was the police.  The abbot and the bishop had some authority over Smyth but it was the police who should have been involved.  Did Brady ever suggest that to anyone?

Now the question arises for all of us - at what point does your personal responsibility end?  If I report suspicion to my local parish child protection officer am I done?  Apparently not.  I have to ensure he reports up the line or I risk being blamed later.  What if I phone the HSE?  Is that enough?  What if a garda or police man sticks the information in the drawer?  Am I to phone up to check how the investigation is going?  The bottom line now seems to be that until the accusation comes into the public domain, I risk carrying the responsibility for the actions of those further up the chain.  And of course now the new child protection procedures are in place we have even more chains - we have the Church people, the HSE and the police.  The potential for inaction increases, not lessens.

Moving on to Fergus Finlay.  He's the head of Bernardo's in Ireland.  He told us yesterday that he was abused when he was eleven, that he told his father who sorted it and it never happened again.  "I don't know what he did because I was 11, but he told me it would never happen again and it didn't. I don't think it happened to anybody in my class again either."

Presumably his father gave the guy a hammering, at least verbal.  But here's the thing.  We don't know what happened afterwards.  We don't know if he abused other children.  We don't know if the police were ever involved; it sounds like they weren't.  If it turns out that this guy went on to abuse other children does that become the fault of Fergus Finlay's father, who failed to go to the police.  Just asking.

Every time you think we're moving into a slightly better place in terms of the abuse scandal, we get dragged back into.  Because Cardinal Brady refuses to resign we end up with other people implicated by having to support him.

We had Archbishop Clifford on Pat Kenny this morning in an appalling performance which sounded like an interview from five years ago.  There was no sense that any crime had been committed.  He couldn't answer a basic question as to what a priest today should do if he discovered abuse, reported it to the bishop and nothing happened.  The first answer should have been - DON'T REPORT IT TO THE BISHOP.  Tell the police, tell the HSE or social services and tell the diocesan child protection officer and when you've done all that and got a receipt, then tell the bishop so he knows it's coming.

It may be unfair, in a sense, to blame Brady when the Bishop of Kilmore and the Abbot of the Praemonstransions clearly carried the responsibility for dealing with Smyth.  But they are dead and Brady is alive and somebody must take responsibility for the inaction.

I have been critical of parents in the past who failed to act, or who went to the bishop instead of the police, on the basis that this was leading almost automatically to an internal "handling" of the situation.  But this can hardly apply here, where Brady interviewed a child without his parents even knowing - is that even lawful in canon law?

I used to think Brady was a good man but basically out of his depth.  Now I see him as someone desparately clinging to his position - I was going to say power, but he has no power.  Still trying to get "his men" in as bishops, still refusing to let the other bishops read the visitation report, still, presumably, trying to control any changes that might happen with diocesan structures or in Maynooth or the Irish College.

And he's now playing the victim:

The Cardinal said his role in the inquiry has been deliberately exaggerated and misrepresented in a BBC documentary aired last night."I deeply regret that those with the authority and responsibility to deal appropriately with Brendan Smyth failed to do so, with tragic and painful consequences for those children he so cruelly abused," he said. "I was shocked, appalled and outraged when I first discovered in the mid-1990s that Brendan Smyth had gone on to abuse others," he said. "With others, I feel betrayed that those who had the authority in the Church to stop Brendan Smyth failed to act on the evidence I gave them. However, I also accept that I was part of an unhelpful culture of deference and silence in society, and the Church, which thankfully is now a thing of the past."

At any timed during those twenty years did Brady ask himself what had happened to that abuser or those children? 

As I said, he's also dragging others into it.  The Vatican's chief investigator, Monsignor Charles J Scicluna, who was very well regarded, including being praised by Marie Collins as someone who "got it", found himself being forced to chose between defending Brady and calling for his resignation.  He defended him and now it looks like he's part of the circle when he isn't.  I suspect he didn't have the full facts and didn't realise Brady was more than an note-taker.

Well I watched the BBC programme tonight - you can read about the programme here.

I think the Raphoe case, with Eugene Green, remains in need of much more clarification as there is still no clear evidence as to who knew anything about his crimes at the time.  Once a man came forward publicly there was a flood of other victims who came forward.  But to blame Bishop Boyce for saying he could find nothing on the files about him seems unfair.  We need more information before we can say the bishop of the time knew what was happening, covered it up and moved Green to other parishes.

As for Cardinal Brady - what more can we say?  He knew Smyth had abused at least five children and he spoke to only two of them - the rest were left to fend for themselves, and in at least one case Smyth continued abusing, then abused his sister, then abused his four cousins.

Has he no family he can resign to spend time with?  Can his health not take a turn for the worse?