As many of you may have seen through links on other blogs, Cardinal Raymond Burke gave an interview recently in which he addressed the Church’s “Man Crisis.” You can find the full interview here. Reading the interview made me tentatively hopeful. There were definitely some good things said by the Cardinal, and a few that could seemingly be drawn from some Catholic “Red Pill” blogs around these parts. A few of his statements, however, showed that he still has some ways to go in understanding the present crisis. I cannot help but feel, however, that he is on the right track, and hopefully this is a harbinger of further understanding by him and the Magisterium in what is truly going on.
I’m going to use this post to very casually dissect his post, by highlighting what he gets right and where he could use further enlightening.
What Cardinal Burke got right:
- First, he understands that there is a serious problem right now with men in the Catholic church. A crisis even. Further, he doesn’t indicate a belief that the problem is temporary or in the process of being solved.
- He correctly identifies that radical feminism has caused a huge number of problems for men in the Church and throughout the general culture
- The Cardinal recognizes that the Church has been “feminized” in the last 50 years and this feminization of the Church has significantly impacted men in a negative way.
- He seems to recognize that Catholic men are not as “manly” as in the past, and that manliness is no longer taught or encouraged.
- The awful state of catechesis in the church is recognized and declared to be the severe problem that it is. I’ve seen first hand, and many of my commenters can attest to, the terrible teaching that many Catholics or Catholic converts receive.
- As part of the above, present Catholic teaching about marriage, outside Traditionalist circles, is terrible.
- He understands the essential and irreplaceable role of a father in the development of children.
- Cardinal Burke’s mention of how men in the 70’s were afraid of marrying the women around them was extremely potent.
- The home life for many Catholics now is lacking. He doesn’t say it directly, but I gather he recognizes that most Catholic parents don’t really ensure that children live their faith.
- His language concerning the Novus Ordo Mass makes me think that he recognizes that it is not very appealing to men. It can be satisfactory, as he notes, with good music and proper reverence. But this is often lacking.
- On the other hand, the Traditional Latin Mass is usually more appealing, as it lacks the bad music and is extremely orderly and reverential.
- He recognizes that there is a rampant denial of sin in the present environment.
- While he doesn’t go outright and say it, its clear that he views Vatican II as having caused some serious negative side-effects.
- His words about encouraging priests to be more manly were quite good.
Here is where I think improvement needs to be made:
- Cardinal Burke denounces radical feminism, but apparently fails to see that “soft” or “traditional” feminism can be just as damaging to men, and has been. Frankly, any “ism” can be dangerous, and the toleration of “good” feminism is ultimately more dangerous than radical feminism will ever be.
- He does not really talk about divorce and divorce laws and how they helped influence and set up the present “man crisis.” I suspect he does not fully understand the present divorce environment.
- Some of his language about men and service to the family is troubling. It very much seems to fit the “married man as a mule” approach that has been a core part of Churchianity for quite some time. In particular his mention of chivalry concerns me. I have every reason to believe that he doesn’t understand what it really is.
- Connected to the above, he doesn’t discuss or mention how fathers have lost authority and respect in the family- key incentives in encouraging this vocation among men.
- While he acknowledges how important fatherhood is, he doesn’t address how it is mothers who often sabotage it in the present environment.
- He talks about various things that push away men, yet commits one of them throughout the interview: he constantly reaffirms that he hasn’t forgotten women or their issues or their feelings. He even throws in some flowery compliments. This is something that almost never happens in the reverse, and is a powerful message to men that they don’t matter as much as women.
- When it comes to pornography the Cardinal gets is nearly all wrong. Yes, its a sin and a major problem. But pornography is a symptom of a greater problem, and reflects the distorted view of sexuality in the present environment; it doesn’t create it.
- One of the most important things that he doesn’t touch on, which is essential to understanding the state of men in the Church, is the role of women in shaping them. Men and women shape each other all the time. You cannot understand the “man crisis”, or fix it, without understanding the role women play in influencing men.
While I know I didn’t touch on everything, the above two lists are, I believe, fairly comprehensive. I invite my readers to offer their own thoughts on Cardinal Burke’s interview. Did I miss something in my post? Did I get something wrong? Have a different take? Feel free to voice your thoughts. As always, I ask folks to be respectful and civil to other commenters.
As an addendum, here is an additional article that is old and probably familiar to most of my readers, but worth re-reading- Young men giving up on marriage. It sort of ties in to the OP, and I may explain why in the comments later if time permits. Hat tip Mrs. ktc.
Donal Graeme 
Leo Podles- “The Church Impotent”-dates the feminization of the church to the 12th century. A celibate priesthood is not going to draw normal men.
That is when it began to really get going, yes. However, there have been some manly priests in the past. Certainly some who weren’t effeminate wimps. And the clergy is only a small part of the role that men can play in the Church.
The 2013 article about marriage importance since 1997 is fascinating.
Women 28 to 37, or +9%
Men 35 to 29 -6%
I guessed men would be -9% and women stable. I was wrong because men haven’t woke up yet, and I completely underestimated the desperation of women so soon. Basically, men are far dumber than I anticipated, and women are far more perceptive of their grim situation. Wow, the liberal media masks things on the ground in a big way.
Family law is the true reason men drop out…they aren’t the head of their household anymore. I foresee only trads maintaining marriage/family anymore, merely because they socially contain their women (try to imagine an Amish, Muslim, or trad Catholic/Jew/Mormon woman divorcing her husband…how does she fit in the community?) No, those men will keep marrying and breeding and feel completely safe.
DG, Here is where I think improvement needs to be made…
I didn’t notice many of your negative points in the article. I’m not saying you are wrong, you are usually right on these things, but if you have time, could you flesh out some quotes? I’m probably just like a thirsty man in the desert so even a trickle of water seems like a river…
Was there anything in particular mdavid?
Particulars:
DG, CB…fails to see that “soft” or “traditional” feminism can be just as damaging to men…
CB, “…young men were concerned that entering a marriage would simply not work because of a constant and insistent demanding of rights for women. These divisions…have gotten worse since…”
I read this as CB inditing both hard 1970s feminism & the soft feminism of today (nobody is burning bras today, but CB is still concerned). But YMMV.
DG, CB…seems to fit the “married man as a mule” approach
CB, “The culture has become very materialistic…which has led the father…to work long hours.”
This is tricky, since yes, men are supposed to support their families, and CB doesn’t flinch from that, but thinks it’s gone too far.
You did have six other points that I agree Burke did not address. But let’s face it, it’s hardly fair to expect him to hit every point. And he’s and old man from another generation; this is where his chivalry and woman-as-nice comes from.
I’m merely impressed things change so quickly and people are actually taking about it…first Pope and now Burke, who’s next? Is this trickle the beginning of a flood? Beware the backlash; women have few friends left “on the ground” and when this worm turns it’s gonna be ugly.
Hey, Burke’s article hit Drudge!
You should see the discussion on CAF about Burke’s interview. 20 pages worth and way too much feminist thought found therein. Though it has dropped off in the last few days. I expected some pickup today since it’s on Drudge, but nothing new.
@ mdavid
What I noticed is that Cardinal Burke always preceded feminism or feminist with the word “radical.” Mind you, it might be to him that feminism and feminists are inherently radical. Hence, its the “radical feminist movement.” But I don’t think that is the case. I believe it is more likely that his focus and ire is on “radical” feminists. This sentence in particular convinces me of this:
In that context it makes much more sense for him to be saying that the feminism which has assaulted the church was radical, rather than all feminism is radical. And while they may not be burning bras today, there are other actions that “radical” feminists take that he could be thinking of.
You are correct to note that he denounces materialism. But what concerned me in particular was language like this:
There is no mention of the authority or headship of the husband. No mention of the dignity of fatherhood and being a husband. Of being a leader. It is language which is “servant-leader” without the leader. Sacrifice is important, essential even, but it is the lack of dignity, respect, and yes, authority, accorded men which has helped create the present crisis. I guess what concerns me is that he uses language that makes this sacrifice seems noble and laudatory, as though men should aspire towards it. Rather than recognize that supporting a family is a responsibility that comes along with the rights and authority of being a husband and father.
He couldn’t hit every point, true. Which is why I said that there are areas of improvement, either in thought or word. I didn’t denounce him, after all. This was definitely a sign of improvement.
I don’t see anything on Drudge about this.
DG, fair enough. We generally agree.
I don’t see it on Drudge anymore, but it was linked as “Cardinal opposes feminist…” or something like that.
I forgot to mention I disagree with his Latin Mass fetish. I find the NO more masculine (Scripture based) but the trads all go to the LM so that’s where the masculine is running the show.
mdavid, I don’t think that the Cardinal has a Latin Mass fetish. He merely expressed that many men preferred the Latin Mass. I can understand it- even a bad LM is far better than the worst NO Mass. But NO Masses, when done right, can be very good. Its just that it isn’t terribly common for that to happen, for some of the reasons he lists.
Even the venerable Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 didn’t have many kind things to say about chivalry: “As a consequence there arose a new type of chevalier, vowed to the service of some noble lady, who could even be another man’s wife. This idol of his heart was to be worshipped at a distance. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the obligations imposed upon the knightly lover, these extravagant fancies often led to lamentable results… Chivalry had [by the 15th century] degenerated to a futile pastime and an empty promise.”
Relevant.
Donal, why don’t you write to Burke and give him your thoughts? I know people here in St. Louis – simple ordinary catholics – who would write him when he was bishop with questions, and he would actually take the time to get back to them.
Donal, why don’t you write Burke and give him your thoughts? I know of ordinary St. Louis Catholics who would write him when he was bishop here, and he would get back to them.
joshua, I have considered it. However, I haven’t had the time to do so- either to write what needs to be said or to figure out how to contact him.
DG, He merely expressed that many men preferred the Latin Mass.
That he was “struck” by how many men prefer the LM. I don’t think this is true and Burke was reflecting his fetish here. I’ve found more women than men who seek the LM (check out the M/F ratio next time you go). Women with families are always more traditional than their men and they dominate the LM where I live, even w/out husband. It is women desiring traditional family who are the most desperate for 1950 again.
DG, …even a bad LM is far better than the worst NO Mass.
I really disagree on this. I think the NO is superior and more masculine in most ways, clean and mean. The only masculine drawbacks I see are female readers/servers, EMs, host in hand, and priest facing the congregation. Otherwise, If one knows Scripture and the meaning of the Mass itself, the NO is spectacular and beats the LM hands down. But because of the above issues, plus the young families, headcoverings, and great preaching, we attend LM often. Oh, and wife nags when we don’t…
Btw, the Drudge archive is 14:01:38 Cardinal blames problems on ‘femenization’ of Catholic church… *
NO/LM is a red herring. You need to settle on a form and do it well. The Orthodox/Byzantine form isn’t perfect, either, but it’s a form. And it’s settled.
There is a great RC Church close to my home that does the NO very reverently with chanted Latin mass parts and so on. So it can be done well. Just settle on a form. It’s not great to have the trads cloistered off in a form that most do not attend. Just a view from the (interested) Orthodox peanut gallery.
Nova, It’s not great to have the trads cloistered off in a form that most do not attend.
Yes. Agreed.
Just settle on a form.
The LM, done in a single language for all, is a radical idea that is not for everyone. I understand why it was done, but I think it was a overreach that VII finally fixed. EO got this one right from the beginning.
Agree with Novaseeker on the NO vs. TLM being a red herring, and I appreciate hearing his perspective. It sounds as though my home parish is similar to the one he is describing in how reverently the NO Mass is celebrated, and from my reading of VII documents, this was closer to their intent rather than the ephemeral practices you see at Mass in most parishes in the US. If most parishes instead followed what the VII documents and the follow-up docs stated on the Mass (which, it has been well-noted many a time, never instructed the celebrant to face the people), I do not see the LM movement being even as strong as it is today. I suspect many people among the sedevacantist/LM-or-nothing crowd living today were irredeemably scandalized by an abuse of the NO Mass they experienced, not from the NO Mass properly celebrated (e.g., Laura Wood, who seemed to confirm herself in the sedevacantist position soon after posting about a bad experience at a NO Mass in which she was frowned upon by the priest for showing her intention to receive Communion on the tongue. I am going from memory here, and could be mistaken, as I am not having any success in locating the post that I am remembering. At any rate, her beef with the NO is always illustrated with its abuse and not it proper use).
I say all of this with the qualifier that I myself prefer the Extraordinary Form. It’s simply NOT a matter of OF-Feminized vs. EF-Masculine-friendly, however. I diverge from mdavid in observing that there are horrible NO Masses celebrated whose horrible-ness can be pinned directly to the feminization, or effeminate-ness of the same, that could not possibly occur in the Extraordinary Form. It is easier to abuse the NO form of the Mass, but that is not saying that abuse is any more intrinsic to the nature of the NO Mass than it is to the TLM. If Novus Ordo Masses had been celebrated properly from the beginning, we would not be hearing complaints about the effeminate nature of the NO, because effeminacy is not part of the nature of the NO.
Appreciate hearing donalgraeme’s thoughts overall on the Burke interview also, and am encouraged to hear the Cardinal setting his sights on this subject. Please pray for this embattled Cardinal who (it is clear to me) desires above all to fight for what is true and good.
People say to me all the time, “The Novus Ordo can be celebrated reverently. You just need to go to [X] parish. Father [Y] always does a beautiful Mass.”
That language – can be – implicitly acknowledges that in most places it’s not. Catholics who take the faith seriously can usually tell you which is the progressive parish, the conservative parish, the Trad parish, etc. Women pretty much run the American Church in every position that doesn’t explicitly require Holy Orders, and even then my pastor occasionally delegates the homily to a laywoman who shares a “reflection” in order to skirt the letter of the law. Most modern Catholics think of the liturgy as a mere skeleton upon which the community is free to impose its own preferences. In my diocese, I can count on one hand the number of parishes that celebrate the NO more or less how the Church envisions. And if you’re going to “Trad up” the NO by adding more smells and bells, ad orientem celebration, kneeling to receive on the tongue, etc., then why not just go whole hog and celebrate the TLM again?
And if you’re going to “Trad up” the NO by adding more smells and bells, ad orientem celebration, kneeling to receive on the tongue, etc., then why not just go whole hog and celebrate the TLM again?
This question has come up in my mind also, many times. I do believe that the prelates convened for VII had the overarching goal in mind of the salvation of souls through the Church, specifically by an attempt to reach the modern soul where the modern soul’s habitations were (i.e., pretty much the gutter), but it is not clear to me just what was accomplished with the changes to the Mass that have resulted in the NO. I.e., how is a reverently-celebrated NO Mass more accessible to the modern soul than the TLM? Seems to me that a properly-celebrated NO is just about as inaccessible to modern sensibilities as the TLM, arguably more inaccessible, as the TLM might be pocketed into the kitschy self-expression category that moderns love with its exotic, unfamiliar flavor of high ritual and archaic language – you know, if that’s your thing.
On the other hand, I keep coming back to the conclusion that it’s one of those things that I am not answerable for (“What is that to you?…” our Lord said). I also wonder whether I am one of the souls that has benefited from VII’s goal of speaking to the modern soul, being a convert of only ten years.
And if you’re going to “Trad up” the NO by adding more smells and bells, ad orientem celebration, kneeling to receive on the tongue, etc., then why not just go whole hog and celebrate the TLM again?
The Scripture, which my LM (Dominican) is extremely lacking in. The ABC cycle is sweet, and the new translation of the mass rocks. Sure the NAB sucks, but it’s better than the DR used at my LM, which really sucks. Also, I don’t know Latin (prefer Greek). Not into the smells & bells at all. Also, the universality of the NO, knowing it’s being performed worldwide everywhere with the same rubric every Sunday. What I like about the LM that keeps me going back: priest facing away, no women performers, no EM, women with mantillias, big families like mine, strong homilies. But all those can be done with the NO, and then I’d never do a LM again.
ndavid,
What don’t to like about the DR? It’s my go to translation.
Stingray, the DR, like the KJV, is merely a poor translation, quality-wise, from the Greek. No scholar today would accept either.
My understanding is that the DR wasn’t a translation from Greek, but From Latin. Specifically the Vulgate. Which would explain some of the linguistic problems. Further, I understand its actually a good translation of the Vulgate- the problem comes from the initial Greek to Latin translation. Of course, maybe I’m thinking of something else.
You’re right Donal (although I don’t know Latin so I don’t know the quality of the DR vs Vulgate). However, VII made it clear that Catholics should return to the original Greek (or Hebrew) if possible, and all good translations do so anyway. To be clear, it’s fine to use the Vulgate, nothing wrong with it, but once one reads enough original Greek manuscripts the clunky (and sometimes less-than-accurate) translations like the DR or NAB or KJV) become irritating. I prefer the RSVCE, NASB, NKJV even though all are imperfect.
mdavid, what I’ve heard is that the Vulgate (which I believe was created by St. Jerome), wasn’t all that great of a translation. It is understandable, though, because both languages have some significant differences in terms of structure and verb use (from what I’ve heard). I agree about the importance of going back to the Greek and Hebrew- something is always lost in translation, and the less steps, the better.
DG, fully agree. I hate translation convos because I sound like a highbrow prick. Billy Graham said it best: the best translation is THE ONE YOU READ.
I use the DR for my personal reading simply because I like the Elizabethan English. Ask anyone in the English speaking world to name the Ten Commandments and odds are good he’ll say “Thou shalt not…” instead of “Do not.”
Interesting trivia about Genesis 3:15: the DR translates it as “She shall crush [the Serpent’s] head,” where most other translations render it as “He shall crush…” Many Catholics believed the former referred to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Not trying for a drive-by” here, but really, it’s not the Mass that’s the issue. It’s the celebrant – the priest (or in cases with multiple priests, the pastor). My parish is strictly NO, but our pastor (we only have him) is so full of reverence, I challenge anyone to find a more holy experience.
You guys are wrong about the NO versus the TLM. The TLM is objectively more beautiful. You can see it even by reading the rubrics side by side in English. And the traditions that developed around the TLM that aren’t part of the rubric are also much richer than the 70s era newly-minted traditions, like having the parishioners bring things down the center aisle or having kids go up with tithes and offerings.
Patrick,
There isn’t just one LM. There are a lot of them, and I’ve seen some that were entirely different than others, and beauty is different for each one. For example, the Dominican rite with the Asperges Me done to music can be so beautiful you cry, but it can be so poorly done it’s a wreck. As can be any rite.
But I challenge the claim that a well done LM is “objectively” more beautiful than a well done NO with the priest facing away, rubric against rubric, assuming one knows their Scriptures and understands the mass itself and what it means. Smells and bells and pomp do not equal objective beauty. The Liturgy of the Word, for example, is unquestionably and objectively richer in the NO than in any LM. Myself, I believe the NO is the best mass rubric in human history, East or West, considering spiritual beauty, which is all I care about. But I’m Western and modern, and YMMV.
I also agree with Maeve. Only I would add that servers, the music, and even the congregation matters too.
I didn’t say smells and bells and pomp equal objective beauty. I said the rich accretion of traditions which include smells and bells and pomp contribute to and support the objective beauty of a liturgy that developed organically over many centuries, which was edited all at once by some 70s era theologians and all the smells and bells and pomp were replaced by 70s era architecture and pomp etc, like shaking hands and chatting after the consecration, little kids running up with offerings, creative new vestments. But if you want to add a list of caveats where the old liturgy is ruined in an inept celebration and the NO doesn’t have one of it’s most notable features (the priest facing the parish) then yeah maybe, for those two particular celebrations. But the texts laid out side by side speak objectively for themselves, in the same way that, say, Hemingway laid next to John Grisham or something speaks for itself.
But the texts laid out side by side speak objectively for themselves, in the same way that, say, Hemingway laid next to John Grisham or something speaks for itself.
I’ve seen the texts side by side (often) and the NO is objectively “better”. Why? Superior LOTW. Right balance between extras/necessities. Right language. (I’ve probably attended a 40/40/20 LM/NO/Eastern split over the last 3 years so I’m educated).
I’m not saying the LM is inferior to the NO or Eastern rites (like you claim in reverse). The comparison is more like the DR vs RSV; the RSV & NO are objectively superior in technical matters to the DR & LM, true, but there is nothing wrong with any of them.
“Why? Superior LOTW. Right balance between extras/necessities. Right language.”
You’re wrong. It’s not a matter of personal opinion: “They’re all equally good; I just personally prefer…..” IOW: “John Grisham is superior to Hemingway because he’s easier to read, makes contemporary references, and has a quicker pace. There’s nothing wrong with Hemingway, except for a little racism and sexism, which obviously doesn’t exist in Grisham. But they’re all basically equal. I just happen to personally prefer Grisham.”
I’m right. The NO is objectively better, and I gave factual reasons why: LOTW, language, nice balance. I’m waiting to hear any objective reasons why I’m wrong.
I also said both are fine to use (even if NO is better); it’s a matter of personal preference. This is again is not an opinion, it is Church teaching. Again. you are objectively wrong.
“Grisham is easier to read, makes contemporary references, and has a quicker pace.”
I’ll just quote myself since you’re trying to move the goalposts, and I don’t have time to trap you. Thanks though for coming out and saying you believe the NO is objectively superior to the TLM after giving the standard mealy response initially. Study my comments if you want to see the factual reasons you’re wrong. I just got back from a NO liturgy in Colombia, and, just as in the States, the idea that it is objectively superior to the old liturgy is beyond laughable. It’s more like See Dick and Jane compared to Hemingway than Grisham.
“the rich accretion of traditions which include smells and bells and pomp contribute to and support the objective beauty of a liturgy that developed organically over many centuries, which was edited all at once by some 70s era theologians and all the smells and bells and pomp were replaced by 70s era architecture and pomp etc, like shaking hands and chatting after the consecration, little kids running up with offerings, creative new vestments. But if you want to add a list of caveats where the old liturgy is ruined in an inept celebration and the NO doesn’t have one of it’s most notable features (the priest facing the parish) then yeah maybe, for those two particular celebrations. But the texts laid out side by side speak objectively for themselves, in the same way that, say, Hemingway laid next to John Grisham or something speaks for itself.”
Here’s the two rubrics side by side. If you honestly think the old liturgy is less beautiful/inferior to the NO, maybe you don’t know how to read very well or something so the shorter one is more appealing.
http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/comparison-between-the-traditional-and-novus-ordo-missals
Everyone talking about DR vs NAB: please don’t miss the point that the whole concept of translation has changed greatly 1611 and 1582, much less since Jerome’s time.
In particular we have a more sophisticated idea now that translations can have different purposes, and that there is no such thing as One Correct Translation For All Purposes. I do not in any way fault those earlier folks, whether Jerome or Lancelot Andrewes (the latter a particular hero of mine) for doing the best job they could under the prevailing standards and concepts of what a translation should be — but I also don’t use their work-products for my own devotions or study.
KP, fully agreed.
Btw, an example of NAB terribleness was in today’s readings 1 Cor 6:18;Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body.
My favorites (RSVCE & NASB) have the same disaster; sure, they are more “accurate” translations but miss the true meaning for people who don’t know the Greek. Sort of like how “where’s the beef” when taken out of the culture makes no sense as an exact translation. Here’s the DR (KJV is similar) and it is better in this case, even thought it’s less technically accurate:
Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body.
mdavid,
Sorry, I don’t see it. Can you specify what, precisely, you think is wrong/worse in the NAB translation?
Also, when you contrast “accurate” with “true meaning”, I’m not sure you’re understanding me. The modern concept of translation (which I pretty much agree with) is that it’s meaningless to say “translating X as Y is more accurate”, without adding for what purpose you are making the translation. A translation that is “best” for students learning the original language is NOT necessarily best for a linguist doing comparative analysis, and NOT necessarily better for someone wanting to get as-close-as-possible to the original effect the text would have had on its readers.
KP: Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body.
Sorry. Point: this passage makes no sense unless “immorality” = “fornication”. He clearly is not talking about general immorality here, but to AVOID FORNICATION. Which our culture desperately needs to hear, but the NAB confuses. Older translations like the DR clearly call it fornication, which it is.
KP, I agree with your explanation, and I think the NAB verse at mass today is a good example of a poor translation for church, where the man in the pew just wants to get to the point. It doesn’t bother me personally because I know the Greek behind the English, but if I were uneducated I would totally miss Paul’s point.
Ah. I see.
No doubt the NAB folks found “fornication” too archaic as a word*, and they did their work at a time on the trailing edge of when “immorality” not further qualified was generally understood to mean sexual immorality.
Note the NIV just comes out and says “sexual immorality”, though my source (bible.com) does not distinguish revisions of the NIV so I don’t actually know if that wording came with the original version (released about the same time as the NAB) or with one of the subsequent revisions.
—————————————————————-
*I would mostly agree with them.
Pingback: On The Same Page | Donal Graeme