Tolerance
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    "We as Catholics have not properly combated (the culture) because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention... What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity... Charity means speaking the truth. I have encountered it (not speaking the truth) many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence — people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not 'politically correct.' But we cannot be silent any longer."
    Raymond Card. Burke
    Thanked by 2nun_34 Steve Q
  • Francis,

    Wonderful man. Succinctly stated.

    Your Holiness,

    Why is this man being sidelined?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    He would make a great pope.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,367
    Parce, Domine; parce populo tuo.

    Yeah, I know. Wrong season, but it fits the topic.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    For the record, I categorized this under general discussion Catholicism, not Opinion as it has been recatagorized. In my opinion this sadly is not an opinion as much as it is truth.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    [I've created the new category "Opinions" for threads that, regardless of merits, consist mainly of opinion discussion. --admin]
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,367
    The presence of the two parenthetical insertions ["(the culture)" and "(not speaking the truth)"] in the quotation attributed to Cardinal Burke raises in my mind the question whether this is actually what His Eminence wrote, said, or meant or rather is the work of some editor. Also, the two ellipses in the quotation obscure its meaning, rather than help to reveal it. (Are these your deletions in the quotation, francis, or were they made by someone else? It would be good to see the entirety of what Cardinal Burke wrote or said without someone's tinkering with it.)
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,367
    Someone just PM'd me with this reference:

    http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/12/satans-key-operative-in-vatican-loses.html

    In light of this, what francis posted above makes less sense to me than it did before.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,431
    That's quite a blog there, Fr. Krisman!
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    It's what he said, Fr. K. SEE: http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/2579/Cardinal-Burke-Warns-of-‘Grave-Scandal’-at-Catholic-Colleges.aspx

    And it's not surprising to find Burke-H8trz, Many of them are members of the Church.

    So what?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    And then there are Catholics who don't hate him but instead merely find he (and not just he) reminds him of *that* uncle or aunt at the holiday table. Pass the gravy, please. Isn't the food delicious? Would you like some more wine?

    Many of us can say that about divers prelates (including popes present and past). It's a very Catholic approach.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,678
    *that* uncle


    I had this fantastic uncle who would come over, immediately go and sit on the ground under the front window (so nobody could see him from the street) and would always start his story by just shaking his head and saying "the government..."
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    it is fascinating to find something out there in the ocean of the Internet and toss it into our little old fish tank and watch the fishies...

    gag
    squeal
    have a cow
    faint
    throw a party
    etc

    pick one
  • I saw that thing, heaved a little in my mouth, reread the rhetoric while replacing Cdl. Burke's name with various others... and repented of my own rhetoric. So thank you, Fr. K
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    tolerance is mostly required by those who will not tolerate truth
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    I'm still waiting for someone, or ANYone, to show me exactly what H.E. said that is erroneous. Or--ya'know--un-truthful.

    Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    dad29

    when something is irrefutable silence is the usual response
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    chonak

    how about a new category called "truth"
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,159
    From an essay on T S Eliot by Bruce Frohnen:

    One who seeks to uphold or even argue for more elevated standards soon finds that one can indeed be punished for going against the prejudice of the day. In our increasingly euthanistic age, in which calculations of pleasure and pain determine “quality of life” and can determine the right to life itself, the ruling, permeating value goes by the name toleration, but amounts to an ideology of physical self-satisfaction and cultural disengagement entirely fitting a dying, neutral culture.


    Hmmmm.

    See: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/12/timeless-essays-t-s-eliots-christianity-and-culture.html
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    Dear Francis,

    I have great esteem for the learned Cardinal, but I sincerely believe that the cause of sacred music is best served here by threads that deal with music and the holy liturgy, much more than threads about other topics (e.g., the crisis of faith and catechesis, etc.) And I think many other users will agree.

    These non-music threads, even when they contain sound analysis about problems in church life, make the forum participants look undisciplined, unfocused, and less professional than we really are. They do not advance the particular mission of this site and of the Association.

    Labeling opinion discussions as "opinions" (particularly if they are on topics other than music and liturgy) is a gentle way to tell visitors to the site that we know these threads are not our main focus.
  • Chonak,

    With all due respect, the crisis of music is directly connected to the crisis of faith and catechesis, so to separate them as if such were possible is, to borrow a thought from an abdicated pope, to separate that which are by nature connected.

  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,528
    If the connection were that direct, we might have to seriously consider whether Chanticleer is better catechized than the Cappella Sistina.

    If "truth" becomes a forum category, is labeling one's thread "falsehood" done on the honor system? (Chonak, thanks for also creating "amusements" as a category.)
    Thanked by 2MBW CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    my request for a new category was truly tongue in cheek, but I humbly thank you for your very direct and frank opinions nonetheless.

    without the very things I am hoping to discuss and present, promote and defend, I dare say that without, sacred music would cease to exist (and in fact has already become nearly extinct)

    of course Chris has already made that point as clearly as you cannot have an ocean teaming with life without the H2O
  • Richard's consideration of the merits of Chanticleer vs. the Sistine Chapel is quite germane. There are quite a few non-Catholic, nominal Catholic, Atheists, Agnostics, and on and on who have contributed far more to Catholic music, liturgy, and (I dare say) faith, than more actual Catholics that one could shake a stick at. Britten and Vaughan Williams are but two of numerous very prominent composers of sacred music who were/are unbelievers. Contrast to them the likes of Catholic composers who are heard and lionised in Catholic parishes throughout this land and others and one scratches one's head at the notion that (presumably!) right belief and a Catholic pedigree produces right music and liturgy. It doesn't! At least not ipso facto.
    Thanked by 1MBW
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    MJO

    we have touched on this subject before. don't remember thread or category.
  • One must not fall into the trap of equating the perfect performances of groups like Chanticleer with a profound understanding of the Truths of the Faith. On the other hand, I can attest that some of the most "devout" people involved in music at the parish level I know have dealt with me in some of the most sinful ways (detraction, calumny, gossip, etc.).

    But let us be clear: our struggles as sacred musicians are inseparably bound to the greater cultural, liturgical and spiritual warfare of the Church against relativism, secularism and all the other great heresies of our day (which, we can recall were aptly Iabeled "Modernism" as the greatest heresy of the 20th, and now the 21st, century).

    I have never considered our work to be easily separated from the types of issues advanced by the likes of His Emminence. Indeed, if one has ears to hear and eyes to see, it is clear that our unique Catholic identity is the sum of its parts. One doesn't curse the eye because it's not a foot. One also should not, if one is prudent, see our work as a tunnel-visioned, single-minded, isolated, ivory-towered task lest we be put down as elitists.

    Otherwise, lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi becomes little more than a roadside Burmashave bromide.
  • Regarding contributors to sacred music who are themselves unbelievers, it is clear that the contribution of culture to the faith must pull from the best, with regard only for its merits, not its source. However, the pullers must themselves be orthodox in order to weigh the merits. We must form ourselves in the faith in order to be those folks who can identify the best, and most appropriate, in the same way that we must form ourselves in the liturgy for the same reason. Cdl. Burke's comments, to the extent that they can help form us in the faith, are welcome. Maybe they will not help convince liturgical progressives though, and can be used for our own building-up, after which, pastorally, we can go forth and work toward liturgical improvement.
  • . Maybe they will not help convince liturgical progressives though


    since these progressives are impervious to argument.
  • Perhaps, but we may seem the same way to them (though it helps having centuries of history to back us up ;)
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    Perhaps, but we may seem the same way to them


    Quite.


    There is a tendency for all of us to see the worst offenders of the "other side" as normative, while the obnoxious ones on "our side" are outliers.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,601
    "There is a tendency for all of us to see the worst offenders of the "other side" as normative, while the obnoxious ones on "our side" are outliers."

    Especially on the Internet, where a barbell distribution curve often obtains.
  • I was thinking about this just the other day. I know it's not new, but it seems like modern writing these days goes out of its way to vilify the opposing side and present its own views as foregone conclusions (begging the question, if I'm not mistaken).

    I realize this when I can't bring myself to read an opposing view because I know I will find no common ground in it (or am surprised when, rarely, I do). I also see how writings with which I agree are written in such a way as to appeal to me and to taunt the opposing side.
  • ...out of its way to vilify the opposing side...

    While there are those whom this shoe fits, the phenomenon is certainly nothing new. It is as old as mankind (oops! humankind). Even a cursory examination of Erasmus' and Luther's polemics about each other will prove the point, and reveal how shamelessly 'earthy' our forebears really were.
  • Jackson,

    In connection with Erasmus and Luther, Luther was prone to invective anyway, given that "personal interpretation" was his drum beat.

    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Point well made and taken, Chris. That does not, however, erase the faithful Catholic humanist's characterisations of the unfortunate heretic's brains as being made of you know what, his tongue likewise, and so on - in print. Luther, of course, was neurotic, and may have been expected (if not excused) for lapses of taste and judgment. With a 'gentleman' such as Erasmus, however, well he expressed himself in accord with what was accepted from 'polite' people of his age, whose mouths were not exactly polite.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,528
    ...the best, with regard only for its merits, not its source. However, the pullers must themselves be orthodox in order to weigh the merits.
    This hardly sidesteps the issue. Is the typical Sunday classical radio announcer necessarily any better catechized than the GIA/OCP gatekeepers?
    Thanked by 1MBW
  • By pullers, I mean those in charge of sacred music programs. If anyone takes a look at western classical music, they will inevitably find the best of liturgical music. From Father Benedict in this latest issue of Sacred Music(Winter 2015, Vol. 142, 4):
    Certainly, western music greatly surpasses the religious and ecclesial sphere. However, she finds her deepest origin in the liturgy, in the encounter with the God who, in the liturgy, makes himself present among us in Christ Jesus.

    Western music couldn't exist as it is without the liturgy, as any music history course will make clear. The impetus of the liturgy is what drove much of the early developments in western music, and continued to attract the greatest minds even when the forms solidified. The demands of the Ordinary Form certainly have changed the way music interacts with the Mass, and the "greatest minds" these days in music aren't Palestrinas, Bachs, Mozarts, or Bruckners (due to the postmodern diffusion of styles). The commercial publishing establishment also affects the music produced, but it seems like there is still opportunity to create, as SC encourages, great sacred music in the thread of the western canon. It just isn't happening, certainly not on the global scale that modern technology affords, I guess for the above reasons.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    It just isn't happening
    yes. exactly the point being made by some of my colleagues here. sacred music is 'cultured' in an environment of the sacred. the environment of the OF has lost the sense of the sacred and has turned in upon itself and therefore is expressing 'self' and not the sacred. it celebrates community instead of Trinity. As a composer and musician 'Catholic' I find very little inspiration or drive to contribute to the OF. I find it banal and boring. The 'tased' [Taize] chant is the perfect expression of the OF. Plain, simple and that which lacks depth, character or longevity. (unfortunately this example sports music much worse than that)

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_tgIjJ2exZM

    (are we supposed to continue to 'TOLERATE' this!!!???) I say no!!

    As for those groups that perform "sacred music", well, out of a movie I am presently watching this line jumped off the screen; "it may sound like it but may not BE it"

    Here is another analogy:

    You could put the LA Angels in Yankee uniforms, transport them to Yankee Stadium and have them play under the lights, but they will never BE the Yankees, even if they played the game "more perfectly" than New York itself.
  • That would be like putting Obi-Wan in Darth Vader's suit.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,528
    By pullers, I mean those in charge of sacred music programs.
    To give you an idea of what our diocese thinks of its pullers, here's an invitation I found in this morning's email: "Learn to Read Music: A Workshop for Music Ministers". Long live the pushers!
  • "Learn to Read Music: A Workshop for Music Ministers"

    This could happen only in the Catholic Church. I have actually seen ads from Catholic churches in The American Organist and elsewhere to the effect: 'Music director wanted. Ablility to read music not requred, but helpful'.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,926
    lol
  • Jackson (et al):

    What does it tell us - i.e., anyone who's paying attention -- if the qualifications to lead (direct) a project don't include familiarity with it? It's akin to hiring as administrators in a school people who've never been in a classroom, except to get an administrative degree....... Oh,.... ooops. That happens, doesn't it.

    Thanked by 1Olivier
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,089
    What does it tell us - i.e., anyone who's paying attention -- if the qualifications to lead (direct) a project don't include familiarity with it?[...]

    Well, obviously they're taking their cue from the government.