text:
The Parallel Catholic Church
Eric Bugyis November 16, 2012 - 5:29pm
Over at The Dish, Andrew Sullivan praises a new HBO documentary, "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God," by Alex Gibney ("Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room") on the perpetration and cover-up of sex abuse in the Catholic Church that traces the corruption all the way to the Pope. None of this, I think, will be news to many of us who have been following this horrifying story for more than a decade, but Sullivan offers an interesting comment on how the loss of moral credibility among the hierarchy has created two parallel churches:
One feature of this last election was the complete failure of the Vatican hierarchs to dictate the vote to the flock. American Catholics voted for Obama over Romney. The docile fools in dresses - from Dolan to Chaput - were ignored as they now routinely are, and should be. They actually think they still have moral authority. But moral authority has to be earned with each generation, and the corruption in the Vatican is so deep and so rotten and so incapable of self-reflection it has effectively created two Catholic churches in America: those few in the pews who still listen to the bishops and those who exist almost in a parallel church, focused on their own parish, their own priest, and their own faith, which remains, for many of us, undimmed.
I have also found the idea of inhabiting a parallel Catholic Church to be one way of sustaining my own faith through the dark time of scandal, pastoral malfeasance, and political cynicism that continues to undermine the hierarchical Church. The wonderful community at my local parish and the excellent priests that serve us have kept me coming back every week in spite of the continual heartbreak that comes from seeing certain bishops and their friends take the public stage with a militant defensiveness, a hunger for power, and a litigiousness that seems to be the very antithesis of the Gospel's message of self-sacrifice, humility, and love. Now more than ever, I find that spending Sunday mornings in prayer with my spouse and our friends at the Church of Loretto is essential to sustaining a spiritual life away from the daily silliness that has become the public witness of institutional Catholicism.This is why I find Luke's post about a young man being denied confirmation at his Minnesota parish so depressing. Some conservative Catholics may applaud this move as an important catechetical moment on the way to preserving doctrinal discipline and the deeper edification of a smaller, purer Church. From the pew where I sit, however, it is a cold-hearted, pharisaical action that privileges the letter over the Spirit, which will only result in stamping out any meaningful future for this Church that so many of us love in spite of feeling unloved by it. Why a priest or bishop would deny the sacraments to an enthusiastic and independently-minded young person -- who has an obvious interest in practicing the virtues of love and justice (that he, no doubt, learned in the Church) in the public sphere -- and the family that raised him is beyond baffling to me. It is mean, plain and simple. Do we really have so many 17 year-olds seeking confirmation these days that we can afford to alienate those who desire the sacrament in good faith?As Sullivan points out, this case in Minnesota is made even worse by the fact that it looks like political retribution:
In Minnesota, where a third of the population is Catholic, the hierarchy insisted that the state amend its constitution to keep gay couples out of civil society and civil marriage. The hierarchy failed - as miserably as they failed in their trumped up "war on religion" nonsense. The Amendment didn't pass. [...] And so in Minnesota, a 17-year-old Catholic, Lennon Cihack, who goes to mass weekly, and who was diligently preparing for his confirmation, posted on his Facebook page a picture of himself and a poster opposing the Amendment. His mother is then called into the rectory by the local priest and told that the confirmation cannot occur. Then she is told that the entire family is now barred from communion.
Is it Sunday yet? I need to go to Mass.
Commenting Guidelines
"The docile fools in dresses" - typical Andrew Sullivan charity.
Conservative Catholics may applaud this move as an important catechetical moment on the way to preserving doctrinal discipline and the deeper edification of a smaller, purer Church.That is not it at all, despite your crass attempts to politicize this while claiming to be baffled, as I explained in the prior post.As far as the sex scandal is concerned, and the attempt to keep that perpetually alive, since you claim to be concerned about it, what is your response to the favorable mention in these pages only a few days ago about Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who was himself involved in the scandal?
I'd simply add two adjectives so it reads "The docile fools in ecclesiastical granny dresses..."
Although I read it in an earlier thread, it just struck me that when the boy's parish priest said he did not bar the lad from confirmation, was this presbyter aluding to the "latae sententiae" form of excommunication. This was the ruse employed by Bishop Olmsted when he said that the Mercy sister at St. Joseph Hospital had excommunicated herself when she voted with the ethics committee to approve lifesaving intervention for the woman with a life-threatening pregnancy. Any canon lawyers here?
The bishops and Hannity, Limbaugh and co. are wounded animals. Why the high road when you can go after Susan Rice and try to deny that the country repudiated you?
Oh, and I thought patience and forgiveness were also virtues
Let me know when "patience and forgiveness" appear in a Commonweal thread. The mean-spiritedness from many people here is beyond obsessive. This is the "parallel church" that will usher in the love of Christ?
Bruce and Frank, this website is dangerous to your moral and spiritual health. You're not going to succeed in converting us heterodox. At the very least, you two are "playing with fire" and probably engaging in venial sin. Such being the case, you are jeopardizing your eternal salvation (just ask, no doubt, Raymond Burke et al). My suggestion: Leave while the gettin's good! Or you'll continue to be lured to damnation. I mean, Really.
Frank --Here's an example of forgiveness -- Archbishop Weakland has publicly repented for his sins, suffered consequences for them, is now an active member of the Church again, and he has been mentioned favorably here at dotCommonweal. That's the way it's supposed to be. One of these days when I have the time I'm going to re=post in caps the uncalled for nastiness in one thread here during just one day. Yes, some of the liberals call names too. But not nearly as many. Just look at this thread, and it's only just begun:"TYPICAL ANDREW SULLIVAN CHARITY" (conservative)"despite your CRASS ATTEMPTS TO POLITICIZE this while CLAIMING TO BE baffled, (conservative - 2 insults)"since you CLAIM TO BE concerned about it, (conservative)The docile fools in ECCLESIASTICAL GRANNY dresses" (liberal) "THE RUSE employed by Bishop Olmsted" (liberal)" Why the high road when you GO AFTER Susan Rice and TRY TO DENY that the country repudiated you?" (liberal -2)"LET ME KNOW WHEN patience and forgiveness APPEAR IN A COMMONWEALl thread. The MEAN=SPIRITEDNESS from many people here is BEYOND OBSESSIVE. (conservative -3)Note: the conservatives win 7 to 4.
Sullivan: "American Catholics voted for Obama over Romney." Yes, many US Catholics voted for Obama, but did not almost as many vote for Romney? Eric: "The wonderful community at my local parish and the excellent priests that serve us have kept me coming back every week in spite of the continual heartbreak that comes from seeing certain bishops and their friends take the public stage with a militant defensiveness, a hunger for power, and a litigiousness that seems to be the very antithesis of the Gospels message of self-sacrifice, humility, and love. Now more than ever, I find that spending Sunday mornings in prayer with my spouse and our friends at the Church of Loretto is essential to sustaining a spiritual life away from the daily silliness that has become the public witness of institutional Catholicism."I'm tempted to say, with regard to your first sentence, "Well, Duh!!" Of course, the life of the Church is in parishes and other small eucharistic communities. The obsession with bishops on this blog distorts the reality of the Church. I find it as silly as the criticized public witness. It should not be a surprise that a spiritual life can be nourished apart from what bishops--or, rather, what certain bishops--are or are not doing. Under present conditions, the Church is a voluntary community, and one of the meanings of this is that how much what certain bishops do upsets us is in great part our own choice.
This blog is a microcosm of Catholicism, a place where people come together from many different places, different political horizons, and different Catholic sensibilities. Bernard wrote a few days ago that he was hoping for universal salvation: imagine that perhaps some day the people commenting here will all be united in the arms of God! Obviously we're not there yet, and in fact, the prospect of being so intimately associated with one another, given our current relations, sounds more like hell than like heaven.How do we handle the diversity of voices? This blog shows a little bit of what happens when there is no leader such as a bishop to impose uniformity, and when Catholics can freely build the church of tomorrow. Sometimes I imagine it as an experiment in a church with a different, new form of government."There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." All can speak up, all opinions can be expressed, and open conversation is the sole practical means towards unity. How could such a radical elimination of oppressive thought police work in practice? That is what we are working out right now.I read Ann's comment and can't help but contrast her quotes with the early Christian community that elicited the surprised reaction "Behold how they love one another!"
JAK --Is it really so unnatural that there is such interest in a Catholic blog in what the bishops do and say? The American Church is in terrible shape, and an even half-way objective eye can see that the bishops are in major part responsible for this sorry state of affairs. At the rate people are leaving, in 50 years there won't be a Catholic Church here. I say we MUST lament the bishops' contributions to this melt-down, beginning with the sex scandal that has not been adequately dealt even after 25 years, plus their generally letting the Vatican walk all over them, not to mention their refusing to even talk about the problems the faithful find most distressing, and perhaps most amazing, picking on the nuns of all people, plus assorted unwise actions such as engaging in strident politics. Think about it -- when you were 10 years old, could you have *imagined* that the nuns might all but vanish from the American Church? Granted, the bishops are not entirely responsible for that, but . . . see the LCWR.No, we're not obsessed. We care deeply, and we won't shut up. Times have changed at least in that a regard.
Is it really so unnatural that there is such interest in a Catholic blog in what the bishops do and say?
Yeah, I'd say so, Ann, especially when it's only the hated bishops that draw all the interest. Well, but no, not unnatural, of course - it's extremely human that people should hate so strongly. One of the most unpleasant characteristics of the human animal is its hunger for intense and enduring hate.
"Under present conditions, the Church is a voluntary community, and one of the meanings of this is that how much what certain bishops do upsets us is in great part our own choice."Joe: It is until it isn't. That's why I brought up the Minnesota case. Bishops and priests do have real administrative and spiritual power as well as a certain claim to the public face of the Church. I understand your point, and I agree with it to the extent that the whole idea of there being a "parallel church" at the parish level is predicated on there being spaces for fellowship and worship that are able to ignore this authority for the most part. It is still there, though, and it is being exercised. So, I think Ann is right that it is only natural those of us who feel invested in the Church would take an interest in what it is doing and saying at both the local and institutional level.David: I don't think that there's any reason to accuse anyone of "intense and enduring hate." Please, stop.
The horrifying thing about the Minnesota communion story, and so much else that falls under the umbrella of episcopal or clerical whip- cracking, is that it is excused under the idea that "if you want to be Catholic, you have to be 100% Catholic".Personally, while I value the parallel church in the pews, and all that is best in the Catholic tradition, I'd rather be 100% Christian (a follower of Christ) than 100% Catholic (a cheerleader for the Vatican and bishops).The most superficial reading of the Gospels makes it clear: Jesus' message was about inclusion for everybody, he warned strongly against any inclination to judge others, and his clear example was that love and service were immeasurably more important than adherence to religious doctrine and rules.
David Smith:"One of the most unpleasant characteristics of the human animal is its hunger for intense and enduring hate."Really? Is that your opinion or do you have results from a study that proves your statement?
Fr. Komonchak:The obsession with bishops on this blog distorts the reality of the Church. Can it be that the bishops have been more vocal and political than ever before?Speaking of obsession:It seems to me that a significant number of our bishops (and priests) are obsessed with the issue of religious liberty. In my opinion there was no need for an Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. What really got my goat is the fact that at their November 2011 meeting the bishops overwhelmingly approved a 3% increase in their annual diocesan dues to the USCCB for the purpose of supporting the new committee. (I did not make this up. It was on the live stream of their meeting.) They are closing schools merging parishes, etc. and yet they have money to support this new committee. I want to respect, admire and be inspired by our bishops and priests. I truly do. Yet, when I hear that the USCCB June 2013 retreat (?) meeting will be in a Coronado resort in these tough economic times, I have reservations. They were told to wear casual attire. (Again, I did not make this up. It was on the live stream of their meeting.) I think maybe some should be wearing sackcloth and ashes. (Maybe, I will appear too strong in that opinion but then, I remember that Dante had a special place in Hell for a pope - Pope Boniface VIII.)I cannot get my head around the thinking of some of our bishops. For example, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M.Cap. seems to be doing some good things to clean up the mess he inherited in Philadelphia. This past Nov. 16 in Washington, D.C. he accepted the annual Meese Award from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which specializes in legal defense of religious liberty. This is what he said in his acceptance speech:Ed Meese, Robert Bork, Chuck Colson, Robby George all of these men whom the ADF has honored in the past are heroes to me. Im grateful to be included in their company.http://catholicphilly.com/2012/11/archbishop-chaput/homilies-speeches/fi...
The many 'us/them' threads at dotCommonweal leave me feeling profoundly alienated. The alternatives are presented as stark: 'they' align with the hierarchical church and 'we' with the parallel church. The wheat and the chaff. I don't dispute the existence of the two churches as Eric and Andrew describe them. Nor do I deny the loyalty church each elicits from its devotees. Indeed, engaged Catholics increasingly feel called to declare for one or the other and the identity is durable. Except that for some of us...perhaps very few, after all...the binary doesn't work. We grapple with ambivalence. We meander between, identify with both, and fit into neither. Ecclesiastically homeless, perhaps.I'm struck by unflattering similarities among the most intense devotees of each vision: the certainty that the contending view of church is illegitimate, the incapacity to acknowledge the shadow side of one's own vision and the wisdom of the other, the refusal to call out one's own, the schadenfreude, the flogging of the most extreme and grotesque positions taken by defenders of the alternate vision. Im struck by how deep the wounds go all around. It is exquisitely painful to experience your deepest beliefs subjected to ridicule and contempt. It is extraordinarily difficult to acknowledge that your own critique has inflicted such wounds, But most of all I'm struck by the depth of the mutual loathing and infrequency with which it is acknowledged. Michael Rubens, a former Daily Show producer, posted a brilliant riff on SLATE about encountering people whose views he detested. His conclusion: People are complex and can hold different views and still be moral actorsMaybe you already grasp that concept because you have good friends or loving relatives with beliefs that are wildly divergent from your own. But I tend to think my experience is more typical: I lived in a little bubble surrounded by people like me. And when I considered people with opposing viewpoints I would turn into a fublist, concocting an entire narrative of who they were and what they were like and what they were like was yucko. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/the_daily_show_guide_to_my_enemies/ Im inclined to think that a Catholic Centernot Center Left or Central Right mind youwould be characterized by a willingness to selectively affirm *and* selectively critique both the hierarchical church and the parallel church. That, and a passion for reconciliation. But Im left wondering whether centrist sensibilities resonate with any but a small fraction of engaged Catholics after forty years of polarization. Very much in the closet myself, Im also wondering how centrist Catholics might find each other to create an identity between the overpowering narratives of the hierarchical and parallel churches. Anybody out there?
HelenThanks for the link to Archbishop Chaputs talk. However, I do not understand your inability to get your head around the bishops concern over religious liberty given this, from your link:As a senior federal judge told me recently from his own case-load experience, key people in this administration simply do not seem to believe in religious freedom in the sense the American Founders originally intended it in other words, as a distinct human liberty and a priority human right.
Mike McG: I resonate to your sentiments, but I can't make them go anywhere intellectually. According to the Catholic Right, if you are not Right, you are wrong. Someone in the Center may be near to correctness but he or she might as well be Left because the Center is not Right. The Left in the Church is like the left in American politics -- all over the place but not especially coherent. A Catholic on the Left may actually feel like a centrist, as you do. But just as he is willing to live and let live with a 17-year-old Minnesotan who isn't fully formed in the faith yet, he will be informed by Higher Authority that this is not a case in which we can let live, at least it can't live within the loving arms of Holy Mother Church.(And, carrying on the impossibility of finding a place to stand in the center, someone with the credentials of higher authority will see you throw up your hands in disgust, and give you a knowing smile to try to convey that this, too, shall pass.)
In a recent Pew Survey, American Catholics indicated satisfaction with nuns, their parish priest, the Pope, and the American bishops... by large majorities. http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Catholics-Share-Bishops-C... manifest flaws of particular bishop's statement, or the dumb actions of certain clerics (i.e. the MN case) should be evident to nearly all Catholics... and the fact that they are should be clear from the fact that a vast majority of bishops and a vast majority of priests DO NOT ACT THIS WAY. The concern that is rightly raised by Joe K. and Mike M. above is the easy slide to mass stereotyping, and to a rhetoric of crisis that can be pinned on the stereotyped group. Conservatives do this with their narratives that theologians and liturgists and liberal seminaries wrecked the Church. But really, isn't it clear that many of the above comments - and the really mean "docile fools in dresses" comment from Sullivan - reflect a parallel, oversimplified narrative of the situation of the Church, shot through with stereotypes?I don't mean to minimize the challenges the Church faces, and the problems it genuinely has. But the black/white polarizing narrative of "parallel church" is not only distorting - it doesn't actually reflect the pastoral reality of a laity overwhelmingly satisfied with its priests, nuns, and bishops. The "parallel church" is as imaginary as the "conservative church" created in some small, cramped quarters on the other side. Both are sectarian and ultimately destructive to the actual existing Church. I continue to regard Commonweal as the single best place for intelligent engagement in the richness and complexity of the Catholic tradition in America. But the uncritical affirmation of Sullivan's claim here is not an example of it. It is the caricature of the "Commonweal Catholics" that just fires up the other side.
...keep gay couples out of civil society...Can anyone explain what this even means, or is just typical hyperventilating, drama-queening from Mr. Sullivan?
For what it's worth, strictly speaking Dante does not put Boniface VIII in Hell, but that's only because Dante made his trip in 1300 and B. did not die till 1303. When Dante reaches the circle where are found the Simoniacs, Pope Nicholas III, who's already there, mistakes Dante for his successor and says, in effect, "What! You here already, Boniface? I didn't expect you quite so early." He then makes it clear that yet another pope, Clement V (elected thanks to the French king) will presently be displacing both Nicholas and Boniface when it's his turn. How many damned and how many saved popes Dante counts is a bit of an open question. Robert Hollander's edition of the Comedy suggests 9 or 10 definitely damned, and though there are some saved popes as well (starting with Peter, of course), the impression is that more wind up in Hell than wind up either in Purgatory, on their way to Paradise, or in Paradise itself. But the final count seems to lie with the reader.Were Dante alive today, his views might well align themselves with the un-bubbled "Catholic center" suggested above.
"The obsession with bishops on this blog distorts the reality of the Church."Perception is reality. To rephrase (and speaking only for myself), I trust my perceptions of what is --- and has been --- transpiring in the Church of Rome. It doesn't take a PhD in rocket science (or theology) for those of us of a certain/higher age to conclude that B16 has been hell-bent to bring back the old modus operandi of the Tridentine church. We see restoration of a medieval liturgy that clearly is the domain of the ordained. We witness a pope telling fellow bishops that they may not prohibit clergy from "saying" the old service. We learn of B16 firing a bishop because he expressed a willingness to discuss women's ordination if Rome were willing to do so. Then we see a "traditionalist" (Opus Dei-affiliated) bishop remain in office after being convicted of not reporting possession of child porn by one of his clerics --- and not a peep from Rome or the USCCB! We witness the Vatican bending over backwards to bring the SSPXers back into the fold even though they repudiate key teachings of Vatican II and likely hold the Jewish people in contempt for the crucifixion of Jesus. We see newer clergy over the past 15 - 20 years lording it over parishioners because these clerics believe they are "ontologically" superior to everybody else. It would be bad enough if all of these regrettable developments did not touch me. But they do, so much so that I finally had to leave the Church of Rome out of disgust. Fact is the bishops *do* exert real influence over their local churches. Laity for the most part are treated as kids to be ignored. Lay input is not welcome. Yet the bishops won't hesitate in many dioceses to take our money to support their local church newspapers.If the church is community, then we are interconnected whether we like it or not --- at least if we really care about the quality of community life. Even though I left the Church of Rome, I still care about the poor state of affairs within my former community. If there's any consolation, I know I am no longer giving my personal or financial support to the institution.
"As a senior federal judge told me recently from his own case-load experience'And who cares what one Bush appointed judge has to opinion-ate about.? 'As one priest told me about the local bishop'.......would never be used by a Lib in trying to make a point. [too many priests?] These complaints from the right on this post are coming from the frustration of losing the election, the no hope for the future, no conservative leaders in sight. etc. When the Grand Bargain is made in a few weeks 'this too will pass away' The 4.6% tax increase on over $250000 income will only slightly limit the liberty of the 3% to buy more stuff. (-: and will be a down payment on their families for ducking the 11 years of war they profited from.
The "parallel Church" troubles me deeply, I have to say. Partly it's because too often the public voice of the Church belongs to a small minority of extreme-right bishops, while the majority stay silent. I believe in the teaching authority of the bishops, (though I also believe it should be well-informed!) so when one faction only speaks, I'm left with an unhappy dilemma: do the silent bishops agree with their hard-right confreres, or are they too scared to speak? If the latter, where is their faith? Secondly, it is the continued presence of the parallel church in regular parish life that enables and empowers the hard right to claim to represent all Catholics. I trust that continuing poll data that show that the hard right bishops do not, in fact, speak for all Catholics will ameliorate this appearance, but it still seems to be the case that the extremists possess political sway (a different beastie than ecclesiastical authority,) because of the existence of the parallel Church that puts up little resistance to the excesses of one faction of the leadership. I am NOT advocating staying away from the sacraments--they mediate grace and Life, and those "safe" communities where parallel Church members sustain each other are important, I agree. But when all is said and done, the members of the parallel Church need to speak up or we'll be causing scandal by appearing to go along with the extreme right. So--where is our faith?If this concerned only small matters, then this would be a case in which the center and left should go along with the right for the sake of unity. We need not go to the stake for inclusive language, for example, though I think it is important--or, rather, the OPPOSITION to it is significant. However, matters of public policy on which the bishops claim to speak for all of us have big effects on people's lives in the real world. And exclusive versions of the message of Christ, ("You're not good enough to receive Communion," is a too-common refrain from leadership these days,) seem to warp the big-tent tradition of the Church. Too often, the parallel Church seems to me to be ostriching its way through hard times. I understand the impetus, and to some extent I share it, but it cannot be good for the tradition or the faith. Not to mention our own souls. At least, this is my worry.
"I dont mean to minimize the challenges the Church faces, and the problems it genuinely has. But the black/white polarizing narrative of parallel church is not only distorting it doesnt actually reflect the pastoral reality of a laity overwhelmingly satisfied with its priests, nuns, and bishops."David --On its surface the Pew survey does seem to reflect this, except that the survey was of Catholics -- it didn't include those who over the last 50 years have decided to leave the Church for one reason or many. So making your judgment on the basis of the Pew poll alone amounts to putting your head in the sand. If I remember the figure correctly, Boston just had to eliminate 164 parishes. How do you account for that?
To a foreign observer the incredible thing (even after 22 years in this country) is that US Catholic accept to be define in terms of categories (conservative vs. progressive) that are 100% defined by the secular culture, and mirror closely the political divison of the country. Meaning no offense, this reveals a serious inability to develop an original Catholic culture. Also, one thing comment about Eric's claim that the young man was pursuing the "virtues of hope and justice." It is very telling that Eric does not seem to consider the possibility that also the bishop was sincerely concerned about virtues, as if"love and justice" could be used to trump "truthfullness and chastity." This reminded me of a quote by the great Italian Catholic philosopher Augusto Del Noce:"The demonic always creeps in by creating an opposition between certain truths and virtues that, when they are separated, become errors. In the case at hand, charity and respect for the objective order of being.... [this is] the position of the Catholics who do not aim at reconciling virtues that until now were considered essential, but at replacing some virtues with others. In their view, ascetic Christianity, which was typical of bygone eras, today must be replaced by secularized Christianity, in which the fullness of the virtues destined to advance the human condition will wipe away the passive and mortifying virtues (which they consider repressive, even if they do not dare say that explicitly)."
Mark Proska: Here is what I meant:I can't get my head around Archbishop Chaput's use of the term "heroes" for the men he listed when we have so many true in our tradition. I just wonder why he said that. I guess he was trying to show his gratitude for the award. I still think it is weird.
Talk of a "parallel" Church distracts from the fact: there is only one Church, and its current hierarchy is dysfunctional. Sure, the laity and priests have their faults, but when leaders do not lead they ought to be criticized. By the way, if I were simply anti=bishop I wouldn't sing the praises of the bishop of my archdiocese when I was young. He was a great and holy man, and perhaps that is why I see some of the current ones so clearly for what they are -- disgraces to the Church.
"To a foreign observer the incredible thing (even after 22 years in this country) is that US Catholic accept to be define in terms of categories (conservative vs. progressive) that are 100% defined by the secular culture, and mirror closely the political divison of the country. Meaning no offense, this reveals a serious inability to develop an original Catholic culture."Meaning no offense, Carlo, I wonder, what do the European Catholics with their superior self-developed culture call the same differences when they occur there? And didn't we get the left-right shorthand from the French (in Europe, I believe)?
I still care Joseph,Please pardon my cheekyness, but your actions - no personal or financial involvement - say loudly that you really do not care.
It is not unnatural to focus on bishops who are powers unto themselves and have virtual unlimited power over the life of a parish, who will be assigned as pastor, when and if an interdiction may be imposed, etc. If people really didn't give a damn they would have been long gone. The only way that a large portion of U.S. Catholics can find it possible to remain is the manner that Eric has mentioned. The Europeans seem to have not cared enough to even bother with that, except in isolated instances.Would that this was true today:Nullus invitis detur episcopus, No bishop is to be imposed on an unwilling people. The consent and desires of the clergy and people must be sought out. The same pope (Celestine I) said that it should be very rare that a bishop is not chosen from among the clergy of the local Church, and that the local clergy had a right to refuse a bishop imposed from without. It was another pope, Leo I, no slouch when it came to defending papal and episcopal power, who made his own an axiom of Roman law: The one who is to preside over all should be chosen by all. And he gave a reason: No bishop is to be ordained for an unwilling people, who have not asked for him. Otherwise the city may either despise or hate the undesired one and may become less religious than it should because they were not permitted to have the one they wanted (Ep. 14; PL 54, 673).Joseph A. Komonchak, 9/18/2012, http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=20741#comments"Those called to serve the people of God as BISHOPS have to remember that they walk on feet of clay and rely on the power of prayer and sacraments to protect them from the dangers of earthly ambition and corrosive pride. Regrettably, some bishops fail to understand the shepherding nature of their episcopal role; they attempt to rule rather than lead the flock that has been entrusted to their care. That simply doesnt work, and it is regrettable that the bishop is often the last to notice." William J. Bryon, SJ, The church can learn a lot from 'servant leadership', NCR, Aug 21, 2010, http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/church-can-learn-lot-servant-le...
As long as we're bewailing narrow-mindedness we might want to look at experience in some parallel church institutions. Fordham University is part of the parallel church, I presume, but they are in the news because their big tent seems to be not so big. It can accommodate Peter Singer with nary a problem but not Ann Coulter."Does Father McShane believe that Ann Coulter is so diabolically clever that her use of 'disgusting' rhetoric and 'hate speech' will somehow fool Fordham students into believing what she wants them to believe? If so, he has a significantly lower opinion of the quality of American college students than I do."http://collegeinsurrection.com/2012/11/fordham-struggles-to-defend-conde... Fordham is pioneering a new form: the tangential church, 100% politically correct.
The retired Bishops who had the courage to speak their minds at the USCCB's meeting in Baltimore set a good example for their younger colleagues. Of course, they have retired, and so they might have less fear of professional retribution for breaking ranks with their colleagues. Or they might represent a different era in priestly education in which more talented applicants to seminaries were educated to a higher level, so that they spoke with greater confidence about the weaknesses in the document they were addressing. It is a pity that the active Bishops today seem so unwilling to disagree openly with their colleagues, even when their input might be helpful and even necessary. I can't help but think of the missed opportunity for real discussion when the Bishops were considering the changes in the liturgy. Poor Bishop Trautman made a brave stand, but a lonely one.
Let me suggest that all talk of "a parallel Church" is counter-productive. First, there is only one Church. To carve out of it some supposedly extra-Church entity by giving it a special name is in itself to disunify. It is related to calling the conservatives "the orthodox Catholics". (Liberalslike me think it's more accurate to call them "the pseudo-orthodox Catholics".) Yes, individual members disagree about some basic matters, but members on both sides are all members of the one Church. To call the liberals "a parallel Church" is to crown the conservatives as the winners in the liberal-conservative debates. Yes, some liberals "leave" the Church and still call themselves Catholics. But many more liberals have not in any sense of the term "left the Church". So if you insist on trying to contrast "the pew-warmers" v. "the parallel Church" bear in mind that there are liberals among those pew-warmers. Just look at the number who voted against the political bishops this time. "Parallel Church"? No way.
Ann, you wrote earlier today, "[The Pew Survey] didnt include those who over the last 50 years have decided to leave the Church for one reason or many."According to the Pew report linked above, "As might be expected, former Catholics are much less satisfied with Catholic leadership than are those who currently consider themselves to be Catholic. While most Catholics are satisfied with the leadership of the U.S. bishops and the pope, less than half of the former Catholics surveyed express satisfaction with the leadership of the U.S. bishops (31%) and the Pope (38%). The leadership of U.S. nuns and sisters is rated positively by 55% of former Catholics." I'm reminded here of Thomas Reese's analysis in NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER awhile back (http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-...). I assume that Reese, having a PhD in political science, is familiar with social science number-crunching.If the ex-Catholics surveyed had remained in the church but still felt alienated (for whatever reason) from the institution, might we not see a downward adjustment in the percentage of all Catholics who are satisfied with their church leaders' performance? I suspect we would. Perhaps the more favorable outlook about the bishops might be attributed to a church becoming increasingly conservative?
If I did not care, Bruce, you wouldn't be the target of my critiques :-)
I think it is foolish to assert that the irresponsible rhetoric of many bishops should not upset devoted Church going Catholics. We live in a divided Church, or a parallel Church and that is the sign of the times. Poll after poll attest to the large percentage of Catholics who disagree with many Church teachings at all cohort levels and degree of religiosity (e.g., weekly Mass attendees, those who won't leave, those that believe Church is important, and all Catholics). This does not mean that disagreement, even being upset about how bishops are managing and guiding their flock, discourage Catholics from building their relationship with Christ. Far from it. Most Catholics remain in the Church instead of leaving it. They work within the Church in their own way for reform. They focus on their relationship with Christ but they also voice their frustration as well. Most local parishes do not emphasize or publicly dwell on the divisive issues and decisions of some bishops. They don't want ripples in the water. They want people to focus of personal sanity and participate in the collective good works of their parish community. Even a parallel Church, one that is profoundly divided over many issues and teachings, will never diminish the call of the Spirit. Catholics don't based their beliefs on a philosophy of the future, in the hope that certain teachings will change. Most Catholics live in the present, but disagree for good and just reasons. Most are realists and they do not allow disagreement and outrage over Church mismanagement or teachings to discourage their acts of faith.There is far too much vitriolic discourse, on both sides. However, is it really surprising and unnatural for Catholics to react negatively when bishops, even the pope, proclaims that you either are a good Catholic, one who believes in all Church teachings or you are a dissenter, a cafeteria Catholic, a liberal and revisionist or you are invincible ignorant and infected with the ills of the Western secular world or you are a member of the culture of death? How do Catholics suppose to act when the book is closed on all teachings, especially sexual ethics? How does one supposed to act when the Church offers no intelligible and convincing moral theory in support of many of its disputed teachings? Catholics do not live in a bubble. Most are aware that there is a profound division within the theological community as well. Is it unnatural for them to challenge contradiction and inconsistency, unreasonable and even irresponsible answers to most of the problems facing Catholics and our Church today? The sexual abuse scandal and the recent pronouncements of bishops only adds to this frustrating realization. Consider the Phoenix case and the recent the Minnesota case...the list goes on. There is no one cause for such problems. However, one of the problems is that the Church has not implemented or embraced what was called for in Vatican II, namely, the definition of Church as the people of God and a true sense of collegiality. What we have is: a Church with a head without a body. There is no avenue or mechanism in the Church for the voices of the laity. The Synod of Bishops, and the regional episcopates have had their authority significantly cut by a more centralized Roman Curia that takes its direction and orders from the pope. The USCCB and other regional episcopates cannot issue definitive statements concerning any issue of faith, morals or the like, without Vatican approval. Priests who speak out for reform of any teaching or even hint of it are made bishops or occupy any meaningful office of authority. Bishops who do the same are reprimanded, often removed from office and their duties transferred to another bishop. There exists a fear that has silenced open dialogue among clergy, and the voices of the laity and theologians have no realistic role in doctrine formation or revision. Theological scholarship and new insights that hint of disagreement with teachings are often ignored by Rome. Catholics do not despair, but go on because of the love of Christ, their local parishes, priests and spiritual directors who continue to encourage them to love God, neighbor and do good works.
Michael J. Barberi:Thank you for articulating a sensible, hopeful approach to the current state of affairs in our Church.
Michael J. Barberi:Thank you for your reply. I think you wanted to say that "Priests who speak out for reform of any teaching or even hint of it are not made bishops . . ."
Michael Barberi:"Even a parallel Church, one that is profoundly divided over many issues and teachings, will never diminish the call of the Spirit. Catholics dont based their beliefs on a philosophy of the future, in the hope that certain teachings will change. Most Catholics live in the present, but disagree for good and just reasons. Most are realists and they do not allow disagreement and outrage over Church mismanagement or teachings to discourage their acts of faith."Thank you for this reality that most Catholics find themselves living. I do believe we are living in parallel churches because of the difficulties in sorting out church teachings. It certainly does not diminish my own personal faith. I'm wondering if this has always been a reality for the Catholic church? We will always have cafeteria catholics and I don't think that is a bad thing when done in good conscience and faith. The sex abuse scandal seems to have encouraged catholics to "make ther own way" when it comes to sorting out church teachings. As for the blog, it encourages freedom of speech which I thought was our right as US citizens.
Tom Blackburn:"Meaning no offense, Carlo, I wonder, what do the European Catholics with their superior self-developed culture call the same differences when they occur there? "Are you intereted in a discussion or just in being snarky?Anyway, the situation in every European nation is quite different, so I could not make any general statements.
"If the ex-Catholics surveyed had remained in the church but still felt alienated (for whatever reason) from the institution, might we not see a downward adjustment in the percentage of all Catholics who are satisfied with their church leaders performance? I suspect we would."joseph J. --That's exactly my point. I tried to find the Pew report these figures are taken from but couldn't. Would you have the name of the report? I'm quite sure that the proportion of conservative Catholics is growing as more people leave the Church. But I'm not at all sure how many "JP II Catholics" agree with everything that JP II taught. A huge proportion reject the teaching on contraceptives. Should they be called conservatives or liberals if that is all they disagree with?There are huge semantic problems in all of these discussion about "the Church", "the bishops", "some bishops" (how many is "some"), "the" conservatives, "the" liberals, etc., etc., . . . For convenience sake, I'd define "extreme conservatives" (i.e., "JP II Catholics") as those who accept all of JP II's teachings. The rest of us belong somewhere on a line from an end called "conservatives" to the other end called "liberals". Then there are "the pelvic issues Catholics" and "the social theory Catholics", and "the Spirit of Vatican II Catholics" (pro-married and women priests, etc.) . The latter, of course, overlap in many different ways.
Well, it looks like I was dead wrong about more liberals leaving the Church than conservatives! According to Fr. Reese and the Pew Report, more who leave join evangelical churches than non-evangelical ones. Since the evangelicals are so conservative, I assume the Catholics who join them are also conservatives. Fr. Reese mentions that one big reason the ex-Catholics-now-evangelicals say they're leaving is because they do not like the Catholic teaching about the Bible. They think that the Church is not literal enough in its interpretations. Hmmmmmm.
Rather than two parallel churches, I would say one bifurcated church, like a pickle fork. For though the two tines are separate, they emerge from a base of common faith and understanding that is greater than either. We focus on the differences because we are human and love drama and conflict. That is not to say that those differences are small and unimportant, much less that they should be ignored. But I suspect there have been disagreements and arguments and resentments in every century, because the person and the words of Christ appeal to a great range of people, all of them imperfect and not a few quite ornery and combative. It is not necessarily bad or unusual to hold strong views on what one considers vital.Like everyone else on earth, Catholics have been struggling for a long time with the wrenching changes of the modern world. It is a distributed world, respectful still of tradition and authority but less in awe of them, open to good ideas no matter where they come from, and believing that every person has a contribution to make. Some of us will be out in front, and some will be holding back. If that produces tension, it is probably a good thing.There will be developments in the Church as in the world. While we await them with eagerness or dread, we can call to mind something that should never change: by this shall all know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. I suppose that means even for docile fools, pew warmers, cafeteria Catholics, crypto-Unitarians, andbless us!bishops.
"Are you interested in a discussion or just in being snarky?"Carlo:I was being snarky, but I am interested if there is something to discuss. Most of what I see are American sources, of course, but I am not aware that any Catholics (north of the Alps, anyway) use anything but the tired, and admittedly partially inaccurate, left-right model. This is probably not the thread in which to have the discussion. But maybe you could enlighten me and possibly others by noting how French and German Catholics of the Steubenville and Collegeville, say, varieties talk about each other. In France, for instance, they can't still be using "integralist" after all the outrages with which it has been associated, can they?
Good points, John Prior, and those are my sentiments as well. Getting back to the young man who was denied Confirmation and the excommunication of his family; I'm certain he can find a priest or bishop who will confirm him. It is definitly an injustice to him and his family. I know that is not the point, but unfortunately that is the state of affairs in our church as well as our society. For instance, I voted for Obama even though I disagree with his stance on gay marriage. I believe gay marriage has nothing to do with governing. However I believe in all rights for gay people except marriage because I believe that is a sacrament reserved for the intent of carrying on the human race and nurturing the natural outgrowth of children which the love of the man and woman may bring about. Inspite of our divorce rate, I believe in the power of the family and its values throughout time.
I just recalled that last April I fantasized about possible nightmares. The first one went as follows: Imagine if the CDF was reading dotC comment boxes and lifting some choice quotes out of it. My goose would be cooked. One day my pastor (and yours) would suddenly say to me (and you), out of the blue: I received a letter from the CDF/the bishop. I need to talk to you. There are some serious issues. I would appreciate if you would refrain from coming up to communion until weve had a meeting.For the young man in Minnesota, it looks as though the nightmare has become true.
Claire--That is a real possibility and I hope bishops do not exercise their power in such an arbitrary way. However for those who make their living in the church, it is a worry. Though it is this freedom of speech and the tolerance of hearing different viewpoints that will help our church grow and become stronger.
About the Author
Eric Bugyis teaches Religious Studies in the Division of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs at the University of Washington Tacoma.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Subject Names: Lt. Colonel Charles Halt, Master Sgt. Ike Barker, Airman John Burroughs, Staff Sgt. James W. Penniston, Staff. Sgt. Munroe Nevells
Subject Location: Rendlesham Forest, England  Â
Select a Season
Subject Names: Lt. Colonel Charles Halt, Master Sgt. Ike Barker, Airman John Burroughs, Staff Sgt. James W. Penniston, Staff. Sgt. Munroe Nevells
Subject Names:Â Father Vince Lampert, Father Carmine De Filippis
Subject Location:Â Indiana and The Vatican
Paranormal Experience:Â An American exorcistâs training and first case
Subject Names: Debra Pickman, Tony Pickman, Karen Loder, Craig Armstrong
Subject Location: Atchison, Kansas
Paranormal Experience:Â
Bill Vaile was inherently curious. All of his jobs had involved technology or engineering. He'd even worked in the aerospace program and as a robotics engineer. A divorce made Bill rethink his life. He decided to move back home. He got a job at the same water treatment system dealer as his...
Subject Names: Matt Brown, Ken Fisher, Linda Fisher, Cherie Hitesman, James Wegener
Subject Location: South Carolina
Paranormal Experience: A very, very haunted house
Subject Names: Jenny Coffeen, Kyle Coffeen, Josh Coffeen, Makela Coffeen, Noah Coffeen, Kari Skinner; Tim Maille
Subject Location:Â Chilton, Wisconsin
Paranormal Experience:Â
Subject Names: Capt. Jim Moore,Nancy Weber, Det. Bill Hughes
Subject Location: New Jersey
Paranormal Experience: A psychic helps find a multiple murderer
Subject Names: Mark Spencer, Rebecca Spencer, Bronte Spencer, Destiny Higgins, Reagan Dye, Bess Maxwell
Subject Location: Monticello, Arkansas
Paranormal Experience: A young woman makes sure her love story is told
Subject Names: Michael Todd, Cynthia Warwick Seiler, Veronica Montes, Ashton Montes, Jodi Gagnon, Nicolle Harris, Cheryl
Subject Location: Â Saranac Lake, NY
Paranormal Experience:
Subject Names: Tonya Kimble, Hayley Kimble, Michaela 'KK' Kimble, Sergio Gonzales
Subject Location: Ponca City, Oklahoma
Paranormal Experience: The ghosts of a Wild West villain and a little boy haunt an Oklahoma home.


text:
All-Comers Meet Information (PDF)
Cal State Northridge Track & Field has announced the schedule for its 2014 All Comers Meets. The Matadors will host five All Comers meets beginning January 11 and running through March 8.
The five All Comers meets in 2014 will take place on the following dates, weather permitting:
Saturday, Jan. 11
Saturday, Jan. 25
Saturday, Feb. 1
Saturday, Feb. 22
Saturday, Mar. 8 (Kids Day)
The hammer and weight throw events will also be conducted on the five dates:
For all meets, running events will begin at 11:15 a.m. On the five Saturday's of the hammer and weight throw, competition will begin at 8:30 a.m at North Campus Stadium.
There will be three divisions contested each week: Open (College, Club and Unattached), Novice (High School, Junior High and Age Group) and Masters (35 years and older).
Admission to view the All Comers meets is $5.00 and gates open at 9:45 a.m. There is also a $5.00 fee to compete with unlimited entries. Parking ($6.00) is accessible in Lot G4 off Zelzah Ave., there is no parking or entrance from Lindley Ave.


text:
Hannette Staack will remember that on this day she became two-time ADCC champion of the over 60kg category, when she insisted on a kneebar till the headstrong Penny Thomas tapped.
Luana Alzuguir will also remember fondly here campaign in the under 60kg. In the final, Alliance's golden girl (the only gold-winning team member this ADCC) beat a game Sayaka Shioda by 3 to 0 by taking the Japanese grappler's back.
On this day, Marcelo Garcia lost for the first time in the ADCC at his weight. Pablo Popovitch will remember the last 30 seconds of the under 77kg final, when he put all he had left into passing the three-time champion's guard to take first place. Popovitch will remember that this was the third final in a row between the two, in the world cup of grappling. It's 2 x 1 for the Alliance rep, but 2011 isn't that far off.
Rafael Mendes will also remember the final minute of the under 66kg decider. He'll recall how the match was drawn at 4 to 4, already in overtime, when he managed to make it to Cobrinha's back, to make it 7 to 4 and take the gold. Before that, Rafa will remember that he submitted two-time champion Leo Vieira.
Xande Ribeiro will remember the strategy that put the brakes on the revelation of the event, Gerard Rinaldi, winner of the west coast USA trials, who dispatched favorites left and right in making it to the under 99kg final. Despite his disappointment in the absolute, Xande will cherish his second title in the event.
Fabricio Werdum will remember the title he conquered at home. The second championship that he controlled the over 99kg category of and the stands of the Pavilion that he galvanized. The fans he lent to friends while they competed.
Braulio Estima will have the greatest memories of the Sunday, September 27, that he spent in Barcelona. He'll remember the dream day he spent in the same gymnasium a certain Dream Team enchanted the world in 17 years earlier. Braulio was nearly perfect. In the under 88kg category he caught the foot of Lovato. Then, he clamped a sightly triangle on Andre Galvao, for the gold.
In the absolute, the dream turned to reality. In less than a minute, he extended the arm of Finland's Janne-Pekka. Then, he squeezed on the neck of Marcelo Garcia and scored 7 to 0 over Vinicius Magalhaes.
When asked about the final of the absolute, Braulio will remember that he went after Xande from the start, that he nearly got the finish with a beautiful triangle and later with an arm attack. He'll also remember that Xande's bad luck was his good fortune whenhis adversary gave up, betrayed by an arm injury.
When asked speak of his time winning his weight and the absolute categories of the ADCC, repeating the feat of Ze Mario (1998), Mark Kerr (2000) and Roger Gracie (2005), perhaps Braulio will break into tears like he did in the gymnasium in Barcelona. It's also possible that time will bring Braulio to believe in his own achievement, which he hadn't managed to do yet as he exited the Badalona Municipal Pavilion.


text:
Empowered People
Employee Safety
Our people are UPS's most important asset. Which is why ensuring their health, wellness and safety is engrained in our culture – it's a part of who we are. We invest millions of dollars in health and safety training every year, because we want UPSers to make it home – their most important stop of the day – safely.
To improve the health and safety of employees, UPS developed the Comprehensive Health and Safety Process (CHSP) in 1995. Now there are more than 3,300 CHSP committees at UPS facilities around the world. They conduct facility and equipment audits, lead training programs, perform work practice and behavior analysis and recommend process and equipment changes. As a result of their efforts, lost time injuries have been reduced by 35 percent since 2006.
Based on driver and package handler suggestions, facility and equipment improvements have also been made, such as designing ergonomic handheld computers for drivers and changing the layout of new buildings have made it less tedious to move 16 million packages each day.
Circle of Honor
In addition to health and wellness, road safety is an important part of how we operate every day at UPS. Driving can be a dangerous task if distractions arise, so our drivers are trained to stay focused no matter what is happening around them.
Our 7,221 Circle of Honor members are proof that the system is working. Each of them has driven for 25 years or more without an avoidable auto accident, and together they've logged more than 5.3 billion miles on the road. The 1,519 members inducted in 2013 consider it an honor to help make the streets safer for everyone around them.
For many drivers, 25 years is just the beginning. In 2013, Thomas Camp reached 51 years of accident-free driving with UPS. Another 394 members have gone 35 years or more without incident. As a whole, the Circle of Honor is responsible for a total of 198,000 years of safe driving.
Safety Training
How do UPSers get to be so safe? A whole lot of training. Last year we invested over three million hours into more than 180 safety-training courses for employees. Many of these industry-leading courses are taught by certified management trainers on an annual and periodic basis.
For example, UPS tractor-trailer drivers receive 80 hours of computer-based and on-road training before operating equipment. UPS pilots receive robust training upon hire, as well as recurrent training every year. And our package car drivers receive hours of classroom and on-road training to ensure they master UPS's safe driving methods in theory and in practice.
As our drivers' needs change, so do the ways we address them. When we realized that new cohorts of drivers tend to learn differently than earlier generations, we responded with an updated training approach based on the way young people learn in a world of video games and smart phones.
With the aid of a $1.8 million grant from the Department of Labor, and in collaboration with MIT, Virginia Tech and the Institute for the Future, we built a high-tech, next-generation training facility called UPS IntegradTM. The facility records trainees participating in 3-D simulations and webcasts so they're able to see their own driving skills in action. The simulator takes trainees through a replica outdoor city with real streets, signs, sidewalks and commercial and residential delivery and pickup sites. Results show a sharp increase in driver proficiency, including a reduction in first-year injuries and auto accidents.


text:
Advanced Search
Search Tips
Market News Search
Browse by Subject
Market News
Commodity Areas
Grading, Certification and Verification
Science and Laboratories
National Organic Program
Commodity Purchasing
Agricultural Transportation
Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing
Regulatory Programs
Research and Promotion Programs
Marketing Orders and Agreements
Grant Programs
International Marketing
You are here:
Price Formulas - 2008
Note: Milk prices are per 100 pounds or cwt., rounded to the nearest cent. Component prices are per pound, rounded to nearest one-hundredth cent. Cheese, dry whey, butter, and nonfat dry milk prices are weighted monthly averages of weekly NASS survey prices, rounded to the nearest one-hundredth cent.
For Advance Prices and Class and Component Prices, some of the price formulas changed in October, as noted below
Class I
Class I Price = (Class I skim milk price x 0.965) + (Class I butterfat price x 3.5).
Class I Skim Milk Price = Higher of advanced Class III or IV skim milk pricing factors + applicable Class I differential.
Class I Butterfat Price = Advanced butterfat pricing factor+ (applicable Class I differential divided by 100).
Note: Advanced pricing factors are computed using applicable price formulas listed below, except that product price averages are for two weeks.
Class II
Class II Price = (Class II skim milk price x 0.965) + (Class II butterfat price x 3.5).
Class II Skim Milk Price = Advanced Class IV skim milk pricing factor + $0.70.
Class II Butterfat Price = Butterfat price + $0.007.
Class II Nonfat Solids Price = Class II skim milk price divided by 9.
Class III
Class III Price = (Class III skim milk price x 0.965) + (Butterfat price x 3.5).
Class III Skim Milk Price = (Protein price x 3.1) + (Other solids price x 5.9).
Protein Price
= ((Cheese price 0.1682) x 1.383) + ((((Cheese price 0.1682) x 1.572) - Butterfat price x 0.9) x 1.17).
Protein Price
= ((Cheese price 0.2003) x 1.383) + ((((Cheese price 0.2003) x 1.572) Butterfat price x 0.9) x 1.17).
Other Solids Price
= (Dry whey price 0.1956) times 1.03.
Other Solids Price
= (Dry whey price 0.1991) times 1.03.
Butterfat Price
= (Butter price 0.1202) times 1.20.
Butterfat Price
(Oct. Dec.)
= (Butter price 0.1715) times 1.211.
Class IV
Class IV Price = (Class IV skim milk price x 0.965) + (Butterfat price x 3.5).
Class IV Skim Milk Price = Nonfat solids price times 9.
Nonfat Solids Price
= (Nonfat dry milk price - 0.157) times 0.99.
Nonfat Solids Price
= (Nonfat dry milk price - 0.1678) times 0.99.
Butterfat Price = See Class III.
Somatic Cell Adjustment
Rate = Cheese price x 0.0005, rounded to fifth decimal place. Rate is per 1,000 somatic cell count difference from 350,000
View other information on milk prices and price announcements
Get information on milk marketings and utilization of milk by class
Get information on sales of fluid milk products
Get information on handlers and plants
Get information on producers or cooperatives
Access the Milk Marketing Order Statistics database
Dairy Market News
NASS Publications
Milk Market Administrator Web Sites
Dairy Programs
Annual Summaries of Federal Milk Order Statistics
Milk Marketing Order Statistics Home
Last Modified Date: 06/21/2010
AMS Home
Site Map
USDA gov
Accessibility Statement
Privacy Policy
Non-Discrimination Statement
Information Quality
White House


text: It's here. The revolutionary Champ® G3.0 design is an entirely new species of cloth diaper. Through extensive scientific research and development, they've re-vamped Champ® G3.0 with new, entirely unique and unsurpassed Dual Gussets™ Technology. GoGreen has integrated new cutting-edge materials into our Champ® G3.0 design, including GoGreen's exclusive Double PUL for enhanced durability and life-span.


text:
Using a Second Shape in a Group Edition Script (TUI)
Using a Second Shape in a Group Edition Script (TUI)Posted by William Tougeron at April 18. 2013
I would like to know if their is a short way to make in a Python script something similar to enabling the Main Shape Selection Restriction in the GUI group creation/edition dialogue box. I mean using a Second Shape (like in the enclosed screenshot).
I have searched in the documentation but I couldn't find it.
My today solution is to use my own function to detect objects having the same shape comparing their basic properties, mass centers and inertia matrices, but this solution is neither clean nor fast.
Can someone help me do this correctly?
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Re: Using a Second Shape in a Group Edition Script (TUI)Posted by Saint Michael at April 18. 2013
Hi William
"Geometrical parts of the second shape" corresponds to geompy.GetInPlace(self, theShapeWhere, theShapeWhat).
"Only sub-shapes of the second shape" corresponds to geompy.GetSharedShapes(self, theShape1, theShape2, theShapeType)


text:
Choose your country for shipping and billing currency to customize your shopping experience.
Cart Subtotal - 0 items:
Free Shipping on Orders Over $49No Coupon Required
If you have found something confusing or have suggestions to improve our checkout, please tell us. Sorry, we're not able to respond to comments entered below unless you provide your email address.
Thank you for your feedback!
Call us during West Coast business hours: 1-800-663-8810
Monday - Friday, 6am - 5pm PT |
Saturday, 7am - 3pm PT


text:
Jim Fisk
Wall Street's First Woman
By Kenneth Silber | January 1, 2011
Wall Street's First Woman
By Kenneth Silber | December 27, 2010
This whitepaper, written by Phil Blancato, President and CEO of Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management, provides in-depth analysis on the use of leading economic indicators in...
Why do we make decisions that aren't always in our own best interest? This group of articles from the Investments & Wealth Monitor takes a...
This collection of articles from IMCA's Investments & Wealth Monitor focus on retirement planning.
Jul 09, 2015
In this session we'll discuss whether or not factor investing is truly active management, and how to define and test whether a factor exists.
Jun 30, 2015
Join ThinkAdvisor & Wells Fargo in this webcast to learn a dynamic four criteria approach and how to gain portfolio flexibility.
Jun 09, 2015
Join ThinkAdvisor for this live, interactive webcast and hear from the winners of the 2015 SMA Mangers of the Year on impact investing strategies and...


text:
This great history starts with a survey of Christianity, then continues with an exploration of the "dark ages" following the fall of Rome, before proceeding with an explanation of how Europe coped with, and absorbed, the barbarians who overran the Empire. It goes on to trace the development of feudalism and Islam, and describes the harrowing survival of Byzantium throughout the brutal chaos that swirled about the Eastern Roman Empire during the 9th and 10th centuries. Discover how national monarchies and the modern nation state came into being, how the West responded to the Islamic invasions, and how Christianity penetrated into the farthest reaches of Northern Europe. Understand the dramatic repercussions of the Great Schism in Christianity and how economic change in the West almost destroyed the church. Finally, discover the events which gave rise to the magnificent flowering of the Gothic Age and the explosion of knowledge which subsequently paved the way for the Renaissance. The Middle Ages were the precursor to everything which we in the west consider "modern." This beautifully written history tells you why.
© and (P)2004 Audio Connoisseur
"A Stunning Achievement"
The middle ages is one of those cloudy subjects that most people, including me, usually steer clear of. It doesn't seem to have the dash and intellectual allure of the classical periods that preceeded it. Bu that was merely my perception. This long and detailed history of the 1,000 years of history spanning the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Renaissance was honestly one of the most entertaining pieces I have ever listened to. Call me ignorant, but I just did not know how interesting this period actually was. I note with amusement that some listeners objected to the chapter on Christianity, though for the life of me I don't understand their objections. I was brought up a Christian but have not practised any religion in several decades. However, I found the explanation of how Christianity developed to be incredibly fascinating. It's hard to really understand the passions and disputes that occurred in the middle ages without some compass of what made those people tick. I also found the chapters on Islam and Byzantium extremely informative, as well as the chapters that covered the establishment of nationlist monarchies and the achievements of the late Gothic period. All in all, I was hugely impressed by this great work and would recommend it to all but the few zany anti-religious types who probably would never get past the first chapter anyway. There is also wonderful medieval music here and the narrator, Charlton Griffin, is truly superb.
This rather long history is absorbing from beginning to end. It is actually an outline, and as such succeeds brilliantly. The long period it covers (over a thousand years) is broken out in more or less chronlogical order, though there are a few chapters that jump backward or forward depending on the geography being covered. The reviewer named "zuff" is way off base in regard to content. The authors of this mid-twentieth century text were ALL very highly respected Ivy League professors of note. You can find their historical works and papers scattered across numerous famous institutions, including Columbia University. If you are looking for politically correct history, you will not find it here. Also, this is serious history, so if you're looking for "popular history," this is just not going to light your fire. This is academic history for people with patience who can listen carefully and want to get a good grasp of what the middle ages were about. But it is not difficult to understand. From my standpoint, this audiobook is simply magnificent.
The narrator has a very clear and persuasive voice that is easy to understand. It is somewhat British sounding and very pleasant over long periods of time. Merely listen to the sample.
For anyone wishing to know something about the middle ages, whether highly educated or not, you can do no better than this great work.
"About half the book is good audio"
A History of the Middle Ages (2004) - Brinton, Christopher, and Wolff ****
This work seems to be only available as an unabridged audiobook (rather than a book also). The information is useful and enlightening, and well worth the time. About half the book is perfect for the audio format. However, much doesn't lend itself well to the audio format, and charts and diagrams showing interrelationships of the discussed civilizations would help. There is insufficient explanation about what the structure of the book is, and how each section relates to the others. In some parts a bewildering barrage of specific information is provided, assuming a familiarity which many readers don't share. The parts that lend themselves well, however, to this format are valuable and interesting, and changed my understanding of the world for the better.
"An astonishing epic"
Wow! This one really pushes the gray matter! I had no idea of the complexity of the middle ages. This really shot my preconceptions right out of the water. It's a little scholarly in places, but for the most part, I thought it was incredibly interesting. I've already gone back to hear some of the more interesting parts again. The opening chapter about Christianity was very well done. Highly recommended! Nice narration, too.
"Excellent for bed"
I too didn't realise just how interconnected everything was in Europe - and how the seeds for recent wars (from WW1 to Kosovo) were sown over 2,000 years ago when the Roman Empire collapsed. Even the Cold War and Russia's/Moscow's view of its position in the world dates back to the end of Rome. An excellent book for bedtime - I keep it running and dip in and out as I wake up during the night
"Surprisingly good"
After buying this I did not read it for some time being put off by the length and the pompous narrative style I had found in a 5 minute preview. Once I tried it I stuck with it (this does not always happen) and learned a lot in this very wide subject.
The book is well structured with good introductions and it is therefore easy to keep up with the overall narrative (not always true with audiobooks if you are driving)
"real history"
This is beautifully done, using music and other sound effects to transition from one section to another of this extremely well-written volume. But the expert in history will value it more than the amateur, for the detail will likely cause the mind of the ordinary reader to wander.
Computer Programmer and Worship Leader. Have enjoyed reading since my mom got me hooked on Nancy Drew and Agatha Christie prior to my teen years. My brother got me hooked on audio books after I started having a longer commute to work. Love a variety of genres.
"Very balanced but can move awfully fast"
This was a very good overview of the middle ages. In contrast to other reviews, I found the opening chapters on Christianity very informative and well-balanced in their positions on issues and theology. One of the biggest realizations for me throughout this book was the degree of power wielded by the Catholic church during this period in time. I would take issue with another reviewer who said that the misuse of religion for inciting war was well noted. While the text was not delivered in a "biting" manner, the corruption of the church during this time and misuse of its power were constantly mentioned.
I also thought that the section on the Byzantine empire was great, as well as the explanation as to how the current nations were born and the reasons for their distinctive natures that continue even into the present day.
The understanding of the economic underpinnings of the middle ages and how the feudal system came and went was also invaluable. I also appreciated the author addressing our misconceptions of the middle ages.
My biggest complaint about the book was echoed by another writer. It seemed like there was often too much detail given to absorb, especially from the cursory view necessary from such an overview. Some of these things may be addressed by graphs, tables, maps, etc.. within the written book, but the mind can only take so much fast moving historical detail before it starts to wander.
From my perspective, this is a book I'd like to listen to again. It's my belief that much more would sink in a second time.
On the other hand, if you already have a basic knowledge of world history, this may serve well to "fill in the gaps" without providing excessive detail.
BTW - I thought the narrator was great to listen to.
"fabric artist and quilter"
"Foundations to our modern times"
While this is not a general history but quite a learned text its depth is not overwhelming. It is broken up into chapters and parts that concentrate on different geographical areas eg England, France, Byzantine Empire and compares and contrasts them. It is exciting to discover that the Middle Ages were a time of dynamic change and the foundation of our modern times.
Having just listened to The Popes by John Julius Norwich it was fascinating to hear the secular side of the most turbulent age of the papacy.
Pompous irritating annoying
Charlton Griffin had a very annoying accent and habit of mispronouncing words which spoiled my enjoyment of the book although the content remained of great interest to me. Sometimes the mispronunciation would cause me to lose the thread of the discussion and I would have to go back and relisten to a section - if I hadn't been so interested in the subject matter I think I might have given up purely due to my annoyance at Charlton's performance. HIs accent is a very curious mix of BBC English, Yorkshire and something I haven't identified but it leaves you with with the wish he would have a sherry, relax and not be so pompous!
"Insightful and Informative"
Yes, this book starts out with what sounds like Christian propaganda. And yes, Charlton Griffin's voice can be distracting in its theatricality (he often sounds like J. Peterman from Seinfeld). And yes, this book moves very quickly. Get past these minor irritations and you're left with a comprehensive and at times mind-boggling survey of economic, political, and intellectual movements spanning the 1600 years from the Roman Empire to the rise of Early Modern Europe. If you've ever wondered where the bourgeoisie came from, why leaders call themselves "Czar" and "Kaiser", or even if you'd like to impress your friends by knowing the difference between a Realist and a Nominalist, this book is worth your time. Skip it if you're looking for a story about knights in shining armor.
"A very good book ruined"
I was housebound at the time and I was looking forward to learning something of my favourite historical period. I still have some text books from my youth, but this seemed likely to be more thorough and informative.
Unfortunately, and I have to say this, the reading was so appalling that it was difficult to absorb anything and having to continually 'rewind' an MP3 player was a frustrating exercise.
Part of the problem is that a book of this type does not lend itself to spoken cross references to narrative which has already been read or which appears later in the book. On the printed page this would be easy enough to follow but not so in an audiobook. This is one of those occasions where some care should have been taken to edit the book to make things easier for the listener.
I also regret that the narrators voice and quite unnecessary attempts to introduce 'drama' (I can only think that this is what he was trying to do) into the work was both irritating and unsuccessful.
I have given up on the audiobook and may now go to the library and borrow the printed work.
"Reasonable book, ruined"
Any audiobook is a game of two halves. The first part is the text written by the author and the second the narration.
The first part of this book is fine, well researched if a little pro-Western, pro-Church stand point. It is a little dated in places but otherwise excellent.
The downfall comes with the narration which at best sounds like Hugh Denis doing his best pompous voice but most of the time is dreadfully dull and precisely the tone that puts so many off history. At point one I really did wonder what was going on as he mispronounces even the simplest things dan-e-geld is actually dane-geld (gold paid to the Danes to go away). The patronising, condescending and frankly turgid tones were eventually enough even for me and I couldn't face the final part. My view is that it was a good book ruined. There are many good books on audible, this just isn't one of them. My advice, get Caesar's Legion instead and cracking book and an excellent narrator.
"The roots of modern European history"
We forget the past, but that does not mean that it is not important for understanding the present, or even the future. The Medieval period is also known as the Dark Ages, not because nothing happened, but because so little documentation still exists. It was a period of looting, raping and pillage as well as burning of towns and monasteries, where much of the documentation for the period would have be housed.
This history from the mid 5th Century to the 17th Century, ending at the start of the early Modern period, is an interesting glimpse of how modern European bounderies were drawn and more importantly, why. However, perhaps because it is in audio form, at times it seems confusing. You have to struggle without maps for some mental picture of the part of Europe being described is being divided or fought over by various parties.
Overall it is interesting and absorbing enough to stay to the end. The chapters are divided by music, mainly extracts of beautiful plainchants, evoking the monks at their devotions; Christianity playing such an important part in the development of Europe and the Near East during this period, not only for the Crusades but for the Christianization of Eastern Europe and the schism between the Catholic and the Orthodox churches.
The narrator, however, affected some of the oddest pronunciation I have ever heard. Where was he from with his plummy accent yet was unable to pronounce 'Salisbury', and irritatingly 'orften' and others. I know this was written by American, for American too presumeably from the annoying asides about the US and its history, but did the narrator have to have such affectations? Due to him, my enjoyment was diminished and it was hard work to listen through to what. by the third part, seemed like the bitter end.
So if you accept the narrator, and his voice does not stick in your craw, I would say this book because of its subject is worth discovering
"The worst audiobook EVER"
The authors yes, the narrator No, I would rather stick needles in my eyes.
The period and the writing are fine
He was quite simply dreadful. Pompous, slow and technically incorrect. He speaks like he is an alien that he never heard the English language spoken by a real human being. Is it any wonder that so many people hate history if people like this are responsible for delivering it.
The content is fine but it should tell you something that i binned it. It was in the days before you could exchange books on Audible so that alone speaks volumes I refused to waste another moment of my life listen to this butchery of the English language and associated history. If you can cope with the narration you will be fine.
DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK! It is dreadful thanks to he narrator. Try 'The time traveller's guide to Medieval England' if you are interest in the period. Alternatively Steve Dando-Collins 'Caesar's Legion' which is excellent.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.


text:
I bought this by accident. I thought this eye shadow was the more flesh toned shade (actually RSVP, which I bought later, when I realized my "mistake"). It was a very happy accident because Birthday Suit is a beautiful light taupe shade that I really love. As with all the Benefit CCE's, if you want to avoid creasing, it's wise to apply a thin layer first and let it set for 30 seconds and then apply a 2nd layer. Very easy colour to wear!
Benefit Birthday Suit Creaseless Cream Shadow ($20.00 for 0.16 oz.) is described as a "brushed chrome." It's a warm, bronzy brown with a hint of gray; that tint is really only apparent when it is worn at full opacity, but the sheerer you wear it, the warmer and browner it appears. bareMinerals First Class is very similar in color but is a powder product. Urban Decay Muai Wowie is lighter, more golden (and a powder product, to boot!). Make Up For Ever #15 is much redder in tone.