Priest blesses Hooters restaurant

Priest blesses Hooters restaurant

Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s just fine to give a priestly blessing to all kinds of inanimate objects. And what some Christians consider scandalous is not always scandalous to Catholics: dancing, drinking, and card games are all verboten by some, but not by Catholics.

Still, I think a priest who gives a public blessing to a new Hooters restaurant has stepped over a line. I’m not saying that it would always be wrong to patronize the place. I’ve never been to one so I don’t know if it’s as bad as some say. Perhaps it’s no worse than other sports bars that hire pretty waitresses to attract male customers. But perception is as important as reality in many things and the perception of Hooters—aided in no small part by the company’s own marketing efforts in this direction—is that it’s all about sex and the exploitation of its employees.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • Hooters isn’t all that bad. The food is okay and frankly, the waitresses wear more than what I see on the average teenager in the Summer.

  • His bishop is Gregory Aymond whose phone should be ringing off the hook from angry parishoners. Unfortunately, their reaction has probably been the same as the spiritually brain dead who greet the ‘I’m gay’ announcements of their Fr. Pervert with a parish party.

  • “People who go to the restaurant with lust in their hearts are sure to find what they are looking for, Rozycki said”

    So he even knows what he is doing!

    Something is wacko in Waco.

  • I actually wrote an outraged letter to the bishop’s office (Diocese of Austin, TX) and got this response.  This e-mail is a good start, but the bishop needs to go on the record that he has disciplined this errant cleric.
    “Thank you for your e-mail.  At present, Bishop Aymond is out of town; however, I have communicated your comments regarding the blessing of the Hooters Restaurant to him.  I apologize in the bishop’s name for the scandal this situation has brought to you, and the community at large.

    We became aware of the situation ourselves only after it appeared in the Waco Newspaper.  Bishop Aymond has been in conversation with Msgr. Rozycki regarding this issue. 

    The bishop does not condone any activity by our priests that would give the impression of sanctioning the exploitation of women or the demeaning of the virtue of chastity.  He is saddened that this situation has caused scandal to you and others.

    Sincerely in Christ,

    Fr. Michael Mulvey

    Rev. W. Michael Mulvey
    Diocese of Austin
    P.O. Box 13327
    Austin, Texas
    .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

  • LISTEN to you people!  You’re dragging what may be a priest that ultimately stands for virtually everything that YOU stand for through the dirt, and you don’t know him from Adam.  You all sound like a bunch of old crones nattering over their Earl Grey about the goings on of the town scapegoat.  “You won’t believe what I heard about ‘x’.”  “Bah, you should hear what I heard.”  And, Dom, to actually accuse this man whom you do not know, of using humor to promote himself is disgusting.  I wonder, Dom, how it feels to know so much about the charisms that God gives to His creatures that you can decide which are self serving and which are God serving.  I wonder how it feels to be so bloody certain that you know that he is leading people away from God, and has led noone to Him?  Goes to personality – balderdash!  Do I think that he made a mistake to bless the restaurant?  Most definitely.  Do I think he should be hung out to dry by the bishop as our e mail writer seems to infer, NO.  I intend to write a letter to the bishop to go easy on the good Father.  I also hope that he will read the blog and see for himself how some of us good Catholics can weave a Fr. Pervert remark, a bath house remark, and a remark about the bishop himself consulting his lawyers into a discussion about an impropriety on the part of one of his priests.  Maybe when he sees some of the denizens that populate this site, he’ll be less apt to rush to judgement about the “scandal” in his part of the country.  He should have the Father apologise.  By the way, the Protestant ministers are po’d every time a Romist says Mass.  I’m not losing too much sleep about their disapproval.

  • Brian G,

    A priest who believes that an institution which advertises itself as a proponent of porn—whether it is or not—should be given a Catholic blessing, deserves the derision heaped upon him.  At the very least the action was stupid.  Condoning the concept of immorality is hardly priestly behavior, and this was a public offense requiring public disapproval, hence what you read here.

  • Sorry, Carrie, but Hooters does not “advertise itself as a proponent of porn”.  Do yourself a favor and read their website.  Also, how do you know what Father believes.  See, you’ve erroneously accused a business of being a proponent of porn, accused a priest whom you do not even know of believeing the same fabrication, and further accused him of blessing an establishment that he knows is a proponent of pornography.  Fits my definition of slander.  Not one of the seven deadly sins, but not exactly a virtue either.  Now, let’s say for the sake of argument that I believe that he deserves a measure of the “derision heaped upon him”, can you explain how the bath house and gay Fr. Pervert comments apply to the priest in question?

  • Brian, the references to bathhouses and Fr. Pervert were not directed at Msgr. Ryzocki. The first one said, at least it isn’t a gay bathhouse. Sounds like it’s saying that what he did wasn’t as bad as that. And the Fr. Pervert comment was directed at priests who come out as gay to their congregations.

    Seems you either didn’t read very carefully or you were looking for a reason to be offended.

  • Dom, The point is that some people appear to be obsessed with the gay thing.  I happen to believe that the biggest problem in the Catholic Church in America today is it’s infestation by a homosexual culture.  I don’t bring it up every chance I get, tho.  If the waiters were all dressed in nothing but leather chaps, that would be something different.  And, yes I read carefully, and no, none of this offends me.  Carrie, you must have read their website!  Hooters means owls, of course.  The fact that some people mistake them for something else is a fortunate turn of events that they themselves are willing to capitalize on. ;^)  Those women all wear bras and pantyhose, short shorts and tank tops.  They HAVE to.  I have people come into my office dressed for high and, yes, grammar school wearing less.  And that’s not to mention how many butt cracks I’ve had to stare down at Mass.  To paraphrase the Supreme Court Justice, “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it, and Hooters ain’t it.”

  • By the way, How do you folks manage to get italics, paragraph structure, smileys, etc, into your posts.  I confess my ignorance.

  • Yeah, Brian, uh-huh.  They’re selling owls at Hooters.

    That link may be slow to open.  If you can get it open, you will see the “calendar girl of the day” at the original Hooters.  If you have high school and grammar school girls in your office dressed in less than that, someone needs to arrest their parents for child neglect!

    If that website won’t open, this one says quite enough.

    If some priest thinks this is about owls, he needs to go back to grammar school!

    And if you can’t see that this is insulting to women, maybe you do too.  The idea that a priest would bless such an establishment says more about the religion I profess than I ever wanted to know.  Once again I’m ashamed to be Catholic.

  • Oh, Oh, Hooters patron in the house (reference Brian G.)

    We tend not to have Hooters around here in Massachusetts.  I went to one, once, in Arlington, Texas.  I wasn’t even religiously active in those days, had just finished 3 years in the Army and was in the full swing of my St Augustine (pre-conversion) days if you know what I mean.

    But that place just gave me the creeps. I mean, the girls there were like 16 – 18 years old! I was 25 and I just got the hell out of there.

    I was mystified by the grown men bringing their 8 year old boys there!

    The main thing on the menu at Hooters is the bodies of young women.  The place is pre-training for topless bars.  Everybody knows this.

  • Wrong again, Tom!  I’ve never been to a Hooters.  Boy, it must really be something to be omniscient, huh!  Oh, and by the way, in MY St. Augustine days I frequented places that I’m sure would make Hooters pale by comparison.  You know, Tom, the type of place they DO tend to have in Massachusetts.  I saw one “dancer” that obviously didn’t want to be there and it creeped me out and I’ve never been back.  So if you want to imagine what’s in my mind and comment on your imaginings, have at it.  I can defend myself.  The Monsignor isn’t here to defend himself, tho.  Also, I never planned to be the Devil’s Advocate for Hooters.  My main intention is to try to defend a man who is not here to defend himself.  It seems that when some on this blog get their teeth in someone that the rhetoric becomes more and more shrill as each new member of the pack jumps in and fights for it’s pound of flesh.

  • People who do foolish things in public are apt to be talked about.  Think of it as the modern equivalent of sackcloth and ashes.  It certainly beats tar and feathers.

    Besides, anything said here pales by comparison to the response my husband offered when I told him about a priest blessing Hooters.  We are all fortunate he doesn’t have Dom’s blog URL.  It wouldn’t be pretty.