Catholic Culture To Lower Phatmass' Ratings?

[Azriel]

Applauds for Theo!

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1433635' date='Dec 13 2007, 06:17 AM'][img]http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e34/TheVoodookilla/BANNED.jpg[/img][/quote]

It's can't be the physiology of the elf that's causing the difficulty - it's those stockings...

[quote]The site's otherwise high quality is marred by lack of prudence, lack of fortitude or very minor and apparently inadvertent lapses in orthodoxy or obedience (such as an occasional weak link or a very small number of documentary resources which have not been carefully screened); or the site exhibits minor problems in several areas, or a significant minority of its resources reveal an unfortunate disregard of orthodoxy or obedience; or the site represents all so-called Catholic viewpoints equally, in effect placing error on the same footing as Truth.[/quote]

The elf lacks fortitude and prudence (the second lack evidenced by the big nose) and the pink-striped sockings are an inadvertent lapse in orthodoxy.

[littleflower+JMJ]

Are they saying every single post on this forum should be little mini-encyclicals?

I cannot believe they would consider giving PM a yellow rating. I really hope they change it because thats just misleading and not even warranted. I mean its not like every thread is like that single post they pointed out--we do keep it clean.

And how many sites have a board for an online community that can talk about anything but phatmass? If anything, everyone else is lacking in this area when it comes to Catholic websites because the only ones that do are very restrictive and limited to only canonical problems or something.....So why would you bash the ones that do provide that range of good communication? And who do a good job of it?

This board has helped everyone in their faith some way so its not a negative but a positive. Yes, its a caution in a very small way but definitely not a danger enough to get a yellow rating.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

This is stupid.

I would correct that little grammatical error at the end, though...I think you mean "than efficient" instead of "the efficient."

[KnightofChrist]

I would hope that if they keep the yellow rating they point out the b**b word was in reference to a Elf with the head of beaker.

Edited December 13, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Jaime]

*WARNING*

This site may contain a muppet with boobs dancing to Christmas music

[rachael]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1433822' date='Dec 13 2007, 01:32 PM']*WARNING*

This site may contain a muppet with boobs dancing to Christmas music[/quote]

[size=7]
[b]shocking![/b][/size]

[jeffpugh]

Well, I'm glad this site is around. It has made me more Catholic just from taking part. Lots of good discussions, lots of help for me when it came to discussion on sacred music and lots of good times on the lame board (cause there, we learn to laugh at ourselves ). I like Theo's quote he included in his post. Why should we be a part of their system? Why don't they send someone who will look at something more than an elf thingamajig... they should try transmundane or the debate table if they want to talk shop. Open Mic is... well... open mic... just general discussions.

[missionseeker]

lol.

Guys, I have no idea what I would do without my Pham. Sometimes, I honestly think I would not be alive without PM.

Thank you! I love you all!

[Spamity Calamity]

Im gonna have to visit those other sites that DUST mentioned in his reply.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

You know what bothers me? The use of words which are on the fringe of being "bad words" (really, they're more silly than bad, I think, at least being used in this context) is absolutely no indicator of fidelity. Appropriateness, perhaps, but fidelity? That's just goofy. I think Catholic Culture should get a low reality rating. I mean, seriously, who reads any of hot stuff's comments and takes them seriously? They need to lighten up. Not every use of this term is insulting or degrading.

Further, as a moderator, I refuse to act like some sort of Catholic gestapo...some things are worth editing...others are not. It's not our job to control the behavior of members; it's our job to keep their behavior from damaging the phorum. So far, I've seen no ill effects from this post (nor do I reasonably foresee any), so I don't think it merits a warning or edit.

[hoosieranna]

"Grades for Resources are also defined [b]fairly precisely[/b], as follows" (copied verbatim from the site, emphasis mine)

Doesn't this count as an oxymoron?

I ask questions here because I know I will get a straight answer, even if I am not completely thrilled with the response. You know what you believe and why. Catholic Culture would do well to soak up some of that accuracy.

[dUSt]

I got a reply. It's nice!

[quote]dUSt,

I completely agree with you. It’s my error; I reviewed your site and didn’t notice that I had the yellow rating selected. I originally selected it because I had questions about the music and lyrics which have been resolved. We decided that it isn’t our function to review the music – only if it involved bad lyrics.

I personally do find the combination of the sacred with the profane irreverent. I seriously doubt if Our Lord appeared to us we would break into hip hop. I don’t think it helps to elevate the spirit to God. We had quite a discussion at the office about this subject.

This article was recommended to me by one of our staff, who has a problem with the form of music not just the combination of holy lyrics with profane music. [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7933"]http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7933[/url]

But Dr. Mirus has the final word, which is below and refers to the article referenced above:

----------
[size=1]The article in the link you provided seems to be a fairly balanced treatment, and I even have some sympathy for the distinctions it makes between rock and plain chant. But the practical application of the theory nonetheless breaks down, and this for four reasons:

(1) How we respond to this or that form of music is to a significant extent culturally-conditioned. There are no absolute forms of or responses to music apart from this conditioning.

(2) Surely nobody would argue that we should never listen to music that emotively imitates or stimulates anger or other forms of passion. Think of a musical, for example, or an opera, where all sorts of passions are imitated and explored in the course of telling a story. Consider, for example, Les Miserables, which has wonderful lyric songs, strong martial ones, and even some that emphasize (musically and lyrically) disorder and despair. Is it immoral to listen to a song which makes us feel sad? Or fired up? Certainly not, unless in our personal situation this would be morally dangerous in some way.

(3) There is a huge number of different types of compositions within rock, metal, etc. Some are junk, surely, but some also explore certain concepts and emotions in ways that are musically satisfying, at least to many. That there are strong lyrical associations among some groups to bad morals and faulty beliefs—including bad visual associations introduced into performances by some groups—does not invalidate the musical forms and, in fact, this has been true of a great many musical developments which have over time nonetheless found their way into mainstream respectability. Jazz, for example, began in the red light district.

(4) Ultimately, one cannot apply one’s own theory about how a given musical form or “sound” affects “everybody” if many people, in fact, say it does NOT affect them in that way. We constantly run up against this in musical discussions with people who have very different tastes and very different responses to what they hear. Equally good Christians, for example, disagree strongly about the problems/benefits associated with various kinds of music.

It was commonly said of the Latin rhythms that they were sensuous and highly moral people to whom these were new and foreign commonly condemned them as inciting to lust. I doubt anybody would be excessively concerned about a tango today. Again, the associations and the cultural conditioning were more important than the rhythm.

And, in fact, the author destroys the practical application of his own thesis right from the first when he recounts that the Greeks exiled the man who added a string to a particular instrument, thereby changing the type of music produced by it. Nothing could be a clearer example of the ultimate impossibility of separating musical judgments from our own cultural/personal expectations and associations, or of the ultimate danger of condemning those who, without bad lyrics or an evil way of life injected into their performances, may prefer types of music which we find annoying or worse.

These objections show why I believe that nobody, from the ancients forward, has ever made the musical argument successfully. I profoundly believe that there is an objectivity to the true, the good and the beautiful, and that we will one day understand it thoroughly and be able to make all the right distinctions (that is, in heaven). I have become equally convinced over time that our theoretically approximations of it as applied to music and art (where the content is not primarily cognitive) are extremely difficult and even dangerous to apply in any absolute way.

I have no objection to your posting the article. It is am excellent representation of the argument most frequently made by traditional Christians who recoil from rock music and assume that their recoil is rooted purely in their own virtue. I have considerable sympathy for the argument. I believed it completely a few years ago. And in this author’s form, it doesn’t push practical applications of the theory very far. It draws only the very broadest of specific conclusions. It is an argument altogether worth making and worth hearing, and something that every person should be thinking about when he listens to music or gets involved in the “music wars”.

But other arguments can be legitimately advanced, and I wouldn’t want to condemn somebody else’s musical preferences based on this particular argument. Doing so inevitably involves an assertion that I (with no log in my own eye) see the moral degradation to which another’s tastes are leading, and that I in my superiority am free to scoff at their own lived experience and even the obvious uprightness (in many cases) of their lives. At best I have to make the argument that they remain good in spite of the effect that the music they enjoy must inevitably produce if not counteracted by some stronger force. It is not impossible that this is true, but it cannot be proven by logic and it cannot be established by magisterial authority. Therefore, it certainly cannot be a basis for the Fidelity rating on CatholicCulture.org. In that context, it is appropriate to raise the question, but not to settle the argument.[/size]
----------

I hope you don’t mind my sharing the entire process with you. I would appreciate it if you have additional comments to add to your review that you send it on to me. Thanks and God bless you.[/quote]



And my reply back...

[quote]Thanks --------,

I'll send you an e-mail tonight with some updated info on the site. You might be reassured to know that phatmass is a strong advocate of returning reverence to the Sacred mass--in fact, it is one of the specific points in our mission statement:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/more/mission/"]http://www.phatmass.com/more/mission/[/url]

Also, it is clearly stated on the website and our CD covers that we do not support or encourage the use of hip-hop in any liturgical form. I also make this point in almost every interview I do, as well as the shows we perform at.

We make hip-hop to reach people who are fans of that style of music, and attempt to infuse Catholic teaching and morality into that culture. We are not trying to bring the hip-hop culture into the church--quite the opposite. I look at it this way... If we never attempt to inject the holy into the profane, then why are we building websites? The internet is the most profane form of media that exists!!!

I appreciate your understanding.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
dUSt - phounder, phatmass.com[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Good point about the internet at the end there, dUSt.

I'm glad they've decided favorably.

[Autumn Dusk]

aww big bad revwing site gave Phatmass a yellow sticker and we wanted a green one. And now phatmass has a green sticker, I believe they have a word for that...brown-nose

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1433953' date='Dec 13 2007, 04:25 PM']aww big bad revwing site gave Phatmass a yellow sticker and we wanted a green one. And now phatmass has a green sticker, I believe they have a word for that...brown-nose[/quote]
Awww...you're behaving just like the jealous kindergartener who's never gotten any stickers. Well here, have a smiley sticker:

jk

[MIKolbe]

good news, indeed.

their reply about 'holy with profane' sounded a tad pharisedic (sp?) to me. I wonder what they would say about Jesus touching a leper... :gasp:

but good news nonetheless.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1433955' date='Dec 13 2007, 05:27 PM']Awww...you're behaving just like the jealous kindergartener who's never gotten any stickers. Well here, have a smiley sticker:

jk[/quote]

Which reminds me I miss my gold stars!

[Ash Wednesday]

I don't know if I agree with some of their feelings about the music -- this is coming from someone who is very lukewarm about hip hop -- but it sounds like they were very sensible in their decision. And your reply was spot on, dUSt.

[Lil Red]