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.

[wagglebee]

Besides the President is a real world leader. The pope is merely a churchman.

The Pope is a soveriegn head of state, just as Bush is. And in addition, he is the spiritual leader of a billion Catholics throughout the world, that would qualify as a "real" world leader. All foreign policy experts are in agreement that the three people who are most responsible for the defeat of the Soviet Bloc are Reagan, Thatcher AND Pope John Paul II. So, perhaps you should at least check your facts before launching into one of your anti-Catholic diatribes.

[Campion]

But, Catholics, through philosophy, have decided that there are Mortal sins and venial sins.

1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

"Sin leading to death" == "deadly sin" == "mortal sin". Three terms for the same thing, all of them entirely Biblical.

Study to show yourself approved.

[pollyannaish]

ROFL. That photo just makes me laugh hysterically. I LOVE it.

I just half expect him to say "Hey, you...there in the hat....could you toss me my rifle?"

[Aquinasfan]

Even Jesus didn't tell His followers what colors to wear(at least it wasn't important enough to be recorded).

Do you wear your best on Sunday?

The funny thing is that the Bible doesn't record Jesus telling anyone to compile a New Testament, or even to write down His words. That was the decision of the early Church. Since that's not recorded, is it important?

As long as one dresses modestly ,that ought to be enough.Jesus was not about pomp and ceremony,and the Roman Catholic Church concerns itself too much with appearances and ceremony and too little with preaching the Gospel.

Is the Vatican or the reporter bellyaching?

[drhogan]

"I'm not sure what the big to-do is about this. It's not like they're being forced to wear yellow stars.

Once again, I believe if this was not the Pope or the Vatican, there wouldn't be an issue with most FReepers."
__________________________________________________

i think it is wrong for governments or heads of state to award "privileges" based on religion or race. i think the english laws are wrong for discriminating against non-anglicans (e.g., not allowing them, for example, to be prime minister). if the queen of england requires non-anglicans to wear different colors (than anglicans) in her presence, i think it's wrong.
in a purely religious context (e.g., during a mass or church service) i think it's up to the particular religion to write its own rules. however, this seems to be a state function rather than a religious function.
i agree that the color rules are a trivial issue, but that doesn't make them right.

[drhogan]

i agree with your point, but let's generalize it: people on both(or all)sides should treat each other with respect.

[Pelayo]

To hell with royalty!

To hell with leftist socialist pigs!

[Diva]

Thanks for posting the article, I too wondered what the infraction was, thanks for the clarification. Ma'am has come to be a title of respect for any woman who has control or authority...teachers, doctors, etc. and we don't usually think about marital status when we use it.

[Havoc]

Hey, good drill. You can read when you put your minds to it.
Now that we've established that, let's see how you overcome the primary missions. You have yet to do so.

[Havoc]

Persons like me. Ehem. "those people" in other words.. I just really don't have to argue the case.. you guys hang yourselves with your own words.

[Havoc]

Really, when was the last religious discussion I was involved in? I remember a lot of freetraitor stuff, a lot of stuff on immigration, a lot on evolution, etc.. but, apparently, this is yet another of your attempts to cast false accusations.. :)
In other words, when all else fails, you just make it up. Sounds like you're a true indoctrinate of your religion.

[Havoc]

Somewhere you thought you had a point. It seems to have vanished.

[Petronski]

He's a big time Catholic hater from way back.

[MHT]

I thought that Jackie Kennedy wore white to meet in the Pope in the early 60's. In that time, white in the summer was a sign of deep mourning (Memorial Day - Labor Day) and black was used for the rest of the year.

[Petronski]

Bravo!


I love your work here.

[Havoc]

To the Contrary, I don't wonder why people dislike me. I could rather care less if people don't like me. It has little to do with the truth of an issue. Something you still don't get. And I think I've been quite verbose on the differences between Catholics and Christians. If you were paying attention to the topic instead of worrying about my personal habits, etc, you might know what's being said.

[Havoc]

Excuse' Dave. Your set of facts differ from the discussion proffered by others early on. I responded to their remarks about the happenstance, not your latcoming 'facts'. If you wish to try and convict me on facts not in evidence till the moment you cuff me, then have at it.. it's a hollow arrest.
But thanks for clarifying. It doesn't change my opinion with regard to elitist dress codes.

[Havoc]

Really? How so?

[Havoc]

I'm sorry, it is long winded; but, it makes my points in spades. I do not give lectures. I have pursued comparative religion largely as a hobby. And I offer what I know in these forums when I have the time. As much as I do know, giving lectures probably would be a good idea. I really like the Walter Martin style of debate and lecture with Q&A.