Friday, May 24, 2002
Iconoclasts amongst us?
There have been a couple of posts over at Relapsed Catholic where Ms. Shaidle has addressed some comments made by the Pope as it pertains to the crucifix being worn as jewelry.
The first comments that were made have Ms. Shaidle stating: The pope added that it was wrong to "spend thousands on a sacred symbol of Christianity"--evidently forgetting the millions of dollars worth of similar expensive objects the Vatican itself owns, too.
Well, to set the record straight, that is not what the Pope said. Matter of fact, the Pope didn't actually say anything at all, according to the article that originally broke the story. They state the following:
Exactly. If you're going to sport the symbol of Christianity, perhaps you should actually be a Christian, no? For example, the article states that Jennifer Aniston, a member of the cast of the television program "Friends," wears a platinum crucifix decorated with diamonds. And we all know that Mrs. Pitt plays a tramp on Friends. Of course she's not a tramp in real life, she just plays one on television, right? Yah, whatever.
I personally think this is simply a case of Ms. Shaidle not knowing what she was talking about. Looking at her site though, I'm not too surprised by this possibility, but hey... she can fly her broom however she wants (her words, not mine), right? However, this doesn't mean she can fly it wherever she wants.
In essence, she called the Pope (who wasn't even involved in the actual story) a hypocrite. I take umbrage with that, as any good Catholic should. Likening two millenium of Christian art to some floozie that wears some "bling bling" is ludicrous to say the least. Prince and pauper alike have dedicated their lives to instilling Catholic values into not only religious life but the social culture as well as evidenced by art (paintings, sculptures, literature, etc). And that is how it should be in my not so humble opinion.
The Vatican holds and displays almost two millenium of art so that the world can benefit from these precious pieces. Would Ms. Shaidle prefer if they were sold and stashed in some private collection somewhere? Perhaps we should raze St. Peter's Basilica and St. Patrick's Cathedral cause we wouldn't want the Church to have a physical presence in the world now would we?
It's iconoclastic comments like Ms. Shaidle's that really get in my craw. Yah, I know, Ms. Shaidle has been blogging for over two years now (something she seems to remind the rest of us everytime she can... as if I truly care or as if it truly matters), and that supposedly gives her carte blanche to say whatever she wants. No, sorry... the comments were uninformed to start, and they were stupid to finish.
How stupid? She relates a Cher story where Cher stated (in response to the "If you wear a crucifix, you should act the part of a Christian" story) : Asked about the Pope's scolding of celebrities for wearing expensive crucifixes, Cher apparently quipped: "Tell him to clean up his own house before he tells us what to do." To which Ms. Shaidle replied: Cher rocks, natch. (NOTE: Natch is slang for naturally).
Cher rocks? Oy vey! Not since the 60's Ms. Shaidle. Oh, and if anyone should avoid wearing a crucifix (especially with those buttock and bosom revealing fishnet body suits... in front of her own child no less) it should be Cher.
Since Ms. Shaidle agrees with Cher, does she think the Church should also take a "time out" on talking out against abortion, euthanasia or human cloning? I mean, obviously we need to get all our affairs in order before we tackle other issues right?
No, sorry... things don't work like that. But, when one runs their mouth (or their blog) without backing it up with a coherent thought process this is the sort of things we wind up espousing.
Next time you want to fly your broom Ms. Shaidle, pick out a flight plan beforehand.
There have been a couple of posts over at Relapsed Catholic where Ms. Shaidle has addressed some comments made by the Pope as it pertains to the crucifix being worn as jewelry.
The first comments that were made have Ms. Shaidle stating: The pope added that it was wrong to "spend thousands on a sacred symbol of Christianity"--evidently forgetting the millions of dollars worth of similar expensive objects the Vatican itself owns, too.
Well, to set the record straight, that is not what the Pope said. Matter of fact, the Pope didn't actually say anything at all, according to the article that originally broke the story. They state the following:
A crucifix is not simply a piece of jewelry, so wearing one should be accompanied by acts of Christian charity, said the Vatican's Fides news agency.
Exactly. If you're going to sport the symbol of Christianity, perhaps you should actually be a Christian, no? For example, the article states that Jennifer Aniston, a member of the cast of the television program "Friends," wears a platinum crucifix decorated with diamonds. And we all know that Mrs. Pitt plays a tramp on Friends. Of course she's not a tramp in real life, she just plays one on television, right? Yah, whatever.
I personally think this is simply a case of Ms. Shaidle not knowing what she was talking about. Looking at her site though, I'm not too surprised by this possibility, but hey... she can fly her broom however she wants (her words, not mine), right? However, this doesn't mean she can fly it wherever she wants.
In essence, she called the Pope (who wasn't even involved in the actual story) a hypocrite. I take umbrage with that, as any good Catholic should. Likening two millenium of Christian art to some floozie that wears some "bling bling" is ludicrous to say the least. Prince and pauper alike have dedicated their lives to instilling Catholic values into not only religious life but the social culture as well as evidenced by art (paintings, sculptures, literature, etc). And that is how it should be in my not so humble opinion.
The Vatican holds and displays almost two millenium of art so that the world can benefit from these precious pieces. Would Ms. Shaidle prefer if they were sold and stashed in some private collection somewhere? Perhaps we should raze St. Peter's Basilica and St. Patrick's Cathedral cause we wouldn't want the Church to have a physical presence in the world now would we?
It's iconoclastic comments like Ms. Shaidle's that really get in my craw. Yah, I know, Ms. Shaidle has been blogging for over two years now (something she seems to remind the rest of us everytime she can... as if I truly care or as if it truly matters), and that supposedly gives her carte blanche to say whatever she wants. No, sorry... the comments were uninformed to start, and they were stupid to finish.
How stupid? She relates a Cher story where Cher stated (in response to the "If you wear a crucifix, you should act the part of a Christian" story) : Asked about the Pope's scolding of celebrities for wearing expensive crucifixes, Cher apparently quipped: "Tell him to clean up his own house before he tells us what to do." To which Ms. Shaidle replied: Cher rocks, natch. (NOTE: Natch is slang for naturally).
Cher rocks? Oy vey! Not since the 60's Ms. Shaidle. Oh, and if anyone should avoid wearing a crucifix (especially with those buttock and bosom revealing fishnet body suits... in front of her own child no less) it should be Cher.
Since Ms. Shaidle agrees with Cher, does she think the Church should also take a "time out" on talking out against abortion, euthanasia or human cloning? I mean, obviously we need to get all our affairs in order before we tackle other issues right?
No, sorry... things don't work like that. But, when one runs their mouth (or their blog) without backing it up with a coherent thought process this is the sort of things we wind up espousing.
Next time you want to fly your broom Ms. Shaidle, pick out a flight plan beforehand.
Comments:
Post a Comment
