text:
CDF prefect tells U.S. nuns they were wrong to honor Elizabeth Johnson.
Last week, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, rebuked representatives of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, for giving an Outstanding Leadership Award to Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, "a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian's writings." He called that decision "a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment"--that would be the one that looked like little more than investigation by Google.
Mueller couldn't bring himself to actually use Johnson's name, but everyone in the room knew that he was referring to a 2011 "critique" of her book Quest for the Living God that was published by the doctrinal committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Committee on Doctrine really disliked the book. You can tell because they claimed it "completely undermines the Gospel." But the committee's case was rather weak. It seemed to rest on false assumptions about Johnson's intent--especially on issues related to feminism, which led me to wonder whether committee members had actually read the book. They didn't even invite her to discuss their concerns before publishing their broadside. And when Johnson responded at length to the critique, the bishops on the committee replied by repeating themselves. All in all, not the finest hour for the USCCB Committee on Doctrine--and it probably would have been better for all involved if the entire episode was forgotten.
But here comes Cardinal Mueller, prefect of the CDF, to remind the LCWR that they should have known better than to provoke his criticism by daring to honor one of the most honored theologians working today. He refers to the alleged "gravity" of the "doctrinal errors" of Johnson's "writings"--which makes it sound like her entire body of work is suspect--but he doesn't name them. And neither, really, did the Committee on Doctrine. Their statement vaguely mentions "errors," but mainly it's concerned with "ambiguities." The only "error" it identifies is methodological. But as Johnson herself noted, the committee misunderstood the nature of the book, which is a work of theology, not catechesis.
Mueller knows he's tough-loving: "I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language." Best not to mince words. For the head of the CDF to repeat the canard that Johnsons "writings" suffer from grave doctrinal errors does a great disservice to a great theologian. Mueller is in charge of the CDF now. He's not a professor delivering a critique at a conference. If he's going to claim that a theologian's writings are doctrinally deficient--he ought to show his work, not sloppily dismiss them in an aside.
About the Author
87 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
What about his other "rebukes"?About the CDF's concern over "a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around the concept of Conscious Evolution*" for example?
Are they also to be seen as "sloppy"?
*Whatever the hel, er I mean, heck that is.
Has she taken a public stand in favor of the legalization of the taking of innocent human life ,in the womb? If she has then she is indeed undermining the Gospels and the Christ centered teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the theology of the inviolate ;cannot,ethically, be violated by the individual or the state- sacredness of human life, which accords with the 5th commandmant.
Catholic theologians under Vatican investigation: Hans Kung, Gustavo Guitierrez, Charles Curran, Leonardo Boff, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Matthew Fox, Ernesto Cardenal, Raymond Hunthausen ... and now Elizabeth Johnson. Sounds to me like Elizabeth is in good company!
This is all more about putting down and silencing a woman's voice by a bunch of aging hierarchs with very grumpy prostates.
This is what evolutionary extinction sounds like.
Is this the same CDF that spend months upon months in painstaking, hair splitting, minutiae relative to doctrinal disputes with the SSPX that has supported and supports holocaust denying bishops and members, SSPX priests who flirt with pro-Nazi sentiments and attitudes? They have been descirbed as anti-Semitic and reject the better part of the Second Vatican Council.
Is this the same CDF that spent decades concealing and minimizing the serial rapist Marcial Macial?
I apologize if the above seems blunt, but it is too important to dress up in flowery language.
You have to split hairs when dealing with doctrine.Otherwise you have no Catholic doctrine.It may not be pleasant,as doing so is fodder for much ridicule and criticism but someone in the church has to do it.Over time it can make real difference in the world;the difference between a people, a society, that supports abortion, the death penalty, pre-emptive war,etc. for example, and a society that does not.
... and what does Pope Francis think? I don't know the workings of all of this, but it surely seems contrary to the spirit that he's been generating. This may become a symbol of either his impotency in the face of the Curia or his own doctrinal rigidity inspite of his personal warmth. Either way, this is not the way to win friends and influence people. And I'm sure Gerhard Mueller may not care, but I'll be that Pope Francis does.
Regarding religion; any statement beyond "Gods exists"; or [later in history] "God exists", is splitting hairs- in- the- weeds- minutiae.
My point is that the Bishops did not even invite Elizabeth Johnson in to clarify nor did the CDF spend marathon sessions in the office with her pouring over her texts. They did for the SSPX.
As far as I know, the CDF did not spend hours in dialogue with the LCWR but they did with the SSPX who harbour some questionable views to say the least.
If the process around how these things (meaning notations and findings against groups, speakers, and theologians) is not clear, it should at least be fair or have the appearance of fairness. This process had none of that.
@ rose-ellen caminer: Does it surprise you that the same CDF [a.k.a. Holy Office of the Inquisition] harrumphs around splitting hairs about how Elizabeth Johnson "completely undermines the Gospel," while it never found the time to condemn Marcial Maciel of the Legion of Christ and thousands of other bishops and priests for the wanton rape and sodomy of children?
What "real difference in the world" do you think the CDF made for all those sexually abused and exploited children in the face of their assaults at the hands of Catholic priests?
Was Ratzinger as the head of the CDF one of those people who ["someone in the church has to do it"] when he successfully intervened to amend the infamous US bishops' Dallas Charter so that hierarchs and religious communities would have impunity from any investigations by review boards; who tried to limit the definition of what is a "minor" to boys under 16 y.o. and girls under 14 y.o. so that prepetrator priests who victimized older children were not the only subjects for possible sanctions by review boards; and who essentially rendered review boards toothless mainly because they had women members on the review board?
What kind of "society" sacrifices the innocence of children on the altar of clerical political hegemony?
The Irish Prime Minister, Taoiseach Enda Kenny, best summed-up all the hair-splitting when he said that the Vatican looked at the world through "the gimlet eyes of a canon lawyer."
David Pasinski,
I very much doubt Pope Francis is interested in "winning friends and influencing people."
On the contrary, the Pope has shown that he has little patience for, and therefore, has bluntly criticized those who spew the Gnostic nonsense.
And I for one am actually curious to hear what LCWR might say about the Cardinal's charge about the whole Conscious Evolution nonsense that LCWR is accused of promoting. Just what exactly did these LCWR people hope to accomplish by inviting someone like Barbara Marx Hubbard to their assembly? Just how does this "concept of conscious evolution" relate to and advance the mission of LCWR?
This is typical of ultra-conservative Muller, who has been having a runjing battle with German bishops (Maex ... http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/divorzi...) over communion for those divorced/remarried (Muller ... http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/muller-...). He has what I think are some icky ideas on what marriage is supposed to be ... http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/10/22/archbishop_m%C3%BCller:_care_...
There was an article at The Tablet by Hans Kung with this on Muller ... http://www.thetablet.co.uk/texts-speeches-homilies/4/162/pope-francis-te... ...
In a long guest contribution in Osservatore Romano (23 October 2013), Müller demonstrated his ultra-conservative stance by corroborating the exclusion of remarried divorcees from the sacraments who, unless they live together as brother and sister (!), are ostensibly in a state of mortal sin on account of the sexual character of their relationship.
As Bishop of Regensburg, Müller, as a clerical hardliner who provoked numerous conflicts with parish priests and theologians, lay bodies and the Central Committee of German Catholics, was as controversial and unpopular as his brother bishop at Limburg. That Müller, as a loyal supporter and publisher of his collected works, was nevertheless appointed CDF Prefect by Papa Ratzinger, surprised people less than the fact that Pope Francis confirmed him in office quite so soon.
And worried observers are already asking whether Pope Emeritus Ratzinger is in fact operating as a kind of "shadow Pope" behind the scenes through Archbishop Müller and Georg Gänswein ..."
I can't understand why Francis chose him to be the head of the CDF.
I think we have to be careful about equating Cdl. Mueller's thoughts on this matter with Pope Francis'. Remember when Mueller tried to sieze the conversation on communion for divorced and remarried Catholics. I don't recall ever hearing Pope Francis endorse Mueller's views. He is playing his usual game here trying to control the conversation.
Oops. I was writing tmy post as you were posting your fuller version, Crystal. But you can see I agree with you fully.
I think the LCWR's only mistake was in actually meeting with Mueller. I imagine they did it because it was some kind of requirement, but, really, what good could come of it? I think they're close to a place where they don't have much more to lose vis-a-vis the CDF.
La plus change... Oops, Je mehr die Dinge ändern, je mehr sie gleich bleiben.
So what's new. Be glad yopu don't live in Connecticut where our newly appointed archbishpp (by Pope Francis) is one of the Inquisators
From Monday through Saturday, morning and afternoon, Pope Francis keeps a very heavy schedule of meetings (audiences) --- individuals, small groups, large groups. Today the Pope met with the leaders of the US Conference of Major Superiors of Men. Has a meeting with the Pope been scheduled for the representatives of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious during their time in Rome?
Good article Grant. You did omit pointing out that Mueller is the creator of all the warped and sick reasoning why women cannot be deacon or priests. I read Sr. Johnson's book and all of the correspondence between her and the USCCB. I found "Quest for the Living God" to be an outstanding theology book. I think the criticism was entirely political and was done in order to silence a woman theologian. Sr. Johnson quotes the feminine side of God from Scripture and did a couple of good backhanded swipes about the bishops. There is nothing heretical about that. For my part, it was the final straw. I can't swallow the hypocrisy and discrimination any further. After 50 plus years of being a Catholic, I have left the Church. One day these men will stand before God. I hope He/She asks them:
"Why didn't you use all of the gifted people I gave you to further my Kingom?"
In an excellent post, Crystal pointed out that this is nothing new with Muller. Remember that Francis sent two encouraging letters to Hans Kuns. Kung got nothing from JPII in his 27 years of office. When asked by Spiegel whether this is the beginning of a "Catholic Spring?" Kung replied: "It's already here, but there is the same risk of setbacks and counter-movements as there have been with the Arab Spring. There are powerful groups in the Vatican and the church around the world that would like to turn back the clock. They're worried about their privileges."
So it may not be Muller alone but others. Spiegel asked Kung about Muller. Here is the text:
"SPIEGEL: But Francis has also reconfirmed Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, a hard-liner, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's watchdog and enforcer on issues of accepted doctrine.
Küng: I could imagine that Benedict strongly campaigned for keeping Müller in the position. But the litmus test will be whether the new pope continues to allow him to play overseer of the faith and grand inquisitor."
So much going on here. Is Muller's group waiting to see how Francis reacts. Francis is a very deliberative person. Muller's other remarks have to a certain extent gone under the radar. Muller does not tell the Leadersip of the nuns that Francis directed him. He merely refers them to an address Francis gave.
Francis is a very deliberative person. I doubt if he will remove Mueller. But the tone towards the Nun's leadership might suddenly change. Interesting that the Nun's leadership had no comment.
Maybe Beth Johnson will get a call from you know who!
Guess I will have to try and get "The Quest for the Living God" through interlibrary loan to see what all the fuss is about. So far I haven't read of anything that ought to get it on the Index (sort of sounds like they resurrected it). One objection seems to be that Dr. Johnson images God as being present in creation. I thought that we believed that God is both immanent and transcendent. Another objection is her discussion of "Conscious Evolution". Which I don't know anything about; however the definition I found is, "Conscious evolution suggests that humanity can choose advancement through co-operation and co-creation or self-destruction through separateness and competition." Which seems true enough and would only be a problem if one left the grace of God out of the equation. There is a lack of specificity in the critiques.
BTW, has anyone read her new book, "Ask the Beasts"?
I've not read any of her books, but saw this video lecture by her - "An Ecological Inquiry: Jesus and the Cosmos"
Crystal calls Mueller an "archconservative" and a "clerical hardliner" to the enthusiastic agreement of many other commenters above. This makes me wonder about the terms of comparison by which this judgment is made. From the attempts to isolate and smear Mueller as a public enemy, it sounds like the CDF ordinarily is a liberal body that approves of dissenting positions, which has suddenly and inexplicably been given a prefect plucked from the far right wing. Well, of course that's not the case.
There are truly archconservative persons who rose to promienence under Benedict XVI. They have labored mightily to roll back the liturgical reform. Mueller, on the other hand, has spoken out in support of the liturgical reform -- in no uncertain terms -- to the utter dismay of the traditionalists.
In his capacity as head of the CDF, Mueller was responsible for overseeing the negotiations with the Society of Pius X. Under his leadership those negotiations came to an end without their demands being met. The SSPX hated him from the git-go, because he would not give in to their views. If he were truly an archconservative, he would have been much more maleable to their demands.
Mueller certainly is no more conservative than his predecessors at the CDF, and possibly less so. Who expects him to approve of divorced and remarried persons receiving the Eucharist? Show me another head of the CDF that has approved of this idea. There are none.
Levada, his predecessor, ordered the investigation of women religious. Mueller did not do this, nor has he ordered a similar investigation elsewhere. What he is talking about here is upholding the American bishops' doctrinal assessment of Sr. Johnson's work.
Is this an extremist's position, or just the reflexive reaction of someone who thinks the bishops ought to be respected in their judgment? Sure, it's fair to criticize him for taking their word for it (if indeed, he didn't read the book himself; it's also not beyond imagining that he might have read the book and found fault with it). Stand up for the theologian and for freedom of theological inquiry, by all means. But we need to keep this in perspective. When you look at the whole gallery, somebody like Raymond Burke has done much more damage to the church than Mueller has. It seems to me that Mueller is a mainstream conservative churchman, and not the worst of the bunch at that. We misread the situation if we wring our hands about why hasn't Francis removed him.
Mueller brought Gustavo Guttierez to the Vatican, and is favorable to his work. I cannot think of another head of the CDF who has had a good word to say about liberation theology. Can anyone else point to another CDF head who did anything like this? Just sayin'.
The original post says:
"Mueller knows he's tough-loving: "I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language." Best not to mince words. For the head of the CDF to repeat the canard that Johnsons "writings" suffer from grave doctrinal errors does a great disservice to a great theologian."
But the statement quoted here about bluntness is explicitly directed to "Conscious Evolution" and Barbara Marx Hubbard, not to Sr. Johnson. It's the second of his two points. Here's what he says:
"For the last several years, the Congregation has been following with increasing concern a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around the concept of Conscious Evolution. Since Barbara Marx Hubbard addressed the Assembly on this topic two years ago, every issue of your newsletter has discussed Conscious Evolution in some way. Issues of Occasional Papers have been devoted to it. We have even seen some religious Institutes modify their directional statements to incorporate concepts and undeveloped terms from Conscious Evolution."
It's then that he says he is being blunt. I don't see that this is a criticism of Sr. Johnson. And actually, if every issue of their newsletter, and occasional papers, and revision of directional statements are all falling into line with the ideas of Conscious Evolution, and if Conscious Evolution is post-Christian, this is a serious issue, no? I defer to people who know something about BMH.
My read of the post, however, was that Grant was defending Sr. Johnson, not Barbara Marx Hubbard.
All fair points and well taken. However, the distinction you draw between Mueller's criticism being blunt and Sr. Johnson seems to be a distinction without a difference.
I admit to not having read Sr. Johnson's book but will when I get time but I do think that it is fair to say that she is, to us an imprecise albeit accurate term, a fellow traveller on that road. And of course there is nothing wrong with that; it is a matter of degree, definition and understanding.
It appears that, according to the LCWR the meeting with the staff at the CDF was respectful and engaging. They issued a public statement.
So, that is good. Hope for peaceful and serene resolution.
However, and this is a big however, from what I have read the process surrounding CDF investigations and even the USCCB's were anything but transparent, respectful, or engaging with the theologians with whom they had questions.
It is good to have a countervailing view to prevent swings in one direction or the other and I can see the CDF or committees of Bishops serving in this important role. The process, though, does need to be respectful. In this instance, it appears that it was but that might have more to do with the style of person heading it (i.e. Mueller) than it does the process itself. And this is not a good thing. There needs to be systemic, procedural reform as well.
I am glad that flirtation with the SSPX is over and done with! They are a destructive crew.
It was not I who wrote Muller was ""archconservative" and a "clerical hardliner" ... I was quoting Hans Kung's article in The Tablet. I give the URL for that in my comment above - http://www.thetablet.co.uk/texts-speeches-homilies/4/162/pope-francis-te...
Sorry, Crystal. What you said @ 4:12 was "ultraconservative" - I got that mixed up with "archconservative" in the Kueng story.
Yes, I see what you mean. I have considered him a very conservative person based on what he's said about marriage and the possibility of women's ordination. But the fact that he is mostly ok with liberation theology and that he didn't accept the SSPX uncritically does seem to show he isn't a conservative in all areas. Given his views on marriage and women's odination and now this nuns/Johnson thing, perhaps he has some issues with women.
That's quite possible. I don't deny that he's a social (and theological) conservative, mind you. It's just that I'd place him as sort of a mainstream conservative, not a restorationist or traditionalist or ultraconservative. I've never seen him in a cappa magna. He does not blame Vatican II for the falloff in vocations or church attendance. Etc.
George D,
I couldn't agree with you more about the process. It really does need to be changed, and changed systemically.
Thanks for the link to the LCWR response!
Rita Ferrone @ 10:47pm and follow-ups:
if every issue of their newsletter, and occasional papers, and revision of directional statements are all falling into line with the ideas of Conscious Evolution, and if Conscious Evolution is post-Christian, this is a serious issue, no?
This is a sad mess, but, for how things have devolved into this incredibly stinky mess, LCWR is hardly blameless, IMO. They really need to, once and for all, as Pope Francis said to Latin American religious, "Explain whatever you have to explain" in this regard -- and again I will say, this Consious Evolution thing is something that warrants explanation from LCWR -- in order to move forward.
It's even sadder to see how divisive this issue remains among the faithful. Those on the more "traditional" side are rejoicing at this "CDF crackdown on the dissident nuns who are the worst offenders of the history of the church"; those on the more "liberal" side, on the other hand, are of course screaming, "CDF is Persecuting the Good Nuns who can do no wrong," conflating all kinds of issues along the way, of course.
One can only hope and pray that this too shall pass.
Dear Folks,
It is hard for me to take anything said by a bishop "as bishop" very seriously at all. Collectively, these men are paranoid and full of fear. Who cares if an adult Catholic reads and reflects on the work of a thoughtful theologian like Beth Johnson? The church is none the worse for it, or can the bishops prove otherwise? As for the bishops (again, collectively), one might venture to say that the church today is far worse because of them. And we could all prove that quite easily. As for me, I read what I want and make my own informed judgment, when judgment is required. When an inbred, closed-in bunch of men spend time and energy parsing (or, it appears, merely skimming the Cliffs Notes) of a theologian's work, while their own lives---from their often-ridiculous outfits, to their pompous titles, to their utterly reproachable lack of repentance for unconscionable crimes---make one (or make me, at least) wonder what "gospel" they are actually reading, their opinions should hardly even register. For if they have missed in large part the central "theology" of the mission of Jesus and the most fundamental message of the Gospel (and I don't mean the "parallel gospels" like the ones written by JP II, for example), then how can they possibly be trusted to "get" theological work that actually springs from freedom and trust in the work of the Holy Spirit, even if that work is only partial, tentative and open to further development and correction? Collectively, these men are blind guides.
One more thing: they are worried about the LCWR honoring Beth Johnson? Where was that concern when "saint" JPII was heaping honor after honor on the likes of Maciel? Like I said, BLIND GUIDES.
Not only have the prelatial players missed the boat on the distinction between catechesis and theology, they seem utterly lost on the long battle between clergy and women outside the cloister. This tussle is embarrassing. Women religious don't need an organization recognized by Rome to meet in conferences, read books, and have discussions.
@ Todd Flowerday,
Women religious don't need an organization recognized by Rome to meet in conferences, read books, and have discussions.
Would you have felt and said the same thing if the invited key note speaker at their conferences was someone who opposes Vatican II, and if they are reading books about and supporting SSPX's line of thinking and have discussions?
Maria makes a good point. At what benchmark do the "rebukes" cease, and consequences applied?
Maria makes a good point. At what benchmark do the "rebukes" cease, and consequences applied?
Yes, I would. These people are adults. They get to pick their own conference speakers, topics, and such. They can go to conferences with or without an umbrella organization. If LCWR folds, so what?
From Cardinal Mueller's address:
[The LCWR's honoring Elizabeth Johnson] is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well. I realize I am speaking rather bluntly about this, but I do so out of an awareness that there is no other interpretive lens, within and outside the Church, through which the decision to confer this honor will be viewed.
In other words, it is Cardinal Mueller's view that the LCWR is honoring Johnson in order to stick a thumb in the eye of the Holy See. And he may not be wrong.
The Cardinal continues:
It is my understanding that Archbishop Sartain [the "Delegate" appointed by the CDF to work with the LCWR to fix the problems identified in the CDF's assessment] was informed of the selection of the honoree only after the decision had been made. Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate's provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force.
To summarize: Mueller just escalated the conflict. The LCWR is now officially grounded and can't take the car out for a drive without asking Dad for the keys.
I see no evidence that Francis is going to intervene on the women's behalf. The only evidence I've seen so far is that Francis approves of these sanctions against the LCWR.
The level of mutual distrust is really disturbing. This does not seem to be going down a path that is going to lead to reconciliation and peace.
Jim Pauwels,
I think you are seriously overstating the case. Müller said that Pope Francis approved of the CDF Mandate against LCWR. I have not seen any documentation that puts Pope Francis on the record of approving of the Mandate.
I suggest that you cool your heels for a while, for this story is not over yet. LCWR has hardly been grounded. This latest exchange is, as the LCWR statement says, a continuation of a dialogue. Now, let me ask you this, Do you want LCWR to be grounded?
When did doctrinal enforcement ever lead to reconciliation and peace? ISTM that any agency charged with defending the conventional wisdom will always and everywhere be potentially at odds with anyone who attempts to re-phrase the conventional wisdom or to ask questions not already answered. Because being at odds with them is its job. You can't talk the traffic cop into waiving the red light.
Any pastoral result has be imposed at a level above over doctrine enforcers.
I haven't read all theosts so I don't kow if you've read Elizabeth Johnson's works or various commentaries as I have. I have not seen the specific objections from Mueller and others and don't even know if they are avaialable... and they won't engage her personally...That's less of a forum than even Martin Luther received!
And I do believe that Pope Francis does want to "Win friends and influence people." Read "The Joy of the Gospel." It is full of that invitation! I am not saying he is comromising doctrine, but the spirit in which this has ben done and continues to play out is counter to the whole "Francis effect" and will chill many who were hoping for better...
@ Todd Flowerday,
Yes, I would. These people are adults.
Well, I guess we disagree then. For I do not think "these people" should do whatever they want, NOT when they purport to be the leaders of and therefore, represent 80 percent of the the Catholic nuns in the U.S.
And if doing whatever regardless of the possible ramifications of their actions and decisions, is what they really want --- and I don't believe for a second that they do -- then surely, "these people" might as well follow the SSPX out the door and move onto the land of schism, where they will indeed be able to whatever the heck they want.
As an aside, does anyone remember how the "rad trads" got their panties in a bunch when B16 first appointed Cardinal Muller as the prefect of CDF, because they saw him as "a flaming heretic"?
If this whole situation weren't so tragic, it might be the joke of the century.
Many thanks to Rita Ferrone for her comments. I also don't know much about Conscious Evolution, and the little bit I've been looking at over the past day seems to go from the innocuous (living in relation to all of creation and the cosmos) to what really does seem to be an anti-body, and thus anti-Christian, ideology of trans-humanism. But there does seem to be quite enough variety to allow legitimate exploration, and Mueller's attempt to shut it down strikes me as premature. Still, unlike the silliness about Professor Johnson, there may be some actual fire behind this particular smoke.
On the question of Francis keeping Mueller, I wonder if part of all this isn't that Francis has already begun a pretty radical de-centering of the CDF from the church's life. It seems pretty clear that under this pontificate, the CDF is no longer La Suprema. Just last night Cardinal Kasper vocally criticized him (see Grant's post on the Fordham conversation), many German bishops are openly disagreeing with him about divorce and remarriage, and he himself seems to be coming close to openly disagreeing with the pope on the topic. This actually strikes me as quite healthy: grown-ups are able to have a grown-up conversation about the church's belief and practice without fear of being raked over the coals. In this light, Mueller is just one man in charge of an important--but not all important--office who is giving his opinion, but not necessarily the official policy of Rome. The LCWR's account of the conversation with the CDF would bear this out, I think. He may be harsh in his comments, but so far they are really just that: comments.
Not sure why you asked me the question, then.
The fact is that women religious have freedom. They can meet, discuss, read, and do all sorts of things you, the CDF, the bishops or I might agree or disagree with. We are all powerless.
I'm far more concerned about living my own Christian life than sticking my nose into conferences I don't attend.
It is a joke. Ecclesial power is mostly illusory. Especially in this situation.
Mueller said that if Sartain had been informed, Johnson may not have been chosen. He said he would not attempt to undo the invitation to Johnson but said that Sartain must have final say over next year's LCWR convention, adding that the Vatican mandate is now "fully in force."
Can this be acceptable? Should it be accepted? If this is how things are going to work, what's left of the LCWR's autonomy?
Heaven knows I am no theologian. I'd lose a debate with either Sr Elizabeth or Cardinal Mueller before it began. But does this who thing strike anyone else as slightly childish? Somewhat an "in your face" move by the LCWR and an I'll show those uppity women move by the Cardinal? Of all the people who are worthy of an award from LCWR, they picked one who is currently in a fight with the bishops, at a time when their own organization is in another fight with the bishops. Not to say she is not deserving, but maybe you give her the award in 2016, when things have calmed down a little. Maybe Cardinal Mueller just lets this one go, regardless of the alleged "slight." but both of those decisions would assume that grown ups were in charge and not a bunch of kids trying to play king (or queen) or the hill.
@ Todd Flowerday,
Well, I asked because generally, I agree with your thinking, but not in this case, so I was curious to hear what you thought.
Yes, women religious have freedom. Of course, they do. Having freedom, however, doesn't mean one can do whatever one pleases -- well duh.
And I care about what's going on with LCWR, what they do, why, and to what effect, because they are my sisters, our sisters -- well duh, again -- and also and more importantly, because this affects not just them, but so many others who may or may not have anything to do with LCWR's decisions and actions.
@ Jim Dunn,
But does this who thing strike anyone else as slightly childish? Somewhat an "in your face" move by the LCWR and an I'll show those uppity women move by the Cardinal?
Yes. Seriously, both sides need to grow (the eff) up, and take to heart what their boss has said: Whom are we going to evangelize if this is the way we act?
Can this be acceptable? Should it be accepted? If this is how things are going to work, what's left of the LCWR's autonomy?
The RNS article had to summarize what Müller said. I think the sisters will go with the last sentence that says Sartain will be involved in the discussion rather than that he will have the final word.
Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate's provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force. I do understand that the selection of honorees results from a process, but this case suggests that the process is itself in need of reexamination. I also understand that plans for this year's Assembly are already at a very advanced stage and I do not see the need to interrupt them. However, following the August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about invited speakers and honorees.
Alan Mitchell @ 9:39
I agree this is over-stating the case, if only for the fact that the honoring of Sr. Johnson stands. He / they could have demanded that the honor be rescinded. It has been done in other instances, Not here. If he truly believed she was undermining all of Christian doctrine, wouldn't it have been necessary to demand retraction or apply new sanctions? Neither has been done.
Another face-off between Cardinals Müller and Kasper:
Cardinal Walter Kasper, tonight at Fordham University, was asked about feminist theologians by an audience member through M. Cathleen Kaveny: "I esteem both Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza and Elizabeth Johnson," he said. Asked about the church's recent critique of Sister Johnson: "This is not a tragedy…St. Thomas Aquinas was suspect, too. She is in good company."
Francis praised Kasper in his first Angelus address after his election:
In the past few days I have been reading a book by a Cardinal — Cardinal Kasper, a clever theologian, a good theologian — on mercy. And that book did me a lot of good, but do not think I am promoting my cardinals' books! Not at all! Yet it has done me so much good, so much good... Cardinal Kasper said that feeling mercy, that this word changes everything. This is the best thing we can feel: it changes the world. A little mercy makes the world less cold and more just.
in the original Italian, "a clever theolgian" is "un teologo in gamba"
Alan - I note that David G's take in his RNS piece on the portion of Mueller's address that I highlighted in my comment, seems to be roughly the same as mine. (Many thanks to Gene for providing the link.)
You asked me, "Do you want LCWR to be grounded?" No. Nor do I want them to deserve grounding. The only grounding I would want would be that they be grounded in the Gospel, and also grounded in their ecclesial identity. The latter does (in my view) presuppose a formal and spiritual connection - communion may not be too strong a word - with the church, which necessarily includes the church authorities. Notionally, I don't have an issue with the church authorities exercising their authority over the LCWR. That doesn't mean that anything and everything the authorities do to the LCWR is for the best.
Mueller's remarks suggest that the Holy See and Sartain would like to work with the LCWR collaboratively. I suspect that, from the LCWR's point of view, if Sartain must sit in on all their meetings, collaboration is the least bad option. There is an implication/threat in all this that Sartain could stop being a peer and start becoming a parent if the Holy See deems that necessary.
It might sound childish but I take a different view. I have always admired the Chinese custom of saving face. I think it is civilized, well-mannered, and our politics would be very much enriched if it was more a part of our culture in all respect.
The issue of honouring Sr. Johnson, according to Muller (reading between the lines) might have less to do with major doctrinal issues that the CDF might have than it does with face-saving. He is saying that the sisters should have saved the face of the Bishops and not honoured someone they questioned the same year. And I think he is trying to save the face of the sisters by saying that the provision around approving speakers is not meant to imply that they have veto power:
This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a "sanction," but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment.
Hopefully, this is actually true and it appears that they had based on the statement from the LCWR a respectful and engaging private meeting. I can only assume that these issues were discussed and some kind of informal consensus was reached.
It appears to me that Herr Mueller is positioning himself to please the Burkes et al who most likely by now are (1) doing what they can to ensure that Francis' ideas and proposed changes fail (are they the Tea Party version of Catholicism battling Pope "Obama?") and (2) running to be Francis' replacement upon his death/retirement.
I'm just disapoointd that Pope Francis would allow this disrespect to the LCWR and thus insult many religous women. This does not bode well for the rest of his "serve the poor" agenda when you insult those on the front lines of service.
Barbara Marx Hubbard on Conscience Evolution: http://barbaramarxhubbard.com/conscious-evolution/
I don't know how many folks who are reacting negatively to the idea have read her.
And I don't know if the LCWR members have adopted her ideas carte blanche, either as an organization or individually.
The best way to promote ideas is to condemn them. But Catholicism has a history of finding that out, doesn't it?
My phrasing @ 2:45 was faulty. It should have been this:
It appears to me that Herr Mueller is (1) positioning himself to please the Burkes et al who most likely by now are doing what they can to ensure that Francis' ideas and proposed changes fail (are they the Tea Party version of Catholicism battling Pope "Obama?") and (2) running to be Francis' replacement upon his death/retirement.
Really agree on the "saving face." And that is what both sides had the opportunity to do here. The Sisters, childishly in my view, gave their award to someone they knew would raise the hackles of at least some among the hierarchy. Congratulations to them. They got a rise out of Cardinal Mueller. And the good Cardinal, instead of letting this one just go by, maybe if he needed to do something, quietly put out the word to the LCWR that they've used their free pass, he decides he needs to make a big deal about it. And managed to give them exactly what they wanted. Of course, now he is going to release Sartain on them more aggressivley, but that's the price they pay. Really, this is the kind of behavior I'd expect from a bunch of Jr. High kids. Or maybe 6th graders. Not leaders of major Church organizations.
Jim D - I've had the same thought; in fact, I had contemplated commenting, "a pox on both their houses." But of course these aren't juvenile antics, and the stakes are quite high.
The power relationship here is unequal. In such a situation, the one without power may use symbolic acts or gestures as a way to show that she is unbowed. You may have seen the reports, in the wake of the Donald Sterling racism affair, that his team wore their warm-up shirts inside out. Sterling owns their contracts; he had all the power. Yet they let him know that they would not accept him and his attitudes. It was a very simple gesture yet it communicated something that caught people's imaginations.
"Last June, he told a group of priests and sisters from Latin America not to worry too much if they get a critical letter from Mueller's office, but to deal with it and move on. The pope also retained officials at Vatican congregations who are seen as more sympathetic to the LCWR."
The above is from David Gibson in his RNS article. That appears to be what the nun's leadership is doing. Remember there is the blatant example of the Curia undermining John XXIII by writing Veterum Sapientia which was to supposed to re-institute Latin and ban all vernacular. John XXIII even took part in the ceremony promoting the ban even tho he was opposed to it.
This is heavy stuff. Akin to things like:
People start believing things only after Washington officially denies it. The best thing to do with a directive from Rome is to ignore it--they will soof forget it...etc. Saving face goes on all the time.
Can you add to this list?
Jim P.,
You think the nuns should wear their habits inside out? Do they still even wear them outside out?
And then the cardinal could respond by wearing his red hat backwards. Do red hats come with bills, like baseball caps?
After that, I think a hearty exchange of "nyah, nyah, nyah" and "you're another" should clear the air and settle this matter amicably.
It may be best to reserve the pox for more intractable cases, which are surely coming.
Do they still even wear them outside out?
John - no, I believe they got out of the habit.
Pay attention to Herr Muller --- but ignore him in the end. Some folks learn the hard way: Gerhard is one such fella.
Please don't leave. We need you and your voice. The presence of jerks in leadership is never a sufficient reason to leave - if it were, the USA would be losing many citizens. Who can separate us from the love of Christ? The USCCB? The CDF?
Ellen-- Please don't give up. We need you.
"2) running to be Francis' replacement upon his death/retirement."
Jim McC.=
Yah. Looks like it. Sigh.
This is all more about putting down and silencing a woman's voice by a bunch of aging hierarchs with very grumpy prostates
I find the speculative attribution of motives to others particularly unenlightening.
A Sister was on an Ethics Committee and allowed an abortion in a Catholic Hospital in Denver. She was excommunicated by Bishop Chaput. Did she know the teaching of the Church? Did she know what Bishop Chaput would decide if he was asked? Did she hide it from him? Did she dissent? Did she believe she was the teaching authority? Was it a poke in the eye to Church authority?
Ellen, I made that hard decision a few years ago. It is not an easy decision nor an easy course to follow, but it may be demanded by conscience.
Janet, thanks for your comments.
James Sullivan, are you referring to the case in Phoenix or a different case?
Perhaps it's time for the sisters to move to a new model - or perhaps to adapt an old model to the current situation - a 21st century version of the Beguines maybe?
Sounds like another hard-line and fading worshiper of the status-quo. Mueller needs to get more exercise, eat less, shed weight, and engage more with younger members of his faith.
I realize that most of our current hierarchy were selected on the basis of their orthodoxy, but I truly hope at least a few of them are uncomfortable with the stance in which they find themselves. One cannot look at any organization today in which power is wielded only by men. To then accuse women of theological error for not liking the situation is disingenuous. Imagine the ability to take any group of people, label them inferior, and then take them to task for failing to agree. Yes, I know, women are supposedly valued; they all say so. Here is another idea that failed to work: separate, but equal.
I concur, Jim Jenkins.
You are perceptive, Ms. McGee. In theory, the church values and even worships women. In practice, the regard is for women ina position of of abstraction and powerlessness. Real power, doctrinal and policy power, is in the sexist male hierarchy.
"Here is another idea that failed to work: separate, but equal."
Jacqueline ==
That's too, too true :-(
"Eventually, as envisioned and expressed by Sri Aurobindo, we can expect to evolve from the mental phase of understanding to the supramental, which is a state of direct awareness from the consciousness force within us. When this happens, universal intelligence descends so fully into our body/minds that we become direct expressions of the Consciousness that is creating us. Self-Evolution is the evolution of Creative Consciousness."
This sort of stuff is not much unorthodox as a vacuous. It is new age gush and it is in bad taste.
I wish Prof. Johnson would offer a scathing critique of the new age nonsense.
Not so much unorthodox as vacuous -- sticky mental jelly in fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohQWuZcFxek She preaches the continuity of consciousness through many bodies as the universe accumulates experience, and that we are cocreators with the process of creation on a universal scale -- ultimately we are doing this not in our current bodies but in light-bodies, which consciousness can materialize. "I do not want to die and forget" -- my metaphysical preferences can become evolutionary choices. "Intuitive knowledge that the crisis is leading to a higher level of being... our crisis is a birth... evolution by choice not chance... " Bacteria figured out how to develop life, the mysteries of photosynthesis -- so humans can be masters of evolution in the same way -- and this apparently entails eugenics: ""Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend... One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other... One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever-evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God... They are defective seeds... There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a 'natural death'... We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow... Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God... The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity."
Barbara Marx Hubbard explains that embarrassing quote as follows: "ontacted her to get to the truth. This is her response:
"Dear Foster: thanks so much for checking this with me.
Here is what happened. Some writing I did on the New Testament was published, dealing with the book of Revelation. In it, the main theme I received is that there is an alternative to the Armageddon story. It is a gentle path, a planetary birth experience; there is no need whatsoever for this degree of destruction. The book was written for all those "who feel called from within to act out the loving birth of humanity, and who have some sort of pre-patterned predisposition toward this more loving path.
Unfortunately, the passage quoted, which is a paraphrase of the Revelation itself, was attributed to me as though I was advocating it. I was advocating the exact opposite... Barbara"
According to Sr. Ilia Delio (http://bit.ly/1mGPGuP), whereas Barbara Marx Hubbard has her own development of Conscious Evolution, the driving force behind the LCWR understanding comes from one of the originators of the idea, Teilhard de Chardin, whose theology is far from vacuous. I am surprised that the Prefect of CDF is not familiar with this theology. Perhaps he should spend less time reading Ann Carey at The National Catholic Register (http://bit.ly/1j3pMZS) and do his homework on which theology the LCWR is following.
From Sr. Ilia: "Religious women and men around the world are catching Teilhard's fire; it is igniting a new passion for the Gospel, new meaning of Christian life in a world of change. "
She does not claim that religious men and wome are catching Barbara Marx Hubbard's fire.
Teilard was censured by Rome in his lifetime, as I remember. I wonder what Francis, also a Jesuit, thinks of him.
As I see him, he appreciated the complexity and beauty of the world, but he did have some Platonic/mystical leanings that overemphasized unity and was, therefore, inclined to pantheism if not definitely a pantheist who saw all identified in the end in the "Omega point".
All this makes for interesting reading. I'm far from a theologian, but now I will, for sure do what I have long intended-- read Elizabeth Johnson's book. I may or may not understand it, but it's worth a try.
On another note, I recall Pope Framcis' cheerleading a group of young people, telling them to "make a mess." Maybe our good sisters are just following his lead, whether he intended the message for them or not.
However it plays out, I'm cheerlng for the nuns. They've done the heavy lifting for our church for hundreds of years and it's high time they quit hiding the brains they have in their heads.
There seems to be a plethora of pronouncements from Rome that are contrary to the commentary and direction we are getting from Pope Francis. The ambiguity and disconnects appear to be feeding the spirit of mistrust that the LCWR spokeswoman expressed after the chastizement given by the CDF. There are two different spheres of influence orbiting in the Vatican and it is plainly scary. The confusion among the faithful could turn out to be costly. Maybe the notion of a "smaller, purer Church" coming to pass--despite the duty that responsible followers have to build up the body of Christ. I wish Pope Francis health and long life. He will need both to do the reform he has promised under the chaotic conditions that now prevail.
I am in favor of all you say. But add one more thing: a good responsible and simply stated enumeration of where the notion of conscious evolution destroys faith. I have the funny feeling that such an explanation would sound pretty shaky. Just a little help here for the people who are conscientious but less sophisticated. Maybe it hurts the swollen heads in the Vatican to hear that Elizabeth Johnson is regarded as one of the leading theologians.
Churck --
I fear that Pope Francis is part of the problem. Yesterday he told a group of seminarians that "But if you don't want Our Lady as a mother, you will have her as a mother-in-law and that's not good," hesaid to laughter and applause
.Priesthood is not a business, monarchy, orphanage, pope tells students
Hardly an indication that he avoids stereotypes of strong women. Sigh.
This IS Women's Theology, not a Theology of Women written and dictated by men!! EJ is a major thinker and articualte and mart and SHOULD be honored by the LCWR, oh, and maybe even the Vatican if they would get real and treat women as equals instead of subordinates!! The day is here when they all look a bit ridiculous--who are the children here? Definitely not the LCWR!!
The men need to grow up and understand that God is not male only, that Christ was not just for a male church. Women have been a part of the church for 2,000, but I think these guys have forgotten that, conveniently. We need to retrieve the goddess because she's just as valid. The days of a silent virgin are over! Our hearts are speaking loud and clear, our faith is in tune with the heart voice; we can no longer be silent becaue the chruch IS HALF OURS--WE ARE HALF THE WORLD. WE are not going away and we will no longer be silent standing in the shadows--its too cold and we need to be the light just as much!!
We know who and what we are--children of a God who loves us more than our wildest dreams and we are Imago Dei, not distorted souls coming out of an Adam's rib. We are equal as science tells us of 26 female and 26 male genes--all of us--equal.
Get over it Muller and take some responsibility for your own actions and give these women their due because they are in the trenches doing the work you do not want todo, they have been there and they know God's face. God loves us as much as he loves you.
As the saying goes--women will be women!!! It's all we know!


text:
What I Wish I'd Known About Collegeby Mitch Krpata
The most important lessons I learned at college weren't the ones my professors taught me. Instead, I learned unpleasant truths about things like money, socializing, and self-sufficiency – usually the hard way. If I could go back and give advice to my freshman self, this is what I'd say.
1 of 12
Apply for scholarships and grants.
A good education will eventually pay for itself, but the more you can accelerate that process, the better. Leaving college with tens of thousands of dollars in debt can be crippling. There are countless individual scholarships and grants out there for the taking, and sometimes nobody applies for them. College students leave free money on the table because they don't know any better. Take the time to research available scholarships – here's a good place to start – and apply! There's no downside to trying.
Next: Be aware of all financial aid requirements and deadlines.
More on: College

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I seem to be stuck in the Sierra Madre hologram room (the one just before entering the Vault). I've rerouted the hologram patrols, disabled the alarms, but I can't figure out how to lower the force field to advance to the next part of the vault. Did I miss something?
Quick Walkthrough on how to get through the third floor and into the Vault (I think this is what you're looking for):


text:
7 Psychotic Pieces of Relationship Advice from Cosmo
#3. If He's Overly Protective of His Gadgets, He's Hiding Something
Look, our man here trusts his girlfriend and all, but lately she's been doing some odd stuff, like poisoning him and crushing his testicles. Maybe giving out personal passwords so readily just isn't a good idea. It's nothing personal. It's just not a smart thing to do. She'll understand, right? Surely ... surely Cosmo won't try to have you killed for exercising this very basic right to human privacy? P-please?
Nice try.
" 'The main way that trysts are found out is through the discovery of incriminating e-mails, IM chats, cell phone texts or bills,' says Belisa Vranich, PsyD, a clinical psychologist in New York City. So if he's being unfaithful, he may guard his gadgets or act really defensive when you innocently touch his phone or computer. It should be a giant red flag if he readily gave you passwords in the past, and now he's more evasive."
Get ready for either solitude or the joy of library computing.
He didn't feel it was her business to have complete, unrestricted access to his business email. There is literally no possible reason for that kind of mistrust; what has she done in the past to give him reason to doubt her? Was it the Sharpie mustache that may have gotten him fired? "Why aren't you over that? Who keeps bringing it up? Sarah? Is it that vacuum-hearted bitch from space, Sarah? IS IT?!"
What kind of consequences he can expect:
Naturally, Cosmo's revenge list has the perfect answer for this particular transgression:
"Donate his 60-inch plasma to charity."
"No, officer, you don't understand! It was a sassy act of revenge. Doesn't that grant me immunity?"
Well, so much for being overly protective of his gadgets. Just give her the goddamn passwords! That's what love is all about, you know: blind, mostly fear-based trust.
#2. If He's Happy, He's Cheating
Man, how did an uptight guy like him ever land a cool chick like her? He's always fretting over everyday things, but he'd better do something about that, before the stress tears them apart. So, he promises himself that, from now on, he's not gonna let the trivial things bother him. Not the theft, or the attempted murder, or even the genital mutilation. It's time to just let the small things slide.
A three-bar-a-day Xanax habit helps with that.
... aaand he's cheating on her again. Cosmo:
" 'If he was short-tempered before, a combination of added sex and attention could be making him way more relaxed, even downright giddy,' Vranich says. Adds Mira Kirshenbaum, author of When Good People Have Affairs: Inside the Hearts and Minds of People in Two Relationships: 'If your guy is suddenly going around all happy and whistling, then you need to find out why.' "
This is how he should look at all times.
That's right. If, after all of the horrible things Cosmo has demanded she do to him, he is still capable of smiling at anything, it must be because he's getting some random sex and attention on the side.
What kind of consequences he can expect:
So he's not gonna sweat the small stuff, huh? Here's how his girlfriend might decide to test that, care of Cosmo:
"Invite your friends to a backyard bonfire using his clothes and prized sports equipment as kindling."
"Burning plastic gives off dangerous fumes, ma'am. All your friends will need to be hospitalized.
You're going to jail for creating a danger to public health."
Yes, wanton property damage and mild arson is the only fair punishment for a man's newfound pep.
That's right, you cheating pool of hateful filth. That's what you get for letting the little things go: having to let all of your big things go also. Got a smile on your face now? No? Good! Look how faithful you're being. You're really learning, aren't you?
There's nothing quite like love.
#1. If His Friends Don't Talk to You, He Doesn't Love You
Our hypothetical man, assuming he's still alive at this point, really appreciates that his best friend is so cool with the girlfriend tagging along on guys' night out. Our guy tried to go out on his own, at first, but she threw away his dog and crashed his car into the house repeatedly until he invited her to come with. The best friend is really being great about it, too; he even says hello and engages in friendly small talk with her.
"No, I wasn't aware he cried after sex. But I'd always kinda assumed."
According to Cosmo, that could be a sign that the guy is no longer in love wit-
What? No! He didn't even do anything this time! It's all his friend! Please, Cosmo!
Ahem. The friend's behavior could be a sign that he's no longer in love with her:
"Even though a player's bros may be friendly enough, they probably won't ask you many personal questions about your job, interests, etc. The ugly truth: They don't want to invest time and energy getting to know you because they figure you're not going to be around very long."
"I just don't have the extra mental energy to show basic human interest in any more attractive women. Two is my limit."
Yup. The fact that his buddy doesn't take the time to ask her personal questions (you know, stuff like, "What are your hopes and dreams for a brighter tomorrow?" ... or maybe, "How do you think we can simultaneously solve the oft-conflicting problems of world hunger and depleted rain forests?") is clearly a sign that the relationship is doomed.
What kind of consequences he can expect:
Here's another appropriate item from Cosmo's revenge list:
"You know his best friend -- the guy he can't live without? Show up at his apartment wearing only a trench coat."
What man could say no to the sexual advances of his best friend's abusive, crazy girlfriend?
See, there you go. Your best friend wouldn't talk to her, which is clearly your fault, so now she's going to sexually destroy every meaningful relationship in your life. But on the upside, at least Cosmo's avatar of destruction on Earth has shifted its attention from you and focused the white hot laser of its wrath on your best friend instead. Now you're free! Sure, you're a broken, unemployed, impotent and psychologically ruined human being with no ties -- material or personal -- to the world at large. But hey, you're a perfect candidate for both homelessness and cultism ... things are looking up!
Enjoy pooping in boxes and muttering vaguely about "that bitch" for the rest of your natural life.
Check out more of Dennis' musings on dating and relationships here.
You know what that subscription to Cosmo could buy you instead? Our bestselling book.
For more reasons to never trust Cosmo, ever, check out 7 Sex Tips from Cosmo That Will Put You in the Hospital. Or learn about some other places you shouldn't got to for love advice, in The 5 Worst Places to Go for Online Sex Advice.
And stop by Linkstorm to learn the proper medical procedures for remedying all the terrible stuff above.
And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get sexy, sexy jokes sent straight to your news feed.
Do you have an idea in mind that would make a great article? Then sign up for our writers workshop! Do you possess expert skills in image creation and manipulation? Mediocre? Even rudimentary? Are you frightened by MS Paint and simply have a funny idea? You can create an infograpic and you could be on the front page of Cracked.com tomorrow!


text:
Administration on Aging
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Census Bureau
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Service
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Veterans Affairs
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Health Statistics
National Institute on Aging
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation, HHS
Office of Management & Budget
Social Security Administration
Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration
The topics below will help users navigate throughout this website.
How to obtain a hardcopy of Report
Single copies of this report are available at no charge through the National Center for Health Statistics while supplies last. Copies may be requested from:
National Center for Health Statistics
3311 Toledo Road, Rm 5419
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Copies may also be ordered by calling 1-800-232-4636 or by emailing firstname.lastname@example.com
Who do I contact for additional information on the Forum
For information about the Forum or the "Key Indicators" Chartbook, please contact: Traci Cook (301) 458-4082 or by email email@example.com
For technical questions on the website such as technical errors or broken links, please click on Feedback at the bottom of this website.
Copyright information
All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.
Information on Accessibility (508 compliance)
Our website includes several features designed to improve accessibility for users with disabilities. Our information is available in multiple formats. If you are unable to access these files because you don't have the applications, download the free viewer for Word, Powerpoint, Excel and Adobe Reader from the links provided below.
Occasionally, some users have reported difficulty in downloading the pdf files directly from their browsers. If you experience this problem:
PowerPoint (.ppt) This is a common format for presentation documents.
Download the free PowerPoint Viewer
Excel (.xls) This is a common format for spreadsheet documents.
Download the free Excel Viewer
Occasionally, some users have reported difficulty having the screen reader (JAWS) read aloud the excel files directly from their browsers. If you experience this problem:


text:
Installation: Production vs. Sandbox
Once you are successfully receiving registrations in your `apns_devices` MySQL table, you will need to make a manual change for devices that you wish to use your development certificate. By default all registered devices will have their 'development' column set to 'production'. This tells Easy APNS to use Apples production SSL and to load your production certificate.
So if you are using your development certificate here is what you will need to do:
- Open the `apns_devices` table
- Locate the Device you want to switch over to sandbox mode
- Change the `development` column from 'production' to 'sandbox'
That will allow your push notifications to be sent using the correct certificate if your device was provisioned using the development certificate.
I wish there was an easier way to make this automatic, but I can't think of any. I am currently looking for a way that during the device registration process, I can detect which build style you are using so the database will automatically know which certificate to use. But unless I also require you to manually add a bunch of compiling flags to each build style, then there is no easy way to do it that I know of... no automatic way... anyway.
If any of you know of one, please comment below


text:
You are currently signed in as .
0 Items in Your Cart
Vault Guides are THE source for insider insight on career information and employer reviews. Shop Vault Guides
Industries & Professions /
Court Reporters
Court reporters record every word at hearings, trials, depositions, and other legal proceedings by using a stenotype machine to take shorthand notes. Most court reporters transcribe the notes of the proceedings by using computer-aided transcription systems that print out regular, legible copies of the proceedings. The court reporter must also edit and proofread the final transcript and create the official transcript of the trial or other legal proceeding. Approximately 17,670 court reporters work in the United States.


text: Tips to Prevent Injuries from Fireworks this July By Intermountain Trauma Group June 30, 2014 July is synonymous with fireworks and fun. In Utah, there are two opportunities to enjoy the "rocket's red glare" with the Fourth and 24th of July holidays. During these exciting times, it is crucial to practice firework safety in order to protect, not only yourself, but your family and friends as well. Read More


text:
Today, the size of the close-votes queue is 55k questions and growing. Is that a problem?
Which action could be taken to clean it up? It seems to be growing faster than Stack Overflow members are capable to handle it.
Today, the size of the close-votes queue is 55k questions and growing. Is that a problem?
Which action could be taken to clean it up? It seems to be growing faster than Stack Overflow members are capable to handle it.
closed as off-topic by gnat, Martijn Pieters, 3ventic, Emrakul, animuson♦ Apr 29 '14 at 23:04
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
TL;DR Educate active reviewers to filter SO Close Votes queue by single close reason, with "duplicate" and "too localized" additionally filtered by their favorite tags.
Based on my experience, this leads to substantial productivity gain.
Boring details on what led me to above conclusion are provided below; feel free to skip these.
Initially I've been going through close votes queue unfiltered. This worked just fine in all other queues I tried (dozen or two queues at SO and some smaller sites) and I saw no reasons to do it other way.
This queue felt a bit difficult from the beginning, but I thought I'll get used to it after a while. 300+ review actions passed, but it still felt cumbersome, at this moment I got curious why is that?
My testing of filtering by close reasons began with "off topic". Bingo! Review went smooth and fast, and most important, I felt comfortable - just about like I felt with all other queues in new system. I tried "not constructive", then "not a real question" - great, the magic is there.
Testing "too localized" though didn't go so well. It felt cumbersome again - just the same feeling of having to deal with too many distractions. This lead me to idea to try filtering it further. I added a tag I was comfortable with and the magic flow was back again.
Based on my experience with "too localized", I switched to testing "duplicates" filtered by favorite tag from the very beginning. This worked well, too. Well, to be precise, duplicates review went slower (much slower) than the rest: I had to study both questions, and in some cases I also had to check the answers to both questions. But (and this is very big BUT) what is important, it felt really comfortable - as opposed to my prior experience with unfiltered queue.
To reduce the backlog:
define a function: close(p) = ....
where the right hand side includes the number of close votes, the total rep of all the close voters, the net vote score of the post, the number of answers to the post, and the age of the post.
In other words, 3 close votes from high-rep users, on a negative-score question, with no answers, should just close the thing. Or some rule like that. Then we could concentrate on content that had some chance of having value.
Take a minute here for a sanity check:
Update as of 10/24/2013: 86k need review, 1,151k all-time reviews
There's a massive amount of reviewing being done there. It takes 5 voters to close or 3 "do not close" reviewers to kick a question out of the queue without closing. And yet, folks are making some impressive progress.
Frankly, I don't particularly think this needs to be sped up any - closing is hard by-design. If it takes a while to get through the backlog, that's probably ok...
Update: review task creation / deletion over time
In response to LittleBobbyTables' concern, here are some graphs that may help to illustrate the problem with clearing this queue:
Close review tasks created
Close review tasks deleted (either completed in review, closed or deleted elsewhere)
Review tasks are created in response to close votes or flags - these have been going up.
At the moment we can filter by tag and by close reason, but off-topic has 7 sub-close-reasons.
It may improve the workflow a bit to add additional filtering and be able to narrow it down to one or two sub-close-reasons.
Related: Close Vote Review, additionally filter off-topic close reasons
After all this time, I wanted to add a view of why people don't visit the queue -- or -- at least, why i don't visit the queue.
I have a limited number of close votes. I visit the queue, I use them all, and I feel like I'm the bellhop in Hilbert's Hotel. The amount of work to do remains infinite. I have zero feeling of accomplishment.
In my view, the size of the queue is a view into the ongoing torrent of crap dumped onto the site. I'm willing to keep trying to help deal with it, but I need a larger gun if you want me to help shoot this many zombies.
Just as an input to this discussion, a small progress report.
After a couple of weeks (or maybe more? don't have the energy to check) on Stack Overflow spent maxing out my close vote queue reviews filtered by the cocoa and objective-c tag, today I got the very nice message
(thanks to @gnat above for attracting my attention to the filter)
A couple of random observations from this marathon clicking exercise, in no particular order:
My suggestion: Encourage people who create close votes to also do some reviewing.
To clarify:
When someone votes to close a question, I suggest that the system should check their reviewing records; if they haven't reviewed any close votes recently, then a polite notice should be shown asking if they would consider doing some reviews to shorten the backlog as well as just adding to it.
I would hope that this would encourage more people to do a few reviews who wouldn't do so otherwise.
(the above assumes that the user has permissions to do reviews, of course)
I see this working a bit like the voting system does now. Right now, if you mainly vote on answers, you might occasionally get a message when you vote on one saying "You haven't voted on a question lately. They also need some love." (or words to that effect).
So how about doing the same with close votes -- if someone's issued a number of close votes without using the review system, they could get a gentle reminder like "You haven't done any reviewing lately. Please help reduce the workload by reviewing some questions with close votes."
It's not intrusive, it only pops up once in a while, and it doesn't force anyone to do anything, but it might just help do something about the backlog.
(by the way, the close vote review queue is growing rapidly at the moment; it's pushing toward 70k. It's gotta be seen as a problem sooner or later, hasn't it?)
Let's take a look at the problem. As of today, this queue is up to 81.8k questions in the queue. Assuming each has 1 closed vote, that means that a total of 320K actions are required to close all of the questions. Given 20 per day, that means that 160K people would have to clear out 20 in order to close the queue. Then after it is closed, then more people need to review them than have been doing so. So, how can these get reviewed? There are a few ways:
Okay, given these options, how could any of them be done?
Increase number of reviewers?
Close vote reviewing is a painful, thankless task. Sure, it's the easiest badge of the various custodial badges to earn, but a closed vote decision can be quite difficult sometimes, depending on the nature of the question. Perhaps there should be some incentive to encourage more reviewers, either in the form of reputation, or increased privileges.
Decrease the number of things to review
There are a couple of ideas that I have that fit into this category. Either somehow things need to be automated better, or the number of close votes could be reduced. As the latter could be dangerous, perhaps we should just allow certain users to have more closed votes, perhaps those with a very high reputation, or maybe those who have reviewed more closed votes overall. Both help to filter out the relatively new closed voters, and leave those with more knowledge of how the site goes more power to help it out.
Increase the number of things that can be reviewed
This improves the situation so long as you don't burn people out. As the pile is getting deeper, it could be a quick short term solution.
Decrease time per review
Filtering by tag or closed reasons, better displays to help users figure out what's going on, anything to make the task of reviewing easier increases the likelihood that a user will use all of their closed votes per day, and come back tomorrow and use them too.
I'm sure there are other ideas out there, but here's my preferred method:
Disclaimers: Though I am relatively new as a registered user of the site, I have been using it for a long time and have read a lot of posts that have been closed for various reasons. Also, since I can't yet participate in close-queue reviewing, I certainly can't speak of how easy or hard it is to do so.
Boring argumentation
Most propositions made here discuss how to deal with the close-queue as it is now. But it is even important to reduce the number of questions that do enter the queue in order to eventually reach the end and then keep up without tremendous efforts.
Now, a quick look at recent questions that were voted to close shows that a large number of these questions come from users with no reputation or almost none. A person learning a new language or technology, or even learning programming for the very first time, either at school or by following whatever tutorial found somewhere, is certainly the archetype of these users.
I don't think it is pertinent to discuss if these persons are being too lazy. It is obvious, to us at least, that the answer they need is lying somewhere around. But when you know very little, it might be hard to decode answers that are not tied exactly to your situation. So they come here, expecting to receive help. They are not considering the fact that their questions should provide common, persistent knowledge for others. And even if they would consider that aspect, their view of "knowledge worth sharing" is certainly tainted by the fact that they indeed have a very limited knowledge of the technology being learnt. Is it bad that they come asking for help? I don't think so. But their questions and the associated answers are certainly not assets to the Stack Overflow community.
So how does all that might help the present discussion? It basically tells us where to put efforts in order to reduce the influx of to-be-closed questions. These persons are looking for answers cut precisely to their needs, which they won't find anywhere. Stack Overflow is very popular and very well known for offering quick answers to questions being asked. Add those two facts, and you realize that you can't expect these users to stop coming here, nor can you expect them to stop asking low-quality questions. Not providing answers to these questions will not discourage students from coming here. But having a few persons trying to provide a quality answer (the kind that guide the user toward better understanding, rather than the kind that is to be copy-pasted), while five persons are reviewing the very same question to vote a close is certainly a waste of everyone's time.
So here are my suggestions:
Well, that's it for now. Hope that helps.
Another possible solution might be to bring questions that have more votes to the front of the queue. In other words, if you have 4 close or 2 leave open votes on a question, if it gets brought to the front of the queue, it is more likely to be resolved quickly.
... or, you know, they could just give us more close votes.
It's 9 AM here, and I'm already out of close votes for the day. On most days, fifty votes just isn't enough to deal with new questions plus questions in the Close Vote Queue.
I don't need a prize, or a badge, or even thanks... I just want more freaking votes.
Automatically prioritize posts in the review queue that are tagged with either the users favorite tags or tags selected by the user. This could be limited to e.g. 3 tags if performance is a problem.
If there a no more posts with the specified tags, show other posts (without having to remove the "filter", which is just an annoying UX).
I get the impression that except perhaps for test questions we're mainly getting recent questions to review. I suggest that once you've handled the current maximum 40 questions in a day (or perhaps earlier) you start processing the from the back of the queue, or just generally give us more old questions to process, and probably a higher limit per day in response.
Copied from Reduce the number of reviews needed to complete an item in the CV queue
There are currently 95.3k items in the Close Vote queue, and 2 items in the Reopen Votes queue.
The number of reviews needed to close a question from the CV queue is 5, which is ridiculously high. Here's a stat:
That's 73% accuracy from <3k users flagging; i.e. the people we believe to be least-able to recognise a close-worthly question are already getting 3/4 of them right... do we really need a further 5 >3k users to back them up?
Here's my actual feature-request:
Let's find a number
If we require only 3 reviews instead of 5, and we end up with the same outcome 95/90% of the time as we would do using 5 reviewers, why aren't we doing that already? Yes, I just made those numbers up. Shog help me..
For those that are dubious as to whether this would open the floor for questions wrongly getting closed, let me calm you down with this;
If you're still struggling, then how about I knock you clean out by suggesting we add the ability to flag a question for reopening. This would force the question into the reopen queue, and handle the small percentage of questions that incorrectly get closed. It would also allieviate a proportion of the flags moderators have to deal with at the moment. If we're worried about the question-owner spamming the flagging option, only enable it for non-owners.
I have another suggestion to make:
Let vote-to-close flags count as silent close votes and convert them to real ones once they have been validated by a user actually voting to close.
Once a VTC-flag gets raised on a question the question enters the review queue. Now the post needs five votes by five different reviewers to be actually closed. Lets say a question enters the queue with two flags raised. A user reviews the question and votes to close. After this voting the close vote count of the question would actually be three, because the two flags cast have been converted to actual votes.
Consequently spoken: When a question has an active close vote (one that has not aged away) a new VTC-flag cast on that question should automaticalle be converted to a close vote and be validated.
To make a long story short: Once a user with the necessary privileges has decided to cast a close vote on a question, let others (whether they have the closing privilege or not) jump on the train by flagging the post.
Allow a metric other than filtering by tag. Such as searching with a text box or sorting by date or sorting by OP reputation.
It doesn't make sense to constantly be reviewing content that was posted 49 minutes ago and is still being edited.
I have some suggestions and ask for more here:
Here are my thoughts (posted under another similar question):
And some more suggestions:
A suggestion:
Age all posts out of the Close queue after two weeks. The rationale is that if five close votes cannot be accumulated against a post in two weeks, closing the post is likely a dubious decision anyways. Additionally, the close votes against those posts would also be cleared, enabling users if necessary to attempt a reclose of the question, without having to wait for an edit.
Optionally: As a corollary, one might argue that the same criteria be applied to the re-open queue: age out all posts two weeks after an initial re-open vote. However this queue seems to be unmanageable, so symmetry may be unnecessary.
This would not interfere in any way with the ability of the community to rapidly close (and if necessary delete) posts that absolutely must be dealt with quickly. In fact, this proposal might assist in having those posts stand out, enabling them to be dealt with more efficiently.
The immediate effect would be to clear a large number of posts from the Close queue, and with the aging mechanism in place, hopefully allowing it to be maintained at a reasonable size. As mentioned by others, the advantage of seeing a manageable Close queue is increased community interest in maintaining it at a manageable size, presumably allowing more poor quality posts to be closed, more promptly.
If this were to be undertaken on a trial basis, what is the worst that would happen? 74,000 or so pots (less those nominated for closing within the past two weeks) would be cleared. Most of those posts weren't going to be reviewed in less than a few months anyways.
If this change is adopted and becomes successful successful, one could imagine creating a separate long term Disposal-Review queue with the aim of slowly working through and assessing old posts. If they were sorted inversely on a quality measurement, the likely worst offenders (or at least, best candidates for action) could be dealt with soonest.
update: The underlying assumption behind this proposal is that the Close Queue is broken, and needs fixing; that a mechanism which worked well for several years has now been overwhelmed by the site's popularity, and needs refreshing.
From my answer here:
I think a contest is the right approach, but it needs to be done in a big way.
First, set an amount of time, I was thinking two months, though 45 days is fine. If you do that starting next month, you can end things at the end of the year, but that's not crucial.
Second, you give out one-time permanent badges for the contest commemorating their achievement forever. Let's say for 250, 500 and 1000 closes in that timeframe (obviously you should probably remove the review limit for the duration of the contest).
Third, you give out either rep or even specialer one-time ranked permanent badges for the top 3 closers.
Make it as big as the Winter Bash Hat thing, go wild.
Would it not be possible to change the minimum amount of required rep to 2k instead of 3k? I think 2k is already quite hard to get, and proves that you know your way around SO and should be capable of deciding if a question needs to be closed.
More reviewers obviously helps trim down the queue.
The problem still persists - currently the queue has 85,200 questions in it. I like this answer by PearsonArtPhoto. I would add another suggestion to it:
Should we make the minimum reputation level higher for asking questions? This would significantly lower the amount of bad questions that are flooding the queue.
Most of the bad questions are not a result of users being stupid, just lazy. If they would be forced to participate in the community for some time, before being allowed to ask a question it would result in two things:
I've made a little research to find out how many "good" questions would be lost, if there was a bar. The procedure was as follows:
1) I've queried SO database to retrieve all closed questions since
2) I've filtered the closed questions to get "questions from fresh users". A "question from fresh user" is a question with creation date distant no more than 5 days from user's account creation date.
3) I've accumulated all user IDs from the previous step, to produce a list of "users who asked a question within
4) I counted the "good" questions created by these users. "Good question" is a question that is not closed, and has score at least
The results are:
1) There were
3) These "fresh" questions were asked by
4) These
Out of
If we define "good" question as a question with score
If it would be possible to filter out users who asked a "bad" question not using a global rep bar (for example: introduce rep bar after first asked question was downvoted heavily or closed) than only
(*) it's "probably" because it is still possible that these questions would have been asked anyway, after the user would reach the bar
(note the throttling - you may need to run the query more than once, uncommenting the
(note the throttling - you may need to run the query more than once, uncommenting the
At time of writing, there are 120K+ close vote questions.
Seeing as something drastic needs to be done, there need to be more harsh actions taken, which could looks as follows:
By way of example, for point 2, if you helped close 20 questions by downvoting it, you get 20 extra reputation, which is not exhorbitant. It's just enough to say thanks, but not so much that people will start closing questions that are actually valuable.
You should perhaps then increase the reputation required to get the downvoting privilege, because to someone with 125, downvoting will look like an easy way to gain reputation.
Sure, you don't get all your stats about why stuff was closed, but things are too desperate now to worry about that.
To reduce the backlog:
Gamify closing more.
Right now people review the close votes queue to get badges and for the love of the site. If that's not sufficient to clear the queue, add more incentives. SE is an excellent example of how well gamification can drive participation in an otherwise not very exciting activity. Why not apply the same principle here?
Obviously this will require some careful thinking to avoid incentivizing undesirable behavior, but that's the sort of tinkering that SE requires generally so it's nothing new.
One way to gamify the close queue without incentivizing bad behavior. This is meant more as a proof of concept than a completely foolproof system, something to distinguish between incentivizing well and incentivizing poorly.
Each close vote cast earns 1 rep for the caster if the question is subsequently closed. Each Do Not Close vote earns 1 rep for the caster if the question reaches five DNC votes before reaching five close votes (i.e., being closed). If a caster is on the wrong side of the majority, voting DNC on a question that everyone else votes to close, the caster loses a point. Reviewers aren't shown others' votes to avoid blindly voting with the majority.
In this system, there's a reward for reviewing questions that should potentially be closed, but only if other users agree with you. This is meant to be exactly analogous to the general SE model in which questions and answers are rewarded if and only if the community judges them useful.