http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6237/monforton.jpg

I just threw up in my mouth a little. Another mess from Fr. Pelc. Oh, Fr. Dohrman, why didn’t they turn to you??? In fairness, however, I will say the diocesan arms were already designed many years ago and are indeed rather busy. All the more reason, on the other hand, to design something simple as the personal arms…something Fr. Pelc seems incapable of doing ever!

Yikes!  :shock:

Is Bishop Monforton a member of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre?  I ask because his bishop’s cross seems to have been replaced by the Holy Sepulchre’s red Jerusalem cross.

Oh dear. Seemingly nothing exactly wrong, just very, very messy.

It looks as if Fr. Pelc doesn’t quite realize that the fields on the sinister side don’t have to line up with the fields on the dexter side.  Eliminate the landscape in sinister chief and what’s left (no pun intended) would be very nice, although the roses should be reemblazoned in heraldic style.  (Might also want to make the Sacred Heart (?) Gold for a little contrast, but not necessary.)

steven harris;95667 wrote:

Yikes!  :shock:

Is Bishop Monforton a member of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre?  I ask because his bishop’s cross seems to have been replaced by the Holy Sepulchre’s red Jerusalem cross.

He is but, as I have railed against before on this forum, the episcopal cross is just a cross. It cannot be mandated to appear in a certain fashion. The blazon concerns itself with what is on the shield. Interestingly enough that is the one area of ecclesiastical heraldry with which the Holy See does not concern itself. Rather, it regulates the external ornaments and it is not up to the desire of the armiger, the designer or the artist to mandate that something like the episcopal cross must be in the form of the cross of the EOHS. In addition, it is a completely inappropriate way to display the cross of that order to indicate membership in it. Rather the shield should be placed on the cross of the order…another slip up on the part of Fr. Pelc.

The Rev.Fr. Pelc should have his heraldic licence revoked.

Ha ha, that’s a good one. Well, while I’m very critical of him I think that, perhaps, the answer may lie in something very simple. Namely that Fr. Pelc is an amateur. So, what’s wrong with that, you say? We’re all amateurs here. That’s true. But, think back to when you first became interested in heraldry. You probably came across an article or book on the subject and realized you wanted to keep learning more. However, in the days before the internet that could be a daunting and lonely task. I recall, back in the 1980s, thinking I was probably one of only about 200 people in the whole world who was interested in heraldry. While heraldry may not have the broad appeal of, say, football (what we usually call soccer) it is, nevertheless, an area of interest for thousands, rather than a few hundred.

Now that we do live in the age of the internet it is far easier for someone with even a casual interest to connect with other heraldists and, most importantly, to learn a great deal more than he/she ever could plodding away on their own.

However, it seems to me that Fr. Pelc may be one of those people who has done a little reading on the subject and has had the chance to do a few coats of arms now for several bishops from Michigan but stays somewhat isolated. Therefore, I question the breadth and depth of his knowledge on the subject. All of his designs show that distinctive feature of being on the right track but very "amateurish". There are basic mistakes made. His understanding of composition isn’t very good. A lot of things that are "wrong" about his designs aren’t dead wrong but just need tweaking. Many of them are the kinds of mistakes made by beginners.

For example his ability at blazoning borders on the bizarre. The blazon for Bp. Montforton’s arms is:

On the dexter for the Diocese of Steubenville, Ohio - Chief party Azure; fess Argent per pale Azure, bend Gules. Base point Argent. In chief a heart Argent charged with a rose Gules above a crescent Argent; in base a torteaux charged with a celestial crown Or, on the circlet of the crown the letters I H S Sable, between three tongues of fire Gules one in fess, one in nombril, and one in base.

On the sinister for Bishop Jeffrey Monforton - Tierced per fess, in chief Azure clair; fess Argent; Base point Gules. Charged in chief, Forte rune de Montagne Gris, sur une colline Vert. Fess triade de roses Gules. Base point, lion rampant Gris, tenant a crowned vulned heart Gris.

I had to re-read that several times with the drawing in front of me even to understand what he was getting at. If you just had that blazon could you produce the arms as they are intended? What tincture is Gris? His repeated use of words like "nombril", and "base point" (incorrectly, I might add) seem to indicate that he has learned a little bit about blazon and is trying very hard to use as many heraldic-like terms as possible. The end result is a blazon that does not clarify but confuses the issue even more. THAT’S the kind of thing we all got wrong when we were beginners.

So, in the end, I think the poor quality of Fr. Pelc’s designs come not from a complete lack of talent but from inexperience and ignorance. Unfortunately, now that he has designed arms for some 8 or 10 bishops I’m sure he thinks of himself as quite the expert now. More’s the pity.

Maybe someone could invite him to join our (sometimes) humble forum.

In Fr. Pelc’s defense, his artwork—as distinct from his design—is really quite nice—not Marco Foppolli or Andrew Jameson by any means, but still nice. Which illustrates, IMO, that the two skills are quite distinct—skill in one area doesn’t guarantee the other.  And I suspect that, at least with a willing student, it’s easier to teach good design than to impart artistic ability.  (We’re lucky to have several here who have a good command of both, so we are a bit spoiled in that regard.)

As to the coloring of the crozier, whatever the symbolic concerns, it does have the advantage of better contrast than "Or" against the white background of the hanging.  If the arms were painted or hung directly on a dark wall, of course the opposite would be true.

And (with apologies to Fr. Guy, who’s tired of reading it) "we’ve seen worse"—though in this case, any praise is due to the execution rather than the design.

Michael F. McCartney;95690 wrote:

In Fr. Pelc’s defense, his artwork—as distinct from his design—is really quite nice—

I don’t think he does the artwork. The end of the description on the diocesan website says, "Prepared and executed for the Most Reverend Jeffrey Monforton in August of 2008 by the Rev. Timothy Pelc of the Archdiocese of Detroit, with the assistance of Stephanie Ruttinger and Christine Busque."

Michael F. McCartney;95690 wrote:

As to the coloring of the crozier, whatever the symbolic concerns, it does have the advantage of better contrast than "Or" against the white background of the hanging.  If the arms were painted or hung directly on a dark wall, of course the opposite would be true.

Wrong thread. the discussion of the crozier is in the thread about the arms of Abbot Mark.

Apologies to Fr Guy on both points—I didn’t read the fine print (at my age, that’s nearly any print!) re: who actually did the artwork for the good bishop’s arms, and for confusing/conflating the two threads re: bishop & abbot.  Hopefully someone will apply "we’ve seen worse" to my messaging skills…

Fr. Pelc’s work is not only his responsibility; it is also shared with the "8 or 10 bishops" who have seen his work and said "Yes, that is the kind of crap-design I want on MY arms!"  Is this attitude because the bishops see the lack of a central design office as a sign that the Vatican doesn’t care and therefore heraldry doesn’t matter?

Doug Welsh;95707 wrote:

Fr. Pelc’s work is not only his responsibility; it is also shared with the "8 or 10 bishops" who have seen his work and said "Yes, that is the kind of crap-design I want on MY arms!"  Is this attitude because the bishops see the lack of a central design office as a sign that the Vatican doesn’t care and therefore heraldry doesn’t matter?

I would suppose that it is both a lack of a central Church authority (that would theoretically mandate "good" designs) and a lack of heraldic culture here in the United States.  I’d guess that most American bishops would be hard-pressed to recall having seen more than a few sets of arms in their lives; in Europe this would not be the case.  So, not only doesn’t Holy Mother Church require respectable arms, but must American bishops wouldn’t recognize such arms if they fell into their laps.

It seems likely that most American bishops would have seen mostly other American episcopal arms - or at least when they were in a mood to consider what they might want in the way of arms.  It seems unlikely that they would have seen more than a very few foreign clerical arms—the current & recent Popes of course, but who else?

The reality is probably that most American priests, like most Americans, have never actually seen a coat of arms at all.  Occasional bits of heraldry may have floated across their line of vision, but the person who actually pays attention is the exception rather than the rule.  Perhaps one might find a place to republish Pierre de Chaignon la Rose’s strictures on the quality of American ecclesiastical heraldry that priests would actually read, if there is such a publication.