Yuku free message boards

As for the seating arrangement for the household staff, today's First Reading seems a neat counter-weight to Unicorn's quotation from Thomas a Kempis:

My brothers and sisters, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if a man with gold rings and fine clothes comes into your assembly, and a poor person with shabby clothes also comes in, and you pay attention to the one with fine clothes and say, "Sit here, please," while you say to the poor one , "Stand there," or "Sit at my feet," have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs? . . . ."

Letter of St. James, 2:1-9.

Rcesq, I completely agree with the good saint. However, I think some clarification is necessary here.

I have already said what I think about the fact that the Memores Domini ladies are seated where they are seated. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that they should not attend events where the Pope is present. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that the Pope should not ask them to sit where they are seated, if we are to presume that he was actually the one who instructed them to sit in such seats -- that, of course, is most definitely his privilege, and it is most definitely very gracious of him to have done so, if he did; would that every working man or woman could have such a beatific and benevolent boss, and as far as I'm concerned, he is the kind of boss I have always dreamed I could work for.

It may be recalled, however, that what I did say is that if I had been one of them, I would voluntarily say to Il Papa that I will be quite alright sitting "in the wings", so to speak, out of my own sense of deference to him as my superior. Therefore, my opinion has everything to do with what I hope to see from them in terms of their response to him, and nothing to do with whether he should bring them along to a public event and have them sit where they are seated. When I was asked why I said that I would have preferred to remain in the background, had it been up to me, I gave examples from my own experience - regrettably, it seems that my policy on maintaining a degree of formality and deference between an employee and an employer, to say nothing of my belief that voluntarily keeping a low profile, and my observance of the fact that there has always been a custom in many countries that staffmembers do not sit in the same area as their bosses, is considered as akin to bigotry.

So, what are we to do about this? Because whether some quarters like it or not, it is an accepted practice, even in the very admirably democratic United States, that during official functions, there is a place where the bosses sit, and there is a place where the staff sit, and it has absolutely nothing to do with either bigotry or discrimination, and everything to do with the simple observance of the rules of decorum in an organization. There are also courtesies and certain acts of deference that we pay to our bosses, out of respect for the position they hold, just as there are courtesies that bosses extend to their subordinates. Are those of us who observe them to be considered as behind the times, or supportive of a discriminatory mindset? What are we to make of the Popes who did not bring their household staff to concerts and Papal events, or who did not invite them to sit close to the Papal presence at official functions, but nevertheless treated them with the utmost kindness, respect and consideration every single day of their service in the Papal Apartments? Are they to be considered as less than gracious in comparison to Benedict XVI?

Sorry, I really think the strict separation of employees and employers at all times is a relict from the past.

…

Protocoll? What's the use of protocoll if it can't be broken, once in a while.

…
Who's the more human(e) person? The permamently strict and rule abiding one, or the more flexible, spontanious one?

Ob2, I appreciate the fact that you and I belong to different cultures, and as such, it is apparent that you and I will have differing opinions on the need for formality in the employer-employee relationship. Please understand, however, that it is not exactly pleasant to hear that something that is considered as the norm in one's country is considered as bigotry in another. If we are to respect and understand our cultural differences, then it would help to avoid such labels.

I must also ask that it be recalled that in some cultures, the relationship between an employee and an employer is still governed by certain rules, and for those rules to be ignored is considered a discourtesy; certainly that is the case in some Asian countries, and it has everything to do with what we deem to be standards of propriety. So, have a care when you say that the separation of employees and employers is a "relic from the past".

You have said that "Mons. Clemens who certainly is part of his family in every way, but, who very wisely opts to keep an extremely low profile". Now, I am in a quandary. Why is it now very wise for Mons. Clemens, who as everyone knows is very close to the Pope and is "part of his family", to keep a low profile, but it is not alright for me to say that I would keep a low profile if I were a member of the Papal household staff and that I think that the staff should keep a low profile altogether?

Let me be clear - I think that it is utterly wonderful that the Pope has a very happy relationship with his household staff, indeed, with all the household staff who have served him during his entire career in the Church. That is something I wish every subordinate could enjoy with his or her superior. I had a boss whose wife treated the staff as "minions", in every negative sense of the word, so believe me, I know the difference between proper deference to a superior and outright discrimination. That being said, the kindness and consideration of a superior are, at least to my mind, all the more reason for his staff to accord him deference, and to be properly discreet, in public. You may not agree with this, but I hope you will respect it.

Now, as to protocol. Some people may not like it, but I trust you will appreciate that at least insofar as international diplomacy is concerned, and certainly in some multinational corporate environments, protocol is still something of a concern, and a breach of protocol will have consequences - not all of which will be pleasant. You may not agree with me in this issue, but that does not mean that there are others out there who are reading this who may not have the same opinion. I hope, therefore, that you will take heed of such a possibility.

Insofar as abiding by rules are concerned, I agree that a degree of flexibility is always welcome. However, I trust you will understand that not everyone who wants to abide by the rules is less human - or humane - than those who advocate flexibility and spontaneity. Sometimes we just want to observe what we feel is right and proper. Time was that people called a certain Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger less humane than others, because of his very conscientious work at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.