I’m tempted to hang it up on the wall, but out of love for the Holy Father, I won’t. This certificate came in the mail a few days ago after I sent a few bucks to the Capuchin Friars in Pittsburgh. It was accompanied with a letter that said, “Please accept the enclosed Parchment Blessing and St. Anthony Novena booklet as our gifts to you.”
That term “Parchment Blessing” seems to be a sloppy use of language, doesn’t it? Obviously it’s meant to refer to the bit of decorative — well, at least, decorated memorabilia they sent me. I can see calling the thing a “blessing parchment”, but not the other way around.
By the way, I don’t mind a little religious kitsch here and there: it’s part of popular piety and in that context, a good thing. I’m just disappointed at the seeming linguistic failure, as much as I’d be disappointed by a moral one.
Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been four weeks since my last confession. Since then, I have committed acts of solecism twice….
The bad part is that they even put this goofy term in the Pope’s mouth: notice the text on the certificate itself:
In grateful appreciation for your generous support of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars of the Province of St. Augustine, I bestow my parchment blessing on Mr. Richard Chonak.
I really doubt the Pope ever signed any sentence containing the term “parchment blessing”. Here, the term is supposed to refer to the blessing itself. Now, a blessing is a spiritual act, a prayer: what on earth would a “parchment blessing” be, then: a parchment prayer? It sounds as if Pope John Paul were being made to say: I bestow on you this (tacky) certificate. (I know, he has been apologizing a lot lately, hasn’t he?)
No, no, dear Friars, if you’re going to put words in the Pope’s mouth, please let them make sense: he’s giving us a blessing; you’re giving out the parchments.
Back when I was coming into the Church, my old friend Meredith Gillespie Alcock summarized the image of the Franciscans as “dumb but holy”. Maybe she was onto something.
Over the weekend, an AP story portrayed Boston’s Abp. Sean O’Malley, OFM Cap., as having apologized “to women” for a blanket condemnation of feminism (although he didn’t really make one). Also, it portrayed him as backtracking on his (correct) observance of liturgical law at the Holy Thursday Lord’s Supper liturgy, where he washed the feet of twelve men, in recollection of the Apostles.
Within minutes, the Internet started to whine with morose comments about the bishop’s new spinelessness, but the whines turned out to be unjustified, since as usual, the secular press got it wrong.
What he really said, while explanatory and conciliatory, wasn’t an apology: if anything, it was a gentle defense of his words and actions, and very appropriate.
OK, I’m a little disquieted at the Archbishop’s suggestion that he will seek a “clarification” about the footwashing rule, as such a promise encourages the disgruntled to keep their demands alive; but I expect that Rome will confirm the discipline currently prescribed.
Fr. Shawn says that most of the ongoing argument that readers post in weblog comments isn’t worth doing or reading, and he’s got a point.
Sometimes people post stuff in the comments that I don’t know how to respond to, if at all. Long-dormant weblog entries often get new additions, as for example, by this anti-Catholic dame; or as these folks posting their prayer petitions for their lost marriages, endangered jobs, and serious illnesses, onto web pages that few people will ever read again.
I guess the latter is a reminder that there’s a world of hurt out there, folks.
“Every human being, even those marked by sickness and suffering, is a great gift to the Church and to humanity,” the Pope said. He said that everyone who is in pain because of illness should find other people ready to provide them with care and concern. Human suffering, he said, “is always a call for the display of merciful love.”
The World Day for the Sick should be a reminder of “the important place in the Christian community for people who suffer,” the Pope continued. He reminded his audience that while suffering can appear pointless from a human perspective, in the light of the Gospel we should seek its “profound salvific significance.”
This is puzzling: is it worse to be wasteful by throwing one’s fridge out the window, or is it a sign of detachment from material goods? Heads up!
Got a card in the mail today from the Archdiocese:
“Dear Mr. Chonak,
Please accept my appreciation to that already extended to you by Bishop Lennon for your generous contribution to The Annual Catholic Appeal….”
Huh? Did the Development Office lay off its highly-paid proofreaders? Or is this some new technique in fund-raising mail: to keep a few solecisms and typos so that we will know the note was written by a bishop? (Exercise for the perfectionistic reader: identify them.)
[Oh, this is too cynical; I should post something more constructive than this.]