Rorate Caeli

Quick Note: new tune at St. Peter's

The chapter of Saint Peter's Basilica has dismissed Spanish Monsignor Pablo Colino Paulis as head of the Cappella San Pietro and named as his replacement a Roman layman, Claudio Dall'Albero -- foremost disciple of the old director of the Cappella Sistina, Domenico Bartolucci. (From Settimo Cielo, link at the sidebar).

More on Bartolucci here.

9 comments:

Jeff said...

Now THAT's a good sign. Big smile.

*****

Please tell us: Did we do something wrong? What decided you to moderate? I have no objection, of course. I'd just prefer to try and self-censor first.

New Catholic said...

No, the moderation is just because I'm too busy with some very relevant activities and cannot keep the watch I like to keep.

When I "return" to "permanent" blogging at the end of the month, the comment moderation will end.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

I think comment moderation should always be on, I do it on all my blogs; because we catholics should not surrender to the logic of those who claim the right an unbridled liberty of speech.

It also often can serve charity.

Jeff said...

Oh, pooh, Brother. It's one thing to "surrender" to the claim of an absolute right. It's quite another to err on the side of liberty so that one doesn't fall into the thin-skinned, den-mother attitude of several Traditionalists I can name. Though people can misuse it, there's nothing wrong with having a discussion with people, for heaven's sake.

Even people like Patrick, who understand little about the moral genius of Catholicism are better served with a public answer like New Catholic gave than with winnowing out. I think New Catholic has chosen the better path, though it brings its own troubles. As a frequent and wonderful commenter on blogs himself, I'm sure he has a sense of the value of allowing them.

Sprezzatura said...

Now, what good Pope Bennie should do is to appoint Peter Phillips as Mæstro of the Capella, and the Tallis Scholars as the resident choir.

bedwere said...

And Alcuin Reid at the CDW!

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Jeff, it is strange to see you argue for liberty of discussion, when just last week, wasn't it, you said that I had "no right" to argue that the Pope is perfectly free to appoint whomsoever he wills as a bishop?

;) !

Jeff said...

Brother,

I don't remember the words I used and despite your quotation marks, I suspect you don't either!

In any case, my argument was that as a practical matter popes weren't free to appoint the bishops they wanted; all had to deal with pressures and consensus-building questions and all popes appointed bishops who were not their choices at all. Your argument was thus a completely ahistorical and implausible one. In that sense, the facts didn't leave you "free" to make an intellectual respectable argument that the Popes--any Popes about whom we have any records--appointed bishops "freely."

Not, of course, that you should be forbidden from saying that Popes are "perfectly free" to appoint who they want or that Pope Benedict is an incarnation of the Devil or whatever you want to say. I don't see why Tradosaurus, for instance, shouldn't argue that Benedict isn't Pope or Bush isn't President or the sky isn't blue. I may think both your arguments are sometimes crazy, but with bishops like Todd Brown around, who can blame Catholics for going around the bend?

RAlsina said...

Jeff, Br. Bugnolo:

You both have come to a point that illustrates perfectly the argument about Religious Liberty!!

I explain myself:
The fact that according to Jeff brother Bugnolo may be wrong in light of the facts, but still be free -i.e., have a right to- to utter his error in public dialogue, is what proponents of Religious Freedom think. Indeed, false religions may be wrong but they would have a right to publicly express this error.
I just wanted to point that out, to show that the problem comes up in the tiniest of questions.

Br Bugnolo thinks that error should not be allowed in principle, but just tolerated, in a discussion forum, for the sake of argument, and hence he defends the right to moderate, being that the equivalent of the State´s right to supress public error, and its right to merely tolerate it for the sake of avoiding greater evil or allowing greater good (in this case, the greater good to correct the mistaken person by means of argument... otherwise, there could not be questiones disputatae at all).

Jeff, on the other hand, sees a right of the mistaken person to utter publicly his mistakes, and hence he frowns upon the fact the moderation has been put in place...

Curious stuff... (of course, I apologize if I have misinterpreted and wrongly represented both of your lines of thought, I bent things a little to illustrate a point).