I invite everyone to read "The beauty of our worship in the liturgy," by Bishop Morlino. Explaining a viewpoint

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YoungTradCath

Guest
Many people on these boards have, in the past, suggested that beauty, especially but not exclusively in the liturgy, is relative, that it is subjective. I, along with many others, have disagreed with these sentiments. His Excellency Bishop Morlino, of the Diocese of Madison, has written an excellent little article explaining his viewpoint, which is in line with mine. He takes a very rational, logical approach, which is something I think the “relativizers” can appreciate and understand the “disagreers’” viewpoints by. I invite everyone to read the article:

madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/2596-the-beauty-of-our-worship-in-the-liturgy.html

I have tried many times to explain my opinion, but I have failed to find a way by which those who disagree with me understand. His Excellency, with his episcopal experience abounding, has captured my sentiments succinctly, in a manner which I find most digestible, even to those who disagree.

To echo: beauty is not relative.

I think this piece could also belong in the Traditional forum, but I wanted to make it more available by posting it here.
 
The problem, unfortunately, is that much of what he says is just nonsense and false. Many things that are true are not beautiful (pooping, auto repair manuals, the Holocaust), and many things that are beautiful are not true (the legend of Camelot, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the story of Mary personally handing the rosary to St. Dominic). Often, beauty is a matter of taste, which is some people might like a stylized, Byzantine icon-style depiction of Jesus or a saint, some people might be drawn to a rococo high-art prettification, and still others might prefer a very naturalistic or humanistic rendering. Is one of them “truest” or “most beautiful”? Is a photograph by necessity “more beautiful” than a painting, because it depicts the true appearance of something more accurately?

A case can perhaps be made that some things are objectively beautiful or ugly, but it is clearly false that this is true of everything. The women who were “beautiful” at one time and place might look rotund and pasty to us, while Audrey Hepburn might look weak and undernourished to them. Likewise beauty can depend on one’s experience or perspective, as with a child that “only a mother could love.” If German and Kenyan standards of physical beauty differ, is one “right” and the other “wrong”? Or French standards of musical beauty compared with those of Javanese islanders? (Debussy famously said, “Javanese music is based on a type of counterpoint by comparison with which that of Palestrina is child’s play.”) And if Palestrina – or, let’s say, Perotin – would have found an organ suite by Widor or a Satie gymnopédie outlandish and incomprehensible, were they “wrong,” or ought we to conclude that the music is in fact not “beautiful”?

All in all, a weak and superficial effort from Bishop Morlino.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Many people on these boards have, in the past, suggested that beauty, especially but not exclusively in the liturgy, is relative, that it is subjective. I, along with many others, have disagreed with these sentiments. His Excellency Bishop Morlino, of the Diocese of Madison, has written an excellent little article explaining his viewpoint, which is in line with mine. He takes a very rational, logical approach, which is something I think the “relativizers” can appreciate and understand the “disagreers’” viewpoints by. I invite everyone to read the article:

madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/2596-the-beauty-of-our-worship-in-the-liturgy.html

I have tried many times to explain my opinion, but I have failed to find a way by which those who disagree with me understand. His Excellency, with his episcopal experience abounding, has captured my sentiments succinctly, in a manner which I find most digestible, even to those who disagree.

To echo: beauty is not relative.

I think this piece could also belong in the Traditional forum, but I wanted to make it more available by posting it here.
Click to expand...
This is also my thoughts exactly. Arguing with church documents only goes so far, especially in the matter of music. Chant - Yes. Traditional Polyphony - Yes. But past that, where is the line?

Overall, a great article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top