PR Pope admits divisiveness and contradictions (inadvertantly)

It has been roughly a week and a half since I read the Catholic News Agency piece "Let go of 'false lights' that lead down the wrong path, Pope says." No one seems to have followed up or comment on it that I can find. This is interesting since if you think about its contents critically for more than a few minutes it reveals that the Pope inadvertently admitted that Christianity is divisive and that the Pope routinely conveys contradictory messages. Consider:

“If now I were to ask you, do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe that he can change your heart? Do you think you can see reality as he sees it, not as we do? Do you believe that he is light, that he gives us the true light?...abandoning false lights...cold and fatuous light of prejudice against others, because prejudice distorts reality and builds hate against those who we judge without mercy and condemn without an appeal.”

If Jesus is the "true light" doesn't that at least imply that all other religions and beliefs are "false lights"? How is this compatible with previous appeals to treating all faiths equally? How does this not contradict to some degree the last part of the quotation. If you are compelled by faith to assume all other religions and beliefs are false how can you not become prejudiced against them? Logically, this notion seems to lead to and even demand prejudice and divisiveness.

Did Francis just denounce the Catholic Church?

I find it rather interesting that Religious News Service ran thes two pieces simultaneously: "Pope Francis denounces growing 'demonization of enemies and outsiders'" and "Because of the U.S. bishops’ voters guide, I may leave the church." The latter being just another of many instances where the Catholic Church does smear and lie about any individuals or groups it doesn't like. Though, it has been years since I routinely attended church I have been to plenty of masses and religious based gatherings, Catholic or otherwise, over the years. And, yes as an atheist I have attended a variety religious rites, rituals, ceremonies.... I have often heard phrases like "faithless", "unfaithful", "without faith", and so forth. It was clear that the priests meant atheists and in some instances non-Christian or even non-Catholic. In every instance, what followed those words and phrases was derogatory and degrading. They went out of their way to use their pulpit to demonize.

So, until Francis actually backs up his rhetoric with something of substance I have to assume he is either very deceitful or incredibly self-deluded. If he isn't just using another PR ploy he needs to wake the fuck up and deal with the fact that his Church is involved in the demonization that he claims to oppose.

Hypocrite be thy name

And the hits just keep coming from Pope Francis. A June 20th Religious News Service post titled "Pope Francis to Catholics: 'Who are you to judge others?'" is a classic case of projection as any I've come across to date. Just three days before he was quoted passing judgement on a huge chunk of the world's population. Among other media outlets NBC news ran a piece on his public pronouncement about modern marriages. "Most modern marriages are invalid, Pope says in off-the-cuff remarks" makes it pretty clear that he was not just referring to Catholic marriages. He was making judgments about all marriages.

So, not only is this pompous self righteous prick being a hypocrite he is claiming knowledge about matters he has no real experience or understanding. What the fuck would this dumb ass actually know about intimate romantic relationships? And, he seems to think its okay to meddle in the lives of those who have not chosen to join his bullshit infused criminally complicit club. I genuinely do not understand how Cathiolics can continue to accept this asshole as an authority on anything. Non-Catholics affording him any respect is really confusing. He has yet to earn any of the good will and accolades that continue to be gifted to him.

No such "peace" has been made

The Fortune piece entitled "The Pope makes peace between science and faith" is patently absurd. Not only does the author fail to provide any arguments to support the claim the piece routinely slips into a whole slew of logical fallacies. Almost nothing stated stands up to even the slightest fact checking or critical thinking. Reading this short bit of tripe is rather tedious and painful. Kluger starts with a number of cheap shots at atheists and never gets much better in his reasoning. And, of course, a key point never seems to cross his mind.

The very idea that the head of one of the largest Christian denominations could ever bridge the gap between science and faith is ludicrous. For whom is Christianity named? The Christ figure is the antithesis of science and critical thinking. Who in their right mind can truly reconcile the notion that a person can spontaneously raise themselves from the dead? No one who really respects the scientific method can accept the resurrection stories. What about the miracles? What about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. According to Catholic teaching the Eucharist literally, not symbolically, becomes the body of Christ the moment the priest blesses it. Since when is magic part of Science?

Sorry, Jeffrey Kluger, but you are a complete moron if you think the Pope's agreeing with scientific consensus on a few specific topics qualifies as making "peace between science and faith."

2 Titles, 1 Delusion

E.J. Dionne's September 20th column for the Washington Post has two equally idiotic titles. The one under which it is publicly available on the Post's website, "Pope Francis’s actions speak louder than his words", is completely opposite. Francis has spoken far more about reforming the church than he has acted on. In fact, the very few "actions" he has taken are pathetically minor and feeble. The title the same column was given after being published in the EBSCO databases, "Francis's radical challenge", is also full of shit. The fourth paragraph is a pretty good summary of the whole piece.

"It’s hard to see how progressives don’t come out ahead, simply because the pope has radically reordered the priorities of the church. He is not fighting culture wars. He is fighting against them. This, in part, is what accounts for his broad popularity among former Catholics, Americans of other faiths and even secularists and atheists."

Actually, it's pretty easy to see how anyone with the ability to think critically can handily refute every sentence of this paragraph. As I have previously pointed out in numerous posts, Francis has in no way altered church doctrines. He has done nothing to significantly reform church practices or policies, either. The only noticeable difference between Francis and his predecessors is in style. He's better at PR. How is he not involved in fighting "culture wars" if he heads the organization that is constantly opposing secular egalitarian policies supported by a majority of citizens in multiple countries? He is complicit if not leading the charge to impose narrow religious views on everyone; Catholic or not, religious or not. His popularity among non-Catholics is questionable. Outside Christians it is even more debatable.

Essentially, Dionne is taking the approach that the Catholic Church's hierarchy tends to favor. Ascribe your own baseless personal opinion onto everyone as if it is factual. It isn't. Simply repeating the same bullshit over and over does not make it anymore a part of reality. It just demonstrates how willfully ignorant and delusional theists can be.

Yup, he's a leech

No doubt you've seen all sorts of fluff pieces about Pope Francis' pending visit to the United States. Have you seen even one that mentions the fact that we tax payers are going to being footing a large chunk of bill? I have not. Instead you occasionally come across pieces like this one: "Secret Service director: No credible threats against Pope Francis." Of course, we will not be passing on that expense to the Catholic Church. Instead of letting one of the wealthiest organizations on the face of the planet pay for it's own propaganda campaigns we get to do it.

As much of an affront to our Constitution as this is (think Separation of Church and State) it is also rather revealing in terms of religious philosophy. What threats can civil authorities protect the "Vicar of god" from? The Pope is supposedly God's representative on Earth. Shouldn't God be protecting him? I want to be clear on the next point, I do not want to see the Pope hurt or killed. That said, why would it be such a big deal to anyone who happens to be religious if the Pope is assassinated? Wouldn't such an occurrence by it's very nature be the will of God? And, being such a holy figure wouldn't he be getting an express ticket to Heaven? Doesn't sound like such a horrible consequence if you really believe in that sort of thing.

Basically, we all get to pay for a representative of one specific church to further spread it's lies and bullshit. The media won't talk about that. They will, however, continue to give the overprivileged pompous bishops and cardinals a venue to pretend their religious liberties are being violated when they can't force their views and opinions on the rest of us even more than they currently get away with. Francis and the rest of the Catholic Hierarchy are hypocritical, dishonest, social and economic leeches.

A bit late, and far too short

It is nice to see at least a few mainstream outlets acknowledge perceptions of the current Pope are inaccurate even if those pieces tend to be rather shallow and weak. One of the few recent articles to feebly point out this disconnect from reality came from Time in the form of "The Top 4 Misconceptions About Pope Francis." In comparison to all the misconceptions surrounding Francis this really is pathetic. If it were just a starting point for a series of short pieces on the myths surrounding the current Pope it might work well as a gentle way to broach the subject but I doubt Time will follow it up with anything even remotely resembling a substantial analysis. The author, a liberal leaning Catholic activist, never bothers to point out that the Pope has not actually even hinted at let alone attempted to change a single Catholic doctrine. The few practices he's made minor adjustments to are of little to no consequence and are easily ignored and/or over-ridden by local clergy. Sadly, this does not seem to be accidental either. The minuscule steps taken by Francis to combat economic corruption and child rape seem to have been designed to allow a lot of leeway for those most responsible for such crimes. The very few who have been punished in some manner are simply being used by the Vatican and its pontiff as a relief valve, a public relations sacrificial goat.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this Pope really is no different in reality from his predecessors.

Hypocrisy be thy name, Francis

I've never fallen for Pope Francis' PR veneer. He has done little to nothing to earn the praise he has routinely received since becoming Pope. Recently, even his superficial veneer has been wearing thin. Sadly, very few have actively criticized him for these massive doses of bullshit. One episode of hypocritical deceit that he recently unleashed should have every self-respecting historian calling foul. An AP story that the HuffPo reposted is just laced with an absurd level of hypocrisy.

"Pope Francis: 'Great Powers' Did Nothing When Jews Were Taken To Auschwitz"

This statement is a lot like someone finding the need to chastise his neighbor for playing with matches only moments after the whiner accidentally burnt down that same neighbors house with a flamethrower. Apparently a little paper known as the Reichskonkordat slipped the Pope's mind. The Vatican and the German government signed a treaty with each other in 1933. Even though Germany very quickly played fast and loose with the terms the Vatican stuck pretty close to it. In other words, in order to not get in trouble with the Nazis the Catholic Hierarchy did nothing to help the Jews or any other minority. If he actually did any fact checking he would have discover that the only reps of his beloved church to get off their asses to help were local parish clergy who frequently acted against the wishes of their superiors.

Francis is full of shit.

King of Contradictions

It seems that the Pope is looking to earn himself a title similar to one commonly ascribe to Jesus. Instead of the "King of Kings" Francis is vying for the "King of Contradictions." His stance on cracking down on frivolous pampered clergy really does seem to be just a matter of PR window dressing. The Religious News Service headlines for February 10th unintentionally provided an excellent visual reference:

Notice the juxtaposition of "Ousted 'Bling Bishop' makes soft landing in Vatican" with "Pope Francis faces a big week in his effort to reform the Vatican." Umm, what reform? The German Bishop was supposedly fired for his flagrant misuse and abuse of funds. Problem with that line s that he wasn't actually fired. Just so we are clear about the message I will quote a National Catholic Reporter piece from March 2014.

"Pope Francis on Tuesday effectively fired a German bishop who had attracted controversy for extraordinary expenses on a new diocesan center, sending a signal that he is willing to oust bishops who do not align with his vision of a 'poor church for the poor.'"

What really occured was that the Pope set him aside while a new cushier position could be created for this corrupt asshole. According to the "Ousted..." piece shown above, "The post was created for Tebartz-van Elst and has the hallmarks of a “make-work” job because the Vatican couldn’t figure out what else to do with the prelate." What's wrong with doing what they said they'd do: fire his greedy ass.

This, by the way, is just another example of Francis contradiction. Another recent one includes his statements like "Pope Francis Says Catholics Don't Need To Breed 'Like Rabbits'" being quickly followed by "Couples Who Choose Not To Have Children Are 'Selfish,' Pope Says" I have pointed it out before and I'll keep pointing it out that this Pope is only set apart from his predecessors in style. When it comes to substance he really is indistinguishable from other popes.



And, the answer is...Superficial

That's right the answer to the (sort of ) question "What the Pope’s popularity says about American culture" is the superficial nature of many Americans' understanding of theology. As I have commented before, the only real difference between the current Pope and the past few is a matter of style not of substance. Fawning over the current Pope doesn't really seem to be the main point of this recent post by Jonathan Merritt.

Like many of Merritt's post the piece is really just another opportunity to spread all sorts of deceitful and malicious bullshit. He repeats and promotes a variety of myths, stereotypes, and smears about nonbelievers.
Merritt's disingenuous post includes some of the most common misconceptions and misrepresentations. He provides a platform for such whoppers as the "anti-Christian bias in American news media" and that "Hollywood is rabidly anti-Christian." Conveniently he uses what others have said on such things as a cover for his own endorsement for these two idiotic tropes. Since it is still safe to outright attack atheists he doesn't bother to veil his hostility when directly commenting on us.

An excellent example comes towards the end of the post.
"Some secularists and atheists, of course, despise Christians just for being Christians. But the Richard Dawkins brand of adversary is the outlier and the exception."
Umm, no. Dawkins has family and friends who happen to be Christian. Dawkins, like many of us, has repeatedly pointed out that it is Christianity not Christians that is the topic of debate and criticism. Respecting individuals does not mean the ideas those individuals hold deserve to be respected. Ideas are not people. It is sad that intellectually dishonest twerps like Merritt so often get away with this type of sleight-of-hand trickery.

As Credulous as ever

As reported in a July 2nd Guardian piece, "Vatican gives official backing to exorcists", the Pope once again demonstrates that he is just as conservative, superstitious, and credulous as his predecessors. He is neither modern nor a reformer. He abides by all the same ridiculous doctrines and policies that the last handful of Popes have blindly followed.

Blitzer and Kennedy didn't "Know"

A recent piece at CNN's Belief Blog really needs to be retitled. Instead of "5 Things You Didn't Know about Popes and Presidents" it should be "A few things Blitzer and Kennedy were ignorant of." The piece does a decent job further demonstrating how ignorant and foolish people can be. My opinion of Wolf Blitzer has been pretty low for quite a while so his assertions (along with co-author Kennedy) didn't surprise me. Their list of five things do actually contain some facts but are presented in rather skewed ways. Of course, a few on the list are not factual but rather dubious opinions based on personal preferences and omission of facts.

The five are:
1. George Washington banned the burning of papal effigies
2. A pope almost recognized the Confederacy
3. The Vatican helped end the Cuban Missile Crisis
4. The United States didn’t have a Vatican ambassador until 1984
5. Pope John Paul II tried to prevent the Iraq War

1, 2, and 4 are not debatable in terms of the historical record. Why they matter and to what extent they matter can and have been argued. 3 and 5 are the ones I found most interesting given that there is really no substantial support for either claims especially in the manner they are proclaimed. Somehow, the fact that the Pope made a public statement about peace during the Cuban Missile Crisis automatically means the leaders involved actually took it to heart. Huh?! Lots of prominent religious, social, and political leaders from around the world made similar calls for calmer relations during the crisis. How does the Pope's rise above all the others? The same is true regarding the Iraq War. Although, in relation to the Iraq war it is possible that the Pope could have done more. He never went beyond statements despite the sway that religious figures had with the Whitehouse in foreign policy. Odds are that Bush & Co. would have ignored him on this particular set of foreign policy issues but he could have tried more. He didn't. Personally, I prefer religious leaders stay the fuck out of politics completely.

Overall, the piece doesn't reveal much beyond the lack of knowledge and insight of it s authors.

"Rebalance"?

One of the latest narratives to emerge from the mainstream media related to Pope Francis is interesting in that it is more accurate than most of the pieces they have produced but is still grossly misleading. The main theme present in most of these pieces is that the Pope is looking to create diversity within the upper echelons of Catholic clergy. However, writing like "What the Pope's choice of new cardinals means", are incredibly superficial in their approach to the basic concept of diversity. As far as I can tell from reading such examples no one has bothered to look into these cardinals beyond where they are from geographically.  What part of the world each cardinal hails from is by no means trivial but it also is not the epitome of diversity. I found nothing that would indicate they vary in any other aspect. At this point, for all we know they will be a bunch of strict "traditionalists". I see no reason to draw any conclusions about the effect these men will have on the Catholic church at this point.

So to the mainstream media, NO, this is not further proof of their favored premise that this Pope is a reformer.

Definitely Anti-gay

I would love it if the mainstream media finally started paying attention to what the Pope actually does, or doesn't do as opposed to the frequently disingenuous superficial rhetoric he offers on a regular basis. It is doubtful but one can hope. Francis has once again provided ample evidence that when it comes to substance he is no different than his predecessors. He has made his opposition to extending adoption rights to gay couples known. How is opposing equal rights to homosexuals "gay friendly"? Seems to be rather anti-gay to me. Even though some mainstream outlets have reported on this they are comparably short and unenthusiastic. Time's "Pope Francis ‘Shocked’ by Same-Sex Adoption Proposal" is an excellent example. It's wishy-washy tone is predictable. They did afterall just name Francis their Person of the Year. For a better piece on the incident read Hemant Mehta's December 30th blog post "Pope Francis Encourages Bishop to Condemn Same-Sex Parenting."

Even Vegetarians love Pizza

"Even vegetarians love pizza" has as much meaning and purpose as this bullshit short piece from CNN Belief blog: "Even atheists love this Pope." Some atheists do seem to be impressed by Pope Francis. So what? Not all of us are enthralled by him. I don't understand why so many have given him so much credit. This latest example is rather telling. "Hell, even atheists love him - as shown by the surprising displays on affection tweeted after the Pope publicly embraced a severely disfigured man on Wednesday." Really?! Are people's standards that low. How can you not feel for a severely disfigured person in obvious need of comfort? The Pope did what any decent human should have done in that circumstance. Why all the praise? It certainly doesn't change my views on the Pope. He is a human being and as such has good and bad qualities. Overall, that does not make him an exceptional person and it certainly doesn't distinguish him as the leader of one of the world's largest religions.

Atheists as a whole do NOT love this pope!

Not Ideological?

Why do people give Pope Francis so much credit? He has yet to match anything he says with positive actions. In fact, he frequently acts in opposing ways. All the talk about being friendlier to women and homosexuals seems to have been pretty well negated by his actions. He has stated definitively that the Vatican will not even consider ordaining women (In the Catholic church only the clergy have power). He has excommunicated a priest who advocated for homosexuals.

With those examples in mind, head lines like "Pope Francis describes 'ideological Christians' as a 'serious illness'" come across as outright farcical. How the fuck is the Catholic Church itself not ideological? It isn't as if the church bases its doctrines and policies on objective criteria. Only a completely clueless and delusional ass could make such a blatantly hypocritical statement. By his own words in combination with a basic understanding of the term "ideological" there can be only one conclusion. The Pope is very ill!

Still Spinning Francis

This past week there was another round of disingenuous misleading wave of fawning over Pope Francis. I would preface this post with a clarifying statement of my own. I am not opposed to positive coverage of the Pope any more than I am oppose to the Pope actually reforming the Catholic Church's approach to non-believers. That said, it has yet to be demonstrated that the Pope is actually making any effort to improve relations with non-believers. The media coverage of an open letter Pope Francis published through the Italian news paper la Repubblica has been blatantly skewed to reinforce the preferred story line that this Pope is a reformer and is making a concerted effort to reach out to atheists.

There are two things virtually every outlet has either glossed over or outright ignored. First, the only way Francis' "outreach" can be characterized as "friendly" is by redefining the term itself. It would be nice if it were true but it can only be true if "friendly" means not being overtly hostile. I've read and re-read two separate translations (I have included links below) of the letter in question and fail to see its tone as friendly. I would describe it as being neutral at best.

The more important detail that has been spun to the point that it seems like it should have its own gravity is the purpose of the letter. Most have portrayed it as another example of Francis offering a gesture of acceptance and/or friendship. Actually, if you read it it is clearly a theological response to a previously published open letter by an atheist. The piece has far more to do with answering criticisms. The Pope's main intent seems to be to make the Church seem reasonable and civil. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is a PR ploy.

There are, of course, other problems with the letter. If you read with any interest in critical thinking a variety of issues emerge. If it really was meant as a way to reach atheists it fails miserably. Virtually everything he comments on that could be interpreted as friendly is immediately justified by scripture/doctrine. This, to me, makes it feel impersonal and even authoritarian. I do not get a sense that he wants to play nice with atheist because it is the right thing to do but rather because it fits his interpretation of various religious doctrines (assuming his rhetoric is sincere in the first place).

A lot of what he writes also seems to refute the media portrayals of him. Telling atheists to "obey their conscience" seems to imply two things. The Pope seems to think we don't already do so. Really? What does he think we follow? Bronze age superstition laden mores don't mean shit to me. This also makes him seem far more arrogant than humble. As the head of the Catholic Church it makes some sense for him to tell Catholics what they should be doing. How does telling atheists how they should behave support the favored "humility" story line? If his idea of reaching out to atheists is constantly droning on about scripture and doctrine rather than the values that may be held in common Francis is going to fail no matter how sincere he might be. And, as I've pointed out before, rhetoric alone will not accomplish anything no matter how pleasant and welcome it may be.

The La Republica translation
Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers"
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/

The Zenit translation
Pope Francis' Letter to the Founder of "La Repubblica" Italian Newspaper
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-letter-to-the-founder-of-la-repubblica-italian-newspaper

Rhetoric is not Doctrine

I was hoping that by now the fawning over Pope Francis would have subsided but the media seems insistent on proving just how inept they are. The coverage of this Pope has been, right from the start, as overabundant as it has been superficial and downright idiotic. A number of outlets now are latching on to the false notion that the Pope either has or might change Church doctrine on Homosexuality. Why? Because he said a few things that are not as harsh as previous Popes? That is nice and it could be a step, though a very minor one, in the right direction.

Even when it is acknowledge that words do not always translate into actions many reporters, commentators, and pundits still seem to think Francis' more polished PR style is somehow an amazing feat. Have they forgotten previously reported items that referenced the fact that the Church has been more careful about public statements or that it has hired different PR individuals and firms to handle their image? As I've said before the only real difference between the present Pope and previous ones is simply a matter of personal style. It is superficial.

A Shallow Sense of "Humility"

Apparently, an individual's choice of what car to ride in is definitive proof of whether they can be said to have humility. "Pope Francis' Car Shows His Commitment To Humility: Catholic Leader Chooses Ford Focus" is as short as it is silly. Hafiz notes that the Pope has suggested that clergy should not be driving around in expensive cars but does not bother to point out that he has not sought to institutionalize (like in the form of policy) what seems to be a personal preference. She also never bothers to ask where the money saved on the vehicle has gone. Maybe if he actually drove his own car and required all clergy, who are able to do so, follow the example I might take it seriously. Perhaps all the money saved could be earmarked toward reparations for those the church has sexually and/or physically abused.

Admitting to his own short coming and the crimes of the church would be a first step towards humility. Then, of course, he would have to follow it up with actions. Lip service is what I, and many other, have come to expect from religious leaders. Minor actions like being chauffeured around in an economy car doesn't cut it.

Just Another Pope

I'm getting pretty fed up with all the bullshit hyperbole surrounding Pope Francis. He really is not that different from the previous two Popes. His style of conducting public relations may come across a little differently but that is a rather superficial distinction. There were two recent pieces that caught my attention largely because they allow a tiny grain of doubt regarding the false narrative of Francis as a "reformer." Ultimately, however, they do seem to buy into the notion that he is significantly different.

John Gehring's "Opinion: How the 'Francis effect' could rescue the church" simply accepts that there is such an "effect." He gives a few examples where these effects supposedly are playing out. Among them are;
     "He criticizes a 'self-referential' church that becomes spiritually 'sick' when it hunkers down and fails to look outside its gilded cathedrals.
     He has little patience for pastors who act like religious border guards by making it harder for lapsed Catholics to return to the faith and receive the sacraments.
     Francis decries the 'cult of money' and the 'dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly human goal.'"
Simply acting as a stenographer does not prove any of it. I have not found any instances where these have gone beyond the rhetorical realm. In fact, there are plenty of instances where it is clear that the policies and practices endorsed by both John Paul and Benedict are simply being carried on. I have previously posted on some of them.

I do find the idea that the church needs to "rescued" rather entertaining. It ignores that the Catholic Church is still one of the most influential, powerful, and wealthy organization in the world. It also seems to imply that perhaps it really is a completely human institution. If it were really favored and/or founded by God what would it need to be rescued from, and how could it be rescued if God couldn't save it?

Slightly less interesting was Allessandro Speciale's "Benedict and Francis: How much difference is there?" The obvious answer is, of course, little to none. His few examples of differences of substance completely fail any scrutiny. Even the more superficial differences are highly debatable in this piece.

For example, "What’s more, Francis has embraced a much more low-brow view of the papacy, shunning Benedict’s red slippers, ermine capes and papal apartments for a simpler lifestyle that finds him sleeping in a Vatican guesthouse and wearing simple black shoes beneath his white papal cassock."

Really? A few minor adjustments to personal preferences somehow translates into any significant doctrinal or policy differences? That does assume that he has adopted a "more low-brow view." Seems to me that he is still quite happy to use all the same pomp and privilege of his predecessors. When he starts wearing jeans and donating some of the vast amounts of the Churches resources to external non-profits, then I'll start taking his rhetoric seriously.

It won't happen since this Pope really is no different in practice.