True Grit

True Grit OO 1/2
PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images [See Full Rating]   

Back when I saw "The Social Network" I was surprised to see a trailer for an updating of the 1969 John Wayne western "True Grit."  The question that came to my mind immediately was, why?  Is Hollywood really so bereft of new ideas that it has to go back to retread a movie that was a bit behind the times even when it came out (remember that 1969 was the year "The Wild Bunch" was released)?  I have to be fair, and state upfront that I've never been a big fan of westerns.  I like John Wayne, but was more familiar with him in movies like "The Quiet Man" and "Flying Tigers."  It always struck me that the original "True Grit" was a bit overrated, as was the Duke's performance (if he was going to get an Oscar it should have been for "The Shootist," or maybe "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance").  I know a number of Duke fans that are probably pretty sore at me right now, but that's the way it goes, Pilgrim.

My greatest fear when I saw that trailer was that this was going to be some postmodern, Sam Peckinpah meets Quentin Tarantino, bloodfest.  I was determined not to see it, but succumbed  to the temptation, mainly because it was made by the Coen Brothers.  The 2010 "True Grit," based, as was the original, on the 1968 novel by Charles Portis, is darker than the 1969 vintage.  This is to be expected considering the team tackling the project, but its no "re-imagining."  In fact I was surprised how much of the original dialogue was left in tact (I cheated and saw the John Wayne version again to prepare myself).  The violence here is more graphic, as you might imagine, but not over the top.

The Coen Brothers' goal was to be more faithful to the book, and from what I gather that is where the main differences between the two versions can be found (not having read the novel, I have to take their word for it).  So, It's the same story as the older movie.  14 year old Mattie Ross hires U.S. Marshall Ruben "Rooster" Cogburn to chase after her father's killer, Tom Chaney, who has escaped into Indian territory, and is thus out of reach of the local authorities.  They're joined along the way by Texas Ranger La Boeuf (pronounced La Beef) who wants to bring Chaney, who goes by several aliases,  back to Texas on a separate murder charge.

Jeff Bridges has the unenviable task of following the Duke into Rooster Cogburn's eye patch, and takes the sure road by moving the character in another direction.  Rooster is still a surly drunk, but he allows his face and eyes (I mean eye) to do more of the talking.  Any one is an improvement over Glen Campbell, who was shockingly awful as the La Boeuf  the first time around. In his place Matt Damon brings humor and, at times, his best Matthew McConaughey impersonation to the show.  The real revelation is young Hailee Steinfeld in the role of Mattie Ross, the 14 year old girl seeking to avenge her father's murder.  She has good presence on the screen, and comes off as smart, naive, tough and innocent all at the same time.  Not an easy task for an experienced adult actor to pull off, let alone an adolescent of any kind.  Josh Brolin, who plays Chaney, has very little screen time for someone who got his name listed above the title.  While he does what he can with the little screen time he has, he's not even the most interesting villain in the movie.  That distinction has to go to Barry Pepper who plays the leader of a gang Chaney has joined up with.

The Coen Brothers are talented film makers, and "True Grit" is very well made.  While the film displays their trademark use of light and dark, comic and action timing and a generally engaging visual style, I found this a very straight forward movie, which is a change for them.  This is possibly because they weren't looking to reinvent the wheel this time out, as much as grease it up a bit. 

For all my reservations walking in, this ended up being a movie I wanted to like and recommend.  It was slow in parts, but the Coens always seem to bring you back to something interesting eventually.  Through it all the question that came back to me was why was this movie made to begin with?  I won't spoil the end, which differs in some specifics from the original, but to say we get to see Mattie as an adult.  We see the consequences of her journey, and I could only wonder if it was worth it.  Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel use to always criticize films that used children in danger as a plot point.  They felt it was cheep and exploitative.  This doesn't exactly fall into that category, but Mattie sees and does things that no 14 year old should have to.  In a sense we see her innocents taken from her before our eyes.  There is no way that the physical and emotional scars she experienced didn't change her, and not for the better. The ending doesn't take that into account, one way or the other.  The film makers never ask the deeper questions, which is a missed opportunity, really.  Unlike most Coen Brothers movies I can think of we have the style, but it's not serving any real purpose.

I've started giving these "hallow" ratings, which is all a bit of a lark, to tell the truth.  But I actually had trouble deciding on a number rating for "True Grit."  The production values, the acting, the cinematography, the writing are all of the highest caliber.  But the lessons are murky, if at all, and that's a shame.  In a world ruled by violence and the will to power, "True Grit" seems to be saying that revenge is its own reward, no matter the cost.  In my book no amount of movie magic can make that right.  While I'll be rooting for Ms Steinfeld to get a nomination for best supporting actress (you could even argue best actress since the story is told from her perspective), I'll be hoping the Coen Brothers return to deeper waters the next time out.

Vocation Talk III

In wrapping up this series on vocations, it's important to acknowledge that God's call is a mystery that unfolds over time.  There may be a moment when we get a flash of recognition that points out for us the direction we should go.  But if we actually sit down and think about our life we can see how the Lord was preparing us for that moment of decision.  Some people don't get there because they've never been open to this idea that God is calling them to something.  Perhaps they've never had guides or mentors to help them.  Maybe they simply have never been evangelized properly.  It could be that they've accepted uncritically "the spirit of  the world" that tells us that our lives really have no meaning beyond what we decide as individuals; there is no need to reference anything or anybody outside ourselves, let alone God.  Worse yet are those who try to turn someone away from following a vocation, especially to the religious life or priesthood.  There may be the need to ask a person to wait before actually entering a formation program, especially if there are questions of maturity involved.  But to try to sabotage a vocation is a grave offense.  It is a denial that the vocation is God's, not ours, and needs to be treated like a gift that should not be obstructed, rejected or ignored.

While those who maliciously hinder someone from following their vocation have put themselves in a grave moral situation, those who have the call also have a responsibility to be open to where God is leading them.  This gets us back to my original point from the first post on this topic.  It is true that Don Bosco's belief that those who do not follow their vocation are going to Hell is extreme, and not the way we would present the issue today.  At the same time I'm not sure we haven't given in a little to the "spirit of the world' I wrote of above.  It's popular today to say that if we don't follow God's "Plan A" there's always a "Plan B."  God is merciful and will never abandon us to a miserable existence, but gives us all the opportunities we need to be happy in this life and be with him forever in the next, even if we don't do what he asked of us the first time around.

I don't disagree with this proposition, actually.  I do believe that God gives us more chances in life than we realize, even if we don't follow His so called "Plan A."  But our spiritual journey involves surrender to God's will.  This means that we put aside our own desires, wants and aspirations, pick up our cross and follow Christ where He leads us.  In doing this we end up fulfilling ourselves and using those gifts and talents we've received in a deeper way than if we had followed our own desires.  But if we say no to God the first time, will we have the spiritual wherewithal to say yes to "Plan B," "C" or even "D"?  It doesn't matter what we opt for, in the end life in Christ means self denial and submission to His will.  If we fail to do that then the question we need to ask is what kind of purgation are we preparing for ourselves.  If "No" has become the default position of our lives, than yes, I believe the eternal consequences may be even worse than a stretch in purgatory.

I have to state clearly that I reject any proposition that turns salvation into a formula and doesn't allow for God's mercy to breath.  I reject any doctrine that says "If you do A, B or C Heaven awaits, and if you do D, E or F Hell is a certainty." God's grace and mercy is greater than any theological formula.  But if we have set our lives on a course away from God's will we put ourselves in grave danger. The farther we move away from God the more difficult it is to steer ourselves back.  The more we become use to doing our own will without reference to a Divine call or standard the more it becomes a habit that proves harder and harder to break.  We may not always perceive God's call perfectly.  We may not even fulfill it perfectly.  We may have to struggle with pride and selfishness as we grope along the path of life.  But as long was we are moving with God, in the right direction, He will lead us home safely.  As long as we remain attentive and open, then we will be ready to see the other possibilities he has in store if we did pass on God's primary vocation for us.  But no matter the road we end up walking, it will always lead through Calvary first before bringing us to the Empty Tomb.

The Fighter

The Fighter OOO

Rated R: officially for profanity, drug abuse and boxing violence. There is some mild sexual content, at least as mild as R rated movies go.

I must admit that I broke my number one rule in preparing for a movie review, which is not to read other notices before seeing a movie I intend to critique. I didn't read the entirety of Kyle Smith's review of "The Fighter" in the New York Post, and still haven't, but did see the first line as I was cruising through the website the other day.  He wrote, "Pity the boxing movie that thinks it can be both 'Raging Bull' and 'Rocky.'"  While I liked the movie more than Smith, that line kept coming back to me while watching the new Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale vehicle.  For a moment I thought the quip was my original thought, but quickly realized that it was too good a line and must have come from somewhere else.  While the insight isn't original, its nonetheless true. "The Fighter" does try to play it both ways: it wants to be a gritty and realistic character study of self destruction and family dysfunction and an uplifting underdog story with a rousing ending.  It's not a great movie, and its weakness is this playing of both themes, the result being that "The Fighter's" conflicting spirits end up diluting each other.

The story follows the misadventures of Dickie Eklund (Bale), a drug addled, washed up boxer from the fighting town of Lowell, Massachusetts, and his younger half brother Micky Ward (Wahlberg), a promising young fighter trying to make it to where his brother never did.  Micky is managed by his mother and trained by the unreliable Dickie, both of whom seem to be using rather than really guiding him.  There is a menagerie of half sisters sired by I'm not sure how many fathers, that serve as comic relief of sorts (they remind me a little of a cross between the witches from Macbeth and the evil step sisters from Cinderella).  Throw into this the always watchable Amy Adams, playing against type as a tough working class bartender, and you get an interesting mix of characters in what amounts to an opera played at the poverty line.

It's easy to like the Wahlberg character, because well, he sort of plays this same likable person in every movie.  He does it well, so I won't knock it.  Bale and Adams are clearly bucking for Oscar nominations. For her part Adams is less flashy, but very convincing in her turn as a college drop out  whose life went into a direction she didn't plan.  Bale channels his inner Robert De Niro / Daniel Day Lewis, obviously having lost all kinds of weight for the part.  I didn't recognize him at first, he looked so emaciated.  He also does one of those total immersions into a character, were the viewer forgets the actor he or she is watching, a quality that has made Lewis so admired.  He's no Daniel Day, and it's tempting to accuse him of going over the top, but in truth I've met people like this;  braggarts and posers who really have nothing to back it up on the inside.  Does he over act? Yeah, a little, but in real life all self delusional Could-Have-Beens usually do.  

Just as Bale's performance begs comparisons to others, so does the entire style of the movie.  Director David O. Russell begins in a semi documentary mode, then moves into a more conventional film language as things proceed, but he always seems to hearken back to Marin Scorsese, especially in the soundtrack.  But unlike the Master, who uses music to evoke a mood and recall a particular time and place, Russell's choices are from all over the map and are only there because they might sound cool, not because they may actually comment on the action (think of the use of Donavon's "Atlantis" during the murder of Billy Batts in "Goodfellas").  He even has the audacity to use The Rolling Stones' "Can't You Hear Me Knocking," a Scorsese favorite. But true to form he plays Keith Richards' famous guitar intro and the song's rousing chorus, but omits any lines with drug references.  As with the rest of the movie, he want to keep it real, just not too real.  
   
In fairness, I liked the theme of conversion and redemption that the movie develops.  Dickie really is a different, better  person at the end of the story, and I didn't take that as a cop out.   As is my complaint with so many contemporary movies, they are so concerned with getting that happy ending and making everyone look good that the story loses its edge.  While I bought Dickie's conversion, I think the rehabilitation of Alice, their mother, was less believable.  "The Fighter" was made with the cooperation of its two real life heroes, so I can understand that they don't want to sell dear old Ma down the river.  But she is so unlikable all the way through the movie, and her actions so consistently self serving, I couldn't believe that it was all just some sort of misunderstanding.

So, this isn't a great movie, and will regrettably get the Oscar buzz it so craves but doesn't really deserve.  But for the performances of the central actors, including Melissa Leo, whose character Alice may have been unlikeable, but was always entertaining, I give this one OOO (3) out of four Hallows.  

Odds and Sods: Pro Football, Hot Stove Baseball and Oscar Buzz

The New York Football Giants

I haven't made any comments on the NFL yet mainly because I don't get to see enough games.  Being in a parish means that I'm tied up most Sundays until about 4pm, and the Giants have had an exasperating number of 1pm kickoffs this season.  I actually saw the G-Men more on average when I was in Chicago than I have this year.  Plus, baseball really is my game.  I feel more comfortable being an armchair manager than quarterback.

That said I feel good about the Eagles game coming up.  As good as Vick has been, the Giants should have won their last match up.  They were sloppy and unfocused, which I don't think they'll be this time.  The only concern is the injury bug that's hit them again.  Manningham and Smith, their two important wide receivers, are doubtful for Sunday.  But they're built for the run, and if the winds whip in the new place like they use to at Giants Stadium the passing game might prove to be less important to the overall game plan. 

As a Giant fan I'm supposed to hate the Cowboys, but I really don't.  Don't get me wrong, I want to beat them as much as anyone, but I don't have that real visceral repulsion and disgust at the sight of their logo like I do for the Red Sox, for instance.  In football that type of dislike is reserved for the Eagles.  The games are always rough and physical, and unlike our history with Dallas, Philly and New York are usually good at the same time.  2007 is one of the few times I remember the 'Boys and us actually duking it out for the division or in the playoffs.  Our real rivals over the years have been the 'Skins, Eagles and 49ers back in the day.  So I really want this game.  And, just my luck, another 1pm start time.  Oh, well.

Hot Stove Report

As I texted Ryan "The Man, The Myth and the Legend" Phelan, AKA Stony Point's Phillie Phanatic #1, I was as surprised as anyone that Cliff Lee went to Philadelphia, but not that he passed on the Yankees.  When he didn't decide by Sunday my ever trustworthy gut told me he was going elsewhere.  It was too may years and too much money to be agonizing over the decision.  I just don't think he wanted New York, and not only because of his wife's bad experience at the ALCS.  I think if he really wanted to come here it would have happened in July.  He may not have had a no trade clause, since Phillie traded him a year ago to Seattle (much to his disappointment), which would blow my theory up, I admit.   But something tells me he wasn't all that sad about not being shipped to New York.  Just my gut again, not infallible, but pretty accurate.  

As for all the disappointed Yankee fans out there, don't be sad.  As Joel Sherman wrote in the Post today, the last time we missed out on a big time free agent pitcher (Greg Maddox in 1992) the ground work was still laid for the Joe Torre era dynasty.  So fear not.  The farm system is strong, the core is solid, and now we can see how creative a GM Brian Cashman really is.

Oscar Buzz
I also read in the Post this morning that "The Social Network" is a leading contender for Best Picture at the 2011 Oscars.  Really?  I have to admit that my movie going has been pretty limited this year, so I don't have a lot to compare it to, other than the couple of thousand movies I've seen in my lifetime. This was basically a two hour commercial for Facebook.  A well made piece of propaganda, to be sure, but is it really in the same league with "There Will Be Blood?" (Oh, yeah, didn't win) or "Saving Private Ryan?" (again, didn't win) and don't even try to put it in the same sentence with "Citizen Kane" (dummy me, that one didn't get the little statuette either).  OK, so after the smoke clears the Oscars are pretty meaningless.  If this little piece of mid-level ego candy wins it will only reinforce the fact that the highly coveted award isn't worth its $1.00 buy back price.

Vocation Talk II

As I mentioned in the last post on vocation, proposing the idea of a divine call in life is problematic today because society has become more secular and our focus has become more self centered.  God is no longer seen as a reference point to figure out what the meaning of our lives are.  We make our educational, career and even marriage choices based solely on personal preference, not on an understanding of the meaning of our lives in particular and what our God given purpose for being here is.

I am not suggesting we go back to the days when one's profession was determined by social class or marriages were arranged.  Coming to an understanding of our vocation begins with knowing our talents, abilities, likes and dislikes.  True love often starts as infatuation or a simple physical attraction.  But in both realms of work and romance these initial feelings need to be tested over time.  In the case of a couple contemplating marriage they must be honest with one another and themselves.  They have to talk things out about all sorts of things from how many children they want to how they would handle the family finances and care for elderly parents when they get sick. If a couple has substantial differences when answering these and other basic questions they need to be worked out before the wedding.  It's fullish to think that they'll work these things out afterward.  Then they have to be honest about if they think they are going to have a reasonable chance of making their marriage work.   Divorce courts and annulment tribunals are glutted with cases from couples who thought they could change their spouse or, worse yet, never had the conversation to begin with.

Above all Christ has to be the central point of reference throughout this process of discovery.  I've concentrated on marriage, but it's the same when contemplating a career.  The questions that have to be asked are: will this person I want to marry help me become a saint?  Is this profession I want to enter help me save my soul?  What is the purpose God gave me in my life and what path will best help me fulfill it? We have to own the decisions we make, and yes, listen to our hearts.  But our heart and head need to be moving in the same direction with Christ steering the ship.

I've written a lot but haven't addressed the central question I began with:  how is my vocation in this life linked to my eternal salvation?  Next time, I promise, we'll look at that question and finish up this topic of God's call.

Vocation Talk I

My post on death contained a concept that I'd like to develop a little; about the relationship between our vocation in this life and our salvation in the next. I brought it up and left it there, but it's an important point that I don't want people to misunderstand.

Back in Don Bosco's day the belief was that if you didn't follow your vocation you were in grave danger of being damned.  This was why he suffered such a deep crisis as a young man when he was deciding whether he should become a diocesan priest or enter the Franciscans.  His anxiety was so great that he experienced health problems.  I think that it's hard for us today to grasp the significance of this struggle in young John's life.  Many today don't even know the difference between a priestly call and a religious one, assuming that the two are identical.  A diocesan priest is not bound by vows, doesn't live in community, unlike a religious, and lives a relatively independent life when compared to a member of a religious order or congregation.  The call to be a Salesian, a Jesuit or a Franciscan, to name only three religious communities, is distinct from the call to the priesthood.  This is why we have religious brothers; men who take vows in a community but don't seek priestly ordination.  To make the right choice for Don Bosco was crucial, because to not find out and follow God's call in this life meant losing God forever in the next.

When I was going through formation this belief of Don Bosco's was often put aside as an example of 19th century piety that we've outgrown.  While I agreed that the strong way Don Bosco presented the connection between vocation and salvation doesn't seem to leave enough room for God's mercy and understanding, I think we have been too quick to to put aside the main kernel; that there is a connection between following our vocation and our eternal happiness.

What makes the discussion difficult to begin with is that the entire idea of vocation has been lost to certain extent.  This in spite of the fact that the Church has gone to great lengths to broaden our understanding of the term.  Back in the day vocation almost always meant the call to be a priest, brother or sister.  Today we recognize marriage as a vocation, along with the the different professional paths a person might follow in the "secular" world.  To be a lawyer, a doctor a carpenter or an electrician can also be seen as vocations.  The idea is that each of us has been put in this world for a reason.  God gave you particular talents and abilities to use in the service of our neighbors in building up of the Body of Christ.  There is no one exactly like you in the world, no one who can make the exact contribution you can.  The goal of our formative years is to get in touch with what those qualities are that we have and seeing where God would want us to use them.  It's not an easy process, and takes time, patience, prayer and guidance before it becomes clear.

Coming to a knowledge of our vocation is essential for us if we are truly going to be happy in this life.  I also believe that it has an impact on our eternal happiness as well.  While I wouldn't use the strong language of Don Bosco, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss his basic premise as out dated or unrealistic.  How so?  Well, tune in next time and I'll finish my take on vocation and salvation

The Ax Lies At The Root

This past Sunday we had the Gospel reading from Matthew about John the Baptist that contains the passage that I use in the "topic" space at the top of the page and gave the inspiration for the blog's title.  After our weekly lectio divina on Saturday morning I was gently ribbed by my confreres for not choosing that phrase for my shared meditation.  Even Padre Steve told me he kept on thinking about the blog when he proclaimed the Gospel at Mass (I'm sorry for being a cause of distraction). The title of the blog has been a source of confusion for many people, and I get a lot of jokes about it.  I even had the idea of changing it, but once the traffic began to pick up it made more sense to leave it be.

When I was first thinking about what I wanted to do with this space I was reading a lot different articles, especially on Spirit Daily about the end times.  The result was that I had the eschaton firmly in mind when I was coming up with themes I wanted to pursue in this space. As things developed and the blog took on a life of it's own the topics taken up by The Ax ended up being broader than what I first had in mind. In spite of this their roots are still firmly planted in the idea that the world as we know it is passing away and we need to hold on to the things that last.  These "things" are not the material possessions that we have, but the deeper spiritual virtues that will sustain us through the crisis of life.  Knowing what these spiritual things are and valuing them demands a purification of the mind and the will that is at the heart of repentance.  This is the very thing John was calling the people of Jerusalem to on the banks of the Jordan River.  The Church begins this Advent Season by focusing us on the End Times and the need for repentance as a way of preparing for Christmas, and for our final encounter with he Lord in His glorious Second Coming.

I have many people ask me if we are living in the End Times right now.  They think because I'm a priest that I have some inside track on these things, but I tell them the Lord keeps that info close to his vest, and hasn't brought me into the loop yet.  What I can say is that I do believe we are coming to the end of an historical epoch.  I don't see things holding if the political and economic situation continues as it is.  I'm not talking about if we should follow Republican or Democrat policies, whether we should raise taxes or cut them, for instance (though I do have an opinion on that).  There is a crisis of the national soul that has it's roots in self loathing that is truly disturbing and more consequential than the particular government programs we end up following.

A long time ago our public education system began promoting what they call values free education.  The idea was that the role of the educator is to train critical thinkers, not patriotic citizens.  Even though I went to education school at a Catholic sponsored university, most of the professors did not practice the faith and bought into this philosophy, lock, stock and barrel.  The central tenet of "critical thinking" is the belief that all values systems are equally valid, so that Western Culture is seen as no better than any other, and in fact worse in many ways.  The result is that there are generations that have been taught that the United States is no better than any other nation, and in many ways a force for evil in the world.  I wonder if, as a result of this style of education, we see our nation as something worth saving?

There is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism.  The latter is associated with aggressive, totalitarian regimes.  Nationalism is uncritical of itself, to be sure, and intolerant of other cultures.  Patriotism is a love of country that allows for self examination and purification based on a country's founding principles and enduring values, uniquely expressed throughout it's historical and cultural life.  But before that self examination can take place the citizens have to know what their founding principles are and be convinced that these values are really worth preserving. I fear that the last two or three generations of Americans don't know and, worse yet, don't care about such things.  We have become materialist and consumerist, and as long as our bodily needs and material desires are being met nothing else really matters.  We may even claim to disdain the very values that made the material benefits we enjoy possible.  Every nation needs to go through periods of self examination and purification in order to grow, prosper and be perfected, but none can survive if it is consumed by self loathing, and I fear that we have reached that stage.

True patriotism calls us to self examination and even self criticism, but not self loathing.  Patriotism is not opposed to discipleship in Christ.  John Paul II was a proud Pole who fought for the soul of his nation by appealing to Poland's cultural identity and national ideals.  He also recognized that all culture needs to be purified by the light of the Gospel.  To love the United States, to see it as unique and gifted by God is not a vice.  To understand that We the People are imperfect and need cleansing is no crime, either.  But to carry this examination of the national conscience to the point of self hatred endangers our will to survive.

This spiritual sickness I write of is a strange mixture of profound self centeredness and self loathing.  While we have stopped believing in American exceptionalism, it hasn't made us more outward looking.  The world is at it's most unstable point since the late 1930's, but we are consumed by technology and acquiring "gadgets," pointless entertainments and diversions while the political and economic system crumbles around us.  I'm not even going to get into how I see the sexual revolution playing into all this (I'll save it for another time).  We are heading toward a defining moment in history and how we make a collective examination of conscience and conversion to the Lord will determine how we weather the crisis.

John the Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus and His Kingdom, but was also speaking to a people on the verge of great political and social change.  He was calling them to repent of their sins and convert their lives because only this radical turning back to God could help them endure the times of trial yet to come.  40 years after Christ's death and Resurrection Jerusalem, along with the Temple, was destroyed by the Romans.  Jewish life was changed forever, and even though the modern State of Israel exists today, the Holy City is not the center of worship in the same way it was at the time of Jesus.  For the Jews of the First Century it was as if the world had come to an end.  I am no prophet, nor am I the son a prophet.  I do not know what the future brings for sure.  But unless there is a turning back to God on a large scale I fear what things will be like if and when when the bottom finally falls out.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen - The Woman I Love - Part 1 of 4

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen - The Woman I Love - Part 2 of 4

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen - The Woman I Love - Part 3 of 4

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen - The Woman I Love - Part 4 of 4

Thank You: 2000 Pageviews and Counting

According to the Blogger stats page The Ax hit 2000 pageviews all time this afternoon, most of them since August.  I uploaded the counter at the bottom of the page in about the middle of October and wasn't web savvy enough to know I should have started the count farther in. So while it's not accurate, it does tells me that more than half the hits have come within the last month and a half.  The site is growing, and that's what matters.

Well, I just want to say thank you to all the loyal readers out there for coming back and spreading the word.  You are all in my prayers.   

By Request: Dearest - Buddy Holly

The Beatles: The Final Chapter

Wednesday marks the thirtieth anniversary of the murder of John Lennon, so I'm going to take this opportunity to put the final touches on my reflections on his former band the Beatles.  In that first post back in October I referred to the myth that had built up around Lennon, and that I had stopped believing it a long time ago.  I stand by those words, but my purpose is not to criticize him in particular, or at all, really.  There is a mythology that has been constructed around the 1960's in general that I have grown weary of.  But we can only evaluate John Lennon's legacy fully if it is seen in the context of the Beatles.  If we do that we see a highly talented man who contributed to an extraordinary musical force, but not an individual genius who forged his own unique vision.

The Beatles were, as I wrote earlier, a band whose cultural and musical impact simply can't be over estimated.  But their success was very much a team effort, and that team included producer George Martin and manager Brian Epstein.  If Martin was the musical translator who took their innovative concepts and put them in conventional musical language, it was Epstein who kept the egos in line and the more easily distracted members of the outfit focused.  Lennon would say later that it was Epstein's death in 1967 that was the real beginning of the end of the Beatles.  Once it was over none of the individual members had anything like the creative or commercial triumphs they did as a functioning unit.

It's in this light that I assess the legacy of not only John Lennon, but of his other three band mates as well.  Together, with the proper guidance, no one could touch them.  But apart their efforts suffered by comparison.  Even their one attempt to self produce, the sessions that would eventually become the album Let It Be, was a messy, acrimonious affair that took over a year put into it's final shape, and this only after the mad genius Phil Spector was given run of the master tapes.  Individually each had solid solo careers, to be sure, but it all pales in comparison to what they accomplished in their time as the Beatles.

And so, when I'm asked if I think John Lennon was a genius, I have to say no.  He was a talented song writer, to be sure, but it's hard to argue that his solo work did much to push Rock music ahead.  I could say the same thing about Paul McCartney, and for Sir Paul I think this is a far more damning indictment.  Of all the Beatles McCartney was the natural showman who reveled in the lime light.  He wanted to be a star, and grabbed at it with both hands.  He also paid the most attention in the studio, playing a big role in making their final album, Abby Road, the artistic success it was.  But for all his clever studio work and world tours during the 1970's, his work was very good at best, but never genius.  John Lennon and George Harrison both knew, way before the Beatles broke up, that there was more to life than the fame and fortune that came with being international Rock stars.  Harrison was more up front about it, but if you look at how Lennon conducted his post-Beatle years, you can see he felt the same way.

After a few productive years his output sputtered, punctuated by his legendary "lost weekend" of excessive living.  Once he settled down, the last five years of his life were spent in relative anonymity in New York City.  The nature of these years is debated, some holding to the official narrative that he was a house husband quietly raising his child at the Dakota Apartments, others claim that he was under the evil spell of his wife Yoko Ono who jealously sabotaged his career.  What ever the truth is, when he emerged in 1980 to resume his music career he comes off as a man comfortable being himself (maybe for the first time in his life), content with or without fame, as expressed in his song "Watching the Wheels."  I don't think it's a crime or an insult to say that John Lennon wasn't a genius.  His accomplishments are great, and was a part of something unique; a musical and cultural phenomenon that still makes news after more than 40 years.

In the end what we can say for certain is that John Lennon was a man searching for meaning in his life.  The bed-ins, the war protests, the primal scream therapy, the passive aggressive struggles to get out of the Beatles and the confusion and disillusionment that followed were all a part of a journey to find out what his place in the world really was.  While he was publicly critical of Bob Dylan's famous Born Again phase in the late 70's, I've read articles that speculate that he had his own private flirtation with Christian Fundamentalism during those last Dakota Years, as ironic as that may sound.  As I wrote, I do believe Lennon reached a certain peace before he was killed, but how much I'm not sure we can really say.  The tragedy of John Lennon's murder was more than that we lost a great artist.  It is that a son lost a father and a wife lost her husband, and a man's journey to find himself was cut short.

Wikileaks 2

My biggest fan, and critic, just got finished hitting me over the head for my post on Wikileaks, so I guess some explanation is needed.  I wasn't commenting in the last post on the soldiers who leaked the information, simply those who are distributing it.  Yes, leaking the information is not only illegal, but in certain situations, like when soldiers lives are put in danger, morally wrong.   The distributing of it in my mind is morally wrong as well, but I'm not sure it's illegal.  That's why I wrote that while I don't like what he's doing, I don't want to see our Wikileaker arrested.  (I'm reminded of a "Man For All Seasons" when William Roeper wants Sir Thomas More to arrest Richard Rich because he had broken God's law.  More's response was, "Then God can arrest him.") But if the CIA, MI-5 or Mossad can shut it down, I won't squawk either. 

Leaks have been the way of the world since the Pentagon Papers (who am I kidding; they go back a lot longer than that), but now with the internet and the fact that so much is done electronically the ability to leak and distribute is greater than ever.  It puts a greater stress on governments to keep their secrets secret.  And we need to understand that we do not live in a Christian society any longer.  Fulton Sheen said over thirty years ago that we are living at the end of Christendom, meaning there was no longer a unified Christian culture we share in the West.  So to appeal to morality to people whose moral compass is pointing in a different direction than our own is pointless.  What needs to be followed in the rule of law, and some creative counter intelligence.

PS:
There is something very strange about the entire affair, to tell the truth, and my guess is that there is more than meets the eye.  This is not meant to be a political blog, and I sort of regret bringing the topic up to begin with, but the genie is out of the bottle already, so here goes.  The present administration wasn't thrilled about having to fight the War on Terror to begin with, and I'm not suggesting the upper levels of the executive branch are in on anything, but I could see some lower level people with the right clearance in the DOD or State Department helping things along.   Only a theory.

Short Takes: "Unstoppable," Wikileaks

"Unstoppable" OOO (Hallows)
Rated PG-13 for sequences of action and peril, and some language.

I took Padre Steve's advise and caught Denzel Washington's latest movie, "Unstoppable."  Fr. Steve's take on it is right on, predictable but enjoyable at the same time. And once again Denzel takes what really is a zero role and makes something out of it.  Take his dialogue and motivation and give it to another actor and you'd get something below the average Lifetime Channel crisis/disease of the week movie.  But in the hands of the Master from Mount Vernon you get an Academy Award caliber performance every time out, and that's no exaggeration.  It's only this material that keeps his performance from getting that type of buzz, not the effort or execution.  In fact I don't know any other actor who is as good in so many bad movies, he simply never phones it in (I didn't like "Training Day," the movie he won the Best Actor for).  And I don't think Unstoppable is a bad movie.  If it gets me squirming in my seat for fear of someone getting squashed by a train, it's doing it's job, and this one did.

Wikileaks

This is not a topic I comment on lightly, because I only know the barest minimum about it.  But since this is the Internet, and the whole point of blogging is to spew opinions without regard to what you actually know, I figured I'd have a go at it.

My general temperament is such that I don't like it when top secret documents are dumped in the middle of Main Street.  Call me what you will, but I just don't like it.  I'm just naive enough to believe that it puts American soldiers and agents in danger.  We know Iran is a menace, we know that China doesn't have our best interest in mind, we know North Korea is run by a whack job and that all these people are doing business with one another, or at least we should know it.  That we're spying on one another, and that even friendly nations snoop around each others' medicine cabinets shouldn't be a big surprise.  We know, or should know, that we live in a dangerous world.  Is knowing every detail really going to help us or the diplomatic process make the world safer?

Few people know this, but in 1903 the US and Germany were on the verge of war over Venezuela.  Our South American neighbor defaulted on big loans to Germany, England and Italy, and the Europeans called them on it.  We invoked the Monroe Doctrine, sending ships of our own to the area to counter a German blockade.  Diplomacy eventually won the day and war was averted, but how close we actually came to open conflict wasn't known until decades later when many of the diplomatic cables were made public.  It's all debatable, but I wonder if things would have ended the same if every communique between the parties had been printed in the newspaper the next day?  Some of the Wikileaks documents contain the personal feelings of the diplomats themselves.  Does it help the diplomatic process knowing that some attache thinks Hamid Karzai is a moron?  In 1903 would things have gone smoother if some cable was made public saying that Theodore Roosevelt really though the Kaiser was a megalomaniacal dunce?

All that said, as I understand it, it's the government's responsibility to keep secrets secret.  I could be wrong (and anyone who know for sure can let me know) but I think it's against the law for a government employee, for instance, to leak top secret info, but not for the press or some other branch of the media, new or old, to publicize it.  So I'm not really angry at this Julian Assange guy for doing the same thing others have done in the past, but on a much larger scale.  Do I like it? No, I really don't.  But unless you can prove he's on the payroll of some government or terrorist organization I don't want to see him put in jail either. And if governments are hacking his site, or sabotaging his operation he shouldn't cry.  He decided to play in the big leagues, and should know that the play gets rough.

Death. There, I Said It

As I was driving back and forth between Elizabeth and Pittsburgh last weekend I was thinking about a lot more than just radio stations and Classic Rock.  Better than 14 hours round trip alone through the mountains of PA leaves a lot of time to think about things, like your life and where you've been, where you're going and what hopes and dreams you have along the way.  The fact that I was going to a funeral added to the reflectiveness, to be sure.  I joke that I'm living the dream as a Salesian priest, and that's no lie.  But there certainly are things I'd like to accomplish before it's time to shuffle off this mortal coil.  I'd like to leave St. Anthony's a better, stronger parish, building on the foundations left by my predecessors and leaving something to work with to my successor.  I've been working on a novel for almost three years, it'd be nice to finish that, maybe get it published.  This blog is an extension of my literary ambitions, to be sure; I'd love to see the readership grow.

It's important to dream, to aspire, to have healthy ambitions.  We were put in this world to be active, to share in God's creative work.  While only God can create in the true sense of the word, we have the ability to shape, influence and mold reality, leaving this place better than how we found it.  I truly believe that before we can do that we need to understand that we are only here a brief moment, and then we move on to the next phase of our existence.  There is an urgency to our lives because sixty, seventy or even eighty years are not as many as they sound.  We need to fulfill our vocations (not our destinies) because our peace and happiness in this life depends on it, and our eternal salvation very well may.

If you've noticed, I haven't used the words death or dying yet, but our death is exactly what I'm talking about.  We, as a society, have grown almost neurotically fearful of talking about it, and it's to our detriment.  It's ironic, really, because movies where people die by the score, sometimes depicted in the most gruesome ways imaginable, are among the most popular entertainments around.  For a long time film critics have bemoaned the fact that the movie ratings system here in the States has been applied in a tougher way to sexual content than it is to violence.  That's a topic for another time, only to say that as gratuitous sex in the media has desensitized us to the true meaning of our human sexuality, the trivialization of murder has done a similar thing to how we look at death.

In many horror films death is random, pointless and unmourned.  Without over analyzing things too much, I wonder if, as faith fades as a reference point in the popular culture, we don't actually see life itself in a similar way.  We are born, we forge a life of our choosing and we die. It's not that we don't mourn the dead, that we do.  But as the meaning of our existence becomes limited to the years we have here on earth, with no eternal consequences, death loses it's true meaning.  Death becomes an inconsolable tragedy because it really is an end, a black hole from which there is no return, so let's not talk about it.

What I experienced last weekend at the funeral of Br. Donald's mother was what happens when faith is the driving engine of our lives.  There were tears, for sure.  There was the pain and sting of separation.  I would not presume to guess at the internal thoughts and feelings, so I won't.  I can only testify that in the midst of the obvious grief, there was a peace as well; a peace that Mrs. Caldwell had run the race and used the last months of her life to prepare well to meet the Lord.  There was a peace among the children that, just as their mother had fulfilled her vocation as a wife and mother, they attended her in her need, fulfilling their call as children.  Peace comes when we know what our vocation is and fulfill it.  It gives our life meaning and makes regret a forgotten word.

It is not that Christians should face death stoically or with some affected cheerfulness.  Remember that Christ cried at the grave of Lazarus.  But understanding that life has meaning, that meaning is wrapped up in finding and fulfilling our vocation and that our vocation has eternal implications should give us peace.  We mourn, we cry, certainly, but not without hope.  And death is not something we should be afraid to talk about, but actually prepared for.  We do this by living everyday to the fullest, always ready to start the next phase when the Lord comes calling.

Rock and Roll is Dead

My last post was about the financial crisis, and my next one, which I've already begun to work on, is about death, so excuse me if I just write something totally frivolous and self indulgent this time out.

As I was making my way back from Pittsburgh on Saturday night, rolling down I-78 into Jersey, I was finally able to pick up the New York stations on the radio.  Pennsylvania is never ending, with long stretches of farmland where the radio stations get to be few and far between.  And with out a CD player in my ride, let alone an iPod jack, I'm at the mercy of the airwaves (I know, I'm such a poor baby).  As I came into range WAXQ was in the midst of one of  those count downs that radio stations do over holiday weekends, in this case it was the top 1040 classic rock songs of all time, as voted by the listeners.  Stations have been doing these countdowns for at least thirty years now, and while the list gets shuffled a bit in the middle, the number one song is always the same; Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven."  Sunday night I was driving back from a wake service when the count down was coming to its suspense free end.  Even the DJ sounded board and almost disgusted when he announced El Numero Uno.  Do I really have to say that STH was once again the top song on the list?  I was hoping beyond hope that some people would have the originality pick some song other than "Stairway," but I hoped in vain.  I mean, it's not even the best Zeppelin song ("When the Levee Breaks"), let alone best rock song of all time (a tie between "Long Tall Sally" by Little Richard and Chuck Berry's "Little Queenie"). UGHH!!!

Of course these lists are meaningless, and the fun is arguing over it, but when the results are so predictable, why bother doing them at all?  Is anyone still listening?  It's like the list for best film. "Citizen Kane" always wins, and while I agree with the result in that case, it's almost like people vote for it because they think they have to.  It's like they think that they're committing a mortal sin if they vote differently.  

I've always been a fan of what has become known as classic rock, but I've grown tired of it.  I hate to admit it, but the Post is right: it's time to forget the past and start paying attention to now a bit.  While I'd never forget the Beatles, as Glenn Gaslin suggests in his op-ed piece, I'm continuing my journey into newer music.  There was a great station I picked up in Pittsburgh (and then promptly forgot the call letters and frequency, though it was in the 92-93 range).  I had heard none of the songs before, nor knew any of the bands and it was a bit refreshing.  A lot of what I heard was pretty interesting stuff; alternative, power pop, roots music, it was all over the place .  WXRT in Chicago does a good mix of old and new, with some Blues thrown in to stay close to their Windy City roots.  They, like many stations, do a "Breakfast with the Beatles" show on Sunday morning, but throw in a lot of covers to keep it from getting stale.  RXP here in New York is good, but even they've begun to get a little predictable.

So, while I may be at that age where I'm too old to Rock and Roll and too young to die, as Jethro Tull would say, I continue the journey to find new music.  I'll never forget the past, I'm just taking a vacation from it for a while.

The World's Economic Woes and Catholic Social Doctrine

When the US economy tanked in late 2008 many blamed it on a failure of capitalism.  This, in spite of the fact that the crisis was caused in large part by the government forcing financial establishments to loan money to people who didn't have the ability to pay them back.  These institutions, left to themselves, would never have approved these loans to begin with.  It was all done in the name of fairness, but in the end it was a case of the government trying to fix a problem and only making it worse, and it's the American people who are now paying the price. 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond Ireland is the latest European country to suffer economic turmoil.  The government wants to raise taxes and cut services, and the people are protesting much like the Greeks did this past May.  The rest of the EU is contemplating a bailout of the once proud Celtic Tiger.  How can this be?  The Emerald Isle, along with the rest of Western Europe, has been a social democratic paradise since the end of WW-2, AKA the Big One; socialized medicine, subsidized housing, low cost public education through university, more paid vacation time than the Royal Family gets and pensions that would make the city council of of Bell, California blush have all been a part of the social contract since 1946.  What Ireland, and Europe in general, is facing is the reality that there is no free lunch.  The money to pay for all these social services has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the pockets of the taxpayers. Unless there is a thriving and growing middle class (entrepreneurial class, really) there won't be the tax base to support the cradle to grave entitlements that the people have become use to.  What I'm arguing is that the current economic problems we're facing do not represent a failure of capitalism, but rather that of the soft socialism practiced by the West, including the US, for so many decades.

As you can tell, I could be safely categorized as a fiscal conservative.  I've found that this can be a rather awkward position to take as a priest, because so many of my brothers in the cloth tend to be "liberal" fiscally while "conservative" on life and morality issues in general.  Just call me Attila, I guess, but I tend to be on the right side of the isle most of the time (the death penalty would be the big exception). Added to this is that I had to teach the Social Justice course at our high school the past three years.  It was frustrating because so many of the text books advocated the very soft socialism I describe above as the proper application of the Church's social doctrine.  I stopped using a text book after a while and read the original sources and put together my own notes, only using the text as filler.

So, am I saying that free market, laissez faire capitalism is in perfect alignment with the Gospel?  No, but the point is that no system is.  As Pope Benedict wrote in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), the Church offers Her social teaching as a guideline to help form consciences by light of reason and the natural law.  She is not trying impose a set of rules or a specific economic or political system on governments.  While Church and State are interconnected, they each have separate roles and the independence of each needs to be respected.

The point I'm laboring toward is that there is no one way of looking at the Church's social doctrine, and we need a bit of balance in interpreting it.  I tend to think that how you read the various documents depends on what your basic views are to begin with. The loudest voices today are from those who see a state solution to every problem, and I don't believe this fully represents the Church's mind (I certainly don't believe the state has had all the right answers in practice).  Good resources are hard to find but one web site that gives a free market take on economic issues from a Catholic standpoint is The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, and I invite you to take a look.

Happy Turkey Day, The Pope, The Beatles on iTunes

Thanksgiving is almost upon us, and we here at the Ax are going to take a few days away from the computer to celebrate with family and friends.  And, truth be told, there is a sad reason for shutting down through the weekend;  the mother of one of my Salesian brothers passed away Monday, so I'll be off to Pittsburgh on Friday for the funeral.  Then it's back to the Parish Saturday to get ready for the First Sunday of Advent.  I hope everyone has a blessed Thanksgiving, and know you are in my prayers.  And please pray for the repose of the soul of Elizabeth Caldwell, and the consolation of her family.

Before I sign off for the holiday I do want to leave you all with a few scattered thoughts.

THE POPE CONTROVERSY CONTINUED

When I first saw the headlines about the Pope and condoms I knew that this was another case of the press running in the wrong direction with a Church story.  The secular press is the last place to turn to get accurate stories about the Church, at least where doctrinal issues are concerned.  They expect popes to pontificate; to lay down definite laws and airtight regulations that bind the faithfuls' consciences every time they open their mouths.  This is one reason why some Vatican officials went batty when John Paul II gave the papal thumbs way up to the The Passion of the Christ by saying "it is as it was."  The fear was that people would think that the movie was now a part of the Deposit of Faith, and all 1.1 billion Catholics better get the Special Edition expanded DVD or it's an extra five hundred years in purgatory for them.  No, JPII was expressing a personal opinion that the guy he saw the movie with should have had better sense than repeat to the press. We're all free to like or dislike the movie and think that Mel Gibson is a gifted filmmaker who needs to spend some quality time with a head shrinker, and is not the Patron Saint of Tinsel Town. 

Part of this mentality has it's roots in the American mind that tends to be somewhat legalistic. So when the Pope came out and made his statements about condoms and prostitutes the press immediately concluded that he was making or changing a rule.  It was more that he was applying a basic principle of Catholic ethics to a highly speculative situation.  The fictional prostitute in question  is so far down the road to perdition that one little piece of latex is not going to save him.  The Holy Father was commenting more on the intention behind using the condom than to the value of it's actual use.  He's been pretty consistent in stating that condom distribution is not the answer to eliminating AIDS, but rather the humanization of sex. What I found interesting is that some think it was the Church's own press corp that did Benedict the greatest disservice by excerpting that one small section out of a book that covered many other topics.  Well, I hope I don't have to come back to this again, because I can see my poor mother squirming at her keyboard having to read about such things.

THE BEATLES ON iTUNES

Last Tuesday, after years of legal wrangling, the Fab Four finally joined the digital age.  For the uninitiated, Apple Corp was the record label and conglomerate (an over glorified tax shelter, really) founded by the Beatles in 1968. Even though the band broke up in 1970 the corporate entity lives on and sued Apple Computers for copyright infringement in 1978, and numerous times since, over the computer giant's entry into the music distribution business by way of iTunes.  Well, they're all playing nice now, and we're free to get our favorite Beatle tunes in yet another format. Talk show hosts dedicated airtime to it, newspapers had headlines, and there are TV ads about it. While they didn't outsell some current acts, almost a half million albums and 2 million singles in a week ain't bad.  Why this continuing fascination with a band that hasn't worked together since Nixon was president?  Stay tuned.  John Lennon's death anniversary comes up on December 8, and I'll be wrapping up my reflections on him and the Beatles before then.

FT's THOUGHT DREAMS

If you've noticed, I put a link to yet another blog on the top of the page.  It leads to a sight containing some of my poetry.  I'll only be adding to it every so often, and I won't be publicising or posting it on Facebook.  I don't even like reading my own poetry, let alone inflict it on people.  But I put it out there for the heck of it, and if you conclude that I need to take a seat next to Mel Gibson at the shrink I won't be offended. 

And again, Happy Thanksgiving to all!

The Pope Controversy

I was going to think up some cute title for this article, considering the subject matter, but figured I should keep it somewhat family friendly, since I post these things on my Facebook page for the world to see, and hopefully read.  The Pope is in the middle of another controversy, this time over comments made about condoms in an interview he did for an upcoming book.  There is confusion, and understandably so, but the Holy Father's statements shouldn't be taken as a great shift in Church teaching.

He was addressing the use of condoms as a way of stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa, expressing skepticism over this strategy's effectiveness.  He brought up a scenario in which a male sex worker might use a condom as a "first step" toward a moral awakening.  Taken in context, the Pope is commenting on a situation where the person is already involved in a morally objectionable act, in which conception is impossible (male prostitutes generally engage in homosexual acts) and so the purpose of the condom is strictly to hinder the spread of infection.  The Pope is no more endorsing the use of artificial contraception as he is prostitution, male or otherwise.  He's presenting an extreme situation where mitigating circumstances render condom use either morally neutral or bring it to the fringe of acceptability, based solely on the user's intention.  Let's be real, in the case given the use of a condom is the least of the poor guy's problems. 

The Pope, at heart, is a college professor.  Professional theologians, of which Joseph Ratzinger was one before he became Benedict XVI, sit around and debate, throw out ideas, and think up concrete situations to test abstract teachings.  This is especially true in the realm of moral theology.  I had a very solid professor, a Dominican priest (the order, not the country) who was as straight an arrow and conservative as you'd get, who could think up all sorts of situations that lessen a person's culpability when involved in what are otherwise morally objectionable acts.  His purpose wasn't to endorse fornication, for instance, but to teach us sensitivity in the confessional.  It's not that sin becomes virtue under the right conditions, but rather a person's guilt and responsibility is effected by certain conditions that surround the particular action they've taken.  It's for us as confessors to help them see their error and bring them back to the right path. 

In the scenario given by the Pope, the prostitute may be motivated to use a condom because he has some dim understanding that his client is a human being with dignity and shouldn't be exposed to the risk of infection by a deadly virus just so he can make a few dollars.  Without being presumptuous, I think the Holy Father would say this is but a first groping step in a moral awakening that hopefully leads this man to see that, while he was motivated by good intentions, the use of a condom doesn't render his life as a prostitute A-OK.  There is something intrinsically dehumanizing about the whole business and a total reform of life is called for.

Pope Benedict was speaking in the language of the university, something we are not use to.  Papal statements are usually well crafted and measured because they are so scrutinized by the world, and enter into the official teachings of the Magisterium.  This was why Benedict was clear to say that his books about Jesus contain his opinions as a private theologian and were not put out in his official capacity as pope.  In this case, the Pope said nothing I wouldn't have heard in a seminary morality course, where extremes are discussed and scenarios are weighed.  But if we look at the Holy Father's words in total context, we see that the Church teaching on artificial contraception is the same today as it was last week.

Christ the King

Political talk can be divisive, which is why I've avoided it in my blog.  When people ask me if I'm a Republican or Democrat I avoid the answer.  I tell them I'm neither, which is techically true; I'm not registered to either party.  But I do have leanings which I try not to betray so as not to cause undue division.  To proclaim the Gospel faithfully is to risk rejection from those who find it hard to accept Jesus' message of repentance and self sacrifice.  But it is always done in the hope of gathering together all people into the one fold of Christ. Politicians hope to unify the like minded and sway the unsure, forming a coalition to consolidate power.  I don't have to tell you that politicians often compromise, accommodate and sometimes flat out lie in order to achieve their goals.  Are there honest, hard working public servants concerned with the general well fare of the community, both local and national? Surely. But partisan politics by it's very nature divides and can never bring the unity so many candidates promise.

I dare to touch this topic today, and risk alienating some of you, because it is the Solemnity of Christ the King (my post on The Catholic Readings goes into the particulars of the feast, so I won't repeat myself here).  The feast calls us to recognize that our entire life, all our attitudes and relationships need to be formed in the light of Jesus Christ.  This conformity to Christ doesn't mean that we are apolitical, or that we don't participate in the political system.  What it does mean that party affiliation comes second to the Gospel since no party, especially in a pluralistic society, represents Gospel values perfectly.  We must make hard decisions when we walk into the voting booth, sometimes choosing between the lesser of two evils.  I have a fear that there are Catholics here in the United States, on both sides of the political divide, who read their party's platform and mistake it for the Beatitudes.  They confuse loyalty to a party line with Gospel values, and shape their discipleship according to a political doctrine as opposed to the other way around.


I do struggle with the demands of faith and citizenship.  I taught a social justice class for three years, and found it hard, because so much of the literature is anti free market and puts the responsibility on the government to solve the problems of poverty.  Is statism really demanded by the Gospel?  When I look around I'm not sure government has all the answers to our social ills, or that following Jesus demands that I think it does.  On the issue of immigration I heard a Christian politician claim that after reading the Bible he saw no place where respecting the rights of undocumented aliens was demanded.  I thought of Leviticus 19:33 immediately.  While the Divine author doesn't specify the legal status of the aliens in question, the passages certainly give us a spirit with which to understand the issue more clearly. 

So am I a Republican or a Democrat?  I'm a Catholic citizen of an ethnically, religiously and politically diverse nation.  I want to be a good, active citizen, but I will not bow to a platform or march in lockstep to a party line.  I grope, struggling along the way and pray I am being faithful to Christ and what He would want.  In the end His is the only platform that matters, and when I'm being judged His is the only endorsement I want to receive.

How Little We Know, How Much To Discover

Camile Paglia, the social commentator and professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, recently wrote a lengthy essay in the Times of London Magazine section about Lady Gaga.  Truth in advertising, I wasn't going to pay the one pound sterling (1.60 USD as of this morning) for the privilege of accessing the Times' site for 24 hours just to read the entire thing.  Call me stingy, I've been called worse.  But I read enough of it to get her jist.  Basically, Gaga is no Madonna, and her forced, bizarre act is a plastic imitation of the authentic sexuality exhibited by the likes of the Material Girl and Marline Dietrich.  Paglia asks, rhetorically, if Gaga represents the "exhausted end of the Sexual Revolution."

I must say, we have come along way when Madonna represents the "good old days."  But my take is that Paglia is right; the Sexual Revolution is over, but Camile shouldn't be so disheartened because the revolutionaries won.  Lady Gaga is what we get when sex is reduced to a bodily function, devoid of romance and tension, and disconnected completely from any idea of permanence, and yes, child birth.  Freud knew that once sex was separated from reproduction all perversions were possible.  And now we live in the age of the "hook up" and "friends with benefits" where sex is treated like a recreational activity, with about as much significance as an afternoon at the gym.  We go, release our frustrations and once we're satisfied it's time to move on to the next exercises machine.  There have been studies to show that the hook up culture is emotionally destructive to young people, especially women (I would argue men are just as damaged, but are often too thick to figure it out).

Many pop songs today reflect the hook up mentality.  They focus on the sex act as a given, and revel in the immediate experience with no thought to tomorrow.  And why not? There are no consequences that can't be either prevented or taken care of later.  There are no attachments, no strings, just now.  But lets look back at the days of Sinatra and Como.  The songs didn't have to do with love for a day, but forever.  Even in songs that were more "erotic," for lack of a better term, there was a tension at play.  The narrator of the songs "Witchcraft" or "All or Nothing At All," struggle with the temptation because they know there is something at risk, both emotionally and I would argue practically, even if this concern is unspoken.  "How Little We Know" bows to the fact that sex is a mystery, and the attraction that draws a man and a woman together is beyond reason and science.

The Sexual Revolution succeeded in it's goal of making the contraceptive mentality the default position in the popular mind.  But it also had another result; it killed romance.  Without consequences, without something to risk, and without the promise of a future, sex is rendered plastic and fake.  Without bowing to the mystery that sex has a power beyond our reason and a purpose higher than our desires, we are stripped of a key part of our own humanity.

Secretariat

The real Secretariat at the Belmont Stakes, 1973

Secretariat  OOO 1/2
Rated PG for brief mild language

After tackling the topic of Lady Gaga yesterday I felt the strong urge to dive into a vat of hand sanitizer and get out of the house to clear my mind.  Being cooped at the Shrine all week didn't help either. Not that being at the Chapter made me feel unclean, just confined (I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea).  Since there isn't enough Purel in all the Walgreen's in Chicago, and there's one on every corner out there, to make me feel properly cleansed I settled for getting out and catching a movie.  I do plan on returning to the topic of Ms Germanotta so I opted for something pure and family friendly, lest I get that infected feeling back so soon.  And their isn't much more squeaky clean than Disney's high gloss treatment of the Secretariat story.  This is meant as a compliment, by the way.

This is not a terribly deep movie, but it's not trying to be. It's extolling good old fashioned values of family, tradition and hard work, and does it in a stylishly elegant way.  I was curious how they were going to add drama to the story, since this is no Seabiscuit underdog tale.  People who know about these things believe Secretariat was the greatest thoroughbred of all time, and he won the Belmont Stakes to complete his Triple Crown run by a record breaking 31 lengths, which 37 years later has still never been equaled. Not even close.  But they do give the film a good dose of suspense and the uplifting ending that you expect. 

There are hints of faith and spirituality, but not much.  I was shocked to read a critic who protested that the reading from the Book of Job that bookends the film is a case of Christian proselytizing.  First off, Job is in the Old Testament, so why not complain to Rabbi Potasnic on WABC next Sunday? Second of all, since when is reading from a religious text in a movie a crime?  Was "Seven Years in Tibet" Buddhist proselytizing? I normally don't read reviews before I write my own, so as not to be influenced one way or the other.  But I'm sort of glad I did this time.  The level of religious bigotry, from people who claim to liberal and inclusive, is stunning to me.  The use of the old Spiritual "Oh Happy Day" was a bit over the top, I will admit, but to object to "Secretariat" because it is overly religious is like condemning "Citizen Kane" because the cockatoo has too much screen time.

Is "Secretariat a great film?  No. I didn't feel like I got to know the characters as well as the ones in "Seabiscuit." I was trying not to think about that movie, but it was hard not to.  But "Secretariat" stands up on its own and I certainly recommend it.   The bottom line is I like Diane Lane, I like John Malkovich, which are two good enough reasons to see any movie, and  both actors give their usual steady performances here.

Now, back to Gaga.  Pray for me.  And pray for her.  All sarcasm and joking aside, she is a child of God, and charity demands it.

That's No Lady...That's a Pop Tart

I'm back from the Chapter, and it's good to be home.  I've only been to two of these things, and many of the Salesians I was with are five, ten, even twelve time losers on this thing (that's every chapter since 1974, God help them), so I shouldn't complain much.  Well, it ended, and actually ended well.  The documents were approved and now it's up to us to make the plan happen.

A name that came up a number of times over the week was that of one Lady Gaga (not in plenary session, but over lunch).  Now why would a group of mainly middle aged celibates be talking about Gaga, AKA Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta?  The short answer is, we're Salesians and we're where the kids are.  We may not like it all, or even approve of it all, but we can't be ignorant of what the young people we serve are watching and listening to. There was one Salesian who is the last one you'd think would be up on this stuff, but is.  I won't get into names because I don't want people to be afraid to talk to me lest they think the conversation will end up on line.  But  we were at lunch when the Lady's name came up around the table, and he said how he liked her, thought she had a pretty good voice and a good beat.  He admitted that he never really listened to the lyrics much, that is until his niece told him to listen closely, and watch one of her videos.  He may be hip for someone approaching his sixth decade on earth, but even liking what the kids like, as Don Bosco put it, has it's limits.  He didn't use the "P" word, but I'm not sure he had to.  I've seen a couple of Lady Gaga's videos and I found myself scrambling to close the browser so no one would walk in the room and think I was misusing my Internet privileges.

I don't want to beat up on poor Stefani too much because, like my confrere, I think she has a better than average voice. I'm a rocker, if you haven't figured that out from my earlier posts, but I do appreciate good ear candy if it's well produced and has a solid beat, and Gaga has that.  So I go on record stating that I think she's got talent.  But why the over sexualization?  If you've got talent, why do you have to do that?  There is a disturbing reality in the music industry that many female stars appeal to sex in order to get noticed in a way men don't.  And they're doing it at a younger and younger age.  It seems like there is this rite of passage for teen singers that when they hit about 17 they need to tart it up a bit to show that they've got street cred. I remember going through a mall in 1998 or '99 and seeing a huge poster of Brittney Spears, formally of Micky Mouse Club fame, still a little girl but made out to look like a woman.  The thought that passed through my mind was "This is not going to end well."  She's still alive, thank God, and the move helped her career in the short term, but I'm not sure it helped her emotional stability in the long run.  (Yes, I do think there is a connection between her sexualization as a teenager and her later emotional problems).

There is more to say on this entire thing, because, like I wrote, women seem to be under pressure to go this route, not only more than men, but instead of men.  There is a deeper implication, and next time I'll comment on Camile Paglia's criticism of Gaga, which is in many ways right, but for the wrong reasons.

Introducing The Catholic Readings

To better clarify the focus of The Ax, I've decided to start a spin off site called The Catholic Readings.  While the Ax will focus on cultural and current events issues, the Readings will feature the scriptural and theological reflections I've been putting up on the original site.  I, quite presumptuously, took the name from a publication of Don Bosco's.  I hope I'll be forgiven for this, but the aims are the same as the original; to present the doctrines of the Catholic faith in a way everyone can understand.  As soon as the Chapter is over I'll begin posting material on the Catholic Readings, as well as continue work on the Ax.

33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C

Well, the Chapter is rolling along.  I’d say it’s hard to believe that it’s Sunday already, but that would be a lie.  The week is going deadly slow.  But Sunday it is, and whether we got here slowly or not, it means that we really only have one day left after today.  Today is the Jubilee celebration, so not much official is going on.  Monday is the wrap up, which can get a bit tedious because we have to agree on the wording of the final document.  But that said, the worst is over, I hope, and there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The readings at Mass this week, and on Sunday, have had to do with the end times.  This is the point in the year when the Church reflects on these things.  It’s no accident; the leaves are almost completely off the trees here in the Northern hemisphere, there are no flowers blooming and the hours of day light are getting shorter.  Nature is dying and so we as a community are called to reflect on our ultimate end.

The Gospel reading for Sunday, from Luke, has Jesus and the Apostles walking through the Temple, with the Apostles marveling at the building and it’s awesome beauty and power.  Jesus warns them that this great structure wouldn’t last forever.  In fact the day would come where there wouldn’t be one stone left on top of another.  This came as a great shock to them, but the Lord was clear about it, and that they shouldn’t be disturbed by it all.  Their faith needed to be rooted in something greater than a building.

The reading reminds me of the first time I was in Rome.  It was 1998 and a group of young Salesians, some in the last years of initial formation, some just finished, were doing what we call the Heritage Tour; visiting the places in Turin and Rome that were significant in the life of Don Bosco.  We had a guided tour set up for the afternoon, but Br. Tom Dion and I couldn’t wait that long.  We left the clerical residence where we were staying, just off the Via della Conciliazione, walked up the street and into St. Peter’s Square.  It was a glorious June day; bright sun and tourists everywhere.  It was 1998, like I said and the Basilica, along with the rest of Rome, was undergoing a facelift in preparation for the great Jubilee of 2000. Before us was the great Basilica in all its glory that even the scaffolding covering the façade couldn’t diminish. As we walked closer to the Basilica there it was so unreal.  We had both seen pictures and news stories on TV of St. Peter’s but to be standing in front of it was beyond our comprehension.  Then to walk inside and see the holy water fonts held in place by marble cherubs larger than grown men, the long center isle marked off with lines indicating how the other great cathedrals of the world compare in terms of size.  And the art and architecture; Michelangelo’s Pieta, Bernini’s canopy over the main altar, the statues of the saints high in their niches, and Don Bosco in particular down front on the upper right.  It was incredible to behold.  What power, what majesty represented by this massive and beautiful structure.

When we did come back in the afternoon for the tour we were reminded that this is actually the second church to bear the Apostle’s name to be on this spot.  The original was build in the 4^th century and by the 15^th century had fallen into disrepair, so it was torn down and rebuilt.  It was a reminder that nothing is forever.  St. Peter’s is only a building, and as grand as it is, is still the work of human hands.  It is a great reminder of the universality of the Church, with Bernini’s columns reaching out in the Square like the arms of a mother to receive her children. But it is only a sign.  What is greater than any building is the faith we are called to.  It is a faith not based on power or riches or grandeur, but on Jesus, crucified and risen. 

I know a priest who was in Rome on 9/11, and the big rumor was that there was a plane earmarked for the Vatican, among other places, but since the response after the initial attacks came so quickly the planes never got off of the ground.  Is this story true?  Thankfully we didn’t have to find out.  But what if something had happened that day?  How would that effect our faith?  When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD it was a great shock to the Jews of that time.  Their religion endured, but in a different form.  There were no longer sacrifices made to God on that spot, nor on any other since the Temple was the sole place these could take place.  They still had the Word and the ministry of preaching that continues to our present times.  But their religion changed forever. 

If, God forbid, something tragic were to happen to St. Peters we would rightly be shocked.  But our faith should not be shaken.  The Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in Rome is the same celebrated in New York, Boston, Beijing, Toronto and Cape Town.  It is not based on a place but on a person; Jesus Christ.  We need symbols like the Vatican, but we must remember it is just a symbol.  What endures to the end are not buildings, but faith community gathered in the Name of the Lord.