MahlerIsGod

I address this question to those Catholic board members: George Bush was in Italy today talking to the Pope. His wife, Laura, was there but she had on a scarf (black lace) on her head? My question is why was she wearing this. Was it deference to the Pope? Just wondering and thanks.

__________________
"But a work of art is a conscious human effort that has to do with communication. It is that or its nothing. When an accident is applauded as a work of art, when a cult grows up around the deliciousness of inadvertent beauty, we are in the presence of the greatest decadence the West has known in its history."

Yakk

Any pictures?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

ARTelevision

yes, deference to the pope - catholic women cover their heads in church for example.

__________________
create evolution

SecretMethod70

50 years ago they did. Covering of the head is no longer part of the Catholic faith and hasn't been for a decently long time. This came as part of the implicit changes from Vatican II. While I'm sure that this was indeed the reason Laura Bush did this, she was obviously ill-informed (as could be expected I suppose since they aren't Catholic). Of course, it's not like it's insulting to do so, but as far as how the Catholic Church views it, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for a person to cover their head in church, etc.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ARTelevision

Thanks for clearing that up SecretMethod. I think it wasn't quite that long ago everywhere but you are correct, sir.

__________________
create evolution

SecretMethod70

This is true, even today some still perform this act. However, that's a personal thing and not a Catholic thing. Take Mel Gibson for example - a person who's "Catholic" beliefs are very much NOT in line with much of Catholic teaching. He rejects all the changes made in Vatican II (which was around 1963, so, yes, it was more like 40 years ago, not 50), so I'm sure the people that go to the church he built probably do cover their heads.

Either way, I think the distinction between personal belief and Church belief is an important one to make.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

MSD

I'd like to take this as an opportunity to mention that Mel's outdated beliefs include a stance that The Church was wise to reconsider: that the Jewish religion as a whole is and was entirely responsible for the death of Jesus. Is it any wonder that he had no qualms about leaving in parts of his movie that were seen as blatantly anti-semitic?

SecretMethod70

Yes, he believes a lot of things the Church was wise to reconsider. One of the reasons I refuse to see "The Passion" - the less publicity his brand of "Catholicism" gets, the better. He gives people a view of Catholics that I'm very glad is now far from true, but those who aren't involved in the present day Church and/or study it don't know this. Misinformation can be a very dangerous thing.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

pan6467

I may be naive and for this I ask forgiveness, but I truly saw nothing anti-semitic in the Passion.

Nor did I see how it was this great revelation and affirmation of Christianity as practiced today (by the religious right who are the ones that as a whole went gaga over this movie.)

What I saw in the Passion was a man who held his beliefs and love of ALL mankind so strongly that he was willing to die for those beliefs and love. And as with many whom have held publicly views of love and belief in ALL men, those around him who did not understand were scared because of a loss of power over the people and sought to destroy him and his following before their power was questioned. To me it wasn't a question of what Jews or the Romans did to him, it was about those in power did to him. (And as we see with the "religious right" power and what they say does not equal the majority belief system.)

I cannot see how anyone who claims to be Christian can blame the Jewish faith as a whole or in any way for Christ's death. Christ, himself, I believe would shudder at the thought and tell us that is so far from truth and that it was distorted by those who want control and to spread fear and not what HE truly stood for.

First, it was meant to happen that he died for our sins so those who did kill him were doing so with Divine favor.

Secondly, there is corruption in ALL organized religion and those in power will do whatever it takes (even change tenets and canons of belief) to keep power.

Finally, I don't believe Christ himself would have blamed anyone for his death, but rather knew that man was not ready for his views of love and belief in mankind. He did however know that he sowed the seeds of love, kindness and compassion and helped explain them a little more and grow in man's heart a little more.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

apeman

i guess it depends if it's blaming all Jews for the death of Jesus or just some Jews for the death of Jesus

the former is wrong, the latter is not

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy