Papal Mass in DC (was it me or was the music crazy?)

[MonFrere]

Sadly. Only in America.

From my reading I think the Church in America, though certainly not without its problems, is look upon graciously and with affection by the Holy Father. In his speeches he always has many positive things to say about the United States. I think his reception in the U.S. was very positive. I certainly don’t think he left the U.S. with a heavy heart. If he did he’s a better actor that Pope John Paul II ever was.

I do think he has a true concern for our Catholic colleges and universities or why else would he summons a major address to our leaders of colleges and universities.

I also think he wanted to use his moral leadership to give the U.S. church a path out of the sexual abuse crisis.

In all the Masses there was a genuine love and affection given to the Holy Father. And I think he genuinely appreciated it. I think all the musicians of all the Masses did their best to present before the Holy Father their best work. I think his office, let alone his person, would demand that.

Because of all this I simply think the “up yours” comment misses the mark.

I know the Holy Father is a lover of classical music. So am I. But I also know that if someone came to me who was proficient in another type of music and performed that for me – I would understand that they were giving me their best. THIS is what would touch me. The fact that it wasn’t the music of my liking wouldn’t be offensive at all. We often speak of the Popes graciousness. Some people speak of that grace almost as if it’s being begrudgingly given – almost as if it’s a facade. But a man of true grace, as is the Holy Father, would give that grace graciously – because deep inside is a man who has been deeply touched by the Lord’s grace. It’s a graciousness of purity.

MonFrere

P.S. I think the Pope has much more contempt coming from Europe. I also think there seems to be some conflict between the Vatican and some of the bishops of Africa. I don’t want to discount the problems with the papacy and Church in America but there’s also much to admire. How would you like to be pope and have to negotiate around a church with a communist government trying to regulate?

 

[Strummer]

Aloysius answered for himself in post 659, thanks, and it was exactly what I had guessed and inferred - it was the “spirit of national stadium II”.

Well, not “exactly” what you had guessed: “…which I can only conclude was the three of you - the old “me, myself, and I””. I believe I have already de-valued aloysiusg’s data sample when I stated, “Now, I grant you that his sample was probably statistically insufficient,” although not quite as insignificant as your prediction of just himself. An odd calculation, to be sure, since he had already stated that these people “came up to him”. A small sample, yes, but why do you try to make him out to be a liar and say it was just himself? Are you familiar with the cathecism’s warnings against calumny?

Father Neuhaus’s sample of 1,000+/- emails seems at least to have a shot at being a representative sample for the statistically inquisitive mind.

No, it doesn’t for the reasons stated above. Ah, but you try to refute that don’t you…

Since EWTN provided the ONLY wall-to-wall coverage of the Pope’s visit - one can’t say that they (Fr. Neuhaus’s sample) are all “…volunteering from a forum made up primarily of his supporters…”. One only has had to read along on this thread to see all the critics of both Raymond and Fr. who all watched the FREE coverage from where? - no other than - (drum roll, please, and let’s all say it together) EWTN.

First of all, your presumption of the necessity of free access for a statistically unbiased sample is flawed. Secondly, EWTN is NOT free, at least not out here in the West as it is only available through a cable (or satellite) television subscription, the same as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Therefore, the subtext of your argument that people who wanted coverage of the papal visit could only turn to EWTN is less than weak, it is non-existant. Every event debated here was covered by the alphabet soup of networks. Unless you have the ratings numbers to back you up, I doubt EWTN’s audience size altered any more than those of the other networks and ultimately the demographics for all of them remained unchanged. Furthermore, most people not already ardent viewers of EWTN and searching for coverage of a news event like this would turn a news network, not a religious one.

So Raymond and Fr. were undeniably not simply singing to the chorus in this instance as you incorrectly claim. And your figure of 20% is wrong as well - Fr. Neuhaus said that of the thousand or so emails 90% or more supported his comments. That leaves less than 10% - not 20.

Oh, it is quite deniable as shown above. Now, to your math…
Fr. Neuhaus wrote, “I estimate that they ran about five-to-one in favor of what I had said.” Five-to-one. My math was a bit off as in my memory I recalled it as one-out-of-five which, indeed, is equivalent to 20%. Still, 5-to-1, is roughly equal to 17% which is a darned sight closer to 20% than the “less than 10%” your “arithmatic” shows.

Now, what was that you were saying about discourse and critical thinking…?

Look, Strummer, just because you agree with a finding does not mean it is valid, nor correct. It reflects the sad state of critical thinking in this country when we treat discourse and debate as sport and “root, root, root for the home team” no matter what.
Give me an E. Give me a W. Give me a T. Give me an N. Go team.

Yeah…right.

 

[Strummer]

MonFrere, although your entire post was well-written and brimming with intelligence, I’d like to highlight one particular portion.

I know the Holy Father is a lover of classical music. So am I. But I also know that if someone came to me who was proficient in another type of music and performed that for me – I would understand that they were giving me their best. THIS is what would touch me. The fact that it wasn’t the music of my liking wouldn’t be offensive at all. We often speak of the Popes graciousness. Some people speak of that grace almost as if it’s being begrudgingly given – almost as if it’s a facade. But a man of true grace, as is the Holy Father, would give that grace graciously – because deep inside is a man who has been deeply touched by the Lord’s grace. It’s a graciousness of purity.

Here you’ve added insight into another dimension of this debate, heretofore ignored: the Holy Father’s true grace and purity. I thank you for that poignant reminder.

 

[30miller]

First of all, your presumption of the necessity of free access for a statistically unbiased sample is flawed. Secondly, EWTN is NOT free, at least not out here in the West as it is only available through a cable (or satellite) television subscription, the same as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Therefore, the subtext of your argument that people who wanted coverage of the papal visit could only turn to EWTN is less than weak, it is non-existant. Every event debated here was covered by the alphabet soup of networks. Unless you have the ratings numbers to back you up, I doubt EWTN’s audience size altered any more than those of the other networks and ultimately the demographics for all of them remained unchanged. Furthermore, most people not already ardent viewers of EWTN and searching for coverage of a news event like this would turn a news network, not a religious one.

Oh, it is quite deniable as shown above. Now, to your math…
Fr. Neuhaus wrote, “I estimate that they ran about five-to-one in favor of what I had said.” Five-to-one. My math was a bit off as in my memory I recalled it as one-out-of-five which, indeed, is equivalent to 20%. Still, 5-to-1, is roughly equal to 17% which is a darned sight closer to 20% than the “less than 10%” your “arithmatic” shows.

Now, what was that you were saying about discourse and critical thinking…?

Yeah…right.

Once again -your argument that his sample of a handful of random strangers who happened to come up to him after the liturgy doesn’t even rise to the level of statistical insignificance - it is nothing. By comparison, Fr. Neuhaus’s deserves to treated as a statictical treatise worthy of Nobel honors. Your side by side treatment of the two should serve as an example that Random House should use in their next dictionary to define “extreme irrational bias”.
EWTN is FREE. Just as they get nothing from the Church to run it - they charge nothing for the feed (the signal). You may pay your cable company for their package - but you are paying for all the garbage and trash channels to be “sewer-piped” into your house. Your cable company throws EWTN in for FREE (just as they get it for FREE) to lure religious watchers to pay for the rest of the sinful stew they are hawking. Since EWTN gets NOTHING for it - that is best described as FREE. Their internet and short-wave ministries are likewise FREE. If you happen to pick up nearby you one of the hundreds of AM Catholic stations that carry EWTN’s FREE signal - the fact that you bought your radio doesn’t mean EWTN wasn’t FREE - i.e. to repeat - they get NOTHING for it. Ditto for their shortwave signal that goes around the world as well. The fact that you must buy a short wave radio to receive the signal doesn’t mean EWTN isn’t FREE. That is obviously a lot for you to absorb - but give it a shot.
There is no subtext to your argument concerning the “American Church’s” honoree’s (Wolf Bllitzer) station CNN et al - it is ridiculous. If your slanderous comments that EWTN was simply singing to their choir were accurate - then Fr. Neuhaus would have received NO emails contrary to his (and Raymond’s) opinions.
Now, to your math - Fr. Neuhaus said ON-AIR “over 90%” and that is what I was quoting. (Actually, I thought I remembered it as over 95% but since I wasn’t quite sure of that I didn’t want to mis-characterize it (something you seem to have no problem doing - damn the facts and say anything whatsoever in an attempt to make your case) - so I left it as over 90%). Though I must say that I was glad to see that your first revisionist calculation is moving the figure in the right direction - and proof that you have no problem overstating your case until called on it.
And now I will leave you with those famous words of , uh, - you: “…Now, what was that you were saying about discourse and critical thinking…? Yeah…right…”.

 

[Strummer]

Once again -your argument that his sample of a handful of random strangers who happened to come up to him after the liturgy doesn’t even rise to the level of statistical insignificance - it is nothing.

Once again, I’ve already stated that his sample was insufficient. And while Fr. Neuhaus’ had greater numbers, his sample was seriously tainted by bias. Neither source has a sufficient data pool. To only weigh the numbers and ignore the selection criteria is an egregious example of what you would call “extreme irrational bias”.

EWTN is FREE. Just as they get nothing from the Church to run it - they charge nothing for the feed (the signal).

You are confusing “free” with “non-profit”. If we cannot achieve a consensual agreement on basic word definitions, there is no hope for communication between us.

You may pay your cable company for their package…the fact that you bought your radio doesn’t mean EWTN wasn’t FREE - i.e. to repeat - they get NOTHING for it.

The “cost” a viewer pays for a network is determined, not by the cost of the device that receives the signal, but by the cost of the subscription. ABC, CBS, & NBC for example broadcast literally over the air. They are considered “free TV”. One cannot receive CNN or EWTN or USA, etc. unless one subscribes to a provider. While they may be part of the “basic package” they are not “free” or at least no more so than the other basic channels

If your slanderous comments that EWTN was simply singing to their choir were accurate - then Fr. Neuhaus would have received NO emails contrary to his (and Raymond’s) opinions.

Excuse me! “Slanderous”?
Even allowing for the confusion of libel (written defamation) for slander (spoken defamation), where do you get off making this uncalled for and uncharitable charge? For a statement to be considered libelous (or slanderous) it must be both untrue and with malicious intent (plus to win a lawsuit one must prove damages as well). The truth of an analysis relies upon reasonableness and I’ve more than supported that. And where will you find any damaging maliciousness against EWTN in my posts? Nowhere. No, sir, your charge is not only unfounded but, ironically, itself libelous.

Now, to your math - Fr. Neuhaus said ON-AIR “over 90%” and that is what I was quoting. (Actually, I thought I remembered it as over 95% but since I wasn’t quite sure of that I didn’t want to mis-characterize it (something you seem to have no problem doing - damn the facts and say anything whatsoever in an attempt to make your case) - so I left it as over 90%).

Ah, so our sources differed. Still, mine is documented…in this very thread. Perhaps, Fr. N. did change his story. This change is not so dramatic as to cast him as a prevericator but it does call into question once again the statistical grounds of his case.

 

[frommi]

It was obviously a carefully planned “up yours” to the Holy Father.

So you believe that an archbishop who knows the Holy Father from the days they worked together in the CDF decided to condone a wicked slap in the face to the Pope?

That’s just insane.

 

[aloysiusg]

Dear Thoroughly Unmodern Millie,
Congratulations, you hit the softball I lobbed at you -you should feel proud. Of course my sample was not truly representative of the population, it did not use proper sampling techniques. Of course, neither did Fr N, so neither one of us knows what we are talking about!! (Except how to do sampling - you see Millie-baby, I teach it for a living, so I know EXACTLY what i am talking about n that regard.)

But please, go on and continue to denounce what is so obviously true (1 - the DC Mass was not a liturgical abuse and 2- SVC happened). By all means, put your argument in the hands of a man who would have the audacity to, on a Catholic network, talk throughout an entire Papal Mass! My in-laws, who are very conservative by nature and who love EWTN normally, were thoroughly disgusted with this - can’t say i blame them.

Keep spouting your tired old arguments about how OCP and the post-SVC modernists are trying to take over the Catholic world and drag them down to hell (which actually may or may not be true - I am no big fan of theirs, but I’m also not big into conspiracy theories). Don’t bother at all trying to stretch your boundaries and see beyond your myopic world -that would be a waste of energy which you need to denounce us heretics - thank you for putting us in our place.

Now that my diatribe is over, I want to thank posters like benedictgal, brotherhrolf, and some others who have maintained some sense of cordial behaviour. I have learned from you and gained some new insight and appreciation into the more traditional approach. Just this morning I was at the First Communion mass for my wife’s goddaughter, and all I could think about during the mass was “benedictgal would HATE this music” - I wasn’t a big fan either benedictgal, and some of the stuff I saw today makes me appreciate our parish even more, which to me strikes a very nice balance between the traditional and the modern. I wish all parishes could strive for such a balance. I wish all Catholics could too. I fear some take more pleasure in seeing a division - I can’t understand, from a Christian perspective, why anyone would want that, but some here seem hell-bent on tearing down rather than building up. Cmon everyone, join in with me “Let us build, a City of God!!”

wait - maybe that was a bad choice for a song - oh well - peace to all (and by all, I mean ALL)

Al

 

[Los_Angeles]

Since this thread debate over the acceptance of the music at the Papal Mass at Yankee Stadium continues on in much confusion, please allow me to attempt again to clear up what I believe to be the error in this debate.

#1) Because of the subjective nature of music (some people in the audience may or may not like a particular selection) this debate is a not a matter of objective reality, but rather reflecting the personal opinion of the attendees that could likely vary anywhere between 1% to 99% of audience approval if a random survey was held.

#2) The reality that if no rules of the Catholic Church were broken, yet even if in theory 99% of the audience of the Papal Mass did not like the music, then the discussion over the music is again reduced to a matter of personal opinion.

#3) Being that the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope, along with the other prominent leaders of the Church who attended the Mass have not publicly (to my knowledge) apologized for the music at the Mass at Yankee stadium, then it probably was o.k.

#4) If there were no rules of the Catholic Church broken, yet the debate continues over the music, the issue seems to be the agenda of a few particular individuals a voice over what they want other Catholic or non-Catholics to view the Catholic Church as, vs. what it actually is.

#5) A friendly reminder to those us influenced by Capitalism in America, that the Catholic Church is not a for-profit business that will change its products and/or services at the whim of a customer-driven feedback survey, but rather a free gift from God.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[30miller]

(1) You are confusing “free” with “non-profit”. If we cannot achieve a consensual agreement on basic word definitions, there is no hope for communication between us.

(2) The “cost” a viewer pays for a network is determined, not by the cost of the device that receives the signal, but by the cost of the subscription. ABC, CBS, & NBC for example broadcast literally over the air. They are considered “free TV”. One cannot receive CNN or EWTN or USA, etc. unless one subscribes to a provider. While they may be part of the “basic package” they are not “free” or at least no more so than the other basic channels

(3) Perhaps, Fr. N. did change his story. This change is not so dramatic as to cast him as a prevericator but it does call into question once again the statistical grounds of his case.

Let me start with your (3) above: You got me there - I had to go to the dictionary for that one. It said “prevericator = liar”. It’s always the sign of a small mind that instead of using a clear often used 4-letter word has to use seldom used (“never used” might be more accurate) 12-letter words that no one else uses (please point to any book or article where that author uses the word “prevericator” instead of “liar”. I’m reasonably well-read and I don’t ever remember coming across that one) to make their point (actually, to make themselves think they have more intelligence than they really have more closely explains such use by “certain” people). I must say - you’ve got some brass even throwing out your murky cloak of insinuation with your words that Fr. Neuhaus “might-should-maybe-not” be thought to be a LIAR. You should really be ashamed. Really.
(1) - All the while you really do have problems with simple 4-letter words like FREE (another characteristic of “unknown 12-letter-word” users). I stand by my previous treatise on the meaning of the word - when someone gives something away and asks NOTHING whatsoever in return that is called FREE not “non-profit”. My FOR-PROFIT food store recently gave away FREE hot dogs and sodas on their latest grand opening of a new store and customer appreciation day. My NON-PROFIT parish gives away FREE donuts after Sunday masses. Get it? (Not, I’m sure you don’t). FREE has nothing whatsoever to do with PROFIT or NON-PROFIT.
(2) Statistician you are not - nor cost accountant either, obviously! Now it’s COST (uh oh - another 4-letter word) . Go try to convince the MILLIONS of poor people in Rio de Janiero’s infamous favelos (slums) who can’t afford a TV that “broadcast TV” is FREE and cable TV is not FREE. Then try to explain to them why it is that they cannot get your FREE broadcast TV any more than they can get your NOT FREE cable or satellite TV - all because they can’t afford a TV to begin with.
My heartfelt suggestion to you is to work on 4-letter words for a while (10 years +/- seems about right) - then work your way up gradually to your 12-letter words. Best of luck.

 

[30miller]

#3) Being that the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope, along with the other prominent leaders of the Church who attended the Mass have not publicly (to my knowledge) apologized for the music at the Mass at Yankee stadium, then it probably was o.k.

Precisely using your exact logic as displayed above the following statement is also “probably o.k.” - huh?: Whatever anyone thinks occurred prior to 2002 or thereabouts when the Boston Globe broke the story - "Being that the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope, along with the other prominent leaders of the Church have not publicly (to my knowledge) apologized for any of the actions of the priests that they supervised, then the conduct of all those priests was o.k.

 

[30miller]

Dear Thoroughly Unmodern Millie,
(1)Congratulations, you hit the softball I lobbed at you -you should feel proud.
…(2) you see Millie-baby, I teach it for a living, so I know EXACTLY what i am talking about n that regard.)

… (3)a man who would have the audacity to, on a Catholic network, talk throughout an entire Papal Mass!

… (4)- thank you for putting us in our place.

(1) Actually - strummer is the one who took you up on it by choosing to be your standard bearer and attempting to use it against me. Out of courtesy, I merely engaged him (her) in return - as I am not a drive-by slanderer like some others here and I will stand by my words.
(2) God help your students. But since I see now that William Ayers (Obama’s friend - the weatherman radical from the 60’s who bombed our buildings) is now a “teacher” in college no less - I can’t say one can hold that “profession” in very high regard. So, you might want to keep that to yourself in the future. Just a suggestion.
(3) More slander - what else is new. To single out Fr, Neuhaus to begin with is wrong as Raymond A. was there and in control on the set over Fr. Neuhaus anyway and one talked no more than the other. So, to slander fairly - you should have included Raymond as well. But, of course, having watched the entire episode I know (and can share with others who didn’t) that neither of the 2 of them “…talked throughout an entire Papal Mass…” as you slanderously characterize it.
(4) You’re more than welcome. Happy to be of assistance.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Again the music used in the Mass was not to my taste. But, then I will admit that while driving to work or other places I listen to alot of gospel or chant.

The Holy Father is a true gentleman and has proven himself to be gracious under many circumstances. God has blessed us all with Pope Benedict XVI and I pray papa will be with us many years.

IMHO the DC Mass was way to showy. But then that is my opinion.

 

[MonFrere]

Precisely using your exact logic as displayed above the following statement is also “probably o.k.” - huh?: Whatever anyone thinks occurred prior to 2002 or thereabouts when the Boston Globe broke the story - "Being that the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope, along with the other prominent leaders of the Church have not publicly (to my knowledge) apologized for any of the actions of the priests that they supervised, then the conduct of all those priests was o.k.

I think LA makes a good point. Now after 2002, there was A LOT of scrambling in almost every corner of the Catholic Church to the CODE RED CRISIS in the Church. Even priests quit wearing their collars because of fear. This scandal is what a real CRISIS is about.

Now about Papal Masses including World Youth Day Masses – these have been going on for decades. If they are really all that bad I think it would be terribly remiss for the Vatican leadership to allow this to continue.

It could be just a simple rule – When the Holy Father presides over a Mass outside the Vatican - out of respect for the Holy Father and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass only traditional music will be permitted. End of story.

I think LA makes a good point - especially when taken as one of many Papal Masses since JP II has travelled to so many nations and conducted dozens of Masses.

In my contributions to this thread I’ve tried to demonstrate my love and even preference for traditional music. (We closed our Mass with Holy God - for brotherhrolf today). Same with my preference for classical music. I agree with you on the need for clerical oversight of OCP et. al. On many aspects I’m on the same page as the traditionalists. Because of the silence coming from the Vatican ( unlike it acts in a real CRISIS as in 2002 ) I have to side with those who don’t see Vatican disapproval.

It’s obvious there is conflict among the ranks of American Catholics ( but come to my parish and you will hear more traditional music – however, we sing a Gloria that I composed -

here is a piano version at:

users.connecttime.net/www/qwerty52/piano_lessons_plus_010.htm

but that cannot be projected to saying that Mass met with disapproval of the Vatican.

MonFrere

 

[aloysiusg]

(1) as I am not a drive-by slanderer like some others here and I will stand by my words.

so when you said that Strummer had a small mind, that was a biological discovery on your part?

Please millster, I don’t mind your being an obstinate jerk, but at least have the decency to admit that you are one.

Oh wait - obstinate is too long a word for you - would you prefer I find a few four-letter words that you can understand better?

And don’t you worry about my students, someday they will be controlling your Social Security using the math skills I taught them - I hope that chills you to the bone millarama.

 

[aloysiusg]

To everyone on this forum,

My apologies for my most recent behavior. It is very un-Christianlike, but I got real tired of 30miller and his condescending attitude to people of my ilk. I had declined engaging him head-on for a while but something must have tripped in me. In any case, it is apparent to me that further posting on my part, especially as it references him, is counterproductive to the purpose of this forum.

I engaged this forum in good conscience, trying to ascertain people’s feelings toward a mass that I was proud to take part in. I have learned some very valuable things along the way, and I hope that my earlier posts at least helped shed some light on what went behind the music which some found so controversial.

I wish you all nothing but the best, and hope your faith continues to grow in the love of our Lord.

Peace in Him,
Al

ps Joysong, MonFrere et al - thank you for your support

 

[MonFrere]

To everyone on this forum,

I wish you all nothing but the best, and hope your faith continues to grow in the love of our Lord.

Al,

Don’t leave!! Please wait until this thread exhausts itself. I think it’s almost there. I appreciate getting to talk first hand to someone who had the honor of performing before the Holy Father, Pope Benedict.

I’ve very happy that I got to know you - even via this very impersonal medium where, unfortunately, it’s very easy to get into attack mode because of that impersonal nature of the internet. I’m sure Mr. Miller doesn’t speak this way to his daily acquaintences.

But to hang on a little longer. Sometimes, I’ve needed some support too. Thanks for your kind words to me.

MonFrere

 

[anamchara]

I

**It’s obvious there is conflict among the ranks of American Catholics ( but come to my parish and you will hear more traditional music **-- however, we sing a Gloria that I composed -

here a piano version at:

users.connecttime.net/www/qwerty52/piano_lessons_plus_010.htm

but that cannot be projected to saying that Mass met with disapproval of the Vatican.

There is an obvious conflict I agree. There has been some serious misunderstandings in this thread. I happen to like the traditional music as well (not every Sunday, for me) and I also respect anyone who perfers it. I know “Brother” thinks he gets hammered for liking the traditional music but no where was anyone hammering him about it. The problem is when those who prefer the traditional make demeaning remarks about the more modern music which many of us also enjoy and sing, play in our parish. Remarks like grinnin’ and strummin’ or banal or horrid or happy clappy is belittling and insulting. Fine say you like the traditional and I will support you but don’t be rude and make snide comments about what we use in our parish. My husband works very hard all week at his job and we have three daughters one with severe disabilites. We work very hard in our parish. He gives his time and talent to God using the Guitar and his wonderful voice in our parish. I am frankly sick of the disrepect for those who are genuinly working hard to please God the best way they can.

I don’t come on CAF and make snide comments about the tradtional music out of respect for those who like it. Why can’t others do the same?

It’s all about simple charity. I have seen a serious lack of that in this thread by a few.

Sorry for the rant. I talked to our priest about this today after Mass and I’m glad I did. He gave me some good perspective on this. I’m done with this rubbish.

 

[MonFrere]

Anamchara,

Thanks for your reply. Often on these forums I will speak - in theory - without a context of my ideas needing to work among all the hard working laity among our Catholic ranks. However, whenever someone comes to our parish and wants to participate in the Mass I will always go to the priest, give my opinion, and if I get the OK of the priest then I look not so much the talent of the individual as the desire of the person to contribute to the liturgy.

On a parish level, ALL HELP IS APPRECIATED. It’s sometimes so hard to get people to make the necessary sacrifices to do a credible job. Whenever there’s a person willing to sacrifice, that person is cherished. I’m sure you and your husband are cherished in your parish.

P.S. We also sang - I Received the Living God - during the Eucharistic Liturgy at today’s Mass.

I’m sure you’re appreciated at your parish - and I’m sure it’s well deserved.

In charity,
MonFrere

 

[Strummer]

Let me start with your (3) above: You got me there - I had to go to the dictionary for that one. It said “prevaricator = liar”. It’s always the sign of a small mind that instead of using a clear often used 4-letter word has to use seldom used (“never used” might be more accurate) 12-letter words that no one else uses (please point to any book or article where that author uses the word “prevaricator” instead of “liar”. I’m reasonably well-read and I don’t ever remember coming across that one) to make their point (actually, to make themselves think they have more intelligence than they really have more closely explains such use by “certain” people). I must say - you’ve got some brass even throwing out your murky cloak of insinuation with your words that Fr. Neuhaus “might-should-maybe-not” be thought to be a LIAR. You should really be ashamed. Really.
(1) - All the while you really do have problems with simple 4-letter words like FREE (another characteristic of “unknown 12-letter-word” users). I stand by my previous treatise on the meaning of the word - when someone gives something away and asks NOTHING whatsoever in return that is called FREE not “non-profit”. My FOR-PROFIT food store recently gave away FREE hot dogs and sodas on their latest grand opening of a new store and customer appreciation day. My NON-PROFIT parish gives away FREE donuts after Sunday masses. Get it? (Not, I’m sure you don’t). FREE has nothing whatsoever to do with PROFIT or NON-PROFIT.
(2) Statistician you are not - nor cost accountant either, obviously! Now it’s COST (uh oh - another 4-letter word) . Go try to convince the MILLIONS of poor people in Rio de Janiero’s infamous favelos (slums) who can’t afford a TV that “broadcast TV” is FREE and cable TV is not FREE. Then try to explain to them why it is that they cannot get your FREE broadcast TV any more than they can get your NOT FREE cable or satellite TV - all because they can’t afford a TV to begin with.
My heartfelt suggestion to you is to work on 4-letter words for a while (10 years +/- seems about right) - then work your way up gradually to your 12-letter words. Best of luck.

Believe it or not, many 12-letter words naturally spring to my mind and I simply transcribe my thoughts as they come to me. “Prevaricator”, my research shows, is a 12-grade vocabulary word. I guess that particular lesson just stuck with me. Furthermore, while synonymous with “liar” (that means, it means nearly the same thing), there is a subtle difference which made it the better word choice than the overly simplistic 4-letter word. “Prevaricator” connotes a certain imprecision of language whereas “liar” is more of a direct avoidance of truth. I chose the word that best conveyed my intent. I apologize if I over-estimated your abilities.

It is unfortunate that you take such offense at a more precise use of the English language but I will make no apologies for my vocabulary nor my education. Your knee-jerk, anti-intellectual reaction speaks volumes of your own insecurities and I hope to cease this conversation shortly lest I draw you into further calumny. However, as you’ve addressed me directly, I must answer your spurious charges.

When I referred to EWTN’s non-profit status it was in reference to their relationship to the cable/satellite companies, not the viewers. This was because you mentioned how EWTN does not charge them. Fair enough. Now in relation to the viewers, EWTN certainly does not charge them either, however, they must subscribe (i.e. “pay for”) a service in order to receive their signal. Naturally, they must also own a television but as that is a known and given prerequisite for every conceivable television program; no reasonable person would consider that in the equation of “free” vs. “paid”. So when you stated, “when someone gives something away and asks NOTHING whatsoever in return that is called FREE” while ONE definition of the word, you only addressed the relationship of EWTN to the cable/satellite companies, not the viewers. Viewers must ultimately pay the distributors in order to view EWTN’s product. That’s call a subscription and it comes with an expectation of recompense, I’m sorry, I mean “cost”.

 

[Strummer]

Al,

Don’t leave!! Please wait until this thread exhausts itself. I think it’s almost there. I appreciate getting to talk first hand to someone who had the honor of performing before the Holy Father, Pope Benedict.

Amen to that! Although I must admit more that just a little bit of jealousy. You were truly blessed, al. May you carry the experience in your heart all your days.

I’m sure Mr. Miller doesn’t speak this way to his daily acquaintences.

And thank you, MonFrere, for that humbling reminder.