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