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.

[ebb tide]

I was interested in your point of view.

And I gave it to you.

Here's more of my point of view. If you still think Francis is trying to convert anybody, including Patti Smith, to the Catholic religion, I think you'll be sorely disappointed. He didn't do it with his co-author Rabbi Skorka, he didn't do it with the muslims at Lampedusa, he didn't do it with the atheist newspaper editor, Eugenio Scalfari, and he certainly didn't do it with Tony Palmer, whom Francis actually discouraged from converting to the One, True Faith.

Francis, however, did order the protestant Palmer to be given a Catholic requiem Mass fit for a bishop.

“Father David told us that because Tony [Palmer] was not a Roman Catholic he had to ask his bishop’s permission to celebrate the requiem and though Tony’s wife and children are Roman Catholics, permission still had to be given for the requiem. The bishop agreed but said that Tony could not be buried as a bishop as he was not a Roman Catholic bishop. However, Pope Francis said he should and could be buried as a bishop, and so that put an end to that little bit of ecclesiastical nonsense!”[1]

Protestant Tony Palmer Receives Catholic Requiem Mass Report: Pope Francis Insists he be “Buried as a Bishop”

And finally a question, Mrs. Don-o, why do you consider posting ugly facts as slander?

[ebb tide]

And finally a question, Mrs. Don-o, why do you consider posting ugly facts as slander?

My mistake; meant to say "calumny", not "slander".

[Mrs. Don-o]

Posting ugly facts isn't the sin of slander. If there is not sufficient reason for it being posted, it is the sin of detraction.

And additionally, the sin of scandal-mongering.

By "a sufficient reason" I mean a well-founded expectation that a proportionate good will be actually achieved, or a proportionate evil will be actually averted, by disclosing the fault or sin. A few examples:

• alerting a pastor to someone's abusiveness of children, to prevent his being hired as a teacher;

• revealing somebody's drug addiction in order to organize a prudent intervention so he can get help;

• disclosing that a poor family is suffering from a mother’ compulsive gambling, so that family's need’s can be met without putting money into her hands;

• preventing an alcoholic from being in charge of serving the drinks.

It is sinful to expose anther persons' failings unless there is proportionate necessity; and the graver the failings, the graver the necessity would have to be.

Since we are not in a position of authority over Patti Smith, are not in charge of hiring or firing her as a singer, and in no position to either minister to her or prevent the re-release of her vulgar juvenalia from 40 years ago, we are back to what the Catechism says:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 (Link)The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 (Link) Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

V. THE USE OF THE SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

2497 (Link) By the very nature of their profession, journalists have an obligation to serve the truth and not offend against charity in disseminating information. They should strive to respect, with equal care, the nature of the facts and the limits of critical judgment concerning individuals. They should not stoop to defamation.

What I am seeing on FR is the dissemination of damaging information about people without any reasonable expectation that good will come of it.

ON the contrary, there is a complete lack of concern for the sin of scandal-mongering, which is amplifying the damaging effects of someone's conduct by publicizing it, mulitplying the harm they have done by constant re-exposure, gratifying people's corrupt appetite for "getting the dirt" on somebody else.

Such "reporting" just fans old sparks into new conflagrations, exposes innocent audiences anew to bad behavior, and makes it exponentially more difficult for the original guilty parties to approach the Church in any expectation of a merciful reception.

I rejoice in the possibility that Patti Smith is approaching Rome, not to trash the Pope like Sinead O'Connor, and not to desecrate the sanctuary like Pussy Riot, but to sing a grateful hymn in honor of Christ's birth as indeed she already did in 2013.

The Prodigal is approaching from afar. Don't be like the Prodigal's resentful Older Brother (the Other Son) who can't stop huffing and hissing, "Don't you realize what (s)he DID?"

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Colossians 3:8
But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

[Mrs. Don-o]

(Meant to include you in this ping)

Posting ugly facts isn't the sin of slander. If there is not sufficient reason for it being posted, it is the sin of detraction.

And additionally, the sin of scandal-mongering.

By "a sufficient reason" I mean a well-founded expectation that a proportionate good will be actually achieved, or a proportionate evil will be actually averted, by disclosing the fault or sin. A few examples:

• alerting a pastor to someone's abusiveness of children, to prevent his being hired as a teacher;

• revealing somebody's drug addiction in order to organize a prudent intervention so he can get help;

• disclosing that a poor family is suffering from a mother’ compulsive gambling, so that family's need’s can be met without putting money into her hands;

• preventing an alcoholic from being in charge of serving the drinks.

It is sinful to expose anther persons' failings unless there is proportionate necessity; and the graver the failings, the graver the necessity would have to be.

Since we are not in a position of authority over Patti Smith, are not in charge of hiring or firing her as a singer, and in no position to either minister to her or prevent the re-release of her vulgar juvenalia from 40 years ago, we are back to what the Catechism says:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 (Link)The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 (Link) Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

V. THE USE OF THE SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

2497 (Link) By the very nature of their profession, journalists have an obligation to serve the truth and not offend against charity in disseminating information. They should strive to respect, with equal care, the nature of the facts and the limits of critical judgment concerning individuals. They should not stoop to defamation.

What I am seeing on FR is the dissemination of damaging information about people without any reasonable expectation that good will come of it.

ON the contrary, there is a complete lack of concern for the sin of scandal-mongering, which is amplifying the damaging effects of someone's conduct by publicizing it, mulitplying the harm they have done by constant re-exposure, gratifying people's corrupt appetite for "getting the dirt" on somebody else.

Such "reporting" just fans old sparks into new conflagrations, exposes innocent audiences anew to bad behavior, and makes it exponentially more difficult for the original guilty parties to approach the Church in any expectation of a merciful reception.

I rejoice in the possibility that Patti Smith is approaching Rome, not to trash the Pope like Sinead O'Connor, and not to desecrate the sanctuary like Pussy Riot, but to sing a grateful hymn in honor of Christ's birth as indeed she already did in 2013.

The Prodigal is approaching from afar. Don't be like the Prodigal's resentful Older Brother (the Other Son) who can't stop huffing and hissing, "Don't you realize what (s)he DID?"

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Colossians 3:8
But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

[don-o]

You are doing good work on this.

[BlatherNaut]

"What I am seeing on FR is the dissemination of damaging information about people without any reasonable expectation that good will come of it."

Where in the catechism does it state that one Catholic has the right to impose his own personal opinion/interpretation upon other Catholics regarding prudential matters and to scold those who disagree with him?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I told you what I was seeing, and I certainly did not see one statement of some reasonable good to be expected as a result of this [insert neutral word for detraction] centered on Patti Smith. So, here's your chance: what proportionately good result do you anticipate?

[BlatherNaut]

So, here's your chance: what proportionately good result do you anticipate?

Prayers for her conversion, prayers for the conversion of churchmen who are blind to the confusion and harm they inflict, prayers for the souls who will be confused and misled to believe, by this invitation, that the Church condones what she represents, prayers for the conversion of laity who are either blind to the current chaos or who wish to sweep the confusion under the rug for some inexplicable reason...

Please let me point out (again) that no Catholic has the right to scold another Catholic regarding prudential matters, nor do they have the right to appoint themselves the arbiter of what constitutes "proportionately good results". That type of behavior is judgmentalism at its worst.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I will join you in prayer.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Great! Can I get an unlimited detraction/rash judgment/scandal pass if I say I hope to inspire prayer with it?

This seems bogus to me. I used to justify gossip, in theory, and in particular women's gossip, on the grounds that women by our nature have an entirely sensible interest in the details ("context"! We need "context"!) in order to know how, why and for whom to pray.

My mentor in the parish --- I'm thinking about him a lot lately, since he just died at the end of October, Ed Ryan pray for me! ---corrected me more than once by pointing out that only a very few people would have to know all these things: those who are spiritual directors, responsible family members, sometimes employers or (in the case of crime) law enforcement. The rest of us should not be ferreting out defamatory details or even listening to them: we should just "Shut up and pray."

I have come over the years to appreciate this. Defamatory talk is exceedingly dangerous. Detraction is venom. Injecting it over and over when there is no actual plan for intervention to be gotten from it, and "justifying" it because we say we'll pray --- I've seen this at the parish level --- mixes the effervescent bilge of scandal with the honey of hypocrisy.

I have too strong a tendency in that direction, myself, to tolerate it any more. If I see it or hear it and don't fight it, I AM a collaborator. What an contagious poison this is! How right St. James was when he said "The tongue is a restless evil, full of deadly poison."

Pray for me, worst of all offenders.

[RedHeeler]

Perfekt. The combination is rife, with the well smote, of the seat by Peter... Well, Pope Francis, you are a smarty pants, in the tradition of the anti-human. Well done, little man

[ebb tide]

Defamatory talk is exceedingly dangerous. Detraction is venom.

But that's exactly what Francis does when it comes to traditional Catholics who merely wish to practice the faith of their fathers.

The Pope Francis Little Book of Insults

Francis has not said an ill word about Jews, Muslims, Protestants, atheists or homos; nor has he even made an attempt to convert any of them to the Catholic faith. The only people he speaks ill of is his fellow Catholics and those phantom, evil "capitalists".

[Mrs. Don-o]

You think it's bad when Pope Francis does it? All righty then, don't do it.

BTW, I think some distinction must be made --- though I'll admit I don't often know how to make it --- between defaming individuals by name, and making a "little book of insults" why apply only to those who wince: to only those whom the shoe fits.

The very word "pharisee" came to us because Jesus had a couple of chapters of insults for pharisees -- and we underestimate the signiicance of the fact that they were His closest co-religioniss. In fact, of the all the sociological subgroups of First Century Judaism --- Essenes, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, --- it was the Pharisees who most gravitated in belief and practice to Jesus Himself. (You may want to dispute this, but look: they were a lot closer to Him, and He to them, than Herodians or Sadducees or Essenes for sure). I've often wondered why he laid into the Pharisees, and had NOTHING bad to say about the Samaritans or the Hellenists or the Romans, for instance.

I wonder if He felt a special obligation to preach first to the observant, those who were already immersed in holistic Jewish life, to go further and be perfect.

That may be Pope Francis' motivation. Is it possible? I am only wondering.

[ebb tide]

I wonder if He felt a special obligation to preach first to the observant, those who were already immersed in holistic Jewish life, to go further and be perfect.

How perfect? As perfect as his close advisers: O'Malley, Dolan, Maradiaga, Marx, Kasper, etc?

Your logic eludes me.

[ebb tide]

BTW, I think some distinction must be made --- though I'll admit I don't often know how to make it --- between defaming individuals by name, and making a "little book of insults" why apply only to those who wince: to only those whom the shoe fits.

And where has this defamation by name occurred?

If you ever pray a rosary crusade, the shoe fits you also. I don't hear you wincing; so stop generalizing just like Francis does.

[BlatherNaut]

Great! Can I get an unlimited detraction/rash judgment/scandal pass if I say I hope to inspire prayer with it?

Please. We're talking about public figures who are unapologetic regarding their unsavory acts, attitudes, and behaviors. These characters are leading others astray. To label observations and conclusions regarding the bad examples of such persons as "detraction" is absurd, and scolding others who recognize the need to sound the warning in regard to the presence of wolves in our midst is presumptuous.

--------------------

This blogger is spot on:

Pope Asks Punk-Rock Blasphemer To Perform At Vatican Christmas Concert Patti Smith is called the "godmother of punk rock". It does seem she is an icon to the aging hippy crowd. She once quipped "Jesus Christ died for somebody's sins but not mine." I do hope and pray for her repentance and conversion; else that statement will be written in stone to her eternal damnation. She is said to have been involved in a romantic, later platonic relationship with infamous BSDM artist Robert Mapplethorpe. These claim her as an influence on their own "work" (using work loosely): Courtney Love, Madonna, Pussy Riot. I've heard it said that she supports abortion and LGBT rights; I've found no documentation of the former, but I believe her relationships with the late Mapplethorpe and Pussy Riot would lend credence to the latter allegation. So why, oh why, has a woman of this immoral caliber been invited - by Pope Francis himself - to perform at the official Vatican Christmas Concert on December 13? What next? Will the Rolling Stones or maybe a "gangsta-rapper" bunch be doing the Easter Concert? Besides the disregard for the dignity of the Vatican, invitations such as these can be understandably construed as an affirmation of the aberrant lifestyles and/or stances of these individuals. The pope's invitation to Patti Smith is to be deplored in no uncertain terms. http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/2014/11/pope-asks-punk-rock-blasphemer-to.html

-------------------

Bishop Athanasius Schneider: "That in the very bosom of the Church, there are people who undermine the teaching of Our Lord became an obvious fact and one for the whole world to see thanks to the internet and the work of some Catholic journalists who were not indifferent to what was happening to the Catholic faith which they consider to be the treasure of Christ. I was pleased to see that some Catholic journalists and internet bloggers behaved as good soldiers of Christ and drew attention to this clerical agenda of undermining the perennial teaching of Our Lord."

[Mrs. Don-o]

"And where has this defamation by name occurred?"

Not from the Pope. That is, I'm not sure Pope Francis has defamed anybody by name, although maybe you can fill me in. He seems innocent of that, at least.

However, what we have in this thread is repeated detraction against Pope Francis by name and Patti Smith by name. I issued a challenge for someone to show what benefit can be had from this in terms of a great good achieved or a greater evil averted, but nobody has been able to offer any such justification. That is, so far!

The one attempt at justification for the detraction was the belated and parenthetical notion that we will maybe pray for the people we've just been defaming.

Since there is no external justification for it --- no explanation of how this whole Francis/Patti "expose" was necessary, no indication that it is edifying for the Church, or for the parties involved ---I can only wonder why the detraction continues. Is it somehow gratifying?

[BlatherNaut]

The one attempt at justification for the detraction was the belated and parenthetical notion that we will maybe pray for the people we've just been defaming.

I suggest we summon a bit of logic to this discussion.

Let's start with a couple of definitions.

Defamation: the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.

Detraction: a lessening of reputation or esteem especially by envious, malicious, or petty criticism.

Accusing others of "defamation" (IOW, slander/libel) when there is ample evidence to the contrary via a quick internet search appears disingenuous.

Accusing discussion participants who hold a different pov regarding the matter at hand of engaging in "detraction" implies that they are engaged in "envious, malicious, or petty criticism", and that they must therefore be motivated by "envy, malice or pettiness". Unless one is a mind reader, making such an accusation regarding the motivations of commentators on an internet news site is ludicrous on its face.

Reality Check: The subjects under discussion on this thread are public figures in positions of influence, and as such, their words, actions and associations are legitimate topics for discussion. Attempting to squelch a discussion by repeatedly making false charges of "calumny", "detraction" and "defamation" against the participants is wrong (and IMO smacks of manipulation).

I can only wonder why the detraction continues. Is it somehow gratifying?

Wow, what an uncharitable insinuation. :(

[Mrs. Don-o]

1) I tried to stick to the definitions in the Catechism. I used defamation as an inclusive category word comprising detraction, rash judgment and/or calumny, not implying that all defamtion is calumny. If this is in error, I am sorry for my mistake. Could you suggest a category word that does comprise detraction, rash judgment and calumny? 2) I never lodged any accusation of envy,malice or pettiness. You derived those terms from the definition you yourself introduced. It would clarify things for us all to refine the definitions a bit more. I am hardly to be blamed to things you said and I didn't.

2) Asking a question is not an insinuation. The whole point of my post was that detraction is a sin unless it is justified by being necessary to avert an evil. I gave examples: e.g. revealing that a woman is a compulsuive gambler,so that charitable people do not put money in her hands. This argument from justification or necessity can be fairly broad when we are talking about public figures in politics and government, because we are responsible for them: we elect them, we pay them, and they serve at our behest. Therefore digging up their past words and deeds, and trying to figure out their motives -- even if it requires speculation --- is relevant to our duties as citizens in a in a republic which requires civic involvement.

The same is not true of our Spiritual Father. Our relationship to him need not be uncritical, but our attitude and tone toward him is always filial. We are not in any sense his overseers or supervisors.

If there is really no purpose to spreading the publiciy of scandal ever further, where it can sow even more discouragement and do even more damage --- plus provide a degrading spectacle for those who respect neither Christ nor His Catholic Church --- I am asking why the volleys of detraction continue.

I asked a question. Repeatedly now.

I am actually interested in an answer.

And "we can say a aprayer for them" doesn't cut it. Detraction is a sin unless it is justified by necessity, and no one has yet shows the necessity.

It would be good to discuss this in the context of what the Catechism says, I think. Another thing that would interest me is the example of Raymond Burke.

[BlatherNaut]

Could you suggest a category word that does comprise detraction, rash judgment and calumny?

Instead, I suggest a cessation of the unjust accusation that those with differing points of view are guilty of any of the above.

Asking a question is not an insinuation.

It certainly can be, and in the context it was asked, it certainly appears to be.

You derived those terms from the definition you yourself introduced.

Obtained from a standard English dictionary, which should certainly suffice among reasonable people.

We are not in any sense his overseers or supervisors.

Who is claiming anything of the sort? The issue here is his placing a person who publicly espouses anti-Catholic causes on center stage at the Vatican Christmas concert, and the unfortunate message such an invitation transmits. No one is disputing his right to do it; rather we are registering our dismay at the decision he has taken. The reasons are obvious.

If there is really no purpose to spreading the publiciy of scandal ever further

So do you think his scandals can be swept under the rug if we who are affected by them don't opine on the matter? And who, may I ask, is the arbiter of whether public discussion of such matters is beneficial? As I pointed out before, this is a personal, prudential decision.

Detraction is a sin unless it is justified by necessity, and no one has yet shows the necessity.

From that statement, one might surmise that we must prove "necessity" to an anonymous poster any time they cry "Calumny"! "Rash judgment"!