White outfit, wrong occasion, Cherie (Cherie Blair didn't wear black to meet the Pope)

UK Telegraph ^ | 4/29/06 | Malcolm Moore and Jonathan Petre

[wagglebee]

Cherie Blair provoked surprise in the Vatican and the ire of a Roman Catholic MP yesterday by wearing all-white to meet the Pope, a privilege normally reserved for Catholic Queens.

The Vatican convention is that females meeting the Pontiff should wear black, preferably with a black veil, or mantilla.

	Cherie Blair with Pope Benedict

When the Queen met Pope John Paul II six years ago, she observed the code meticulously.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, wore black, but omitted the veil.

By contrast, Mrs Blair, a staunch Catholic, chose to exercise the "privilege du blanc", usually granted only to the wives of Catholic monarchs.

Her breach of the protocol was surprising, since she has kept closely to the Church's dress code in the past.

Mrs Blair may not have worn a hat to the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales but she mourned the passing of John Paul II in a mantilla.

Technically, only three women should wear white in the presence of the Pope.

They are Queen Sofia of Spain, Queen Paola of Belgium and Josephine Charlotte, the wife of Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg. Queen Sofia exercised her privilege in a meeting with the previous Pope in 2003.

Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister and a convert to Catholicism, was scathing about Mrs Blair.

"Even the Queen wore black to meet the Pope," she said. "This shows that she has a very grand idea of herself.

"She is a Catholic. She knows what the tradition is when meeting the Pope.

"She obviously thinks she is the first lady.

"My message to her is 'You are not a Catholic Queen, my dear, and you never will be.' "

Mrs Blair was in Rome for a Church-organised conference entitled "Vanishing Youth? Solidarity with Children and Young People in an Age of Turbulence".

She was invited as an expert and remained afterwards for a private meeting with the Pope. A spokesman for the Vatican declined to reveal what they had discussed.

[Barnacle]

Hey havoc. Have you ever worn your white outfit to the wrong occasion?

LOL

[fatima]

Why was it a blunder I like white.

[Barnacle]

Gee, I hope the pope didn't care. Tradition may be important but isn't worth belittling someone over.

Good point. You know, I think Pope Benedict has bigger issues on his mind. This is the petty stuff of tabloids.

[marsh_of_mists]

I can understand why many, if not most, non-Catholic people who read about this sort of thing think it's all meaningless vanity and frippery and pretension: "They're upset over what???!!" This is particularly true of protestant: one of the biggest differences Protestants have with Catholics is their dislike of Catholic pomp and ceremony. Protestantism has always been about the idea that the Catholic Church has piled on mountains of worthless ritual and ceremony that, at best, distracts from the "root message" of Christianity and, at worst, is utilized by the powerful Churchmen and aristocrats to entertain the ignorant masses as they oppress them and pick their pockets clean. Protestantism wants to "get back to the basics" of Jesus's teachings, which, of course, are present, in their entirety, in the Bible and only the Bible.

Nowhere is this suspicion of ceremony stronger then in the United States, with its roots in extreme Puritan Protestantism. And the USA went even farther eventually, rejecting not only ceremonial elitism in religion, but also in government, rejecting the king and founding a nation "ruled by the people". The very heart of the American mentality despises most pomp and protocol--and class-based protocol in particular--as pretenious, vain, and even oppressive. The amount of dismissive criticism levelled by so many American Protestant freepers at the notion that anyone anywhere could even give a second thought to what color Cherie Blair wear's meeting the Pope is, therefore, not at all surprising.

But, to the Catholic mind, this sort of attention to pomp and ceremony isn't vanity at all, but rather grows out of a desire for our society to reflect the majesty, grandeur, and beauty of God and God's creation. The Catholic mentality sees beauty and grandeur, like love and truth, is inherently godly and, hence, the Catholic society should aspire to be as beautiful and grand as possible. It is one way to give proper reverence to God, who created the world to be majestic and beautiful: should not our human society attempt to mirror, as close as possible, his Creation?

We bow to popes and kings not because, as men, they are better then us in the sight of God, but out of respect for dignity and importance that the roles they inhabit have to the Church and to the Catholic state and society built upon it. As all of society should be sanctified to God, so should society be beautiful, since beauty comes of God. The pomp and the ceremony also heighten the mystique and majesty of the Church in the eyes of the people, and therefore increase their reverence to the holiness of the Church. This all requires a strict obedience to traditional protocol, ritual, and aesthetic, which can seem vain at times, but, in the end, is worth it for the beautification it gives to the Church and to the world, which in turn encourages the developement of virtue in the hearts of the people.

It can, indeed, be dangerous, in the wicked characters can, and have, used similar pomp and ceremony to entice the people, and then stab them in the back. Most dictators, for example, love it. However, what is more dangerous is the developement of a society bereft of ritual, mystique, aesthetic, traditional custom, and etiquette, in the name that such are vain and district from more important things, for such a society will be bereft of beauty, and a society without beauty would be so unlivable that no one will care about the important things either. If you don't believe me, look no further then the cultural vacuum of modern European civilization. It disgarded most of its pomp and ceremony; such things were mere trapping, important, pretentious, they said. Now, without them, no one seems to want to bother to maintain European civilization, do they?

[marsh_of_mists]

Is not the Church great enough to appear both "impressive" to "men", while still preaching the Word of Christ? Why does one negate the other. The Word is impressive, shouldn't Church who bears it also be impressive?

As for the scandals, they are being cleaned up and why does their existance negate any criticism regarding Cherie Blair's breach of protocol?

[marsh_of_mists]

I don't think anyone here is meaning to belittle her. That MP might have been belittling her with that "does she think she's a Catholic Queen" comment, but the MP's a political opponent trying to score cheap point. That may be "petty", which is a word I've seen used on this thread about two dozen times. But correcting a faux pas in regards to etiquette between great dignitaries is in no way petty, in and of itself.

[marsh_of_mists]

"...since white is often associated with purity in Christianity, and the color black is often symbolic of sin or death, i think this privilege speaks for itself."

No. Only Catholic QUEENS get this privilege. Catholic noblewomen, nuns, and the Pope's own mother don't. Surely the Church doesn't mean to associate all those women with "sin and death". Catholic queens get the privilege simply because they are queens in the Church. Members of the Church get certain "privileges" for it, most importantly access to the sacraments, which, by the way, is not limited only to queens.

[marsh_of_mists]

Calling everyone a "bigot" isn't going to encourage them to see your side of the arguement. She just relaid her unpleasant, personal experience; she wasn't saying anything bigoted.

I will say that a "personal relationship" with Christ is an important thing in Catholic Christianity, perhaps the most important thing. However, it is also important for the community as a whole to have a "relationship" with him, which is to say that the community, on all levels, should be permeated with the graces of the Holy Spirit and reflect the virtue, glory, and beauty of the Lord. That side of Christianity should not negate a "personal relationship" with God, nor should the latter negate the former.

[marsh_of_mists]

Catholics are expected to have a private, prayerful relationship with God. We are expected to pray throughout the day, to be well-catechized in the gospel as well as Church tradition and doctrine. Indeed, in a truly traditional and reverent Catholic community, all aspects of the society are structured around worship of God, from the Liturgy of the Hours, giving us room to pray at various times of the day, to small shrines and worship spaces that should, ideally, be kept in the home, to, of course, restrictions in how we dress (like all women but Catholic queens wearing black to meet the pope). This requires a lot of rules, of course, but the rules are there to encourage grace, not kill it.

[Ladysmith]

I've been saved by Christ and I'm supposed to care what you think of me?

I do want to thank you for something, though. Your personally abusive nature makes me praise God more than ever for sending my way my two friends who helped me find Him and His forgiveness. I expected the kind of condemnation and rejection you show and was stunned to receive compassion and understanding and a boatload of patience.

If you're a fair representation of the people in the Catholic Church, then things haven't changed since I was a kid.

On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

[verity]

"re thread number 172...You followed through this thread for quite sometime and so it appears that you 'care about this crap' also."

Allow me to explain something to you. My post #172 was a response to post #1. I did not read beyond that post.

Some cheese would certainly go well with your whine, but do not let the moose bite you in the butt.

[LIConFem]

"...and the Roman Catholic Church concerns itself too much with appearances and ceremony and too little with preaching the Gospel."

As someone who was raised Roman Catholic, I gotta agree with you there.

[Churchillspirit]

I'd take it the other way around - it was the media who had no class.

Agreed, but then no one expects the media to have class.

The wife of the Prime Minister of the UK should try to show some, whether at the Vatican or on the doorstep of No 10.

[SoothingDave]

How many of those here disdaining the very idea of decorum and protocol believe Cindy Sheehan should have been allowed to attend the State of the Union address wearing a protest T-shirt?

How many of them expect to attend the finest restaurant in town wearing flip-flops and a tank top?

How many petition their children's schools to dispense with the silliness of having the students wear gowns and square hats upon graduation?

How many, invited to the White House for a state dinner would eschew renting a tux?

Is decorum always bad, or only when the Pope is involved?

SD

[NeoCaveman]

Is decorum always bad, or only when the Pope is involved?

you already know the answer. This thread is like red meat to the bigots.

[TradicalRC]

She just relaid her unpleasant, personal experience; she wasn't saying anything bigoted.

More like relating her dirty laundry to FR, family dynamics always revolve around those who believe that they deserve more respect. Some of us deal with it better than others.

[TradicalRC]

Here's the real scandal.

[drhogan]

"Mrs Blair, a staunch Catholic, chose to exercise the "privilege du blanc", usually granted only to the wives of Catholic monarchs."
_______________________________________
i guess it is the king, not the queen, who has to be Catholic.
it still sounds like the discrimination is being made partly on the basis of religion (and partly on the basis of royalty, and partly on the basis of sex).
as you interpret this "privilege", what would the wife of a Protestant or Muslim king be allowed to wear? i think the answer is black.

[drhogan]

decorum seems reasonable to me.
but i wonder if US protocol allows special privileges to the wives of monarchs of specific religions.
if US protocol specifies color coding for specific religions (or classes or sexes), i would say that the protocol is wrong (in the moral sense of the term).

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I think the Pope has every right to insist on a black dress for Mrs. Blair. Afterall, I'd insist he remove his silly pointy hat in my house. :-)

Havor how ya doin?