A
ack
Guest
Definitely, if I were a woman, I would not have worn that pantsuit to the Basilica.
Hillary Clinton leaves flowers for Our Lady of Guadalupe, asks ‘Who painted it?’
- Status
J
JPUSC
Guest
It’s the outfit she prepared for her Planned Parenthood award dinner. Guadalupe was just a pit-stop.
A
ack
Guest
It doesn’t look like she was wearing a red pantsuit at the PP dinner to me:
http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_views/Mar09/HillaryandRichards.jpg
What are the sources that are spreading this inaccurate information?
R
redrosetea
Guest
I have read that she has no fashion sense at all, and she was the one who said it…So I will give her a pass on her dress which was modest, and she was neat and clean
G
Ghoti
Guest
Hillary viewing the Shroud of Turin:
“So if that’s Jesus, then --” points to back image on other end of Shroud, " – who’s that over there?"
Hillary at the Wailing Wall:
“What’s with all the Amish guys?”
Hillary meeting the Pope:
“Here, I got you a new beanie.” Hands him a black kippah. “Some guy in Jerusalem threw it at me. It doesn’t suit me, so…”
“So if that’s Jesus, then --” points to back image on other end of Shroud, " – who’s that over there?"
Hillary at the Wailing Wall:
“What’s with all the Amish guys?”
Hillary meeting the Pope:
“Here, I got you a new beanie.” Hands him a black kippah. “Some guy in Jerusalem threw it at me. It doesn’t suit me, so…”
B
bellesjoy
Guest
Can you imagine the response had G.W. made such a remark? It would be a hayday and the headlines would never stop!
R
rayne89
Guest
Did anyone read what she said a bit later?
Someone needs to get this woman a clue.
J
JPUSC
Guest
What was wrong with that?
R
rayne89
Guest
Maybe its just me then but it sounded ridiculous, especially coming from a woman on the way to a Planned Parenthood dinner. They have a wonderful virgin? She’s not just some wonderful virgin, she’s the mother of God.
A
ack
Guest
So does this mean that you see no problem with voting for pro-choice candidates, because abortion has nothing to do with politics?
You have inadvertently illustrated my point – despite being mostly pro-life, Hispanics are overwhelmingly voting for Democrats because they are accustomed to seeing abortion as a moral issue and not a political one (as most come from countries where abortion laws are never enforced anyway.)
Or do you have an alternative analysis of Hispanics and pro-life voting patterns?
You have inadvertently illustrated my point – despite being mostly pro-life, Hispanics are overwhelmingly voting for Democrats because they are accustomed to seeing abortion as a moral issue and not a political one (as most come from countries where abortion laws are never enforced anyway.)
Or do you have an alternative analysis of Hispanics and pro-life voting patterns?
J
JReducation
Guest
Maybe I’m looking at this in broader strokes. But what this tells me is not that Mrs. Clinton meant to offend, but she did not have the knowledge that she needed for the situation. Obviously, she had the intention of doing the right thing by bringing the fowers and showing interest in the tilma.
This speaks to me about something worse, EDUCATION. That the Secretary of State of the United States should walk into the most well known basilica in the Americas and not know the story makes Americans look parochial. It is as if we know nothing about other cultures. Guadalupe is an important part of Mexican culture.
How could no one on her staff have briefed her ahead of time? Either they’re asleep on the job or their dotes. I don’t expect her to remember every religious belief of every faith. But obviously she knew enough to know that the basilica was an important place. She could have found out why before she went there. The State Department has tons of literature on this stuff.
I should know, I grew up as a State Department brat. It’s like being a miitary brat. You go to many countries with your parents and before you go, you learn the basics about the country. That was a long time ago. Maybe they’re not as thorough as they once were in briefing their people.
It’s still a shame for the USA. It reinforces what many people think about Americans, that we know nothing about culture outside the USA and that others know more about our country and history than we do.
Fraternally,
JR
This speaks to me about something worse, EDUCATION. That the Secretary of State of the United States should walk into the most well known basilica in the Americas and not know the story makes Americans look parochial. It is as if we know nothing about other cultures. Guadalupe is an important part of Mexican culture.
How could no one on her staff have briefed her ahead of time? Either they’re asleep on the job or their dotes. I don’t expect her to remember every religious belief of every faith. But obviously she knew enough to know that the basilica was an important place. She could have found out why before she went there. The State Department has tons of literature on this stuff.
I should know, I grew up as a State Department brat. It’s like being a miitary brat. You go to many countries with your parents and before you go, you learn the basics about the country. That was a long time ago. Maybe they’re not as thorough as they once were in briefing their people.
It’s still a shame for the USA. It reinforces what many people think about Americans, that we know nothing about culture outside the USA and that others know more about our country and history than we do.
Fraternally,
JR
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
In my opinion, she should have switched her outfits and worn the one above to the Basilica and the red one to the PP dinner.
I personally think that Clinton chose poorly in selecting her attire for the visit to view the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, but bottom line, I realize it is a very small thing and not really an issue.
R
Robster7
Guest
Folks,
While I would not expect Mrs. Clinton, as a Protestant, to know about the details of the Our Lady of Guadaloupe image, as Secretary of State, she should have learned about it beforehand. It seems reasonable that she should have been prepped better, at least regarding the stops she would be making on the trip.
While I am not a fan of Hilary, I am dismayed that some people on a Catholic forum should see fit to use the occasion for indulging in Hilary bashing. Certainly, a fair critique is appropriate. But I cannot help but feel that some folks seem to forget that “love your neighbor as yourself” and “Judge not, lest you be judged” applies to public officials too.
In human law, you may say things about public persons (politicians, celebrities, etc.) that if said against a private person would be grounds for a libel or slander lawsuit. But God does not judge that way. “God is no respecter of persons.”
While I would not expect Mrs. Clinton, as a Protestant, to know about the details of the Our Lady of Guadaloupe image, as Secretary of State, she should have learned about it beforehand. It seems reasonable that she should have been prepped better, at least regarding the stops she would be making on the trip.
While I am not a fan of Hilary, I am dismayed that some people on a Catholic forum should see fit to use the occasion for indulging in Hilary bashing. Certainly, a fair critique is appropriate. But I cannot help but feel that some folks seem to forget that “love your neighbor as yourself” and “Judge not, lest you be judged” applies to public officials too.
In human law, you may say things about public persons (politicians, celebrities, etc.) that if said against a private person would be grounds for a libel or slander lawsuit. But God does not judge that way. “God is no respecter of persons.”
M
MJE
Guest
She says she was there @ the old bascilica in 1979 and here we are discussing her 2nd visit. And she still does not know the story of the tilma?
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m going to chime in with Robster. Having grown up in the world of the State Department, one does not know every custom and religious traditon of every country one visits, unless you live there for a few years assigned to a consulate or embassy.
Even if Mrs. Clinton had been there in the past, that is no guarrantee that she would even remember the story of the tilma. Let’s face it, that’s an important story for Catholics and scientists, not for Protestants.
As our holy father Francis would say, “What difference does it make whether she wore a red suit to the basilica and a black one to a reception? At least she visite our Lady and had the opportunity to be in her presence.”
When Cardinal O’Connor was running the Archdiocese of NY he insisted that every deacon, priest, brother, and sister wear a suit, a cassock or a dignified habit. When the CFRs came along (the Franciscans of the Renewal), they all had beards. Some had pony tails and othes were shaved like skin heads. Their beards were unkept. They walked through the streets of the city in their habit with large signs attached to them. Some walked around around rapping.
When the Cardinal visited their house, a house he had loaned them, he found that they didn’t wash their habits except once a month. On their feet they wear sandals in the warm weather (which is very Franciscan) and sneakers in the cold weather, instead of black or brown shoes.
The Cardinal asked if they could clean up a little and still remain faithful to Franciscan poverty. The friars, all of whom are very welll educated looked at the Cardinal and asked, “Do you remember what Francis wore to the Lateran Council?”
The point of the story is that we are getting hung up on what Mrs. Clinto wore or did not wear and what she should have known or not known. This is sounding more like bashing of someone who seemed to want to do something nice, visit an important shrine in the country that she was visiting.
What comes out of our mouths can be more damaging that what we wear or a silly question that Mrs. Clinton may have asked. I believe the priest’s answer was a good one. “God painted it” and he moved right on with the tour.
Why can we not admit that we have an eductional vacuum in our society, where our leaders are not well educated and those who are supposed to prep them for these public appearances don’t seem to be that well educated either.
We have to take some responsibility here, as a nation. We do not educate well when it comes to matters of other cultures. Our preparation of those who repreent us abroad seems to focus on economics and political agendas and very little on diplomacy and local customs.
Some us should go back and read a very old classic The Ugly American.
I do not share Mrs. Clinton’s views on many moral issues. But this is not a moral issue. The question was a diplomatic blunder. The outfit was a conservative business suit.
One thing that we must know about Catholicism in Latin America is that it is very colorful. Just look at the image of the Virgin Mary on the tilma. It is far more colorful than other apparitions in Europe. It conforms to the local culture.
Let us remember that Love always forgives blunders of many kinds. Unless someone can prove that disrespect was intended, there is not much to go on here. Why all the criticism, because we don’t want to admit that we are very ignorant of other people’s cultures and beliefs? It is easier to make a scapegoat of someone and be intolerant than admit that we are not educating well.
Fraternally,
JR
Even if Mrs. Clinton had been there in the past, that is no guarrantee that she would even remember the story of the tilma. Let’s face it, that’s an important story for Catholics and scientists, not for Protestants.
As our holy father Francis would say, “What difference does it make whether she wore a red suit to the basilica and a black one to a reception? At least she visite our Lady and had the opportunity to be in her presence.”
When Cardinal O’Connor was running the Archdiocese of NY he insisted that every deacon, priest, brother, and sister wear a suit, a cassock or a dignified habit. When the CFRs came along (the Franciscans of the Renewal), they all had beards. Some had pony tails and othes were shaved like skin heads. Their beards were unkept. They walked through the streets of the city in their habit with large signs attached to them. Some walked around around rapping.
When the Cardinal visited their house, a house he had loaned them, he found that they didn’t wash their habits except once a month. On their feet they wear sandals in the warm weather (which is very Franciscan) and sneakers in the cold weather, instead of black or brown shoes.
The Cardinal asked if they could clean up a little and still remain faithful to Franciscan poverty. The friars, all of whom are very welll educated looked at the Cardinal and asked, “Do you remember what Francis wore to the Lateran Council?”
The point of the story is that we are getting hung up on what Mrs. Clinto wore or did not wear and what she should have known or not known. This is sounding more like bashing of someone who seemed to want to do something nice, visit an important shrine in the country that she was visiting.
What comes out of our mouths can be more damaging that what we wear or a silly question that Mrs. Clinton may have asked. I believe the priest’s answer was a good one. “God painted it” and he moved right on with the tour.
Why can we not admit that we have an eductional vacuum in our society, where our leaders are not well educated and those who are supposed to prep them for these public appearances don’t seem to be that well educated either.
We have to take some responsibility here, as a nation. We do not educate well when it comes to matters of other cultures. Our preparation of those who repreent us abroad seems to focus on economics and political agendas and very little on diplomacy and local customs.
Some us should go back and read a very old classic The Ugly American.
I do not share Mrs. Clinton’s views on many moral issues. But this is not a moral issue. The question was a diplomatic blunder. The outfit was a conservative business suit.
One thing that we must know about Catholicism in Latin America is that it is very colorful. Just look at the image of the Virgin Mary on the tilma. It is far more colorful than other apparitions in Europe. It conforms to the local culture.
Let us remember that Love always forgives blunders of many kinds. Unless someone can prove that disrespect was intended, there is not much to go on here. Why all the criticism, because we don’t want to admit that we are very ignorant of other people’s cultures and beliefs? It is easier to make a scapegoat of someone and be intolerant than admit that we are not educating well.
Fraternally,
JR
- Status