If you watched the papal funeral Mass and now watch the latest, unfortunately unavoidable cable coverage of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, you have to scratch your head at the contrast, just as we had to scratch our heads at the contrast between the lives of Mother Teresa and Princess Diana when they passed away at about the same time years ago.
What I have seen thus far on the cable news coverage is a procession of absurdly dressed people--especially the female guests in ostentatious hats--playing the stereotypical part of a venal elite. How they really are I have no way of knowing. But they certainly do not look like devotees of Christian simplicity or humility.
All of which underlines the value of a papacy that has its own independent micro-state in the form of Vatican City. The lesson is clear, at least to me, when you compare the fortunes of the Church of England and of the Catholic Church: becoming a state church is deadly to Christian witness.
Christians cannot become props for a social class system. Rather, Christians must offer a parallel social structure that is subversive of the secular distinctions and snobbery that permeate secular society. Christianity says that Christ is so important that all the prestige distinctions, narcissism, and vanity to which we are naturally prone must evaporate as laughably irrelevant.
4 comments:
JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS...
Don't forget, Oswald, that the Catholic Church was the "state church" in Spain and in other European countries -- and we all know how strong the Church's witness in Spain was (cf, the Inquisition and ties to Franco, for starters).
What's sauce for the Protestants and Orthodox is sauce for the Catholics, as well.
Yes, Joseph, but the Church in Spain was a particular church, not the universal church. All that the Anglicans have is London. We have the Vatican.
I didn't see the Charles and Camilla wedding but you must admit that the clothes and hats on display at the Pope's funeral were not exactly colourless either.
J d'Hippolito, The difference of the "state church" of Catholic Spain (or Austria, or France, etc...) was that those Catholic "state churches" had someone outside their respective states to call them on the carpet over misuse of authority; the Bishop of Rome. The Anglican Church on the other hand, is not a "state church"; it is a "Church State", where the church and state are one. The monarch of the United Kingdom is the head of the church; that is head of both church and state. This makes it particularly bad when the "Church State" head marries his mistress in a Government regsiter office on a Saturday morning as if it was just another thing to do at the end of the week.
Also, your passing reference to "the inquisition" is meaningless considering that church members (some famous like St. Ignatius and St. Theresa of Jesus) were called to appear in front of them many times. One mays as well damn the entire American judicial system because of Roe Vs. Wade. In addition, some church members no doubt sided with communists working against Franco (not exactly a morally upright contrast to those working for him).
That said, I agree with you that what wedding goers were wearing to the wedding of Charles and his mistress is not of any real consequence considering that during a wedding (albeit an illicit one), celebretory clothes are expected.
Post a Comment