Hello Everyone,
Wow I actually have the motivation to blog on something! Skimming my
blogposts for the usual morning read, I found a new entry by a blogger Vox
Cantoris on an editor of the Catholic Register, a diocesan newspaper for the
Archdiocese of Toronto. It seems like a case of hypocrisy or being two-faced. I
decided to look at this and I'll give a take on it.
So first, what is the inflammatory posting that started this whole mess?
It comes from Michael Swan's Facebook page. He made it public so anyone can
view this for now (till he chooses to delete his posting if he wants to cover
his tracks). Here's the post:
|
|
|
The
item of interest is the Friday posting with the NCR article on Veiling
|
The text in the posting is as follows: "It's not surprising that
traditional Catholics who prefer their nuns in habits and priests in cassocks
would want to get in on the dress-up fun. And I understand the power of a
nonverbal message sent through clothing. It's why police officers wear
uniforms, gang members wear colors and Packer fans wear cheeseheads."
"... But some of these enthusiastic would-be veil wearers don't
seem to see the contradiction in "getting up the courage" to wear a
veil as an in-your-face expression of submission and humility. A few even noted
how great a veil is for "blocking out distractions" at Mass, as if
fellow worshipers are an annoyance during private me-and-God time ....``
``.... Even wedding veils, part of the princess bridal attire that
many American girls dream of, have their roots in patriarchy. In an arranged
marriage, a husband unveiled his wife to symbolize his taking possession of his
wife (from her father), and the veil became a symbol of virginity and purity,
as well as submission to her new spouse ....``
``.... Unfortunately, most traditionalists calling for a return to
veil wearing believe in complementarity, that women and men's differences
complement one another. This justifies separate roles, usually men as leaders
and women as followers, thus the emphasis on submission, humility and modesty
as virtues for women.``
So, after a full read of the original article, I can only conclude that
the author takes a very pessimistic and feminist slant towards veiling, and
even mocks valid and POSITIVE reasons for veiling. And not everybody on that
site that is commenting is in agreement with her. In fact they are fighting
back at the liberalism of that paper. If you read Fr. Z`s blog, you`ll know the
NCReporter is also called `the fishwrap` as it stinks with liberal heterodoxy
with known liberals on staff as John Allen Jr. and Sr. Joan Chittister (a
pantsuit nun) that has been covered extensively by Fr. Z.
So having sought the original source, I turn my attention to the first
to bark on the bandwagon, TH2. While I have left a positive comment on that
article as a nice "silver lining," I cannot advocate this blogger as
I find him critical to the point of being a nusiance, even for this young Trad.
To me, constantly reading TH2's posts will put one in a spirit of anti-charity
and a hate of all things Vatican II. I used to be like that and I don't want to
go back there. Also I dislike his literary style of his posts, it comes off
like a tabloid rag vs. well informed analysis, e.g. Fr. Zuhlsdorf.
What is most useful in analysis is this paragraph:
".... What is the purpose of
doing that - especially that particular quotation - except to send a message of
his dislike for the return to reverent liturgy and its concomitants? Why share
a link to an article, minus a qualifier, where we find phrases like "veiled
patriarchy", "get in on the dress-up fun",
"enthusiastic would-be veil wearers", "an
in-your-face expression of submission", unless he agrees. That's fine,
and he's certainly free to post whatever preference on FB. Contrarily, I see
mantillas at Mass as a most excellent thing. It confers that distinctive
Catholic dignity and mystery to a woman. Also, it is symbolic of that extra and
special amount of privacy which is the natural right of a woman...."
TH2
does have a point. If you didn't support that position, or you are trying to
uphold a "standard" of sorts, you don't be a hypocrite and post this
stuff for anyone and everyone to see. At the very least if Michael Swan wants
to lead a "double life", then he should keep his Facebook Private and
only his liberal friends will see his stuff online, but at least professionally
he can have some sort of decorum and uphold the standards of his Diocesan
newspaper. Now, if Michael Swan does not care and it doesn't matter to him what
he posts in the paper, than well at least he's being honest about his Church
political stance.
Then I look to Vox's posting to see his commentary. He's actually got it
right in this occasion. This is the simplest way to say what should be done in
this matter:
"I am not going to
debate here the merits of a woman veiling. It was up until the new Code of
Canon Law necessary, it is now not required. However, should a woman veil
herself that is her choice and it is not my business, nor is it Mr. Swan's
business to insult any woman for doing so. How you or I express our piety and spirituality
within the context of our faith is between the individual and our loving
God."
Why do I agree when clearly he isn't the nicest kid
on the block in the Catholic Blogosphere (with obvious enemies?) Well here's
why: (1) He states the Church's written documentation on it, or rather the
change in the Church's laws on this matter. It's always necessary with Church
matters to reference the official documents of the Magisterium and Church Law
on any matter first. (2) Exactly as said, it is a woman's choice to veil now
that it is not mandated by Church law. And it is not right for anyone, clergy
or layman, to mock another's validly acceptable and not canonically or
liturgically banned practices. To do so is just as harmful as a traditional
Catholic calling a Charismatic Catholic a heretic because they approach prayer
differently. I am not endorsing Charismatic Catholicism, but hey it is validly
accepted in the Church and has not been condemmned by any Pontifical council or
the Popes yet, so fine, let it be. My take: If it isn't banned by the
Catechism, Canon Law, the Magisterium or the Popes, it's ok to do, though valid
enlightened discussion for or against the practice should be allowed. It's a
"t"radition, not TRADITION. And if it`s that freaky, only a small
subset of the population will love it, most will avoid or hate it. (3) There
are bigger things to threaten clergy and laypeople who don't tow the line
about, like that pedophile that Vox was talking about in Ottawa`s St.
Joseph who has magically disappeared from their registry.
Now, look, if you want to write a letter like Vox
did, be my guest. However this is not worth my time, in my opinion, to harp
over. In addition, Swan posted the article in line with his liberal stance on
his personal Facebook page, where Facebook is a public domain. If he did that
in the Register, that's a different kettle of fish that possibly Cardinal
Collins could step into mediate and readers can blast his ass on.
My summary two cents: Michael Swan shouldn't be a
hypocrite. Either he goes out guns ablazing and makes his stance known in the
Register, or he should keep his personal sentiments that are offensive to
others of the Catholic community to himself on his Facebook page IN PRIVATE
STATUS NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEWING, and be professional as editor in chief of
the Catholic Register. In fact, some people have two Facebook profiles attached
to their account: One that acts like a professional resume/portfolio/business
card etc. that is public and for managers to see as the new trend is for
management to scan potential job applicants' social networks; the second is
their personal one for friends and family and contains more of their
"racier" or "private" photos, videos, posts, etc. Perhaps
he should do the same.
YCRCM.
