Cross Words 

Vatican agency op-ed slams stars like Jennifer Aniston, Cher, and Naomi 
Campbell for wearing crosses as expensive fashion items.  
 
By Bill Hoffmann and Lorena Mongelli
New York Post  

The Vatican is cross with stars who wear crucifixes as jewelry - and 
wants stunners like Jennifer Aniston, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Jennifer 
Lopez to take them off. 

The edict from the Vatican news agency Fides slammed the trio and other 
celebs for turning jewel-encrusted crosses into "the mania of the 
moment." 

It called the crucifix "sacred" and said using it as a fashion item is 
outrageous.

"Crosses glitter around the necks of television show-women, leading 
models and actresses," the agency raged in a scathing editorial.

"Jennifer Aniston, star of 'Friends' and wife of Brad Pitt, wears a 
cross of platinum and diamonds. Naomi Campbell has a collection of 
enormous, jewel-studded crosses.

"Catherine Zeta-Jones exhibits a cross of gold and diamonds. This mania 
is incomprehensible." Also blasted were Cher and Liz Hurley.

"Is it consistent with the Gospel to spend millions on a copy of the 
sacred symbol of the Christian faith," the critic asked, "and perhaps 
forget there are people all over the world who suffer and die of 
hunger?"

Cher spokeswoman Liz Rosenberg said: "Why don't you tell the pope to 
clean up his own house."

Pricey Manhattan jewelers Harry Winston and Tiffany's don't carry 
crucifixes, but they do have some big-ticket crosses.

Winston charges $6,500 to $15,000 for crosses. At Tiffany's, the 
priciest cross is $20,000.

89 responses total.

No wonder al Qaida hate us.

I  think the copyright has expired on the cross. People only run the
risk of being associated with the dominant firm that uses it as a
symbol, however. 

Prehaps would should introduce legislation to help stop the use of sacred
symbols in non-sacred ways.  Otherwise, people will begin thinking Hollywood
is representative of Our Lord And Savior.  Like, they'll begin worshipping
actors and stuff.

"Sacred symbols" is another of those evolutionary vestiges that keep
getting in the way of a sane society. Witness the suggested US flag
"protection" amendment to the Constitution. People are always letting
symbolism become more important than principles, as though without
the sumbolism we would not remember the principles. There was certainly
truth in that in pre-literate human society. I do appreciate that
physical symbols seem more "durable" than conceptual principles
(although not permanent - the symbolism of several ancient societies
are as beyond our comprehension as are their principles), but the
error is in mistaking one for the other.

The American flag stands for freedom and liberty for all.  Of course it
shouldn't be burned.

Q.: What is the respectful way to dispose of a worn-out flag?

Re #5:
Maybe so, but a law *preventing* someone from burning it would be rather
contrary to those principles, don't you think?

I am curious why the Pope would think he is more deserving of
his gold and jewel encrusted goblets and crosses than Jennifer
Aniston is of her necklace.  I wonder if Jennifer Aniston got 
any of her booty from exterminated Jews.

How anyone could raise their children to respect the Catholic
empire simply boggles my mind.

R. 6: It depends on whether the flag is American or not.
R. 7: No, because by burning an American flag, you're taking away other
people's freedo

   
    *  *  *  *  *  *
     *  *  *  *  *  
    *  *  *  *  *  *
     *  *  *  *  *  
    *  *  *  *  *  *
     *  *  *  *  *  
    *  *  *  *  *  *
     *  *  *  *  *  
    *  *  *  *  *
REAL AMERICAN FLAG-- (Some characters were stripped, so it might not turn out.

I suppose it boggles some peoples' mind to have no belief in any 
dieties at all, too. Just a thought.

Re #5: The American Flag FAQ at http://www.state.sd.us/deca/flag/faqs.htm
has the answer:

  When a Flag has served its useful purpose, it should be
  destroyed, preferably by burning. Patriotic organizations, such
  as the American Legion, often hold Flag disposal ceremonies
  on Flag Day (June 14).

That's most clearly a disrespectful way to treat a flag which has brought
freedom to all the free world.

Re #8:  It is kind of ironic to see the Pope complaining about this, given
        the massive amount of wealth the Vatican throws around.

I would think that if they wanted to show their love of Jesus, they should
be able to show it any way they please.  Would the Pope be happier if they
took off their crosses and converted to some other religion?

Also, the Pope should be worrying about his child-molesting bretheren more
than the price of a movie star's necklace.  Talk about your priorities...

Perhaps he's worried about the influence a gold encrusted cross over a
plunging neckline has on a priest.

The flag is a piece of cloth (or paper or plastic) that identifies
vessels, vehicles, and other American properties in foreign territories. 
The flag identifies a *country* that stands for principles of "freedom and
liberty". The flag itself does not. I think it is a pretty stupid protest
to burn a flag since all the flag is is a national identifier, but there
is also no harm in doing so. (Making a distinction between burning a piece
of cloth in anger vs burning it to "properly" dispose ot it, is the height
of the ridiculous.) And of course absolutely no one's freedom is even
diminished an iota, much less "taking away other people's freedo(m)", nor
has any FLAG ever "brought freedom to all the free world". (Besides the
fact that the United States itself has not done so either.)

Giving all this significance to pieces of printed cloth (or whatever)  is
beyond my comprehnension. I value American principles, as encoded in our
Constitution and laws. Objects themselves have no such value. 

which is why it's also dumb to fly one.

Re: 11 And I agree with your thought.  The ones that scare me
the most are the ones incapable of being boggled.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing the Vatican as much more than a 
cultural repository.  I'm sure they have some way of squaring the 
material splendor of the place with Jesus' poverty and his admonition 
to "sell all your goods and give the proceeds to the poor."  Probably 
something to do with visible evidence of God's favor toward the One 
True Church, or some such.  Whatever the excuse is, it won't convince 
me.  I agree with Lenny Bruce: never trust a minister who owns more 
than one suit.  But *as* a cultural repository, the Vatican is pretty 
cool, no denying it.  Worth preserving, even.

What struck me about the story was the incredible triviality of the 
church's concern.  Like, Jennifer Aniston's choice of jewellery isn't 
trivial enough, I also have to listen to the Vatican's opinion of it.

The Catholic Church is one of the top charitable organizations in the 
world, doing a lot for hungry, sick, hurt, abused, uneducated, and 
otherwise needy people.  I don't think it's fair to denounce the Church 
for wasting it's money on frivolities.  The Church does a lot of good.

I think #0 is ridiculous, though.

A lot of those sick, hurt, abused, hungry and uneducated are
here and in that predicament *because* of the Catholic church's
policy that women should service their husbands, on demand, and
not use any birth control.  But once you have two or three children
you can't support what's a few more when God will take care of you
if you just trust in Him?  And welfare if you're lucky enough to be
a Catholic in the USA.

I guess I don't see #0 as quite so ridiculous.  The comment about starving
children was pretty insensitive coming from the Vatican, but really, the
dollar value of the jewelry is beside the point.  Even as an atheist, I think
it's bizzarre to wear a symbol of religious faith because it looks cool. 
(Would you wear a political slogan you disagreed with because you liked the
typeface?  Would you fly a Confederate flag because the color scheme went well
with your house?)  If I were Christian, I imagine I'd find the idea a little
offensive.  

   During my RC upbringing, I was taught that the crucifix, which has
a Jesus figure on it, was to be treated with more respect than a plain
cross.  While I agree that wearing symbols of a religion you don't
follow is a bit weird, I think the Pope is being particularly petty
on this one.  Then again, John Paul II has been getting more and more
conservative in recent years anyway.

and senile.

The article doesn't seem to distinguish between the crucifix and the 
cross.  One is a much more broad-based symbol with no church having any 
exclusivity in its claim thereupon...

re #22: That's bigotry.

The Catholic Church does not demand that wives service their husbands, 
on demand or otherwise.

Very few American Catholics pay any attention to the prohibition on 
birth control.  In places where people don't use birth control, it's 
mostly because they can't afford it or don't know what it is.

I don't imagine there's much of a relationship between Catholicism and 
birth rate.  The countries with the most extreme overpopulation are 
China and India, neither of which has much of a Catholic population.  
India is 2.3% Christian according to the CIA World Factbook for 2001; 
China is 1% Christian.  Your comment would be substantiated if the 
countries with the highest percentage of Catholicism -- Italy, Spain, 
France, Mexico, Portugal, etc. -- had the worst overpopulation, but 
these countries don't *have* serious population problems.  

The Catholic Church consistently and vehemently opposes not only abortion,
but also any form of birth control except abstinence and the rhythm method,
in every country where it has influence.  Mexico is one of those countries,
and you're uninformed if you think it doesn't have a population problem among
its poor.  I've seen it personally, in the form of corrugated tin shacks all
over Mexico City, and that was in the good neighborhoods.

Mother Teresa was a loud and constant opponent of birth control among the
teeming masses of Calcutta's poor, and her words had a lot of influence
there despite the Hindu majority of the population.

The other countries you're talking about are relatively rich nations, and
rich countries have lower birthrates.  That said, the Catholic Church kept
it illegal to buy birth control in Eire until (I think) the 80s, and then
made it legal only for married couples.  Only in the mid to late 90s did
it become available to other people.  The situation in Italy has also been
restrictive, but I think they got over it sooner.  I don't know about
Spain or France.

Sure, there are other factors, including traditional cultures that value
pumping out babies, lack of funds, and the US Republican Party's refusal
to support family planning efforts in poor countries -- but the Catholic
Church gets a huge share of the blame in Latin America.  It really does,
John.

I think the Vatican news agency wanted an excuse to print pictures of Jennifer
Aniston, Cher, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Naomi Campbell, and Jennifer Lopez. 
Probably their best selling edict of the year.  You'll noticed that they
didn't complain about any males wearing the crucifix in vain.

I like the idea of banning all non-secular use of the cross.  They'll have
to start by taking down all the telephone poles.  By the time they're done
eliminating all pairs of intersecting lines, they'll have dismantled most of
human civilization.

  #0 represents such an absurd stance that I almost suspect md of 
  making it up..

There is something to be said about the irony of wearing a
cross that is worth a lot of money.  I personally used to wear
a simple solid 24-caret gold cross and chain but stopped doing
so about the time it became a 'fashion statement'.  I would 
personally feel a lot more comfortable with the vatican issuing
such statements should the wrong swastika become a fashionable.

Re: 30  You must be a Catholic. ;-)

No, I didn't make it up.  Every so often I'll have a "No wonder al 
Qaida hates us" moment, and this article was one.  News show segments 
featuring "self-esteem" gurus always do it, as does the sight of one of 
those new Cadillac SUVs that converts into a pickup truck so when you 
drive through redneck country they'll think you're just folks.  That 
sort of thing.

lol

re #28: Most heavily Catholic countries *are* rich nations.

Catholic Social Services and other associated charities do a lot for 
disadvantaged people, not all of whom are Catholic.  I think the Church 
makes up for any unplanned pregnancies it "causes" with it's policies.  
It is hardly just distributing problems and then walking away from 
them, as #22 implied.

"Most heavily Catholic countries *are* rich nations."

Are you nuts?  Every nation in Central and South America is "heavily
Catholic," and none of them could possibly be considered rich nations.  Brazil
and Chile come the closest, I think, but even they aren't rich by any
reasonable standard.  The Phillipines is heavily Catholic, too.  Together,
that's way more poor countries than rich ones.  Between this and the
suggestion that Mexico doesn't have a population problem, I have to guess that
your knowledge of the Americas stops at the Mexican border.

Obviously they don't pray hard enough.

The RC Church's stance on birth control is nothing short of criminal.

Oh...and if John Paul II did criticize any men for wearing crucifixes
and crosses as jewelry, all the bishops would have to dump their nice,
big, gold, jewel-encrusted pectoral crosses.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss