Prayer Request for Middle Eastern Christians from AOP

An Ode to the Little Way: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" // Movie Review

 

In a holiday movie season filled with controversies, one of the biggest has surrounded the latest Peter Jackson directed homage to the J.R.R. Tolkien legend, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  One complaint is that Jackson shot his film at a higher frames per second rate, which renders the print clear to the point of looking like a video tape.  Many have argued that it looks too clear and bright, losing the subtlety of film and rendering the sets cheap looking and swift movements choppy.   Did I find these criticisms valid?  Darned if I know.  I went to see The Hobbit prepared to discuss the whole 48 frames per second broo-ha-ha, but it ended up that, in spite of the extra scratch I spent to see it it in IMAX 3D, it was still projected in the traditional 24 fps format.  More on that at the end.

The more pertinent complaint many have is that Jackson has taken what is a rather modest book and stretched it out into a three film saga, like his Lord of the Rings trilogy from a decade ago (the two sequels will come out in succession in 2013 and '14).  But back then he actually had three separate novels to work from, and some at the time complained that he cut too much out, focusing on the action and omitting much of the whimsy of the source material.  Here he's padded the story with episodes that appear in other short stories about Middle Earth written by Tolkien.  Never having read, to my admitted shame, any of it I didn't notice the difference.  But in a way this was a happy fault, because I simply enjoyed the ride, and appreciated the little lessons sandwiched in between the orc, troll and goblin attacks, without worrying about how it matched up to the book.

The story follows Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman playing the younger Bilbo), a prosperous hobbit who has grown complacent and comfortable with his solitary life and routine.   This is all turned upside down when the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, reprising his role from the Rings series) pushes him to venture beyond the bucolic shire and into an adventure.   The quest is to recapture the homeland of the dwarfs which is presently occupied by a dragon.  The fire breather jealously guards an enormous stash of gold that once belonged to the dwarfs.  Bilbo is the last one anyone would imagine as the adventurous type; he's obsessed with his dishes and doilies, and keeping his well stocked pantry in order.  Gandalf sees something in him though and is convinced that he's just the hobbit for the job of burglar, even though Bilbo hasn't ever stolen a thing in his life.

Bilbo is not the only one who doubts he belongs on this quest.  Thorin (Richard Armitage), leader of the 13 dwarfs, and rightful dwarf king, is none too pleased at having this inexperienced homebody as a part of his group.  When the mystical elf Galadriel (Kate Blanchett, another hold over from The Rings, along with Christopher Lee who plays the wizard Saruman), asks Gandalf why he chose the "halfling" for such a dangerous mission, he relies,

"Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay... small acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins? Perhaps because I am afraid and he gives me courage."

In this quiet moment from an otherwise busy adventure fantasy we see the Catholic sensibility that Tolkien brought to his stories.  Gandalf here encapsulates both the Beatitudes of Jesus and the Little Way of St. Therese of Lisieux.  Jesus turns the notions of the world on their heads; it is the meek who will inherit the earth, those who weep who shall laugh, and the poor who shall inherit the Kingdom. Jesus uses those the world considers weak to shame the strong, and before this first part is over Bilbo does exactly that.

This simple line of Gandalf's also reminded me of the Little Flower, who sought holiness in the little things she had to do.  It is by doing the small, seemingly insignificant, things faithfully that we become saints.  It is by daily fidelity and acts of charity, especially to those who may annoy us or when we least feel like it, that gives the real opportunities to grow close to God.  When this simple love is the guiding principle of our lives darkness doesn't stand a chance.

Speaking of darkness, we also see our old friend Gollum, along with his infernal ring (Andy Serkis, again via computer wizardry).  We need to remember that The Hobbit actually takes place before The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  No one knows how that mysterious trinket will play into things yet, but you get the idea that Gandolf knows it's no good.

As I wrote at the start, I saw The Hobbit in the standard 24 frames per second format.  Even so, the print did seem clearer and brighter than normal which for the most part was a plus, since the 3D glasses tend to dim the screen. There was a problem though in scenes with great contrasts of shadow and light; the brights were glaring, rendering the images overexposed.  Also, at the beginning I did notice a certain blurriness when objects were moving fast.  As the movie went on I noticed it less and less.  Whether it was my eyes adjusting or the images were meant to be a bit obscured, I don't know.  If it was like this in the standard format I'm guessing the pluses and minuses will only be amplified at 48 fps.    

In the end, a big endorsement.  I left the theater excited like when I was a kid, which doesn't happen that much anymore.  I'm not going to recommend a format, though for me the IMAX didn't really add much (which I thought it did for the latest James Bond movie).  If you haven't read the book I hope this encourages you do so (I am right now).  If you have, try to put the book out of your head and just judge it for what it is and not for what it isn't.

There is a whole other theme to explore, on spiritual warfare, that is pertinent to our spiritual life.  I'll get back to that at a later time. Until then, enjoy what is left of this Christmas Time, and may you all have a blessed and prosperous New Year.

Frank Sinatra - Adeste Fideles

The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire)

Arguably the greatest secular Christmas song of all time (with all due respect to White Christmas) with its greatest interpreter.

Josh Groban - O Holy Night

Apocalypse When?

The weather here in Jersey has been a bit erratic; Friday, December 21, for instance, it was stormy in the morning, followed by blue skies before noon, and then rather raw and overcast in the afternoon.  Nothing, though, to the suggest the much hyped Mayan end times that was supposed to go down that day.  Well, it's Sunday the 23rd, and we're still here.  I'm shocked at how many people I know, all rather sensible souls, who have been truly edgy over the impending apocalypse that wasn't. 

I believe it was St. Augustine who wrote that every age is allowed to think that they are the last in order to keep them from complacency.  While ours is not the only age that thought the end was nigh, there is no doubt that we are in a period of heightened expectations concerning the End of Days.  It seems that right now there are two schools of thought in Catholic-Christian circles concerning the eschaton.  One reads the Bible, and the Book of Revelation in particular, with an absolute literalism that ignores the obvious metaphorical and symbolic aspects of the book.  These people create elaborate time lines and try to match up current events with Biblical prophesy to determine where we're at in relation to the Second Coming.  The other side totally spiritualizes the notion of the end of the world, claiming the Bible speaks of events that have already past and posits that these oracles are talking allegorically or metaphorically about the continuing change of epochs and ages; for the first century Jews the fall of Jerusalem was like the end of the world, as was the sack of Rome for 5th century Romans.  Our society will pass eventually as well and it will seem like Doomsday to those living through it.  At best what we are hoping for is some kind of "golden age" where people return to God and form a truly just society.

I'm no scholar, I'm just a humble parish priest, but both ends of the spectrum seem off.   Second Peter mentions that the "elements will be dissolved by fire" (3:10).  The letter speaks specifically of a new heaven and new earth where the just will live.  That all humanity will share in the Resurrection, and that there is a Final Judgement that goes along with it is central to Jesus' teaching.  We should beware not to try to treat the Scriptures like a newspaper, at the same time not everything in the Bible is a metaphor.  Both Peter and Paul, especially in the fourth chapter of the latter's First Letter to the Thessalonians, write in rather unambiguous terms about the last things.  Jesus spoke in parables and John saw amazing visions, but the two Pillars of the Church broke it down quite plainly.  But remember, Jesus told us that no one knows the day or the hour of his return.  He does seem to mix prophesies about the end time with those concerning the fall of Jerusalem.  People have made a living off of trying to predict the End of the World based on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict or, back in the day, the progress of the Cold War.  It's a fools errand, so don't be duped. It's not that both views are completely wrong, but that they are by themselves incomplete and tend to lead people into erroneous views on our collective and communal destiny.

So, what's the answer?  Simply be ready.  Follow your vocation in life the best you know how.  Do your daily duties with diligence and care.  Be faithful to your commitments.  The rest will take care of itself, because in the end it's all in God's hands.  But most of all, Be Not Afraid!

And, just for a little fun, and Oldie but a Goodie by our friends at REM

Handel, With A Side Of Fries.

Rachel Cries For Her Children

 

We had an "Active Shooter" drill at our grade school yesterday morning, much like the fire drills you may remember from your school days.  My emotions were mixed; it's the smart thing to do in light of the Sandy Hook tragedy, but devastatingly sad to think it's necessary.  The eighth graders I was with aren't dumb; they're old enough to figure out that bullets can break locks and closet doors can't stop high caliber rounds.  I tried to assure them that while there is no such thing as 100% security, there are things you can do to be smart and safer in an emergency (I'm not sure they believed me).  As I left the building after class I was filled with a mixture of sadness and rage.  When the Cold War ended I had hopped that the next generation would grow up with less anxiety.  I thought we had a chance to live in relative peace and security.  Then 9/11 shattered all that, and now these random acts of violence that are invading our social sanctuaries are leading to dread greater than Khrushchev or Brezhnev ever inspired.

We are searching for meaning, and the answers seem distant.  People ask where God is, and so do I.  I have long ago reconciled myself to the idea that God's plan is bigger than we can take in from our limited vantage point inside time and space.  Also, that we have free will, and He respects us so much He allows us to exercises it, even when it hurts us and others.   God is not a slave driver; He wants us to follow His will, but will not force us to do so.  And yes, on days like Friday, and yesterday, I wonder why He couldn't have made an exception, at least this once.

While I question God, I always end up coming back to us.  We were given this world, so instead of questioning God so much I tend to ask what are we doing with it?  Specifically, we were given stewardship over the earth.  Think of it as a lease agreement or a business partnership, but much deeper.  I'm not a deist; God didn't walk away after He signed over the deed.  He is still a providential guide.  It's still His plan at work, leading to a final end point of history.  But He gave us a lot of responsibility to organize things down here.  A very enigmatic question Jesus asks in the Gospel is when He returns, will the Son of Man find faith on earth?  This implies, at the very least, that we will arrange our world according to God's plan and designs as we understand them.  So when the End comes, and the King returns for his "inspection," will what He sees reflect that ideal.  As a Catholic I'm not writing of some Sharia style government, but one that has the Divine Law in mind, and certain core values as guiding principles.  One that understands its limitations, and allows God to walk with us.  Our contemporary, "Post Modern" world view does not allow for this type of arrangement, and we are now paying the price.  Human beings are the center of the new universe, and reason is our god and we are now reaping the results.  

When I was in grad school I was told that we need to have a values free approach to education.  It is not the schools place, so the reasoning goes, to tell children what is right and wrong, out side of very broad notions of decency and decorum.  But things like promoting a set of virtues, including faith, and even patriotism, are considered passe impositions of a bygone, unenlightened  age.  The trouble is that there is no such thing as values free education.  If you take one set of values away then it will be replaced, knowingly or not, by another.  There are no vacuums in a classroom apart from those used to clean the rugs.  We have replaced the traditional values, rooted in faith (in a general way) and patriotism with a secularized, individualistic hedonism, centered on a cult the of the state.   There is no reference point for family, community or God.

What caused this young man to act as he did in this particular case is complicated and we are still gathering information.  Evidently the mother was a member of her local parish.  Maybe God was a part of his upbringing.  It would be wrong for me to apply all the ills of society to this case.  But there is a bigger picture; a culture that is becoming more fragmented, dislocated, with young people living in more isolation.  One of our summer camps reported that it is getting more and more difficult to get their campers to play together in organized activities, so many are use to playing alone, or with just one other person, on a video console at home.  A small, trivial example of a real problem. In the larger sense we need to ask if we are we better socialized and more humane now than sixty years ago?  In some ways yes, but in a whole lot more ways, no.

We are convinced that we live in the best of all possible worlds and that those who complain about restoring traditional values want to "go back to the '50's"  Well, no, I wouldn't want to go back to Jim Crow or the sexism that existed back then.  I love the technological advancements we've made.  All and all today is pretty good on those fronts.  But this isn't living.  Wondering if your child will be leaving school in a bus or a hearse, or if you'll make it out of the movie theater in one piece is not progress, nor is it a fair exchange for the social advancements we've made. 

Don't get me wrong.  I hear from all sorts of people who lament the "good old days,"  and I understand that those days weren't always so good.  But there was a rootedness that people had, a deeper sense of family and community responsibility that is simply lacking today. Those that think a family is who you choose and the government is the one thing we all belong to are deluding themselves.  This has not worked, and it will only get worse.  These attitudes are contributing to an impersonal society, where life is cheep.  There needs to be a radical restructuring of society, keeping the best of what we have while restoring core values of faith, family and patriotism (as opposed to nationalism or leader worship).  Only then will things begin to turn around.  I'm not a Utopian.  There will always be people who do evil things.  But as the President has said, that isn't an excuse to do nothing. 

I have not mentioned guns.  Yes, we need sensible gun control laws.  I doubt the framers really intended for the citizenry to be armed with these types of gruesome weapons.  But we can eliminate every gun from the land, but it will not solve the deeper issues effecting us as a society.  It begins by renewing our lease with God.

We had the Christmas Pageant at our school this morning, much like the ones you may remember from your own school days.  I was filled with joy and contentment as I watched the children sing and dance.  After various classes sang Christmas songs from around the world, a group put on an adaptation of The Nutcracker.  I looked at those children a little differently this year.  I saw more clearly the innocents, promise and spark of Divine life within them than before.  It's sad that it takes a tragedy to do that.  I also thought of the life ahead of them, and my prayer was that they live in a world a little less cruel, violent and warped.  A pretty meager prayer, I admit.  But it's really in our hands, and much loftier goals are possible if we say yes to God, and let Him be our guide.

Finals and Suffering | Columbia Catholic Ministry

The Mysterious Eyes Of Our Lady of Guadalupe

Word on Fire in Mexico: At Our Lady of Guadalupe

The Queenship of Mary: A Commentary by Fr. Barron

We are in between two great feasts of Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Guadalupe.  Just the right time for a reflection on Our Lady from Fr. Barron.

The Hobbit, Movie Dialect Coaches and The Holy Spirit | Columbia Catholi...

Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States

 

Today we celebrate the great Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, which here in the United States is our patronal feast.  I've often wondered why Mary under this title was chosen to be the patroness of our country. It was declared so in 1846, by the Council of Baltimore.  That's eight years before the doctrine was actually defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.  That does not mean that the belief that Mary was preserved from the moment of her conception from all stain of original sin isn't a very ancient one in the Church, but it was simply at that moment that the Pope, prompted by the Spirit, decided to make a formal doctrinal pronouncement on the matter.  One could say that the dogma was given heavenly approbation when the Blessed Mother identified herself to St. Bernadette with that very title at Lourdes four years later.  But still the question persists: why did the United States bishops make the Immaculate Conception our Patroness?  On the one hand Mary is an obvious choice.  Who wouldn't want her motherly protection? Or, put better, what sane person wouldn't want it?  But why under that title?  Why not Our Lady of Perpetual Help, or Our Lady of Victory, or even Our Lady of Guadalupe, for the apparition that happened in our very hemisphere?  Even though the decision was made long ago, I've come to see that it wasn't an accident.  The U.S. bishops may have made the choice, but the Holy Spirit is the one who knew who we needed as a nation, not so much in 1846, but right now, on the doorstep of 2013.

Mary under this title has been used in the Church to promote the virtue of sexual purity.  From the beginning of his work with young people Don Bosco, for example, implored his boys to seek her protection against sexual temptations.  In general he promoted purity as the virtue Salesians should be known for, much like Franciscans are known for poverty and Jesuits for obedience.  As religious and priests, chaste celibacy frees us to be more docile to the Spirit.  With our hearts committed to no one else but Christ, we are free to serve all we meet.  We have no particular earthly love, and are so made channels of the Divine love, which took on flesh and gave His life for the salvation of the world.

There is another aspect to the virtue of purity as well.  From the Beatitudes we read, "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God." (Mt. 5:8)  This has traditionally been seen as a reference to sexual purity.  Any sins of a sensual nature though, be it gluttony or drunkenness as well as sexual sins, lead us inward.  They are about satisfying a longing that can never be filled in this life.  Eating, drinking and sex are good things, in there place and under our control.  But when they become the object of our lives they take control.  We become like addicts.  We order our lives around them, caring little who we harm as long as we get our fix.  In the case of sex we can view other people as objects to be used instead of persons to be respected.  But we not only hurt the other, we hurt ourselves.

Two examples from surfing the web recently:

There is an article I read the other day extolling the virtues of the "friends with benefits" culture.  The author seemed rather proud of the fact that people in those kinds of relationships were more likely to employ "safe sex" measures, the virtue of the hook up age.  But buried at the end was the line that more of these people said they were less satisfied sexually than those in committed relationships, who were also less likely to be worried about "safety."  Another thing that got me thinking was an excerpt from a recent biography of Mick Jagger that ran in a newspaper.  His ex-wife, Jerry Hall, reflecting on the turmoil that follows Jagger, whose womanizing is legendary, stated, "I feel sorry for Mick.  Sexual promiscuity just leads to chaos, and you have to clear it up. I wish he’d find happiness, but I’m not churning inside about it.”

What both these anecdotes point to is the fact that making sex the central object of our lives, or, in a way, reducing it to just another bodily function, leads to unhappiness and a profound sense of dissatisfaction with life, and all around emotional confusion.  But what's more it keeps us from seeing spiritual realities around us.  As we sow more and more in the flesh, we fail to see the wonders all around us.  We stop seeing the world with the eyes of a child, and are less trustful and desirous of the things of God.  We also become suspicious of the promises of prospective life partners.  As Catholic philosopher Janet Smith has said, those who are promiscuous, even moderately so, have lied and been lied to so many times over they find it hard to trust once the "right one" when he or she comes along.

In the end we lose the vision of God because we stopped looking for him.  We become so caught up in the latest pleasure (that never really satisfies) we fail to seek that which is eternal.  Because the treasure we have put our entire self into attaining has turned to rust we stop believing that there is anything genuine.

I could continue, but I've rambled on too long.  I will return to this at a later time, because there is much more that could and should be said.

But back to the main question; Why is the Immaculate Conception the Patroness of the United States?  I believe that it is because we have become embroiled in a radically over sexualized culture.  The bishops in Baltimore in 1846 didn't know the Sexual Revolution was coming, but the Holy Spirit did.  Mary Immaculate is here to remind us, not simply of the ugliness of vice, but of the beauty of virtue.  Her purity enabled her to say yes to God freely.  Bernadette's innocents and transparency allowed her to hear the Virgin's words and report them without guile or doubt.  Don Bosco's single hearted devotion to Christ allowed him to start a movement, by Mary's inspiration and the Spirit's power, that continues strong to this day.  They knew not to confuse contentment, which passes, with true happiness, that is eternal.  This is a lesson we as a people need to learn as well. 

Mary Immaculate is more than the patroness we may want; she is truly the one we need. 

God and The Power of Myth // "Life of Pi" Movie Review

Life of Pi was not on my "Movies to See" list, but I was urged to go by a parishioner, who gushed about the action and told me, "you'll get the all the God stuff.  It went a little over my head." Well, there is plenty of both "God Stuff" and action here, though you don't have to be into the one in order to enjoy the other.  And though its religion is a bit muddled, its basic message of seeing God working, even in the bad that happens, and the importance of myth as a conveyor of a deeper truth, is solid.

The story, told in flashbacks to an interviewer, follows Piscine Molitor Patel (he cleverly adopts the mathematical nickname Pi in order to stop his classmates from making fun of his name), a young Indian boy growing up in the French part of India (I did not know such a thing existed before this).    His father (the local zookeeper), in the spirit of the "New India" is staunchly secular, warning his son that religion is darkness.  His mother is a practicing Hindu, though as an adult Pi reflects that this was probably more a matter of culture than faith.  As a boy he reveled in the vibrant ceremonies and mesmerizing myths of the Hindu God's like Vishnu and Krishna, told to him by his mother.  He is hooked on God, if you will, and soon Pi discovers Catholicism, and a little later Islam.  He doesn't reject any of them, but incorporates all of them together: Hinduism supplies the myths, Catholicism offers the concrete love of the God made Man, and in Islam he finds mystical spirituality (this is the most problematic part of the presentation, and I don't mean to down play it, but it didn't kill the movie for me, all the same).

His father, facing economic hard times, pulls up stakes, deciding to move the family to Canada.  Taking a cargo steamer across the Pacific, animals and all, the family is wiped out when the ship is sunk in a typhoon.  Only Pi survives, along with a hyena, a zebra, an orangutan and a Bengal tiger, all stuck on a small lifeboat.  Before long it's down to Pi and the tiger.

At this point anything I write will be giving things away.  Just see it, suspend disbelief and enjoy the ride.  But be mindful of the kids (I'll get to that later).

What is most shocking about the film is that it actually presents organized religion in a positive light.  It is through the outward expressions of faith, be it the Hindu festivals, Catholic iconography or the Islamic call to prayer ringing through the streets that leads Pi to his relationship with God.  He is spiritual, not in spite of religion but because of it.  

Obviously, from the Catholic perspective, once you accept Christ there is no more crying out to Shiva.  You may appreciate aspects of the Hindu or Islamic traditions, especially their prayer life, but Christ is the only Way, Truth and Life because he IS those very things.  Pi's mixing of religious faiths is a tip of the hat to our contemporary notion of religious relativism, and the idea that we can make a personalized faith to fit our tastes.  But Christ demands a commitment.  He is not like other religious or spiritual teachers who claimed to know a way; he said he actually was the Way, as I said before.  Jesus is unique in that dimension of his teaching.  I only hesitate in giving a full throated endorsement for kids, who are the movies target audience, because of the mixed message on Christ.  And also for the intensity of the scenes with the Tiger, but more on that later.

The other positive aspect is the role myth plays in Pi's life of faith.  When Pi finally hits dry land and is sent to the hospital he's questioned by representatives of the shipping company as to what happened.  He tells his story, but they can not believe it.  They tell him that he needs to give them an explanation of the events that will not make them look like fools with their bosses.  He then gives them a much simpler, believable, if more brutal tale.  Back in the present day he asks his interviewer which story he prefers.  He replies, the first, more astounding account.  Pi responds, "And so it is with God."

We live in a scientific age, and this is not a bad thing, for sure.  But what Fr. Robert Barron calls "scientism," the belief that science is the sole means of finding the truth, is bad.  It limits us, making us ignore the other ways of seeing the truth, either through music, poetry, art, drama or story.  Pi's struggles on the boat, his discovery of God and himself, is something greater than can be told by just supplying facts in the conventional way we think of them.  Which story he gives is true then?  The answer is both.  And you could argue the more fantastic tale was actually the truer one.

Christ knew this, and explained all his major teachings either by way of parable or in some form of metaphor or simile.  There was no Prodigal Son, but can you find a better, more nuanced treatise on forgiveness in the history of Western thought?  There was no Lazarus starving at the door and no rich man in he house gorging himself, but is there a better doctrinal pronouncement on generosity and social responsibility in any Church document?

When we turn to the Old Testament things get tricky.  When it's suggested that Jesus used parables, so God could have done the same with stories like Jonah and the Whale or the story of Job some Christians get nervous.  But they are falling into the scientism trap without knowing it.  The Truth of Scripture is not in the "factual" details but in the bigger picture. We have to remember that the Bible is a library, not a single work, and so God communicates in different ways through the various books.  Each has to be taken on its own terms; I'll read the Books of Samuel differently than the Book of Jeremiah, and that differently than the Psalms.   Many people get hung up on if Jonah and the whale was a true story, and miss a much bigger point (several bigger ones, actually) than if a man can survive three days in the belly of a "great fish."  (The answer: If God wants him to.)   

Pi grew up on myth, he knew their power to convey truth and was able to filter his experience through that lens.  This offers a truth deeper and more complex than can be offered by reason alone.

In the end, I recommend Life of Pi, with the caveat about the religious relativism.  Prepare your children, and talk about it afterward.  I can't think of a main stream movie in recent memory that has treated God, religion, and religious people with such compassion and respect.  That alone makes it worth cheering for.   

 ***

As for the suitability of Life of Pi for youngsters, though it's being marketed to younger audiences, and has a PG rating, the scenes on the boat are intense.  There is little if any gore, but the suspense is something else.  I felt real dread in the middle of the movie. Even though there is a point where Pi and his four legged partner seem to come to a peace of sorts, you're never quite sure if the big guy is going to snap.  I'm not sure what the cut-off should be, but know your child, and really young children, under 10 for sure, should probably be steered clear.       

Lou Gehrig and the Season of Advent | Columbia Catholic Ministry

"Lincoln" Movie Review

There are few figures in U.S. history more polarizing as Abraham Lincoln.  This might come as a bit of a surprise to any readers from the northern United States or from other countries, but anyone from the South would know what I mean.  Depending on where you were brought up Honest Abe is seen either the Great Emancipator: the freer of slaves who preserved the Union, or a tyrant who trampled the Constitution while waging a war of aggression against sovereign states.  Then there is the middle ground of intellectuals who deny that slavery was a cause of the Civil War, or that Lincoln freed anyone in bondage.  The reasoning goes that the War was fought to definitively establish the power of the Federal Government over that of the individual states, and the fall of slavery was a byproduct of such a conflict.  I've always been skeptical of this third, revisionist, view, but that very prominent thesis is conspicuously absent from the new Steven Spielberg directed film Lincoln.  What we have is a rather straight forward telling of a pivotal month in the life of our 16th President.  While Lincoln is always a sympathetic figure, we do get a more complex picture of the man, and can see why some stood against him, even if we never doubt for a moment that they were wrong.

The setting is Washington, D.C., January 1865.  Abraham Lincoln, who has just won reelection, feels pressure to have a proposed constitutional amendment formally prohibiting slavery passed through the House of Representatives before the end of the month.  The consensus is that the Civil War will be over by February, and then the Emancipation Proclamation will be challenged in court as an unconstitutional wartime overreach by Lincoln.  The Senate has already passed the amendment handily the year before, but the House is much more reluctant to follow their lead.  He needs a three quarters majority of a divided chamber to accomplish his goal. Democrats are firmly against it, the Radical Republicans are enthusiastically for it.  But "conservative" Republicans are more ambivalent about the whole thing (I put that in quotes because I'm not sure such a thing existed back then).  If there is proof the administration is negotiating peace terms, they'll vote for it, if not they'll vote against it (it gets more complicated than that, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it right there).  Lincoln needs to swing 12 votes to the "Yeah" column, and the film is taken up how that happened.  Honest Abe is still honest, for the most part, but is not above using promises of patronage jobs and stretching the truth at times to get the job done.  He employs some unsavory characters as his agents while keeping himself above the fray.  He not only has the fate of a nation in his hands, he is struggling to keep his family together.  Through it all we see a man of great calm, good humor, and more than a touch of melancholy, who nonetheless is sly enough move the alternately slippery and intractable gears of government.

In some ways this is a difficult movie to review.  It has an insanely talented cast, many of whom obviously showed up, in some cases for brief cameos, simply because of the film maker and his topic.  The sets and costumes are meticulously designed.  The dialogue is crisp, while staying stubbornly nineteen century in tone and style (one critic I saw didn't like this, but I found it refreshing). There really is little not to like in this film, unless you are looking for Saving Private Ryan style action, which does not exist here (one brief battle scene at the start is intense, but doesn't rise anywhere near to that graphic level).  I can't call this the best film made by any of the participants involved, or the best movie of the year even, but it is such a well crafted labor of love (Spielberg spent 15 years getting this to the screen) only the most hardened Scrooge could find fault with it.  

The great strength of the film is it's cast, and there are just too many names to mention, so I'll stick with three stand out performances among many.   Daniel Day-Lewis is his usual remarkable self in the title role.  Much was made of the high pitched voice he employes in an attempt to stay close to how contemporary witnesses described Lincoln's tone and timbre.  I found it a non-issue; after the first scene I didn't think about it again the rest of the film.  In general Day-Lewis does his typical job of immersing himself in the role and having you forget he's acting.  After a short time he was Lincoln for me, and that was that.  Sally Field, as Mary Todd Lincoln, brings depth and humanity to a character that could have been played simply as an overwrought neurotic.  The real hero of the movie is Representative Thadeus Stevens, the radical Republican abolitionist (accent on radical) played by Tommy Lee Jones.  He doesn't trust Lincoln but recognizes the gravity of the moment and puts his full efforts behind a cause that is not just a matter of principle but, as we find out, is also intensely personal.

Lincoln is one of those movies that deserves a second viewing, for no other reason then it's one of the few mainstream films that deals in ideas, in firm notions of right and wrong and the complexity of human relationships.  It's at once about big ideas and small intimate moments.

Lincoln's religious views are not really explored, and neither are those of the abolitionists, which is too bad.  We get slogans about natural law from both sides, but that's about it.  It's true that Lincoln was never baptized, nor was he a believer in any organized religion, but he was far from the atheist some present day intellectuals try to say.  One reading of his Second Inaugural shows a clear belief in a providential God.  I don't take this as a slight by Spielberg, who is one of the few religiously sensitive film makers out there.  But it's helpful to understand that the historical Lincoln saw the severity of the Civil War as a divine judgement on the entire United States, not just the South, for having tolerated slavery for so long.  After emancipation and abolition, his goal was reconciliation.  The great tragedy is that his assasination kept him from  completing that mission.

Needless to say, I recommend Lincoln.  It's educational without being didactic, inspirational, but also surprisingly humorous.  It is the perfect confluence of director, subject matter and leading man, as well as of a great cast in general.  A must see in between Christmas shopping and parties.

His Empire: Reflection on Christ the King by AOP

Through the Past, Darkly // “Crossfire Hurricane” TV Review

 

Here we are near at the end of 2012 and the Rolling Stones are about to embark on a brief tour to celebrate their 50^th anniversary (a more thorough assault on the arenas and stadiums of the world is planned for next year).  If there was a sixties era band less likely to survive into the third millennium, I can’t think of them.  They’ve endured drug arrests, artistic dry periods, internal squabbling, the death of one member and the voluntary exiting of two others.  And, did I mention, drug troubles?  Along with their shows in London, Newark and Brooklyn in November and December, the band has produced a documentary being shown on HBO that essentially covers the first twenty years of their turbulent existence.  While Crossfire Hurricane is filled with memorable images, some shown for the first since they appeared, the story behind them remains somewhat obscure, and a bit dishonest.  

This is a brief film, clocking in at under two hours, when compared to The Beatles Anthology or Bob Dylan’s No Direction Home retrospectives, especially since it covers far more ground chronologically than those other two documentaries.  It follows the same style as their recent film on the making of Exile on Main Street; the “boys” are heard but not seen, except in the archival footage that’s featured.  Along with the four current members we have Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor, the only two people who ever left the Stones and lived to tell about, offering remembrances of their time in the “Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World.”  They all speak from the shadows, hiding behind the images of their former selves.  But even with this wall of anonymity they say very little new.  Mick Jagger is notoriously tight lipped (no pun intended) about his private history (he returned a sizable advance on a proposed autobiography years back when he claimed he couldn’t remember anything), and he proves equally evasive here.  Keith Richards is a little better, giving some fascinating insights into his transformation from play outlaw to the real thing as a result of the 1967 Redlands bust.  But Wyman, who kept a detailed diary during the band’s hay day, offers surprisingly little as well.  And even if he did have more to say things go so fast there’s little time to savor what’s being presented.   

   

I’d say that this is a film for hard core fans only, but I’m not so sure about that.  There is no discussion of the music or how their sound developed, for instance.  How did they go from wannabe bluesmen to pop hit makers, through a psychedelic period and out the other end as purveyors of electrified “supernatural Delta blues?”  There is no mention of Ian Stewart, a founding member who was unceremoniously dropped from the lineup in 1963 because he didn’t fit the image, but stayed on behind the scenes until he passed away of a heart attack in 1985.  Brian Jones’ problems are covered more or less, but the events leading up to his departure and death in 1969 are not really talked about in detail.  Mick Taylor, Jones’ replacement, at least admits, even opaquely, that he exited the band after five years because the lifestyle wasn’t conducive to family life or survival in general.  We don’t even get far enough into the story to ask Wyman why he bowed out after thirty years.   I could go on with the questions not asked and important names left out or barely mentioned, (can you say Marianne Faithful, Anita Pallenberg and Gram Parsons, anyone?) but you get the point.  

The most fascinating part Crossfire Hurricane is the beginning, when we see the “anti-Beatlemania” the Stones unleashed come to life.  From the start there was a violence they inspired that stood in contrast to the manic, but generally good natured, chaos brought on by the Beatles.  Richards is up front about the fact that Andrew Oldham, their first manager, purposely put the “black hat” of villainy on them as a publicity gimmick. But the hat fit, and they, or at least Jagger, Richards and Jones, were content to wear it.   

In the end Crossfire Hurricane admits to the excesses, especially the drugs, but still wants to leave us with the impression these are five, now four, beloved icons.  Richards, the roguish pirate of rock and roll, is loved by the fans, both hard core and casual, but I can’t say the same for Jagger, or the band in general.  People admire them for being survivors, and appreciate their unique blending of blues, R and B, reggae, disco, and whatever other form of black music they could mix together and put their British stamp on.  But they are not the Beatles, and never wanted to be.  And if they are keeping their story obscure, it’s for a reason.  There is a darkness surrounding the Stones, the darkness of those who played with evil not realizing it’s not a toy.  While they did try to make a break from it, lightening their image, employing comedy at times, the residue and the wreckage remains.  

The Bottom Line: The Stones fan will appreciate the old footage, but the casual fan will be left clueless.  There is an inherent dishonesty that in the end makes this diapointing.  Not that they are lying necessarily, but that you know they’re not really giving you the whole truth, not even close.  Even the Beatles and Dylan have been accused of creating a myth to take the place of history.  But here we have something else.  It’s a group that has fostered a legacy that they don’t really want to own up to.  They want to wear the black hat still, but to be thought of in genial terms as well, and I’m not sure it really works that way.

Bond Reborn // "Skyfall" Movie Review

In 2006 we were reintroduced to James Bond in the movie Casino Royal. This represented more than just the occasional change in actor we've grown use to over the years (Daniel Craig taking over for Pierce Brosnan in this case), but was an entire reboot to the series, bringing the longest running movie franchise into the 21st century.  I loved it.  Craig's grittier, more realistic Bond seemed to break the old formula that was weighing the franchise down (I write this even though I thought Brosnon was a fine 007).  Part of Casino Royal's job was to give us Bond's origin story, a common tactic used these days to breath life into an aging series.  But there were many elements of the James Bond legend left out, and that it's disappointing follow up, 2008's Quantum of Solace, didn't bother to address.   Now we have the 50th anniversary edition Bond, Skyfall, that sees Craig return for his third round in the lead role, and that in reality should be counted as the true follow up to his first effort.  Here the task of explaining how James Bond became 007 is completed, with Bond's story brought full circle, paradoxically developing the character beyond what we're use to while simultaneously rooting him firmly in the familiar mythology.  And more than that, it's a movie that stands up as a movie, not simply as a part of a franchise.

After going missing for several months, presumed dead but really on an unauthorized vacation after a mission goes wrong, Bond returns when MI6 headquarters is attacked by terrorists.  He's got a broken relationship with his boss M (Judi Dench, the last holdover from the Brosnan days) to go along with his wounded body and shattered psyche.  It's figured out that the attack was perpetrated by the same people who stole a disk containing the names of all the NATO field agents that Bond failed to retrieve during his earlier botched assignment.  Now 007 must find out who has the disk and get it back before more agents are exposed and killed.

This is a fairly standard spy movie plot, true, but what makes this one different is that here we have a Bond who has some self doubt, who is wondering if he can trust the people he's working for, and if he has any kind of future in the spy game at all.  He has to make moral decisions, and is truly haunted by their consequences.  Sure, you've got plenty of things blowing up good, martinis, shaken not stirred, along with the "Bond Women" that you would expect.  But our favorite British agent also has a soul; he seems to be in it for love of country, not just for the perks, he feels loss, and struggles to come to terms with his past.  If I'm keeping things vague it's because unlike most Bond movies there are spoilers that I don't want to give away, and none of them have to do with gadgets.  

We can argue over if this is the best Bond movie ever (if pushed I would have to say no, though not by much), but I don't believe there is one that's been better made.  It's directed by Academy Award winner Sam Mendes (American Beauty) and filmed by the legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins (A Beautiful Mind, No Country for Old Men).  Bond screenwriting vets Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are joined by Oscar nominee John Logan (Gladiator, The Aviator, Hugo).  Skyfall also has the most accomplished cast in the series' history, featuring Oscar nominees Ralph Fiennes and Albert Finney, joining Dench who has a statuette of her own.  Oscar winner Javier Bardem's performance as the villain Raoul Silva, while not on the same level as Heath Ledger's Joker, is still worthy of a supporting actor nomination.  All this combines for a beautifully filmed, intelligently written and well acted movie, that is not only a great Bond film, but simply a great film.

Without giving anything away, by the end of Skyfall all the loose ends from Casino Royal are tied into a nice bow, old names are associated with new faces, and we learn things about our hero we may not have known before.  All this adds up to us being made ready for more adventures from James Bond.  I've read that Daniel Craig's future in the role is uncertain, but I hope he comes back for many more installments.  He may not be the best Bond since Sean Connery, but simply the best James Bond, period, as Roger Moore himself has attested.  With Skyfall we have the "old Bond" back, in some respects, but nonetheless renewed and ready for the future.   

I'm linking to a commentary by Fr. Robert Barron who, like myself went to the movie for fun, but left seeing a lot more than just vodka and handguns.  In Fr. Barron's case he ended up finding unexpected spiritual messages, and a possible Catholic connection to the James Bond story, and that of its creator Ian Fleming.  But I have to worn you, IT'S FILLED WITH SPOILERS!  If you have any intention of seeing Skyfall please wait to watch Fr. Barron's take until after you do so.  Consider yourself warned.

Father Stephen Schenck, S.D.B. (1952-2012)

Here is an obituary of Fr. Steve Schenck who passed away suddenly yesterday, prepared by Fr. Mike Mendl 

            Father Stephen Charles Schenck, S.D.B., pastor of Holy Rosary Church in Port Chester, N.Y., died suddenly in the parish rectory on Saturday morning, November 10.   Father Schenck, 59, had been Holy Rosary’s pastor since mid-2009. Last year he celebrated his 40th anniversary of religious profession as a Salesian of Don Bosco.

            Father Schenck was the son of the late Charles and Eileen Bolster Schenck. He was born in Brooklyn on November 25, 1952, and baptized at Holy Family Church on Flatlands Avenue on December 14. He was raised in Malverne on Long Island, however, where the family worshiped at Our Lady of Lourdes Parish and Steve attended parochial school and was confirmed in 1964.

            Steve entered Salesian Junior Seminary in Goshen, N.Y., in 1966. In his high school years he developed juvenile diabetes, which was to afflict him for the rest of his life and perhaps contributed to his sudden and untimely death. But, his confrere Father Steve Shafran said, “He never let his health challenges get in the way of throwing himself into service for others.”

            Steve was admitted to the novitiate, located in Ipswich, Mass., on August 31, 1970. His master of novices was Father Theodore Ciampi. He and nineteen classmates—thirteen from the New Rochelle Province and six from the San Francisco Province—professed first vows in Newton, N.J., on September 1, 1971.

            Brother Schenck spent the next four years as a student of philosophy at Don Bosco College Seminary in Newton and graduated on May 31, 1975, with a B.A. summa cum laude. During these years he developed the musical and dramatic skills that would serve him and young people so well during the years of his pastoral ministry.

            At various summer camp assignments over the years, he “developed visual aid/skit catechetical programs,” according to one personnel inventory that he filled out.

            Brother Schenck was assigned to Salesian Preparatory School in Cedar Lake, Ind., for practical training, where he taught Spanish, Latin, algebra, and a philosophy elective, and directed the band and choir. He also accumulated a store of memories, many of them hilarious, with which he regaled his confreres in future years.

            In 1977 Brother Schenck began his theological studies at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Worthington, Ohio. Once again he excelled academically, graduating with an M.A. in theology summa cum laude. His master’s thesis was titled “The Pneumatic Ecclesiology of Heribert Mühlen.” Mühlen (1927-2006) was a German Catholic theological whose “work is concentrated mostly on pneumatology [theology of the Holy Spirit], ecclesiology and pastoral theology,” according to Wikipedia.

            He had three principal fields of apostolate during his years in Columbus: working with the diocesan Office of Youth Ministry (1978-1979), serving as a pastoral counselor for seventh and eighth graders at St. Cecilia School (1979-1980), and serving as deacon at St. Leo Church and pastoral counselor for seventh and eighth graders in its parochial school.

            Father Schenck and seven other men of the New Rochelle Province were ordained by Bishop Edward Hermann of Columbus at Christ the King Church in Columbus on May 23, 1981. To the province leadership he identified as his preferred pastoral fields “DRA activities, counselling, positions where I would be able to be musically and dramatically involved.” Over the next 31 years his preferences were very much realized, to the benefit of students, parishioners, retreatants, and confreres.

            Father Schenck’s first priestly assignment was to Don Bosco Technical High School in Paterson, N.J. (1981-1986), where he was director of religious activities (DRA). His musical talent came out strongly in his work with the young men of Don Bosco as he composed a number of hymns in a style that appeals to young people. In this period he composed “Friend of the Young and the Poor” in honor of St. John Bosco, which proved so popular that it has remained a favorite at Salesian celebrations across the U.S., and  in other countries too.

            A three-year stint followed at the Salesian Center for Youth Ministry in Goshen (1986-1989) leading youth retreats and other programs. In 1988 he began studies in religious education and youth ministry at Fordham University, which resulted in an M.S. degree in 1990.

            Father Schenck’s first assignment to Holy Rosary Parish came in 1989, when he was posted there as assistant pastor for two years with responsibility particularly for youth ministry. In 1991 he moved to the Marian Shrine in Haverstraw-Stony Point, N.Y., and began two three-year terms on the provincial council with oversight and guidance responsibilities for the province’s youth ministry programs.

            As the New Rochelle Province celebrated the centennial of its foundation in 1998, Father Schenck served on the committee planning various festivities. Father Shafran served with him and remembers: “We had worked together closely when I was on the vocation team in Stony Point at the same time he was province coordinator for youth ministry, but it was when we were asked to collaborate on the celebrations at the Felt Forum of Madison Square Garden in New York that I came to see his extraordinary talents come alive. [He showed] humble service, hard work, extreme and total dedication to the young and the poor, total dedication to the educational approach of St. John Bosco and consummate belief in the Salesian principles that are foundational to our views on youth ministry—that, together with his gift of music … as a means for prayer and reaching the young.”

            A second assignment to Don Bosco Tech in Paterson came at the end of his six years on the provincial council in 1997. As director of the school, he labored mightily to provide a sound education for the poorest boys in Paterson and to keep the school afloat financially. He took a personal interest in each confrere, member of the staff, and student, encouraging and correcting as need be, deeply appreciative of each one’s contributions to the life of the school or the community, or to himself in his coping with diabetes. In the face of the school’s aging buildings, as well as the demographics of the area, raising sufficient funds proved to be a losing fight—not in Father Schenck’s eyes but in those of the province leadership, who decided in December 2001 to close the school at the end of the school year in May 2002. It was a hard blow for Father Schenck to absorb (as well as for many other people).

            He headed south in 2002, to Miami, for a less stressful responsibility as assistant pastor of St. Kieran Church. The parochial experience was prelude to a more serious pastoral responsibility in 2003, when he was named pastor of the Church of the Nativity in Washington, D.C., and superior of the Salesian community staffing the parish and Don Bosco Cristo Rey High School in Takoma Park, Md.

            Father Schenck’s pastoral sensitivities and his musical talents both struck powerful chords in the Washington parish. He relished bringing the parish’s fine Gospel choir to province events, such as the visit of the Rector Major to the Marian Shrine in 2007.      Brother Thomas Sweeney of the Washington Salesian community writes: “His love for the arts also spread to Nativity’s parishioners. Before Christmas, he would organize a bus to go to New York to see a play, have a nice dinner, and stay overnight at Stony Point or a hotel. He was the life of the party and enjoyed every moment of it.” Father Schenck also put together a group of young musicians and singers, from Washington and elsewhere, to cut a CD of his music, called “The God Who Is True to Me,” released late in 2009.

            Brother Sweeney also remembers: “Steve loved to cook. It was total relaxation for him just to go into the kitchen and prepare a delicious meal for the community on some Sundays and feasts. He always made sure all the ingredients were fresh and were the best. He would play a favorite CD as he prepared the meal. While waiting for something to be cooked, he would be doing crossword puzzles. He would serve the meal and then sit down to enjoy the meal and all the accolades that would be lavished on him by the community. He wanted to make sure that the community had a great meal and would just relax and enjoy each other’s company during the meal. He was a community type of guy.”

            Taking a half day or full day off each week, Brother Sweeney continues, Father Schenck would go for a bike ride or a movie and then speak of his day’s adventure at dinner with the community, discussions that both he and the confreres much enjoyed.

            Brother Sweeney concludes: “I know I will truly miss him—living with him in the seminary, attending Fordham with him as we both were going for our Masters, and having him as my director here in Washington. But most important, he was truly a friend and a true Salesian. It is sad that the young and new confreres will never know him and also realize the impact that he had on the province and on individuals.”

            His term as director ended in 2009, Father Schenck was sent back to Holy Rosary Parish in Port Chester, this time as pastor. Succeeding the very popular and zealous Father Timothy Ploch, he had big shoes to fill—which he did. He had already learned a good amount of Spanish, and he honed that skill in his daily interactions with the parish’s largely immigrant population.

            As pastor of Holy Rosary, he was involved in the training of the Salesian novices of the United States in 2009-2011, while the novitiate was located at the parish, particularly their apostolic work like teaching CCD and working in the youth center. This year he was similarly involved with the New Rochelle Province’s prenovices, who moved into the parish at the end of August.

            He also offered warm hospitality each August to the Salesian Lay Missioners during their orientation period, during which they spent a week working in the summer camp of the two Salesian parishes of Port Chester; this year they resided in the parishes for two weeks instead of one, as previously. One of the SLMs, Paula Rendon, writes from Ethiopia: “I am deeply saddened to hear that he is no longer with us—even though we only got to know him for a couple of weeks, he was an integral part of our formation and preparation for our year of mission.”

            Typical of his personal approach to people is what he showed to Father Paul Grauls, who had been his vice director and assistant pastor in Washington: “On the day of my 50th [anniversary] at Stony Point [last September], Steve came up to me in the vesting room, gave me a warm kiss and very special wishes. I had not seen him since he left Nativity.”

            On the occasion of his fortieth anniversary of religious profession in 2011, Father Schenck said: “I have enjoyed my years of priestly service, especially all those things that involved me with young people. I have found that my interactions with them, especially the poorest among them, have taught me at least as much as my formal studies have, if not more. Above all, it’s been in the active ministry that I have experienced the presence of God in my life, and I count myself blessed to have received and followed this vocation.”

            Father Shafran sums up his reaction to Father Schenck’s life and death thus: “I greatly appreciated his wisdom, sensitivity, writing, preaching and spirit of joy—what a great sense of humor! What a gift he has been to the province!  What a void this leaves in us.  I am greatly saddened and know that many, many others who had the benefit of Steve in their lives feel the same—a great feeling of emptiness in the gut ... but with great faith we must see that the Lord has welcomed this holy man of God and faithful Salesian to himself.”

Funeral Arrangements

Everything at Holy Rosary Church

22 Don Bosco Place

Port Chester, NY 10573-5030

914-939-0547

Wake

Monday and Tuesday, November 12-13

3:00 to 9:00 p.m.

Mass of Christian Burial

Wednesday, November 14

10:00 a.m.

Burial

Salesian Cemetery

3 Craigville Rd.

Goshen, NY 10924

Wednesday, November 14

2:00 p.m.