Nah, don't worry...
But in a quick skim of headlines and blogs, (everything is needfully quick until I am back home... or homish,) came across more of the on-going fracas over the attempted public shaming that is "Ten Worst..." lists; a plea for a better, more civil approach, (people from CenCa are just obviously better people...) which notes the limited resources we all have; and the news that a number of bishops have withdrawn their support of the Catholic Campaign form Human development.
The latter is my themes, and the bishops' the choice which I proudly favor.
Not funding or de-funding of the CCHD per se, but the acknowledgment of limitations and the acceptance of the fact that choices must be made in expenditures, be the of time, talent or treasure.
And no, I suppose I wouldn't send money to the CCHD and necessarily trust that it would be spent wisely, in support of aims I share.
It might be, but it would be like using a poor search engine, or taking the time to sing through OCP packets, one merely guesses of course, but based on past disappointment it doesn't seem the wisest way to allot limited resources.
It makes more sense to give directly to charities one embraces, or to use Google, or to look specifically at new offerings from composers whose work one admires.
For that matter, since the CCHD dust-up is about charitable monies, I should also add, based on how they've spent my money in the past, I don't give much to my diocesan appeal.
I'd rather give directly to retirement funds for religious, or family counseling services, or the St Vincent de Paul society, or Peter's Pence.
Whereas, say, Kwanzaa parties are fine and all, but not on my nickle.
So, I'm all for choice, sometimes...
I'm not a Cafeteria Catholic, but does this make me a Buffet Benefactor?
Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Geez, G...
I would think that you, of all, would get my weird ways of expression. That aside, we in the CenCA aren't obviously better, nor was it remotely my intent that my protestations were to reflect that by-product. I always advocate a "civil approach." But that wasn't the point of the post either. I simply didn't think it in the best interest of CMAA to simply reprint the FT article without some sort of qualification. If we truly want to persuade folks towards "what WE do" at CMAA, which is so foreign to regular USofA PIPs, and which our adversaries would call alienating, we ought not to associate ourselves with diatribe that had all the subtlety of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral.
That's all.
Oh, Charles, NO! I meant it - okay, not really about the inhabitants of Sacramento and environs, but specifically the author of the obliquely referenced post on Chant Cafe, namely, YOU.
Let's face it, we ALL know that we should behave, and we do, MOST of the time, but you, of all the posters on CC, TNLM, MS, never seem to forget it, and I admire that.
I wish I could say I emulate it, as well, but I am snarky by nature, and forget the best of intentions.
But seeing your post; the CCHD news; thinking about, okay, not "Worst," but at least "bad" church music; and noting the phrase, "0nly a limited amount of energy is given us," -- the confluence reminded me of what's usually the BEST reason not to do certain things, (whether it's giving money to a particular charity, or singing a particular song in Church,) and that is, that it prevents your dedicating your resources, (whether of time, energy or cold hard cash,) to BETTER things.
But again, I'm serious -- you are constantly showing yourself to be a better person, (at least than I,) in the charity you bring to blogging.
Save the Liturgy, Save the World!
P.S. I forgot to say that I am deeply distressed, not that you thought I was criticizing you, (because that would be one of those disingenuous "I'm sorry that YOU feel..." non-apologies corporate mouthpieces and big-mouthed politicians make,) I am deeply distressed that I expressed myself so clumsily that you thought I was criticizing you.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
Don't be distressed. I should have thought through your introduction more thoroughly. We're fine, and you're still Helen Mirren in my eyes.
Post a Comment