Tag Archives: catholic church

Now let’s talk about Mother Teresa . . .

. . . because taking on Gandhi last week wasn’t enough.

First, I must say that I appreciated her anti-abortion efforts.  I love how she got in the faces of Clinton et al on the topic.  Good for her.

But theologically speaking, I have some sizable issues with her.  These articles explained them well:

First, The Myth of Other Teresa:

She was revered around the world as an example of Christian love and charity and as someone who dedicated her life to the noble cause of advancing the gospel to the poor and needy of the world while caring for their physical needs. Her legacy will doubtless be as one of history’s great humanitarians.

Upon examination, though, the Mother Teresa portrayed by the media and popularized in our culture is glorified (soon to be beatified) and almost deified. A close examination of her beliefs and the work she did shows that her legacy may be little more than fiction. . . . We also see her belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a mediator between God and ourselves (see Catholic Catechism, paragraph #969#1172 and #494) and as such, plays a role in our salvation. . . .Through the entire book there is never a hint that she relies on Christ alone for her salvation. Rather we read things like, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” . . . “I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.” Or in another place, “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”

Her soteriology (he doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ) was a train-wreck:

“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”

. . . Time and again we see her expounding such universalist beliefs. In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.”

Huh?!  But the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation!  You can’t miss it.

And she chose to let people suffer:

Contradictions in her beliefs, then, are apparent. We see similar contradictions in her humanitarian work. The common belief is that Mother Teresa worked with the sick and destitute to lovingly return them to health. An examination of her missions will show that this is far from the case. Mother Teresa believed that there is spiritual value in suffering. Once, when tending to a patient dying of cancer, she said “You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.” (Christoper Hitchens – The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, p. 41). For this reason she would not prescribe pain killers in her clinics, choosing instead to allow her patients to experience the suffering that she believed would bring them closer to Christ. Despite the tens of millions of dollars donated to her charity each year, her missions were rudimentary and offered no real health care. Her missions mainly catered to the critically ill and simply afforded them a place to go to die. It is interesting to note that when Mother Teresa became ill she would travel to the finest health care facilities to receive treatment. . . .

What, then, is the importance of debunking the myth of Mother Teresa? The answer is this. Pastors of Protestant churches around the world continue to speak of Mother Teresa in saintly terms. They hold her up as the ultimate example of self-sacrifice for the sake of the gospel. From the pulpits they discuss how she responded to Christ’s Great Commission to spread the gospel to all lands. The reality, though, is that if she preached at all, she preached a false religion. In so doing she provides us with an example not of a Christian responding to God’s call, but an example of deeds of charity and compassion completely separated from the Truth.

Also see Mother Teresa in her own words:

In an interview with her biographer, the following exchange was recorded:

Biographer Naveen Chawla: “Do you convert?” Mother Teresa: “Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him.”

That doesn’t sound very Christian.

Finally, see French study claims Mother Teresa not so saintly:

She was “anything but a saint,” the Canadian study authors found, as Newser reports. In fact, she found beauty in watching people suffer, the authors say.

The study is based on accounts of doctors who visited Mother Teresa’s so-called “homes for the dying.” The found terrible conditions, Newser reported — poor hygiene among patients, hunger, lacking medical supplies. Some patients were even denied necessary medical care, doctors said. Even Mother Teresa didn’t get care there — she went to an American hospital, Newser reported.

And the reported conditions weren’t for lack of money. Teresa’s Order of the Missionaries of Charity had hundreds of millions in donations, Newser reported.

The authors of the study allege the Vatican purposely ignored the truth of Mother Teresa’s charity. Rather, church officials helped to set the stage for her image as a saint, and even pushed through her beatification to avoid scrutiny.

Did she do some good?  I suppose so.  But it is unfortunate that she is held up as such an icon when her theology was false and her good deeds rather suspect.

Purgatory and indulgences: Still around. Still anti-biblical.

I wish this was a parody: Vatican offers ‘time off purgatory’ to followers of Pope Francis tweets.

Many people think that the false teachings about purgatory* and indulgences have gone away, but the Catholic religion still adheres to them.  The distinctions below should appear to be arbitrary to you, because anti-biblical teachings like these are man-made and inevitably loosely defined.

I note that they are anti-biblical (the opposite of the Bible) and not just non-biblical (not in the Bible) because they are works-based and teach that what Jesus did on the cross was helpful but not sufficient.  Any implication that Jesus’ death and resurrection weren’t enough to save you is a sure sign of a false teaching.  If you say you need Jesus plus your works, that is false.  If you say you don’t need Jesus, or that He is just an option, that is false.

In its latest attempt to keep up with the times the Vatican has married one of its oldest traditions to the world of social media by offering “indulgences” to followers of Pope Francis’ tweets.

The church’s granted indulgences reduce the time Catholics believe they will have to spend in purgatory after they have confessed and been absolved of their sins.

The remissions got a bad name in the Middle Ages because unscrupulous churchmen sold them for large sums of money. But now indulgences are being applied to

the 21st century.

They should have had a bad name for mocking the cross and being false teachings.  The idea that they were only bad when peddled by unscrupulous churchmen charged too much just added to the falsehood.

But a senior Vatican official warned web-surfing Catholics that indulgences still required a dose of old-fashioned faith, and that paradise was not just a few mouse clicks away.

“You can’t obtain indulgences like getting a coffee from a vending machine,” Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, head of the pontifical council for social communication, told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera.

Indulgences these days are granted to those who carry out certain tasks – such as climbing the Sacred Steps, in Rome (reportedly brought from Pontius Pilate’s house after Jesus scaled them before his crucifixion), a feat that earns believers seven years off purgatory.

That sounds a lot closer to getting a coffee from the vending machine than it does to the Bible.

But attendance at events such as the Catholic World Youth Day, in Rio de Janeiro, a week-long event starting on 22 July, can also win an indulgence.

Mindful of the faithful who cannot afford to fly to Brazil, the Vatican’s sacred apostolic penitentiary, a court which handles the forgiveness of sins, has also extended the privilege to those following the “rites and pious exercises” of the event on television, radio and through social media.

“That includes following Twitter,” said a source at the penitentiary, referring to Pope Francis’ Twitter account, which has gathered seven million followers. “But you must be following the events live. It is not as if you can get an indulgence by chatting on the internet.”

Yeah, what kind of silly process do you think this is?!  I had to double check and ensure I wasn’t quoting from The Onion.

. . .

“What really counts is that the tweets the Pope sends from Brazil or the photos of the Catholic World Youth Day that go up on Pinterest produce authentic spiritual fruit in the hearts of everyone,” said Celli.

If the spiritual fruit is authentic then the first thing they will do is leave the Catholic religion.  I know many people who go to Catholic churches who sound like Protestants in their theology.  They don’t hold to the false teachings but go out of habit.  Or their organizations may be led by “bad Catholics” (by which I mean good) who never teach things like this.  I wish they would move to churches that are God-honoring.

I realize that it may be initially frustrating to hear about such things, but I encourage people to consider what a great tool it is to educate Catholics about what their religion really teaches.  So many of them think that the church doesn’t really teach about indulgences, purgatory, Marianism, praying to the dead, etc.  When they slip up and show how they still hold to these doctrines we should help them publicize it.

Like I always say, the Reformation happened for a reason.  Actually, 95 of them.  And they haven’t changed.

* pur·ga·to·ry (in the belief of Roman Catholics and others) a condition or place in which the souls of those dying penitent are purified from venial sins, or undergo the temporal punishment that, after the guilt of mortal sin has been remitted, still remains to be endured by the sinner.

What was he thinking?

Update: From the “this is awkward” category, the Vatican clarified that not only do they believe that atheists go to Hell, but so does anyone outside the Catholic church.

So the Pope is taking a Second look at letting atheists into heaven?

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

The Pope made one of two mistakes. The first is really bad, the second is off-the-charts bad.

1. He was very sloppy in his use of “redeemed.” If he didn’t mean it in terms of eternal salvation, then he mislead a lot of people.  He was basically channeling Major Burns from the M*A*S*H TV show and saying, “It’s nice to be nice to the nice.”  It could logically lead to a conversation like this:

Pope: You, my atheist friend, have been redeemed by God with the blood of Christ!  Let’s do good works together.

Atheist: Huh?  You mean that even though I don’t trust in Jesus and don’t even think God exists that I’ll spend eternity in Heaven with him with no punishment for my alleged sins?

Pope: Oh, no, my bad — you are still going to spend eternity in Hell as punishment for your sins.  But in the mean time we’ll do a few good deeds together and your torment in Hell will be slightly less unpleasant!  When I said “redeemed by the blood of Christ” I meant _________. [Sorry, this blogger can’t even think of a pretend way to finish that sentence.]

2. He ignores that the New Testament has over 100 passages noting that Jesus is the only way to salvation (it isn’t just John 14:6). That isn’t what makes it true, of course. His resurrection does that. But it does mean to claim to be a Christian means that you should hold that view. Anything else would be silly.

I don’t expect good theology from him (OK, more specifically, I expect bad theology from him), but I do like his pro-life and pro-family views.  But once again he fails on the salvation issue.

The Reformation happened for a reason. Actually, 95 of them. And they haven’t changed.

—-

Update: More from the Pope’s speech.

“They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”

He appears to be twisting the passage about people casting out demons in Jesus’ name (Luke 9). But that wasn’t some random good deed that atheists might do (even though it wouldn’t be truly good if done out of self-interest). They were <em>casting out demons in Jesus’ name</em>. He implies that atheists are regularly doing that!  I shouldn’t be surprised when people like him can’t get the simplest passages right.

And then there is this:

Today is [the feast of] Santa Rita, Patron Saint of impossible things – but this seems impossible: let us ask of her this grace, this grace that all, all, all people would do good and that we would encounter one another in this work, which is a work of creation, like the creation of the Father. A work of the family, because we are all children of God, all of us, all of us! And God loves us, all of us! May Santa Rita grant us this grace, which seems almost impossible.

We are not all “children of God.” John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

And the article wraps up with him praying to a dead person.  In an odd way, I appreciate that the guy who is allegedly God’s #1 man here on earth is so clearly and profoundly anti-biblical.  It removes any doubt about core Catholic doctrines being false — at least for those who actually read the Bible.

Roundup

Thoughts on the new Pope: The Reformation happened for a reason.  Actually, 95 of them, and they are still valid reasons to avoid the Catholic church.  I deeply respect their positions on abortion, real marriage and various other topics, and I think that many Catholics are indeed saved — but in spite of what Rome teaches on sanctification, Mary and other topics, not because of what they teach on them.

Having said that, I like the conservative stances of the new Pope, and his humility in how he lives.  It is always good to see the Leftists in full pants-wetting mode over the fact that the head of the Catholic religion actually believes what the Catholic religion teaches.  How dare the Catholic leaders ignore the desires of those who oppose everything the leaders stand for?

More from the Nanny State: Lots of unintended consequences from the “ban” on large sodas (because people will never find a way around that, right?!  Everyone knows that Prohibition was a great success with no negative side effects.) — Nanny Bloomberg’s Big Sugary Drinks To Cause Problems With Coffee Shops.  It is a good thing that New York has solved all its other problems, such as how Eighty Percent of NYC High School Grads Lack Basic Reading Skills or how more than have of its black babies are killed in the womb.

Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s will no longer add sugar at all. Dunkin’ is handing out fliers explaining what’s going on and have trained their workers to explain it all to customers. Some independent coffee shops have simply eliminated drinks above 16 ounces. There’s lots of confusion and angst. Starbucks is waiting for the result of the lawsuit filed against the city.

Canadian Supreme Court Ruling Has Implications for Christian Witness – coming soon to a country near you.  As always, the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.

The ruling also states that suppression of “hate speech”—such as claiming that homosexual behavior is immoral—is so important that it justifies infringing on religious freedom and provides a basis for a “reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The court also explained that truth was no defense since “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”

This standard is then used to justify a draconian standard of censorship: If, despite the context of the entire publication, even one phrase or sentence is found to bring the publication, as a whole, in contravention of the Code, this precludes its publication in its current form.

. . . If criticism of homosexual behavior is construed as criticism of homosexuals then a “simple reading” of the Lev. 18 and context clearly shows that the passage “could objectively be viewed as hate speech.” While Canada’s Supreme Court justices may not understand what is in the “holy text” used by Christians, homosexual rights activists certainly do—and they will expect the legal system to consistently apply the logic of the Court’s ruling.

Equally troubling is that Christian ministers who condemn homosexual behavior can be subject to hate crime prosecution. Canada’s Supreme Court has determined that speaking out against destructive homosexual behaviors could be construed as vilification of homosexuals and therefore is prohibited in most circumstances. This is a radical standard that could severely hamper Christian witness.

Although Jesus said “the truth will set you free,” in Canada speaking the same truths proclaimed in God’s Word could potentially land Christians in jail.

What should we do when we visit the sick?  Click the link for more.

In summary, then, Calvin encourages all Christians, and especially ministers, to keep several things in mind as they visit the sick.

  1. People need the gospel more than ever when they are ill.
  2. Remind the sick from the word of God that God is sovereign over their illness and has sent it for their good.
  3. If the illness is severe, comfort the sick with the sure knowledge that those who die in the Lord have nothing to fear.
  4. If the sick consider their sins to be light and trivial, teach them of the justice of God and call them to embrace the mercy of Christ.
  5. If the sick are afflicted in their consciences, help them find rest in Christ.
  6. Don’t be afraid to bring some small token of physical relief—books, flowers, balloons, games, movies, a homemade card.

The Democrats’ war on women continues: Dem: No Need For Guns, Just Tell Men Not To Rape.  When Republican’s say things a fraction as inflammatory as that it swings major elections.  When Democrats say it, the media yawns.

The Christian Alert had a write-up of how Richard Dawkins plays the “You only believe that because of where you are born” and the “evidence for God = evidence for unicorns” cards.   Ugh.  Typical poor reasoning from Dawkins.  Using that logic, he’s only an atheist because of where he was born.

And the unicorns / flying tea pot / flying spaghetti monster / etc. argument demonstrates the childishness and lack of seriousness of atheists like him.  To claim that the cosmological, teleological, historical, moral, etc. arguments are akin to those is a concession speech to their Romans 1 poster boy rebellion.

Good news: Arkansas legislature overrides veto, restores “heartbeat” abortion restrictions

I think I’ve posted this before, but someone passed it along and it is worth re-posting: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media.  I would pay lots of money to see all politicians asked those questions, and to have the media force them to answer and not just change the subject.

Good news that someone didn’t succumb to moral schizophrenia: Surrogate Mom Given $10K to Abort “Imperfect Baby,” Rejects Offer

When it comes to babies who are diagnosed with some sort of fetal abnormality in the womb, the pressure is high from doctors, family members and society to have an abortion. That’s why approximately 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome, for example, become victims of abortion.

When a surrogacy pregnancy is involved, the pressure brought to bear is only intensified.

But one surrogate mother has rejected that pressure — and an offer of $10,000 to have an abortion. Crystal Kelley was offered $10,000 to have an abortion after ultrasounds showed the baby she was carrying for another couple had severe medical problems.

Courtesy of Right Klik: “If you’re worried about getting killed by a gun, you should be about 5300% more worried about dying of heart disease.”

A fun way to finish – some of Dan Phillips’ #CheckYourJesus tweets:

If the “Jesus” you worship isn’t too jazzed about every bit of God’s Word, you might want to#CheckYourJesus
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 5, 2013

If the “Jesus” you worship wants everyone to have his “best life now,” you’d better#CheckYourJesus
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If the “Jesus” you worship doesn’t love the church, you’d better #CheckYourJesus

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 5, 2013

If the “Jesus” you worship says “Love” and you think “Statist bureaucracy confiscating & redistributing wealth,” you should #CheckYourJesus

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If your Jesus wouldn’t have cared about the RCC perverting the Gospel and the Word bec they’re pro-life, you should #CheckYourJesus

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If your Jesus taught you to call everyone who actually does take His words srsly a “hater” or “self-righteous,” you’d better #CheckYourJesus

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If the “Jesus” you worship keeps handing you “God told me” cards without Bible verses on them, you’d better #CheckYourJesus
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 6, 2013

If your “Jesus” is OK with you hating his bride, #CheckYourJesus

— Machel (@trogdor42) March 6, 2013

#checkYourJesus if He doesn’t forgive your sins, but rather justifies them.
— Frank Turk (@Frank_Turk) March 6, 2013

If you claim Christianity but don’t know the gospel #CheckYourJesus
— ❂Captain Morgan ⚓ (@MorganSteelman) March 6, 2013

If your Jesus wants you to pray to his earthly mother, you need to #CheckYourJesus
— Chris Rosebrough (@piratechristian) March 6, 2013

If you think grace can forgive your sin but not mortify it, time to #CheckYourJesus
— Machel (@trogdor42) March 6, 2013

If your “Jesus” has a generous orthodoxy & claims He has followers who are practicing Buddhists, Hindus & Muslims U need to #CheckYourJesus
— Chris Rosebrough (@piratechristian) March 6, 2013

Dear Catholics who voted for Obama,

Does this bother you at all?

  • The Democrats consider anyone who holds Catholic views on marriage to be “haters.”  The Pope himself would not be eligible to speak at Obama’s inauguration.
  • The official platform of the Democrats is to have unrestricted abortions funded by taxpayers.  They aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.
  • They are forcing your organizations to pay for birth control, including abortifacient drugs, and to permit same-sex couples to adopt children.  They would rather your hospitals and adoption clinics close down rather than relent on these issues.

If you vote for Democrats you should quit calling yourself Catholic.  They strenuously oppose your organization on the key social and moral issues of the day, and are working overtime to take away your religious freedoms.

Note: There is a reason I’m not Catholic — actually, 95 of them — but I have always appreciated their pro-family, pro-life views, and I know many “bad Catholics” who hold to the Protestant (i.e., biblical) view of justification.

False teacher Chuck Currie leads the cheers for abortionists

False teacher Chuck Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to cheer on his heroes, the abortionists.  Via Want To Reduce Abortions?:

Being pro-choice doesn’t mean being pro-abortion.  Abortion ought to be legal, safe and rare.

That’s their fallacious catch phrase, of course.  But they fight safety measures tooth and nail, so that’s a lie on their part.  And Chuck & Co. fight for taxpayer-funded abortions and were even willing to risk losing their entire Obamacare dream over it.   They think that one of the problems in society is that we aren’t crushing and dismembering enough innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb, and that if we only killed more then life would be better and Jesus would be happier.  And they know that taxpayer-funded abortions will increase the rate of black abortions to white from the current 3-to-1 ratio.  Seems kinda racist to me.

It ought to be a real choice that women aren’t forced into making because of financial considerations.

The scientific fact is that a new human being is created at fertilization.  So Chuck and the other fake Christian pro-aborts think it should be a choice to kill innocent but unwanted human beings.  This is the guy whose favorite verse is about the “least of these.”

Between 1990 and 2008, pregnancy and abortion rates for women in their twenties dropped dramatically, a new study revealed today. Pregnancy rates fell by 18 percent, while abortion rates dropped by a third.

Probably because of abstinence education.  Remember that if abortion rates go up the pro-aborts blame abstinence education.

One of the biggest influencing factors in this decrease is the growing accessibility, use, and options for birth control. Contraceptive use is the best way to prevent abortions in the U.S.

Spoken like a true non-Christian.  The best way is for people not to have sex out of wedlock.

It is ironic that those that call themselves pro-life are so often opposed to contraception.  The end result of the Roman Catholic Church’s war on contraception will be increased abortions – not to mention HIV/AIDS, other STDs and preventable cancers.

HIV/AIDS is most prevalent in the gay community — the very people Chuck parades for.

This drop off in the number of abortions in encouraging – and shows that groups like Planned Parenthood are being effective.

Planned Parenthood is a serial hider of statutory rapists, sex traffickers and more. Chuck and the other fake Christians who support Planned Parenthood know that but ignore it.

Getting Galileo wrong. Twice.

Galileo and Viviani
Image via Wikipedia

Darwinists reflexively use the story of Galileo to advance the religious vs. science false dichotomy.  That fails on two levels.

1. The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements.  And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo?

And as far as religious (or non-religious) beliefs getting in the way of science, who knows if Einstein’s presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant?  After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one.  That hypothesis cuts both ways.  This happens often in science, such as the myth of “junk DNA” that went on for years because Darwinists assumed it without evidence.

2. Which is the more pertinent element of the Galileo story?

A. Some religious people were wrong while other religious people were right.

B. Those in power were wrong and abused their authority and those not in power were right.

People who use the Galileo example typically assume A, but I think it is B.

The August 2011 issue of Salvo (great magazine and web site, btw) had an article about a professor forced to write an apology to a student he had harassed in class over her unwillingness to believe in Darwinian evolution.  He wrote a non-pology instead, “apologizing” for “appearing to denigrate” her beliefs and insisting that he hadn’t meant to offend her.

Worse yet, he had the gall to refer to Galileo.  The girl’s lawyer replied to him noting the irony of the Galileo example.  After all, who was the authority figure in this case and who was the victim?  The professor was authority figure (the “Pope” of this situation) and he used his power to deliberately humiliate the woman taking risks in opposing the majority view.  The professor cast himself as the hero, but the woman was the one challenging the orthodox position and standing up for free thinking.

P.S. The religion vs. science canard always reminds me of this gag from The Simpsons,  where Lisa Simpson finds a phony fossil of what appears to be an angel.  The judge presiding over a trial about the fossil said this:

As for science versus religion, I’m issuing a restraining order: Religion must stay 500 yards from science at all times.