Perpetually Offended Find Way To Be Offended
July 10, 2009
Apparently Obama shows his unworthiness to be in the Pope’s presence before they even meet. Expect wailing and gnashing of teeth before the day is done over there. As for the actual meeting, it will likely be boring.
Advertisement
58 Comments
Comments are closed.
Actually, I didn’t read the article as showing the author to be offended. He was amused at the perceived tackiness of the gift to be given to the Pope. No wailing and gnashing of teeth. On the other hand, it appears you might be offended at the perceived lack of respect given to the prez.
Wow… I’m not even what I think about a priest who spends more time blogging than doing ministry.
What a beautiful gift and what a great idea! St. John Neumann is a SAINT! What a wonderful gift…
doug,
But why is it tacky? It was something worn by a saint. I don’t get it.
A holy relic is now tacky?!!?!?!
Obama is taking coals to New Castle.
By the way, just how did the Obama people obtain the stole? Did they buy it?
As for Father Z, Katerina, he writes a newspaper column, teaches and also blogs and reaches many souls by doing so. For now, it may be his ministry; I don’t know and neither do you. Do you say the same snarky, inappropriate thing about Father Reese or the priests associated with magazines you agree with? I didn’t see any snarkiness in his column.
Katerina,
I thought blogging was considered a ministry…no?
Someday I’ll get that paypal button up, so people can show appreciation for my ministry.
I frankly don’t have a problem with Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s vocation. The problems I have with his blog are the same I have for the rest of the “Catholic blogosphere”: namely, they primarily attract people whose conception of praxis doesn’t extend beyond their finger; as a group, they are disaffected from their local parish and oftentimes their diocese. With them it is always other people’s fault. If only my community were more faithful is their constant refrain.
Obama is taking coals to New Castle.
By the way, just how did the Obama people obtain the stole? Did they buy it?
M.Z.
I would disagree with your comment regarding Father Z’s readership. They tend to be the ones actually involved in their parish and diocese because they passionately care even if at times they exhibit bitter zeal.
I just read many of the comments following the article, and I was appalled. I found this
All the people who think this is a hilarious and tacky gift are laughing primarily at the Redemptorist order, it seems to me, although the target of their scorn is Obama. From what I gather, the remains of St. John Neumann are visible at the shrine, and he was dressed in this stole for 18 years. It wasn’t draped across his casket or something like that.
As for Father Z, Katerina, he writes a newspaper column, teaches and also blogs and reaches many souls by doing so.
In other words, Father Z spends all his time doing things that don’t require Holy Orders. Meanwhile, there is a shortage of priests in U.S. and European parishes.
This stuff about requiring holy orders is part of the problem. What does a priest do that requires holy orders? Celebrate the Mass (and the lack of enthusiasm of priests about the Mass is evident in their silence — as Eugen Drewermann pointed out, the Mass as celebrated today has little in common with what Jesus had in mind) and hear confessions (but no one comes, and most priests are happy about that). These two sacramental actions take up a tiny part of the priest’s times. So we need to ask what priests are really for?
And I am sure Fr Z is sacramentally more active than most priests.
In other words, Father Z spends all his time doing things that don’t require Holy Orders. Meanwhile, there is a shortage of priests in U.S. and European parishes.
I think that’s a line of argument which is both disrespectful to clergy and also unhelpful to all sides of the Catholic spectrum. After all, most university presidents are laypeople. Shall we denounce Fr. Jenkins for being unfaithful to his vocation by wasting his time running Notre Dame?
Steve Norton wrote Father Z “spends all his time doing things that don’t require Holy Orders”. You don’t know that, Steve.
He isn’t a diocesan priest.
How do you feel about priests who teach full time? Many of them don’t wear collars…how do you feel about that? Or priests who put out magazines, like America? They aren’t diocesan priests, either.
I thought blogging was considered a ministry…no?
No. I don’t consider it a ministry. Ministry is what I do when I’m not on the computer (i.e. involves actually looking and talking to people).
I actually like the gift and think it apt. Esp since a member fo the that Order might be up for Sianthood(Father Seelos)
Criticims of this is as tiring as the critcism of the Bush gift to the Pope tht caused such snarking
How do you feel about priests who teach full time? Many of them don’t wear collars…how do you feel about that? Or priests who put out magazines, like America? They aren’t diocesan priests, either.
Priests who taught at my seminary wore collars and teaching is a wonderful vocation, so I don’t see anything wrong with that. I don’t read America, so I can’t judge their articles to see if it’s worth their time. I do read Fr. Z’s blog and most that comes out of it is not good. Note that I say “most”… he has had a couple of good things…
No. I don’t consider it a ministry. Ministry is what I do when I’m not on the computer (i.e. involves actually looking and talking to people).
I agree. I consider it to be more of a hobby and discussion forum. I suppose it is possible to make it into a ministry, but I really don’t see the most prominent Catholic blogs doing that. Controversies, news, and criticisms tend to generate more web traffic than posts on prayer and spirituality (at least that’s been my experience in Catholic blogging for the past three years).
Catholic blogging also can be quite addictive, prompting some bloggers and readers to spend far too much time online and not enough time with real ministry, prayer, and family. I think it poses a genuine risk to spiritual health when it occupies a large chunk of someone’s time.
How do you feel about priests who teach full time? Many of them don’t wear collars…how do you feel about that?
Teaching is among the ministries St. Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, so I think it is a good and worthy ministry. Though I appreciate it when priests wear their collars outside of the church, I understand that this choice is largely cultural (e.g., German priests who are professors tend not to wear the collar, such as we saw with Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI). Also, sometimes the collar is impractical, such as in cases of underground Catholic ministries where the faith is outlawed or working in extremely hot or cold conditions.
If teaching is a legitimate ministry, then teaching via writing a newspaper column and online would obviously be a potential ministry as well. The question would be whether one uses the medium of blogging to teach or just to talk. Most blogs are just chat, but some focus heavily on teaching. (Jimmy Akin is the main one who comes to mind in that regard.)
But really, it’s rather beside the point. I don’t think anyone would say that a priest cannot recreate in his spare time — and it should be kept in mind that despite their heavy work loads priests do have spare time and it can be rather lonely as they don’t have a wife and kids to turn to. Sometimes there not even anyone else in the rectory.
Our own assistant pastor, being the priest I know best personally, spends his spare time cycling, watching Longhorns games, and singing in a Renaissance music group. If Fr. Z spends his spare time blogging, podcasting, and reading about naval architecture, I don’t see why anyone should criticize him for it.
I am willing to bet the same partisans who are now posting criticism of the President’s action would have a fit if this stole or a similar relic was removed from a church as part of a renovation or otherwise dismissed as something insignificant.
But, it is not a matter for worry. Post-Notre Dame, their relevance is about down to about zero.
Hey y’all, cut the guy some slack. Priests are people too. They’re allowed to have hobbies.
But should priests insult known relics and act as if they are meaningless, because it suits their politics?
The vestment in question is an Almy produced article.
Almy is the equivalent of Old Navy for vestments.
Not weighing in on the criticisms from either side, just trying to clarify.
For the sake of accuracy, a hobby isn’t something one derives income from. Blogging is his profession, one of them at least.
Whether one should attempt to make income from blogging is another question, in particular in the capacity of speaking for Catholicism. I have my own opinions here, but I’m not going to delve too deeply into them. First, the is a lot of profit to be had in non-profits. Second, my patience is low for unaccountable institutes that attempt to speak for Catholicism, let alone individuals. And before someone comments otherwise, I don’t speak for Catholicism.
If teaching is a legitimate ministry, then teaching via writing a newspaper column and online would obviously be a potential ministry as well.
If writing a newspaper column or blogging is a potential ministry (and I admitted that the latter could possibly made into one), it is certainly not because it is a form of teaching unless we are stretching “teaching” to cover virtually any issuance of opinion. Having been a teacher, myself, for a number of years both in middle schools and colleges, I can attest from experience that my most researched blog posts have nothing of the character of teaching, mentoring, and personally interacting with students. While the aims of blogging and teaching may be similar (dissemination of information), their form and method–what truly makes each what it is–are very different. There is much more to teaching than merely disseminating information, which is why I think, for example, that the online degree phenomenon will never be considered a real education.
So, to reiterate, I do think it is possible that blogging may be made into some sort of ministry. But blogging is not the same as teaching, and, therefore, could not be a ministry for the same reasons that teaching is a ministry.
HK,
I think it is suitable to assess the quality of a relic, as well as its use and user.
I could create a relic from any number of foul or irreligious objects.
I could also use a relic for superstition, or any number of irreligious acts.
So I don’t think Fr. Z’s criticism of relics is inappropriate per se.
Whether this particular instance is inappropriate is another line of discussion.
That he equates it with a necktie demonstrates the inherent holiness of its being a relic is ignored. That is a problem. And one could say sometimes the most irreligious of objects have become the holiest of relics — such as, well, I don’t know, the Cross?!
I think that’s a big of a straw man to say “he ignores the holiness.”
If it was simply a generic stole, there would likely be criticism, but not in this line of argument.
To be offended, or shocked, or appalled demands a recognition of something to first be violated.
Clarity,
Did you read his comments? “Might as well have given a necktie”? That’s what Fr. Z said. That does ignore the holiness of the relic, for it is because of its connection to a saint it is being given, and not a necktie.
The Catholic Herald did a profile on Fr. Z. last year. I think that some of the commenters here might find it useful.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000225.shtml
I beleive it will correct a lot of misconceptions.
Ben,
It corrects no misconceptions. Rather, it just is pure hagiography.
Having been a teacher, myself, for a number of years both in middle schools and colleges, I can attest from experience that my most researched blog posts have nothing of the character of teaching, mentoring, and personally interacting with students.
Interesting. I haven’t taught full time, but based on teaching and tutoring high school students in Latin, and having taught RCIA, adult confirmation and adult catechesis classes within the parish setting for a few years each, I would say that certain kinds of blogging do feel to me much like teaching. In my case, it’s not something I do often, though there have been a few posts I’ve written in response to specific concerns (mostly of the “how can evolution and Christianity both be true” variety) which did feel much like the in person teaching that I’ve done. And there are a very few bloggers (as I said, Jimmy Akin is the main one who springs to mind) who do strike me as blogging in a way that is very much like teaching.
However, I’d agree at least that most writing is not like teaching — though I could see education through writing as being a ministry if done in the proper way.
But I don’t mean to hijack a perfectly good attack thread with topics such as this, so perhaps its something for another day…
[Good bye-mz]
Fortunately, and to your detriment, Henry Karlson, fair-minded readers of your misleading comments can zip over to Father Z’s and read the thread.
Not having a dog in the overall political fight, I had a longer discussion typed up.
But after that “just pure hagiography” comment, I think I will leave for the day.
Fr. Z is an excellent priest who offers a valuable resource on liturgical issues. His politics is at least as well written as the opposition here at Vox Nova. I would be grateful to have half the vocation he does.
no misconceptions?
well I see at least 2 that are relevant to this thread.
1) Fr. Z. is not a religious priest.
2) Fr. Z.’s main occupation at this time is graduate studies.
It is clear that Fr. Z’s words come from a disposition of at best disrespect and have influenced others at that site to resonate with his disrespect. Does our faith teach us to be that kind of light that causes friction? Isn’t the name for that kind of light lucifer?
MZ,
Fr. Sirico will be on EWTN tonight talking about the encyclical. We don’t have EWTN either, but you can watch it online. Thought I’d let you know!
Thanks for the heads up. He’s got an article or opinion piece in the WSJ that some seem enamored. I kind of thought consulting Sirico on social justice was like consulting Catholics For Choice on life teachings. I’m sure EWTN wouldn’t lead me astray.
I find blogging to be less a ministry to others than a way to help myself articulate my own positions and discuss with others. I don’t know if that’s a ministry and I have a feeling most priests (I don’t know Fr. Z’s situation; that’s between him & his bishop) have more important activities they could be doing
Lucifer?
Aren’t you jumping the gun a little here?
Can’t we at least compare him to Hitler first?
I find blogging to be less a ministry to others than a way to help myself articulate my own positions and discuss with others.
I agree… I’ve learned a lot about myself and about others and specific topics through discussion. I find the discussions fruitful when done charitably but from there to consider it a ministry. Absolutely no.
…reading about naval architecture…
Fr. Z’s reading about naval architecture has been duly criticized here before. I don’t think “reading” is the right word for his over-the-top activity.
Henry Karlson asks:
But should priests insult known relics and act as if they are meaningless, because it suits their politics?
Exactly. Fr. Z would be the first to go after someone else for not respecting a certified relic.
Any priest that insults, or allows to be insulted through comments on his privately-owned blog domain, a relic, whether it be 1st or 3rd class, deserves to have his credibility called into question.
I respect Zuhlsdorf’s priesthood, but that’s about where it ends.
The man begs for money and gifts more than many televangelists.
Perhaps he needs a Catholic Jan Crouch to cry for him…. *grin*
I wonder if his Italian Bishop knows what he gets up to.
Blogging can be a great teaching ministry — Andrew Sullivan has become a major educator of Americans.
“doug,
But why is it tacky? It was something worn by a saint. I don’t get it.”
Just for clarification, that’s how I read the article. I said “the perceived tackiness”. I don’t see either how a relic can warrant a “ROFL”.
Doug and Thom,
Father Z was not “ROFL” about the saint or the fact that a piece of cloth touched the long deceased saint and is therefore a 3rd class relic.
The piece of cloth is a contemporary stole that was purchased from a mail order place by someone who didn’t know it was Episcopalian ( as I understand the story). It had to be removed from the body because Cardinal Rigalli (sp.?) and others saw it and deemed it inappropriate.
I think it was just around somewhere and not displayed for that reason. So, you’ve got something “inappropriate” that was a careless and insensitive choice by someone who placed it on the body for a few years; what to do with it? Give it to the Pope, someone who is a stickler for appropriate liturgical garb and let him deal with it.
I think that is the “ROTF” aspect. If you read the thread, I don’t see how you could not see that. Really, some of you are very unfair, with all due respect.
Dudley, if that is the true story, then that is definitely tacky.
In true Aussie style, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave the Pontiff a case of grog!
Jokes aside, it is good Australian wine. I am sure Bene will put it to good use.
Dudley, I think you read too much into my post. I like Fr. Z’s blog. Here’s what I think. An Episcopalian stole is bad taste. It shouldn’t have been placed on the saint’s body. That said, it is still a third class relic, and as such is an object of veneration.
Obama has a history of giving tacky gifts. If one does not believe in relics, or were it not a relic, then an Episcopalian stole would certainly be yet another tacky gift.
But a third class relic, on the other hand, is an object of veneration. This is the case even if the object used displayed poor taste.
I doubt Obama has any sort of belief in relics. He’s a closet communist who is unfit for office. But that doesn’t change the fact that a relic is a relic. So I’m not going to ROFL over a relic. Quite frankly, the sooner it leave’s Obama’s possession the better.
I still think this blog entry says more about the person from whom it originated than Fr. Z. Fair enough?
Fr. Z’s blog is a problem.
Ben, Sorry about that comment. I wasn’t clear. There is such a thing as a lucifer match that is ignited by friction, thus, I made the statement you refer to. However, attacks that he made on his blog were certainly not motivated by love and neither was my statement toward him. Time for confession.
Dudley,
Your defense of Fr. Z’s sacrilege falls short. And while we all should find sacrilege offensive, and by a priest even more offensive, I am particular shocked that it would be done seemingly to further someone’s dislike of a political figure.
An Episcopalian stole? Please. We have not started baptizing corporations have we? The stole was manufactured by a church supplies vendor that markets to Catholics and liturgical Protestants.
The stole was blessed according to the prescribed rites of the Roman Catholic Church (making it a Roman Catholic stole, I would think) and placed on the body of Bishop Neumann prior to his canonization, following the pious practice of dressing the earthly remains of revered persons in the vestments of their office or the habit of their order.
Years later, with the increased interest in Bishop Neumann, it was thought best to vest him according to the style of episcopal vestments during the time he was living. The stole was removed from the body and given to his order, certified as a third class relic.
What is really sick is that Fr. Z is usually the first to attack any possible liturgical irregularity or downgrading of any traditional pious custom. It seems all of that goes out the window if there is a opportunity to attack the President.
Shameful. Simply shameful.
Kurt,
I wasn’t defending sacrilege and never would.
If you read the thread, there is nothing sacrilegious in the observations (most by posters other than Father Z) made about the stole: that it was an inappropriate choice to be placed on St. J.N. in the first place (suggesting liturgical ignorance or insensitivity, which is right up Father Z’s alley), that Cardinal Rigali saw the body, noticed the “inappropriate” stole and had to correct the error clerical caretakers charged with overseeing the body’s veneration had made 9one would think they would have been more careful), and that, nevertheless, the claim was made (by one of the caretakers, as I recall)that the stole had “belonged” to St. J.N. when it hadn’t.
Might you think Father Z is guilty of sacriliege because you disagree with him on many other matters?
Your summary of the situation hardly varies from what I wrote except you see noting what happened as “sacrilege”.
By the way, the canonization was in 1977 and there was plenty of interest in him then and since. The stole in question was placed on him in 1989.
What happened in 2007 is that Cardinal Rigali saw the body.
Dudley –
Calling a liturgical garment blessed by the Roman Catholic Church a “necktie” or denying reverence to it is sacrilege.
Let’s be clear, the stole in question is a holy object and a certified relic. It was associated with St. John Neumann for almost two decades. The only thing “inappropriate” about the stole is that it was ahistorical. It was a stole in the style used today in the Roman Catholic Church and not in the style popular in the time of Bishop Neumann.
That doesn’t lessen it holiness an iota.
I can find you a lot of Catholic art with ahistorical (blond, blue eyed) depictions of Christ. Let Fr. Z carry out a crusade against these.
I repeat. Shameful. Absolutely Shameful.