Yuku free message boards

Well, well, I'm amazed at the conservative instincts that are emerging from some of our contributors. In my view 21st century professional women -- whether they are professional housekeepers or lawyers -- have no need to be covered from head to ankle (in a skirt, I suppose, because I shudder to think what you would say about pant suits) just because they work for the Church or the Pope. There's a huge difference between beach wear such as the inappropriate tank tops, shorts and flip flops worn by some Eucharistic ministers in my parish -- which I believe I am right to condemn -- and the stylish skirt, hose and heels worn by the Pope's housekeeper. That's the kind of outfit worn by the professional women (who have any fashion sense) that I know.

I'm sorry, Unicorn, but in my judgment the suits you've posted are downright dowdy and impossible for most women to wear. Far from being dignified, women who aren't pencil thin and 6 feet tall look overwhelmed and more than slightly ridiculous in those kinds of outfits. Instead of wearing a suit, the suit is wearing you! I wouldn't be caught dead wearing one like them to court or to any formal church event.

I agree that going to church requires modest dress, but I see nothing immodest in what the housekeeper is wearing. Why is a shoe with a peep toe and a bow less appropriate than one with a slingback or an ankle strap? It's not as if the housekeeper is strutting around in this Versace:



And what's so bad about knees? Perhaps it's because I grew up when micro miniskirts were the vogue, but I can't see why ladies have to cover their knees without being accused of being undignified. Here's an interesting test: who is the more dignified, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Lipni or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?


Photo: Reuters

I know which one I would pick.

Incidentally, apparently no one in the papal household thinks the household ladies are not properly dressed, otherwise I'm sure that something would be said about toning it down. It is my impression that those working in the Apostolic Palace are not exactly shy about engaging in "fraternal (or in this case sororal) correction" if called for. As for the timing of the ladies' arrival and departure at papal events, wouldn't that be something that's determined by protocol? Or do they get to march in whenever and wherever they want?

When it comes to improper comments about someone's "hotness" or sexual attractiveness, how a person dresses does not do that much to suppress such comments. Just a few days ago I deleted a new thread by a new contributor who called the Pope one of the sexiest men around or something to that effect. This forum used to have contributions from those who openly fantasized about intimacies with il Papa and Msgr. Georg Gaenswein. Drooling posts about Archbishops Piero Marini and Renato Boccardo are still on some thread somewhere. An entire forum in Italian and English has threads that seem to be dedicated to little more than leering at a man who, I would say, is dressed with the maximum of modesty and comports himself with unparalleled dignity. Sexual attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder and even a fully habited nun can attract wolf whistles by those so inclined.

I also note that there seems to be a concession that in the eyes of the world the Pope is more than just a simple pastoral worker in the vineyard of the Lord, regardless of how often he expresses himself so humbly. The VIP or royal treatment given to him and to his brother is very far indeed from suggesting pastoral simplicity of any kind. I can imagine a security reason for wanting to whisk Monsignor Ratzinger through Roman traffic (fear of kidnapping, I guess), but I'm baffled at why he should be given free airline tickets. As a charitable gesture I could understand his former students or a wealthy patron of the Domspatzen footing the bill, but why would a for-profit airline do such a thing? And a more difficult question is why would it be accepted? I can understand that people might want to give the VIP treatment to a prince of the church such as Cardinal Ratzinger was as prefect, but that he accepted it makes me uneasy. Yes, he was a busy man, but many people who have to wait around in customs have important jobs too, and they're not by profession simple humble workers in God's vineyard, so to speak. Whatever happened to the concept of the first being the last?

I recall vividly sitting behing a priest from Peru at the cardinals' consistory in 2006, who stared open mouthed at the splendor of vestments on display by the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, even the priests who distributed communion. His parish of thousands of souls was too poor to afford more than one set of vestments in each required liturgical color. He had one alb that he wore every day, which he had left at home for his substitute. Because he was alb-less he could not concelebrate. He had been sent to Rome by his bishop to study, and said Mass in his rooms alone so that his lack of proper vestments would not cause a problem. That's more like pastoral simplicity to me. Now, neither the Peruvian priest nor I begrudged the Pope and the hierarchy their splendor because it's not for them but for the Lord. But I don't see how having someone else carry your luggage is somehow doing homage to God. A bear carrying your pack, maybe yes, but someone who's acting like a servant? At least that's what I understand Benodette's post to say, and not that Cardinal Ratzinger habitually paid luggage carriers to handle his bags. That would be fine, because those men are doing their jobs and travelers should support the local economy.

One quick question: why is a Papal celebration so different from any other earthly function that standards that differ from what is proper and dignified for government officers of the highest rank are inappropriate? Would either Minister Lipni or Secretary Rice be turned away from an audience with the Queen in what they are wearing in the picture? Would Archbishop Harvey frown in disapproval and suggest that next time they should show up more 'properly' dressed? There is a rule that women should wear black and cover their hair when meeting the Pope, but if you've checked many of the pictures of dignitaries with Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II, you'll see that the rule is broken as often as it is observed. Besides, I thought that the "pastoral" approach was meant to make people feel that the Pope is just a sweet kind gentleman who puts everyone at ease, makes them comfortable and welcomed? Well, women are certainly going to be made to feel terribly awkward and awfully constrained if they have to modify their wardrobes just to set foot in the Apostolic Palace, let alone work there. I, for example, would have to go buy things that I'd probably wear only once or have to spend money to have altered. And just who are you trying to protect from what by requiring all this fusty covering up? Let's have an aggiornamento on how women are treated by the Vatican and not behave as if their presence is an occasion of sin.

Besides, let me disabuse you a bit about Church governance: it is very much an enormous, powerful corporation that does business in a corporate way. It has massive real estate holdings valued in the billions of dollars (besides the ones that are priceless treasures of art and culture); it manages financial portfolios in all sorts of monetary denominations that consist of endowments, pension funds, bonds and other financial investments; it engages in banking, lending and stock purchasing; it supervises hundreds of thousands of personnel world wide; it operates or has oversight of all sorts of social institutions such as hospitals, universities, schools, orphanages, clinics, homes for the elderly and infirm; it has a world wide communications network; and, of course, it also deals with the spiritual and moral lives of a billion Catholics. I'm pretty sure that the Apostolic Palace and the Vatican offices are not places of hushed reverence where all everyone does is say the rosary and meditate upon the Holy Father's latest homily all day. People work in exactly the same way that the staff of any world wide organization or government work. Judging by what I know of what goes on in a large chancery office, there's nothing particularly elevated or lofty or even religious about the vast amount of work done. Our current building doesn't even have a chapel anymore, for instance. So the notion that this work or these surroundings having greater "dignity" or "formality" than, say, the White House or the headquarters of General Motors or an international law firm strikes me as unlikely.

As to the free tickets: Lufthansa is a public corporation. Corporate gift-giving comes with strings attached. Gifts to private individuals could well be problematic. A Cardinal is not an official charity and his brother even less so. There is an ethical question on both sides. This is not an issue of being "nice" to someone famous and being gracious in return. The Church and its clergy must be beyond reproach when it comes to questions about money -- just as you are advocating moral stringency in dress I'm advocating moral stringency in financial matters. Unfortunately, I fear that the next big Church scandal is going to be about major financial malfeasance. The Holy See has been there before, with the Banco Ambrosiano affair.

I didn't mean to say there was something wrong with being a servant. I meant to suggest that there was something peculiar about claiming that someone is just a servant of the servants of God when that person regularly accepts the services of people who act like servants. It's just a wee bit too convenient to excuse accepting all sorts of exceptional privileges by saying that accepting them makes the giver feel good. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the idea that the person accepting the service really is a VIP of the highest order who is entitled to such privileges and is not just a regular humble cleric. Just by happenstance, I was checking the Vatican City State's website for something and came across this piece of information:

Vatican City State is governed as an absolute monarchy. The Head of State is the Pope who holds full legislative, executive and judicial powers. During a sede vacante (between the death of a Pope and the election of his successor), these powers are exercised by the College of Cardinals. The Pope is elected by the Cardinals who are under eighty years of age. He becomes Sovereign of Vatican City State the moment he accepts his election as Pope.

I swear I didn't hack the site!

From Times Online:

Pope Benedict XVI , 81, has said he is looking forward to a "peaceful old age" with "serenity and humility" as he enters ''the last phase'' of his life.

The Pope made his remarks at a ceremony making Father Georg Ratzinger, his brother, who is three years older, an honorary citizen of Castel Gandolfo, the papal summer residence in a hilltop town above Lake Albano south of Rome.

''We have arrived at the last stage of our lives, at old age, and the days left to live grow progressively fewer,'' the pontiff observed. ''But even at this stage my brother helps me to accept the weight of each day with serenity, humility and courage. For this I thank him".

He added: ''From the beginning of my life my brother has always been not only a companion for me but a trustworthy guide, a point of reference with the clarity and determination of his decisions. He showed me the road to take, even in difficult situations,'' he added.

* * *

Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)