With all the controversies and scandals in the Catholic Church, especially the kind that truly scandalize faithful, believing Catholics, i.e. rigid, fundamentalists, did we really need this distraction and drama too? The Church and the Trump White House seem full of drama these days. What a peculiar intersection!
Here's Edward Pentin's take from the National Catholic Register--the most reliable Vaticanista!
The Pontifical Council for Culture chose to collaborate with an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York because of the Met’s significance to culture and potential global outreach, but officials were unaware of the widely criticized gala that took place on Monday night.
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council, had been wanting for some time for the dicastery to focus on the relationship between fashion, art and faith, and so agreed to collaborate with the exhibition which opens May 10 and runs until October 8.
“We wanted to be involved and those behind it had good intentions,” a Vatican official told the Register. “As the Met is one of the most significant cultural institutions in the world, and our remit is to engage the world, we see it as important.”
But the Vatican was unaware of the Met Gala, and that the evening event would be used by some celebrities to dress up in a way deemed by many to be a sacrilegious mockery of the Church.
The Gala “crossed a line and was openly, brazenly disrespectful,” wrote Piers Morgan, a Catholic talk show host, of the star-studded event which included pop singer Rihanna dressed up as a provocative, sequinned pope and actress Jennifer Lopez wearing a jewel-encrusted multi-coloured cross. “By doing so, [the Met] confirmed itself as an organisation of rank double standards, because everyone knows they'd have never dared do it to Islam or Judaism.”
The Met Gala is the annual curtain-raising event for its Summer exhibit, this year called Heavenly Bodies — Fashion and the Catholic Imagination. The display will feature “fashion and medieval art from The Met collection to examine fashion’s ongoing engagement with the devotional practices and traditions of Catholicism.”
The Vatican has loaned 40 priceless items which serve as the “cornerstone” of the display, including “papal robes and accessories from the Sistine Chapel sacristy, many of which have never been seen outside the Vatican.”
The Pontifical Council’s involvement dates back to the latter half of last year. Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue, a fashion magazine, says she had the idea but struggled to attract the Vatican’s interest, sending many emails but never receiving a response.
“I’m stubborn, everyone knows that,” she told La Repubblica May 8, and so wrote handwritten letters and turned up in person. The exhibition curator, Andrew Bolton, a Catholic himself, also made several attempts, Wintour said, eventually obtaining permission from the Vatican to borrow the exhibits.
The Jesuit magazine America played a role in persuading the Vatican to take part, arranging meetings between Archbishop Paul Tighe, Secretary at the Pontifical Council for Culture, and people in charge at the Met when Archbishop Tighe happened to be visiting New York last October.
Local Church Backing
But work towards putting on the exhibition was already underway: one of the Council’s consulters, Italian fashion designer Lavinia Biagiotti, had already made inroads into organizing it with Cardinal Ravasi.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, had also already given it his backing. The support and engagement of the local Church was said to have been crucial in giving the Pontifical Council confidence to go forward with its collaboration.
Jesuit Father James Martin, America’s editor-at-large and consulter to the Vatican Secretariat for Communications, is also understood to have played a role and, along with Cardinal Dolan, attended Monday’s event.
But Council officials saw the Gala as a “stand-alone event” and took little notice of it — indeed most knew nothing about it until this year. For them, the exhibition was the main focus, and they noted that organizations such as the Sheen Cultural Center also had events connected with the exhibition planned. The Council also insists it has received no financial rewards for loaning the exhibits, although the Met may have paid for some restoration costs.
But this was not the limit of Vatican involvement: the Sistine Chapel Choir, made up mainly of boys aged 9-13, performed at the Gala for the assorted, provocatively dressed celebrities at the request of the organizers: Wintour and the Met.
“We were contacted by them after the tour we did last year in the U.S.,” said Michelangelo Nardella, the Sistine Chapel Choir’s administrator. “The official invitation came through Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, who was present at the Gala and who probably helped to take care of other aspects of the event.”
Nardella said he believes the exhibition is “exclusively” linked to the Catholic world and in particular the Vatican and the papal sacristy. “In this way, our presence fit well with the exhibition and that’s what the organizers strongly wanted,” Nardella told the Register, adding that he believed it would be “difficult for this to happen again in the future.”
He said the Choir would continue doing what it always has: performing concerts in cathedrals, or theatres, and bringing the “message of peace, ecumenism and evangelization.” After last year’s historic tour to the U.S., the Sistine Chapel Choir will be returning to American shores for a series of concerts in July (see tour dates here).
But concerning the Gala, the Vatican generally played down its significance as the work of a few provocateurs. “For those who wish to make publicity stunts, to draw the most attention, I always say it’s better to ignore them,” said one inside source, noting that these days the faith and art do not have the easy relationship they once had. “Let’s just say I’m happy the Gala is over.”
Here's Edward Pentin's take from the National Catholic Register--the most reliable Vaticanista!
Blogs | May. 9, 2018
How the Vatican Became Enmeshed in the Met Gala
The Pontifical Council for Culture
wanted the focus to be on the Met’s exhibition of fashion, Catholicism
and art rather than Monday’s Gala, viewed by many of the faithful as a
sacrilegious mockery of the Church.
The Pontifical Council for Culture chose to collaborate with an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York because of the Met’s significance to culture and potential global outreach, but officials were unaware of the widely criticized gala that took place on Monday night.
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council, had been wanting for some time for the dicastery to focus on the relationship between fashion, art and faith, and so agreed to collaborate with the exhibition which opens May 10 and runs until October 8.
“We wanted to be involved and those behind it had good intentions,” a Vatican official told the Register. “As the Met is one of the most significant cultural institutions in the world, and our remit is to engage the world, we see it as important.”
But the Vatican was unaware of the Met Gala, and that the evening event would be used by some celebrities to dress up in a way deemed by many to be a sacrilegious mockery of the Church.
The Gala “crossed a line and was openly, brazenly disrespectful,” wrote Piers Morgan, a Catholic talk show host, of the star-studded event which included pop singer Rihanna dressed up as a provocative, sequinned pope and actress Jennifer Lopez wearing a jewel-encrusted multi-coloured cross. “By doing so, [the Met] confirmed itself as an organisation of rank double standards, because everyone knows they'd have never dared do it to Islam or Judaism.”
The Met Gala is the annual curtain-raising event for its Summer exhibit, this year called Heavenly Bodies — Fashion and the Catholic Imagination. The display will feature “fashion and medieval art from The Met collection to examine fashion’s ongoing engagement with the devotional practices and traditions of Catholicism.”
The Vatican has loaned 40 priceless items which serve as the “cornerstone” of the display, including “papal robes and accessories from the Sistine Chapel sacristy, many of which have never been seen outside the Vatican.”
The Pontifical Council’s involvement dates back to the latter half of last year. Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue, a fashion magazine, says she had the idea but struggled to attract the Vatican’s interest, sending many emails but never receiving a response.
“I’m stubborn, everyone knows that,” she told La Repubblica May 8, and so wrote handwritten letters and turned up in person. The exhibition curator, Andrew Bolton, a Catholic himself, also made several attempts, Wintour said, eventually obtaining permission from the Vatican to borrow the exhibits.
The Jesuit magazine America played a role in persuading the Vatican to take part, arranging meetings between Archbishop Paul Tighe, Secretary at the Pontifical Council for Culture, and people in charge at the Met when Archbishop Tighe happened to be visiting New York last October.
Local Church Backing
But work towards putting on the exhibition was already underway: one of the Council’s consulters, Italian fashion designer Lavinia Biagiotti, had already made inroads into organizing it with Cardinal Ravasi.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, had also already given it his backing. The support and engagement of the local Church was said to have been crucial in giving the Pontifical Council confidence to go forward with its collaboration.
Jesuit Father James Martin, America’s editor-at-large and consulter to the Vatican Secretariat for Communications, is also understood to have played a role and, along with Cardinal Dolan, attended Monday’s event.
But Council officials saw the Gala as a “stand-alone event” and took little notice of it — indeed most knew nothing about it until this year. For them, the exhibition was the main focus, and they noted that organizations such as the Sheen Cultural Center also had events connected with the exhibition planned. The Council also insists it has received no financial rewards for loaning the exhibits, although the Met may have paid for some restoration costs.
But this was not the limit of Vatican involvement: the Sistine Chapel Choir, made up mainly of boys aged 9-13, performed at the Gala for the assorted, provocatively dressed celebrities at the request of the organizers: Wintour and the Met.
“We were contacted by them after the tour we did last year in the U.S.,” said Michelangelo Nardella, the Sistine Chapel Choir’s administrator. “The official invitation came through Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, who was present at the Gala and who probably helped to take care of other aspects of the event.”
Nardella said he believes the exhibition is “exclusively” linked to the Catholic world and in particular the Vatican and the papal sacristy. “In this way, our presence fit well with the exhibition and that’s what the organizers strongly wanted,” Nardella told the Register, adding that he believed it would be “difficult for this to happen again in the future.”
He said the Choir would continue doing what it always has: performing concerts in cathedrals, or theatres, and bringing the “message of peace, ecumenism and evangelization.” After last year’s historic tour to the U.S., the Sistine Chapel Choir will be returning to American shores for a series of concerts in July (see tour dates here).
But concerning the Gala, the Vatican generally played down its significance as the work of a few provocateurs. “For those who wish to make publicity stunts, to draw the most attention, I always say it’s better to ignore them,” said one inside source, noting that these days the faith and art do not have the easy relationship they once had. “Let’s just say I’m happy the Gala is over.”
32 comments:
Some lovely images of the exhibition (not the Gala) here:
https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2018/heavenly-bodies/art-and-fashion-images
And here:
https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2018/heavenly-bodies/vatican-images
"A manager must instill in his people an attitude of personal responsibility for seeing a job properly accomplished. Unfortunately, this seems to be declining, particularly in large organizations where responsibility is broadly distributed. To complaints of a job poorly done, one often hears the excuse, 'I am not responsible.' I believe that is literally correct. The man who takes such a stand in fact is not responsible; he is irresponsible."
Adm. Hyman G. Rickover 1982
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I have never been so ashamed of my Church's heirarchy
This has made front-page news over here, including the Daily Mail which is no friend of the Catholic Church but condemned the 'mockery'.
Pop culture is an American phenomenon which has been allowed to corrupt Europe for more than three-quarters of a century. No doubt there were, and still are, many Europeans who were and are happy to have been corrupted.
I never suspected that it would drag the Catholic Church down with it.
What an absolute disgrace. If the likes of Piers Morgan can be offended by it, then you are in deep trouble. Hang your heads in shame (not that Dolan knows the meaning of the word).
Message from Dolan and the folks in Rome:
We don't really care. Why should any of you care?
It is very discouraging.
Maybe the first mistake was thinking of the Chirch as a fashion. It does follow one of my pet theories about why so much Liturgical abuse is tolerated these days. The bishops are afraid of losing people and money. This is the natural result when you put your public image above your mission.
Bee here:
I guess the Pope's comments El Diablo on May 8 were a day late in warning the Catholic bishops, priests and lay people who attended or took part in the Met Gala... Not that they shouldn't have been aware of these risks before they went...
"In Santa Marta, Pope Francis warns against the devil’s “tail strikes”: he has been “defeated, condemned to death, but he knows how to seduce us. And we fools believe him”
"He’s “rabid”, he’s “dangerous”, he is a “ condemned” who has been “defeated” but right for this reason we should not have anything to do with him rather, on the contrary, we should be careful about his “tail strikes”: they can be fatal.Pope Francis in Santa Marta is peremptory: “you must never approach” the devil, “don’t dialogue” with him, do not interact nor have any kind of contact whit him. The devil has been “ condemned” , has been “ defeated”, he is chained and is about to die”, but “he is capable of carrying out massacres”."
Wonderful examples of Catholic leadership, those bishops and priests who went, and stayed once they saw what it was, don't you think?
Ei yi yi!
God bless.
Bee
Cardinal Dolan said: "I did not find the spirit of the evening to be offensive or blasphemous at all."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
New York City...what can you say? Or about a state whose governor supposedly is Catholic and yet supports "a woman's right to control her own body"? (I think most of us on this blog support a right to control one's body---but abortion represents a lack of control of one's own body). But hey, New York and California are the two largest states least friendly to traditional values (and Illinois is probably right behind---how about that, 3 states which voted handily for Clinton?!?)
What is discouraging is that people can get so worked up, almost apoplectic, about a silly fashion show.
Rome and Cardinal Dolan care very much, but not about the tangential issues that cause so much unnecessary anxiety.
"Pop culture is an American phenomenon. . . ." I don't think this is quite accurate. At any rate, as Fr. McDonald has noticed, this fashion show was predicted by Federico Fellini in his classic Roma, except his version was more tasteful.
How about this theory: Rome has seen the wealth and influence of the German church and thinks that a little easing of standards reflects modern times and gives them support of governments and people alike. I think this will go badly, as they say, when the fairweather friends lose interest. Then, Fr, Fox, those who care will have significant influence as they will be the only ones who care at all.
John Nolan,
What it really points to is that we have a large number of intellectual and spiritual lightweights in the clergy today, no doubt because of the "glorious" reforms of Vatican Disaster II.
As a Sri Lankan I feel ashamed. Are white people out to destroy the church? Have they lost the sense of sacredness?
The pictures I've seen are silly, but in no way offensive.
It's not among the 1,000 most troubling things I've seen this week.
I would much rather have the Hollywood glitterati celebrating (even in a superficial way) the
"Catholic look" than labeling all clergymen and -women as molestors.
The windswept gala...Malachi Martin was a prophet, a seer. All clergy andCatholic participant in this self defiling event is guilty of mocking Jesus and debasing our Catholic Church home. Archbishop Lefebvre also was right about the corrupting process put in high gear by V-2 his dissent was justified and is hereby vindicated.
MT,
Thanks for the laughs. Catholicism has collapsed in New York City so by all means accept Cardinal Dolan's explanation. Kind of like accepting what Cardinal O'Malley's word after he hosted a rally (funeral) for babykiller and ladykiller Teddy "Senator Oldsmobile" Kennedy in his cathedral (they should have reconsecrated the place after that desecration).
Anonymous 5:53 — Get a grip. Take a chill pill. It’s not the end of the world, literally or figuratively.
Bee here:
Mark Thomas at 4:09 PM quoted:
"Cardinal Dolan said: "I did not find the spirit of the evening to be offensive or blasphemous at all."
And Anonymous at May 9, 2018 at 4:20 PM said:
"What is discouraging is that people can get so worked up, almost apoplectic, about a silly fashion show.
Rome and Cardinal Dolan care very much, but not about the tangential issues that cause so much unnecessary anxiety."
Somehow I don't think the likes of Archbishop Fulton Sheen would have agreed with Cardinal Dolan and Anonymous. But then, you have to be completely outside such goings on to see them as scandalous and blasphemous and offensive to Our Lord and the Holy Catholic Church.
When you've already made so many comprises with the world you can't even see clearly what's wrong anymore.
It's good to know who can and who can't. Seems like Fr. McDonald can. I wonder about Fr. Anonymous though...
God bless.
Bee
There might be one bit of good news. This gayla might inspire some to desire a return to some of the older liturgical arts and put away the craft store and supply store varieties of vestments statues banners .....
Oh yes I did notice this was in New York, Liberal and progressive NY
Bee,
Well said.
Anonymous Kavanaugh, even Bee is on to your childish antics.
"...you have to be completely outside such goings on to see them as scandalous and blasphemous and offensive to Our Lord and the Holy Catholic Church."
Or you have to find anything that displeases your personally as "blasphemous and offensive." And anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition, not Catholic enough. Convenient, that.
Mountains out of molehills...
This is so disgusting, that some one from outside the west cannot even comprehend. Martyrs have given up their lives to prevent sacrilege. Leadership at the Vatican should be taken away from the decadent west.
Or, you happen to believe that 'the past is a foreign country' which negates the value of tradition, whether you choose to capitalize it or not.
Just bugger off.
First, a fact-check. It wasn't just the "gala" that was offensive. The exhibit itself included:
A leather bondage mask draped in rosary beads, a jeweled bustier with its gems strategically placed and a fuschia gown inspired by cardinals’ robes — with a neckline that left its mannequin’s breasts mostly exposed — were all part of the Catholic-themed fashion exhibit at the Met Gala, and Dolan had already gotten a sneak preview of the collection.
Source: https://pagesix.com/2018/05/07/catholic-themed-met-gala-includes-bondage-mask-with-crosses/
Now, try a thought experiment:
In many parts of the U.S., there are small but significant communities of Hindus. Hindus, like Catholics, have lots of imagery and mystery in their religion. I know only a little, and I would bet real money that most Americans know less about Hinduism than I do.
Suppose some mover-and-shaker approached the local Hindu community (or vice-versa) about presenting a display of Hindu religious imagery and regalia, juxtaposed with "reimagination" by non-Hindus of the same.
Now, I can readily imagine what sort of "transgressive" imagery could be juxtaposed with the Hindu sacred objects, but I won't even allude to what they might be, out of courtesy. But if you try, you can imagine, too. It takes zero imagination to suppose that any such display would be deeply, deeply offensive to Hindus.
Here's the thing: in my part of what coastal elites deride as "flyover country, in corn country, there is nary a Hindu to be found, I aver. But NO ONE -- NO ONE -- around here would ever consider treating the sacred things of Hinduism this way. We stoopid hicks here would know, without any deliberation, that it is rude, offensive, and just not how you treat people.
Now, I welcome -- I beg -- for a rebuttal from those who think this is no big deal. Explain how the hypothetical I described is wrong on even a single point. Have at it.
Bee here:
Anonymous at May 10, 2018 at 11:00 AM said:
"Or you have to find anything that displeases your personally as "blasphemous and offensive." "
Hmmm. So my being offended is not a legitimate cause of concern? Yet, were I to say, for instance, "I don't want THOSE PEOPLE coming to my parish...or moving next door to ME, or I think THOSE PEOPLE are ignorant and disease ridden, or dangerous, or perverts...." (you get the drift....) the offensiveness of my comments would bring the social media world down on me as, what, at the very least a bigot? Or more likely, a hater. The venom would spew from the SJW's like lava from Kilauea.
What's interesting is how me being offended, according to you, is not important and can be discounted, but certain groups being offended is a declaration of WAR!
Funny how, for the new Leftist social monitors, even one member of a select group being offended is a cause for outrage against the out group. But for a non-select group, not so much...
God bless.
Bee
P.S. I, in fact, was not at all offended by this "gala." In fact, I have come to expect this sort of thing from this crowd. I pretty much know in advance to shield myself from their behavior which is spread through the media. I don't have any curiosity about the antics of the followers of El Diablo, as the Pope recommends, and usually make an attempt not to view the images of their latest spectacle. Bread and circuses, pal.
"The past is a foreign country" does not negate Tradition, in the case of the Church, or tradition, in other cases.
First, we learn from the past. That learning is not negated. Our lives are better today because of what we have learned.
Second, we benefit from the past. For example, scientists today build on what scientists of the past have invented and discovered, making life better, in most cases, for us today.
Third, we look to the past for examples of what failed. The Founders of the United States saw the failures of a Church and State too closely aligned. They saw the decades of war that sprang from religious divisions that were advocated for or opposed by particular governments. The non-establishment clause in our Constitution is an example of learning from the failures of the past.
Fourth, understanding that different mores or customs and have existed in different times helps us to avoid misunderstanding and/or misjudging the past. There was a time when a woman appearing in pants would have caused an uproar. Today, no one is concerned that a First Lady, an actress, a corporate CEO, or any other woman wears pants. We err if we try to impose today's mores and customs on the past.
Fifth, we appreciate the past. Giotto's proto-Renaissance paintings are lovely and much admired. But his style is "of the past." It was not "wrong." Saying is it a style popular in the past does not "negate" the beauty of his work. I imagine there are some who today paint in the style of that past time.
The past is a foreign country and they do things differently there.
I get your drift. You are offended by what you find blasphemous and offensive.
Many do not share that view.
Some people, left and right, choose to be offended too readily.
Bee here:
I think I'm catching on. Only those things offensive to the Left and progressives are offensive. Things offensive to non-Leftists and non-progressives are not offensive. Because they are not offensive to the Left.
Got it.
God bless.
Bee
Anonymous @ 5:08
Your pathetic attempts at self-justification cut no ice here. What part of 'bugger off' do you not understand?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/20/in-political-correctness-debate-most-americans-think-too-many-people-are-easily-offended/
Bee:
Leftist values are the true pole of the earth. They are being incredibly generous when they deign to tolerate any other values.
Post a Comment