Vatican gives holy seal of approval to its top ten ‘pop milestones’

[Dominic_Brother]

What?!!! No Sgt.Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club Band? No Carole King (Tapestry)? No Steppenwolf?

No Bruce Springsteen (Born in the USA)? No Sinatra (Songs for Swingin’ Lovers)?

The Vatican’s list of pop is very odd indeed.

It would have been better not to come up with a top ten list. My top ten is different from your etc.

BTW, you missed Bob Dylan.

 

[Dominic_Brother]

I can’t believe that people are still obsessing over the backwards playing records. The truth is usually that if you’re hearing something it’s because you’re looking for it.

I love the “country song backwards” joke though. I think you also get your tractor back though

There is intentional backmasking and unintentional backmasking. What you are refering to is unintentional backmasking.

But if it is intentional, then the question begs as to why the artist put those messages there in the first place?

 

[Dominic_Brother]

To answer your question …
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks again Br JR. I’m the OP. I do not have an official press release. I was listening to Jazz on the radio and heard the vatican came up with a top ten list. So I went to the internet and took the first news story I found. (There are several links out there).

 

[utah_rose]

Meaning that Jackson, who has led a very scandalous life, would be on that list. While it is true that no musician is perfect, some are very bad compared to others and should be avoided.

I agree with you about Michael Jackson. I believe that none of those groups belong on a pop list, or that the Vatican should even be doing one.

One of the Beatles songs was “Imagine” that had to do with not having any religion. I’m not sure which album that was, but I am old enough to remember the “relationship” that John Lennon had with Yoko Ono, and the fact that he said that they were more popular than
“Jesus”.

If they must comply a list, there were plenty of nice and clean songs in the fifties such as sung by Bing Crosby, Perry Como and some others.

A list of religious music should replace the pop ones, especially since this is Lent and some of us are refraining from listening to much music at all.

 

[JReducation]

I have to say one thing in defense of the Vatican. The Church has a long history of promoting the arts. In doing so, she does not require that the arts be consistent with Catholic teaching. She never has. Her interest in the arts is promoting human creativity. That being said, we can’t deny that a group like the Beatles were artists in their own right or many other musical groups or singers, etc.

For example, the Church liked the movie, Passion of the Christ, but she has less than complimentary things to say about its producer and director and about his motives. But she appreciated the film as a work of art.

There was a very famous movie that came out in the late 60s or early 70s, Brother Sun Sister Moon. The laity thought it was beautiful. The Sacred Congregation for Religious Life, as it was known back then, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, and the Franciscan Order thought it was the most horrible film made about St. Francis, but they all agreed that it was a work of art, with no historical or religious value. But it has artistic value. It’s unique and the first in its class of a long series of what I call “Coffee Table Movies”. Remember, that’s my label, not the Church’s. Just in case. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

But if it is intentional, then the question begs as to why the artist put those messages there in the first place?

Point of order: that is not begging the question, i.e. a circular argument. You mean that it raises the question.

Assuming that they are intentional in the first place, I’d like to see some sort of proof.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[curlycool89]

Point of order: that is not begging the question, i.e. a circular argument. You mean that it raises the question.

Assuming that they are intentional in the first place, I’d like to see some sort of proof.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Well that’s the trick now, isn’t it. There isn’t any proof, so it must be a conspiracy or some nefarious plot now, isn’t it?

You know what, I’m really not surprised anymore that people were seeing communists in their soup anymore in the 50s. Not when it seems like there’s a giant conspiracy around every corner.

 

[mini_me640]

One of the Beatles songs was “Imagine” that had to do with not having any religion. I’m not sure which album that was,

Imagine was by John Lennon as a solo artist, not by the Beatles.

 

[onthenarrowpath]

Forgive me for sounding so stupid in asking…

I’ve read the articles about this subject and have looked at your responses, but I’m still a bit confused about whether or not the Vatican actually gives its “seal of approval” to those albums. Did it really issue a list of top-ten rock/pop albums, as that newspaper states? Does the pope know about it, or approve of it?

I guess what I’m asking is, does the Vatican and the pope seriously recommend those albums, or is there something I’m missing?

 

[JReducation]

Forgive me for sounding so stupid in asking…

I’ve read the articles about this subject and have looked at your responses, but I’m still a bit confused about whether or not the Vatican actually gives its “seal of approval” to those albums. Did it really issue a list of top-ten rock/pop albums, as that newspaper states? Does the pope know about it, or approve of it?

I guess what I’m asking is, does the Vatican and the pope seriously recommend those albums, or is there something I’m missing?

Let’s begin by saying that there are Deparments in the Vatican that deal with Communication, the Media, and Culture. Any such list would come from one of those departments. Of course, if it comes from one of these departments in the Vatican, it is official. These departments have the authority to speak in the name of the pope.

Does the pope know what these departments say or even care? Not really. He trusts them. There are too many other things that concern him. That’s why these departments exist, to take work off of his desk. His greatest concern right now is the relations with the Muslms and the Jews. Something like this falls on the desk of the Office for Culture and Faith.

If there is such a list, which no one seems to know for sure, then the answer is, Yes the Vatican does know, because the list comes from the Vatican. No the pope does not know and is not interested, because he has more important things to do. He trusts his staff. Anyone who runs an organization that big has to trust his team. Bill Gates cannot micromanage Microsoft, even though “micro” is part of it’s name. Right now the Muslims and the Jewish relations are moving very nicely and he does not want to upset that. He is also working on his next book. He is working with the Irish bishops to fix that mess. And he’s looking at other world issues, such as the persecution of Christians, especially the Eastern Rite Chrstians. This can be left to a Vatican Department to decide for him.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[onthenarrowpath]

Let’s begin by saying that there are Deparments in the Vatican that deal with Communication, the Media, and Culture. Any such list would come from one of those departments. Of course, if it comes from one of these departments in the Vatican, it is official. These departments have the authority to speak in the name of the pope.

Does the pope know what these departments say or even care? Not really. He trusts them. There are too many other things that concern him. That’s why these departments exist, to take work off of his desk. His greatest concern right now is the relations with the Muslms and the Jews. Something like this falls on the desk of the Office for Culture and Faith.

If there is such a list, which no one seems to know for sure, then the answer is, Yes the Vatican does know, because the list comes from the Vatican. No the pope does not know and is not interested, because he has more important things to do. He trusts his staff. Anyone who runs an organization that big has to trust his team. Bill Gates cannot micromanage Microsoft, even though “micro” is part of it’s name. Right now the Muslims and the Jewish relations are moving very nicely and he does not want to upset that. He is also working on his next book. He is working with the Irish bishops to fix that mess. And he’s looking at other world issues, such as the persecution of Christians, especially the Eastern Rite Chrstians. This can be left to a Vatican Department to decide for him.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, it sorta helps. I think you basically answered my question, which was whether or not this list of albums actually exists. You said no one knows for sure. But if no one really knows for sure, then I don’t understand why it has been reported as such. I tried looking at the L’Osservatore Romano website, and I cannot locate the article. All I see in my searches online are third-party sources purporting that such a list was issued.

I understand there are different departments within the Vatican, and I can understand the pope has greater concerns. But my concern with such a list is the witness it presents to the world. I hardly consider those albums to be spiritually uplifting music that gives glory to God, so I’m concerned about how it could influence believers. I’m not Catholic, admittedly, but I can’t help think that having such a list of albums would be “inappropriate”, in that it would seem to indicate advocacy for something worldly. But believers are to shun such worldly things, as the Bible states that friendship with the world is enmity with God. As the “headquarters” of the Roman Catholic Church, I would hope the Vatican would be a bit more sensitive to that…if indeed such a list of albums exists. But since no one knows for sure…

 

[utah_rose]

Having lived and studied in the Eternal City as they call it, I think that most people don’t understand how the Vatican papers work. They are truly newspapers. They are not propaganda machines for the Catholic Church.

As you say, they will write about popular culture, politics, fashion and what have you. They also publish news that comes out of the official Vatican News Agency. In this sense, it is the official Vatican newspaper, in that the Vatican New Agency gives Zenit and L’Observatore the first opportunity to report, before they send a press release to other papers in Rome.

What the writer in the British paper did was to take each quote and twist and turn it. I don’t like that. That’s dishonest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And I believe that the secular press gives way too much publicity to things like this, although I can say there was some good music in the sixties such as Simon and Garfunkel, (not Bob Dylan) and even some of the Beatles Music but the key is to be selective. I think listening to songs backwards is ridiculous. I believe some of Barry Manilow’s music is very good, especially “Ships” which talks about relationships. particularly with his father. But all of this music is subjective, and for the secular world to make headlines of this is ridiculous.

I’m sure that the Pope may not have been too aware of this, particularly if it wasn’t particularly highlighted in the paper. He can’t possibly be aware of every little thing, there’s too many important things he needs to attend to.

And yes, some of this music is “worldly” but unless that is all you are listening to, and neglecting everything else, I don’t believe this is sinful, unless you are listening to hard rock, sinful rap and such (even some country). In that case, you need to remove it.

I myself am a fan of Elton John, but since he made a comment saying that Jesus was gay, I am deleting all of his songs from my music list as my personal protest, though I am praying for him.!

 

[Dominic_Brother]

---

And I believe that the secular press gives way too much publicity to things like this, although I can say there was some good music in the sixties such as Simon and Garfunkel, (not Bob Dylan) and even some of the Beatles Music but the key is to be selective. I think listening to songs backwards is ridiculous. I believe some of Barry Manilow’s music is very good, especially “Ships” which talks about relationships. particularly with his father. But all of this music is subjective, and for the secular world to make headlines of this is ridiculous.

I’m sure that the Pope may not have been too aware of this, particularly if it wasn’t particularly highlighted in the paper. He can’t possibly be aware of every little thing, there’s too many important things he needs to attend to.

And yes, some of this music is “worldly” but unless that is all you are listening to, and neglecting everything else, I don’t believe this is sinful, unless you are listening to hard rock, sinful rap and such (even some country). In that case, you need to remove it.

I myself am a fan of Elton John, but since he made a comment saying that Jesus was gay, I am deleting all of his songs from my music list as my personal protest, though I am praying for him.!

They say that some of Elton John’s songs (most notably, “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road”) have allegedly been written in witch language. **Bernie Taupin, his co-writer, said that “John’s home is laden with trinkets and books relating to Satanism and witchcraft”. **

When a person has “idolized” ( I use that term loosely) a “rock/pop-artist/band” and then you suggest the artist might be in the occult and their music reflects anit-christian values; it is really hard on them to accept the possibilty that it might be true. You are labelled as a quack.

I try to set aside some prayers for “bad” rock’n roll artists and especially those fans who have been duped into loose living. It is hard at times to pray for the conversion of hardened sinners but that is what we must do.

 

[onthenarrowpath]

And I believe that the secular press gives way too much publicity to things like this, although I can say there was some good music in the sixties such as Simon and Garfunkel, (not Bob Dylan) and even some of the Beatles Music but the key is to be selective. I think listening to songs backwards is ridiculous. I believe some of Barry Manilow’s music is very good, especially “Ships” which talks about relationships. particularly with his father. But all of this music is subjective, and for the secular world to make headlines of this is ridiculous.

I’m sure that the Pope may not have been too aware of this, particularly if it wasn’t particularly highlighted in the paper. He can’t possibly be aware of every little thing, there’s too many important things he needs to attend to.

And yes, some of this music is “worldly” but unless that is all you are listening to, and neglecting everything else, I don’t believe this is sinful, unless you are listening to hard rock, sinful rap and such (even some country). In that case, you need to remove it.

I myself am a fan of Elton John, but since he made a comment saying that Jesus was gay, I am deleting all of his songs from my music list as my personal protest, though I am praying for him.!

Please don’t get me wrong - I’m not trying to make a judgment call in assessing the music as worldly. God knows I don’t always listen to Christian music, and I watch questionable television shows, etc. But my concern is the witness and message of the Church itself to the world. If such a list exists, does that mean it is giving its approval to indulge in worldly things?

I know this isn’t the focus of the thread, and I don’t want to hijack it, but I want to note that I’ve been considering a conversion to the Catholic Church. However, there have been some stumbling blocks along the way - things I’m trying to understand and reconcile myself with - and just when I think I’m ready to enter the RCIA process, I read about stuff like this that trips me up. It would bother me greatly to find out that the church was giving its approval to something of such a questionable and obviously worldly nature.

 

[Dominic_Brother]

All I see in my searches online are third-party sources purporting that such a list was issued.

That fact that these 3rd party sources out there are reporting this story is highly relevant. Each source will slant the story their way.

 

[onthenarrowpath]

That fact that these 3rd party sources out there are reporting this story is highly relevant. Each source will slant the story their way.

Right, I understand that. I’m just trying to figure out if the church actually DID issue a list of top rock albums. If it did, what was the purpose? I’ve read the word “semi-serious” in some articles. That confuses me. Was the list issued with the intention of advocating worldly rock music, or was there some other reason that I’m missing?

 

[Dominic_Brother]

Right, I understand that. I’m just trying to figure out if the church actually DID issue a list of top rock albums. If it did, what was the purpose? I’ve read the word “semi-serious” in some articles. That confuses me. Was the list issued with the intention of advocating worldly rock music, or was there some other reason that I’m missing?

Thank you and you’re right on! I have the same question and concerns as you!!!

Almost all the 3rd parties reporting this story want to portray the Vatican as approving this list. That’s my perception. That should be an eye-opener to everyone.

ie. BUT if there was no Vatican approval, then why are 3rd parties giving the idea there was Vatican approval???

 

[Lujack]

Right, I understand that. I’m just trying to figure out if the church actually DID issue a list of top rock albums. If it did, what was the purpose? I’ve read the word “semi-serious” in some articles. That confuses me. Was the list issued with the intention of advocating worldly rock music, or was there some other reason that I’m missing?

Because, as far as I can tell, L’Osservatore Romano is an intellectual newspaper. They write about stuff that they think might be interesting for people to think about; they report on things and write about them. Its a magazine of culture that operates out of the Vatican.

 

[Dominic_Brother]

Because, as far as I can tell, L’Osservatore Romano is an intellectual newspaper. They write about stuff that they think might be interesting for people to think about; they report on things and write about them. Its a magazine of culture that operates out of the Vatican.

I heard the same thing said about the New York Times except it does not operate out of the Vatican. I don’t waste my money buying the New York Times.

If the news reports of the L’Osservatore Romano is not meant to serve as a guide to moral teaching, then that’s how we have to treat the newspaper.

If the article they wrote was meant for us to think about it, then great, I accept that. **BUT I hope they said clearly said in the article, “please think about this list we created, we are only writing it so that you can think about it”. **

Otherwise, L’Osservatore Romano is using the doctrine of “spin” to promote something; just like the New York Times does when it “spins” their stories. Maybe the reporters got a payola; more people will buy the “Thriller” album now. Did the Jackson estate get free publicity?

Again, I don’t have the official re-print of the story, only what I hear on the grapevine.

I think I said something like this somewhere else in this thread, the average guy on the street does not treat a newspaper of the Vatican like the New York Times.The average person does and wants to treat the L’Osservatore Romano newspaper with stories it can rely on.

We have to protect the average person who reads these kinds of bad stories, and better still the poor who are poor in the intellectual sense. That’s what we are doing in this thread.

Again, let me repeat, I don’t have the official re-print of the story.

 

[Lujack]

I heard the same thing said about the New York Times except it does not operate out of the Vatican. I don’t waste my money buying the New York Times.

If the news reports of the L’Osservatore Romano is not meant to serve as a guide to moral teaching, then that’s how we have to treat the newspaper.

Its not a guide to moral teaching. Its the Vatican newspaper.

If the article they wrote was meant for us to think about it, then great, I accept that. **BUT I hope they said clearly said in the article, “please think about this list we created, we are only writing it so that you can think about it”. **

Why should they? Should a car have a label on it “This is not an airplane.”? Does a hibachi restaurant need to have a sign outside that says “We don’t do dry-cleaning here”, or a church need to inform people that it isn’t a place where they can buy groceries? Should I change my signature to make sure people know that I’m not the Pope or the President?

Otherwise, L’Osservatore Romano is using the doctrine of “spin” to promote something; just like the New York Times does when it “spins” their stories. Maybe the reporters got a payola; more people will buy the “Thriller” album now. Did the Jackson estate get free publicity?

Or, its just putting together a list of things, like other newspapers or blogs do.

Again, I don’t have the official re-print of the story, only what I hear on the grapevine.

I think I said something like this somewhere else in this thread, the average guy on the street does not treat a newspaper of the Vatican like the New York Times.The average person does and wants to treat the L’Osservatore Romano newspaper with stories it can rely on.

You can rely on L’Osservatore Romano to be accurate and reliable. You can also rely on it to print articles about culture, and history, and art, and music, and movies.

We have to protect the average person who reads these kinds of bad stories, and better still the poor who are poor in the intellectual sense. That’s what we are doing in this thread.

Again, let me repeat, I don’t have the official re-print of the story.

No, the average person is responsible to learn. L’Osservatore Romano is not responsible for misconceptions people have about it; the British newspaper is at fault here for misrepresenting what L’Osservatore Romano is and does. L’Osservatore Romano is not responsible for being nothing other than what it says it is, and doing nothing other than what it says it does.