Mad Men Revisited

Last year I discovered the popular AMC drama Mad Men via Netflix, and became hooked immediately; hooked but a bit conflicted, all the same.  The hook was the 1960's setting, which feeds into my fascination with that decade, and the strong production values that obsessively recreates the look and mood of the times.  The first two seasons had me enthralled, though when I scratched the surface I wasn't sure there was much there there, especially in seasons 3 and 4.  But I'm finding that as this long delayed fifth season is unfolding the show is living up to the claims of artistic merit that were only a pretensions in the past.

We are now in 1966, a tipping point of sorts.  The fashions are becoming more bold and colorful, mainly for the women, the decor more modern, and we are beginning to see the change in social mores brought on by the civil rights movement and burgeoning sexual revolution.  Alcohol, the drug of choice up to now, shares more time with marijuana, a minor player in the past, and one character has even experimented with LSD (and not a character you might expect).  In typical Mad Men style these changes are introduced gradually.  We saw the early rustlings of the emerging counter culture as early as the first season, set in 1960, by way of Don Draper's affair with a bohemian artist in the Village.  Don't get me wrong, it's not like we're seeing hippies everywhere here in season five, (I don't think they've shown one yet); the makers of the program are careful to show that cultural shifts, even the radical ones of the '60's, take time to permeate the society.  But unlike ABC's attempted copy cat drama Pan Am, which glorified the times that were a changing, Mad Men approaches these things with a far more ambiguous air.  There is a darkness amid the change that's palpable.

With the new season we continue to follow the misadventures of the fore mentioned Don Draper, ad man extraordinaire, who's now remarried.  Struggling to put his philandering past behind him, he has remained faithful to this point, not counting a "was it real or was it a hallucination" conceit from this season's third episode (and no, this did not involve acid).  The world is changing, to be sure, but Don and the rest of the cast only seem half aware of it.  To paraphrase the words of Bob Dylan, they know something is happening, but they don't know what it is.  There are race riots in Detroit and Los Angeles, but the headlines are dominated by the Richard Speck murders in Chicago.  Vietnam is escalating, but again it doesn't seem to be on people's radar, and only in so far as it effects one character personally.  In spite of the veneer of normalcy Don, in particular, knows that something isn't quite right.  He's worried, especially about the younger generation and their future.  He encounters a teen age girl back stage at a Rolling Stones concert (he's there in a vain attempt to talk them into doing a Heinz Baked Beans advertisement).  He questions her as to why she likes The Stones, probing her answers to find the right marketing angle.  She stops him by saying that he sounds like a psychologist.   He seems genuinely stunned that a teenager would even know what one was, let alone what one would sound like.  I don't think the season one Don would have been on the make in that situation (he's a philanderer, not a creep) but I'm not sure he would have shown a father's concern for the girl either, inquiring if her parents know where she is.  He's not so much shocked by her sort of adolescent world weariness as worried and disappointed by it.

This sort of discontent runs through season five's story lines.  In this past Sunday's episode Peggy Olson, the secretary turned copy writer, has agreed to move in with her boyfriend Abe; a bold move in 1966.  She invites her strict Catholic mother for dinner to tell her, and is met with disapproval, as one might expect.  But this isn't treated as simply a clash of generations; the Victorian past colliding with the Swinging Sixties.  This isn't even about Abe being Jewish.  Peggy's mother warns her that this arraignment has no future; she's doing this to avoid being alone, but alone she will be once Abe finds a woman he's willing to give a ring to.   She's settling, and in her heart she knows it.

And that's the strength of this season, and especially this past episode; you can see scenarios being constructed that lead to predictable ends, but once we hit the pay off a subtle twist is applied that raises it above the level of a cliche.  There is a rather inevitable, and obscene, encounter between Roger Sterling, one of the firm's partners, and Don's mother-in-law (I called it, though not the particulars, at least twenty minutes before).  In earlier seasons it would have been played strictly for shock value, but instead it's used as a metaphor for lost innocence.  The sins of the characters are not glorified, even if they aren't exactly condemned, and all the freedom in the air isn't necessarily translating into happiness.  In the background are the children learning way to soon that the city can be a dirty place.

This season was delayed because of a contract dispute between producer Matthew Weiner and the network, but I believe at least two more seasons are lined up, that will bring our heroes (a term I use very loosely) straight into the jaws of the social revolution to come. I hope the jaundiced eye they are presently employing continues.  I don't expect a "conservative" take on the sixties, but the typically romantic portrayal of that era would be disappointing, and unworthy of the show and how it's developed.

The "Empty Pews" Survey-Part III: One Last Look

As I wrote when I began this little look at the study sponsored by the Trenton Diocese and highlighted in a recent America Magazine article, I have seriously mixed emotions about the results, and even the method used in collecting the data.  Its purpose was to see why people left the Church, and by knowing hopefully the Church's leaders can expand dialogue and find solutions to the problem of the steady exodus from our parishes.  Fare enough.  As I also wrote, I read nothing that I haven't heard before.  This doesn't make the study any less relevant to be sure, and can point to the fact that not much progress has been made over the years in stopping the hemorrhaging of parishioners.  All the same, there is a tone to the article the denotes an agenda, and a tired one at that; that somehow the Church needs to change on core teachings and practices in order to stop the decline in participation.  This is just wrong headed, and by now it should be clear to everyone that being heterodox is not the solution to the Church's problems. 

The authors of the article, who also oversaw the study, never come right out and say the we need to ordain women, dispense with clerical celibacy and embrace gay marriage, but when I read lines like these I'm only left to wonder what they really think, but not that much:

There is much to be learned from all this. Considering that these responses come, by definition, from a disaffected group, it is noteworthy that their tone is overwhelmingly positive and that the respondents appreciated the opportunity to express themselves. Some of their recommendations will surely have a positive impact on diocesan life. Not surprisingly, the church’s refusal to ordain women, to allow priests to marry, to recognize same-sex marriage and to admit divorced and remarried persons to reception of the Eucharist surfaced, as did contraception and a host of questions associated with the scandal of sexual abuse by members of the clergy.

Throughout our involvement with this project, we thought of the “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues that would be raised. All the concerns expressed will, we hope, be received with pastoral understanding. Diocesan officials are taking notice of topics that call for better explanation. As they do, we hope that they will bear in mind the comment cited by one man, who said that “every time you ask a question, you get a rule.” It is not necessary to repeat the rules; it is time to offer more reasoned arguments and better pastoral explanations of points of Catholic doctrine and practice that appear to be troubling to people in the diocese. Notable among these are the exclusion of women from ordination, the perception that persons of homosexual orientation are unwelcome in the church, the complexity of the annulment process and the barring of divorced and remarried persons from the sacraments.

I quoted at length because I wanted to show that there was an attempt to be balanced, but an agenda does become clear if you read between the lines.  While the Church needs to better explain Her doctrines in a clear and reasoned way to the faithful and not just recite rules (true enough) the idea that there are firmly settled, non-negotiable issues is dismissed by the simple use of quotation marks.  It's not that the Church maintains an all male clergy, recognizes marriage as an indissoluble union between one woman and one man; it's that we "refuse" to ordain women or "recognize" gay marriage or admit divorced and remarried people to Communion.  These clear, long standing and settled matters are phrased in the negative; as if they are rights or privileges being denied rather than simply teachings and practices handed on and preserved through the centuries; reflections of the authentic Apostolic Faith inspired by the Spirit.  The implication is that these need to be treated as somehow negotiable, and those hard headed bishops need to get with the times and start giving ground or all will be lost.  Just in case we didn't pick up on the point we see the litany of the "Should be Negotiables" listed twice in two paragraphs.

Am I reading too much into their conclusions?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  These are difficult problems that many people today have a hard time understanding.  The issue of divorce and remarriage is especially heart rending.  We should go out of our way not to simply quote the Catechism but delve deeper with those who question us.  Are people choosing to leave over these things? Yes.  But two points.

1. Over the last almost forty years participation in organized religion in the U.S. has declined across the board; Catholic, Protestant and Jewish.  The sharpest declines have been among the Mainline Protestant churches, many of which long ago admitted women into their clergy, and became more permissive on sexual ethics and life issues, especially on matters of divorce, abortion and homosexuality.  They made these changes to be more in line with the modern world, and I do believe many thought they were better reflecting God's mercy and love.  But where are they today?  The Anglican Communion is in shambles over these very issues, particularly over sexual morality and the ordination of women.   We can see the fruits of these moves; can we honestly say that this is the path the Spirit wants us to take?

2.  In the Gospel reading for Saturday of the Third Week of Easter we come to the end the sixth Chapter of John, where Jesus has just finished giving his bread of life discourse.  Some find his words, that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink, too hard to endure, and so they leave.  Jesus turns to the Twelve and asks if they want to go also, but Peter answers for them:  "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."  Jesus did not modify, he did not back track, he did try to argue.  He simply let his words stand on their own to be accepted or rejected.  That anyone leaves Communion with the Church is a tragedy, and it should not be taken lightly.  We do have a responsibility to explain our Savior's words as expressed in Scripture and Tradition, with clarity, charity and patience.  But some will never be able to accept, and we have to be ready for that.  Whether we want to believe it or not, there is a rift between the culture and the Faith; some things can and should be reconciled, but others will never be.  And maybe we'll never be able to explain ourselves perfectly, but that will be a reflection of our own human limitations, not of the veracity of  the Gospel.

So I end with the same mixed feelings I began with.  I see value in the study, but reservations about how it was conducted, and am not sure exactly what conclusions we are expected to take out of it.  If it's a call for better catechises and apologetics, I'm all for it.  But if this is just another attempt to beat the same tired "progressive" drum, then I'm stepping out of the parade. 

The "Empty Pews" Survey-Part II: Preaching, Teaching and Guiding

Among the reasons for leaving the Church given by respondents to the Trenton Diocese sponsored Empty Pews survey I talked about last time was the poor quality of preaching, and that priests didn't seem available to them.  In a real way they felt like sheep without shepherds.

The standard response that most priests give for the poor quality of preaching, especially when compared to Protestant ministers, is that the sermon is not the central part of the Mass as it is in most Protestant services.  We have the Blessed Sacrament, the reasoning goes, so that even if the homily is wretched you still get the grace of the Sacrament which trumps everything else.

True enough, but we forget something important; people come to know the Good News through the proclamation of the Word and the "Breaking of the Bread of the Word of God" that is offered in the homily.  A good preacher, prepared and open to the Spirit can stir people to action, lead to conversion, and encourage the weak in spirit.  I've known people who entered into RCIA programs after hearing a sermon that moved them and I finally responded to my vocational call, after years of dragging my feet on the matter, after hearing a sermon. A sermon, by the way, that had nothing directly to do with the priesthood or vocation.  That's the power of the Spirit working through the preacher, well prepared.

So, as for the charge that the quality of preaching in our pulpits is lacking, I have to say guilty as charged.  I know some exceptional preachers, of course, and while the homily isn't central to our worship, it shouldn't be undervalued either.  The fruits of good preaching are greater than most of us know.

There were also complaints about the topics covered in homilies; too conservative, too much about abortion and contraception.  This I have to laugh at a bit, because before this whole HHS Mandate brouhaha I'm pretty sure the average parishioner would be hard pressed to say when the last time they heard about contraception in a homily was, if ever.  The average priest is simply scared to bring it up in the pulpit, or in the confessional, for that matter, or else they openly dissent from the teaching and ignore it.  As for abortion, if I preach on it, I'm accused by some of talking about it too much, if I go awhile without mentioning it, then others say I'm being wishy washy.  And I can go down the line of any number of doctrinal issues and say the same thing.  You can't please everyone, and you're a fool to try.  Yes, know your audience, their needs, their life situation, the questions of their heart, but to pander so as to either not offend or to ingratiate yourself with the congregation is a mistake.  Preach where the Spirit leads, always in the light of Scripture and Tradition (an authentic movement of the Spirit wouldn't lead you anywhere else), and let the chips fall where they may.

The other observation made was that priests don't seem available as spiritual guides; in answer to a question they give a rule, but don't really take the time to explain why.  Again, a valid complaint.  Part of it could be with the priest himself; maybe he is arrogant, aloof or just plain socially backward.  I make no excuses there.  Some times it's a matter of him simply having a bad day and he sees you as now the eleventh complaint he's had to deal with this morning (again, not an excuse for being rude), or you caught him rushing between appointments and legitimately doesn't have the time.  At the same time people need to use a little common sense.  Trying to engage a priest while he's on line for the opening procession of Mass is not a good move.  Trying to get into a debate over the merits of cremation as the priest is rushing between the sacristy and the hearse for the trip to the cemetery; also a questionable tactic (I actually had that happen).  No one should wonder why the priest gave them the brushoff (hopefully gently) in those situations.  

If the priest tells you he doesn't have the time to speak right then, believe him, because the odds are he probably doesn't.  In that case push for an appointment, and if he's uncooperative on that one, then it's on him.  But if he does make the appointment, show up.  There's nothing more frustrating than waiting for a person who made it sound like everything depended on this conversation and then doesn't show.  And, again, if the priest is either a no show, or constantly cancels, then shame on him.

The problem of poor preaching and clerical "aloofness" can only really be solved in the long term on the level of initial formation.  There needs to be better affective "training" to go along with the intellectual preparation the men receive.  The screening process needs to take into account the people skills of our candidates, as well.  I think there's also the issue of the priest shortage that we have to take into account.  Parishes don't have a pastor with two or three assistance anymore.  The work is more and the laborers fewer.  The administrative demands collide with the pastoral work and it just becomes more difficult to meet the needs of the people while completing the paperwork and financial management of the institutions in our care.   There are still only 24 hours in a day, and many tasks to do, and while there is no excuse for being rude, somethings are going to fall through the cracks as long as we don't have enough priests.

Another point I want to get to is about the study itself.  I found it to be, at least from what I read in the America Magazine article, a bit skewed toward the "progressive"  side.  I know that the authors will probably say that they were being objective and scientific, but as I pointed out the last time the demographics of the study seemed to favor a particular outcome, and agenda.  More on this in the last installment on this topic.

The "Empty Pews" Survey-Part I: The Church as Business

I have never struggled over a post the way I've struggled over this one.  When I first read that the Trenton, NJ diocese had sponsored a survey questioning "fallen away" Catholics as to the reasons they stopped participating in the Church, I was sympathetic.  The survey focused, as one might assume, on the participants' experience in their parishes, since that is the first and main contact a person has with the Church.  Some of the reasons given for leaving the Church, as Fr. Robert Barron points out in his commentary, touch on things that are out of the parish's control, like the Church teachings on marriage, divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and abortion and contraception, to name a few hot button issues.  Others are very much under our control, like the rudeness of parish staff, the arrogance or aloofness of priests, the poor quality of the Sunday homily, and the general lack of accompaniment many respondents felt on their spiritual journey.  The study released to the public contains anecdotes of insensitive priests and bumbling receptionists to drive the points home.  It forced me to make an examination of conscience.  At a certain point though, I became angry, and as I began to write I found my tone harsh, so I stopped to recollect myself a little more, so as not to give a simple reaction, but a more thoughtful response.

My first thoughts are that there was nothing I read that took me by surprise.  The complaints are not new, and in fact I could tell stories worse than the ones I read in the articles I surveyed.  I've known rude receptionists, heard stories of unimaginably insensitive priests, and even had to deal with a few myself over the years.  I too have been guilty of being short with people, and make no excuses for it.  While there is never an excuse for a priest to be rude or insensitive, the conversation on this topic strikes me as terribly one sided, and the entire approach flawed.

The survey was conducted by a Jesuit priest who teaches in the business school at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia and a layman (I'm presuming) who is involved with a church management institute at Villanova.   All well and good; following their training they designed this to be like exit interviews a corporate business does with employees who move on.  But a survey of this kind, and of any kind claiming to be scientific, is only as valuable as it's accuracy in reporting.  The first thing that got my attention was that the respondents were overwhelmingly white; better than ninety percent.  This may have been a representative sampling of the Church in the U.S. in 1950, but not today.  I'm not privy to the other internals of the study, but is it a wild assumption to figure that a good portion of the sampling fall into the category of the suburban middle class?   Their opinion is important, but is it representative of the greater diversity that is in the Church today?  Maybe this fits the average demographic of Trenton, that sponsored the study, but does it help me in an urban, immigrant setting?

Beyond the demographic questions I have, the entire business modal approach makes me uncomfortable.  Many responded that they left because the pastors only talked about money and fundraising; they see the Church as a business.  A valid complaint.  I'm on record stating that I believe we have too many second collections, for instance, and I know people who either left or changed parishes because their pastor made constant, and in some cases crass, appeals for money.  In my experience people are usually willing and even eager to give to their parishes, but not to the diocese because they view it as a big corporate bureaucracy always asking for more.  It is a catch 22 of sorts; the parishes and the diocese need money to function; in that way we're no different from a business or even a family, for that matter.  At the same time pastors do need to be sensitive to the economic situation of the people they serve, as well as their need for spiritual nourishment.  If the faithful feel that their spiritual needs are being met, they are naturally generous with their time and treasure without having to be harangued.  

But I have also dealt with many people who themselves treat the Church like it's an extension of the service industry; they made a donation, (more often their parents or grand parents made donations decades ago), and now they want a wedding, baptism or some other sacramental service, for themselves or for their adult child who too often hasn't seen the inside of a church since confirmation.  Quite frankly these McDonald's Catholics, as I call them, treat the parish like a drive thru and are often the most demanding people of all.  Do they live in the area anymore?  No.  Do they participate in the liturgy here regularly?  No.  Are they active in the parish where they live?  No.  Do I ever see them again after we acquiesce to their wishes?  Almost never.  For them life in the Church is not about forming community, not about conversion in the Spirit, not about service to neighbor.  It's about getting what I want, how I want it, when I want it, with a side of absolution, hold the guilt, no waiting and please don't call, I'll be back when I need something else.  Does a kindness to a long departed parishioner help bring them back into the life of the Church?  Sometimes, and you could argue that it's worth the 50 undeserving and ungrateful for the one person who's sincere, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating, or make the claim that the clergy treats everything like a business seem any less hypocritical, at least from some corners.

The root problem is that too many of us, clergy and laity, treat the Church, even unintentionally, like a business, so I'm not sure that evaluating our work using business tools is really a help.  Right now our Salesian province is doing a broad evaluation of our works based on evangelization criteria, that in it's own way takes into account many of the issues (at least the "controllable" ones) I see addressed in this study.  Rather than looking at it from the standpoint of customer service it does it from the standpoint of building a community that proclaims the Good News and seeks to know and address the needs, both spiritual and material, of the people we serve, leading them on a road to ongoing conversion in the Lord, not simply to a better shopping experience.  Until we shift the paradigm, (wink, wink, nudge nudge), I'm not sure the perceptions, or the reality, are going to change.

That said, there certainly is food for thought in the survey.  Other complaints that were pretty prominent were on the low quality of the preaching, and the priest as rule imposer rather than spiritual guide or teacher.  I'll hit those next time.

Contraception, Catholicism and Humanae Vitae | Columbia Catholic Ministry

This Mission: Pope Benedict on the Anniversary of His Pontificate from AOP

Being Born Again: A Commentary by Fr. Barron

Life and Vocation from AOP

The Hunger Games: An Observation

I feel very conflicted today, to tell you the truth.  This internal tension began about halfway through watching the latest "Teen-Novel-Sensation-Turned-Hollywood Blockbuster-Film" The Hunger Games.  I realized that I could not write a conventional review of the movie, not because I haven't read the book, but because I felt uneasy with the idea that this dark, violent and depressing story was being directed to middle school and high school students.  I know that, unfortunately, younger teens are exposed to far more graphic violence than is shown here, and there are themes explored in The Hunger Games that a Catholic, Small Federal Government type like myself can appreciate.  The question that came to my mind was "is this story popular because it's reflecting the anxieties of our youth, or are we hoisting this on our kids because violence sells?"  I find neither answer to the book's, now movie's, popularity very comforting.  The unease I felt watching The Hunger Games distracted me a bit form being able to really examine its artistic merits.

And the movie does have artistic merit.  I've never seen the Twilight movies, but did catch a couple in the Harry Potter series, and found this much more substantial in terms of the themes being explored, as well as just being a better movie.  The book's author, and one of the film's screenwriters, Suzanne Collins is reputedly a Roman Catholic, and themes of self sacrifice, the struggle against oppression and the manipulative use of the media to control and pacify the people run strong through story.  The importance of bread, which is hinted at in the movie, is more prominent in the book, or so I've read out in the blogosphere, and some have questioned if it isn't an allusion to the Eucharist.

I've also read that this type of post-apocalyptic, dystopian style novel is the latest trend in teen literature, replacing tales of vampires and wizards.  This apparent trend, more than the particular content of The Hunger Games itself, is what disturbs me, I guess.  Not that I thought that blood sucking ghouls or masters of the dark arts were such great role models for today's youth, but this story presents a vision of the future that is devoid of hope or promise (even though hope is also a theme of the story).  The characters live in a society dominated by a cruel central government that uses intimidation and manipulation to oppress the nation's various "districts."  The young are thrown into a kill or be killed contest; part gladiator games, part "Survivor" reality show.  All the time they are being watched by millions of people at home, supported by sponsors and prodded on by the promise of fame and fortune if they can make it to the end alive.  It is a strange mixture of the old Roman bread and circuses meets our contemporary celebrity obsessed culture.  Sound familiar?  As in any piece of imaginative fiction we are seeing a commentary on our present day social scene as much as we are being given a prediction of the future, probably more so.   If the future is dark, the present isn't exactly sunny either. 

This brings me back to the intended audience of The Hunger Games.  In the theater I sat behind an adult woman who was accompanying five children who were probably between the ages of about 11 to 13 or 14.  A good part of the rest of the audience were teens somewhere between middle school and sophomore year of high school.  I wondered what was going though their minds, especially the younger ones, as this violent story unfolded.  And yes, the violence is muted by today's standards, but the body count is real.  Katness Everdeen, the heroine of the story played by Jennifer Lawrence, is one of the most virtuous figures to grace a movie screen in quite a while.  She only kills in self defense and often times inadvertently, but she still has to make hard choices that cost others their lives.  In the midst of the mayhem and killing do the young eyes of the audience see the virtue or only the dread?   Young minds are not often subtle, so I ask if they take away from the movie that the world is kill or be killed, or do they think that already and this only reinforces the notion?  Like I said before, neither answer is very reassuring.  I wonder what they think of the future; do they see hope or despair? 

Junior and senior high school students are often assigned violent, disturbing material to read.  Shirley Jackson's The Lottery or William Golding's Lord of the Flies come to mind right away.  But they weren't necessarily written for young people.  Indeed most books assigned to adolescents in secondary school were not originally intended to be read by them, but rather by adults.  Here we have a book (as is the custom today, a series of books) directed to them, meant to speak to their hearts and minds, and whether we like it or not, helps to mold their world view.   In spite of my misgivings, I do see valuable lessons to be gleamed from The Hunger Games.  There is a subtlety and humanity to the characters that one doesn't find in the average action picture.  Death is not meaningless here as it is in your average horror flick; there is mourning for the dead, and one such act of mercy ignites the first sparks of a revolt that I assume will burst into flames in following films.  There are positive messages here, I just hope that in the midst of the hype our children are picking them up.

Here's a link to Fr. Barron's commentary that will fill in some of the gaps in my discription of the movie and offers his usual penetrating insights.

He is Truly Risen, Alleluia!

As regulars visitors here know by now I am unashamed to link to videos from other sources, especially at times of the year like this when the pastoral duties are so heavy, leaving little time to write.  Some might call it stealing, I call it good sense;  there are many great voices out there spreading the Good News and we should hear as many of them as we can.  Each person gives us a different perspective, a way of understanding the mysteries of the Faith that we may not have thought of before.  It has been suggested that a solution to my problem would be to simply post my weekly homilies.  Logical, but difficult since I rarely write my sermons out.  So when faced with these hectic days I turn to a few trusted resources on YouTube, like Fr. Baron's Word on Fire Channel and the Apostleship of Prayer, hosted by a Jesuit, Fr. James Kubicki.  Some time ago I stumbled upon Columbia Catholic Ministry, emanating from the university of the same name in New York City.  Fr. Dan O'Reilly of the Archdiocese of New York gives clear, straight foreword but creative talks on topical subjects, like the Saint of the day or some issue facing the Church right now.  So Easter Sunday, as I surfed the web looking for something of interest I might put up for your edification, I saw his video on the Resurrection.  I had just finished the 10:30 Mass, so how surprised was I when I found that Fr. O'Reilly's talk matched so closely to my Easter sermon.  We differed in the details, but the main point was the same; The Lord is truly risen, and we have no need to doubt it.

There is one thing very interesting about the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection; none of then actually describes what happened at the moment Jesus rose from the dead.  All we know is that on Friday they laid His dead corps in the tomb, rolled the stone across the opening and left.  Flash foreword to Sunday and the stone is rolled away and the tomb is empty.  The four Evangelists only tell us either what they saw with their eyes, or what eyewitnesses they spoke to told them.  Far from being wild eyed fanatics, the first response His followers had was not to assume a miracle but rather to draw the logical conclusion that someone must have stolen the body.  One of the most heart rending scenes in scripture is when Mary Magdalene is sitting by the empty tomb crying, pleading with the man she thinks is the gardener, "Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him." (Jn. 20:15)  It is only after He says her name that she recognizes the Risen Lord.  Even Peter and the Beloved Disciple don't know what to make of the whole thing, until Jesus appears to them and the rest of the Eleven that night.  The original witnesses tell us what they saw, nothing more.

Our faith is not based on a fairytale or a myth, but on the testimony of eye witnesses who later died horrible deaths rather than recant their stories.  Many people would find it hard to die in defense of the truth; only a mad man would die for a myth.  While it's plausible that an insane person might go to his grave for a lie, would thousands of mad men and women follow suit?  Is that logical?  Hardly. 

He is risen; we have the witnesses, we have the foundation for our Faith. The Lord is truly risen, Alleluia!

(Here's a link to Fr. Barron's response to Andrew Sullivan's "non-threatening Jesus")