Reader Feedback 4.2.03

Don’t let RPO die

On a recent Thursday, my friend Ethan and I were sitting in
row GG of the Eastman Theater after the RPO concert, waiting for the crowd to
disperse and the garage to empty. After silently marveling at the collaborative
miracle that is a fine symphony orchestra, I said to Ethan, for no particular
reason, “How could something that magnificent be allowed to die?”

                  Magnificent
is no exaggeration. That night, I’d been tempted to give the overture a
standing ovation, it had been so thoroughly realized. Then came the concerto, a
major work by the most important American composer of our time. Our RPO had the
courage to challenge convention, and played John Adam’s Violin Concerto to
great effect. Finally, Brahms’ first symphony was given with an ideal balance
of expressive panache and disciplined intensity. No other word for it.
Magnificent.

                  Every
show I’ve attended this season has been memorable, sometimes a revelation. In
its 81 years of existence, I doubt that the orchestra has ever presented finer
concerts. And seldom in those years has the solace of great music, or a
reminder of the higher works of man, been more necessary than now.

                  But
my question for Ethan betrayed a familiar fear. So many of the priceless public
resources bequeathed to this generation by our grandparents, people who knew
what was vital in a civilized community, are lost or withering. Parks,
hospitals, schools, arts: victims of selfishness, shortsightedness, corrupted
politics, and willful ignorance.

                  Scarcely
a week later, the daily paper had the story: The RPO is in crisis, short of
cash and on the verge of closing. Despite all the acknowledgements of how vital
the institution is to Rochester’s survival as a modern community, we are again
forced to ask, “How could something that magnificent be allowed to
die?”

                  Ethan
is a wise man.

                  He
said, “It has to survive. It’s too important. It is part of what we are,
as a city, as a people. It simply cannot be allowed to disappear.”

                  Carl Pultz, Rochester (Pultz is a board
member of Madrigalia and a former WXXI classical music host.)

On Sacred Heart

Re: “Sacred Architecture: The Church’s One Foundation, or
Two” (March 12): Once again, Jack Bradigan Spula shows his depth and knowledge
on important religious issues. He also attempts balance, while never forgetting
his leftist roots.

                  The
“off topic” hit on Dr. Barbara Fredericks was his successful attempt
to demonize using the conservative characterization. However, canon law and
liturgical law require that the priest give the homily after the readings. That
is orthodoxy (right teaching). The Roman Catholic Church always and everywhere
gives precedence to the priest in his unique role as Persona Christi and
homolist in the particular liturgy of the Sacrifice of the Mass. There exists
correct usage for lay speakers.

                  In
addition, the architectural plans for Sacred Heart delivered to the Rochester
Zoning Board reveal that the renovation of Sacred Heart will be
“contrary” to universal liturgical law and canon law. The plan
destroys the sanctuary and moves the tabernacle into a room that is not
conspicuous or large enough, in opposition to General Instruction Roman Missal
2000-No’s 294, 295, 299, 315, and canon 938 (section) 2.

                  Frankly,
Vatican II has been disfigured with regrettable statements made by many a
modernist American cleric. They have built a foundation that is in opposition
to Vatican II, which is a continuation of a two-millennia foundation. Our group
is not alone in working to preserve Her.

                  That
said, I have enjoyed and admired Spula’s work since the Corpus Christi
controversy. He communicates a depth on these subjects, which is rare in
Rochester. His inclusion of Dr. Murray’s comments was very important.

                  Michael F. Brennan, Seth Green Drive,
Rochester (Brennan is a member of the Save Sacred Heart Preservation
Committee)

Shed more light

Regarding “Sacred Architecture: The Church’s One Foundation,
or Two” (March 12): While many parts of Jack Bradigan Spula’s article were
accurate, it was also wanting in several ways.

                  First,
he says Barbara Fredericks is a “conservative” because she objects to
non-ordained people delivering homilies. However, she is no more
“conservative” than the Church, which forbids this in canon law, and
which issued a clarification on this issue in 1997. Again, the Church forbids
this. It is borderline heretics such as Bishop Clark who promote such things,
which is a violation of his office as bishop.

                  Secondly,
how is it that you can quote several dissident and deconstructionist
theologians, but can’t find one orthodox (i.e., faithful) voice for your story,
save Mrs. Fredericks? For instance, a cursory Google search would have put you
in touch with Michael Rose, who has done some great work on Catholic
architecture, and has written several books on the subject.

                  You
could have found a faithful theologian such as Avery Cardinal Dulles, Scott
Hahn, or Regis Martin, or an apologist such as Curtis Martin or Leon Suprenant
or Patrick Madrid, all of whom could have spoken cogently to the subject at
hand.

                  Instead,
you dust off an aging and pathetic cretin such as Charles Curran, who can no
longer call himself a Catholic theologian and who is responsible for the
culture of dissent in this country. Even if you chose him solely because of his
Rochester connections, surely you could have found someone to balance him out.
Or who at least is unbiased in the way that he is.

                  Thank
you for bringing attention to this topic. It is a debate worth having. I only
wish you could have shed more light on what the true nature of the debate
really is.

                  Brian O’Neel, Sacramento

                  Jack Bradigan Spula responds:
To O’Neel: Yes, I probably should have quoted Michael Rose or another national
figure on the “right.” But frankly, I think Dr. Fredericks did as well as
anyone in summarizing the orthodox case.

                  By
all means, readers should surf for more information. They’ll find thoughtful
opinions from several sides, along with much vitriol directed against humane
thinkers like Father Curran.

                  And an
amplification: In my March 12 article, I stated that the Rochester Catholic
Diocese did not return my call seeking a comment. Spokesperson Michael Tedesco
did call back later; unfortunately, the paper had already gone to press.

Back to the city?

I do believe I will throw a perfectly good vote away this
year. Certain politicians sang the praise of rebuilding the city and getting
people to populate it once again. Apartments were built, neighborhoods cleaned
up.

                  Then
I read in the paper: No more New Year’s fireworks, no more High Falls laser
shows and fireworks. RPO broke. DMV downtown closing. Infighting, backfighting,
and half-baked ideas among politicians and their ilk. Worst of all, more tax
increases!

                  What
person would want to move back to the city for this? If politicians want my
vote, let them prove they deserve it. Do some real good!

                  Richard
Goode Jr., Alexander Street, Rochester

More ‘curiosities’

Thank you for Ron Netsky’s article about our department
(“Cabinet of Curiosities,” March 12). I’m sure it will aid our effort to expand
the community’s understanding of the diversity and depth of our Special
Collections. I believe it will also introduce many to the existence and
activities of our preservation program.

                  It is
important for people to understand that while book conservation can entail
extensive treatments, like those performed on the Erasmus Netsky mentions, it may involve only minor treatments, like
paper repair of a manuscript or text leaf, and that many factors contribute to
a treatment decision. As Netsky rightly points out, my goal is to perform the
least intrusive repair possible while preserving the item and providing access.
Disbinding any book, especially an early imprint, is certainly not the norm.

                  The
copy of Erasmus’ Works is a Venetian
imprint of 1508. It had been in a late 19th-century case binding made of acidic
material that had not only failed but was causing damage to the textblock. The
textblock itself, composed of exquisite handmade and hand-printed rag paper,
had suffered staining and losses from water damage and centuries of exposure to
environmental pollutants. The importance and value of this early imprint,
preservation concerns, and the use the book regularly receives from our
community all warranted its extensive treatment.

                  For
readers, especially bookbinders and collectors, who may have been confused by
the phrase “rope binding,” I’d like to clarify the structure of the
binding I made. The washed and repaired signatures were sewn (at the original
sewing stations) on double cords which were then laced into shaped boards. The
book was then covered (rather than “coated”) with alum-tawed pigskin,
simply decorated with blind tooling, and housed in a clamshell box. This
historically accurate binding structure was appropriate for this 1508 imprint.

                  I
also wanted to elucidate the duties and accomplishments of the other members of
the conservation staff. As Rare Book Conservator, I do indeed perform a range
of treatments — most of which take two hours or less, not 85 hours like the Adagia of Erasmus — on some 700 Rare
Books and Special Collections materials a year. The two other staff members you
allude to are our very skilled general collections conservation technicians,
Leah Hamilton and Thu Thi Do, who perform a wide variety of treatments on an
average of 14,000 items per year from the circulating collections of the River
Campus Libraries.

                  Along
with our colleagues in the Libraries, the conservation staff is dedicated to
insuring that all of the University of Rochester’s collections, rare as well as
circulating, are preserved for the use of generations of patrons to come.

                  Andrea Reithmayr, University of Rochester (Reithmayr is Rare Book conservator at the UR’s Rush Rhees Library.)

Writing to City

We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester 14607.

                  Our
guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and we ask that you include
your street name and city/town/village. While we don’t restrict length, letters
of under 350 words have a greater chance of being published. We do edit letters
for clarity and brevity. And in general we don’t publish letters (or longer
“op-ed” pieces) from the same writer more often than once every three months.

This article appears in Apr 2-8, 2003.