text:
Convertible car seats are a convenient way for parents to save money and provide safety for their child at the same time. Since this product grows with your child, one car seat can last through endless car rides and even extend over into the traveling life of a younger sibling if safety standards hold true to the specific model you buy. More and more parents are choosing convertible car seats as a key investment when planning for baby.
Most of these car seats are considered "convertible" due to their ability to be installed both in rear-facing position for infants, as well as forward-facing for young children over a year old. Weight and height requirements vary depending upon the brand you choose, however most parents continue to use these car seats after their child is well over the 20 pound minimum for the front-facing position.
Parents can rest assured that all convertible car seats sold in the United States meet the nation's minimum safety standards, however some are definitely better than others in terms of comfort and convenience. Below are a handful of current favorites on the market, which should give you a great start when you are looking for the perfect model for your family car.
The Britax Boulevard is a great choice for a parent who cares about functionality over style. With its simplistic design and great safety features, the Britax Boulevard supports children rear-facing from 5-35 pounds, and forward-facing up to 65. With its adjustable side impact protection, this is a seat that can truly grow with your little one. A special infant pad is also included for the smallest of babies who need a little extra help in getting that perfect fit.
Graco's ComfortSport is another great choice. It features high-quality energy absorbing foam and a detachable head pillow for those long road trips to grandma's house. Don't forget about the cup holder and snack tray for toddlers who want to much on the drive, and the fact this car seat is approved for airplane use. Due to its ability to travel anywhere, it is the perfect choice for on the go families who need a convenient way to keep baby safe and sound. With its classy fabric design and easily installation instructions, the ComfortSport can be with your youngest family member until she reaches 40 pounds.
Parents that are looking for a little style mixed in with functionality will love the Maxi-Cosi Priori , which features fun color combinations such as brown, teal and orange. The Priori features an extended rear-facing limit and is up to date on all safety standards. Your child can even recline into four different positions, guaranteeing sound sleep on the way to your latest adventure.
Lastly, the True Fit Convertible Car Seat is a worried mother's dream with its deep side wings and foam liner - both designed to protect your child from negative impact, should he be in a car accident. True Fit also has a no re-thread harness, making adjustments a breeze as your child grows.
Car seat shopping doesn't have to be an intimidating process once you know what to look for. Make safety and convenience your number one priorities, and you will find yourself enjoying the process and purchasing a great product that is ideal for your entire family.


text: ARLINGTON, VA - The National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) has partnered with the U.S. Marine Corps to launch a new program that will provide respite care to Marine Corps families with children with special needs. NACCRRA Exceptional Family Member Program Respite Care (EFMP Respite Care) will initially launch in San Diego, California, and will serve Marine Corps families in the Greater San Diego area. Additional NACCRRA EFMP Respite Care launches will take place throughout the United States after the New Year.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Skip all of the header
Skip languages menu
Southern California Gas Company, A Sempra Energy utility
Skip site tools menu
Service Requests
Skip the Service Requests sub menu
Start Gas Service
Stop Gas Service
Move to a New Address
Request Service Appointment
View My Start Service Request
Register for My Account
Help Center
My Account Login
Skip site content sections menu
Go to the For Your Home section
Skip the For Your Home sub menu
Your Gas Bill
Bill Assistance
Self Service Options
For Your Business
Skip the For Your Business sub menu
Energy Efficiency Rebates
Builder Services
Gas Prices Explained
Energy-Efficiency Contractor Programs
Skip the Safety sub menu
Emergency Information
Safety for Dog Owners
Pipeline Safety
Safety for Contractors
Skip the Innovation sub menu
Protecting the Environment
Advanced Meters
Natural Gas Vehicles
Energy Resource Center
Skip the Careers sub menu
Job Openings
Employee Benefits
College Internships and Associate Rotations
Entry Level Opportunities
Skip Site Footer menu.
About Us
News Room
Accessibility Center
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Privacy Notice
Newsletter Sign Up
Site Map
Connect with us:
Skip Social Networking menu.
Visit SoCalGas on Facebook
Southern California Gas Company is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy®. © 1998-
Southern California Gas Company. SoCalGas® is a registered trademark of Southern California Gas Company. The trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved.


text:
Shop for Nebraska Cornhuskers Merchandise at the Official Store of the University of Nebraska where you can find the ultimate selection of Nebraska Clothes for Men, Women and Kids Husker Fans. The Official Shop features Nebraska Cornhusker Apparel for Fans and Alumni by Adidas. Shop for everyone on your list today and find in-demand styles of Nebraska Cornhuskers Clothing and Fan Gear. Cornhuskers Gear includes a wide variety of quality merchandise for wearing at the Huskers Game or any time. Support the University of Nebraska and purchase your brand new Huskers Attire, University of Nebraska Football, Baseball and Basketball Sportswear from the Official Cornhuskers Store.
Get up for football season with any of the latest Nebraska Cornhuskers football gear we have available. Shop the Huskers Store today and take advantage of our fast 3-day shipping for just $4.99 on any size order!
Fanatics Retail Group, All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site may be reproduced or duplicated without the express permission of Fanatics Retail Group.


text:
The Sweet Jojo Designs Go Fish 9 Piece Crib Set includes everything you need to create a complete nursery. This ocean themed baby crib bedding set is swimming with embroidery and appliqués of fish and bubbles in solid, stripe and argyle prints with a super soft chenille trim. This collection uses the stylish colors of Soft Blue, Green and White. The design uses 100% cotton fabrics and soft chenille that are machine washable for easy care. This wonderful set will fit all cribs and toddler beds.
9 Piece Set Includes:
- Crib Comforter
- Crib Bumper
- Fitted Sheet
- Crib Skirt (Dust Ruffle)
- Diaper Stacker
- Toy Bag
- Decorative Pillow
- 2 Window Valances
Gift Wrap not available.


text: The Kurgo Cargo Cape Covers protect the cargo area of your station wagon or SUV from muddy paws and wet & furry dogs. The Kurgo Cargo Cape not only protects your interior, but it has multiple attachment areas to keep it from sliding around and providesa comfortable and stable spot for your dog to lie down. The unique bumper flap covers your fender protecting it from scratches.


text:
In August 1889, Byron Laflin Smith — one of the most respected bankers in Chicago, Illinois — created The Northern Trust Company to serve the city's affluent individuals and organizations. By 1906, Northern Trust had grown from a single room into a flourishing organization, and moved into a permanent home at 50 South La Salle Street.
In 1891, Northern Trust realized that the prospective proceeds of life insurance claims could be manageable assets. This led us to create the very first life insurance trust.
Northern Trust introduced an employee life insurance plan in 1912, and a pension plan in 1913 – among the first of their kind in the country. That commitment to employees continues today.
In the 1950s, Northern Trust quickly adapted to new advances in technology, automating banking processes and introducing new products and services. And in 1962, we became one of the first financial institutions in the nation to process checks electronically.
In 1974, the U.S. Congress passed the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act. Our advanced personal trust accounting and reporting systems helped us become a leading provider of independent master trustee and custodian services to corporate employee benefit funds.
Meeting Our Clients' Specialized Needs
In the 1960s, our clients began to develop business interests outside the United States. Therefore, in 1969, Northern Trust opened a London office, making us the first Illinois-chartered financial institution to open a branch outside the United States.
By 1982, many wealthy families and individuals were using family offices. We formed the Wealth Management Group to provide them sophisticated global custody, asset management, fiduciary and risk management solutions.
In 1998, we formed Northern Trust Global Investments, serving both personal and institutional clients, to provide focused investment management capabilities.
An Expanding Global Vision
As global markets have grown more fast-paced and complex, we have continued to establish new offices and develop new products and services to meet our clients' needs.
Today, we are the largest administrator of offshore private equity funds in Europe, and one of the world's leading providers of institutional index management services.
As a trusted provider to investors in all time zones and major markets, we continue to pursue "follow-the-sun," 365/24/7 global trade communication.


text:
Tag: can-am sled dog races
2013 Can-Am Sled Dog Races
Northern Maine's biggest athletic event – the 2013 Can-Am International Sled Dog races took place in Fort Kent this weekend. An event that's not only exciting to watch – it also provides a huge economic boost to the St John Valley. Katie Zarrilli has more


text:
Fishnet Pattern Tights
Style # 207932
Instantly update your look with a sexy shot of pattern! These bebe tights feature contrasting lace and fishnet patterns that are sure to lend any look a sexy allure. Try them with sequin dresses and your highest pair of heels.
- 90% nylon, 10% spandex
- Hand wash
- Imported
- Model is 5'9" and is wearing a US size S


text:
United States & Canada Customers: Call 1-800-813-6897
Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
International Customers: Call 1-512-837-4810
Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. English language only.
The grain flow forged Mizuno JPX-825 Pro Iron Set pushes the design limits to achieve greater forgiveness and feel in this players game improvement iron. The 4-7 irons offer a deep CNC milled pocket cavity that provides 17 grams of discretionary weight that is used for extreme toe-heel weighting providing plenty of forgiveness where you need it. The 8-iron through the Gap Wedge feature a full cavity design with greater thickness behind impact for a more penetrating and workable ball flight for pinpoint accuracy in the scoring irons.
Utilizing Harmonic Impact Technology, Mizuno engineers designed an incredibly strong cavity frame that allows a thinner, more reactive face for increased initial ball speed while maintaining an unbelievably solid feel at impact. A tour confirmed triple cut sole design provides the appropriate relief on the leading and trailing edges for ideal turf interaction and solid ball striking from anywhere on the course.
Online Shipping Information
Golfsmith.com offers simple, flat-rate shipping to destinations in the continguous U.S. via FedEx.
Our policy is to strive for the best possible combination of price and service for your shipment.
In order to better serve our guests, we will occassionally offer discounted shipping promotions. Any shipping discounts will be applied in your shopping cart.
"Overnight" shipments will arrive the next business day (excluding weekends and holidays) after departing Golfsmith. "2-Day Air" shipments arrive in two business days after departing Golfsmith. On-time delivery for both methods is guaranteed by FedEx. Shipping delays may occur during busy Holidays or in the spring -- we will do our best to accommodate last minute and expedited orders placed during these times.
Most orders are shipped within 48 hours of online placement. Orders must be placed by 9am (CST) Monday-Friday in order to be eligible for that day's "Overnight" or "2-Day Air" shipments. Orders for residential delivery placed on Sunday or Monday will not be shipped until Tuesday and orders for business delivery placed on weekends will not ship until Monday, so please take this into consideration when specifying expedited shipping requests.
Online Shipping Information
Additional Shipping Information
Sales Tax details
International & Canadian Orders
JPX-850 Forged 4-PW, GW Iron Set with Steel Shafts
RBZ HL 4-PW Iron Set with Steel Shafts
TAYLORMADEPriced Too Low to Show
Men's Contour Casual Spikeless Golf Shoe-Black/Taupe (FJ# 54244)$99.99
TAYLORMADEPriced Too Low to Show
TITLEISTPriced Too Low to Show


text:
Mods:eaglesway ::::Cardinal :::: jabcat
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Here's a quick question that I've been trying to figure out but haven't been able to come to a conclusion about: Is the Gehenna punishment mentioned in the Gospels the same as the Lake of Fire described in Revelation, or are they two seperate things?
Gehenna really confuses me. I don't understand how something can be both a garbage dump and a spiritual, purging fire.


text: Aetuts+ showcases some of the best After Effects tutorials around. We publish tutorials that not only produce great effects, but explain them in a friendly, approachable manner. We also stock up links to tutorials, articles, presets and plugins from around the web to help you get the most out of After Effects.


text:
Thank you for visiting the official Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Las Vegas Central Office website. Please do not hesitate to call our 24/7 hotline for help in finding AA meetings in the Las Vegas valley.
We are here to help. AA Hotline (702) 598-1888
If you have visited the Las Vegas AA Central Office website in the past, you might have noticed we have gone through a recent update. We (webmaster) have been working on this revision for the past six months and the goals were to make the website more mobile and tablet friendly and also make it more visually enhanced through mapping for people to find AA meetings as needed. Thank you for your patience.
Adobe Reader is required to open PDF files.
Please use this form: http://www.lvcentraloffice.org/meetings/submit-meeting-changes/ to submit changes to any AA meetings/groups and please refer to this page for the printed and most current meeting schedule: http://www.lvcentraloffice.org/meetings/printable-schedule/.
We are physically located at 1431 E. Charleston Blvd, Suite 15. Our office hours are 8-4 Monday through Friday. Visitor and Meeting information email can be addressed to: email@example.com * Central office administrative emails can be addressed to email@example.com. PLEASE NOTE: the email is not a hotline and it may take up to 48 hours for someone to respond.
This is an open meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. We are glad you are all here-especially the newcomers. In keeping with our singleness of purpose and our Third Tradition which states that "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking, "we ask that all who participate confine their discussion to their problems with alcohol. (The 1987 General Service Conference made this statement available as an A.A. service piece for those groups who wish to use it.)
This is a closed meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. In support of A.A.'s singleness of purpose, attendance at closed meeting is limited to persons who have a desire to stop drinking. If you think you have a problem with alcohol, you are welcome to attend this meeting. We ask that when discussing our problems, we confine ourselves to those problems as the relate to alcoholism. (The 1987 General Service Conference Made this statement available as an A.A. service piece for those groups who wish to use it.)
Use the drop-down filter mechanism on every page or go to the MEETINGS page. Then, you can sort/filter for the specific area (quadrant), day of the week and/or type of meeting. The resulting list will show Group names. Click on the Group name for more information.


text:
Quick Links
Shop All Jewelry
NLP10063 In Stock
This sterling silver cz vine necklace is exceptionally elegant. 5mm white, pearls are scattered along this sterling silver vine necklace which is accented with leaves of cubic zirconias. The 16 inch chain is equipped with a 2 inch extender, so you can easily adjust the length. This necklace is ideal for the bridesmaids in your wedding party or for the bride herself!
Eve's Addiction.com wants you to be a happy customer. We want you to be completely satisfied with the sterling silver jewelry that you receive from us, as we only sell high quality silver and cubic zirconia cz jewelry. We do understand that you may not like your purchase for some reason.
You may return or exchange your jewelry within 60 days of purchase if you are not satisfied with it. The jewelry must be returned in its original condition for a refund or exchange. Engraved, personalized, photo, monogram, name and initial, chocolate and clearance items are not returnable or exchangeable.


text:
It is very crucial for you to find the right Wellness Center and the best wellness instructor for your own individual needs and goals. This online resource will help you to find the right wellness resource and more... in a snap!
Holistic Directory
Social Identity
Connect us On
Policy and Disclaimer.
This WebSite is for educational purposes only. Not a substitute for professional medical advice
Policy and Disclaimer
Ads & Sponsorship
This Website has designated Ad Spaces that can be used to advertise products or services.
Learn More
Contact Details
For inquiries, services, business opportunities +91 7588244445
Contact Form
User Name
Remember Me


text:
The Cardinals Shoot Down the Hawks
- Release Date:
- November 17, 2012
- Contact:
- The Office of Sports Information
- (716) 649-7900 ext. 333
HAMBURG, NY – After battling through three lead changes and four ties, St. John Fisher's long distance shooting inched them away from Hilbert College in the third game of the Hilbert Tip-Off Classic November 17. Jason Norsen, the Classic's Most Valuable Player, muscled in 14 points in the paint, grabbed seven rebounds and blocked four shots to lead a trio of double figure scorers from St. John Fisher. Hilbert's Dan McFarland reached for 13 points as the only Hawk to break out of the single digit scoring. St. John Fisher finished the Classic undefeated while Hilbert split their games with a victory over Fredonia in the opening day of the Classic.
At 13:56, Adam Ambielli's three point bucket gave the Cardinals their first lead which they did not relinquish the rest of the way. As the Hawks were scoring inside the arc, Fisher was hitting from long distance by running their transition lanes and kicking to the perimeter off penetration or ball reversal. With a 37-23 half time score, Hilbert fought through a shooting slump, making nine of thirty attempts (1-7 from three) and defending a fifty-percent shooting team who was hot beyond the painted line (6-9).
Statistically, Hilbert won the battle of the boards (36-32) and couldn't be stopped on the offensive glass grabbing 15. The Hawks committed few turnovers and secured more steals than Fisher. But the visiting team displayed confidence in their shooting as the game progressed, finishing with 51.1 percent.
Jerame Owens led the Hawks with nine rebounds and Trevor Stark used his quickness for game-high four steals. Thad Wier opened the three-point charge for St. John Fisher in the first half as he finished with 14 points and Chaz Lott gave another solid performance with 10 points, five assists, and two steals.
The six players who were named to the All Classic Team were junior Tyrone Clark and senior Amir Billups from Fredonia, senior Dan McFarland and freshman Jerame Owens from Hilbert and junior Thad Wier and MVP senior Jason Norsen from St. John Fisher College.
Hilbert (1-1) hosts Cazenovia College November 20th with an 8pm tip after the women's double header at 6. Both games will be streamed live via ustream.tv.
Hilbert College, located in suburban Hamburg, N.Y., south of Buffalo, is a private four-year college founded in 1957 in the Catholic Franciscan tradition. With nearly 1,100 students, Hilbert is a dynamic Western New York college that offers career-focused majors, including one of the top criminal justice programs in the region, and more than 50 minors and concentrations. The college's engaging, student-centered campus community offers numerous leadership, internship, and service learning opportunities from which students launch successful careers while making positive changes in their communities. The Hilbert Blueprint promotes a well-rounded student experience over four years – starting with the Foundations Seminar in the freshman year, followed by Sophomore Service, Junior Symposium, and culminating with the Senior Capstone. Hilbert has expanded its academic offerings with the college's first graduate programs and new Accelerated Degree Programs geared to adult learners.
Upcoming Events
- First Year Student Orientation
- Aug 14, 2015
- Summer Session A2 Ends
- Aug 21, 2015
- First Year Student Orientation
- Aug 28, 2015


text:
2-Inch Webbing: Military grade nylon webbing with custom "Corbeau Racing" embroidery.
Release Buckle: Push button release buckle for easy disengagement.
Bolt-In: End of the straps are equipped with a bolt, which will bolt to your mounting points.
Snap-In: Eye bolts bolt to your mounting points and the end of the straps snap to those eye bolts.
Waist Pad: All 2-Inch belts are equipped with a pressure reducing waist pad to provide extra comfort and support.
* Shipping Notes: Please note FREE Shipping refers to shipping within the contiguous contential US. All other locations extra. If your order will be delayed you will be notified via email the estimated shipping date.
Total Reviews for this product: 0
(Be the first to comment about this product)
Current Mods:
04 gt, heads cams stroked to a 302, typhoon manifold with plenum and throttle body, jlt intake, full suspension and cobra brakes
See More Reviews on Corbeau Parts


text:
|8 posts found
Advanced Member
Joined: 1/03/12
"I shall take your position into consideration"
I was playing Diablo III for several weeks when it was released and then I took a break until this Christmas when I came back to check what they managed to do with the game with the patches.
I am playing a hardcore demon hunter. Am currently zerging my way through the hell difficulty having plenty of fun with it.
What really surprised me in a positive way is the community in this game. Been playing for several weeks, I am yet to meet a person that would be flaming or trolling in general / party chat. In fact, in the general chat, there is a constant discussion about various aspects of the game, such as gear, elite packs and their abilities, builds, paragons, etc. I find this to be quite exceptional as in various MMOs I have been playing, the general chat was usually full of spams, arguments, insults, etc.
My latest experience was also quite special. I joined a pug group with my DH. There was a wizard and a barbarian with me. The wizard obtained a legendary weapon for barbarian worth around 1m gold. He asked the barb whether he would use it if he gave it to him. "Of course I would, he said". Then the Wiz gave him the weapon. Dont need to say the barb was quite happy :). Just out of fun, I asked the wizard whether he has any legendaries for DH. I really did not expect him to say "let me see what I got in my stash"...he went there and gave me a crossbow worth again at least a million gold. The barb asked him why he is so nice and he just replied "well, I believe that we, hardcore ones, should help each other" :). It was a really nice experience.
I believe that your experience may differ from mine as there obviously have to be some jerks playing this game too.
Would like to ask what is your experience with the Diablo III community (preferably recent one as I believe that the game was played by many people at start, but only Diablo lovers remained playing for this long). I also believe that nowadays the community is much better than it was during the first several months after release.
Waiting for L2 EU Classic
Login or Register to never see this panel
Novice Member
Joined: 9/22/08
I loaded D3 up too just before christmas i had not logged in since 1 month after launch, what i saw was a ghost town with hardly any hc multiplayer games. Out of 40-50 people on my f-list only 1 was still active and on my recent list 2 were active but they had gone over to sc, like me most had not logged on in months.
I played for afew days using the ah to re-equip my toon, this did not cost very much for prices are very low, i quickly got to act3 inferno and started the paragon grind, this soon became very boring.
I won't be bothering to log in again, it's sad that Diablo ended like this.
Advanced Member
Joined: 8/07/08
It's a whole new game.
Every game I've been in, we all share/give rares and legendaries to each other if we don't need it.
I've only had to actually buy an item off someone once or twice.
Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/25/10
Was playing my lvl 5x wiz at that point of time, act 3 hell difficulty, there was a lvl 60 wiz kind enough to help us through the run and even drop some 2 hand staff i could use when i was 60, felt bad that i just took it without thanking him, i've played countless of public games and so far i there are very few unpleasant encounters in between as opposed to healing in wow bgs lol(u can get top healing and people would still say where the hell is our healer), people just tend to mind their own business as opposed to you know ruining the game experience for others.
Novice Member
Joined: 2/26/11
Indeed, the community is great, strangely. I guess the trolls just grew tired of complaining all the time and just left.
I played with all my alts (with AWFUL dps, 15k or something) in Inferno using Public Games (zero waiting time, always) and nobody complained about my sucky dps, they even sometimes cheer me up because i was using cool skills, like the Monk's vortex, which works great with dps skills from your allies. Also if you ask them to wait because you have to sell things, they don't have any issues with it, and they let you know when there's goblins near.
And... get ready for this... THEY SAY HI AND GOODBYE!!!!! If you played WoW Cataclysm, these words sounds so weird.
Again, this happened every single time i played in random groups. I was amazed, never happened to me before in online games.
I think we're on a new era of Diablo, and i love it.
Advanced Member
Joined: 12/21/07
Originally posted by GabboFunes
Agreed. I have got more new friends on my friends list in D3 in the past few month than any other games.
BTW, i think since lower end gear is plentiful, people can be generous much easier than say a game like WOW. Most worthwhile stuff in WOW would be BOP and no one would have a handful of usable starting end-game gear in the stash.
While in D3, you get a bunch of gear every run, and there bound to be some useful to lower end character. If you are wearing stuff that worth 200M, giving out items worthing $1M is really not impacting the bottom line, but would be helpful to others.
Lots of people are giving gear (abate not high end gear) away in the chat channels.
I love this game and i don't play games for its community. But still it is nice to see a nice community. Gravy to me.
Elite Member
Joined: 9/16/11
OMG really???
Now if only I could find cheap copy of D3(30 euro or lower...).
:( :(
Originally posted by sibs4455
Two issues here. yeah your friend list from 6 months ago is probably all dead, either those friends rolled alts and put that character ont he backburner, or have left. there are still tons of people playing, but not really in the HC public games, here why:
They added vote kick feature to multiplayer groups. People figured out that by vot kicking someone freezes them as they are disconnected from the match. So what some HC players started to do is run public matches with their friends, leaving one slot open for a random. Once they get to elites or in the middle of a huge pack, they all vote kick the random, killing his HC character. So i would assume untill that is fixed public HC games are going to be few, with most doing private matches with friends.
If your not into grinding, be it for paragon levels or gear your really playing the wrong type of game however. I like the paragon grind, gives something extra for the grind i was doing for loot. Also it directly benefits this act of loot grinding with magic find and gold find bonuses per paragon level. They are making it easier on higher monster powers next patch with paragon grinding however.
Either way the community is typically good, though not always. Its very easy to refil you friend list btw, lots of helpful players still on and dont seem to have issues running a pub with you to give advice and tips. I really think the unsavory parts of the ARPG community are in POE right now...god the global chat in that game is beyond aweful...
But yeah, stay away from HC public groups for now, the vote kick PK thing got fairly popular with lots of frap'sing of the act being made public on the official forums. It will get fixed, and theres plenty to do in SC with the new moster power settings.


text:
Blogger has an app for iPhone and it's better than the corresponding Android app, which has improved a lot in the past months. Both apps let you edit your existing posts and create new posts, add images to your posts, include labels and geolocate your posts.
They're pretty basic, but the iPhone app has a better interface, it's easier to use and pays attention to detail. For example, the iPhone app includes the URL of the blog next to the name when you switch to a different blog, so that it's easier to identify a blog. The Android app only shows the names. To publish a post in the iPhone app, you need to tap the "Publish" button, which is always displayed at the top of the screen. In the Android app you need to scroll to the bottom of the post to find the "publish" button.
"With the Blogger app, you can write a new blog post and publish it immediately or save it as a draft right from your iOS device. You can also open a blog post you've been working on from your computer and continue editing it while you're on-the-go. Your blog posts are automatically synced across devices, so you'll always have access to the latest version," informs Google.
Introducing the Search Analytics API
1 hour ago


text:
The Case in Phoenix
Rita Ferrone October 6, 2011 - 1:39pm
It has been pretty much the talk of the liturgical town that Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, is withdrawing permission to give communion under both forms to the laity except under certain limited conditions. Communion from the cup will no longer be offered in Phoenix on ordinary Sundays or weekdays.His decision is unusual for the great American West and puzzling on a number of levels. Many observers have wondered if Bishop Olmsted isa bellwether, a leader in liturgical trends. Will others surely follow in this path? Or, one might ask, is he merely copying the fashions in Rome without deep thought, whereas other bishops would think twice about restricting a well-established andbenign practice such as this.It helps to know some history.
The Second Vatican Council opened the door to a broader use of communion under both forms for the laity. It did so cautiously, because the measure was controversial at the time. Some of the fathers were adamantly opposed to it. They were persuaded to support the measure because the instances named in Sacrosanctum Concilium were few. Others favored a broader implementation. They were persuaded to vote for the measure because there would be the possibility of extending the practice through local permissions.
We've inherited in our documents the tension that existed at that time. A sort of "Yes, but" refrain runs through official literature on the subject. And, as everyone knows, there has been a rush lately to revisit and revive the minority opinions on almost everything the Council decided, especially in the area of liturgy.
Nevertheless, I think it is safe to say that on balance, since the Council, the Church has moved firmly in the direction of the fuller use of the sign by offering easier access to communion under both forms. In fact, it is a signal accomplishment that the 2002 General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) actually broadened the permission and made it easier to achieve for the worldwide church.
The issue is an important one. The driving force behind the restoration of the cup to the laity is two-fold. The reason most often cited is the fullness of the sign. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has this to say:
281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.
The second value implicit in this restored practice is ecumenisma central theme of the Council. Although not at the front of many Catholics consciousness in this connection, ecumenism is an important reason for movement in the direction of sharing the cup more broadly. By giving the cup to the laity, the Roman Catholic Church removed what had been a cause for reproach during the Reformation, and drew closer to Christians of both the East and the West who have long held communion under both forms as their normal practice. It was quite a neat move, actually. We never gave up Trent'saffirmation that one species is good enough, but we graciously moved toward visible unity with those who offered both.
Offering communion under both forms to the laity is not new. Rather, it is a return to the practice of the Catholic Church of the first millennium. As the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America (2002) notes:
From the first days of the Churchs celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lords command to take and eattake and drink. The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice. (no. 17).
So, whats going on in Phoenix in 2011? Based on the FAQs from the diocese [pdf], a whole basketful of rationales, some quite dubious, have been put forward to support this change.
The FAQs that the Diocese posted on their website claim, erroneously, that restricting the cup to certain specific occasions (thus prohibiting it on ordinary Sundays and weekdays) stems from recent changes in the GIRM (FAQ2).The GIRM, revised in 2002, has indeed been retranslated and recently re-released. The 2011 version rewords quite a bit of the 2002 text. But none of the items concerning Communion from the Cup have been changed in their substance. The text is on line. Anyone can read it. The provisions are the same.
The FAQs also mystifyingly state that the United States had a 25 year special permission to experiment with Holy Communion under both forms (FAQ13). This implies that the time is up, and the experiment failed.
Not so. Our national document was updated and confirmed by the Vatican in 2002. If anything, the success of the experiment is reflected in the relaxation of the rules in the GIRM 2002 to make it easier for bishops to grant permission to their pastors for sharing the cuprules that are replicated in the 2011 edition.The U.S. bishops Web site says that in 2006 Pope Benedict did not renew a special permission for the United States. But when a special permission is not renewed, the default setting is universal legislation, which brings us back to the GIRM 2011.
The FAQs also assert that the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon by excessive use of extraordinary (lay) ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species. This is explained in the GIRM, paragraph 24. (FAQ12).
Here is GIRM 24:
24. These adaptations consist, for the most part, in the choice of certain rites or texts, that is, of the chants, readings, prayers, explanatory interventions, and gestures capable of responding better to the needs, the preparation, and the culture of the participants and which are entrusted to the Priest Celebrant. However, the Priest will remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.
If you can find the explanation here, you are doing better than I am.
Well, we could talk more about documents, but lets just leave it at that. The FAQs are lacking documentary evidence for why this move is either necessary or helpful at this time. Restricting the cup may be the personal preference of the bishop, but its not at all clear that this is something other bishops will want to do or that the pope and our official documents are demanding.
How about philosophical or practical grounds? In other words, can we tell whats at stake in Bishop Olmsted's decision by reading the explanations given in the FAQs? I do see several arguments being presented.
One is a least-common-denominator form of solidarity with countries that dont offer communion under both forms because of poverty.In response to this, however, I think we need to ask some hard questions. Like, should Phoenix turn off its air conditioners in solidarity with poor churches around the world that cant afford air conditioning. Or, should we refuse to accept priests from Africa and India to serve in American parishes when their own dioceses have a lower ratio of priests to people. I don't understand why communion under both forms is the place where sacrifices must be made so that we will feel closer to the poor of the world. How about if we fund the expansion of the practice in poorer communities?
Another is the danger of profanation. This seems to be a big concern, and the forms of it are even listed: careless treatment, spillage, swilling, etc. (FAQ4). Is the Eucharist being profaned in Phoenix? I have no evidence in support of this whatsoever. But just for argument's sake, lets say that it is. Wouldn't a better response be to take a moratorium for a specified period of time, during which catechesis and pastoral guidance could be offered as well as renewed training for all who minister Communion from the cup?
Strangely, whenever profanation is brought forward it seems that those who espouse it believe there is always risk of profaning the sacrament by offering the cup, no matter what measures are taken. Here is where I begin to smell a phony argument. If the risk of profanation is perennial for the Eucharist under the species of wine, it is also true for the Eucharist under the species of bread.
Finally, there is the specialness argument for having communion from the cup only on special occasions. The assumption is that it becomes mundane to have it all the time. The trouble with this argument is that it assigns a decorative function to communion from the cup that paradoxically trivializes it.
The Eucharistic signs aren't like flowers or brass instruments, something you add to the liturgy on festive occasions. The fullness of the sign in the Eucharist points to our redemption, not to the festivity of the day. Saving the cup for special days is also the same sort of argument given for having communion once a month in certain Protestant churchesnot a way of thinking that we want to replicate.
In short, from the information shared publicly to date, I do not think Bishop Olmsted has presented any kind of solid, credible case for his decision. In the absence of a good case, unfortunately, observers are free to speculate that this is a matter of fashion, of pleasing people in Rome, or part of a greater scheme of which the new translation of the Roman Missal is a part (Bishop Olmsted is a member of Vox Clara) of turning the clock back on what I daresay may be classed as organic liturgical developments which have occurred since the Council.
As the diocesan bishop, he certainly can decide what to do in his diocese, but the sheer exercise of power without persuasion is an ineffective means of governing. If other bishops are watching, I hope they realize that what they are seeing is a bad example.
Commenting Guidelines
Rita, I will be curious to see how well-accepted these new diocesan directives are by the Phoenix clergy. As I stated in an earlier thread on the topic, in Chicago it would not be well-received by the pastors, who of course would need to bear the burden of enforcing the rule and explaining to the Eucharistic Ministers why, henceforth, they will be scheduled only half as often as before. I expect that there would be pastors who, in the case of the new Missal translation, will conclude, "this is not a battle worth fighting", but would conclude that the new cup regulations *are* worth kicking up a fuss over. Just my speculation.
Do most Catholics in Phoenix represent the "great American West" with its tradition of free-range, "don't fence me in", "you'd better give me a damn good reason 'fer buyin' your crap" kind of thinking?Or, are Hispanic Catholics more amenable to accepting their hierarch's mandate "as gospel"?Or, is Phoenix largely populated by conservative Anglo Catholics who've relocated to a sunnier clime and naturally gravitate toward guys like Olmsted?We've seen over the past few years movement afoot to "put the laity in their place" in the Church of Rome: installation/reinstallation of kneelers, bow before eucharistic reception, retitling lay eucharistic ministers as "Extraordinary", cleaning of sacred vessels restricted (I understand) to the ordained, the history behind the upcoming liturgical translation, banning females from serving at the liturgy in some places as well as at the Tridentine mass, ad nauseum.Duh.Ain't no "guess work" needed: Catholics have a reactionary pope who operates from fear and is hell-bend to restore the medieval mindset in matters ecclesial.Damn sad.Dysfunctional.This crap will continue as long as Catholics (a) talk about it but (b) do nothing to stop it.
"In response to this, however, I think we need to ask some hard questions. Like, should Phoenix turn off its air conditioners in solidarity with poor churches around the world that cant afford air conditioning. Or, should we refuse to accept priests from Africa and India to serve in American parishes when their own dioceses have a lower ratio of priests to people. I dont understand why communion under both forms is the place where sacrifices must be made so that we will feel closer to the poor of the world. How about if we fund the expansion of the practice in poorer communities?"This kind of thinking is absent in seminaries and in Vatican speak. Someone should be in charge of language and send flares everytime bishops step outside reality, which is often. Olmstead shows that the church remains elitist and more into empire than community. Let alone concerned with solidarity with the poor.
Pow! Great post, Rita. Real facts. Actual information. Cool.
...the sheer exercise of power without persuasion is an ineffective means of governing.I have no special knowledge of conditions on the parish level in Phoenix, but if I had to guess what the reaction there might be, the truth of this observation would inform my guess. People don't like feeling like the Powers That Be are making arbitrary changes to their worship for the sake of making changes. That's true even when the change is well-founded -- I remember a while back, in my hometown, the word got out that we were no longer allowed to use other acclamations in the Lamb of God ("Jesus, Bread of Life..." etc.). From what I understand, that's a practice that probably shouldn't have started in the first place, and the bishop wasn't wrong to end it, but to people who had never seen the GIRM it seemed like an arbitrary ruling, and it left many asking resentfully, "What's wrong with the way we do it now?" I suppose it's good that Olmsted attempted to offer an explanation for his change, but it's such an insultingly poor explanation that it might just make the problem worse.I stopped taking the cup for a period of a few months several years ago, out of an abundance of caution while my immune system was suppressed. That made me realize how much receiving from the cup adds to my experience of the sacrament -- not the grace part, perhaps, but certainly the "outward sign." The wine engages my senses in a way that the host cannot (especially since concerns about profanation, and general pragmatism, have already left us with "bread" that looks and tastes nothing like bread). I gained a much deeper appreciation for the "feast" aspect of Communion -- the "foretaste of the Heavenly banquet" is a lot easier to appreciate when there's drinking to go with the eating, and "taste" in any form. Given how much receiving the Precious Blood adds to my worship experience, I think it's a shame when people pass on the cup, whether out of squeamishness, old habit, or indifference, and I think it's very sad that ordinary people in Phoenix won't even be given the option.
Offering communion under both forms to the laity is not new. Rather, it is a return to the practice of the Catholic Church of the first millennium. Another thing that the Council did was to return to the practice of the Catholic Church of the bishop having individual authority as shepherd of a local church (diocese), rather than being controlled by a centralized hierarchy in Rome.I do not think Bishop Olmsted has presented any kind of solid, credible case for his decision.See above. He does not have to prove himself to you. We are not the judges here, any more than the SSPX is a judge of what is proper Catholicism or not.If a bishop says to offer both in his diocese, he does NOT have to justify his decision to you or me or anyone. Likewise, if he says to over only one, he still does not have to justify it.
I think the 'tell' is that the other 200 bishops will keep allowing the cup but won't even have the willingness to say they think keeping the cup is correct/good..The small minority of Trad. bishops can make any change they can think up and publicize it . e.g. no altar girls, eliminate EMs, no cup and the rest of the bishops will remain silent. Recall the line by the guerrilla chief threatened by Robert Jordan in For Whom the Bell Tolls... 'I will not provoke... Inglese.' meaning .. you can't shoot me if I don't respond to the provoke.
explaining to the Eucharistic Ministers why, henceforth, they will be scheduled only half as often as before_______________No one has the right to be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. We are mere lowly servants. That's all. We do not make demands regarding serving, any more than one takes Communion, rather than receiving it.
Bender,For the purposes of this discussion, let me pretend to agree with you that bishops don't need to justify their decisions to other bishops or to their own flock. Let me also pretend to agree that all the nonbishops in the pews must not question the unjustified judgments of their bishop. That does not answer Rita's main objection in this post, which is that a bishop did choose, wisely or unwisely, to offer reasons for his decision, and that his reasons seem inadequate. Or are you also suggesting that only bishops are competent to judge the adequacy of the reasons bishops offer? In that case, there is little point in making those reasons public, since persuasion is beside the point. On your view, agreement is irrelevant; only obedience matters.
We are mere lowly servants. I will gladly concede that we are here to serve God, and one another, and the Church viewed as the body of all the Faithful; but we are definitely not here to serve our bishop. The bishop is the one who is there to serve us in our effort to build the Kingdom. If anyone is the "mere" lowly servant, it is him.
Thanks for a thoughtful, fact-based post. I'm afraid I can't help but think that the "avoid obscuring the role of the priest and deacon" reason is or will be a key one for many priests and bishops. We are in the midst of a resurgence of both ultra-clericalism and anti-feminism in the Church, and reducing the visibility and role of the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist bolsters both of these trends.
Bender:You wrote,
He does not have to prove himself to you. We are not the judges here, any more than the SSPX is a judge of what is proper Catholicism or not.If a bishop says to offer both in his diocese, he does NOT have to justify his decision to you or me or anyone. Likewise, if he says to over only one, he still does not have to justify it.
My question is: do you think thats the most advisable way for a church community to function? Imagine we were starting from scratch, organizing a church community, and there were contending visions about whether the authority figures should, or should not, have to explain themselves, have to justify their decisions. In your opinion, what would be the best way to go?
Rita, you ended your post with the crux of the problem. You stated this very well in your article in Commweal on the new translation. They want to go back to the coucil of Trent. Vatican II means they should share authority, and there's "no way Jose" that the're going to do that. Wonderful post.
If you can find the explanation here, you are doing better than I am.Here's my guess. The person who prepared the question and answers read the GIRM a little bit too hastily and missed a couple of words, so that what he read was:24. These adaptations consist, for the most part, in the choice of certain rites or texts, that is, of the chants, readings, prayers, explanatory interventions, and gestures capable of responding better to the needs, the preparation, and the culture of the participants and which are entrusted to the Priest Celebrant. Of course, omitting the words stricken out changes the meaning of the sentence, but that's what may have happened. Then the connection becomes clear: according to that selective reading, gestures etc. are entrusted to the Priest Celebrant, not to lay ministers. That includes the distribution of communion.
"I cant help but think that the avoid obscuring the role of the priest and deacon reason is or will be a key one for many priests and bishops. "It's legitimate to not inappropriately obscure the distinctions, as when a layperson would proclaim the Gospel. We should all do what we're supposed to do in liturgy. But in the case of offering the cup during communion, it's not a question of "not supposed to", because it's perfectly legitimate for extraordinary ministers to do this. In fairness, the comparative 'over-use' of lay ministers, and 'under-use' of clergy, is real. The rules (and theology) say that it is part of the clergy's job description to offer communion, and laypersons are supposed to supplement them. If the clergy are hovering near the door at the end of every mass to greet folks as they leave, presumably they could also distribute communion a few minutes earlier.
Bender, I suppose you would have advocated following the Catholic bishops in Nazi Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_bishops_in_Nazi_GermanyPlease tell us when your conscience exists apart from being fully formed by the bishops.
Rita - powerful and well articulated. Thanks.Jim - your last line....would suggest you think about that. The eucharistic community are the folks who are there together from start to finish. Having "clerics" pop in to give communion is a poor sign; bad liturgy; and minimizes the community's sacramental action in that specific liturgy. It would be like having a guest minister ignore the wedding ceremony but "drop in" to witness the vows only. Also, your Chicago experience is showing......in most dioceses today you don't have "extra" clerics hanging around...even large family parishes may have only two priests and a few deacons. Is it really liturgical documents' principle that if a parish has four deacons, they all need to be at every liturgy just to give communion? and is that really the point of being a deacon? Yes, if you are at that specific liturgy, then the documents state that you are the "ordinary" minister of the eucharist. But let's not conflate that and get back to the old days of priests listening in so they can hurriedly throw a stole on and show up to distribute communion. Read my specific words carefully - show up; distribute; etc. is that really what eucharist is about? We are back to a clericalism and eucharist as object mentality.As Rita says well - we have come far from VII and there has been much "organic liturgical" development. Let's build on that rather than jump back to liturgical minimization.
If profanation of the Eucharist is a major concern (#1 in the Q&A), a modest search of Catholic News Agency and beyond suggests that public access to the host is what should be constrained. The rector of Bishop Olmsted's cathedral partly addressed this problem in a Jan 2011 letter, identifying nine forms of unintentional profanation of the host that he witnesses frequently. He ignored intentional forms, which are more likely to make the news. His solution was to eliminate abuses enabled by receiving in the hand and to write repeatedly to reduce pertinent ignorance resulting from poor catechesis. It is unclear why the pastoral solution of improved catechesis which Rita suggests could not have been adapted similarly to Communion from the cup. http://www.diocesephoenix.org/uploads/docs/COMMUNION-Q-AND-A-092111.pdf http://www.simonjude.org/documents/BulletinLetterJanuary302011.pdf
Back in the day, a lot of teaching from the pulpit happened on the proper way to receive communion in the hand. But I have seldom heard much about it in many years. Repetition being the mother of learning, if this is a real problem, then one would think the pastors would have a moral obligation to do some teaching from the pulpit as well as by putting notices in bulletins (most of which are probably ot read all that much anyway).
In my parish now there are Eucharistic Ministers galore and there is hardly ever a second priest distributing. In a former parish a second priest was always there as that pastor was more into power. Plain and simple it is about power. If we do not have power over the Eucharist who needs us? Then what. In the mid-centuries there were priests who were ordained to say mass only. It is a cleric-empire-power mentality. The other bishops may not imitate Olmstead. But they get the message.
That the bishop has the authority to do what Olmstead has done is not in question; but this hardly means that his action may not be questioned nor that he may not be asked for the reasons for it not only by his own people but by others Catholics. It is not subversive of authority to ask for the reasons for decisions.On the other hand, let us not exaggerate the significance of this decision or assume that it represents the wave of the future. I believe he will find himself in a very small minority on this matter.
There is no discussion in any of the documents about people with celiac disease. I am acquainted with this because a very devout friend has celiac disease and cannot tolerate wheat (there are low gluten hosts, which may be used at the discretion of the Ordinary, but some apparently cannot tolerate even them); there was some discussion, years back, of making Hosts of a different grain, but that was not allowed.It has apparently become the custom in many churches to set aside a chalice that has no contact with wheat (and no portion of the Host in the cup) so that celiacs can communicate.Olmsted's decision, then, could have the effect of denying communion entirely to some Catholics except on a few feasts. Is that pastoral? Is it Christlike? Why is there no discussion of this presumably pastoral problem in the directive or the Q & A? The issue was publicized widely earlier in the decade.This and the information in this excellent article confirm my belief that when concern for the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is greater than concern for the body of Christ gathered and asking to be fed, the Eucharist is no longer doing what Jesus did when he fed his followers.
Bill - I don't say your liturgical theology points are wrong. But the question could be asked, "if the clergy are around, why aren't they joining the community in worship?" And there could be all sorts of good reasons why they don't. But there also could be some not-so-good reasons. It's worth asking these questions and thinking about them, anyway (just my humble opinion).I do think that a lot of clergy need to reflect more on their Eucharistic responsibilities. Almost every weekend, I attend masses in which I am not distributing communion (generally because I am bringing my kids to mass and am in the pews), and that is also a sort of distortion of my ministry - serving the people by serving at the Eucharist is one of the most important things that deacons do. (Many deacons incorrectly believe that their ministry of charity is sole or primary.) I don't distribute communion on those occasions because laypersons have already been scheduled, and no thought was given that clergy might be present, at the mass, and should be exercising their ministry. All of the deacons in our parish attend mass as parishioners, in the pews, on weekends when we're not scheduled. It isn't just me.There would be practical and pastoral problems with trying to accommodate our presence - it needs to be thought through, on a number of different levels. But because it seems hard, that may not be sufficient reason to just ignore it. If we accept the principle that the actors should do what they're supposed to do - the priest does the priestly things, the psalmist does the psalmist things, the assembly does the assembly things, and so on - then we should take seriously the directive that clergy who are present exercise their ministry; that part and parcel of their ministry is to distribute communion; and that in some way this makes manifest the character of who they are and what they do.Just tossing these thoughts out for consideration.
I'm puzzled by all the anger here. As someone remarked, it's the same eucharist either way. What, exactly, is lost if you can't all share a common cup? Or is this just another excuse to vent rage at Rome?
@David Smith (10/7, 2:54 am) Various folks above have given their (varied) reasons for their anger at this bishop's decision. For me, one reason is the de facto insult of the laity's intelligence. The "reasons" given for the bishop's decision fail the test of simple logic. Thus, we are left to speculate what this bishop's actual reasons are for the arbitrary exercise of his power.(Personally, I'd prefer if the bishop simple said, in effect, "I'm in charge here, and as long as I'm in charge this is the way it's going to be in my diocese. I don't need to give any more reasons than that...and I'm not going to." At the least, a statement like that has the ring of honesty...which the statements from the Phoenix diocese do not (at least to my ears).)
Thanks, Jim. Good points - we disagree on the purpose of the diaconate - it is service and ministry and not primarily liturgical. That is why VII ressourced it. What we have seen given the reality of lack of clerics is plugging deacons into liturgical roles because we lack priests. Guess this could be considered "organic" development?
As opposed to some, the amount of irritation here, despite Mr. Smith's minimizing(as usual), underscores the problem is bigger than Phoenix/Olmsted.In our county currently, we are discussing charter review and there is real division between those who underscote discretion (like the Bender argument here) often glossed as leadership (meaning the manager "knows better") and those who emphasize service to the community. Discretion supporters in my experience tend to support everything by the book (like Jim P. here)We just named a new counry manager -al the finalists from the national search talked about believing in collaboration and listening -but, as often happens, the proof is in the pudding.Those words are empty w/o transarency and accountability.How governnace is operating in the chrch is the issue and this is AGAIN one small part of that.BXVI has said it's sinfulness not governance is the problem (I guess that's his idea of curial reform).So I guess i'd be bemused by another Olmsted action -since I'm not in Phoenix thank God - but I see the implications well beyond that not only currently but getting worse for the future.
FWIW - the Norms for Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses in the United States of America also alludes to the potential confusion between clergy and laity:"24. The General Instruction then indicates that, 'the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason. (36) '"In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice"Whether or not we think this is a questionable rationale, it is not original to Bishop Olmsted - he is simply copying and pasting it out of the Rome-approved norms for the US.http://nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
Luke Hill and Joe Komonchak:Luke, you wrote,
Personally, Id prefer if the bishop simple said, in effect, Im in charge here, and as long as Im in charge this is the way its going to be in my diocese. I dont need to give any more reasons than thatand Im not going to. At the least, a statement like that has the ring of honesty.
But if a bishop said that, would you let it go at that, or would you keep pressing him? I agree that such a statement would at least have, as you put it, the ring of honesty. But is that enough, or is it only a lesser evil -- one we shouldnt settle for and shouldnt be expected to settle for? In saying this, I have in mind what Joe Komonchak wrote above:
That the bishop has the authority to do what Olmstead has done is not in question; but this hardly means that his action may not be questioned nor that he may not be asked for the reasons for it not only by his own people but by others Catholics. It is not subversive of authority to ask for the reasons for decisions.
Id say that if there exists a right to question the bishop and ask for his reasons, there also exists a duty, on the bishops part, to answer those questions and give those reasons.Luke and Joe, what do you think?
Note that Bishop Olmsted's concern about the 'danger of profanation' is also contained in the national norms.
Rita, btw, in your original post, you expressed puzzlement regarding how GIRM 24 relates to FAQ 12. I believe the reference should have been, not to GIRM 24, but to paragraph 24 in the norms, which I quoted a couple of comments above this one.
I would like to approach this issue from a different perspective. And that perspective is from the history of our faith. We can all agree that what Jesus taught (passed on to us by the Apostles, St. Paul, and the apostles to the early Christian communities) and Jesus' example form what is called the 'Deposit of Faith'.It can also be stated that with the death of the Apostle St. John (approx. 95 CE), the Deposit of Faith was complete. With this completeness no claim of new revelation from God is to be accepted. We know what Jesus said and did from Sacred Scripture, and we know what was practiced during the Apostolic Era---what we have received from Scriptures and Traditon. This is not to be set aside for any reason. In other words, even if there would be a papal declaration attempting to change or nullify a Dogma of Faith taught by Christ (or an example modeled by Christ), such an action by the pope or other hierarchy should be declared by the rest of the Church as an attempt to contradict the immutable 'Deposit of Faith'---which must not be permitted.We know from the writings of St. Paul (writing before any gospel writer) what the practices were in the early Christian communities both in Palestine, as well as in Greece and Rome. We know from the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of the Apostles---the teachings of Peter, James (relative of Jesus who headed the Church of Jerusalem), what the practices were. Paul in his 2nd Letter to the Thessolonians states: "hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistles". (2 Thes. 2:15)We know that Jesus utilized both bread and wine at the Last Supper. And we know that both species were used in the early Christian communities. We also know that from the beginning, the Eastern Churches have distributed Communion under both species and still do today. Receiving Communion under both species is part and parcel of the Deposit of Faith and should never, never have ceased being a practice in the Latin Rite. The fact that after Vatican II---a major step was taken (in at least the English-speaking countries), of returning to the example of Christ, was a major step in returning to the Deposit of Faith.I have also read a book by Edgar Davie who did over 30 years of study into the historical origins of Christianity as a Jewish sect, and in its evolving role as a separate branch of faith. His book "Before the Bible: Beliefs and Practices of the First Christians" traces this development from the beginning until Constantine in 325 CE. This book concluded that all original Christian Dogma and doctrines were correct.He concluded that after years of continued investigation in order to better understand the historical Jesus, and the lives of His apostles, did new concerns arise surrounding Church developments after Constantine that departed from Christianity's first teachings. There are other issues (besides the celebration of the Holy Eucharist---under two species) that Davie studied. But this point is enough for here. The practice of limiting Latin Rite Catholics to communion under one species---the Host----evolved over the centuries---not all at once. It was able to be accomplished because so many people in western Europe were uneducated. Even the Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne, was illiterate.I firmly believe that Bishop Olmsted is guilty of a massive left turn from what is a major tenant of the Deposit of Faith. Letters should deluge the Metropolitan of Region XIII (going to Denver, CO)----complaining, and protesting this imposition with all the trumped-up false claims made by Bishop Olmsted.
G.-B. Montini, future Paul VI, once said, "it is characteristic of authority that it does not have to give reasons." I would distinguish: Authority is acknowledged when it is presumed that there are reasons behind a decision or teaching. I do not know why a person in authority would not want to give them when questioned or challenged--do keep in mind that not every request is a challenge--especially by those most affected, especially when it concerns a great spiritual good. If a bishop wants to govern a Church of adults, I would think it a duty to supply reasons when questioned.
Rita, and others who may know, please bear with me, as this is a rather involved point. Prior to the promulgation of the current GIRM, the former GIRM, which had been in effect from the 1970s until about ten years ago, treated reception under both kinds in a two-step way:* The GIRM itself gave permission for reception under both kinds. Those permissions would strike most American parishes today as extremely restrictive, compared to the practices to which we've become accustomed.* The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the US conference) subsequently sought from Rome, and received, permission for a much wider range of occasions when communion could be offered under both kinds. That permission was included in American editions of the former GIRM as an appendix at the end of the Roman document. This wider American permission became the legal basis for what is now a well-established custom in American parishes.I note that, in the new GIRM, there is no longer an appendix for dioceses in the United States that specifies American permissions. Instead, GIRM no. 283 presents a rather complex edifice of four different sources of permission for celebrating under both kinds:1. Those occasions specified in the ritual books (which presumably refers to the new missal itself?)2. Several explicit permissions which are listed out right there in GIRM 283 (and which would be of little interest to laypersons at a typical parish Sunday mass)3. The diocesan bishop is given permission to establish norms in his diocese, including permission to grant to parish pastors the latitude to offer it whenever it seems appropriate to the pastor (provided that good catechesis has been given, and so on)4. The norms for communion under both kinds in the US, a link to which I provided a few comments above this one, are to be followed. Presumably, this last is a "US-only" insertion, and replaces the US-specific appendix to the previous version of the GIRM.So - a couple of points:* Whereas, under the old GIRM, there was *conference-wide* permissions, which would have applied to *all dioceses* in the US, now *the diocesan bishop* controls the permissions within his diocese. Thus, this development would seem to be yet another in a rather lengthy line of instances in which responsibility is being taken away from the conference and given to the individual bishop..* Obviously, the permission given the diocesan bishop is the pertinent one here. In my opinion, the diocesan FAQ is not entirely honest in the way it explains what the new GIRM permits and doesn't permit. In truth, the former GIRM, with its US appendix, was quite permissive. And in truth, the new GIRM is just as permissive - it just substitutes a new vehicle for extending that permission (the diocesan bishop) for the old vehicle (the national conference). In summary - there is nothing in the current GIRM that would prevent the Phoenix diocese from offering communion under both kinds. That it is now being restricted is due, not to the new GIRM, but to the discretion of the diocesan bishop. He could, if he wished, offer communion as widely as it has been offered up to now, and he would be entirely within his legal rights to do so. Instead, he has made a more restrictive decision. Pointing to the new GIRM as a rationale is, quite frankly, disengenuous.
There are actually some holes in the author's line of reasoning. First of all, the author did not take into account Redemptionis Sacramentum:"102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ's faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that "more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration".190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated."Furthermore, here is an additional item of interest from the United States' own norms:"28. When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, priest, or deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, priests, or deacons. (42) If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, "the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., formally instituted acolytes or even some of the faithful who have been commissioned according to the prescribed rite. In case of necessity, the priest may also commission suitable members of the faithful for the occasion." (43) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion should receive sufficient spiritual, theological, and practical preparation to fulfill their role with knowledge and reverence. When recourse is had to Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, especially in the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds, their number should not be increased beyond what is required for the orderly and reverent distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord. In all matters such Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should follow the guidance of the diocesan bishop."Thus, as the previous respondent noted, the norms do give the diocesan bishop the right to determine the best practice for his diocese, as spelled out in the Church's liturgical laws.
I gues(as usual) I'm dense.I've tried to suggest the issue here is not going to be moved forward by focusing on authority rights (discretion) which can or cannot be abused or by the book cites from manuals/documents, etc.(There's a great podcast at America -sorry,Matthew -this week with Prof. Hinze talking about the Listening conference at Fordham on sexual diversity. She focuses on the mission laid out by (not always folowed by?) BXVI of finding the truth in love by listening.)Olmsted et al. may speak from the top down manager approach, but the real pastoral edge requires LISTENING to those who are served, not just cites.
Deacon Jim:As you noted, the Church requires that those ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (bishop, priest and deacon) who are present assist in the distribution of Holy Communion. Redemptionis Sacramentum makes this perfectly clear:157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.258Thus, if there are many deacons out in the pews, they should actually not be there since, as clergy, they must exercise the role that is proper to them in the Mass. Again, Redemptionis Sacramentum makes this point:[128.] Holy Mass and other liturgical celebrations, which are acts of Christ and of the people of God hierarchically constituted, are ordered in such a way that the sacred ministers and the lay faithful manifestly take part in them each according to his own condition. It is preferable therefore that "Priests who are present at a Eucharistic Celebration, unless excused for a good reason, should as a rule exercise the office proper to their Order and thus take part as concelebrants, wearing the sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock".218 It is not fitting, except in rare and exceptional cases and with reasonable cause, for them to participate at Mass, as regards to externals, in the manner of the lay faithful.While this section speaks directly to priests, it's not a huge stretch to also apply this to deacons as well.
@gene palumbo (10/7, 10:58 am) Thanks for your response, and your question. (Thanks also to Fr. Komonchak for his reply above at 12:58 pm.)"Id say that if there exists a right to question the bishop and ask for his reasons, there also exists a duty, on the bishops part, to answer those questions and give those reasons."I guess I think we certainly have a right to question our bishops' decisions and to ask for their reasons. I don't know if bishops have a duty, but I do think they have---at the least---a responsibility to respond to such questions from the laity in their dioceses. However, if a bishop gives what seem to be evasive answers, it seems to me that the rest of us have limited options (i.e., there's no provision for impeaching a bishop, or for voting him out of office).
Finally a question about where the clergy are. Couldn't they pop in and help? I celebrate more than a dozen Masses a week mostly for small groups and on Sunday with a church 1/3 full. The small attendance is the norm and not just our parish problem. There are 40 Masses celebrated on Sunday within 10 miles of our parish. Why this situation prevails and what it has to do with the form of Holy Communion I leave to the readers and also to our beloved Bishops.
Michelle Marie Romani, yes, you've provided documentation for a point I was making to Bill deHaas in an earlier comment. I don't have time to hunt it up right now, but there may be pertinent rules in the directory for life and ministry of deacons that pertains specifically to deacons who are present in the liturgy. The norm is that, if deacons are present, they serve. There are a number of practical reasons why a deacon may be excused from liturgical service. My being with my children at mass seems a sensible one. (Although they're not as little as they once were, and it wouldn't be impossible for me to leave them while I distribute communion). Another obvious one would be that there are other deacons already scheduled to serve as deacons at that particular mass.I guess my thought would be that there are an awful lot of things that happen in parish liturgy from week to week that happen more or less on auto-pilot. I preach at Sunday mass once per month. Why? Because it's always been done that way at this parish, and it's done that way at a lot of other parishes. I'm scheduled to serve as deacon at the mass on some Sundays but not others. Why? Again, because that's just kind of the way it is and has been for a long time. But doing something the same for inadequate reasons doesn't seem much better than making a disruptive change for inadequate reasons.Here's my view: a truly and authentically organic development in liturgy since the Council is the ministry of extraordinary eucharistic minister. It's a wonderful ministry. It's a blessing to everyone involved. The church is richer for it. The last thing I would ever want to do is abolish it (and I don't see that this is what is happening in Phoenix). But ... that authentic organic development is not entirely aligned, at least in practice, with the guidelines you've cited. I'm broaching these points to invite reflection on that disjoint. We shouldn't always do everything on autopilot. Things change over time: we have a lot fewer priests, a lot more deacons, another ministry (instituted acolyte) that is almost entirely ignored in practice, an entirely new, massively popular and quite permanent ministry (EEM) that wasn't envisioned by the Council fathers, and rules and regs that have also evolved over the years. This could be a good time to stop, reflect, and see if there is a way to bring all of these disparate elements into alignment.
Ms. Romani,Redemptionis Sacramentum came out in 2004. Now, in 2011, the people of Phoenix are told there are changes in the GIRM that necessitate a new approach to Communion under both forms. It is seven years later. If the "real" reason is Redemptionis Sacramentum, why do the FAQs state that changes in the 2011 GIRM both ground this decision and explain it?Redemptionis Sacramentum does not in any way prohibit the full exercise of the GIRM. The GIRM is a document of higher standing than RS. One cannot use RS, nor can one use a national document such as the US Guidelines, to gainsay the GIRM. The GIRM gives to the bishop the freedom to give his pastors permission to give communion under both forms whenever they see fit. He can do this. He has chosen not to do it. The FAQs say that the bishop cannot dispense from universal legislation. This is plainly not the issue.
However, Ms. Ferrone, if one is going to attack the actions of the Ordinary, one must also look at what Redemptionis Sacramentum states. The document wasn't writte in a vaccuum. It is meant to be read in tandem with the GIRM. Furthermore, there really is no such creature as a 2011 GIRM. It is merely a revised, permanent translation of the GIRM already in place. You also need to look at the Latin original to see what it says.The local Ordinary acted well within his rights. It is sad that disgruntled folks who seem to want to harp on things fail to see that.Insofar as EMHCs are concerned, they are, lamentably, overused. One means of eliminating their use is to employ intinction as a means of distributing Holy Communion under both Species. All is needed is the priest, as he, according to the GIRM, RS and our own norms, is the only one who can do so.
Ms Romani, I don't think anyone here disputes that Bishop Olmsted is within his rights to act as he as acted. But is it wise? I sense that this is what is actually being 'harped on'. The official documents that a number of us have cited here suggest various reasons that a bishop might choose to limit the availability of the cup (without implying that these are the only reasons): danger of profanation, poor catechesis, too many people and not enough ministers, the danger that there would be too much precious blood left over for the ministers to consume, and so on. What is missing, though, are any examples and instances that any of these things *ever actually happen*. My parish experience is that running out of precious blood before everyone who would like to partake of it is able to is more likely than consecrating it in such volume that it can't all be consumed afterward. We do get instances of the precious blood being accidentally spilled from time to time - usually a few drops here and there. Such things happen among priests at the altar, as well.I think we can charitably expect Bishop Olmsted to be more aware of the pastoral situation in his diocese than someone like me who is 2,000 miles away. It would have bolstered his 'case' (not that he is required to make a case, but for something as potentially inflammatory as this, it would be foolish not to) to say, "These rules are based on many disturbing incidents I've observed and have had reported to me as bishop. We will suspend availability of the cup except as I prescribe, and we will also be kicking off a major new initiative on Eucharistic catechesis."
Jim - will clarify my earlier comment....from VII documents on the restoration of the diaconate:"In reference to the munus docendi the deacon is called to proclaim the Scriptures and instruct and exhort the people.(14) This finds expression in the presentation of the Book of the Gospels, foreseen in the rite of ordination itself.(15)The munus sanctificandi of the deacon is expressed in prayer, in the solemn administration of baptism, in the custody and distribution of the Eucharist, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in presiding at the rites of funeral and burial and in the administration of sacramentals.(16) This brings out how the diaconal ministry has its point of departure and arrival in the Eucharist, and cannot be reduced to simple social service.Finally, the munus regendi is exercised in dedication to works of charity and assistance (17) and in the direction of communities or sectors of church life, especially as regards charitable activities. This is the ministry most characteristic of the deacon.10. As can be seen from original diaconal practice and from conciliar indications, the outlines of the ministerial service inherent in the diaconate are very well defined. However, even if this inherent ministerial service is one and the same in every case, nevertheless the concrete ways of carrying it out are diverse; these must be suggested, in each case, by the different pastoral situations of the single churches."My enphasis is taken from number 9 - especially, ...."and in the direction of communities or secors of the church life, especially as regards charitable activities"You are correct that the role of deacon is liturgical (one of three roles). My caution is that, given the current situation in the church, many deacons only provide a liturgical service....this is not what VII intended and not sure that it is even an organic development as much as "necessity". My other caution is that a specific liturgy has assigned ministers - guess you could have any deacon in the congregation at a specific celebration come forward to do communion but, again, wonder if that creates other liturgical issues? It would be like a deacon leaving his family in the church and coming forward to read the gospel....do you want that to happen? Like I said, it creates a legalism that I do not want in our eucharistic community.I also have reservations when we talk about decreasing and combining communities so priests are not having to say multiple liturgies - flies in the face of research that indicates folks build community in smaller, personal groups and liturgies e.g. base communities. That is the essence of our eucharistic communities rather than having the "tail" wag the dog - the tail being a current situation or disciplinary measures that create a dearth of clerics. Yes, in these modern times in terms of ease of travel, etc. there are situations in which we have multiple churches and liturgies only a few miles apart - that is a whole other issue and needs to be approached pastorally (versus some of the current diocesan wide closures and parish suppressions that studies indicate are less than pastoral).
I have received a correction as to who the Metropolitan of Region XIII is. Any letters of complaint should go to Archbishop Sheehan of Santa Fe, NM.
Bill - you're definitely pointing out real issues. I don't know what the perfect answer is. Maybe we can't do any better than what we're doing now. It may be that some reflection and conversation will help us to find a better way.
Simply a way for a careerist Bishop to ingratiate himself to the Vatican and enhance his career.
I want to say clearly once more that having a right to do something or other doesn't make it right.Any argumen there that the Bishop is Ok because he exercised his right or discretion is off track.Ms. Ferrone has shown his rationale is hardly the best and IMO his pastoral sense is quite loony.The larger problem is the notion that when the bishop or curia or Pope or local pastor says something, by their saying that , that's the final word.That attitude underscore the cheerleading that goes hand in hand with the "new" evangelization where all the answers are in already.
Perhaps Bp Olmsted is being admirably far-sighted. In much of the rest of the world, the priest shortage means that the Mass is rarely celebrated--the laity have neither the host nor the cup. The priest shortage here has meant, among other things, lay-people and deacons have stepped in to fill the void, serving, e.g., as EM's. Maybe Olmsted is helping us to envision a post-Eucharistic church--if no priests, then no Eucharist at all, or only very rarely. After all, can't have laypeople do the job. I find it interesting where we draw lines, and why those lines seem reasonable. WHY, e.g., is it unacceptable for laypeople to read to read the gospel? We read the OT and the epistles, sing the psalms, all equally canonical. Why is it reserved to the priest to hand out communion (a fairly rote act,) while the labor-intensive task of catechizing newcomers is gladly handed off to laypeople--sometimes with good preparation, sometimes not.
"WHY...is it unacceptable for laypeople to read the gospel?"Let me go one step further:Why is it unacceptable for lay leaders to preside at the eucharistic liturgy when an ordained presider (aka "presbyter" or bishop) is unavailable?Rome has boxed in the laity, nay, the Church at large.No winners.
About the Author
Rita Ferrone is the author of several books about liturgy, including Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium (Paulist Press).


text:
You are here
Region I Year End - FY 2010/2011
News Release
New England Regional Office
10 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02222
Release Date: October 19, 2011 Contact: Joan M. Trudell
Regional Communications Director
Phone: 617-565-5572
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Release Number: 12-1
SBA Supports a Record $1.4 billion in Loans in New England in 2011
SBA Nationally Posts a Record $30 billion
BOSTON – In New England, the U.S. Small Business Administration supported 4,543 loans totaling a record $1.4 billion in 2011 in New England. (SBA's fiscal year ran from October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011). This compares with $1.2 billion in 2010 which represents a 14 percent increase this year over 2010 results.
The SBA guaranteed 3,959 loans through its flagship 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program for a total of $783.5 million. These loans are available to purchase or construct real estate, equipment and inventory, to finance fixtures and leasehold improvements, and for working capital.
SBA's Certified Development Company/504 Loan Program participants were responsible for $636 million in loans to 584 small businesses to construct, purchase or rehabilitate fixed assets such as land, buildings, and machinery and equipment.
"This is fantastic news for small businesses and we're very pleased with the results our two main loan programs showed in 2011," said SBA New England Regional Administrator Jeanne A. Hulit. "This positive trend means that the SBA has provided small businesses with the tools they need so they can power the economy and create jobs."
Eastern Bank was the #1 SBA 7a lender in New England with 343 loans totaling $24.5 million and the #1 SBA 504 first mortgage lender in New England approving 27 mortgages totaling $9.6 million.
Citizens Bank was the second highest producer with 241 loans for $35 million and TD Bank North ranked third with 177 loans totaling $40 million. Completing the list of top ten SBA lenders in New England are: Sovereign Bank, People's United Bank, Bank Rhode Island, Webster Bank, Enterprise Bank & Trust Co., Northway Bank, and Rockland Trust Company.
"Our strong partnerships with the 235 lending institutions that participated in SBA lending throughout New England have led to significant financing opportunities for small businesses that could not obtain financing otherwise," said Hulit.
Both Massachusetts and Rhode Island posted record dollar volumes this year. Massachusetts supported $595 million and Rhode Island $152 million. And nationally, spurred in part by unprecedented loan volume in the year's first quarter, small business loans backed by SBA reached the highest mark in the agency's history. SBA supported over $30 billion continuing the rebound begun in 2009 and returning to healthy pre-recession levels in the final three quarters of the year.
For more information about SBA programs and services visit our website at www.sba.gov .
# # #


text:
The balance of Troy Scarborough's probation was revoked to the state penal system in Jones County Superior Court Sept. 12. The end date of his sentence is Oct. 23, 2016.
His probation was revoked because of a new charge that resulted from of a recent altercation that occurred in Ivey.
Chief Superior Court Judge William Prior presided over the probation revocation hearing.
"Obviously, you are not a candidate for probation," Prior said to Scarborough at the conclusion of the hearing. "You committed the same offense."
Assistant District Attorney Gregory Bushway told the court that the defendant pled guilty to the charge of family violence felony grade Oct. 24, 2011. He received a five-year sentence, which he was allowed to serve on probation.
For the full story, pick up a copy of this week's newspaper or subscribe to our e-Edition at http://ee.jcnews.com.


text:
The Pizza Lab: The Best English Muffin Pepperoni Pizza
We all know the first law of Pizza-Like Objects: If it's made with some combination of zesty tomato sauce, a wheat-based bready product, and oozy melted cheese with a hint of pepperoni, it's going to taste good. Perhaps not great, but reliably pretty good. And that's the problem with English muffin pizza. It's good stuff, to be sure, but the thing about good things is that they all have the ability to be great. More


text:
6a. A Tale of Two Cities. Book III, Chapter . All the Year Round (November 1859); published 3 October; issued in weekly numbers 7 September. [Click on image to enlarge it.]by Phiz (Hablot K. Browne). Illustration to Dickens's
Related Materials
- A Tale of Two Cities (1859) — the last Dickens's novel "Phiz" Illustrated
- Costume Notes on A Tale of Two Cities
- List of Plates
[Image scan and text by Philip V. Allingham. Formatting and image correction by George P. Landow. You may use this image without prior permission for any scholarly or educational purpose as long as you (1) credit the person who scanned the image and (2) link your document to this URL in a web document or cite the Victorian Web in a print one.]


text:
McGinnis: Turning a blind eye: Race and casting in summer's blockbustersWritten by Jeff McGinnis | | firstname.lastname@example.com
Editor's Note: This column contains spoilers for both "Iron Man 3″ and "Star Trek Into Darkness."
You'd like to think we as a society have moved past the idea of blackface in the years since Al Jolson took the screen in "The Jazz Singer." Certainly the films of the summer of 2013 aren't quite as ridiculously offensive racially as those "classic" days of cinema. Yet there's a troubling trend in this season's movie releases that is becoming more and more pronounced as it progresses. There's a lot of cross-racial casting going on, with quite a few examples of very white actors being put into very nonwhite roles.
The summer wasted no time setting the tone with its first major release, Shane Black's "Iron Man 3." The film's villain, The Mandarin, is — as his name would suggest — heavily influenced by Chinese culture, though his actual racial make-up in the comics is half-Chinese and half-English. As such, the casting of half-English/half-Indian Ben Kingsley as the iconic terrorist isn't necessarily out of line, though it doesn't exactly match up with the character's basic story, either.
Then, word came out of early screenings that — spoiler alert two, electric boogaloo — in "Star Trek Into Darkness," English actor Benadict Cumberbatch's ambiguously defined villain is, in fact, Khan. The classic Trek baddie's racial heritage comes laden with more baggage than Ivana Trump. Khan Noonian Singh is, naturally, supposed to be Indian, but in the original series and the classic "Star Trek 2," he was played by the great Mexican actor Ricardo Montelban. Cumberbatch, by contrast, is none of the above. (Interestingly, the new Khan was originally offered to Benicio del Toro, with whom negotiations fell through.)
And then there's the obvious example of Tonto. The upcoming reboot of "The Lone Ranger" features Johnny Depp playing the classic Native American sidekick. The role was one of the first examples of a Native American character being portrayed in a positive light, aided by the classic performance on the series by Jay Silverheels (who was Canadian, not American, but never mind). Now, this reboot sees Depp controversially step into the role — which the actor himself has tried to assuage by saying he actually does have some Native blood in his heritage.
True or not, though, Depp's casting harkens back to the days of the classic Hollywood Westerns, where white actors were routinely tossed into "Indian" roles without any thought of hiring someone who was racially appropriate. Indeed, back in the day, Tinseltown didn't give such consideration much weight at all when matching performers with roles, no matter what the genre. But in an era where we have evolved — slowly, but surely — as a society on such issues, you'd think studios would be a little more sensitive to the problems such casting can cause.
In a town as liberally-minded as Hollywood, do I think these choices point to deliberate racism? Not necessarily, at least not to the degree they have in the past. I think Hollywood's first instinct is that of a salesman, looking for ways to shore up the box office, and to do that it looks to cast the biggest stars it can, regardless of race. Certainly Johnny Depp is a bigger name than most Native actors that could have played Tonto.
This instinct goes the other way, too. The summer's "Man of Steel" reboot sees the great Lawrence Fishburne playing Superman's newspaper editor Perry White — a role traditionally played by a Caucasian. But unlike the rest of these examples, there's nothing about White's character that requires the role to be of any particular race, and Fishburne is a big name star who you certainly want in your movie. It's like when the producers of "Shawshank Redemption" were asked why they cast Morgan Freeman to play Red, who in the original story was Caucasian. Their response amounted to, "If you can get Morgan Freeman, you cast Morgan Freeman."
Still, common sense and good taste should overrule star power in cases like this summer's movies. In a time where society has become more aware of racial issues, it reads as being incredibly insensitive for major Hollywood studios to give the race of these characters such little weight in the decision process. There are so many fine actors of the correct racial background who could have given any one of these iconic roles life. By choosing to err on the side of box office dollars, these filmmakers seem to be turning a blind eye not only to them, but to the decades of progress that have passed since Jolson first donned his makeup.
We've grown up enough as a society to be ashamed of such parts of our heritage. It'd be nice if our entertainment would grow up a bit, too.
Tags: Al Jolson, Ben Kingsley, Benadict Cumberbatch, iron man 3, Jeff McGinnis, Johnny Depp, Lawrence Fishburne, Morgan Freeman, Pop Goes the Cultre, Ricardo Montelban, Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, The Lone Ranger