Maria Goretti, Chastity and Christian Marriage

A photo believed to be of St. Maria Goretti

Brothers and sisters: "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food" -- and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.  1 Cor. 6:13c-15a, 17-20

I guess I don't so much want to reflect on the life of today's Saint, Maria Goretti, as the reading from St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians that is suggested for her Mass.  The virtue of Chastity, which Maria died for,  is central to the living of the Christian life.  Sadly the broader culture doesn't see it that way, and current attitudes toward marriage that are prevalent among many is proof of that.

Needless to say, the definition of marriage has been a hotly debated topic over the past several years, and is again at the forefront of people's attention with the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.  Many do not understand why the Catholic Church is uncompromising in Her opposition to the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples.  Is the Church bigoted against gays?  Are we holding to some Victorian notion of sexual morality that society has long ago abandoned?  The answer lies in our understanding of marriage, not born of a lack of charity or of social convention but of Divine Revelation, and our notion of Christian Chastity in general, born of the same.

We are stubborn on this issue, because from the beginning God created them male and female, as Scripture tells us.  The first couple were given to each other by God to be partners and companions, true, but also to "be fruitful and multiply."  We don't know from Genesis how long Adam and Eve enjoyed the Original Blessing before the Fall, but sex and family would have been a part of that blessing, whether they partook of them or not.  They were joined in a marriage, the primordial Sacrament, as Bl. John Paul put it, central to God's plan for humanity.  Because of the intrinsic link in our understanding between sex and child rearing, love and responsibility, Christian marriage is never simply about romantic love.  Romance may be the spark that lights the fire, but if the flames of love are to be enduring they need to be rooted in something deeper than sexual attraction or even the need for companionship.

As Paul reminds us above, sex is not to be seen as a good in and of itself.  Any attachment to bodily pleasure, be it eating, drinking or whatever pleasure a person finds comfort in, should be ordered toward a greater good or we will become self centered, closed off from the blessings God wants to give to us.  The body has value.  We are not bodies with souls, but neither are we a soul who lugs around an animated corps.  Christ redeemed the whole human person, and the body is meant as the visible expression of the invisible reality "underneath" it.  It is how we love, serve and live out our vocation as Christians.  In baptism we are joined to Christ, body and soul, and this union is renewed and made more explicit in the reception of the Eucharist.  When we sin we bring Christ with us to a place he doesn't want to go.  He doesn't want to accompany us in sexual sin because it is a misusing of the body and the gift of sexuality that is is ordered to a particular good; the good of the couple, yes, but also family life, which prevents sex from becoming self centered and egotistical.

When gays feel that the Church, and others who stand against same sex marriage are singling them out for scrutiny unjustly, they have a point.  The wider Western Culture has long a go separated sex from family life, and reduced marriage to a romantic relationship or maybe, on a deeper level, sees it as a profound companionship that involves certain legal benefits.  Children and family can be, and usually are part of this arrangement, but is far from essential.  All that matters is the couple themselves independent of any reference to family and society at large.  If marriage is thus defined, than why not include couples of the same gender among those who can join in wedlock?

Yes, I am stubborn.  Whatever you might want to call such a union, it is not a marriage as I understand it as a disciple of Christ, and it doesn't make a bit of difference if the couple is gay or straight.  This is so not because "I" believe it, but because I have thrown my lot in with Christ who teaches me through Scripture and Tradition, which includes in this case a teaching reiterated by Pope Francis in his latest encyclical.  These are my guides; not opinion polls or changing social attitudes.  I judge social mores by the Gospel, not the other way around.

I guess I feel compelled to conclude by saying that Christ holds His disciples to a high standard, not easy to follow.  Sometimes people fail, and then we trust in God's mercy and His grace that makes conversion possible.  Jesus made it clear that the Kingdom is not for the unchaste, but also showed great compassion for those who fell into sexual sin.  Jesus will always take us back.  But in this issue we are not simply talking about sin and weakness but in the institutionalizing of a way which is simply contrary to the Gospel message.  My only fear is that by going down this path, it is not Christ who will withdraw his love and compassion from us, but we who are closing ourselves off from it. 

Santo Subito! John Paul II and John XXIII to be Canonized

Along with the release of the first encyclical of Pope Francis' pontificate this morning, it was announced that Blesseds John XXIII and John Paul II will be canonized, probably sometime before the new year.  I have only gotten the my hands on the new letter, entitled  Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith), but I'll get going on reading it and giving you my thoughts soon.    But for now, I just want to express joy at this announcement, and reflect on the early reports in the secular press.

As one might expect, John Paul Paul II is getting most of the headlines.  His was the more recent and longer pontificate.  As for "Good" Pope John, much is being made of the fact that Pope Francis dispensed with the usual requirement for a second miracle before the canonization can proceed.  First, the Church makes the rules, and the pope can dispense with these requirements as he sees fit, (like when Pope Benedict dispensed with the five year waiting period to begin the process almost immediately after JPII's death).  This time around it was done on the recommendation of the cardinals and bishops handling the case.  Before the 1600's there was no canonization process, the pope simply declared someone a saint based on his or her reputation, and sometimes the acclamation of the people from where the candidate was from.  And dispensing from this requirement is not unheard of.  St. Thomas More was canonized without any miracles attributed to his intercession; his martyrdom was seen as sufficient proof of heroic virtue. 

As for John Paul "the Great,"  most of the secular stories I read couldn't finish without mentioning the child sex abuse scandals that erupted in the final years of his pontificate, as if these should disqualify him from being raised to the altar.  A few observations:

1.  In the spirit of Pope Leo XIII, we should neither hide the truth nor lie about the past.  It is a historical fact that the scandals blew up during John Paul's pontificate.  Questions must be asked concerning how the Church, and the pope himself, handled the situation.  But we are declaring a person a saint, not divine.  All saints had faults, short comings, blind spots and failures.  All you need to do to figure this out is to read Gospels and observe the behavior of the Twelve.   The question is not if John Paul II was perfect, but was he faithful to his call to a heroic degree until he drew his last breath.

2.  The scandals themselves predate JPII's pontificate, with some cases reaching back to the 1940's and '50's.   This would mean that John XXIII should be receiving the same scrutiny, especially since the majority of cases are from roughly the '50's to the '70's (Pope John served from 1958 until 1963).

3.  Some see the dual canonization as a way of balancing out these concerns over John Paul's suitability, by placating both "progressives," who tend to idealize Pope John  and "conservatives," who are devoted to John Paul.  One article I read tried to paint it that Pope Francis is more in line with those progressives who see Vatican II as a clear break from the past as opposed to Pope Emeritus Benedict who had tried to stress the continuity of the Council with the development of the faith through the centuries; thus, again, pushing the placate scenario. In a word, rubbish.  You could make just as strong an argument that canonizing both men together is a way of reinforcing this notion of continuity (which I espouse):  the pope who called the council canonized with the pope who spent almost 30 years interpreting the reforms after their initial implementation by Pope Paul VI.

I have to get back to the work of the parish, at this point.  But I'll certainly have more to say of the great event, and Pope Francis' first encyclical.

"Evangelical Catholicism" - George Wiegel // Book Review

Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Catholic Church
George Weigel, Basic Books, 2013

Every so often I read something, be it a book or an article, and I'll say to myself, "Self, this person is saying what I've been feeling but haven't been able put into words."  George Weigel's new book, Evangelical Catholicism, is one such book.  In it Weigel tries to cut through the politicized and polarized ways many Catholics, in the United States anyway, have tended to view things religious over the last fifty years in order to set in motion the "deep reform" of twenty-first century Catholicism along evangelical lines.

Before going on some definition of terms is needed.  Catholics and Main Line Protestants usually hear the word "evangelical" and think Christian fundamentalist, with all that that implies.  But what we mean by evangelical is that the central mission of the Church is the spreading of the Gospel message, and leading more people into a personal encounter, and ultimately friendship with the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Church's mission is not one of self maintenance where the criteria of success is measured purely on how the latest parish capital campaign is going, or if it reached it's quota on the bishop's annual appeal.  It's not that these things are unimportant, but rather they are good only in so far as they assist the overall mission of the Church which is the spreading of the Gospel.  When things that are ancillary become central, or when the Church gets caught up in theological debates over Her identity, as we will see, then She becomes self referential and irrelevant to the outside world: the very antithesis of what Evangelical Catholicism means. 

In recent decades we have seen the Church break into two camps.  On one hand you have progressive Catholics, who tend to be somewhat low church when it comes to liturgy, strong in promoting the social justice teachings of the Church while de-emphasizing the teachings on abortion and sexual morality.   They are often for a married clergy and women priests, and may be in favor of gay marriage.  On the other side you have traditionalist, who, in some cases want to go back to the pre-Vatican II liturgy, and place a greater stress on personal morality, especially on sexual matters, as opposed to the Church's social doctrine.  They're for a strict adherence to liturgical regulations and the excommunication of political office holders who publicly descent from Church teachings, especially on abortion.  While I have no doubt from reading this book, and some of Weigel's other writings, that his sympathies are more with the traditionalist side, he takes a pox on both your houses approach to this divide.  For him both sides exist within a Counter Reformation Catholic framework that sees the Church as She is and either wants to go back to a more stringent observance of "the rules," or else wants to loosen up the reins.  But neither model of Church, if you will, is sufficient to confront an ambient culture that is increasingly hostile to Catholic values.  

The proper response to this hostile culture is a Catholicism that understands that many, including those who are baptized members of the Church, do not share the traditional Catholic world view.   The answer is not to abandon traditional teachings, but to make an appeal from the Gospels as opposed to from ecclesiastical authority.  Contemporary Western culture has a mistrust of institutions and authority.  To appeal to the Code of Canon Law or a papal pronouncement to defend a position is useless in an argument with someone who doesn't recognize their validity to begin with.  But to appeal to the Gospel, Weigel argues, is to change the conversation from one of authority to one of challenge that will prompt a response.  It may be a thoughtful rejoinder or it may be hostile, but it will not be indifferent, and hopefully the conversation will continue.

Weigel does not see this process of evangelical reform as something that is just beginning now.  He traces its roots to the pontificate of Leo XIII (1878-1903) and sees it progressing through the popes of the twentieth century and leading to Vatican II, with Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI giving it its philosophical and theological character.  The book was published just as Pope Benedict was stepping down, but in recent interviews he has said that he sees Pope Francis as following right in line with this evangelical movement.

This really scratches the surface of what the book talks about, so I might revisit it at a later time. I guess what I identified with was this idea that we have come to the end of one historical phase of Catholicism and are now entering into another.  Counter Reformation Catholicism was vibrant and powerful; it held the Church together during a difficult period of Her history, and did oversee the evangelization of large parts of the non-European world.  But now we face new challenges that demands a new new expression of the faith.  Not that the content of the Catholic Faith changes, but how it is communicated and expressed needs to evolve and how it's lived deepened.  We must not be content to simply maintain institutions, but have the courage to alter them, or even abandon them for new models if they are no longer effective in serving the Church's central mission of evangelization. This is a frightening proposal, but one that must be taken seriously if the Church is going to be true to Herself, and the Divine Spouse that She serves. 

Man of Steel: A Commentary by Fr. Robert Barron

I haven't seen the latest cinematic spin on the grandaddy of all the comic book superheros Superman, and I'm not sure that I am any time soon.  But here is a reflection on some of the deeper themes of the new movie, Man of Steel, by Fr. Barron.

I know that some people wonder if commentators like Fr. Barron read too much into popular entertainments like this, as he mentions, but I don't think that he does.  Film makers are artists, even if commerce is their primary motivation for doing what they do, forming their art in light of a particular world view.  Though they may not be consciously trying to put forth an agenda every time out, which I think they are more than we realize, their personal philosophy will come through one way or another.  Ideas matter, and while most people might find thinkers like Plato and Nietzsche to be esoteric and detached from everyday experience, their ideas are taught in universities and influence educators, artist, writers, lawyers and judges, to name a few.  The ideas do trickle down and shape how we view and form society and look at ourselves.

Birth of John the Baptist from the Apostleship of Prayer

I know that this is a few days late, but it's still a good reflection on St. John the Baptist. 

Mad Men Season Six: Put it in the Books

I'm not sure that I have much to say about the just concluded season of Mad Men, since I wrote a pretty extensive post two weeks ago.  I guess pleasantly surprised would be the best way to describe my reaction to the last two episodes.  Last year ended with a bang, by way of Lane Pryce's suicide in the penultimate installment, with the final episode serving as a kind of epilogue meant to tie up loose ends from the season and give us hints as to the future.  I'm glad they didn't follow that same strategy this time out. Here the entire season seemed to be building to this big crescendo that didn't happen, though the conclusion was far from uneventful.  The whole Rosemary's Baby motif ended up being for atmospherics, not foreshadowing.  Megan wasn't murdered.  Bob Benson wasn't whatever it was people were imagining him to be; everything from a corporate spy to Don Draper's long lost son (some out on the Web even suspected he was a time traveling Don).  And Don didn't die.

Or, did he?

The one constant in a sea of shifting relationships, alliances and corporate configurations over the past six seasons of the show is that Don Draper doesn't change.  He might be tempted to run away, change local or even business, but he will always be the same secretive, controlling fraud hiding behind a made up persona.   He has only lifted the veil over his past in small ways to different people over the years, like when he told Peggy that he grew up on a farm, or Conrad Hilton that he was born in Illinois and grew up in rural Pennsylvania.  But in the final episode of Season Six Don Draper for the first time publicly acknowledges his true identity as Dick Whitman, if not by name then by story.

As I wrote previously, Don was very much a mess as this season came to a close.  Like two seasons ago he was drinking way too much and was beginning to show physical and behavioral signs of alcoholism.   In the past he was the top creative dog at the agency (know known as SC&P), so if he blew off a partners meeting or disappeared for a few days, or weeks, people put up with it because they knew that the work would get done and done well.  Now, in 1968, we see that Don is not the creative force he once was, and now that he has real competition from Ted Chaough, people are less inclined to put up with his erratic behavior.

They say an alcoholic doesn't begin to turn his or her life around until they hit rock bottom.  For Don that was spending the night in jail after hitting a preacher trying to evangelize in a bar.  But as usual, Mad Men doesn't take a simple view on things, including religion.  Yes, this particular preacher probably deserved the belt for implying that Martin Luther King and the Kennedy's met their tragic ends because they weren't true believers (another stereotypical caricature of a hypocritical religious person).  But when he flashes back to his teen years working in the brothel, and the preacher who was kicked out for trying to convert the prostitutes, the words that stuck with the adult Don Draper / Dick Whitman was when the minister said, "The only unpardonable sin is to believe that God can not forgive you."

So he goes home after his night in the drunk tank and dumps the booze down the sink.  He plans to move to a proposed branch office in California, convincing Megan that they can make a fresh start there.  Then he hits a conundrum.  Ted, who is also trying to save his marriage, pleads with Don to trade places.  He appeals to his conscience, which may seem like his least vulnerable spot, by telling him that he knows that there's a good man inside of him.

Something does click in Don's mind.  At a pitch to Hershey's Chocolate he begins with his usual smooth delivery, speaking of his own, mythical, childhood experience of getting a Hershey Bar as a reward from his father.  A total lie, of course, but it's working as always.  Then inexplicably, after it appears the deal is done, he starts up again, this time telling the truth about himself and his orphaned youth, serving as a pick pocket in a bordello, getting the candy as a reward if he stole more than a dollar from a given john.  The candy to him was his only link to normalcy and goodness, and he tells the representatives that  they don't need a man like him to explain to a child what a Hershey Bar means, they know already.  For the first time I felt true pity for the man, because for the first time he was really owning who he is and what he's made of his life.

I'm not sure if he was trying to make it up to Ted for being bad to him, especially when he embarrassed him at the St. Joseph's Baby Aspirin pitch, but this act of self sabotage showed the first act of total unselfishness Don has ever done.  It also sealed his fate.  Though he eventually yielded to Ted's request, California wasn't going to happen for him now anyway.  The other partners essentially dump him, under the guise of a leave of absence.  Megan, rightfully angry that she had quite her job to relocate to the Coast, now in career limbo, walks out, presumably for good.  Don had shifted careers before in his life, and even identities, but always stayed the same self serving con man.  Now he is stripped of everything, not to escape into some sort of alternate reality, but to confront himself as he truly is.  That little "meltdown" was the first step in that process, and was as much an act of redemption for himself as it was a favor to Ted.

The end was perfect.  Don brings his three children to the house in Pennsylvania where he spent those painful years.  The house is now completely rundown, surrounded by housing projects and factories.  The quintessential suburban kids, they're nervous at stopping in such a bad neighborhood.  After he explains that this was where he grew up, his daughter Sally, who he's been estranged from since she discovered his infidelities, gives him a knowing look, as if to say, it's still not right what you did and what kind of father you've been in general, but think I get it now.  

One way or another all the major characters end this season with clean slates.  Pete, whose marriage is over and whose mother joined his father in a watery grave, is also going to California to start over.  Peggy, knowing that Ted will not leave his marriage for her, is last seen giving Don's office chair a tryout.  Roger is starting over with Joan, but on different, platonic terms, so he can be close to the son that only he and Joan know that they have.   Mad Men seasons have always left off with a dose of uncertainty, but never like this.  What 1969-70 has in store is wide open.  Will Don be let back in to SC&P after his leave of indeterminate length is over, or will he branch out on his own?  Will Peggy get Don's chair for real, and a partnership (as I've predicted in the past)?  Will the show be switching focus to Los Angeles, or really be bi-coastal, as Don proposed for Megan and himself?  Is Bob Benson gay or just an opportunist (which is my opinion), and so his designs of Joan are more than just business related?

All these questions are interesting, but to me everything comes down to Don Draper, who is now dead as many predicted that he would be, just not literally.  The only question is whether or not he'll go back to using his birth name at some point.  The years of running from his past are over, and next season will be a time of self discovery for the man whose solution to every problem was denying the truth to others, but mostly to himself.    
 
It would probably be too much to ask for the writers to include God in Don's transformation.  They have shown a fairness to religion in the past, by way of Fr. Gill, and Ted's religiosity, which I have to believe effected his decision to stay with his wife.  Don's violent reaction to the preacher was not so much that he was a preacher, but that he was judgmental fool.  I get the feeling Don wants to believe, but has seen too much bad to cross that line.  But as the aforementioned Ted observed, there is a good man inside there, and I do believe someone open to believing again, or maybe for the first time.

I guess that I had more to say than I originally thought.  Until Spring 2014, that will do it for Mad Men.  Though you never know, I might have some other musings on the show before then.

Rosemary's Baby Revisited

The current season of Mad Men has used Roman Polanski's classic 1968 horror film Rosemary's Baby as a reference point, both explicitly and implicitly, on numerous occasions.  But I'm not so much interested here in how Rosemary's Baby impacts this season's story arc, as with the movie itself.  I recently went back and saw it again after many years.  The first time I saw it was as a teenager, and I actually fell asleep during it.  Now as an adult I was riveted and repulsed all at once.  I finally got why my parents, and so many who were adults in the late 60's condemned the film as shockingly sacrilegious.  Today I'm not sure that many, especially those who have grown up on contemporary blood and guts horror, will get just how truly frightening, and subversive, this film is, because it's not here to gross you out, but rather works on a much more subtle level to rob you of your hope.

I will be making references often to the Ira Levin novel, so before going on, I must note that I never read it.  I feel comfortable though because every article I read in preparing this post, including one by Ira Levin himself, say that Roman Polanski made what could be the single most faithful filmed adaptation of a book in Hollywood history.  He was so slavish in following the source material that the author wondered if the Polish director, making his first U.S. movie, did this on purpose or simply didn't understand that he was at liberty to change things if he wanted to.  A friend of mine who has read it tells me that he likes it better than the movie, and that it has a humorous streak the film lacks that breaks up the doom and gloom.  Summer is here, so maybe I'll add it to my reading list, but I digress...

For the uninitiated, Rosemary's Baby follows the story of a young couple (Mia Farrow and John Cassevetes) who moves into an old apartment house in Manhattan with a creepy reputation.  They are soon befriended by the Castevet's, an elderly couple (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon, in her Oscar winning role) who insinuate themselves into their lives.   Once Rosemary gets pregnant, under very disturbing circumstances,  the Castevet's and the other senior citizen tenants begin to micromanage her care, from what home made medicines she takes to what doctor she will see.  Her health begins to decline, but her husband Guy insists that she stays the course.  Little by little she begins to suspect something evil is afoot, but finds little support from the people closest to her.  The one person who does lend a hand, her friend Hutch (Maurice Evens), meets mysterious end.

The film, as with the Ira Levin novel it's based on, takes place between the fall of 1965 and June '66 (get the three 6's reference?).  One similarity between Mad Men and this supernatural thriller is that Levin wrote his story in "real time," taking events that actually happened during those months, like a public transit strike and Pope Paul VI's visit to New York, and mixed them into his fictional timeline.  In truth he was writing just after these events, and knowingly or not was touching on some important themes of the era that have effects on us still.

Levin's exact motives in choosing to turn "the Mary and Joseph story on it's head," as he put it, are unclear.   On the one hand he knew that he was playing with literary fire, and was worried about a backlash from Christians, especially Catholics, prior to the book's release in 1967.  On the other he claimed no deep message or purpose other than to write a scary story that would make money to feed his family.  But if a story, even a misguided and blasphemous one like this, is accurate somehow in its depiction of human nature or the times it takes place in it will bring out certain truths, even if the author doesn't intend it.  In the mid '60's the relevance of organized religion in the public square was on the wane.  We were seeing a growing mistrust of public institutions in general that would have it's full flowering in the aftermath of the Watergate Scandal a few years later.   As for religion, God may not have been dead, but to many He was becoming background noise as opposed to the main reference point of their lives.  But what replaces God and religion, and what is our defense against the nefarious forces lined up against us when these things are not there or recognized?  Rosemary's Baby captures this dilemma perfectly.


Rosemary is a woman caught in the midst of the social and sexual revolutions of the sixties.  She is unsure about religion, having been raised a Catholic but now harboring doubts.  She is sexually assertive, yet does show a deference to her husband Guy that is hard to imagine today.  She clearly wants a child, and reacts angrily when she thinks friends are suggesting an abortion after it becomes clear that her health is declining.  In general she is obedient to the people around her, showing only passive resistance, but otherwise lets events happen to her.  Once she does begin to try to take control she is treated as insane.  This has been varyingly interpreted as promoting both feminist and anti-feminist agendas.  I'm not sure it does either, but reflects the author's nonjudgmental view of life at that time. 

There is also much debate as to whether the satanic elements of the story are real or just figments of Rosemary's increasingly deranged mind.  There is no doubt that as she unravels the mystery, and discovers that this ungodly plot she's suspecting extends beyond her neighbors to her own doctor, she does become more and more unhinged, which seems to be only natural.  I take what I see at face value, because no real hints are given to the contrary.  It's true that what she supposes the coven of witches wants with her baby is false, but that she is up against a satanic conspiracy is all too real, and confirmed by the movie's ending.

As she does discover the truth, Rosemary becomes more and more isolated.  By the end she trusts no one, especially her obstetrician Dr. Saperstein, played chillingly by Ralph Bellamy.  She runs to the one person she feels she can confide in, her old doctor, played by Charles Grodin, and even he betrays her, handing her back into the arms of Saperstein and her husband, who she will soon find out is in league with the coven.

What is chilling about the story is this sense of isolation, that Rosemary has no one to take her part against the forces of evil.  When she comes to the moment of realization that Dr. Saperstein is in on the conspiracy she is in his waiting room browsing the Time Magazine from April 1966 that asked the question on it's cover, in bold red print on a pitch black background, "Is God Dead?"  In the end, the baby is born.  Rosemary is lead to believe he was still born, but soon discovers the truth.  At first repulsed, she is convinced to stay and "be a mother to him."  As the revelers surrounding the bassinet proclaim that the "Year 1" has dawned, Rosemary takes her place by her son, gently rocking the cradle.  She is once again passive, accepting of the situation she has been forced into, and it does seem like God is, if not dead, absent and powerless.

In later years Levin regretted using the demonic motif, feeling that it helped spawn the supernatural thriller craze of the 1970's, and possibly helped spur a fundamentalist Christian backlash.  He even wrote a sequel thirty years later that made it all out to be a dream in order to make up for this perceived sin.  While I think that he's flattering himself to think that he helped turn people to Christian fundamentalism, there is no doubt that Rosemary's Baby inspired The Exorcist and The Omen., as well as other demonic themed horror movies in the following decades.   But there is a clear difference between Levin's work and The Exorcist author William Peter Blatty's.  In The Exorcist (which I did read) there was hope, however slim, that evil could be confronted.  While the cost was high, God was not dead or absent, so there was someone to take the little girl's part in combating and defeating the powers of darkness. In Rosemary's Baby our heroine is alone and outnumbered all the way.

Levin was a nonbeliever who used what little he was able to research on the topic of witchcraft and satanism to craft a convincing, adult, contemporary horror story. But as I wrote earlier, if an author touches on something true, even if he doesn't buy it himself, people will be drawn too it.  It was his mistake to dabble in forces beyond his control or understanding for cynical gain.  The result was exactly the result he didn't intend or want: that more people would become fascinated with the occult, something he claimed no belief in.  But what makes Rosemary's Baby most disturbing is not the sacrilege (which I didn't really write about) or the satanic subject matter itself, but it's lack of hope.  Even if the coven is a metaphor for government, big business, family, or some other oppressive public or social institution or custom, we are left with an image of resignation in the face of evil.

I do not want to leave you on a down note.  Obviously I do not believe that we are alone.  I do believe in the existence of an Enemy who wishes to undo the work of Christ and rob us of our hope.  But as long as we hold close to the Lord His will will be done.  The cost may be high, and the road difficult, but we never have to despair that He is not with us. 

A Merciful Heart from the Apostleship of Prayer

A Popular Saint: St. Anthony of Padua from AOP

Gentle and Lowly: More on the Sacred Heart from the Apostleship of Prayer

Swinging Round the Corkscrew: "Mad Men" Season Six Down the Stretch

We are heading, sadly, into the last two episodes of Mad Men for this season.  Much of the discussion out on the web concerning the goings on at Sterling Cooper and Partners (the agency's new post-merger name) has been over the hidden motives and objectives of the strangely "straight" Bob Benson (James Wolk) and, more recently, if Megan Draper (Jessica Paré) will be going the way of Sharon Tate.  While these are interesting twists, what has kept my attention, not just this season but over all six, is the moral train wreck that is Dick Whitman's altar ego Don Draper (Jon Hamm).  In him we have the perfect example of the fact that sin makes us unhappy.  Like many of us though Don has become so attached to his vices, like Gollum to the ring, that he can't break way and make the changes necessary to truly be free and happy.  Year after year he just keeps on making the same mistakes, expecting different results, the very definition of insanity.  The way things have gone down hill for him this season it makes me wonder, as others have, if he'll be around for the seventh and final season in 2014.  While I really don't think that they will kill off the main Mad Man before the series finale next year, I can't argue that things don't look bleak for the ad exec we love to hate, or at least pity.

Matt Weiner (pronounced wine-er), the show's creator and chief writer, has said that he knows how he plans to end the story next season, down to the final shot.  This doesn't mean that he has every episode or plot twist worked out, but there is a trajectory, and what I've noticed this season is that he is already tying themes together from seasons past.  We are not dealing with repetition, but with very deliberate attempts to show how things in life come full circle, and can leave you just where you started even with all our good efforts.

Earlier in this season Joan Harris (Christina Hendricks) tries to fire a secretary for falsifying a time card and finds herself undercut by Harry Crane (Rich Sommer), much like she was in a similar situation by Roger Sterling (John Slattery) in season 2.  The difference is that then Roger was a partner and Joan was the office manager.  Now Joan is a partner being successfully bucked by an underling.  Part of this has to do with Harry's resentment that she's risen past him in the company, and what she did to get there.  All Joan knows is that she has a new rank earned through hard work, no matter what any one may think, but she is still treated like an over glorified secretary.  A few episodes later she tries to validate her position to the others by clandestinely wooing new business, even though Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) was given the assignment.  Pete was guilty of a similar breach of protocol in season one and was almost fired for it.  Rather than remembering his own actions he blows up at her in front of the other partners, essentially trying to get her ousted, for breaking a "fundamental rule" of advertising, the very reason he was almost gone years before.  In both cases history is repeating, and not for the better.  In Pete's case though, he seems to forget that he was once the one breaking the rules and being pardoned for it (Oh, hypocrisy: of all the vices on this show, the one it seems everyone shares). 

If there's been a season long throw back it's Don's downward spiral, reminiscent of a his near breakdown in season four.  Back then his decline was manifested by a slow physical deterioration.  He had a hacking cough that wouldn't go away and was beginning to black out, sometimes waking up with unexpected company.  The years of boozing, smoking and womanizing were taking their toll.  Newly divorced, there were now no stops on his already self destructive habits.  His personal problems were spilling over into his professional life, and things were generally getting out of control.  Then he met Megan, they married and most of season five was spent in relative stability, if not exactly marital bliss.  He was faithful to his wife, and as happy as this very unhappy man had ever been.

Season six began with Don backsliding.  Again we can see echoes of the past.  The series' very first episode presents Don as a devil may care ladies man about town, with a touch of existential nihilism thrown in, ending with a surprise reveal: the man we were led to believe was an eligible, if roguish, bachelor was actually a married father, complete with the big house in Westchester.  This season we go the first episode thinking Don has stayed on the straight and narrow (in spite of last year's season ending foreshadowing), to find in the final scene that he's having an affair with his best friend's wife, who happens to live one floor below the Draper's apartment.

Can you say "self destructive?"  I knew you could.

Most of the commentators out there focus on the therapeutic aspects of Don's problems; he's a sex addict, or he's a control freak, or all his self destructive behavior stems from his highly dysfunctional childhood (which we've gotten clued into over the years by periodic flash backs).  All this is true.  But in our postmodern world no one wants to talk sin.  That Don is caught in a web of sin doesn't negate the other therapeutic reasons for his predicament, or that the reasons he turned to these self destructive behaviors can't be seen as serious impediments to his freedom.  But because we have found ourselves in a cycle of addiction does not mean that we are condemned to stay there.  There is a way out, if we have the courage to surrender.

This season has high lighted a tension within Don: He needs to be in control but is constantly losing it.  He seems to be losing his creative touch at work and, since the merger with their main rival, control in the office as well.  The bloom is off his marriage since Megan gained greater independence by way of her acting career.  The implication is that she no longer needs him in the same way as before, thus another loss of control.  As all this is happening he tries to tighten his grip on the one aspect of his life he thinks he does have control over by his manipulative games with his married mistress Sylvia Rosen (Linda Cardellini).  Even she eventually breaks away from his grasp.  Don is all about control, and losing it makes him look to other options, like possibly abandoning his present identity and starting over, like he did when he deserted the army by assuming a dead man's identity.

The big speculation out there is that this season might see the ultimate in Don shedding his current persona.  There have been overtones of death since the first episode when Don presented an ad campaign for a Hawaiian hotel that made people think of James Mason drowning himself in the Pacific at the end of A Star is Born as opposed to taking a leisurely dip in the ocean (we won't even get into him reading Dante's Inferno on the beach).  Don has some serious issues that he needs to deal with, holes in his soul that need to be filled.  With all the loss of control and continuing dissatisfaction with his life, maybe checking out permanently is the answer?  But he's told in a hallucination (near death experience?) by a soldier he had met who was killed in Vietnam, still missing an arm in the afterlife, "Dying doesn't make you whole."

What makes you whole is coming to terms with the demons, both psychological and literal, that are haunting you, acknowledging personal responsibility for your sinful behavior and surrendering to God, with the understanding that control apart from God is an illusion.  Don is constantly running, seeking escape in drinking and sex, but remaining unsatisfied because when he wakes up the next morning hung over and alone he's back where started, the same person with the same problems, even if he's taken another man's name.  In life if we don't take the steps to break the cycle of sin then we just keep hurling down a corkscrew shaped slide, repeating the same turns but into deeper and deeper levels of depravity and self destruction until we hit the ground in a dead stop.

Addiction is real, but is not a life sentence.  I know people who have been in Alcoholics Anonymous, sober for decades, that will also say that sobriety doesn't come to everyone on the first try.  It's surrender to what they call a "Higher Power," but also depending on sponsors, friends, family, as well as coming to grips with why drinking has become problematic that will bring ultimate liberation.  There may be set backs along the way, but they can be overcome if these safeguards are in place. Again, being honest with ourselves and allowing ourselves to confront the underlying issues of our lives is also important.  As people who suffer from compulsive eating disorders will say, The problem isn't what you're eating, it's what's eating you.  In the case of Don, he has issues with intimacy, he's a father who had no solid role model himself.  He never knew his mother, and any mother figure in his life was either cruel or took advantage of him somehow.  Does he need a therapist?  You bet ya.  But he also needs God, and to surrender to His loving mercy if he is going to get past the hurts, the addictions and the self destruction.  If not he'll be just spinning around that corkscrew until he lands face down in the dirt.

This is incomplete, but I've written way too much already.  Another major theme running through the show is what is the nature of happiness.  In my season ending analysis of Mad Men season 6, I'll hit this topic, as well as tidy up this one. 

The Pope Francis: Real Conversion is the Work of the Spirit

The Vatican YouTube page has been posting the Holy Father's morning homily almost every day since shortly after his election.  Pope Francis gives a simple, extemporaneous reflection on the readings of the day, and as we can see from the video he enjoys a rather mixed group of people at Mass.  Enjoy.

Immaculate Heart, Deliver Us: A Message from AOP

A Reflection on the Sacred Heart

I posted two videos below about today's Solemnity of the Sacred Heart; one from the Apostleship of Prayer and the other from Canada's Salt and Light Channel.  Both say better than I can what this feast and the devotion it celebrates is all about.  But I do want to touch upon something Fr. Thomas Rosica said in his presentation; that devotion to the Sacred Heart has been on the decline, and actually denigrated by some, in the Church over the last fifty years, and what a tragedy that is.


The Second Vatican Council called for a renewal of popular devotions in the Church, with emphasis placed on the scriptural roots and significance of the various practices of piety prevailing among the faithful.  Devotions should also be revised so as to lead people naturally into the celebration of the Church's Liturgy, Her official public worship.  New Stations of the Cross services, for instance, were written up with lengthy scriptural passages included for each station.  An attempt was made to revise the Stations completely, replacing the non scripture based stations with ones culled directly from the Gospel accounts, but this never caught on.  The more direct linking of the Stations to the Scripture was a good thing, to put it mildly.

In the case of the Sacred Heart liturgists and theologians found little scriptural basis to support it at all.  Jesus simply doesn't talk much about the heart, outside saying that his was meek and humble (Mt. 11:29).  The Old Testament uses different imagery, unrelated to our understanding the heart as a symbol of love, to express the love of God for His people.  The fact that it was based on a private revelation made it even more suspect in the minds of would be Post Conciliar reformers.  This suspicion of private revelation is a reason behind the resistance of some pastors and liturgical experts to the newer devotion to the Divine Mercy (a discussion for another day).  There is a bigger issue here, about the divide between the simple faith of the people and the intellectualized faith of a professional religious caste in the Church, but, again, this is a fight for another day.  Suffice it to say, many in seminary and university theology programs have promoted the idea that popular devotions are anti Scriptural by nature and divert people from participating in the liturgy, to the detriment of the spiritual life of the faithful.

The tragedy of the decline of the Sacred Heart is that this and other devotions are not anti-Scriptural nor anti-Liturgy if they are authentic and well prepared.

First the fact that a particular devotion was born of a private revelation shouldn't scare people off.  Scripture and Tradition are the two fonts of the same Revelation of God.  In a way, we can say that the Tradition represents the continued handing on of what was received by the Spirit, a Spirit that continues to lead the people of God into all truth.  While we are never obliged to believe in a private revelation, if the Church in Her wisdom, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of truth, has approved one as worthy of public devotion, and even establishes a solemnity in its honor, we can trust that it is in keeping with Divine Revelation.  In the case of the Sacred Heart it is speaking to people today, in a language we can understand, of the deep love Christ has for us, which is at the very core of Scripture.

Secondly, the devotion to the Sacred Heart has an intrinsic Eucharistic connection.  If it is properly understood and practiced it should lead us to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, then to participation in the Eucharistic Liturgy with sacramental reception of our Lord's Body and Blood (the Sacrament of Charity) and finally living the charity that we celebrate by service of our neighbor.  If this has not been the case in the past, I would argue the problem is not with the devotion but with how we have handled it.

The good news is that in the past twenty years we have seen an renewed interest in Eucharistic Adoration (another bogey man of many self professed religious progressives), as well as an explosion in devotion to the Divine Mercy (one that I haven't personally embraced as a part of my spiritual life, but still promote in the parish).  These and other devotions are ways of  continuing to raise our minds and hearts to God through out the day, and between celebrations of the Eucharist.  If they are done well, they serve as a link between our lives "on the street," our participation in the Liturgy, and then our return to the world to live the mysteries we celebrate.

My hope and prayer is that this great devotion to the Sacred Heart also makes a similar come back.  It touches so beautifully on our Lord's tender, passionate, human love for us (in the best sense of what these words mean), and His Divine power to save us.

.

Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus from Salt and Light

This Sacrament of Love from AOP

"Star Trek Into Darkness" and the Politically Correct Villain (SPOILERS)

I recently wrote a mixed, but positive review of the new Star Trek movie, Into Darkness.  I saw it again in IMAX, and found that I liked it much better the second time around.  I think that this was partly because I found the extra-large IMAX image brighter than the standard size projection I saw it on the first time out (it was filmed with IMAX cameras so maybe something got lost in the transfer).  Secondly, I already knew the main spoiler so I went in more open minded.  I was still disappointed in the choice of villain, but not aggressively so as when I saw the big reveal for the first time.  It is what it is, so I just went with it and enjoyed the ride.  Nonetheless I still have problems with the choice to reconstitute an enemy from the past, and here's why...


If you haven't seen Star Trek: Into Darkness yet this is your warning: SPOILERS ARE FOLLOWING.


Through the first part of the movie the Enterprise crew thinks that they are after John Harrison, a Star Fleet officer turned terrorist.  Once he is captured he reveals his true identity to be Khan Noonien Singh, a genetically engineered superman from Earth's distant past who had been preserved in a cryogenic state for centuries, secretly reawakened to assist a rogue Star Fleet admiral (Peter Weller).  The character first appeared in the Star Trek Season One episode Space Seed.  He was brought back in the 1982 movie The Wrath of Khan, widely thought of as the best of the first generation Trek films. My visceral reaction against the "New Khan" is not simply that I think recycling an old character like they did is lazy, which in this case it is, but more because the new version bares little resemblance to the original beyond a name and the most superficial elements of his back story.   This is a different villain, and should have been treated as such.  The way I see it they wanted the name, but not what they may have perceived to be the politically incorrect baggage that goes with it, and in the process neutered one of the most literate and compelling "bad guys" in the history of mainstream commercial entertainment.

Ricardo Montalban as Khan (1967)

Khan, originally played by the late Ricardo Montalban, is one of the most vivid, colorful characters to inhabit the Star Trek universe.  In his present incarnation, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, he's menacing, but also vaguely generic.  I don't believe that this is Mr. Cumberbatch's fault.  Khan, though an iconic character, is problematic in our own P.C. world.  While dark haired, it would be impossible to think of Khan 2013 and anything but a proper Englishman.  Cumberbatch's portrayal reminded me a bit of Alan Rickman in the first Die Hard, if that villain had known mixed martial arts.   But the Khan of the past was from northern India, "possibly a Sikh."  Montalban's black hair was grown out into a ponytail, with dark makeup applied to his already light tan complexion, emphasizing the character's Subcontinental roots, and the actor's Latin American accent making Khan exotic and possibly even more menacing to North American audiences of the 1960's.   There is no doubt in my mind that Khan's cultural background was buried this time out because of the fear of offending people of Middle Eastern or Pakistani lineage, especially since today's Khan is billed as a terrorist (he was originally a despotic war lord).

Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan (2013)

On the one hand I can understand wanting to avoid stereotypes.   Big budget summer block busters, even one as smart as Into Darkness is, are not known for subtlety.  If they had kept to the original back story viewers would probably just have seen a man of color described as a terrorist and thought Arab Muslim by default.  As an American of Italian descent who is sick of seeing Italians portrayed as mafiosi in movies all the time, I can understand Arabs and Muslims being upset at getting the terrorist label put on them so often in the popular culture.  But not only isn't Khan an Arab or a Muslim, he's not a stereotype of any kind.  He not only possesses superior physical strength, but a superior intellect as well.  In Space Seed he quickly learns the Enterprise's technical manuals, using his new found knowledge to take control of the ship; the twentieth century man out smarting his 23rd century foes at every turn.  In Wrath he's no mere bomb thrower, but proves to be a great tactical mind.  In both appearances he is manipulative, cunning and ruthless, with his intellectual refinement extending further than the battlefield.  In the course of both adventures he quotes Milton, Melville and Talleyrand (though the last credited to the Klingons).

Ricardo Montalban as Khan (1982)

The Khan of today possesses all the cunning and ruthlessness of the 1967/1982 version, but none of the depth.  The former Khan at first wants to take the Enterprise so he can conquer new worlds.  This was not just a vain attempt at glory.  He believes firmly that his way really does bring order to chaos, and will lead humanity into a golden age of supermen and women.  If the weak and "inferior" need to be subjugated, possibly eliminated (though he is noted as one of the few war lords who didn't engage in genocide) it is only right.  Only the strong have a right to lead, and possibly survive.  Later, when he finds an opportunity for revenge against Captain (now admiral) Kirk, who foiled his plan and exiled him to a deserted planet, he becomes obsessed with not just defeating his enemy but annihilating him, even when it becomes clear that he will destroy himself in the process.  He is a man driven by ego, blinded by his own abilities, so driven by a single goal he loses the big picture and in the end everything he was hoping to gain.

Khan 2013 is a terrorist or sorts, but with little complexity beyond seeking revenge and power for its own sake.  A shabby shadow of what the character once was.

I said the movie is smart, and I do believe it is.  Questions are asked that relate to the War of Terror, such as what are the limits that should be observed in pursuing an enemy so as not to lose your own humanity in the process.  The theme of self sacrifice, the idea that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one, is explored as in Wrath, but with a twist.  The main characters, especially Spok, Uhura and Kirk are not simply retreads of the originals, but are developed a bit.  As I wrote before, there's more special effects expertise, and action in general, in these J.J. Abrams films than before, but they did leave some room for the ideas, which is good.  But in the quest to avoid a P.C. controversy I wish they had simply thought up a new villain instead of sterilizing an classic one.

Communion & Contemplation, the Feast of Corpus Christi from AOP

St. Justin Martyr from AOP

The New Evangelization from AOP

Mary: Untier of Knots from AOP

Trinity Sunday 2013

 

In these two Sundays after Pentecost the Church asks us to meditate over the deepest mysteries of the Faith: the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist.  The Trinity is probably the most difficult to speak about because it is almost impossible to try to define it without falling into some kind of heresy, albeit unintentionally.  So, I will keep out of the doctrinal thicket for the most part and simply offer a few spiritual reflections on the theme.

We are not pagans.  We do not believe in three gods.  As was revealed to the Old Testament Patriarchs, God is one.  But in light of Jesus Christ's words on the matter, we would say that God is one nature or substance, but in three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but united by the same divine nature.  They act together, and so while we may commonly identify God the Father as the creator, the Son as the redeemer and the Spirit as the sanctifier, all three Persons perform these actions but always in relation to one another and "according to their unique personal property," as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it.  So while I'm about to connect certain qualities to the individual members of the Trinity, in truth all these could be attributed to any of the three Divine Persons, but maybe in a different way.

God is Wisdom

In the first reading for today's Mass (Proverbs 8:22-31) God is spoken of as the Creator (commonly attributed to the Father), and that this act of creation was done with Wisdom.  In fact the words are delivered by the personification of the Wisdom of God, presented as a wise woman who was with God at the creation.  All was done with order and a purpose.  God then is Wisdom. we may not always understand his plan and why bad things happen to good people, but it all does fit together in the big picture.

God gave us freedom to cooperate with his freedom, but we don't always.  Because of the presence of sin we can frustrate God's plan by not trusting in His wisdom.  But his plan will not be frustrated forever; God's will will be done one way or another; if not now, at some later point with people who are more open will trust and say yes. 

I am asked sometimes, "Since Mary had free will like the rest of us, what if she had said no to the angel when she was asked to be the Mother of the Savior?  Would Jesus have never came and redeemed us?"  Mary's singular gift of being conceived free of original sin did not destroy her freedom, this is true.  It actually perfected her freedom, so I would argue that she was more likely to say yes as opposed to no.  But on the chance that she did reject God's request, we simply would of had to wait a little longer, maybe a lot longer, for God's saving plan to be put into motion.  Either way God's wisdom would prevail, maybe not in the way and at the time he would have originally wanted, but it would be completed. 

God is Truth

In the Gospel from today (John 16:12-15) Jesus assures his disciples that, though he is going, he will send the Holy Spirit to guide them into the fullness of truth. He had preached, worked miracles and instructed them privately, and now he was going to fulfill his mission of salvation by going to the cross.  But there was so much more to say, and so little time to communicate it.  He promises the Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which can not lie, who will lead them into the fullness of truth.

That Spirit continues in the Church still.  We have a hard time recognizing it sometimes because God uses weak instruments to communicate his truth, but we can be assured that the Spirit didn't return to the Father when the Apostles died.  He remains with the Church, in a special way with the bishops in union with the Pope (remember those weak instruments I made reference to?).  Scripture gives us the basics of what we need to know, and the Spirit continues to lead us into a deeper understanding of that Word, and how we are to live the eternal truths of the Faith in the ever changing landscape of the here and now.

God is Love

In the second reading at Mass (Romans 5:1-5) Paul writes that the love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit.  But all that grace and love that God gives us through the Spirit was made possible by the actions of the incarnation of love itself; Jesus Christ. 

We are flesh and blood people.  We have eyes and ears, and learn through our senses. We can be told that God is love; that he cares for us and wants the best for us.  But he sent his only Son into the world so that we could see it, touch it and taste it.  Jesus is the sacrament, the external sign, of the invisible love that God has for us, and this was manifested in full on the cross.

If you notice, every Catholic church has a crucifix in it.  Most of our separated brethren will have a cross in their houses of worship, sans corpus.  I never gave it too much thought, chalking this difference up to the general Protestant unease with statuary and icons. But when I was working at an inner city parish school in Newark, New Jersey I got a different insight.  This school was predominantly African American, with a majority of non Catholic students.  We would have a prayer service modeled on the Liturgy of the Word from Mass.  The music was taken from the traditional African American spirituals, and the music director wasn't Catholic.  We were in the church one day talking before the kids came, and he pointed to the huge, life like crucifix, that was in the sanctuary.  He said, "You know Brother (I was still in formation then), I don't know how I feel about that crucifix." 

"What do you mean?"

"Many of us don't think you Catholics believe in the Resurrection because you still have Jesus up on the cross.  I mean, he's not on the cross anymore.  He's risen.  That just seems like a denial to me, to still have him there."

I replied, "Well, you know Melvin, we do believe in the Resurrection.  Without that there's no point in calling yourself a Christian.  It's the center of our Faith."  He started nodding his head. "But the crucifix is there to remind us of what he had to go through in order to get there. He didn't die of a heat attack, or get hit by a bus.  He went to the cross, the just man who died for the unjust.  It's to help us appreciate how much he does love us, to remind us that he gave his all to us."

I'm not sure I convinced him of the importance of the crucifix, but at least I dispelled the notion that Catholics don't believe in the Resurrection.

All the members of the Trinity are Love, but the Son showed this in a particular way.  He gave himself to the last drop of blood for us, holding nothing back. That is what love is, and we are challenged to imitate that love in our lives, no matter what station of life we are in. 

That love is memorialized in the Eucharist, the mystery we will meditate on next week.  Until then, let us have faith in God the Father who brought us into creation with Wisdom and purpose, in the Holy Spirit which continues to lead us into the fullness of Truth, and in the Son who loves us to the very limits of his life and continues to nourish us with his Body and Blood.

Mary Help of Christians Prayer

Mary Help of Christians and Saint John Bosco

Everything Old is New Again: Star Trek: Into Darkness // Movie Review

Like many men of a certain age who grew up in the New York Metro Area, as a kid 6:00PM didn't mean dinner time, it meant reruns of Star Trek on Channel 11.  I am not now, nor have I ever been a Trekie, but I am familiar with the original '60's series from having episodes repeated six nights a week during my childhood. Better yet were the second and third installments in the movie franchise from the 80's that featured the original cast.  They weren't as advanced special effects wise as the Star Wars films, but what they lacked in high tech flash they made up for in humanity, and the simple pleasure of feeling like you were off traipsing through space with old friends you had grown up with.

In 2009 we got a reboot of the film series with new actors taking on the original rolls, which I loved.  Now we have the sequel Star Trek: Into Darkness (both films directed by J.J. Abrams).  I was really looking forward to this, and before I go on and you think this is going to be a negative review; I did like it, just not as much as the first.  And let me get the two big "buts" out of the way before I go on to praise this latest adventure.

 

First off: DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IN 3D.  I found that it added nothing for the extra money they charge for it, and the cheap Ray Band knock off you have to wear make an already dimly shot film even murkier (in general the most common complaint about 3D). I've heard that the IMAX 3D was good, which may be true, but if you're not into paying even more money to see a movie, stick with the standard projection.

Second, while this is not a remake of an earlier Star Trek movie in the strict sense, there are certain plot devises recycled from the past, to mixed results.  On the one hand
they do put a new twist on an old storyline which I thought was done really well.  But when the big reveal happens as to who exactly the Enterprise crew is up against I made an audible groan.  I figured it out a few words into the bad guy's expository speech and felt a deep feeling of despair build to the crescendo "UGH!".  Maybe this will only matter to real Trekies and people over 40,but it really felt like a cheap gimmick, and the movie almost lost me at that point. But I held my nose, kept on going and in the end was glad that I did. 

On the positive side, the new actors who take on the main rolls of Kirk (Chris Pine), Spok (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban) and the rest of the familiar bunch all do a great job of channeling the spirit of the original without resorting to out and out impersonation.  The most interesting development is in Spok, the half human, half Vulcan First Officer.  On the show we only really saw his logic driven, detached Vulcan nature.  Here his human side is explored, which is only logical.  There are times when lines are delivered that I could hear in my head coming out of the mouths of the old cast, but the new guys give them a different emphasis, which made the proceedings nostalgic and fresh at the same time.   In the hands of Abrams both of the newer Star Trek movies have a level of special effects sophistication the old ones never came close to, but at the same time he hasn't lost the humanity.  In the end that saved Into Darkness for me in spite of my misgivings over the plot. 

As for the plot, James T. Kirk and his crew chase after a suspected terrorist who may or may not be as bad as he seems.  They are under orders to kill, not capture, him by an admiral who may or may not be going rogue.  There are ethical debates over whether they should follow the order, since summary executions are not a part of the Star Fleet manual, and their actions could start a war with the Klingon Empire (a tip of the hat to the Star Trek tradition of using futuristic science fiction as a way of commenting on contemporary issues).  There are more holes in the plot than a slice of baby Swiss cheese so I could spend a ton of space exploring the implausibilities and inconsistencies, but I simply don't don't have the time, energy or inclination.

In the end a mixed, but positive review.  The true believers aren't going to miss it anyway, but for the rest of us it's a good rainy day entertainment.  And my guess is that the less you know about the "Old Days" the more you will like this one.

Our Mother from AOP

Pentecost: The Feast of Unity from AOP

Say a Prayer for the Pretender: The Great Gatsby // Movie Review

I went into the theater to see the latest film adaptation of the F. Scott Fitzgerald classic The Great Gatsby wanting very much to like it.  Unlike a real film critic, I usually only see movies I want to, so am predisposed to liking them walking in.  But this time I went to see a film I normally wouldn't simply because the critics and the press had the long knives out for it way before it even premiered, and so was hoping to be contrarian.  I'd also never seen a movie directed by Baz Luhrmann, out side of a few clips and trailers, and was curious to see the full on hip-hop meets highly stylized period / costume drama mash up that he's known for.

Sad to say; mission very much unaccomplished.  I didn't hate this movie, and it has flashes of greatness, but in the end this is one case where, unlike Oz the Great and Powerful from a few weeks back, I found the negative hype to be pretty much on target.

The movie follows the story of Nick Carraway (yes, Nick Carraway), played by Toby Maguire, a would be writer who tries to make his way in 1922 New York as a bond trader.  He moves into a small cottage on Long Island next to an immense mansion owned by the mysterious "New Money" millionaire Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio).  The story is told in flashbacks during Carraway's sessions with a psychiatrist in a sanatorium (an invention of the film), who encourages him to write it all down.  We find out that Nick's cousin, Daisy Buchanon (Carry Mulligan), who married "Old Money" scion Tom Buchanon (Joel Edgerton), just happens to live across the bay.  From Gatsby's pier can be seen a green beacon that sits at the end of the Buchanon estate.  Nick's mysterious neighbor wanders out at night to seemingly reach out to it across the water.  Nick receives an invitation to one of Gatsby's party's, unusual because these weekly bacchanals are open to anyone who wishes to drop in, and finds out all is not what it seems, and things that seem like coincidence are actually very well mapped out contrivances to get Gatsby and Daisy together.  


While the party scenes are certainly over the top, and in general the film represents more of a fantasia on Gatsby then a straight telling of the story (which is all well and good), in the end it really doesn't work.  But I'm not sure that this is completely Luhrmann's fault.  I read Gatsby years ago, and remember the beginning, and remember the end, but the middle is a bit muddled in my head.  And that's a pretty good way to describe this filmed version.  The reality is that not much really happens in the book until the end.  Most of the middle is taken up with dialogue scenes in hotel rooms and sea side cottages that would probably work better on the stage than on the screen.  Luhrmann is a visual director, and as hard as he tries to jazz up the more meditative segments I was still looking at my watch at a certain point.  He would have been better served to go full on fantasia as opposed to mixing the fantastic with an attempt to be faithful to the book.

For all the time spent lingering over our star crossed lovers, the ideas of the book are given short shrift.  We hear about the class distinctions between Old Money and the Nouveau Riche, Tom's white supremacist hogwash, and the corrupt manipulation of the public by hidden powers represented by the gambler Meyer Wolfsheim (Amitabh Bachchan), but they are never really fleshed out.  When we get to the end and Nick's stinging condemnation of the Buchanons and their class I'm not sure it will make complete sense to those in the audience who haven't read the book.  Or maybe it is that these themes are so 1920's in nature that the film makers figured their relevance would be lost on today's 18 to 35 year old demographic the movie is targeting, so why bother to get too deep?

Like I wrote, there are flashes of greatness.  The best scene was probably the most low tech: the confrontation between the principals at the Plaza Hotel on a sweltering summer afternoon.  While this is one of those "stagy" parts I wrote about, it was well staged and gave the actors a chance to act and show that they could do more than preen. 

I haven't talked about the 3-D because I don't see that it really mattered, except that it added to the superficiality of the proceedings.  At first I thought that the unreality of the sets, staging and music was  meant to be symbolic of the vacuousness of the period and the emptiness of the character's interior lives, but I'm really not sure.  The Great Gatsby does such a good job being vacant I can't believe it's just a trope.  Sometimes the negative hype is the truth, and unfortunately that's what's going on here. 

Modernity and Morality: A commentary by Fr. Barron

Let's Not Fool Ourselves: It's Murder in the First Degree

There is an unfortunate divide in the attitude the Catholic clergy has concerning abortion.  I'm not talking about those poor souls who are either secretly, or not so secretly pro-choice.  That's not an attitude or approach in how to view the issue, that's an out and out rupture with the truth that shouldn't be tolerated.  No, I'm writing about an attitude that recognizes that abortion is wrong, but feels the bishops and some of the faithful are "obsessed" with it, and other matters of sexual morality (I think that it's a mistake to see abortion as a part of the Church's sexual ethic to begin with, but I'll have to save that for another post).  There are other, more urgent issues like the plight of the poor and other matters of social and economic morality that needs our attention more, or so the argument goes.  There are also other life issues, like the death penalty, and the treatment of prisoners in general, that deserves equal if not more attention.  Of course the other attitude is that abortion is murder and as such should be the priority.  A society is judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable, and while we shouldn't neglect the poor, the sick or the prisoner, the weakest and most vulnerable of all are the unborn, and so they should get the first priority.

I come down on the side that says abortion is murder of the most innocent and vulnerable, and therefore gets the priority without neglecting the rest of Catholic social teaching.  In the last few years I had heard the rhetoric of the other side, and began to be lulled into a certain sympathy with it, though I never fully accepted their line of thought.  The Kermit Gosnell case has wakened me from this moral haze.  The killing of live born babies is what logically follows when you make an arbitrary distinction between life inside and outside the womb.  And the things Mr. Gosnell was doing are not new or isolated: stories that abortionists routinely leave live born babies to die of neglect after failed abortions have been circulating for decades.  That many abortion "doctors" pay no attention to restrictions on third trimester abortions is also an open secret.  Years ago one of my sisters in law played detective and called a clinic pretending to be an expectant mother in her third trimester.  She was told by the person on the other end that it was a problem, but nothing they couldn't work around. So, while I'm as shocked as anyone by the brutality of the crime, on some level I'm not surprised that these things are going on.  This case needs to be a clarion call for anyone wavering in their full throated opposition to the killing of the unborn.


There are also those who believe abortion is wrong, but don't want to use the word murder to describe it.  This is often in a sincere attempt to be pastorally sensitive to the women who procure them.  I get this.  I've had many women come into my confessional to confess this sin.  After hearing their stories would I call them murderers?  No, I wouldn't.  The decision to abort is often made under pressure and duress. As a result there is often a willful ignorance as to what is growing in their wombs.  Immediately afterward these women often try to put the whole thing out of their minds, but eventually the reality of what they've done catches up with them, and then they come to me.  My job at that point is to be the loving face of Jesus the Good Shepherd, not a harsh judge bent on crushing the already bruised reed.

As for the practitioners of abortion, no other title but murderer fits.  They know what they are doing, and some even acknowledge openly that this is the taking of a human life.  A U.S. court has decided that the actions of this abortionist were murder, the late term abortions he performed are illegal, if not meeting the present legal definition of murder, and the death of one woman under his care is man slaughter.  They're all murders as far as I can see, and we shouldn't be afraid of using the word because we might offend people.  The truth is the truth, and in this case might help to end this scourge in our land.

As for Gosnell himself, he plea bargained himself out of the death penalty. I've had friends wish great harm on the man, and while I understand the out rage I can't condone it.  I am against the death penalty, though I'm not sure I buy the Seamless Garment argument.  No, let him live.  Let him spend long days and nights, how ever many more the Lord grants him in this life, to think about what he's done.  Maybe he repents (remember God wants the sinner to return to Him, not to perish).  Maybe he doesn't.  Either way he will face God, and that's good enough for me.  

Mad Men Season 6 So Far

 

We are better than half way through Season Six of Mad Men.  What can me say so far?

Don Draper 3.0

As was hinted at in the last scene of the last episode from last season, Season 6 has seen Don return to his philandering ways.  The "Old Don" is back then, right?  Well, sorta kinda, but not exactly.  He actually expresses feelings of guilt over his renewed infidelity in this season's episode one, even though the subsequent episodes show the more amoral side of our "hero" that we're used to.  But when Sylvia, the married woman he is cheating on his wife with, breaks it off out of her own feelings of guilt and shame we see Don's eyes change from steely and cocksure to helpless and heart broken.  For his two marriages and the countless affairs he's engaged in over the years, Don Draper is in love, maybe for the first time in his life, and the fact that he can't control his beloved or his own emotions is killing him.  When he returns home after the break up it is early morning and the news has just broken on the East Coast of Robert Kennedy's assassination.  His wife Megan is crying in front of the TV, and Don sits emotionally drained on the other side of the bed.  Once again the show does a masterful job juxtaposing historical events with the fictional crisis of the characters (more on that later).

So Don has changed, but on some level also remains stubbornly static.  As others have pointed out, last season ended on the doorstep of the Summer of Love and this one dawned on the threshold of 1968.  Having passed through that cultural blender and out the other side fashions and hair styles have changed; ties are getting wider, sideburns longer, dresses more colorful.  The one constant is Don, whose grey suits and close trimmed and slicked back hair haven't changed since we met him in 1960.  His resistance to change isn't confined to his choice of neck tie.  He still drinks too much, and though he's not quite the dirty stomp around he once was, in his world fidelity remains optional.  The sexual revolution is going on, but he still maintains a strange mix of chivalrous misogyny. While not the bigot Roger Sterling is (he accepts a black secretary no one else wants, and is generally respectful to the African Americans he deals with), he's content to let the status quo of institutional racism remain out of complacency if nothing else.  He professes to be against the war in Vietnam, but suggests an ad campaign for Dow defending the use of napalm.  It's 1968, the world is blowing up, but Don is walking through the rubble willfully ignorant of all the change going on around him. 

Don's one time rival, now partner, Ted Chaough represents the more modern, sensitive man; keen to the ways of business, not above playing the game a bit loose and fast, but you get the feeling that while he's out to win he's not bent on destroying people in the process.  He drinks, but not too much.  Ted tries to draw ideas out of his creative people using brain storming techniques as opposed to browbeating them like Don.  In most things he uses the carrot, not the stick.  Is it a coincidence that he's the only major character who practices a religion (Lutheranism)?  But now that he has been drawn into the SCDP universe will Don rub off on him, as Peggy Olson fears, or the other way around?

Which ever way it goes, Don has to face eventually that things are are changing.  In this week's episode, Man with a Plan, Don and Sylvia engage in some very strange sex as power and manipulation game that seemed to be taken straight out of The Last Tango in Paris or 9 1/2 Weeks.  Though Sylvia was on the submissive end she seemed to actually enjoy it.  In spite of this by the episode's conclusion she ends the affair, and no amount of alpha male posturing will change her mind. Yes, the game was fun, but the world is bigger then the hotel room where they pretend that what they are doing is at once real, but inconsequential to their lives outside.  Their relationship is complicated, and both are close to their cheated on counterpart.  For Don, the king of compartmentalization, this type of thing is second nature.  For Sylvia it is too much to endure.   So he goes, confused and distraught, for a lost love but also because the tricks he could always rely on in the past don't work anymore. 

MLK and RFK

There is a spit opinion out there as to Mad Men's incorporation of historical events into the show's storyline.  Some see it as the weakest part of the show, I'm one of those who feels that  they do a good job with it.  Most episodes don't pivot around big news events of the Sixties, but when it does it works pretty well because the event itself isn't the thing; it's meant to speak somehow to what's going on with characters themselves.  The JFK assassination worked well as the back drop to the final disintegration of Don and Betty's marriage.  The Martin Luther King killing highlighted the difficulty Don has dealing with his feelings,as well as showing the political and social cracks beginning to emerge on the ground among the people of SCDP.

This past Sunday the Robert Kennedy assassination was placed at the tail end of the show.  Some commentators were surprised that this important event was treated like a "throwaway."  I disagree strongly.  This was no throwaway, but a superb way of summing up what's been going on.  I would go as far as to say the entire sequence, which segued into the closing credits, was a brilliant mix of style and substance.

As I wrote in my Season 6 preview, you can only have so many of these "very special episodes"  where we witness the reactions of the characters to these monumental events.  It's not the producers' fault that MLK and RFK, two American icons, were murdered two months apart from each other.  They could have done two episodes in three weeks with characters walking around stunned and weeping, asking "what's the world coming to."   Instead we have the world falling apart and Don Draper totally disconnected emotionally from it, in part because he can't seem to make sense out of his own personal situation.  He has lost control of his love life, and at work he is quickly losing his status as the smartest guy in the room, though it's debatable how aware of that he is.   Up to now he has always been the most powerful, charismatic and intelligent man at SCDP.  Since even before this latest merger there have been questions about that, beginning at least with his ill advised Hawaiian tourism pitch that made people think of suicide instead of a leisurely swim in the ocean.  The center isn't holding, both inside and out, and Don is confused and oblivious at the same time.

As for style, the sequence begins with a sleeping Pete Campbell being awoken by his increasingly senile mother who is staying with him at his bachelor pad against his wishes.  She tells him that, "they just shot that Kennedy boy," to which the aggravated Peter responds with a huffy reminder that that happened "years ago."  We cut to Megan and Don, she crying on the bed, eyes fixed on the TV news coverage of the killing, he fixing his cuffs as he walks into their bedroom.  She is emotional, he is stoic.  We know why she is upset, but as he takes his place on the bed, away from Megan, we are left to wonder what exactly Don is thinking; is he aware of the assassination? We have to assume that he is, but if so does he even care? Is he thinking of Sylvia?  Is he pondering his lost power?  Is he wondering if the the world he knew, both in terms of his personal life and the bigger social picture, is ever going to get back to normal?  Meanwhile the monotone of the TV reporter is all we hear as Friend and Lovers' Reach Out in the Darkness, that very optimistically hippie anthem, comes up in the background and shares the sonic space with the tragic report, much like Simon and Garfunkel did with their rendition of Silent Night from that same era.  The screen goes black and the credits come up as the sound montage continues (Darn AMC for cutting in with promos way before the credits end).

A "throwaway"?  Not by a long shot.  In probably less than three minutes we get an insight into how people then may have found out about the shooting and reacted to it, while both moving the story ahead and summing it up at the same time, and we only had to hear about the world going to hell in a hand basket once (from Pete's mother).  We got irony, pathos, a touch of farce and a heavy dose of psychodrama without having to go through the entire "tragedy of the week" routine yet again.  Bravo.

Who is Bob Benson?

Bob Benson is a newbie in the Mad Med universe, and is, at this point, even more mysterious than Don Draper.  He is also very anti-Draper in that he is cheerful, quick to help, perky as all get up (if you can call a man perky), and did we say cheerful?  The mystery is why is he around and what does he want?  The general consensus is that he will either turn out to be the biggest back stabber in history or else is part of some bigger plot to overthrow Don, even though at this point their paths have not crossed in any significant way.  In fact up to this week Bob has sort of just been there, popping up now and again in random, seemingly meaningless situations, piquing our curiosity about who he is and what he's all about.

The plot thickened a bit this week when he helped Joan get to the hospital when she was stricken by some mystery illness, and then got her bumped to the top of the emergency room triage list by bluffing the nurse in his cheerfully slick way.  Joan later returns the favor by making sure his name is not included in a post merger list of firings.  

Some in the blogosphire think he's a corporate spy of some sort.  I'll go out on a limb and guess that he could be a reporter or writer doing his own piece of gonzo journalism research for a book or article.  Just a guess.  Stay tuned to find out for sure.

The Papacy and Papal Infallibility | Columbia Catholic Ministry

I had trouble downloading videos over the last few weeks, so excuse me as I make up for lost time.

Pope Francis and "The Religious Sense": A commentary by Fr. Robert Barron

Fr. Damien from the Apostleship of Prayer

The Kermit Gosnell Trial

This is the first time that I'm addressing the Kermit Gosnell murder trial, and I must admit a bit of embarrassment for that.   It's one thing for ABC News to ignore this horrible atrocity, it is another thing for me.  One problem is that I'm at a loss for words.  I have seen the images of the mutilated and in some cases decapitated, babies and am left in utter disgust.  And lets not delude ourselves, these were babies.  In one of the more despicable comments accredited to this "doctor,"  after he severed the spinal cord of one of his victims with a scissors at the base of the neck, he jokes to the attendant that the dead child was "big enough to walk me to the bus stop."  Now Gosnell, who evidently has a long history in the abortion industry as both a practitioner and an activist, awaits his fate.

That so many news outlets have chosen to ignore this trial does not surprise me.  The News now is not about gathering facts or reporting events but about creating a narrative; painting a picture with words, telling a personal story that makes you identify and sympathize with or vilify the subject or situation depending on the editorial staff's wishes.  This is not journalism, this is propaganda.  Even someone like Fran Lebowitz, no conservative she, laments New York Times articles on the Iraq War that begin with descriptions of dusty roads and lone soldiers suffering from the heat, jittery from dodging IED's, as if she were reading a short fiction or essay piece as opposed to the intended hard news story.  We need to feel emotionally engaged for the information to mean something to us, or so the theory goes.  I would argue that the goal is to persuade the reader to the politically correct view, and right now the PC view is that abortion is a right that needs to stay "safe" and legal, but most importantly legal with unlimited access.  So yes to stories of women who have to travel miles to get an abortion because they aren't available in their town, no stories about boy friends, and even parents, who pressure their girlfriend or daughter into getting one against their will.  Yes to stories of the bad old days of back ally abortions (the statistics for which many old time pro-choice activists admit were made up), no to real time accounts of dead babies and mothers in the age of Roe.

I can't get myself to post or even link to the pictures I've seen.  They're out there on the Internet, easy enough to find if you want to; news blackout or none.  I guess I don't want the believer to go and see these images, but the doubter.  The one who has been fed the lies that these are indistinguishable masses of tissue. I want you to see that these are babies.  At what point back on the developmental trail do we say that they aren't?  When does it become right to drown them in solvent or rip off their limbs?  How long will we allow the "narrative" that abortions are safe, sanitary and liberating for women keep us from seeing the truth.  Abortion is murder, and if you want to kid your self that some how this is not true, at least in the first two trimesters,  I'm not sure how you can convince yourself of that in this case.