The $1 Million Chelsea Clinton Wedding

Saturday, July 31, AD 2010

The estimated cost of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding this evening is $1 million* and that is a very low estimate.

Obscene, simply obscene.

Talk about failing in the cardinal virtues of prudence and temperance.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to The $1 Million Chelsea Clinton Wedding

  • Agreed, Tito, although God knows the Clintons have the money now to spend. Estimates of their net worth as a couple are anywhere from US $40 million-$100 million!

    Actually, I’ve also seen estimates on different news sites pegging the minimum cost of the wedding at US $2 million, and up to $5 million at the high end of the estimates–yikes!

  • The $5 million figure probably included the dowry. I can’t see anyone accepting Hillary as a mother-in-law for less than $4 million.

  • I’ve seen estimates as high as US $12 million, but I stuck to the low estimate in fairness.

  • If the accounting includes the cost of the security detail which follows both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton around, it is less deplorable.

  • I believe Bill Clinton, because he is a former US president, and his family have lifetime secret service protection.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service#Former_Presidents_and_First_Ladies

  • I think my wedding, all said and done, cost around $5k… in 2002 dollars. 🙂

  • The Pope’s visit to England may cost England $15 million US and the Vatican donation to Haiti was only $250,000 and in 2009 the Vatican donation to all poor countries was 20 million.
    Let’s not single out the Clinton’s as wasteful or neglecting the poor… because of their wrong abortion position while letting our own habits go unexamined because it is Rome.
    I can’t imagine the expenses John Paul II’s visiting habits entailed on people over the years.

  • What if many of the recipients of the money were teetering on going out of business or unemployment, would this sum still be considered obscene?

  • the Vatican donation to all poor countries was 20 million.

    Not taking your figures as stipulated, I would point out that the Church is highly decentralized and the sum of people employed by the Holy See is fewer than 5,000. I think there are around 2,500 employed in the modest diocese in which I reside.

  • Wow, nice to see someone addressed THE burning issue of the day 🙂

    Should the $5 million cost estimate be correct, that would place the Clinton nuptials in the top five most expensive celebrity/millioniare weddings of all time. Even if it costs “only” $2 million that puts it in the same league as Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes, Madonna-Guy Ritchie, Liza Minnelli-whatshisname, etc.

    Of course, what do you expect from a wedding for 1) an only daughter of 2) a former president AND a current Cabinet official 3) who have lots of friends in Hollywood, D.C., on Wall Street, etc. and 4) whose own wedding was very low key and arranged with only a week’s notice (meaning, Hillary may be trying to give Chelsea the bash she never had).

    The cost does include security, because even though Bill, Hillary and Chelsea themselves have Secret Service protection, a lot of their A-list guests probably have personal security details/bodyguards who will also require accomodations.

    I agree the Clinton wedding seems rather excessive and one need not spend six or seven figures to have a joyous and memorable wedding. (I did it for less than $5,000 in 1994).

    I gotta say though, and I apologize if this comes off as kinda reverse sexist, it’s easy for a guy to say that money spent on a wedding is “selfish” and should have been spent on the poor… one could make the same argument about money spent on classic cars, boats, trucks, or events like the Super Bowl, World Series, Olympic Games, NASCAR races, etc.

  • Have to say the pope’s visit was uplifting to Catholics around the world. Don’t see how Chelsea’s wedding could bring upon the same spiritual uplifting.

  • Misspam
    Christ thought it was fitting to give the young couple at Cana 120 gallons of wine.
    And their names are never mentioned. That’s a lot of wine and it was great quality which in US dollars could well have been $25,000 just for the second stage of the wine drinking.
    As for how permanent an uplifting effect of a papal trip has beyond momentary exciitement,.. that would be impossible to document…wouldn’t it?

  • The other question: the Clintons have never done anything but government, and they’ve wound up with millions of dollars to blow on a wedding. That points out the flaws of our system better than anything else.

    Mark Noonan

  • “the Clintons have never done anything but government”

    What about the speaking fees and book deals they have made? Yes, I realize their public life is the reason they have those speaking and book contracts, but still, it isn’t the government paying those contracts.

    If PRIVATE citizens and groups didn’t care to hear them speak, and private book publishing companies weren’t interested in what they had to say, they would never have made the millions they now have.

    I’m not saying this because I’m any fan of either Bill or Hillary (far from it), just trying to be factual here.

  • My wedding in 1962: $30.00 for fabric to make my own dress; less than $100.00 for wedding cake. Flowers, probably $60.00. Stipend for the priest-? Stipend for organist: $30.00. Celebrated 48 years of wedded bliss this year. Let’s see how Chelsea & hubby last, hopefully a lifetime. I’ve played organ for many weddings in the past. My theory: the number of years of duration of the marriage is in inverse proportion to the number of attendants AND the cost. One could almost tell at the rehearsal if the marriage was going to be permanent. Pouty brides-to-be, mothers insisting on this and that. One bride was determined there was going to be NO NOISE out on the street; the church was located on a busy boulevard. No child would dare whimper or cry at her wedding. Well, everything was perfect until the photographer dashed upstairs to take photos as the couple came down the aisle; her tripod knocked the organ plug out of the wall and all the sound went down, and then back up, when she plugged the organ in. Those Hammonds had a way of ruining everything…I reminded her that SHE was to admit to the dastardly deed.

  • So….
    She’s Methodist, and he’s Jewish.
    Interesting combo.

    I’d say the Jewish will win out.

  • The bride in the most beautiful and most Christian wedding I have ever witnessed wore a pale yellow dress, with seasonal flowers (from her parents’ fields) in her hair; the groom wore a new business suit. There were no decorations, and the reception was at the house of the brides’ parents. The money not wasted on irrelevancies was used to send the couple on a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostella after they finished university.

  • “I’d say the Jewish will win out.”

    I suspect not. Most Jews in American today are ultra-secular. The Jewish in this marriage probably lost out long ago. Not that the Methodist will win out either.

  • If he only got $4 million for Hilary as a mother in law, I’d say the Clintons got off cheap.

  • OK everyone, enough of the weak moral relativism arguments of the Papacy vis-a-vis the Clintons. That’s insulting enough when you consider that the Clintons are at best crafty politicians.

    Spending $2-5 million on any wedding is beyond ‘hey look at me’ arrogance. It’s pure elitist ghoulish hubris and it’s even funnier coming from those progressive ‘party for the regular people’ types.

    Bill Banon, thanks for the laugh for comparing the dollar value of the wine at Cana. Wasn’t it a MIRACLE that Jesus used good ‘ol water as the input resource hence a much lower cost than the ‘high quality wine’? Perhaps they forgot to teach/discuss basic economics at that Netroots Nation liberal blogger conference?

    Great stuff!

Now Showing: The Tudors

Wednesday, March 3, AD 2010

The following is a column posted by Brad Miner of The Catholic Thing on Monday, March 1, 2010 A.D.:

John Timothy McNicholas, Cincinnati’s archbishop from 1925 until 1950, went to a New York convention in 1933 and heard the Apostolic Delegate to the United States, Amleto Cicognani (future Vatican Secretary of State), rail against Hollywood’s “massacre” of American moral innocence and call for the “purification of cinema.” McNicholas took the message to heart and founded the Catholic Legion of Decency (CLOD). As TIME magazine reported in 1934, the organization’s mission was simple: the faithful should stay “away from all motion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality.” So popular did the Legion’s campaign become that Jews and Protestants joined the crusade, and the organization was quickly rechristened the National Legion of Decency.

The Legion’s descriptions of films were exclusively condemnatory; calling only for protests about and boycotts of films deemed impure. And some of the films CLOD listed have been subsequently delisted by its successor, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Office for Film and Broadcasting. For instance, “Finishing School,” a Thirties production starring Billie Burke, Ginger Rogers, and the too-often ignored Frances Dee, was condemned by CLOD as portraying an “attempted seduction and an accomplished seduction. . . . Protest. . . . Protest. . .” Today, the USCCB rating of the film is A-III, in essence: It’s a quality movie. Go ahead and watch it – you’re grown-ups.

Archbishop McNicholas

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Now Showing: The Tudors

  • Note how that classic film depicted Henry’s adultery. Wolsey: “He’s been to play in the muck again. He’s been with Mistress Anne Boelyn.” Those lines convey the reality of the situation so much better than any nude scene could. The current porn fixation of contemporary films is not only a moral evil, but it is a degradation of the art.

  • There is a place for nudity, not for sex.

    And the sex scenes in The Tudors as well as most of the nude scenes (if not all), are gratuitous to say the least.

    Though I enjoy viewing The Tudors, I stopped after a while. It certainly could have done very well without the sex and nudity and played on the History Channel instead of the porn site that is Showtime.

  • An honest question: If the sex depicted doesn’t glorify the immoral, why can’t the depiction be moral?

  • RR,

    Excellent point.

    But if the sex were allowed, does it have to show full frontal nudity for BOTH sexes?

    Plus the act of watching simulated sex is an occurrence of sin.

    Offense Against Chastity:

    CCC 2354 – Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

    The Sixth Commandment: You Shall Not Commit Adultery. (Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18.)

  • Tito you are right. Here are other relevant sections of the Catechism.

    2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

    2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

    2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

    2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

    2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

Chivalry: A Personal Definition

Sunday, October 25, AD 2009

Chivalry to me is the call for men/boys to respect women/girls even if they apparently don’t respect themselves, or even aggressively market themselves as mere sex objects. The visual hardwiring for males is tough to short-circuit since it is there for some very excellent reasons- but a boy in-training to become a good man, must develop the capacity to say “No” the same as for the girls- and he must learn to divert his eyes rather than feasting on the nearly ubiquitous female forms in various stages of undress parading by our senses. It is no wonder that St.Paul said it was better to marry than to burn, and Jesus laid out some very high standards when He said that lusting for a woman in your mind was adultery- pretty clear advice from someone whose opinions form my own.

I know that girls who don’t have close and affectionate relationships with their own fathers will act out sexually at earlier ages to try to fill in a spiritual hole in their hearts. I hope that with my own girls I can reinforce their beauty and worth in the world by showering them with my attentions, my hugs and kisses, and all the verbal and non-verbal affirmations of their excellence and my love for them- with the added bonus of giving all praise and glory to God for them as gifts to me and their mother and the world. They should never have to feel that they “need” some sexually-charged teen to give them the idea that they are special and deserve physical and spiritual affection from a male in their life. I hope and pray that this gives them some invisible support to make the correct choice to wait until marriage for the very special gift of their physical selves to another.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Chivalry: A Personal Definition

  • I’m also under the impression that how the father treats his wife affects the perception of young little boys and girls. Especially when they mature themselves, they mimic, imitate, and follow many of the same traits and behaviors their parents act out towards each other when they have spouses of their own.

  • I like your definition, but why do you subjectivize it? Why is it “chivalry … to you”? Why isn’t it just chivalry?

  • Zach-
    Because too many folks have re-defined “chivalry” for their personal use, meaning everything from “oppressing women” through “treat women like smaller, weaker men” and up to more sane definitions.

  • It is a “personal” definition in the sense that I take what I know about chivalry and describe it in my own words and way. Additionally, I add some personal detail by bringing it home to my own relationship with my daughters- so I am not saying that one can view chivalry apart from it’s classic definition- but in application to modern society and one’s own family experiences, there is bound to be some individual touches in the description of one’s personal definition.

  • “Chivalry to me is the call for men/boys to respect women/girls even if they apparently don’t respect themselves…”–Tim Shipe

    …or men and boys.

    Thanks, Mr. Shipe, for re-affirming that the expression “male chivalry” is redundant. And oh, does a female counterpart to chivalry even exist?

  • I think it’d be “polite.” Possibly “being a lady” or “decent.”

    I can think of a lot of examples of things that violate it– from false rape accusations through chewing someone out for holding the door, all the way up to demanding concessions for being female while demanding that everyone ignore that fact….