The good sisters of America may have a whole new quality of life matter to ponder after a perusal of some photos unearthed by the troublemakers at the National Catholic Reporter of Cardinal Franc Rodé, Prefect of the Congregation for the Religious, at a March ordination of six new deacons for Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest at the institute's mother house in Gricigliano, Italy, near Florence.
The good cardinal appears decked in all his 18th (16th? 15th?) century finery. No Georgetown sweatshirts he! Thee? Rodé, of course, is the man charged by Pope Benedict to conduct the Apostolic visitation of U.S. women religious congregations. I am encouraged to learn, from John Allen's interview in the same NCR issue, of how Vincentian "simplicity and humility is still part of his spirituality."
Cardinal Rode’, gowned in red,
Disapproved of the nuns’ new threads.
“Unnatural ladies! You’re a major disgrace!”
Cried he, as he smoothed his skirt of lace.
And the nitwits at NCR are not "troublemakers", they are merely nitwits. The write-up NCR posts along with the photos is the most vacuous and pathetic flapdoodle.
Jason Berry reports this about Cardinal Rode' and this is not a cultural uniqueness.
'Rode has spoken glowingly of the Legion in speeches and sermons since Maciel’s dismissal. In 2007, according to a Legion insider, the cardinal was a guest at a Legion conference in Atlanta on family values, where Jeb Bush was keynote speaker. He said Rode went on to a Legion-paid vacation in Cancun.'
"
"
What are you talking about? This doesn't at all have to do with what I just wrote, or what the post up above is about.
Gabriel
Thanks for your sincere reply.
Blessings,
Gabriel
Gabriel, I think Ed's response to your first post is pretty telling where all of this is coming from. As you and I both know, the trads would love to see the progressives all burned at the stake and the progressives would like the Pope to publicly single out, shame and excommunicate every single trad for their sins of arrogance, greed, etc. That Rode and the LCs are both very popular and (even after Maciel's fall from grace) quite powerful is a huge annoyance for some of those in the progressive camp. Thus the unnecessary piece in the NCR and this post here. For people like Ed, the fact that Rode is popular among the LCs, would go on a LC "vacation" (those are usually called retreats, but Jason Berry, who has pursued both Rode and the LCs with the same sort of spastic, noisome zeal that Mike Walsh devoted to Opus Dei, has never let objectivity or facts get in the way of his conclusion*) is no shock. They are both of them the embodiment of all things wrong with the trad side of the Church! As far as Ed is concerned, speaking at the same event as Jeb Bush, elaborate liturgical practices and garments, conservative politics, and lavish indulgent (has anyone been to Cancun, anyway? The place is a hole.) are all part and parcel of the same thing.
*In the words of Stephen Colbert, "I prefer my opinion: facts change, but my opinion will never change."
Some would argue that we shouldn't have these vestments, or big cathedrals, etc. when there are people in poverty - I admit it IS hard to argue with that; but I feel like there must also be some place for art, beauty, etc.: I mean, otherwise, how could you justify doing ANYTHING other than charity and social justice? Should no one spend any time writing books, painting works of art, composing music, etc. so that they can use that time to feed the hungry instead? Also, with regard to big cathedrals and elaborate rituals, does it perhaps change things if we consider that (in theory, at least?) the poor and the homeless are welcome to them as well? Perhaps this is a naive and invalid point; I'm not sure. But as a Church, we do so much (and should always do more) to address all kinds of needs for those who are underprivileged - could beautiful cathedrals, rituals, etc. perhaps be addressing a need as well, the need for beauty, for an experience of aesthetic grandeur which one might otherwise never have? I'm not sure how much people who are poor, homeless, etc. ever come into the big cathedrals - if they don't usually, then it'd seem that in addition to addressing material needs, we can and should make sure they're welcome to liturgies, etc. I could be horribly wrong about all of this; I'm just sort of thinking out loud here.
On a related note, people often say that the Vatican should sell off all its art and give to the poor - but I've sometimes wondered why nobody makes the same arguments about the federal government. I.e., why isn't anyone complaining that we should get rid of the Smithsonian museums, sell everything in them, and use the money to fight poverty? Why don't we sell the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, etc.? Sarah Silvernman recently told the Pope to sell the Vatican - why don't we sell the White House and the Capitol Building?
Tell me, am I part of your aunt's church or Cardinal Rode's church?
As for Glen Beck, who is he?
This is why I sour at the divide that we have in the Church. "Progressives" are just as guilty of it too, believe it or not.
And we don't have to consult Ripley's for that, either.
Still praying for us all to be one.