St. John Bosco Parish Bulletin Letter for July 5, 2015

This weekend the United States celebrates Independence Day. It is the most important of our civic holidays, recalling our nation’s founding. It is a day to give thanks to God for the blessings we have received as a country, and the freedoms we enjoy. The Catholic Church, in particular, has thrived here because of the promise of religious liberty enshrined in the Constitution. The Church has also contributed much to our nation. The Catholic Church is one of, if not the largest private provider of heath care in the U.S. through our network of hospitals, and education by way of our schools. Catholic Charities, sometimes working with the civil government, sometimes working on its own, provides social services like work placement programs, emergency housing assistance for the homeless, and food and rent assistance for those in need, and much more. When all these service agencies and religious organizations are combined, we see that we are not only providing service to countless people, but the Church is also the largest private employer in Chicago, employing around 75,000 people. These are people who vote, pay taxes as well as rent or mortgages, shop at local businesses, contributing to the economic life of the community. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Catholics have proven to be good and faithful citizens of this Republic, while also remaining good and faithful disciples of Jesus Christ.

On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that persons of the same sex could legally marry in all 50 states of the Union. While we respect all people, and their right to pursue happiness in their lives, this is a decision that simply goes against the Christian understanding of what marriage is. For a disciple of Christ marriage is about more than personal happiness or satisfaction. It is more than a private arraignment entered into for the good of the couple. It has always been seen as the foundation of the family, the best, if imperfect, setting for the raising, evangelizing and education of children. To separate marriage from family, and make its definition dependent on personal sentiments independent of its deeper responsibilities is to render marriage meaningless.

As citizens or residents of this great nation, we respect all our neighbors. As Archbishop Cupich reminded us in his statement on this matter, “It is important to note that the Catholic Church has an abiding concern for the dignity of gay persons. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: ‘They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.’ (n. 2358).” But as he also reminds us, “the Supreme Court’s redefinition of civil marriage has no bearing on the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony, in which the marriage of man and woman is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church.”

There are many people of good will on both sides of this issue. But there are, sadly, also a few who will use the Court’s decision to question our loyalty as citizens, and even try to limit our participation in public life. It is for us to move forward in faith, “with malice toward none, charity for all,” as Abraham Lincoln once said.  We should know our history, and the vital role Catholics have played in the life of the country, and that we are committed to continue as loyal citizens, but always first as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ.

Freed from Fear: From AOP

Reflections After My Retreat

I spent last week at the Mary Town Retreat center in Libertyville, IL, completing one of the sweetest obligations I have: my yearly retreat. It's not the usual, or preferred way of making a retreat: apart from one our province sponsored retreats, but scheduling made it hard to fit one in. Our provincial was gracious enough to grant me permission to spend the week in prayer and reflection on my own, and I'm grateful for that. The Conventual Franciscans who run Mary Town, which includes the National Shrine of St. Maximilian Kolbe, as well as the entire staff (I'm a familiar figure in the gift shop) were gracious as well, in their hospitality.

The week was simple. I joined the friars for prayers and Mass, spent extended times in Eucharistic Adoration (Mary Town has 24 Adoration) and read through the Pope's encyclical, Laudato Si'. I also began reading Romano Guardini's book Learning the Virtues: That Lead You to God. I also saw a series of videos via You Tube of testimonials of Jewish Converts to Catholicism. This wasn't planned ahead of time, I was drawn to it. More on that later.

I know that there is a five hundred pound gorilla in room, which is Friday's Supreme Court decision concerning same-sex marriage. I saw the news just before lunch, and was shocked by the suddenness of the ruling more then the outcome. Earlier in the week Fr. Dwight Longenecker had made an educated guess that June 30 was going to be the "day," (along with offering a not so coincidental reflection on the Mass reading for that day), so it wasn't on my radar. I'll write on this more profoundly this week. I thought about giving a quick take on it, but I can see it will end up taking up the entire post. So patience. I will get to it, just not right now.

What insights did I walk away with this week? Here are a few points.

1. You have to put in the time before the Blessed Sacrament

As a Salesian religious I'm called to pray in community twice a day, celebrate Mass, pray the rosary and, in the spirit of St. John Bosco, make frequent though short visits to the Blessed Sacrament through out the day. The idea is the we are active, and spending long periods of time in prayer is not always possible. So we pray as we can, lifting our minds to God throughout the day, encountering the Lord in the young people we serve and the events of our lives. Very true. But as I've taken on the responsibilities of director and pastor I've learned that a Holy Hour is invaluable. It has to be right the first thing in the morning, because once the day starts it's impossible to find time for those short visits, let alone an hour. At night I'm just too tired. But that time in front of the Blessed Sacrament is essential. The greatest gift we have to offer others, no matter who we are or what our vocation is, is the gift of Jesus. If we don't spend time with him, foster a relationship with him, we are never going to be say that we know him and share our love for Christ with others. I can testify that getting up that extra hour earlier is not easy, but it is worth it.

2. Practicing traditional devotions make the celebration of the Mass a more heightened experience.

When I grew up popular devotions were simply not promoted. I'm talking about things like novenas, the rosary, the use of sacramentals like the Miraculous Medal or the Brown Scapula, even Eucharistic Adoration, which were given little, if any mention. To be fare, we did learn the rosary, but even this central devotion was not promoted as it should have been. I chalk this up to a misreading of the Second Vatican Council. With Vatican II the Liturgy was renewed, and it's proper place at the center of Christian worship was emphasized. Popular devotions were to be revised so that they both harmonized with Sacred Scripture and lead the faithful more naturally into the celebration of the Mass. The Divine Office, aka the Liturgy of the Hours, which priests and religious pray, was recast as the prayer for all Christians, not just the "professional" ones. Again, all right on. But there was an interpretation that set popular private devotion against the official public liturgy. The rosary and novenas were what the people did when they couldn't understand the Mass, but now that we have the vernacular liturgy those things are unnecessary, or even harmful. As for sacramental, at best they were nice reminders of holy things, and at worst superstitious anachronisms.

I can tell you nothing is farther from the truth. Since discovering, and really surrendering, to the Divine Mercy devotion, I've found my attentiveness, reverence, and devotion (for lack of a better term) at Mass has increased incredibly. It's not to mystical proportions, but I've found that I am "in the moment" during both he Liturgy of the Word and of the Eucharist on a much more consistent basis. Any priest will tell you that with all the preoccupation of parish or school administration keeping from being distracted during Mass is a challenge, and not every celebration has the same level of focus. I would say that forming a habit of more traditional, devotional prayer, which includes the Divine Mercy Chaplet along with the rosary (which is already apart of our Salesian routine), that augments the Office, has lead to a more consistent, reverent and profound experience of the Eucharist.

3. We owe a great debt to our Jewish brethren 

As I mentioned before, I found myself drawn to videos on You Tube featuring testimonials of Jewish converts to the faith. The most controversial of the three I saw, Roy Schoeman, accepts the term convert, but prefers to call himself a "fulfilled Jew."  And I think that's what the the big take away was for me, because all three witnesses were strong in saying that are still very much Jews who have now recognized the Jewish Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Schoeman, as well as Rosalind Moss (who is now a nun) and Ronda Chevin, a philosopher who is now widowed, all talked about how they discovered how Jewish the Catholic Church is when they first began investigating it. For Chevin this was not a positive point. She entered Christianity by way of evangelical Protestantism. Her brother, who had already converted to Catholicism, dragged her to Mass one evening, and she was horrified to see how much the Mass resembled a synagogue service. She kept thinking that St. Paul tells us that Jesus came to abolish all this and make something new. It was only over time that she came to understand that Jesus came to fulfill, not abolish the Old Law.

As I wrote, Schoeman is a controversial figure, who has definite ideas connecting the Holocaust with the End Times that Jews, as well as many Christians, would have serious problems with. He's not blind to the Church's shortcomings visa vi her relationship with the Jewish people over the centuries, and isn't afraid to quote the truly disturbing words of otherwise saintly Church Fathers about our elders in the faith. He's evenhanded in his assessment of Pius XII, noting the pontiff's personal efforts to save Jews from the Nazis, to the point of hiding Jewish refugees in Castel Sant'Angelo, but also saying he could have done more in his official capacity as pope to make the situation known to the world.

I walked away from these presentations with is a greater appreciation for the richness of the Catholic faith, and how ever ancient it really is. Also that we owe a great deal to our Jewish brothers and sisters. I understand better now Jesus' words from Matthew, that he came to fulfill, not abolish. We do need to be sensitive to the history of our relationship with the Jewish people. I know Schoeman would like to see a more deliberate evangelical entitative taken toward the Jewish people, but we are sensitive to the history, and our own sins. It's for us "cradle Catholics" to discover the Jewish roots of our faith, and, in not be afraid to share the riches of the Catholic Church with others, even Jews, which we've been afraid to do since World War II.

***

That was my take away from my yearly retreat. As for the big picture, I believe the Lord is calling us to greater devotion. We shouldn't be deceived about this Supreme Court decision; it's going to be rough times ahead for the Church here in the United States. But I'm optimistic. In 2,000 years we've faced pretty tough times. But if we stay close to Christ he will see us through, no matter how rough the going may get.

Fr. Robert Barron on Pope Francis' Encyclical "Laudato Si'"

Here is Fr. Barron's initial take on Pope Francis' encyclical letter Laudato Si'. He places the Holy Father's words in the context of traditional Christian cosmology, that views human beings as a part of creation, that while having a special role with in the created order, is still a part of it. We are to harmonize with nature, not dominate it in the sense that it is a mere object to be bent or manipulated to our purposes.

As Fr. Barron points out, this is a lengthy, though not necessarily a difficult read. I'm going to finish it up today (I hope), then spend my retreat next week going over it again, then giving a more thoughtful reflection of my own.

I look forward to Fr. Barron's analysis and will post it as soon as it becomes available.

New Papal Encyclical "Laudato Si: On the Care of Our Common Home" Released. Details to Follow

At about 6:00 AM local time the latest papal encyclical was released, Laudato Si'. It's caused controversy since it was still a gleam in Pope Francis' mind's eye, and now that it has actually hit the presses I'm sure more consternation will follow. I've begun reading it, and yes he does write about climate change, probably the most contentious part of the document. But from the introduction the Holy Father indicates that he is going to try and show the connection between care for the environment and other issues that we wouldn't automatically associate with ecology (think life issues and human sexuality). So while conservatives may condemn the document as being "liberation theology" or "socialist," progressives shouldn't get too giddy yet. I'm guessing that it we take off the ideological glasses we'll read enough to make us cheer and think twice about Pope Francis.

I'll finish reading it, and invite you to do the same. I'll be back soon with my take.

Discovering our Saints - St. Anthony of Padua from CCTNtv

The Compassion of Jesus from AOP

St. Boniface from AOP

Fr. Robert Barron on St. Charles Lwanga

N.T. Wright is Right, Mostly

This is is one of those uncomfortable situations where I'm commenting on someone who has probably forgotten more about Biblical scholarship than I've ever known. Which is to say, I shouldn't be commenting at all about the thought of New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright. But what the heck, as in the words of one of my old professors, I'm not some big time scripture scholar worried about my reputation. I can pretty much say what I think!

Bishop Wright is a favorite of Fr. Robert Barron, and gets quoted by Catholic apologists, as wells being well respected in his own tradition. I have not read his books, but have caught a number of his lectures and interviews on You Tube, and I can see why he's so well respected. He walks that fine line of quite vigorously defending core Christian beliefs, like the bodily Resurrection, while explaining with equal vigor the subtleness and complexity of the sacred texts that defies a fundamentalist reading.

I don't have a problem with the content of his talks. There is little I've heard so far that a faithful Catholic couldn't sign off on. There was one comment about purgatory that was complimentary of more recent Catholic scholarship on the topic, while at he same time giving a gentle back of the hand to more "traditional" doctrinal formulations; small stuff in the the end.

What's nagged at me a bit is what I'm not hearing Bishop Wright say in his talks more than what he is. He correctly observes that Jews and gentiles of the first century and late antiquity looked at history, mythology and the natural sciences in a different way then we of the post-Enlightenment world. Our culture has bought into the notion that the scientific method is the only way that we can judge what is true or false (how this jibes with the current gender wars we're having, where objective physical evidence is rejected in favor of subjective dispositions I'll never know, but that's a subject for another day). Even fundamentalists see things this way without even knowing it. They tend to get caught up in the minutiae of whether the earth was created in six literal days or historicity of the Jonah story that they miss the deeper theological truth that renders such arguments somewhat useless.  But in appealing to a more nuanced approach to reading the Scriptures he appeals to the ancients and the Apostolic Church but ignores the post Apostolic Fathers of the Church, whom all understood the various senses of scripture. He gets to the right conclusions but seems to take the really long way around to avoid tipping his hat to the Catholic tradition.

I want to make clear that I don't believe Bishop Wright is anti-Catholic or anything like that. He's man of his ecclesial tradition, speaking to people, for the most part, of Christian groups that are farther removed from Rome then the Church of England, which maintains a liturgical life and claims Apostolic Succession along with the Catholics and Orthodox. Even though they are commonly referred to as being Protestant one can debate the validity of that identification: a discussion best left for another time. He's going to frame things in a way his audience understands, and in the case of Evangelicals he's already proposing a reading of the Bible which is fairly radical to many in the rank and file. The last thing he needs is come off looking like a papist.

That Bishop Wright is critical of transubstantiation as a way of explaining how Christ is present in the Eucharist, or has issues with traditional explanations of purgatory, I have no problem with. When we read thinkers of different faith traditions we shouldn't be afraid or shocked that we're going to disagree on some things, even fundamental things. But as a wise man once said, (and I paraphrase) you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own history. Bishop Wright doesn't try to rewrite history so much as gloss over it, giving the impression that somehow we're rediscovering a way of reading revelation that's been hidden since the distant past. No, the Western Church has long understood the subtlety of the ancient texts, and there is a long 2000 year history of reading the Bible on the level of metaphor and, dare I say, allegory, while recognizing the historicity of the history and the poetic nuance of the poetry, and not seeing a conflict between the two things. It strikes me that at times he's getting off at the right exit but taking a much longer route to get there so as to avoid driving in or around Rome.

That all being said, I am dust, and all I've written is as so much straw in comparison to the work of N.T. Wright. So, I whole heartedly recommend him. He's right on target when it comes to the core issues, offering invaluable insights that will help the pastor and apologist as well as the scholar, be more effective in their ministry. He's not Roman Catholic, nor should we expect him to be, so we take what is good, let the disagreements be fodder for discussion, and give thanks to God for such strong, wise voice.

St. Justin Martyr - Father and Apologist by Matthew Leonard of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology

St. Justin Martyr from AOP

From Fr. Robert Barron's Catholicism Series: The TRINITY

To order the entire Catholicism series, visit the Word on Fire store.

What is the Trinity? from Fr. Robert Barron

C4: Ignite Your Catholic Faith - What is the Holy Trinity? from Ignite Your Catholic Faith

Feast of the Most Holy Trinity from AOP

Mad Men: One Last Look - 3rd in a Series

Parenting advice from Betty Draper Francis 

Click here for parts 1 and 2 in the series titled A Wrap Up and Personal Farewell to Mad Men

To conclude this admittedly overlong goodbye to Mad Men, I'd like to hit on a couple of loose ends concerning two key characters I've neglected so far.

When I was preparing my pre-finale post which never got finished, let alone posted, Betty Draper Francis' (January Jones) fate was the first thing I started writing about. So I was embarrassed when I got to the end of two lengthy posts and nary gave her a mention. Keeping in mind my basic premise that the characters in the show didn't so much change over the course of the series as much as they came to terms with who they are, setting out to be the best versions of themselves they can be, pursuing dreams in accord with their talents, abilities and deepest wants, we can rightly ask, "where does this leave Betty?"

Just when she seems to be hitting her stride, enjoying domestic stability, returning to school to study psychology with hopes of making a career out of it, Betty is diagnosed with lung cancer. For all the smoking going on the show, you'd think she'd have to get on line for that diagnosis. But no, she is the sacrificial lamb on this one.

By now it's not so original to observe that Betty is accustomed to being obedient to the men around her. She very much appears to be a passive player in her own life. Don manipulated her, and even Henry, as sensitive and loving as he is, doesn't like it when she starts giving her own opinion when it's inconvenient for him. Her life is spent in reference to others. This is a great source of frustration for her, but she never quite knows how to break herself out of this rut. It's often pointed out that Don remained unchanged through the turbulent 60's, remaining essentially a man of the Eisenhower administration. But Betty, as well, is very much a woman of the '50's.

At the same time she sees her friend Francine (Anne Dudek) get an office job outside the home and is inwardly jealous, while outwardly she tries subtly to give her friend a guilt trip over not being satisfied with marriage and family. She is vain, obsessed with her looks and the superficial appearance of things in general. She does lament the roads not taken, like when she hosts a child music prodigy ready to throw it away. Betty tries to convince her to not give up her dream of being a professional violinist, as she had abandoned a modeling career to get married, thus conforming herself to the social expectations of the day. Now, at the end she finds her bliss in the dreams of being a therapist (I'm sure a cleaver twist considering Betty's own adventures on the psychologist's couch which dominated the first season).

Once the cancer diagnosis comes Henry's first response is to seek the best doctors offering the most aggressive treatments. But Betty lived through the death of her mother. She knows how this will end, and adding six months of suffering that will not lead to a cure will be unbearable for her and the one's she loves. So she chooses to let the cancer, which has already metastasized, run it's course. We can debate the wisdom of this choice, but for the first time in her life the choice is hers. Still ever vain, she leaves meticulous instructions to Sally as to the dress she is to wear and how her hair is to be made once she is laid in the casket. But she also does something we rarely see; her giving heartfelt affirmation to her daughter.

Of all the actors on the show, January Jones gets the most hits from the critics. Jones is undeniably beautiful, and she and Jon Hamm look like they belong on top of the wedding cake together (which I think someone may have observed already). But her acting chops are often called into question. I don't now, but any actress who agrees to play such an unlikable character, and really is truly despicable at times, and then gets you to cry for her (which I did), can't be that awful. And that's what I think it is: some people can't separate the character from the person playing the role, which is the critic's problem, not the actress'.

Then we have Sally Draper (Kieran Shipka). An observation made by more than one critic is that the show, after being about Don, is really also about Sally, and the things she will be talking about with her analyst as an adult. She ages from 6 to 16 on the show, and we see her mature, literally and figuratively. I have questioned whether depicting certain aspects of her transitioning from childhood to  adolescence in such a graphic way was necessary; could the same points have been made in a less intrusive way? In the same way some questioned how Linda Blair being in The Exorcist may or may not have effected her human development, I have the same questions about Ms Shipka. I get that editing is involved with the scenes, but Sally does witness a lot of unsavory things over the years. I only hope she's not going to need therapy for herself and Sally.

I guess Sally's was the most unsatisfying ending. She is 16, so I hardly expected a full story arch for her, or that we would flash forward ten years to see what the mid-twenties Sally would look like. But we leave her, back home from boarding school, assuming the domestic duties as Betty slowly fades away. Of all the clips in that montage of the various players going their way into a bright if uncertain future, her's was the dissonant counterpoint. Does she and her brothers go live with her uncle as Betty wants, stay with Henry as she wants, or will Don swoop in after the funeral to try and assume custody, which no one wants? She did get to see the Beatles at Shea in '65, but is missing out on Spain the first in a line of disappointments to follow in life, or will she rebound? There are no hints.

But what we do know is that Sally sees through her parent's many faults and has learned to despise the defects while loving them. She also loves her brothers, and feels protective of them. In this crisis she isn't just thinking of her own security, but is thinking for all of them. On many levels she grew up too quickly, like her father, though under different circumstances. Even though Don had overcome poverty, and was careful not to discipline his children as he had been harshly reared, his inability to come to grips with his past effected them, and Sally in particular. She witnesses the infidelities first hand, she gets burned by Don's lies, and learns to lie herself because it's less embarrassing then having to explain the truth. In many ways she's a typical idealistic teen who demands authenticity, despising the phony adult world of manners and pretense. In some ways she is more mature than her parents, telling her father to think straight about he situation, assessing his abilities as a father compared to the task at hand. She does sacrifice what she wants to come home and care for her mother in her last months. If we can count these as hints, then we can say that Sally will probably turn out to be alright. Though I would still keep the number of a good shrink handy.

And so I come to the end of my journey with Don Draper and company. I could see writing more, but I'll give it a rest, at least for a while. Maybe I'll revisit our friends when the Season 7B DVD and streaming becomes available.

Quick Takes: Charlie, Charlie Challenge, The Ireland Vote, Should ISIS Make you Nervous?

Charlie, Charlie Challenge: Better to Stick to Water Buckets 

Over the last couple of days I've seen these posts on Facebook about the so called Charlie, Charlie Challenge. A geezer like me knowing about this can only mean that this latest internet phenomenon has been circulating around the kids for a while now.

Basically it's a ouija board for people with attention deficit, since the board itself has been reduced to small square with "Yes" and "No" quadrants, navigated by two pencils (no spelling required). Charlie, the challenge's name sake, is billed as a Mexican demon, and there are rules about how to gain and break contact with said Charlie. I don't want to give too much info, lest I inadvertently lead people to try it. I have mixed feelings about mentioning it at all, but feel moved by prayer to write at least this brief warning.

STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM THIS, OR ANY OTHER OCCULT PRACTICE AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.

As I told the young people at Mass last night, you wouldn't purposely stand on a dangerous street corner where a lot of drive-bys take place. You wouldn't wear the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood to see what'll happen. You wouldn't flash gang signs on the street for a laugh. The spiritual world is the same. When we play with these forces we open doors that are not easily closed. Whether Charle is a real demon is beside the point. Demons are real and will exploit any opening to lay a claim either on a person or a place, and he'll answer to Charlie, Captain Howdy, or Bobo the Monkey if it's to his advantage.

Let me be clear: playing these games does not necessarily lead to demonic possession. Possessions are extremely rare, even taking into account the recent rise in reports of such cases. But demonic oppression and infestations of places are arguably more common than we may think. That's why I recommend getting your house blessed and living a moral, prayerful life, which for Catholics includes the regular reception of Holy Communion and frequent confessions. And avoiding door openers like ouija boards, seances, fortune telling, palm readings along with any other form of spiritualism is vitally important.

Keeping the dark forces out is easy when you let God, who is life and light, in.

The Ireland Vote

I know that the recent vote to legalize gay marriage in Ireland has left many Catholics reeling. Ireland, once a bulwark of the Faith, has gone completely secular, and some would say is now anti-religion, not simply anti-Catholic. I'm troubled, like most of my sisters and brothers are, but I wish I could say I'm perplexed by this development, but I'm simply not. I'm one who thinks that social commentator Camille Paglia is correct, the current gender wars are a sign that Western Civilization is dying, and I would say it's already dead.

I have written at length in this space about the Catholic teaching on marriage, and I admit that I've backed off over the last couple of years. Not because I've reconsidered what I believe, rather that I've come to conclusion that all the blog posts in the world are not going to sway minds and hearts. As a culture we have chosen the path we want to walk, and now it's time to await the consequences of that choice. For those Catholics who remain in the truth (and I pray I receive the grace to do that) it will mean social marginalization, limits put on how and where we can minister, loss of tax exempt status and possibly jail for not accepting the new secular orthodoxy.

Both Pope Emeritus Benedict and the late Cardinal George have gotten praise and consternation for comments they made about where they see the Church and society heading. Benedict VVI spoke of a smaller, more faithful Church, George famously said that he expected to die in bed, his successor to die in jail and his successor to die a martyr. But the archbishop after that would help restore society, starting with the shards of a broken culture, much like the Church has done in the past. Both men were criticized as either looking for the Church to be an elitist organization, or else was guilty of being a prophet of doom. But both assessments are false.

Cardinal George, in his last major interview before he passed away clarified what he meant by those now famous (to some infamous) words. He stressed that this was a private conversation that he didn't expect to be made public. He also framed his observations, not as a prophesy, but as a worst case scenario. It's not that he expects that these things would happen, but even if they do come to pass, we shouldn't lose heart: the Church will still be there to pick the pieces up when the crisis is over. These were meant to be worlds of hope to a friend who was depressed over where he saw things heading.

As for Pope Benedict, a fuller understanding of the context of his comments, as we can see here in Fr. Dwight Lonhenecker's post, again shows that we're not talking about an ideal, but the logical consequences that will face the Church in an age of militant secularism. Those who choose to remain with the main body of the Church once doing so means loss of status, property, and possibly liberty, will likely be a relative few, human nature being what it is. Countless numbers chose to burn incense to the Roman emperor and surrender the sacred books to be destroyed in the early centuries of the Church rather then face, not only imprisonment, but possible death. Once the peace came the debate turned to whether to admit these apostates back into full communion (which the Church eventually did). How many will flee the persecution by renouncing the Faith is anybody's guess, and a guessing game better not to play. All of us will be tested, none of us is so strong as to boast that we will, without doubt, do the right thing. In light of this we all need to pray continually for the gifts of courage and wisdom.

Until then, there is no point being depressed or worried. Christ won the victory already. He always told us trials would come (persecutions, earthquakes, famines, wars and rumors of war) but he also assured us that these would not have the final word.

Should ISIS Make You Nervous?

I had a meeting of young adults at the parish last Friday, and two young women from another parish joined, what is a small but growing group. I was finishing up a talk on the Book of Revelation that I'd begun the month before. My main point was that, while the book does point to a definitive end of history as we understand it, it is also showing how history is a series of repeating patterns. Not that events repeat, but that the rise and fall of empires follow a predictable cycle, and the Church needs to know how to adapt to these ever changing circumstances. I then mentioned the Venerable Fulton Sheen's belief, expressed in the 1970's during a retreat he was giving to priests, that we're at the end of a Christendom. What he meant was that we were at the end of a unified Christian culture where Gospel values are at the root of our social, political and moral life. He claimed that history could be broken up into roughly five hundred year epochs, beginning with the birth of Jesus, and that we were now at the end of one such period.

One of our visitors looked up from the notebook that she was feverishly scribbling in, and asked, "What do you think of ISIS? They make me nervous." Normally this would be the time when I would make some reassuring comment about them being half a world away, and that they're really a rag tag outfit, the JV team, actually: no need to worry, at all. But I couldn't get myself to lie. These were adults I was talking to, so I said, "Well, they make me nervous, too."

Yes, they do make me a little nervous, mainly because the world's leaders don't seem to be taking them seriously. These are people who really believe in what they are doing, and they will stop at nothing to reach their objectives. There is no internal debate that I can see that they are having over who they are and what values they hold. We in the West really don't believe in anything. We say we believe in freedom of speech, but do we really? It seems that we do as long it doesn't offend anybody. Being self critical and self questioning is a healthy trait of Western Civilization. But we now question everything about ourselves, including the things that are genetically and anatomically obvious. Sheen would say that we have subordinated all moral and ethical values to the economic and the political. I would add another value: the emotional, or therapeutic. Because our leaders, and many of us, can't understand why people would fight for something beyond purely practical or even animal motives, they don't understand ISIS.

The secular society that at the same time dabbles in spiritualism, among other quasi religious activities, to fill the gap, is not prepared to stand up to a force of true believes, no matter how rag tag they seem. We are not ready to defend our society because we really don't believe in it. We take freedom for granted because we don't believe in responsibility. The world's leaders are making decisions based on political and economic considerations, and the electorate is being swayed more and more by emotions. This is a combination for disaster.

But I end, as I must, because I can't lie, on a positive note. I'm no prophet, nor am I from a school of prophets (as I think I've written before), but I have no doubt who's going to win this struggle. In the short term there will be trials and, dare I say, tribulations, but Christ won the victory already. I do believe, like John Paul the Great, that we are at the beginning of a new spring time for the Faith. Spiring brings flowers and new life, but also rain, and even a few thunder storms along the way. ISIS makes me nervous, sure, but not bowed, and certainly not defeated.

St. Augustine of Canterbury from AOP

Saint Philip Neri

Mary Help of Christians Prayer

Mary Help of Christians and Saint John Bosco

A Wrap Up and Personal Farewell to Mad Men, Part 2

Taking up where I left off last time, Mad Men's last episode finds Don Draper on the road, feeling disconnected, displaced and still running from his past life. He lands at a Northern California crypto New Age style retreat. He goes, dragged by Stephanie, his "niece," in the hopes it will let him open up and come to grips with what is eating at his soul. 

I once described Don's journey as a descent down a corkscrew, and in a way the series finale proves the point. But not only does he go down the slide, he goes up it as well, only to slide right back again.   He's disappeared before, gone on benders, fallen into deep existential despair, contemplated running away for good, and, at the very least, implicitly considered suicide. He experiences all these things in the last ten minutes of the show, reaching his lowest point when he's found slumped down at a pay phone, paralyzed with grief, by a hippy. But, like Stan Rizzo put it, he always comes back, he's a survivor, and, I would add, is usually better, professionally at least, than before, which our ending seems to indicate will happen yet again.

Don always returns refreshed and ready to do corporate battle, but still labors under the same assumptions. He still believes that just moving forward, forgetting the past, even to the point of total personal reinvention is the answer to life's dilemmas. When Peggy secretly has Pete's baby (one of the more bazar story lines from early on), he tells her to get back to work and live as if it didn't happen. When Lane Pryce gets caught tampering with company funds, Don gives him the chance to resign gracefully so as to avoid being fired. Don lets him know that the toughest part is over: all he has to do now is start over with a clean slate. When Stephanie faces a similar dilemma to Peggy's, he tells her to just keep on moving forward; the farther you get away from the event the easier it gets to forget.

While Peggy does move on and become a successful copywriter, she is still haunted by the decision to give up the baby. She has a series of relationships that fail in part because she wants a life partner, but also wants her job; a balancing act difficult for a woman in any age, but especially in the 1960's. Lane, as a proud Briton, knows that there is no such thing as reinvention where he comes from. He's from an upperclass, prominent family, so going the Mayor of Casterbridge route isn't an option. Besides, he tried living a double life in America and the long arm of British manners stretched across the pond by way of his domineering father to stop him. To return to England under these circumstances isn't an option, so he hangs himself. Stephanie knows that Don has been on a treadmill his whole adult life and basically tells him to stop believing his own line of bull.

This is not to say that Don is unchanged over the course of the series. The Don Draper of the pilot is a  nihilistic hedonist living a complete lie, with little or no remorse. He softens somewhat as the seasons move on, but he remains, as his used and discarded secretary Allison proclaims, not a good person. But the Don of more recent vintage does try to make his marriage to Megan work, even after it's clearly not going to. He goes to Joan's apartment to tell her not to debase herself so the company could land the Jaguar account. He mentors Peggy and even tries a hand at fathering his children. He has many flaws still, and numerous failures, but with the big exception of his affair with Sylvia Rosen, his sins are often misguided attempts at setting things right. I'm thinking of his keeping his work situation a secret from Megan, not to hide an affair like she thinks but to give him time to get the job back and act like nothing happened (true to his philosophy of life). Or antagonizing the Jaguar dealer to settle a professional and personal score. For all his progress, any change in his inner life is small, but ironically significant.

Drama is about conflict and change. Mad Men had plenty of conflict, but many questioned if the characters, especially Don, had changed any by the end. I would say that the answer is both yes and no. In the series finale each major character gets their jumping off point to the next phase of their lives. Joan starts her own commercial production company, which costs her romance. Peggy ends up staying at McCann, like her head hunter told her to, but finally finds love with Stan (someone who really understands her). Pete gets back with Trudy and jets off to Wichita for job at Learjet and a second chance marriage. Roger marries Marie Calvet, Megan's mother, presumably cashing out at McCann and living in Montreal. Ted Chaough simply fades into the wood work at the new agency, happy to be just another piece of the furniture. In way, it's not that any of them changed, but that they came to know who they were and what they really wanted. Rather than fighting it, they went with it.

Of course Joan wants love, but she's also come to understand that she's always had a passion for the office. She has talents, experience and business acumen, and wants to take her shot at building something while she has the chance. With Stan's help, Peggy understands that she loves her job but really does want more than just a career. She may not be able to have it all, but she can have what she really wants and needs. Pete is tired of living his father's mistakes simply because he's expected to. Whether he and Trudy will make it work is anyone's guess, but they know that they're better together than apart. Roger wants to experience life, but  knows the Dionysian dream of the hippies is a dead end. So he finds an age appropriate partner who's still nuts enough to make life interesting and drops out in style. And Ted, well, he was burnt out being in the lead, and now gets to put it on autopilot, enjoying the perks of the biz while not having to carry so much of the load.

And so what about Don? He has the cathartic moment hearing the voice of his fellow office drone speaking the words of alienation and lovelessness he holds in his own heart at the group session in the commune. The next morning, as he greets the sun, it's more than implied that he's thinking up a new Coke ad campaign during morning meditation, as opposed to finding inner peace and detachment. So Don hasn't changed then; he's the same grasping capitalist swine he always was? Maybe. The real question is, has Don come to accept who he really is: an ad man who loves his job, who's had a difficult life but really did make something out of himself? He's not a great father, but has made progress in that area. Now that Betty is dying can he make further strides? Or will he continue on these spirals up and down the corkscrew slide of self loathing and self destruction? Will he continue to lie to himself, believing that just moving ahead, acting like the past hasn't happened is the answer, when it's cause him and the people around him so much pain?

The world may never come to know the answer to these questions, but it's great debating them.

As for me, there is so much more I could say, and maybe I will (I see I mentioned nothing about Betty or Sally). Maybe next week, though. Then I'll put on my personal feelings to go along with the analysis.

A Wrap Up and Personal Farewell to Mad Men, Part 1

While my love of cinema has never abated, my enthusiasm for its less artistically ambitious stepchild Television has waned considerably since my misspent youth as a TV junkie. Outside of sporting events I don't watch much of it anymore. So that I became so enthralled with the now concluded series Mad Men is a surprise to me. This is the only show that I've seen every episode of, and since watching it in "real time" in 2012, I've never missed a Sunday night telecast: a level of personal commitment to a show unprecedented in my 48 years on this earth.

My indoctrination came in late 2011 while the show was on its long, controversial hiatus. I binge watched the first four seasons on Netflix pretty much on a whim. I'd heard about the show, but it being off the air for over a year at that point, it fell off my radar. I started seeing articles about the show's return and became intrigued by the 1960's setting, how Matthew Weiner and his crew were obsessive about detail, and decided to take a look. The sixties was the era I was born into, and have always had a fascination with. From that point, I never looked back.

I did have to do some soul searching though. In many respects Mad Men was a soap opera: one with fantastic writing and production values, but a soap opera nonetheless. So why did I like it so much? What it came down to was that it was one of the few programs on TV dealing with ideas. It was a soap opera at times, but the characters were well drawn. Weiner tried to make sure that even minor characters had a back story so that they weren't just serving someone else' motivation. It did give you a view into the advertising industry of there 60's, but it wasn't a procedural drama or antiquarian exercise. In many ways the campaigns they were working on were unimportant. The important things were the big issues: sexism, racism (which some critics feel they did't handle enough), changing sexual mores and religious values, and the evils of capitalistic consumerism. But it also hit deeply personal issues of self identity, guilt, isolation, alienation and the meaning of life in general. So, for me, the historic details are what drew me in, the melodrama that made me feel a tad guilty, and the overall depth of characters and themes that kept me and drew me in.

So what about the the finale, and the last half season?

I'll hit the second point first, just so I can get the criticism out of the way. I do believe that splitting up the last season into two parts hurt the overall flow of the story. I'm not up on the economics of it all, and my understanding is that this was primarily a money issue for the network, AMC, but the whole thing would have been better served by two full seasons or just one, unified season seven. Last year the show was on it's typical roll, and then it felt like it had an artificially quick wrap up. Mad Men was always a slow moving ship. The themes and story lines unfolded little by little, almost imperceptibly. Many times we'd be getting down to the last five or ten minutes of an episode and I wouldn't be sure what the story was about or where it was heading. Most network TV is predictable; you can drop in at almost any point and figure out what's going on. Not with Mad Men; you had to watch from beginning to end to get it. And increasingly, as the seasons progressed,a viewer needed to have seen it from the first episode to understand what was happening in a given moment. Each show may have had a self contained story, but the subtext was vital, and not being in the know would leave you as stranded as Don at a rural bus stop with just the cloths on his back and a Sears bag of dirty laundry.

For Season 7.5 the issue was time, and tying off old strings while keeping things fresh by introducing some new ones. Looking back I can see what Weiner was up to in the second half, but his meandering ways were at odds with the urgency of the ticking clock counting down to the final scene. Many fans were disconcerted about the introduction of the Diana Baur character (Elizabeth Reaser) as a new love interest for Don. With only a few episodes left we wanted to see more of Joan, Peggy or Pete. There are only so many more opportunities to savor a Roger Sterling zinger. Even another Bert Cooper hallucination would be welcomed. All many of us were asking was, "who is this woman and why should I care?" And, "can we get back to Mrs. Rosen, please."

In spite of the hemming and hawing, and as much as I hate to admit it, it fit: Diana represented many things. My guess is that, because of her physical resemblance, she was the ghost of both Rachel Menken (Maggie Siff) and Sylvia Rosen (Linda Cardinale), two of Don's lost, idealized loves. She also is a female version of Don: a person with a past she is running from, riddled by guilt and remorse. Unlike Don she's not trying to forget or reinvent herself, at least not in the same way. Don grew up in rural poverty, living out his adolescence in and around a brothel. He swindles and cons his way into a middle class, and later upper class existence. All the while hiding behind a stolen identity, trying desperately to blot out any remembrance of Dick Whitman. Based on Don's visit to Diana's former Wisconsin home, she is escaping a comfortable middle class life. She goes downward, living in squalid SRO's and working in roach infested greasy spoons. She even engages in prostitution, albeit inadvertently, mistaking an extravagant tip from Roger for solicitation by Don. She is descending into hell, or at least purgatory, running away from the comfortable life she knew, but never allowing herself to forget why she's there.

Don becomes obsessed with her. He sees a kindred spirit: a wounded soul like his own running from the past. But she has no interest escaping her final judgement. When she moves, leaving no forwarding address, he goes off to look for her (his reasons for bouncing from McCann-Erickson to go on yet another extended, unauthorized road trip are manifold, though). He gets to Wisconsin assuming not one, but two more false identities in the course of a few minutes, to try and get information as to Diana's whereabouts. But the ex-husband sees through it, knows he's a fake, sternly sending him on his way.

Now his journey is not so much about finding a particular woman as it is about, once again, trying to find out who he really is and where he belongs. He passes through a small plains town and sees a glimpse of what things might have been like if he had lived life as Dick Whitman; idyllic at first, but then he's run out of town when he's falsely accused of stealing by the same folks that seemed so amenable before. After giving his car away to the young grifter who set him up, he finds his way to Utah, helping out a couple gear heads getting their hot rod ready for a competition. They're appreciative, but a little suspicious of a stranger with no car who knows more about motors then they do. When he finds out that his first wife, Betty, has terminal lung cancer his immediate response is to want to go "home" and take custody of the children. But neither Betty nor their daughter Sally thinks this is a good idea, and tell him to stay away. He visits California next, dropping in on Stephanie, the real Don Draper's niece, who, after greeting him warmly, also looks with suspicion on his unexpected arrival.

This theme of Don's displacement was prominent through out the season. Two brief visits to Betty's new home and family situation makes it clear that he is the odd man out, not only in Betty's life but in his children's lives as well. When he visits the now deceased Rachel Menken's apartment where relatives and neighbors are sitting shiva, her sister is none too happy to see in the flesh a man she had only heard about. She asks a question that would be echoed either literally or in subtext throughout these seven episodes, "what are you doing here?" He more and more feels as if he has no home, and isn't wanted. He's not even at home in his own apartment, since second wife Megan surreptitiously took all the furniture on her way out of their marriage. The one place that wants him, McCann-Erickson, Don wants no part of. He's a trophy for this giant firm, one stag's head mounted on the wall among many others. So he bounces, mid presentation, to take to the road, ostensibly to find Diana, but really, once again, to try and find himself and where he belongs.

I'll never get all my thoughts on Don out, let alone touch on the other cast of characters and their fates, in one post. So I'll end it here, and save it for next time.

"Mad Men" Finale Quick Take

I had been preparing a post for last week as a sort of lead in to the big Mad Men finale last night, but pastoral concerns kept me from engaging in my favorite leisure time activity, writing. So just a quick take on last night's Mad Men wrap up. A more detailed reflection to follow.

Matthew Weiner has said that he always knew what the last shot of Don Draper would be, though he wasn't always sure how he was going to get there. Well, our man in creative, sitting lotus position on a Northern California cliff overlooking the Pacific, facing east to meet the sunrise, eyes closed with a Mona Lisa grin, letting out a heart felt "Ommmmm," was quite a sight. So, Mr. Materialistic Consumerism is embracing Eastern Mysticism and letting go of his attachment to the material world so as to find inner peace and enlightenment? Not so much. As the coda more than implies, he's thinking up an ad campaign for Coca Cola.

And not just any ad campaign. Probably the most iconic, true to it's period, exploitative of it's period and successful ad campaign in the history of advertising.

Many commentators have said that the great theme of Mad Men revolves around the issue of whether people can truly change. One can make an argument that all the main characters here do experience some change in their seven season journey (ten years in the show's story line). But, while Don didn't die as many had predicted, and he does seem to be happy, he really is the same as he was when the show started: running from his past, and believing that running from one's past is the answer to life's problems, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. And most of all, he is the job. Even in the midst of this last half season where he seems to be stripping off the fake self to get back to who he really is, it proves to be a failed project. He may have changed names, stealing a dead man's identity, it was always a paper identity. Don Draper is Dick Whitman; a hustler looking for an angle. Don Draper does find peace by embracing who he really is, but who he is is the same person he always was: a high priced snake oil salesman who's never satisfied until he gets 100 percent.

As for the parting shot and coda: brilliant. It's ironic, and brings things to a close while still leaving room for our imagination to wonder where things go from here: for Don, certainly, but for the others as well. More on Don, and the rest, soon.

Fr. James Martin, SJ on Saint Joseph: A Hidden Life from "Who Cares About The Saints?"

The Feast of St. Joseph the Worker | Columbia Catholic Ministry

Joseph the Worker from AOP

Fr. Robert Barron on the Legacy of Cardinal Francis George

Fr. Robert Barron on the Resurrection of Jesus

Fr. Michael Gaitley, MIC: The Divine Mercy Devotion

Here is a brief explanation of the Divine Mercy devotion, and the feast that we celebrate this coming Sunday. Mercy Sunday is a rather recent observance, established by St. Pope John Paul II in 2000 (though Fr. Michael would point out that the connection between the Easter Octave day and the theme of Christ's mercy goes back centuries). I have found that many people are deeply in love with this devotion, but the clergy can be a bit suspicious. I have to admit I was one of them, but the more I've come to understand it the more I see this is a valuable spiritual weapon the Lord has given us. So I encourage everyone out there to taker advantage of the many graces Our Lord wants to give us through this powerful devotion.

A.D.: The Bible Continues // Mini-Review

I did catch the first installment of the new Roma Downey-Mark Burnett produced Biblical TV production, A.D.: The Bible Continues. The massive success of 2013's The Bible (broadcast in the U.S. on The History Channel) and last year's Son of God, the theatrical release culled from the original miniseries, has won the wife and husband production team a slot on NBC. I want to watch a few weeks more before giving a full blown analysts, but my first impressions are positive, with some of the same apprehensions I had with the original production.

On the positive side, the production values are better than we saw with The Bible (obviously high ratings and solid box office breeds bigger subsequent budgets). While still not up to feature film standards, they do try to tell the story artfully. The story itself is told in a straight forward, un-ironic way: while characters may express doubts, the presentation itself accepts that Jesus is who he says he is. While the Jewish authorities are clearly on the wrong side of history, they are not completely villainized. They are presented as men walking a tight rope between being true to their faith and avoiding giving the Roman occupiers an excuse to crack down. In other words they are treated like human beings and not mustache twirling criminals.

On the negative side the first episode (of 12) drops us right into the middle of Good Friday without any real context of how we got there. The producers' goal is to make a series in the style of Game of Thrones, that will draw a broad audience, including the un-evangelized, and continue with 12 new episodes a year for seasons to come. I certainly hope they get their wish, but I'm afraid that the viewer really does need to have some knowledge of the Biblical sources to really understand what's going on. As Christians we sometimes take for granted that people are familiar with Jesus' story and why he died on the cross. But the truth is that people who grew up in other religious traditions or, as is increasingly the case, no faith tradition at all, will probably be left scratching their head a bit.

I'll be back in a few weeks with some more, again, I want to see more. Episode 1 leaves us with an empty tomb cliff hanger, I'm guessing designed to draw back people who may not know how things go from here. Again, I think their aim is true, but only a few more weeks of tracking the ratings (which by all accounts were solid for Sunday's premiere), to see if they hit the target.

Mad Men Season 7.2: Could it be a Sign?

Don Draper standing in the shadow of love lost, and the life not lived

The second installment of Mad Men's farewell season has begun, leaving the exact time and date of our reentry a bit vague. I originally assumed we were still in the summer of 1969, but a presidential speech playing in the background indicates we've moved ahead to the spring of '70.  Other tip offs that time has elapsed are some misadvised mustaches, longer sideburns and slightly wilder hair for the men. Otherwise things have flowed logically from last years midseason finale. SC&P has been acquired by McCann, and both Pete and Ted are back from California. While on the surface the larger parent company seems to be letting their new acquisition alone as promised, the corporate overlords manage to settle some old scores, as we shall see. Don, on his way to divorce number 2, is back to his old womanizing ways. At the same time he tells stories of his youth growing up poor in a bordello with panache and a sense of comic nostalgia that belies his obsessive secretiveness from years past. Yes, Don seems, if not reborn, reinvigorated and comfortable in his own skin now that he's fully back after his half a year exile from the company.

But, as you might guess, all is not well bellow the surface. After Don has a dream about an old flame from Season 1, Rachel Katz, nee Menken, he decides to reach out to her to help solve a problem with a client, only to find out that she died suddenly the week before. She had been on his mind even before this, as evidenced by his previous fascination with a vaguely similar looking brunet waitress at a greasy spoon.

At the same time Ken Cosgrove is forced out of the company by an executive at McCann as payback for past slights, both professional and personal. Only the night before his wife tried to talk him into quitting to pursue the writing career he's always wanted. Her father is retiring from his job at Dow, and she feels that Ken shouldn't wait so long to leave a job he hates to go after the life he really wants. When he speaks to Don after the sacking, he tells him that he's not really mad or distressed, but sees the confluence of his father-in-law's retirement, his wife's advise and being fired, all within 24 hours, as a sign that he needs to go out and live the life not lived.

Don begins to see his looking for Rachel in a random waitress' eyes, his dream about her and her untimely death as a sign as well. There is no doubt that he has often thought of her over the years. A few season's back they ran into each other in a restaurant, and the brief scene effectively conveyed the messages that she had found a personal happiness that was still eluding him, and that she was the one he could have found his own happiness with. He goes to her apartment where her family and friends are sitting shiva to pay his respects. But her sister, who knows of their romantic past, is suspicious as to Don's motives. When Don tells her that he just wanted to know what was going on in her life, she tells him that her dead sister "lived the life she wanted to live."

Don is left on the outside looking in as he stands alone in the vestibule as the traditional prayers of mourning begin to be chanted in Hebrew. He isn't allowed to actively participate in the mourning rituals because he's not Jewish. But there is a sense that he's separated from Rachel by more than religion, or even death. She rejected Don's cynical world view and followed a more traditional path of marriage and family, while still being active in the running of the family department store. She knew what she wanted and who she was, staying true to that until the end.  Don mourns the passing of possibly the one woman in the show's 10 year story line he actually loved, as well wondering if his hopes of true happiness died with her.

The implication is clear that for all the new found peace he's found with his past, as well has his professional resurgence, Don is still not living the life he wants. And he's not the only one. In spite of the financial windfall she got from the McCann buyout, as well as her increased responsibilities at the firm, Joan still can't get any respect. Peggy also seems comfortable at the office, but there is an aching for someone to share her life with. When love seems to fall into her lap, she's apprehensive. As she tells her prospective beau who playfully calls her old fashioned for not wanting to give in on the first date, she's tried "new fashioned" and didn't necessarily find it better.  Life couldn't be better for our anti-heroes, but there is still this lingering feeling that there is something more out there.

The episode is bookended by Miss Peggy Lee singing Is That All There Is, her 1969 hit that's style nonetheless hearkens back to the show's early 1960's origin. And while some might call the song selection a bit on the nose, it's relative obscurity coupled with Lee's knowing, world weary delivery makes it inspired. We are coming to the end of an era, as AMC's painfully on the nose promotional campaign reminds us, and everyone still seems to be taking one step forward and two steps back on the road to happiness. While the signs are not clear yet, I don't think we're looking at a total Don Draper crash and burn, but he still seems a long way from finding the peace he's been looking for.

Easter Sunday from AOP

Good Friday Reflection: From the Cross...From Salt+Light

Holy Thursday Reflection: When We Eat this Bread...From Salt+Light

Holy Week 2015: Palm Sunday of the Lord's Passion

Prior to the liturgical reforms after the Second Vatican Council Passion Sunday and Palm Sunday were two separate observances. Passion Sunday kicked off a two week period leading up to Easter known as Passiontide; a sort of season within the season of Lent that focused more specifically on the events leading up to Jesus' death. The two respective observances have now been combined into our present day Palm Sunday of the Lord's Passion that begins Holy Week. Though the concept of a distinctive quasi liturgical time embedded into Lent was eliminated, shadows of the past still remain. Starting last Sunday the priest is to use the First Preface of the Lord's Passion at Mass, and the Gospel readings reflect heighten tensions, zeroing in on the controversies and plots leading to Jesus' eventual arrest and execution. Previously we've been preoccupied more with the general need to do penance and acts of charity, as well as hearing about the signs Jesus performed that show him to be the Messiah, and the inability or unwillingness of the people of his time to recognize them as such.

Today we have this double observance of Jesus' triumphal entrance into Jerusalem and his ignominious death five days later. And what a juxtaposition this is. One moment shows Jesus at the pinnacle of his popularity; a conquering hero of sorts, who many are ready to declare king. The next we hear the story of his betrayal by Judas, abandonment by the rest of the 12, including Peter, and his tortuous death. It is this week when we remember Jesus' suffering and death that makes Christianity so unique, as far as I can tell. The idea that God become man and suffered and died is a stumbling block for many, both deists and atheists alike. And often times Christians themselves seem to want to distance themselves from the cross and it's deeper meaning for us. But it is in the cross that we glory, it is in the cross that we have our true victory.

A reason that the High Priest rips his garments when Jesus declares that he is not only the Messiah, but the Son of God, is because he knew what that meant. For the Jews the great profession of faith is that God is One. His is higher than the heavens and deeper than the seas. He is the perfection of being that can not be encapsulated or comprehended. And so he is. But in Jesus we have God humbling himself, taking the form of a slave, as St. Paul puts it. We would say that in Jesus the unity of God is not disrupted, but the great trinitarian mystery revealed.

Along with the notion that God is indeed higher than the mountains and deeper than the oceans; unfathomable in the riches of his simplicity of being, is that God walked our streets. He suffered our temptations. He experienced rejection and misunderstanding. In the person of Jesus of Nazareth he was the victim of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. He ended his earthly life nailed to a cross naked, bleeding and abandoned: a stumbling block for both atheists and theists of various stripes alike. But for those who believe the cross is the true tree of life.

But for us who believe it's also a reminder that God isn't far away. He is beyond our comprehension but our sufferings and difficulties are not beyond his. We can never say that God doesn't understand us. Not that he needed to be incarnate to understand us and our lives. In a way I think he did it for us, so we wouldn't have that excuse for doubting. I think it's why we have the sacraments. God could forgive us by our asking for it in our hearts, but maybe we would have doubts about his mercy. But when the priest says, "I absolve you of your sins," we have no need to doubt; his forgiveness is made concrete for us. He told us he would be with us until the end of time, and maybe we would believe that. But when we walk into a church and see the red lamp by the tabernacle, or the Blessed Sacrament in the monstrance on the altar, or receive the Eucharist at Mass we know he is truly with us, waking with us, one with us.

As we walk with the Lord this week, remembering his passion, death and Resurrection, may we never forget that he is with us in our everyday passions leading us to the glory of his Risen life.

Stuck on a False Narrative

As you may of noticed, I haven't exactly been hitting the keys over the last couple of months. But I'm back, and have a few thoughts on 50 Shades of Grey and why faith doesn't seem to matter to so many people.

50 Shades of What Ever 

Unless you've been under a rock of late, you know that the film adaptation of the best selling book 50 Shades of Grey was released in theaters this past Friday. In the week or so leading up to the movie's release I saw posts galore on Facebook from (mainly) women of faith decrying the film for exploiting and degrading women. Some of these posts were people writing in their own words the feelings of disgust they felt at the movie and the books, others were links to Catholic or Evangelical sites covering the story and expressing their outrage at the film in logical, orderly prose.

It reminded me somewhat of what happened when The Da Vinci Code came out a decade ago. In that case a sort of cottage industry grew up of authors writing books and putting together videos exposing the historical and theological errors of the Dan Brown pot boiler. The phenomenon came and went, and I'm not sure people were swayed one way or the other by the catholic response. Those who were inclined to believe the narrative of a purely human Jesus who secretly married and had children and a corrupt Church covering up the truth proposed by the movie were not going to be moved by the arguments made by believers, and those who know the truth weren't going to go see the movie to begin with. As for the great middle who went to see the movie as pure entertainment, not knowing or caring about the controversy, they very well may have been swayed to believe the narrative presented by the film. But not because we didn't make good enough arguments or present history accurately enough, rather because we didn't come back with a competing, and just as compelling narrative.

Fr. Barron, in a video on C.S. Lewis, points out that Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien set about to use their fantasies to present a competing narrative to the prevalent secular materialist mind set that had already taken hold in the mid twentieth century. While both men may not have used that language, they understood the power of myth to shape minds and world views. In recasting the story of creation, fall and redemption in the form of an adventure story they were attempting to "evangelize the imagination," to use Fr. Barron's words. The problem today is that we lack this creative imagination. We have ceded the arts to the postmoderns, relying strictly on dry argumentation to get our point across.

The answer is not to give up on scholarship and traditional apologetics, but to use those tools while reclaiming our seat at the creative table as well. There are traditional Christians trying to make movies and write literature, but they range from noble failures to out and out artistic train wrecks. Films like 2006's Bella and (to a lesser extent) Gimme Shelter from two years ago give me hope, but we have a long way to go. What separates those two movies for me is that, while both were made from a faith based perspective, neither took for granted that the viewer was a believer. Both had pro-life themes, but didn't villainize the other side. Both tried to change the narrative while acknowledging that theirs was not the dominant one. Too many faith based films take the truth of their position and the sympathy of the audience for granted. What this leads to is a sort of cinematic echo chamber where we end up talking to ourselves rather than cinema being an avenue to engage the culture and effectively challenge the prevailing narrative. Until we do that we should expect more Da Vinci Codes and 50 Shades coming at us unabated.

The Grand Narrative Scapegoat: Humanae Vitae

One of the great cultural narratives that shades how many Catholics view the world is that the great exodus out of the Church began with Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the traditional Christian teaching on artificial contraception. The narrative goes that Catholics left the Church over this issue, and those that remain simply ignore the restriction on contraceptives. Unless we become more "realistic" about this and other sexual matters, like homosexuality, we will continue to see parishes empty out, or so the narrative goes. The narrative is not completely wrong (I've met people who say they stopped practicing their faith over the teaching on contraceptives, and I know gays who struggle with the issue of faith and sexuality). This narrative though is incomplete, and a tad outdated.

Here's the problem: there is evidence that the exodus from organized religion in the United States, among both Catholics and Protestants, started as early as 1965. Contraception is one issue that drove people away, but other issues were and still are facing the Church as well. We are struggling now with the issue divorced and remarried Catholics and how they are to be cared for, as if this is a new issue effecting Sunday attendance at Mass. But, while the divorce rate exploded after 1970, statistics show a steady increase in the divorce rate through the 1950's and 60's before taking off in the 70's.  It's easy to say that the drop off in Mass participation is a result of the Church's "intransigents" on these and other issues of sexual morality. But how do we explain that from roughly 1975 on the percentage of the U.S. population identifying themselves as Main Line Protestants dramatically fell off the table. Our separated brothers and sisters long ago liberalized their teachings on human sexuality (the Church of England modified their teaching on contraception in the early 1930's, and today only 36% of British men in a recent survey identify themselves as Christians). Many ecclesial communities have also adopted women clergy, and in some cases have accepted openly homosexual prelates into their ranks. Yet none of these innovations, some of which have been called for by progressive Catholics for decades, has done anything to stem the tide out of their pews. Why is it that we think following such policies will work for us when they haven't worked for others?

In insisting on this widely accepted narrative we've missed the forest for the trees. The changing mores on human sexuality reflects a deeper philosophical change in the culture. Accepting Christ means saying no to something else. It's Jesus who puts the conditions on us, not the other way around. He told the rich young man to give up his riches, but the man couldn't do it, going away sad. But we can take out "riches" and plug in any number of material things or willful desires: it could be that beach house we have or always wanted, it could be a relationship with a person we genuinely love, it could be freedom of movement or it could be the choice of career. It could mean sacrificing sexual activity. The injunction to pick up the cross and carry it everyday will always be at the heart of the Gospel message, and that is the stumbling block, not divorce, contraception or acceptance of gay relationships as normative. Those are symptoms of a larger problem.

We live in an intellectually fractured age. We live a strange mix of a sort of functional libertarianism that still wants big government when it wants it, but otherwise individuals want to be left alone. We care passionately about the rights of sexual minorities and animals, but care little for the poor and marginalized. We reject organized religion but are seeking some spiritual connection by way of yoga, eastern mysticism, self help gurus and, increasingly, the occult. Most believe in some sort of afterlife, but don't see the importance of funeral rites or prayers for the dead. How we celebrate funerals, apart from the formal prayers and liturgical gestures, no longer reflects a hope in the life to come, but is strictly a remembrance of what has ended. I'd say we've become like the ancient Egyptians, who buried loved ones with coins and food for the journey over the river of the dead, but this practice at least looked forward to a life to come. In our case I've seen bottles of scotch, cartons of cigarettes and even scratch off lottery tickets placed in caskets where rosary beads use to be. Everything is about the here and now, and the creature comforts the dearly departed once enjoyed, not the eternal joy we hope for him now.

We could clear the decks of all traditionally held sexual mores, apart from rape which seems to be the only universally accepted restriction on sexual activity, and people still would not return to church. Why? Because the problem isn't sex; it's the prevailing spirit of secularism, materialism, consumerism and radical individualism: a collective world view of which the sexual revolution is a symptom.

If Humanae Vitae didn't exist we'd have to invent it, because without that narrative we'd have to face the fact that we tried to read the signs of the times after the Council, but failed, or more accurately only partially succeeded. We certainly failed in understanding what the entire concept of being able to read the prevailing narrative meant. We thought we were being called to spot trends, latch onto fads and ride political waves. We became locked onto micro movements and missed the big picture. If there was a big take way, it was for us to join in on the secular humanist parade as opposed to offering a counter narrative of Christian humanism. Unless we step back and see the big picture of what being a disciple of Christ is all about we will continue to stumble through history blind. Unless we really understand what the Christian narrative is at it's core, and express it, and really live it, radically, we should not hope that the tide will be turned any time soon.

Jingo Propaganda, Patriotic Salute or Cautionary Tale?: "American Sniper" // Movie Review

It's was difficult for me to walk into director Clint Eastwood's latest film, American Sniper, and not have the controversy it has inspired embed preconceived notions in my head. Progressives criticize the movie as jingoistic propaganda, glorifying the misadventure that was the Second Gulf War, and militarism in general. Conservatives counter that such criticism is rooted in the liberal Hollywood establishment's hatred of the military and, by extension, patriotism. I do believe that some of the left wing backlash against this wildly popular film has to do with Eastwood's President Obama mocking "empty chair" routine from the 2012 Republican Convention. And this is not the first time Ol' Clint has been caught in this type of political crossfire. Over forty years ago Dirty Harry, in which he played the iconic title role, was accused of promoting fascist sensibilities. After watching  American Sniper for myself, I think both liberals and conservatives have the movie wrong. While the ending coda does wrap itself in the flag, most of this film shows the effects of war, and it's demand to be a human killing machine, on on the people who participate in it, and their families at home. Far from being a recruitment tool, this is a hard look at the hell that is combat and it's consequences.

American Sniper follows the story of the late Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper), a would be Texas cowboy who joins the Navy SEALS after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Early in life he's taught by his strict father to neither be a submissive sheep nor a predatory wolf, but rather a protective sheep dog. This protector instinct serves him as he becomes, during four tours in Iraq, the most lethal sniper in American history.

In real life, during interviews, Kyle never wavered in the belief that he had done his patriotic duty, and his only regret was not protecting more American and allied lives. But in the film, based on his autobiography and made with the cooperation of his widow Taya Renae Kyle (played here by Sienna Miller), we see a man more conflicted. His words constantly speak to duty, honor, God, country and family. But after his first taste of killing, which involves a harrowing choice, he angrily snaps at his observer for an enthusiastic congratulation, belying a deep seated understanding of the ugly, if in his mind necessary, assignment he is on.

The internal conflict Kyle experiences, along with a certain disconnect he has with those around him who are not quite as convinced of the correctness of the mission as he is is the real story of the film. At one point the mother of a close friend who is killed in combat reads a letter from her son expressing his disillusion with the Iraq War during the fallen soldier's funeral. When Taya questions Chris on the ride home about the letter, he says, in essence, that it was his comrade's lack of faith in the mission that killed him as much as the enemy bullet. She looks at him like she can't believe that Kyle actually believes that. While he insists that he is the same man, and that war has not effected him, his time between tours shows him to be edgy, hyper sensitive to his surroundings and at times withdrawn.

Once State side for good Kyle totally misreads a situation at a child's birthday party, resulting in an embarrassing overreaction. He goes to visit a VA psychologist, who informs him that he's been credited with over 160 kills in roughly 1,000 days of deployment in Iraq. Still not acknowledging that these things have had any effect on him, the therapist brings him to the floor dedicated to the men maimed by battle. Eastwood uses actual veterans in these scenes, showing the real life results of IED's and roadside bombs. This begins Kyle's work, giving assistance to his fellow veteran who returned with external scars to go along with the internal ones both bear.

In many ways it's too bad that American Sniper was made as a biopic. Much has come out since the film's release questioning it's accuracy, especially as it relates to the real Chris Kyle's integrity and honesty. I'll put aside the whole debate over whether snipers are hero's or cowards: they're a standard part of military strategy used by all sides since people figured out how to use gun powder to propel a bullet. They're no more cowardly then members of an artillery unit or a missile operator. But the film does portray our hero as exactly that; other than being a bit clueless at times, he possesses all the noble qualities one would want in a soldier and a son; while I never found the movie to be a rah rah affair, there is a sense of patriotic hagiography in the treatment of the Kyle character. If they took things a step farther and made it a straight fictional account I think the very clear, cautionary aspects of the story would come out in greater relief, and people wouldn't be engaged in the besides the point debate over the real Chris Kyle's legacy.

I walked away from American Sniper grateful to the men and women who serve and for the sacrifices they and their families make, much like I did after seeing Saving Private Ryan. But, like in that earlier film, I also saw a picture of war and it's aftermath on minds and bodies that brought home that war is a tragedy of epic proportions for all involved. Whether the cause is just or not, once the dogs of war are loosed confusion reigns and even good men find themselves doing despicable things, if only to survive the experience.

My suggestion is that in seeing American Sniper, put out of your mind that this purports to be a "true story." It is better seen as a personality study rather than a biography. I found that Eastwood's adaptation is balanced, nuanced and penetrating, in that it tells you what Kyle thought, but doesn't take for granted that he's right, or that he even necessary believes himself. No, it doesn't get into the politics deeply (I don't think that George Bush's name is mentioned once), and I'm sure that its lack of an out and out condemnation of the war is what rankles some progressive critics. But I think only the most obtuse on both sides will think that this film glorifies war or the Iraqi conflict.