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.     

Mexico

I’m here at the Provincial Chapter in Stony Point, trying to get posts up on the sly, writing during breaks and during any spare moment I can find.  Things can get a little tedious, but one of the good things is I’ve gotten to see people from around the Provence I don’t run into very often.  Because the province is so big geographically, covering the Eastern US and the entirety of Canada, we can go months and sometimes years between seeing our brother Salesians.  

One of our confrere, Fr. Eric, came back from his assignment in Mexico to be an observer at the Chapter.  He teaches scripture down there, and was the American on staff during my years in Tlaquepaque.  It’s been great catching up on the old neighborhood, if you will.  Even though we don’t send theologians to my old parish of Santa Cruz de las Huertas anymore, Fr. Eric still visits and helps out with confessions and Masses once in awhile.  And so we’ve been catching up on who’s getting married, who’s having a baby, where different Salesians I studied with are and things like that. 

I have been truly blessed as a Salesian priest, and I count my three years in Guadalajara one of the many graces the Lord has bestowed on me in my life. The openness and hospitality shown to me by the people is my strongest memory.  I am often reminded of the Gospel where Jesus tell us that a person who gives a cup of water to one of his followers, simply because he is a disciple will receive a disciple’s reward.  Well, I received much more than a cup of water, simply because I was a seminarian and later a deacon and priest.  Yes, there was the food and drink, but there was also the laughter, the smiles, the simple hospitality and the real love that comes from the heart.  I saw a hard working people who took pride in their country and their families, and knew the meaning Christian charity.  

There were problems to be sure.  Many lived in real poverty, and that should never be idealized.  While the poor often have a certain detachment from material things and an appreciation for the deeper values like family and faith that can put the rich to shame, there was also alcoholism, drug abuse and domestic violence that can accompany those whose grinding poverty leads them to believe that there is no hope.  Yes, I saw, or at least knew, of these and other problems, but for the most part I experienced the friendship of people who were very down to earth and, like I wrote before, hard working and truly joyful.  

It broke my heart to hear about what’s going on now in Mexico today.  We know little about the history of our neighbors south of the border; of the revolutions, foreign occupations, economic turbulence and persecutions suffered by Catholics over the decades.  Well, Mexico is suffering again, this time at the hands of the narcotraficantes, the drug cartels that are waging war with each other and the government.  I’m told Guadalajara has been calm, but the cities by the boarder and in other northern states are in chaos.  Salesian schools in some cities have stopped having parent meetings at night because it’s just too dangerous to come out after dark.  Children are seeing their parents executed in the streets and the press is afraid to report on it.  A television station in Monterrey, the major city in the north, was attacked with grenades as they broadcast an expose on the drug rings.  Journalists have been killed, and now the newspapers simply don’t report the violence.  The government, mainly because of corruption, has been powerless to stem the violence.  Again, we here in the States are pretty much ignorant of what’s happening just to the south of us.

Corpus Cristi procession at Santa Cruz, c.1999

Why is it happening?  The reasons are many.  There is a culture of corruption in the government and various Mexican police forces that has compromised their ability to respond.  We were talking amongst ourselves, asking if terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda could have a part in promoting the violence in order to weaken the border, thus making entrance of terrorists in to US territory easier.  Let’s not forget that Germany tried to use Mexico during World War I to destabilize the US.  It didn’t work then, but it could under the right conditions.  The economic system in Mexico works against the entrepreneur and small business person; this makes getting ahead for an industrious go getter that much harder.  So many find it easier to turn to illegal means of making a living, or yes, jumping the border into the States to find work.  We have to be honest and ask ourselves where do the illegal drugs consumed in the States come from, and how are we cooperating in this tragedy. 

Drugs are not a victimless crime.  The dope sold on the streets of the Bronx, the South Side, and South Beach all have a starting off point.  John Paul II told the people of Columbia not to use First World drug consumption as an excuse for the drug production in their country.  Evil is evil, and shouldn’t be tolerated. At the same time we need to understand that our country’s collective addiction to illegal drugs has consequences.  It destroys the lives of the addict, which is tragedy enough.  But it also destroys the life of people where the stuff is produced and trafficked.  It is now destroying an entire country.  When will we say enough? 

The Parish of Santa Cruz de las Huertas, Tonala, Jalisco

I choose to remember the Mexico I left for the last time in 2001.  I choose to remember the people who welcomed me into their homes, who fed me, clothed me, and made me feel like I was a member of their family, simply because I was a Catholic seminarian.  I want to remember the good times.  But I hear the cry of a people held  hostage in their own country.  A country they love, but one that is now experiencing a long Good Friday.   I pray they may soon experience the rebirth of Easter Sunday.

Why the 60's?

Last time I wrote about the importance of the Beatles in the history of popular music, and really I could have written much more.  I didn’t get into the fact that they were one of  the first popular music acts that actually wrote their own material as opposed to relying on professional song writers.  I could have talked about the haircuts, the clothing styles and outrageous comments in the press and, yes, the drugs (which shouldn’t be ignored), and this all could explain their social impact in the 1960’s, but I’m not sure that would explain why are they still so popular.   

When I was a teenager in the 1980's, none of my classmates listened to Jimmy Dorsey, or at least none that I knew of.  No one had a poster of the Andrews Sisters over their bed or went to school wearing a Xavier Cugat t-shirt.  In 1985 no one under the age of 50 was listening to the music of the 1940's and early (aka pre-Rock and Roll) 1950's.  Today the kids are listening to Lady Gaga (God help them), Kanye West and Katy Perry, but you'd be surprised how many tell me that they like the Allman Brothers Band.  At a Sunday Mass a few weeks ago a little girl, she couldn't have been more than 11 or 12, had a Let It Be t-shirt on.  It's an album released 40 years ago,  probably before her parents were born.  This could've been a fluke; maybe the shirt was on sale and it could have just as easily said Heinz 57 on it.  But the teenager who plays guitar at the 10:30 Mass has a Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon pin on his guitar strap.  There was a teen age girl who used to come to religious ed. in Chicago who wore a shirt with a different Beatles album cover on it each week.  One Sunday it was Revolver, the next it would be Abby Road, and so on.  I'd make a comment and she'd be shocked the I knew who the Beatles were.  The gap between the 60's and now is actually greater than the time that had passed between the 1940's and 1980's, yet people, really young people, are still listening to the music of Beatles and their era unlike previous generations did with their antecedents.

So I’m left with the question, why the 60’s? I think some of it has to do with what I wrote about in an earlier post on the topic: that there is a romanticism attached to the age that has endured.   There is an image of freedom, liberation from oppressive social norms and a utopian belief in a better world to come that has endured.  As I also wrote, the impression in the immediate aftermath of the 1960’s was that the hippies had failed.  But the long term belief is that the 60’s generation did succeed in changing the world, especially in ending the Vietnam War (historically this is highly debatable).  Either way it is undeniable that the sixties, and one year in particular, 1968, changed the course of social history in the West, and the US in particular.   More on that pivotal year later.

My next post will be a total change of gears.  I turn my attention to Mexico, and the great suffering being experienced there right now.  Until then, I’m praying for you.  Please pray for the people of Mexico

The Beatles 2

I’m up here at the Marian Shrine, at our Provincial Chapter, and to not bore you too much, the internet connection here is worse than dial up speed.  They’re working on it, but in the mean time I’ve had to do some fancy footwork to get the blog out this week.  And mainly because of the time restraints put on me by the Chapter, and now the terrible internet,  I’m continuing with my look at John Lennon and the Beatles.  I’d begun to work on these next couple of posts already, so it seems like a good thing to finish at least one theme that I’ve started (remember the whole Theology of  the Body/Phenomenology tangent I was on for a while?)  As a reminder, I was prompted to write on this because of the upcoming 30^th anniversary of John Lennon’s murder in December.

As we continue this little appreciation of the Beatles, it is important to remember how unique they are, not only in the context of their time, but in the entire history of pop music over the last 50 years.  They represented a quantum leap forward in how Rock and Roll was produced and marketed, and in many ways you could argue that they saved the musical form itself.  Between 1958 and 1962 many of the first pioneers of Rock and Roll were either in the Army (Elvis), in jail (Chuck Berry), dead (Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, The Big Bopper, Richie Valens), had careers derailed by scandal (Jerry Lee Louis) or were in self imposed exile (Little Richard).  The sounds were smooth and mellow, with a smattering R&B to make things danceable.  The Beatles were famously rejected by Decca Records in part because in 1962 guitar bands were out of fashion and the suits thought they wouldn't be back in any time soon.  They were eventually signed by Parlophone, a minor imprint of EMI, and the rest as they say, is history.

But this signing to Parlophone is no small detail because it was actually more fortuitous for the “Boys” than if they had been signed to the more mainstream label.  On first blush it seems like a strange pairing.  Parlophone was a small outfit that specialized in classical recordings.  The producer assigned to them, George Martin, had his background in the classics and Jazz.  The Beatles two main song writers, John and Paul, were rockers with no formal musical training and couldn’t read music.  But as they grew in their song craft and ambition as recording artists it was the classically trained Martin who translated Lennon and McCartney’s sometimes cryptic requests into musical magic (Lennon famously asked that the piano break of  In My Life “sound like Bach,” to which Martin manipulated the recording to resemble a harpsichord).  The process of recording harmony and backing vocals was tedious and boring because each vocal had to be recorded separately. At the band’s request Martin and his engineers devised a way of recording a single vocal track several times at once, saving time and energy, a practice that became standard in the industry.   Martin always insisted that all the music and the main ideas came from the band, and that he simply translated the inspirations into concrete musical expressions.  However you look at it, It’s hard to see the Beatles breaking through artistically the way they did without a little help from their friend George Martin.

And break through they did.  By 1966 it was the Beatles, Bob Dylan, with what would later be known as The Band as his backing group, and the Beach Boys, and everyone else was pretty much trying to catch up.  Dylan was the self proclaimed murderer of Tin Pan Alley, melding pop songwriting, traditional folk forms with modernist and beat poetry.  His concerts with the Band helped revolutionize the rock and roll stage show.  Listen to his "Albert Hall" concert, and then "Got Live If You Want It!" by the Rolling Stones from the same year and tell me if they belong in the same universe with each other, let alone the same stage.   Meanwhile the Beatles and Beach Boys were dueling to see who could create the greatest sonic masterpieces.  Each were influencing the other, as well competing against each other.

After Brian Wilson, the Beach Boys creative leader, imploded and Bob Dylan's famous motorcycle accident The Beatles were left alone as the masters of the studio, as well as becoming the main voice the "kids" were listening to (the purposefully nonsensical  I Am the Walrus was written by Lennon to confuse those trying to find the deeper meaning of their music). Under the often under-appreciated guidance of producer and arranger George Martin, they created recordings that other artist couldn't even begin to touch.  Nothing in 1966 sounded like "Revolver," nor did anything in '67 sound like "Sgt.  Pepper's" and even the more stripped down "White Album" in '68 defies comparison.  While 1969's "Abby Road" was arguably less revolutionary than their earlier efforts, it's still mentioned among the greatest rock and roll records of all time.  That they produced something so cohesive, and yes innovative, is amazing considering the fact that they were hardly a functioning band in the summer of '69 when it was recorded.

But this only begins to scratch the surface.  More on the Fab Four and their cultural impact next time.

Bulletin Letter for November 14

As we all know, the civil year comes to an end on December 31^st.  But are we aware that the Church follows a calendar of her own, complete with seasons and holidays?  In two weeks we will be celebrating the first Sunday of Advent, beginning the time of preparation for the celebration of Christmas, as well as the new liturgical year.  As the old year comes to an end the readings at Mass begin to focus on the end of the world, and our ultimate destiny.  There is much confusion today over what we believe as Catholics about the end times and the second coming of Jesus.  That is what I hope to clarify this week.

        
The most important thing that Jesus tells us about his second coming is that no one knows when it will happen (Mt. 24:36), therefore we must always be ready (Mt. 24:44).  We need to live today as if it were our last day on earth, but at the same time as if we will live a full lifetime of years.  There will be “wars and reports of wars” (Mt. 24:6), but we should not take these troubles as signs of the end.  Humanity has been broken by sin, and while we are called to work and pray for peace, wars and insurgencies will happen, as will natural disasters and epidemics.  Because we can never be sure when He will return, we should always be ready by examining our conscience and celebrating the Sacrament of Reconciliation frequently, and by serving Christ in our neighbor always.

        
As for what will happen when Christ does come again, Scripture is clear.  Jesus will return and the dead will rise first, and then those who are living will be gathered up with Him (1 Thes. 4:15-18; Mat. 24:31).  There will be no mistaking Jesus’ return.  There will be no doubt about His presence here on earth.  All will be taken up at once.  While there are signs that Jesus tells us to look for, they are not as unusual as we many think.  Various ages have experienced savage wars, deadly epidemics, drastic climate changes, persecutions and even strange signs in the sky.  These generations thought that theirs was the last age and that Jesus was coming soon.  But these tribulations passed, and life continued.  The answer is not to ignore these things when they happen, but, rather, not to be disturbed by them.  Our faith is in Christ, and whether he comes tomorrow or in a thousand years we have nothing to fear if we are prepared.

Good Bye For Now?

Tomorrow I'm off to participate in our Provincial Chapter, 2010, and I'll be gone for a week.  That means I'm not sure if I'm going to get a chance to put anything up for a week or so.  I'm working on my bulletin letter for next Sunday, so I'm pretty sure that'll be ready before I go, but beyond that, who knows?  The Internet access is limited up at the Shrine, and I'm going to be tied up in meetings all day.  Then, if I get put on a committee any spare time I would end up with is gone.  But I'll see what I can do.  I have a couple of half finished drafts I might be able to round off and put up.

My only preoccupation with taking a whole week off from writing at this point is that I've got some good momentum going.  October was our best month traffic wise, and I hate to see it stop short.  This is where faith comes in.  If the Lord wants this thing to grow, it will, in His time.  If not, I could post things ten times a day and it's not going to go anywhere.

As a side note for the uninitiated, a chapter is a meeting of all the Salesian directors along with elected representatives from the different communities.  It happens every three years on the provincial level, and every six on the world level.  In that case It's the provincials and an elected rep from each province.  Most religious orders have chapters in some form.  This is not exciting stuff.  It's a lot of parliamentary procedure and arguing over the proper placement of a comma in a sentence, and the like.  But in spite of the tedium it's an important moment in the life of the province.  It's an opportunity to take a look at where we've been and plan for the future. So I ask for your prayers this week, for me and all the delegates.


OK, so I'm off.  I'll try to get something up before I go tomorrow afternoon, and then we'll see where the Spirit takes us.

At The Movies With Fr. Tom

I put up a review of "Hereafter" yesterday, and it seemed to get a few hits, which I like.  I'm bothering to write this stuff so people will read it.  But I had a friend tell me, via Facebook, that she wasn't going to see the movie based on my review (you know who you are Michele).  I immediately got this shock through my chest.  This is a great responsibility here, having people make their leisure time plans based on something I wrote.  I'm just one little old blogger out here in the big bad cyber universe.  To have Clint Eastwood lose even one potential customer because of something I wrote is a little frightening.  I mean, he may be 80, but I'm pretty sure he could still beat me to a pulp with one of his eyelashes.  Besides, what do I know?  I thought "Hello, Larry" was going to be bigger than "M*A*S*H" and moving Leno to prime time was a stroke of genius.

OK, neither one of those things is true, but the feeling of responsibility I have is real.  So guess I want to make a few things clear for my loyal readers.  When I review a movie it's not to end a conversation but to spark one.  If I think a movie is just unwatchable, I'll either write it, or not even bother to review it.  In the case of "Hereafter," yeah, I had problems with it's portrayal of religion and what I thought was a too neat resolution (really the whole thing was a little too neat in telling its story).  But Fr. Javier, one of my confrere here in Elizabeth, loved it. He was inspired by its affirmation of an afterlife, and it's appeal to science to back up the idea that there is life after death.  We had a lively discussion at the breakfast table, as a matter of fact. Which in the end, is sort of the point of my blog; to incite lively discussion.  Hey, I like pontificating as much as the next blogger, but it does get boring after a while; for both me and, I have to assume, you.   

And, like I wrote, I think Eastwood is a better director than actor.  He hits so many more emotional notes when he's behind the camera than when he's in front, and this goes back to his first directorial effort "Play Misty For Me" in 1971.  So I would never want someone to miss out on seeing the master at work.  But I have to be honest about how I reacted to the film, in this case not to dissuade you from watching it, rather to encourage you to continue the conversation.

And Mr. Eastwood, sir, if you're reading out there, I really do love all your movies, even the ones with the orangutan.  And if you see me in Carmel-by-the-Sea, please don't hurt me. And Michele, stop getting me in trouble with Dirty Harry!

HEREAFTER

Hereafter OOO
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements including disturbing disaster and accident images, and for brief strong language.

This is my fourth review of what used to be referred to as a first run picture, and the previous three have all been negative.  (I'm not counting my take on "There Will Be Blood," since that's been out two years on video, at least, and I gave that a positive notice.)  I don't want to seem like a negative Nellie who just takes delight in tearing movies apart.  I love the cinema, and have been since I was a child.  When I was about 14 I saw Jean  Cocteau's "La Belle et la Bête," Orson Wells' "Citizen Kane" and Martin Scorsese's "Raging Bull" within a few months of each other (yes, I was too young to see the last picture; please don't tell my parents or the MPAA).  It was after that combined experience that I knew I wanted to be a motion picture director.  So, what did I do?  I became a Catholic priest; go figure.  This is a long way around to say, I love movies, and go to them wanting to like them, wanting to be inspired, or at least slightly amused by them. It's just that this has been a tough goal to fulfill lately.


I went to see Clint Eastwood's new movie, "Hereafter" really wanting to like it.  Eastwood is a fine director; arguably a better auteur than actor.  It deals with the afterlife and near death experiences in a sensitive and sympathetic way.  There were parts of the story that moved me deeply, especially episodes concerning a boy who lost his twin brother.  Eastwood has a subtle touch, and can be tender and even sensual in an understated, graceful way.  There was much in the style I loved about this movie. But in the end I was left empty by a resolution that seemed both forced and shallow.

The film traces the story of three people who have either had near death experiences or lost a loved one whose death has proven difficult to get over.  Matt Damon plays a psychic who has quit the the business, Cecile de France plays a French journalist who survives a tsunami and Frankie and George McLaren play British twin brothers, one of whom dies in an accident.  About three quarters of the way through the three streams intertwine and tie themselves up in a nice and frustratingly neat bow at the end.

Considering the subject matter, I tried not to look at the film as a critic but as a Catholic and a priest.  Besides, at this point of his career I doubt Eastwood is capable of making a bad movie from the technical standpoint.  I was curious about how he would handle the topic of an afterlife considering the rampant scepticism with which such things are handled today in film.

That Damon has these powers is offered as a give in, while it's recognized that there are many fakers out there.  I found this openness to the supernatural refreshing, but what I didn't was the movie's all too predictable treatment of organized religion.  There is a funeral scene that left me shaking my head.  The priest (I'm assuming he's supposed to be from the Church of England) isn't cruel or damning, a stereotype we see at times, but rather totally disengaged, uttering trite statements about heaven that he doesn't even seem to believe.   Then it's out with one funeral and in with the next like they're on an assembly line. The vast majority of the funerals I do are for people I don't know, and St. Athony's is known for having many of them, sometime three a day.  I don't know of any situation where we'd treat an event such as a funeral with such pro forma sterileness.   When the young boy morning his brother searches the web for answers about what happens after we die he's immediately repulsed by any site that advocates a religious answer.  Again, they're not bombastic Bible thumpers, just well meaning frauds.

But there was something fraudulent about the picture itself.  While the life of the boys is given a veneer of grit, there still seems like something cleaned up about the portrayal of the heroin addict mother, so concerned they are to make her a sympathetic character and set up the happy ending. They pursue the theme that skepticism over the after life is some organized conspiracy by the media and scientific establishment, but it is never really developed and the journalist arguing the case comes off sounding a touch paranoid.  Damon admits that his psychic readings aren't infallible, but you'd never know it from how he works.  I know someone who has "the gift," and he can tell you that this is an imperfect "science."  Even mystics like Catherine of Siena got things wrong once in a while.  But Damon is hearing things loud and clear.  It was also disappointing that every coincidence, every clever happenstance had to be explained.  I'm assuming this was done to drive home the point that Damon's powers are real, but it actually deprives the audience of the opportunity to think and make up it's own mind about what they're watching.  Much like this past summer's "Inception," "Hereafter" takes a messy subject and treats it way too neatly.

In the end the movie isn't really about the after life, but about the here and now; coming to peace with the life you have, and finding happiness with people who share your experiences (I'll leave it at that since I don't want to give too much of the ending away). This is not a bad message, but it sheds little light on near death experiences or our beliefs on what comes next, which is what the film was suppose to be about.

I left "Hereafter" again disappointed, as I have been by so many American films lately.  It wants to be both artistic and serious while appealing to popular taste. It was afraid to be ambiguous and let the audience think.  "La Belle et la Bête," "Citizen Kane" and "Raging Bull" were all movies that left you thinking; about human nature, the meaning of life and what it means to be happy.  Two of the three had decidedly unhappy endings.  But they weren't afraid to delve into the inner reaches of the soul.  I wish "Hereafter" had had the same courage.