Why I'm a Catholic 2

 

Sorry for the blue tint.  I'm working with some new equipment, and need to get the kinks out.

Source Code (Beware: SPOILERS)

If you haven’t seen the movie SOURCE CODE yet and plan to, SKIP THIS POST FOR NOW: SPOILERS GALORE 

When I was an undergraduate last century my Western Civ professor, Fr. John LaRocca, SJ, used to say, between lengthy quotes from The Jabberwocky that he would indiscriminately sprinkle throughout class, that to understand a period of history it was important to understand its metaphysics.  As an 18 year old wet behind the ears kid I understood that statement about as much as Lewis Carroll’s nonsense verse the good Father was fond of referencing.  But that little chestnut stuck with me over the years, and I’ve grown to understand it better and embrace it.

In Source Code, a slightly above average popcorn action movie that opened in early April, we get a clear view of our own age’s metaphysics.  This foundational branch of philosophy can be tricky to define, and has to do with the nature of being and reality, and for our purposes can be extended to cover  questions about what it means to be human and what our final end is.  As with so many movies today the makers of Source Code seem to be saying that there is nothing beyond this life, and even living in a persistent vegetative state is preferable to death.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays an Air Force helicopter pilot who has been recruited (without his being aware of it) into a secret military anti-terrorism project.  His handlers are able to project him, mentally, into the thoughts of a recently deceased man so that he can relive the eight minutes leading up to the bombing of a Chicago bound commuter train (please don’t make me try to explain this any further, just understand that the suspension of disbelief factor in this movie is high, but manageable). Naturally, each time he “wakes up” on the train he’s sitting across from a pretty young woman (Michelle Monaghan), who he falls in love with over the course of the mission. He’s told that there will be a second bombing and the goal is to find out who the bomber is so the second attack can be thwarted.  He’s told clearly that this is not time travel. He can only see the past, but has no power to change what has happened.  Or so it seems.

After a couple of run-throughs the Gyllenhaal character questions if he’s dead, and it’s explained that for all practical purposes he is except for some brain activity that render him perfect for the Source Code project.  The experience inside the mental vision is so real, and he can go places his "host" didn't, changing events from visit to visit, he also questions whether it doesn’t represent some alternate reality.  Convinced that he can change the past he talks his military handler (Vera Farmiga) into sending him back in, even after the mystery is solved, to see if he can indeed change history.  He asks her to turn off his life support after the magic eight minutes are up so he can die, so ending his nightmarish service.  

In the end, he’s right; there really is an alternate reality where the train doesn’t blow up, the bad guy goes to jail, the good guy gets the girl, living on, assuming the identity of the man whose thoughts he invaded, while his “other self” is still stuck in suspended animation on a military base.  

What the movie says is that we are no more than a series of electrical impulses and firing synapses, and as soon as the psychic spark plugs stop igniting we’re done.  Our greatest hope is to continue our lives in this world.  At the end of the movie we leave Gyllenhaal and Monaghan on an idyllic spring day in Chicago’s Millennium Park, the rest of their “lives” ahead of them.  I would love this ending, but I don’t live in an alternate reality; I know the skies will eventually darken bringing rain and snow, love will have its ups and downs, terrorists will eventually succeed, and that the pilot, or what’s left of him, will still be forced to relive horrors over and over again.

What we celebrate at Easter is the reality that as beautiful as this life is, and it truly is, there is something more.  There is a definitive reality that is not alternate or parallel, but beyond, where the fullest potentialities of our human existence will be fulfilled.  Scripture is admittedly vague on the particulars, I believe, because our experience is limited to this life.  Any comparison that could be made would have to make reference to the best this world has to offer which is still infinity less than what’s in store.  In the face of this uncertainty and without any reference to faith the movie does what is common in popular entertainments; a way is concocted to allow the characters’ natural lives go on as if nothing happened.  But a point is avoided; one day the spark will go out, and then what?  We are assured in the movie that everything will be alright, even for the vegetative pilot, but how do we really know that?  If all we are is our physical selves and the mind is reduced to the brain the string will run out eventually.  What the Resurrection does is break the cycle of life and death, ups and downs, lifting us up to heights unseen this side of the veil.   

I don’t believe that Source Code is trying to advocate a world view so much as reflecting what’s already in the popular mind, or at least what’s in the mind of secular Hollywood.  It’s an entertaining movie.  I actually liked it better than the over-hyped Inception, maybe because its pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumb is more subdued, and its overall goals more modest. The leads are appealing, and Jeffrey Wright does a good job as the heavy. So I recommend it for its entertainment value, but as for its metaphysics, as Fr. LaRocca would have said, "Beware the Jabberwock, my son!  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!"

Viewer Questions for April 20, 2011

Ebert Presents: At The Movies

Ebert Presents: At the Movies 
PBS-Check local listings or go to ebertpresents.com

Vishnevetsky, Ebert and Lemire

There is no denying that the greatest influence on me personally as an amateur film critic was the TV show hosted by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, that ran under various names, for almost 25 years.  Their famous "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down" designations that they gave to movies they either recommended or rejected became a part of the pop cultural landscape of the eighties and nineties.  After Siskel's death in 1999 Ebert continued with guest critics until Richard Roeper, columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, was chosen as the permanent co-host in 2000.  In 2006 Ebert's long struggle with cancer resulted in a surgical procedure that robbed him of  his ability to speak, even as it saved his life.  The show continued for another four years with numerous critics sitting in the balcony chairs made famous by the show's founders.  As competent, and in some cases truly excellent, as those substitute critics were (I have to be honest here and say that I was never a big fan of Richard Roeper), the magic of the original show was simply missing.  In 2010 the program that made film criticism popular and accessible to millions of people was finally laid to rest, something that should have been done years earlier.

This past January the show was revived where the original began, on PBS, as Ebert Presents: At The Movies, with Christy Lemire of The Associated Press and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of Mubi.com taking the places of honor in the balcony.  There is the same basic format, with one critic giving the main review and the other responding, then finally deciding thumbs up or down.   There are also contributors who offer short video essays on current trends and cinema history, and even Roger Ebert makes an "appearance" from his office to review a film each week, with Bill Curtis narrating his words over clips of the movies being critiqued.

As with the original show's post-Siskel incarnation there is no arguing that the replacements are doing a competent job. Still, there is also a magic missing, a mysterious chemistry that left the show when Siskel died and can never be reproduced.  That's because Siskel and Ebert had a very complex relationship with one another. These were highly intelligent, accomplished men who knew their own minds, and whose competitive spirits were not going to concede a single point to the other.  Gene Siskel graduated with a philosophy degree from Yale and Roger Ebert was a Pulizer Prize winning journalist, both writing for rival Chicago newspapers when they were matched in 1975 for what started as a local monthly program.  They  really didn't want to be pared with each other at first.  Each thought that he was the smartest critic in the balcony and didn't need the other.  After a while they realized that it was the hotly contested give and take that caused the show to work.  While Ebert speaks fondly of his late partner, there were times when the tension between the two men on camera was clear as crystal.   The arguments could get so fierce you really had to wonder if these two guys liked each other at all.  There was one famous episode, featuring segments on Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, where you almost thought they'd have at it right there in the studio at the end of the show.

In the 2011 reboot new hosts Lemire and Vishnevetsky are young, camera friendly, and truly competent at their work.  They both show an impressive knowledge of film history, especially Vishnevetsky, as well as having their fingers on the pulse of the contemporary scene.  But the reviews themselves are rather bland, and so far I've seen no real tension between the two when they disagree.  I'm not suggesting that they try to imitate the past, or stage some mock Jerry Springer smack down for the benefit of the audience, but a little passion would be nice.  Siskel and Ebert were driven by their own personal competition, but also by their love of film and the belief that this liveliest of  the  lively arts is an important cultural and social expression worth fighting over.  I have to believe that  Lemire and Vishnevetsky have this same passion or they wouldn't be spending their lives as movie critics.  I would just like to see that translated onto the screen more effectively.

As for the special features, they offer nothing that couldn't be seen in a more polished form on a program like CBS' Sunday Morning.  These pieces, done by contributors drawn from various professional backgrounds as well as the blogosphere, are supposed to cover current trends in film making and highlight the medium's social and cultural impact.  But there is something decidedly old school about them.  The analysis is not all that enlightening and the presenters seem stiff, maybe because they're mostly new to television.  But even Jeff Greenfield, an old pro at TV, seems a bit stilted at times.

All in all I give a mixed review to Ebert Presents.  It's not a bad show, just not a necessary one. I can't blame Roger Ebert and his partners for wanting to keep the franchise going, and I'm truly inspired by his pressing forward with his career in spite of a horrible illness.  But this show has been done before and done better.  It's not Lemire and Vishnevetsky's fault that they're not Siskel and Ebert;  in a way they're stuck trying to do someone else's act.  And the chemistry of the original can't be conjured up out of thin air.  The new hosts are willing participants who sought their jobs rather than two rivals forced to play nice with one another.  And if they tried to fake it, then you really would have a bad show instead of what you have now, which is something decent, but decidedly ordinary.  If they ever hope to get the show to work they might need to get out of the balcony, ditch the thumbs and find  their own style.  And yeah, a little of the old passion wouldn't hurt either

Pope Benedict, The Jews and the Death of Jesus

 

Note:  I do need to make one correction on something I said in the video.  I mentioned that all the popes going back to at least Pius IX (1846-1878) have tried to clarify the Church's teaching on who was responsible for Jesus' death, speak in a conciliatory way about the Jewish people.  I meant to say Pius XI (1922-1939), who condemned anti-Semitism as being contradictory to discipleship in Christ, and called all Christians, by virtue of the fact that we claim the Patriarch Abraham as our father in faith, "spiritual Semites." 

Heaven, Hell...and Purgatory

Heaven and Hell?

Fr. Barron comments on Is Hell Crowded or Empty?

I know it looks like I'm shilling for Fr. Barron, but I got an e-mail from a Salesian about a popular book about hell by an evangelical preacher named Rob Hill.  I Saw that Padre Steve put this video up on Da Mihi Animas about Hill's book and figured it was my cue to weigh in myself.  I will eventually; I'm in the middle of reading the Pope's latest volume "Jesus of Nazareth: Part 2,"  and will comment on that first.  Until then, Robert Barron's thoughts on the subject.

Stations of the Cross- The Way of Love

An online Stations of the Cross for those who can't make it to church today.  There are a bunch on You Tube, but I decided to share one that just had a musical accompaniment.

Why I'm A Catholic Part One

Tips for Going to Confession

I found this article on Confession at Spirit Daily, and link here to the entire article.  I found this list of tips for making a good confession right on, especially #12. 

Fr. Z’s 20 Tips For Making A Good Confession


We should …


1. examine our consciences regularly and thoroughly;

2. wait our turn in line patiently;

3. come at the time confessions are scheduled, not a few minutes before they are to end;

4. speak distinctly but never so loudly that we might be overheard;

5. state our sins clearly and briefly without rambling;

6. confess all mortal sins in number and kind;

7. listen carefully to the advice the priest gives

8. confess our own sins and not someone else’s

9. carefully listen to and remember the penance and be sure to understand it;

10. use a regular formula for confession so that it is familiar and comfortable;

11. never be afraid to say something “embarrassing”… just say it;

12. never worry that the priest thinks we are jerks…. he is usually impressed by our courage;

13. never fear that the priest will not keep our confession secret… he is bound by the Seal;

14. never confess “tendencies” or “struggles”… just sins;

15. never leave the confessional before the priest has finished giving absolution;

16. memorize an Act of Contrition;

17. answer the priest’s questions briefly if he asks for a clarification;

18. ask questions if we can’t understand what he means when he tells us something;

19. keep in mind that sometimes priests can have bad days just like we do;

20. remember that priests must go to confession too … they know what we are going through.

The Feast of the Annunciation

Roger Ebert and the Monks of Atlas

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.

—John 12:24

There has always been a tension in Christianity over how to view martyrdom.  Most Christian writers and teachers over the centuries agree that it is not something to be sought after.  In “A Man for All Seasons” Robert Bolt has St. Thomas More affirming the fact that our natural instincts in cases of mortal danger lead to “flight.”  The saintly lawyer (no, the term is not an oxymoron) then goes over how he planned to use all of his skills as a barrister to avoid having his head separated from his body over the “King’s business.”  But he concedes that a time comes when all the legal dodging and weaving can’t keep a person from standing firm in his or her faith, even if it means death, when no means of escape are available.  Catholics have generally held martyrs up as examples to follow, where as some Protestants are less enthusiastic.  I read a book on the early Church written by a member of the Calvinist-Reform tradition who thought the martyrs of the first centuries had, in many cases, needlessly forfeited their lives.

In the recent French movie, “Of God’s and Men,” based on true events, a community of Trappist monks in the Atlas Mountains of Algeria faces the prospect of death if they stay in their monastery.  The country is experiencing a civil war, with Islamist terrorists on one side and an increasingly mistrusting government on the other.  After much debate and internal dissention, the community makes the decision to stay.  They have become a part of the fabric of the local village, which grew up around the monastery and stay, out of solidarity with the people.  In his review of the film, which was positive overall, Roger Ebert, the Pulitzer Prize winning film critic, concludes that the monks made the wrong choice.  He states that it was egoism for them to believe that their work could only be accomplished in that one place, and that their superior, Br. Christian, should have had the humility to lead his men to safety. If they had left they could have certainly continued their fruitful service elsewhere.  Because of their choice other, equally needy, people were deprived of whatever years of service they would have had left, or so goes Mr. Ebert’s reasoning.

I was taken aback by this appraisal, to say the least.  I could see someone thinking the monks foolish for their decision, but egotistical and prideful?  I agree that there was no moral obligation for the monks to stay; it’s questionable how much their presence served to shield the village from the violence enveloping the country.  But I believe that Mr. Ebert makes an error in focusing on the importance of the work the monks did, particularly that of the one who is a medical doctor.  They are Trappists, and their vocation is to prayer and their goal is a contemplative union with God.  Their call is to be an eschatological sign; a sign of the world to come.  The life of prayer, radical poverty, and fraternal union that they follow is meant to be a prophetic action pointing to a reality beyond this one.  That they may tend to the sick and cloth the poor are a natural extension of their baptismal vocation, but is not at the heart of the life they were called to as contemplatives.  Their value, for lack of a better term, is not in what they do but rather in that they are.

 
On a deeper level the humility that all Christians are called to, but especially priests and religious, is to understand that the work we take up is not our own.  Ultimately the responsibility lies with God.  We come, we serve and then we move on; eventually we die and it’s the Holy Spirit that supplies the rest.  This is exemplified in the Acts of the Apostles.  St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, is invisible after the fifteenth chapter and the book ends without any mention of his or St. Paul’s fate.  This was the author’s way of letting us know that as great as these two pillars of the Church were, the success of the mission didn’t lie in their efforts or end with their deaths, but continues still in the work of the Holy Spirit active in the Church as a body.

This does not mean that the monks didn't bear a serious responsibility for their actions.  God’s will must be discerned and cooperated with, and just because the monks concluded that His will was for them to stay doesn’t mean they necessarily got it right.  We pray, discuss, bring it to authority if we must, and pray some more, them make a decision.  Only time will tell if we are right or wrong.  In the case of these monks they believed, after deep discernment, that they were fulfilling their vocation to be signs of God’s Kingdom in a concrete way, in a place where that concept's meaning had been perverted by hate and violence.  I don't see that as egotistical or prideful.

Mr. Ebert is right, in that the movie itself avoids some of the tougher questions that could have been asked about the political situation that led to the turmoil, such as the legacy of French colonization.  It could have also taken a more critical look at the monks own motivations for staying.  There is no doubt that the ones who want to stay are presented as the “good guys” and the ones who want to leave are held in somewhat mild contempt, until they “see the light.”  But in judging the real life situation to conclude that they made the wrong choice on moral grounds is hard for me to accept.  As I wrote earlier, if they had left I don’t believe they would have been accused of moral cowardice.  But I don’t believe we would be writing books or making movies about them either.  In a world where justice is dispensed from the barrel of a gun, to quote Mao, and our worth as people is too often based on what we can do or earn, these men have captured people’s imaginations because they didn't do the willful or practical thing.  Because they chose to allow themselves to die, like the proverbial grain of wheat, these men have bore spiritual fruit, arguably beyond what they could have accomplished by pulling up steaks and moving somewhere else.