I’ve never seen apolitical special interest group with a coat of arms before, but here it is…
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/508/cathcitizenship3it6.gif
But then again they are closely affiliated with one of the best practitioners of heraldry in the US, the church. Thy call themselves Catholic Citizenship. The website for this group is @
I’m not an expert on the finer nuances of symbolism in the Catholic Church so there may be some apalling "howlers" in there, but at first glance it’s not a particularly bad coat of arms. What it does illustrate very well why the "rule" of not putting colour on colour is a good idea.
The torch (presumably for education) and the scales (presumably justice) are reasonably clear because the black is fairly solid, but the acorn and oak leaves (growth/nurture?) and the figure, being outline drawings, are very difficult to discern. I had to peer closer to the screen of my computer to work things out.
The dove is somewhat better because black outline has good contrast on gold but again could look better if more "solid".
Given the field is quite a dark colour, which I suppose could be called murrey if we’re looking for a heraldic tincture, the torch, scales and oak could be much improved by all being Or, the torch flamed Proper.
Since I’m not at all sure whom the figure represents I’m not going to comment on how he should be correctly depicted but describing him as proper and giving him white robes and natural skin colour would be an improvement.
James
Quote:
But then again they are closely affiliated with one of the best practitioners of heraldry in the US, the church.
Who is that Mark?
I find the arms look amateurish. I realize they have been done by amateurs but I’m saying, it looks it. I tire easily of people who put together a coat of arms according to what they think is a good pattern: divide the shield with a cross and fill the four quadrants. Once again, we have an unecessarily "busy" design. When are folks going to learn to keep it simple? Since everyone is so fond of logos which are usually one distinct symbol, why can’t they learn to happily marry the two and come up with one, clear charge to place on the arms?
I find it funny when reading their explanation that they decided in sinister base to place a "walking pilgrim". Again, had they consulted someone knowledgable they might have ended up using the symbol of a pilgrim, the scallop shell.
Having two scrolls with mottoes is overkill. This isn’t Scotland.
The "crest" as they call it of a bishop’s mitre is inappropriate. This is not the arms of a bishop or a diocese. Placing the mitre there (as they explain it) to symbolize that they operate with the blessing of the bishop is nonsense and bad heraldry. When, oh when, oh when are people going to realize that there is nothing wrong with arms that consist of a shield and motto alone????? There is always the need to "dress things up". This is uneccesary and, in this case, it’s also just plain wrong.
I was wondering about the mitre myself, Fr. Guy. I’d thought it inappropriate outside of a bishopric, but wasn’t sure. And I’m surprised that the bishop under whose blessing they operate hasn’t told them that it’s inappropriate.
An obviously amateurish attempt.
Patrick Williams wrote:
...I’m surprised that the bishop under whose blessing they operate hasn’t told them that it’s inappropriate.
I’m sure Father Guy can expound if he’s able, but from what I’ve heard of his design projects, many bishops and other clergy know very little about the proper use of heraldry. The bishop might not know any better.
I suppose you’re right, Dave. Perhaps Fr. Guy could call the bishop up and tell him? 
Then he could steer the group here for some decent suggestions. :mrgreen:
I basically agree with the good Father’s assessment. But, I wonder if the top motto isn’t anything more than a fanciful place to put the groups name; you know as in the arms that bucket shops sell out to everyone where the family name is on a scroll. I don’t know for sure, but I wonder if that is it.