Pope Francis selects Patti Smith to perform at the Vatican Christmas Concert

http://www.nme.com ^ | November 14, 2014 | Luke Morgan Britton

[NKP_Vet]

Patti Smith is to play this year's Vatican Christmas Concert in Rome next month.

The punk singer will perform live at the Italian city's Auditorium Conciliazione on December 13 following a personal invitation from Pope Francis, according to The International Business Times. The entire event is set to be broadcast live on TV.

Smith's booking has evoked a mixed response from Christian groups, with Catholic organisation Portosalvo apparently describing the decision as "blasphemous", following the singer's 1975 song 'Gloria', which famously featured the lines: "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine".

The singer met Pope Francis at St. Peter's Square last April, where the pair shook hands.

The Vatican Christmas Concert will also feature a performance from "singing nun" Sister Christina Scuccia, who recently won Italy's version of The Voice and covered Madonna.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your latest contains an excellent example of guilt by rather remote association.

FEMEN--- a truly vile and sacrilegious group --- has claimed that Patti Smith's music influenced them. Of course: Patti Smith has been releasing albums and traveling the concert circuit since 1975. In 45 years you can influence tens of millions of people, without thereby becoming co-responsible for their acts. Neither does an album you released in 1975 make you responsible for the delirium of Pussy Riot/FEMEN in 2011-2014.

Patti Smith at St. Peters' Square

Patti Smith singing 'O Holy Night' 2013

FEMEN goes to church

(I had to search high and low for a pic that wasn't too obscene to put on Free Republic)

So the rhetorical stunt of claiming "FEMEN equals Patti Smith" or "FEMEN is like/similar to/tied to/congruent with/allied with/joined at the hip with Patti Smith" or "We can always trash Patti Smith by associating her with FEMEN"...

Shows an unjust judgment.

[Paulie]

“It could be his purpose, but why should he make it clear to Patti that the only reason that he wants her around is to use her for his own glory, that”

You’re misinterpreting what I stated (maybe intentionally?). I meant the Pope should make it clear to the *people* at large, not to smith - the event is for the masses, is it not? smith is irrelevant.

To ‘use’ her for his own glory? You must be kidding- the whole event is for God’s own glory. You can’t see that? This is the most humbling Pope in recent memory; doing something for his own glory is the farthest thing from his mind. You’re projecting your own self-centered and self-serving attitudes on the Pope. Shameful.

There are other problems with your post but I’ll leave it at this for now.

[Paulie]

I don’t know if you are including me in making rash judgements on the Pope. I don’t believe I am; at least I don’t mean to be. But he does have me worried, especially with the recent Synod and reassigning Cardinal Burke, among other inconsistencies.

Even John Michael Talbot states that throughout history whether it’s the clergy, bishops, cardinals or even the Pope, there are ‘good ones and some real stinkers’. They all come and go. But Jesus is eternal; He is the High Priest.

I meant to copy you in post 142 btw.

[fatima]

I didn’t like it.Her voice broke 2 times in the beginning and she couldn’t hit the high notes.She did have a cross on.

[fatima]

I like this one.
Pie Jesu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRKApmrQ0vo

[Mrs. Don-o]

No, I didn't have you in mind.

I don't think the actions of popes are above criticism. What I do find objectionable is detraction, rash judgment and calumny. This whole forum is splattered with it, filthy with it. It is actually an occasion of sin to come here... unless you're fighting the calumny.

Catechism, para 2478 (LINK) To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

[Mrs. Don-o]

She wasn't invited because he has a good voice --- she never sang in the "Bel canto" tradition. The woman is 67 yeas old and has been belting out rock since she was 17. I'm surprised her vocal organs aren't as totally ruined as Bob Dylan's. She is there as a punk rock legend and penitente, not as The Voice. She was invited, I think, because the Church is showing that punk rockers, too, can approach Christ and find a welcome in His Church..

[fatima]

Well at the top of the list is they should be able to sing the song.:)

[Mrs. Don-o]

I could follow.

I guess as a shape-note singer I've developed a pitch-forgiving attitude. :op

[fatima]

Two of my daughter’s are singers.I wish I had a copy of my daughter’s Ave Maria-really good.I can’t sing for nuthin.

[BlatherNaut]

I never heard of Patti Smith until she was invited to sing by Pope Francis. As I researched her background I became aware for the first time of her leftist associations and causes. I looked for some public announcement by her of a conversion to the Faith, or any other indication as to why she was singled out for such a unique honor. Sadly, I can find nothing.

Being an obedient Catholic doesn’t mean checking your brain at the door. I am expressing my opinion that her presence at the Vatican Christmas concert is inappropriate, because it will further contribute to the present, Pope Francis-induced confusion regarding the perennial Truths the Church believes and teaches. When the salvation of souls is at stake, what possible justification is there for promoting a role model who may lead the unwary away from the “narrow gate”, someone who is identified with the song, “Jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine” and who has publicly expressed solidarity with P***y R##t, a group guilty of desecrating a church.

Show me some credible evidence that she supports the teachings of the Church and that her sole claim to papal favor is not simply singing one song about “mercy”, and I will be happy to revise my opinion. Otherwise, I see no reason why inviting Madonna or Nancy Pelosi would not do as well.

And with regard to your post:

1. I never mentioned “FEMEN” (in fact, never heard of them either).

2. I am shocked at the vulgar picture you posted, which a great many would find offensive.

3. Accusing someone of “unjust judgement” requires making a (in this case unjust) judgement itself, and is therefore rather hypocritical.

[Paulie]

Thank you for your reply. And your point is well taken, believe me.

You seem to be somewhat of a beacon of light...

[Tijeras_Slim]

Thanks for that image lee... you’re a pal. ;)

[lee martell]

I might have been a just a bit over descriptive.

[Mrs. Don-o]

BlatherNaut, this thread is open to any who want to read the evidence, and part of what you'll read is this:

• falsehoods about Patti Smith (that she is gay, which she is not);

• dubious assertions about Patti Smith, that she is an abortion supporter, which was only *claimed* by a group called STFU-Prolifers, (shown to be a dubious source, and unsupported by any other evidence,) and

• stuff dug up from literally 40 years ago, such as the quote "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not for mine," which was the first line of Patti Smith's 1975 album "Horses," and which she does not perform anymore because she does not believe it.

Rash judgment, detraction and calumny are always counter-evangelical.

It is not "unjust judgment" to object to this, because the matter was neither private nor dubious. Falsehoods and distortions uttered against Patti Smith are public because published on FR, and thus it is an ongoing scandal unless it is answered. Second, I am not bringing out information previously unknown: I am not disclosing FReepers hidden faults. FR is a present and public record.

About the duty to correct scandal, the Catechism says this:

Catechism, para 2478 (LINK)

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

Now, finally, as for FEMEN: it is the overarching movement of which Pussy Riot is a local (Russian) expression: foul, hateful, and obscene. I agree with you about the objectionable nature of the picture: I posted it not as approval but as rebuke.

Pussy Riot/FEMEN is an ugly destructive movement, and to the extent that Patti Smith has supported them, she is clearly in the wrong. However there is a wide gulf between Smith and Pussy Riot: they are sexual exhibitionists and sacrilegious atheists; she is a prayerful Christian who sings hymns, as well as for the past 20 years, (far as I know) a chaste widow. She's 67. She's not a frozen-in-amber perpetual proto-punk from 40 years ago.

She's not a Catholic and she's not a conservative. BUt this is not a Mass, it's a concert. She's not being asked to catechize, she's being asked to sing. Maybe she's being catechized. Why would anyone resent that?

But Lord, she is a seeker who has traveled such along road. Would not the Prodigal Father see while she was still afar off, and run to reclaim her?

And don't you think that a human being is, above all, a mystery? She raid once --- she imagines God saying, 'you keep battering against My door, and I'm gonna open that door and you'll fall in'. Yes, her first song begins with the now famous line, "Jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine" --- but the last one, "Outside Society," ends with "Trying to make heaven my home".

[ebb tide]

As I have never posted on this thread, I don’t know why you addressed me in your post, unless you’re implying that I’m a “sadoevangelical”, whatever that is.

But thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can easily understand why the very few Catholics who still support Francis in each and every little thing he says and does, will do the same for Patti Smith.

It appears these Catholics are are both overly Papist and Pattist.

[BlatherNaut]

Please let me reiterate. I never heard of this woman before. A web search (including a perusal of her own website) left me scratching my head as to why she was selected. Her background, associations and causes are easily discoverable with a quick web search. Anyone who is interested will come up with the same results I did. As far as I can tell, the fact that she sings a song about “mercy” is the only identifiable reason she was chosen to perform. I personally don’t find that a compelling enough reason for her inclusion in a Vatican Christmas concert. As I’ve already said, her presence is likely to cause confusion rather than conversion, because her left-wing interests and associations are of a nature that draws souls away from, rather than towards Christ. Since the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls, ANY confusion or diversion from that mission is harmful and wrong.

Regarding the accusations of calumny in your post, please note that the definition of calumny is to make an untrue statement that is intended to damage someone’s reputation. Since everything that I have posted is true to the best of my knowledge, and since I have absolutely not engaged in “rash judgment” or “detraction”, I am, ironically, the one who is being calumniated.

In regard to “filth”, I’m certain that many people would be more likely to associate that word with such terms as RockNRoll N#g##r, which I have no doubt that others like myself find quite disgusting. Ditto the filthy picture which appears in your post #141, apparently intended to somehow “rebuke” me. I find that a most peculiar way to evangelize, or rebuke or communicate the Faith. I agree that participation on this religious forum could be an occasion of sin for those who cannot resist posting vulgar pictures in response to posts to which they object.

I think we must simply agree to disagree on this topic.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But why do you accuse yourself? I was interested in your point of view.