Hilary Hahn & Jennifer Higdon on the Composition Process

OK, I guess this is Hilary Hahn night for me! One can gain greater insight, I think, into the great potential and the universal dignity and nobility of the human person through what highly gifted artists reveal in their artistry.

Here is what I think is a very interesting clip of Hilary speaking with composer Jennifer Higdon. Jennifer wrote a violin concerto specifically for Hilary which she debuted with the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra in February, 2009. In this interview Hilary and Jennifer speak about the creative process of composing for a specific musician. You get a few glimpses of some of the ways Jennifer got ideas and inspiration for the piece. A few themes that I picked up:

1) The creative process is inherently personal--both for the composer and the musician
2) The new composition, while new and original, is not disconnected from other works of musical art. There are inspiriations that come from what has gone before.
3.) The composer gets ideas from multiple places, some from outside the sphere of the music world.
4.) A piece written with a particular musician in mind is itself inspired during the creative process by that musician's particular style, gifts, flair, personality, etc. So, this sort of composition is especially born of relationship--a human relationship between composer and musician.



If you liked this, the interview continued for two more parts. See part 2 here, and part 3, here.

Hilary Hahn video II; Music, "Communicates . . ."

Here is Hilary Hahn during a recording session in London. You can get an idea of her talent here. The clip starts with an interesting brief commentary by Hilary about what she strives to do in making a recording. Her last remark points to that quality of music as communicating, . . . something (ineffable).

The proper British narrator sounds to me like someone from the 1950's and is somewhat amusing. But he doesn't speak for long, and then you can listen and watch Hilary play the violin. Extraordinary. It's also interesting to see a recording being made of such cultured music and the solo musician is wearing jeans. A sign of our times (I don't mind this; however, I think it is interesting as I doubt we would have seen classical musicians in jeans 40 or 50 years ago in a recording session). I wonder if the "gentleman" conductor (as the narrator points out) approved! But that's not very important. I post this clip for Hilary's comment and for her musicianship. Enjoy.

Music as Communion; Violinist Hilary Hahn on Audience Interaction

Here is an interesting short clip from an interview with the incredibly talented classical violinist, Hilary Hahn.

She touches upon one of the things that is so wonderful about music as it is performed live. For the musicians, a live concert can be a powerful experience of human communion in at least two different modes simultaneously: musicians-with-musicians, and, musicians-as-a-group with the audience-as-a-group. Each type of communion is unique and they both bring a special thrill to the performers during a live event. I want to highlight that these are deeply human thrills--experiences that are especially of the realm of the human person.

When both types of communion are happening at a high level in a given performance it makes for a very special event. I would say music is, at least in some ways, the highest art form that man can engage in. It involves exquisite, living realities of some of the highest aspects of human communion that can be experienced in this life. Music can plunge a listener's soul incredibly deeply into the heart of the musicians-as-a-group and of the composer as well. It can be a form of wordless unity--and full of meaning--that has great power and poignancy, capable of communicating with astounding immediacy, subtlety, and directness, while also revealing the alluring, tantalizing mystery of human life as mystery--secrets of the human soul that no words could capture.

Praise God for the great gift of the human person's ability to create music!

Are You a Prude?

I would like to post here comments I made (with a few slight changes) on a thread at The Linde, the blog of my friends at The Personalist Project.

In her post, Katie van Schaijik asks, "What is prudishness?" What entails being prudish as contrasted with simply having a proper sense of decorum, modesty, propriety, social grace, etc.? It may seem a simple question, but it strikes at something rather deep in American culture and is very relevant to the complicated relationship between American culture and being a person who strives to live as fully Catholic a life as possible here in America.

__________

Is the following instructive to ponder in light of the subject of prudishness and American culture? Think of the example of the “Christian Temperance” movement of the early 20th century, which resulted in the (to me) very silly and ill-fated Prohibition laws banning alcohol. What does this show about the more fearful segments of (Protestant) Christian influence upon our culture? It seems to me that anything like Prohibition would have been considered absurd in any majority Catholic nation.

Wasn’t Prohibition roughly around the same time as a surge of Pentecostalism (born-again, spirit-led, Bible-only, morally heavy-handed) in America? (not to blame this on Pentecostalism alone)

American culture does suffer, I think, from its Christian roots being essentially Protestant (not denying that there are many good things in Protestant Christianity!). How? It seems to me (and I used to be one) that Protestantism has a very hard time seeing that potentially dangerous aspects of life do not have to be entirely walled up and kept at bay like dynamite in order to remain safe. This is why Prohibition is instructive. Instead of realizing that one can—through a grace-assisted cultivation of virtue—use alcohol in a culturally healthy, beneficial, even life-affirming way, America chose instead to deal with its potentially dangerous aspects by simply banning it altogether. This is an approach that makes a certain sense if you have little understanding of the real possibility of cultivating supernatural virtues (together with ordinary virtues) in any human life lived in close relationship with God. It gets down to having a truncated view of the interplay of nature and grace in this life.

So, while a fundamentalist Baptist, for example, might shun things like gambling (in any context), drinking, and dancing, as too dangerous to handle, a Catholic—in moderation—does not fear a decorous use of alcohol and dancing and gambling because he has hope in the possibility of grace and human virtue uniting in such a way as to transform the use of these things into not only acceptable, but positively beneficial, culturally enriching, sacramental signs in themselves.

Though I think many Catholics today do not have a sense of this, nonetheless, it seems to me from the witness of human history that believing, practicing Catholics have the fullest potential of attaining a firm hope for the possibility of baptizing many aspects of human culture in this life—a hope that flows from a healthy awareness of the power of grace-infused virtue to liberate culture from the severity of all types of prudishness.

Christopher West on Concupiscence, II

Update: For more and very interesting discussion about Christopher West's talk on Wednesday evening, June 3, check out a new blog, The Linde, over at The Personalist Project. The first speaker of the evening, Dr. Michael Healy, offered a very good commentary on West's talk.


Last night here in West Chester, PA, I attended a talk sponsored by The Personalist Project at which Christopher West spoke. He was the second of two speakers. The first was a former professor of mine at Franciscan University, Dr. Michael Healy. He gave an excellent address on human sexuality according to the thought of Dietrich von Hildebrand.

After this, Christopher West spoke. I thought it was a good talk. After he spoke there was time for Q & A. I asked him a question to clarify what his thoughts are on concupiscence. West answered in such a way as to satisfy me that he does not hold that grace wipes out concupiscence (which would be contrary to the teaching of the Church). In fact, in the course of his talk, he stated that in this life we are never free of the pull of concupiscence.

And so, on the specific topic of concupiscence, I do not think there is a problem with what West personally believes.

During the evening I think I gained an insight into why he can sometimes be taken as teaching problematic things in regard to concupiscence. Just after West stated that in this life we are never free of the pull of concupiscence (which correctly represents Church teaching), he said (and I think the quote is accurate as I took notes), "Christ has set us free from the domination of concupiscence." (emphasis mine) . . . I will come back to this in a moment.

The larger subject of West's talk last night was an overview of the three-stage journey of the human soul on the path to sanctity--a classic theme of Catholic spiritual theology. He spoke about this in the context of his efforts to promote the Theology of the Body because he wanted to emphasize that both John Paul II and Dietrich von Hildebrand had this in common: a firm belief that purity--real purity--is indeed possible (with grace) in this life. How? By staying the course on the lifelong threefold journey to holiness described by spiritual writers as the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways. With the ongoing help of grace and our personal cooperation, we truly can be transformed and made pure. This is indeed a wonderfully Catholic understanding and I agree with it fully. This beautiful truth about the interplay of grace and nature in this life--that genuine, personal transformation that makes one holy is possible in this life--is one of those pearls of Christian wisdom that only the Catholic Church seems to have held onto with a full and constant embrace since our savior's return to heaven.

So, why does West's teaching sometimes spur controversy among Catholics on this specific subject of concupiscence? This sometime-misunderstanding I think is rooted in a misreading of what West means when he says things like, "Christ has set us free from the domination of concupiscence."

There is a very significant difference between being freed from concupiscence outright (which West affirmed last night he does not hold as possible in this life), and being freed from the domination of concupiscence. Being freed from being dominated (i.e. easily overwhelmed and overpowered in such a way that one does not seem able to stop temptation from leading quickly into sin) by concupiscence is very much something any Catholic should ardently desire. We should see this as truly possible through an ongoing process of growth in holiness as we walk with Christ in this life. This is the sort of thing--being freed from enslavement to concupiscence--that the journey of the spiritual life through the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways is supposed to bring about in us.

I think it is very possible that when Christopher West claims (correctly) that we can--by the interplay of grace with human freedom--be freed in this life from being dominated by temptations to sin, some people hear this as no different from saying that we can be freed from temptation itself. But West (as I heard him last night) is not saying this. He is saying that there is real hope in the power of grace--if we are open to it and accept the crosses that may come with it--to remove the bondage of being unable to resist the pull of concupiscence toward committing sin. We will never be free in this life from concupiscence itself. But, we can become pure, so that when an enticement to sexual sin arises within us we are not thrown into a frenzy and dominated by it. It is there, but it can no longer have its way. Rather, we can allow it to pass by, not giving it permission to take control of our heart and our will. The temptation of concupiscence whispers to us, "go down this path," but, by grace, we firmly, confidently, peacefully, say in return, "my Savior's Passion has given me the power to say no; I will not go down this path."

Before being made pure--acquiring the virtue of chastity--a person may be in the grip of sin, controlled and easily overpowered by lust when it comes knocking on the door of his soul. But after a long (and always ongoing) process of sanctification, at some point eventually the same person is no longer overpowered by lust, though he is tempted by it for the duration of his life.

As I put my question to West I acknowledged that there is a difference between concupiscence itself (the pull toward sin), and vice. All Christians are called to the hope that Christ's grace can over time and with much prayer gradually strip away our vices (sinful habits). Christopher agreed with this.

This, I believe, is a very sound Catholic understanding of life. To be gradually freed from enslavement to sinful patterns that have become rooted in our lives is a great thing and possible in this life and to be hoped for as we put our trust in Christ. This is true even as we realize that inclinations to sin will still bite at us throughout our life. And at least according to last night's event, I believe it is what Christopher West believes and teaches as well. There may be other critiques of his work that hit their mark. But, as far as concupiscence is concerned, I am satisfied for myself that there are no serious problems with Christopher West.

A concluding remark. West is passionate about his ministry, has a passionate rhetorical style, and strives to speak in a way that is accessible to the average person. I suspect that there may be times in the midst of an exuberant presentation when he is not as clear as perhaps he could be on the important distinction noted above between concupiscence itself--which remains even as grace increases--and the domination of concupiscence over a person--which is rooted out as grace transforms us. The "new man" in Christ is still tempted, but no longer in such a way that he cannot do other than to defile his soul by giving in to sin. He is no longer helpless against temptations. If West ever seems to be unclear or fuzzy on this, please ask him in charity to simply clarify. I think you will find as I did last night that he fully accepts the doctrine of the Church in regard to concupiscence.

A hearty thanks to Jules and Katie van Schaijik for putting together last night's fruitful evening with professor Healy and Christopher West.

Concupiscence, Catholic Teaching On; and Christopher West

In light of recent controversy over the content and style of the public presentations by Catholic lay evangelist, Christopher West, I would like to offer a brief primer on the teaching of the Catholic Church on "concupiscence."

Why am I concerned to address this topic? It is because I am sure that some Catholics can be easily mislead, even if unintentionally, into thinking that something is wrong with them spiritually if they still experience temptations (one type of which stems from concupiscence). This is a mistake that can be harmful and a serious obstacle to spiritual progress. Growth in sanctity can most definitely happen even as temptations to commit sin are still experienced in a person's soul. Temptation is always cause for sober concern, but, with God's help, should never be a cause for panic or despair.

First, some background items. What is concupiscence? Simply put, it is the inclination to sin. Why do we have it? We have concupiscence because of original sin (the fall of Adam and Eve). Concupiscence is not equivalent to original sin, it is a consequence of it. And so it is not a result of our own personal, individual sins--it resides in us at birth because of the wounds inflicted upon human nature by original sin and passed down to all via generation. And this is very important: concupiscence is not itself the same thing as personal sin; to undergo an inclination toward a sinful act is not yet in itself the same thing as committing a sin.

So concupiscence is neither original sin nor personal sin--nor is it a result of personal sin. It is, however, a result of original sin. It is a tendency--a propensity--a leaning toward, sin.

The glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) defines concupiscence as follows:

human appetites or desires which remain disordered due to the temporal consequences of original sin, which remain even after Baptism, and which produce an inclination to sin.

Why mention this in relation to the teaching of Christopher West? Some intelligent and educated Catholics criticize West's approach for coming across as downplaying the reality and significance of concupiscence. To some, West almost seems to suggest that not only sin, but concupiscence itself, can be overcome in this life, thus restoring man to a subjective state of original innocence, as before the fall.

I have heard West speak in person and listened to a few of his audio recordings, but I am by no means expert in all things West. I do not know whether Christopher West personally believes that concupiscence can be eliminated in this life, but I think it is true that some of his language, presentation style and emphases can together be interpreted as teaching this or something similar. And to the degree that this is the case, this is a problem. (I want to acknowledge as others have that there is no doubt much good has been and continues to be done by West. However, even one who has done much good can still make mistakes and thus be subject to sincere and charitable criticism.)

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches officially about concupiscence. . .

[Council of Trent] The holy Council, however, professes and thinks that concupiscence or the inclination to sin remains in the baptised. Since it is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but vigorously resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ. Rather, "one who strives lawfully will be crowned." Of this concupiscence which the apostle occasionally calls "sin" the holy Council declares: The Catholic Church has never understood that it is called sin because it would be sin in the true and proper sense in those who have been reborn, but because it comes from sin and inclines to sin. If anyone thinks the contrary, anathema sit. [Decree on original sin, no. 5; the year 1546]

And further, the following is a condemned proposition (i.e. the Church formally declares this to be wrong):

[Condemned Propositions of Michael de Bay]
The integrity at the beginning of creation was not a gratuitous exaltation of human nature but its natural condition.
[Bull Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus; Pius V, 1567]

Note: this proposition is wrong. This deceptively small item is quite significant in itself. Why? Because it indicates that what the Catholic theological tradition refers to as 'integrity' (the perfect control of the emotions and passions by reason [note: this is not the same as the absence of emotions and passions, but, rather the harmony of these with all that pertains to knowledge and reason]), while part of mankind's original state, was not strictly speaking natural to man even before the fall. I'll repeat this another way because of its importance: integrity--the fully harmonious and agreeable relationship between emotion and reason which Adam and Eve originally possessed but then lost for themselves and for their progeny because of their sin--was itself a gift from God that stretched beyond and perfected what human nature was capable of on its own without His assistance.

Catholic theology delineates three states or categories of gifts and attributes that mankind originally possessed as first created by God (i.e. man's condition before sin entered the world). These are three: 1. nature, 2. preternature, and 3. supernature. These roughly can be thought of as 1. the state of created human beings according to all the powers and conditions inherent to their own essence as human beings, apart from any special help from God beyond what He built into human nature itself; 2. human nature with some added assistance from God to "stretch" it beyond what it could do on its own, but in a way that is nicely harmonious with and complementary to its own merely natural powers (preternature completes or perfects nature); 3. human nature plus special help from God enabling it to do things or to exist in ways completely above and unlike what human nature itself could ever attain to in any way by itself.

Here are examples to help clarify:

nature: digestion; sight; movement; language ability

preternature (nature completed): integrity (absence of concupiscence); freedom from suffering; immortality
(effects of losing, see CCC 400)

supernature: sanctifying grace (the life of God present in the human soul making man friends with God and able to live with Him in eternal life); miraculous healing
(effects of losing, see Gn 2:17; Rom 6:23; CCC 399)


With this in mind, here is a quote from the Catechism that talks about the effects of original sin:

[Original sin] is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin--an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. [CCC 405]

The significant point here in all this, in the context of some confusion over what Christopher West really says and means, is this: concupiscence, not in itself the same as sin, is a result of the loss of the preternatural gifts (see above)--not a result of the loss of supernatural gifts. This loss is a consequence of original sin. Sanctifying grace (regained by Baptism and then strengthened by prayer, the sacraments, and charity) restores the loss of the supernatural gift of God's life to man's soul. However, sanctifying grace does not restore the preternatural gifts. Man still suffers. He still dies a physical death. And, he is tempted to sin because of concupiscence.

It is a mistake to think that sanctifying grace--which increases in the soul as a person grows in holiness--removes concupiscence. It does not. It restores that divine life to the soul which makes it possible for the human person to live in heaven. But temptation, in this life, will remain as a trial and a test--just as physical death and suffering remain. Even the most holy saint will still die, still suffer, and still be tempted. His temptation, however, need not lead to sin. Sanctifying grace helps the child of God to better deal with the temptations of concupiscence so that they no longer lead him into sin, though temptations still occur.

For more detail on this, see my further comments on Dawn Eden's blog here, here, and here.

And I will close this post with a final quote from the Catechism:

Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.
[CCC 1426]

Grace Abundant; Five New Dominican Priests

By the grace of God there are five new Dominican priests in the world, ordained last Friday, May 29. They are: Fr's. Gregory Schnackenburg, Bruno Mary Shah, Anthony Mary Giambrone, Thomas Petri, and Jonah Pollock.

I attended their ordination to the holy priesthood at St. Dominic's Church in downtown Washington, DC. It was awesome. I've been to a number of ordinations. But when it is men with whom you have lived and know well who are being ordained it is even more special than ordinations always are.

I am very happy and excited for them, the Dominicans, and the Church, for they are excellent men and I'm sure will be excellent priests. I pray for abundant blessings upon their priesthood, and that they all become holy in the exercise of their priestly ministry. All praise and thanks be to God for this great gift to the Church!