The Empire Strikes Out: "Catching Fire: The Hunger Games" Movie Review

I walked away from The Hunger Games, the first part of the dystopian trilogy based on the popular teen novels, with mixed feelings.  While I admired it as a movie, I thought it was a dark story, and questioned its appropriateness for the middle school and high school audience it was obviously aimed at.  I went to see the second installment, Catching Fire, mainly out of sense of obligation; since I did write about the first film I might as well see this thing through.  I left Catching Fire, again with mixed feelings: It was an emotionally engaging film that that offers the sense of hope that the first movie lacked, but it's cliff hanger ending misses it's mark.

Our story takes up several months after the 74th Hunger Games ended:  Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is back in District 12, living in relative comfort after she and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) broke precedent by becoming the first duel winners in the game's history.  President Snow (Donald Sotherland), not happy with the trick they pulled, and nervous that this act of defiance is fueling the fire of discontent in the other Districts, wants to find a way to either discredit Katniss, or else destroy her.  On a victory tour of the Districts she sees hints of the oppression of the people and their increasing defiance.  The whole point of the games is to keep the populous fearful and pacified, and the entire balance that has kept the Capital in control is at risk.  The plot is hatched by a new game master (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to pick the participants of the upcoming 75th games from the pool of surviving victors.  Since Katniss is the only female winner from her district we know that she will go.  The only question is if Peeta or Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), their mentor from the last time, will represent the men.

All and all I found the violence less intense than the first movie, and the depth of the characters more profound.  Yes we get the star crossed love angle that you might expect from a teen adventure, but not everything is fun and romance.  Katniss suffers from post traumatic shock, and the thought of having to go back out into the arena nearly drivers her over the edge.  While more than a few of the returning participants seem to be all in, others are obviously leery, discontented and in one case down right bitter with the prospect of having to engage in a kill or be killed competition yet again.

More than the first film, I saw definite borrowing from other movies, including the Star Wars series, The Matrix,  and of course The Running Man.  But the entire experience is original enough, and they avoided simply redoing the first move, which is always a danger with sequels, that I could forgive the cribbing.  The ending most reminded me of the Empire Strikes Back (with a touch of Matrix) but instead of our heroes being up against the wall they clearly have the momentum on their side, even if our heroine is a tad confused.  It seemed to me to go against the spirit of a cliff hanger, until I saw that they are going to pull the most popular cinematic trick of the twenty-first century; the final installment if being made into two movies.  My guess is that the really perilous ending with come around next time.

So, a mixed but positive review from me.  It was engrossing on many levels, and the performances, especially by Ms. Lawrence, are better than we usually see in these kinds of movies.  The themes of economic and governmental oppression, media manipulation, self sacrifice and hope are strong.  On the negative side I guess at a certain point when it becomes clear that the sides are being drawn and system is being challenged I was wondering what took these people 75 years to figure out a strategy.  The ending also seemed a bit bland.  I understand that there wasn't supposed to be a real pay off at the end, but I wish they left me with a greater sense of suspense.  We are left with questions, but I was left wondering how the bad guys will be defeated, not if they will be, which seems to defeat at lest some of the purpose of a cliff hanger.

Beyond JFK: November 22, 1963 and What Else it Means

Today we remember the fiftieth anniversary of the JFK assassination, as if I need to remind you.  This event, and what it meant then as well as it's significance for us now now has been analyzed, not simply over the last several months, but for years.  I approach the observance with more than a touch of ambivalence.  This was obviously a great tragedy, and even though I wasn't around for the assassination, it still seemed to cast a shadow over my childhood.  It was a key experience in the lives of all the adults in my life growing up, and of two of my older brothers, one of whom, as a five year old saw Lee Harvey Oswald shot on national television.  It was a key reference point for my priests, teachers, and in the media.  For many their lives seemed almost subliminally divided between Pre-Assassination and Post-Assassination.  On the other hand this was still not my experience.  I didn't lose my innocence (heck, I wasn't even born), and I'm sure the country didn't either.  Remember, the Civil Rights leader Medgar Evers was murdered in June and four little girls, Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Denise McNair, were killed when their church was bombed by racists in Birmingham, Alabama in September. There were already 16,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam, up from 900 three years earlier, and we had gone eyeball to eyeball with the Soviet Union over missiles in Cuba, barley avoiding a nuclear confrontation, in October 1962.  I'm sure the historians out there can think of other things to mention, but I think you get my point; anyone who thought that the United States lost it's collective innocence on November 22, 1963 wasn't paying attention.

What gets lost in all the JFK anniversary talk is that two other people, less powerful, less famous to be sure but just as consequential, died the same day.  The Christian apologist C.S. Lewis died in England, and visionary British author Aldous Huxley died in Los Angeles.  There is no doubt that the murder of a sitting president would be the number one news story on any given day, and be the event most remembered in following years.  But I am not the first to note that the other two gentlemen who met their Maker that day fifty yeas ago have had as much, if not a greater influence over society over the decades since their deaths.



Aldous Huxley is best known for his 1932 novel Brave New World.  In it he tells the story of a future, dystopian society with a difference.  Most stories about future societies depict a great regression or disintegration of the social order (think of the H.G. Welles film Things to Come, from the same era), or else a society ruled by a harsh dictatorship (like in George Orwell's 1984).  In Huxley's story we have the perfect society: population levels strictly controlled by the state; there are no live births anymore, all people are conceived and incubated in a "hatchery."  The family has been abolished.  Sexual promiscuity is the norm and monogamy a perversion.  Pills are dispensed, what we would call today anti-depressants, served up like candy.  People are genetically engineered to fit into strict social classes and conditioned to accept their lot without questioning.  Medical technology has stopped the aging process as we understand it.  People live to about sixty in state of suspended young adulthood, and then die alone and unmourned.  Society is organized around consumption of goods and pleasure, conformity and class stability.  Only a few at the very top of social pyramid understand how contrived and unnatural the whole social order is and crush who ever disrupts the balance, no matter how slight.

Later in life Huxley warned about the dangers of governmental over organization.  These highly  centralized governments could use technology like television for propaganda purposes.  The use of mood or mind altering drugs could become prevalent that relieve short term ills but eventually kill the person physically and morally.  Overpopulation could cause social instability that leads to an overly powerful central state as a remedy.  I don't agree with this last point, but his other "prophesies" have been frighteningly accurate, as far as I can see.



C.S. Lewis was an Oxford Don who spent his early adulthood as a atheist, converting to Christianity after  experiencing what Fulton Sheen might have called a Divine invasion.  But Lewis didn't give in to Grace quickly.  By his own admission his was a reluctant conversion, but once he did turn to Christ he put his energies and talents at the service of Christian apologetics.  Like his friend J.R.R. Tolkien he used story and legend as a vehicle to evangelize the culture.  He also wrote essays and made radio presentations, using logic and persuasion to show the reasonableness of faith.  His, in a way, was a perfect standpoint to start from since he knew the atheist position intimately and could answer it from the inside.

While his non fiction essays like Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy still enjoy a loyal if relatively small readership, his fictional series The Chronicles of Narnia continue to capture the popular imagination.  What Lewis and Tolkien show is that story, myth, and the arts in general are powerful ways of evangelizing the culture and bringing the message of Christ to those who might not read theological essays or attend lectures.

Yes, we lost three important people fifty years ago today.  I have not said much about the third and most well known of them, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  This is because I believe that in spite of his fame JFK is the most mysterious of the three.  His life and death have been shrouded over the last half century in its own peculiar myth; well crafted and fiercely protected by his family, colleagues and large parts of the news and entertainment media.  He has become a blank screen on which both friends and critics project their own hopes, fears and aspirations.  Undeniably photogenic and charismatic, he was the first TV ready president.  His murder was the moment when television came of age as the conduit of a common experience for the American people.  In spite of all the film and photos we have of him getting a handle on the man is elusive.  There are so many contrary images of him fighting to emerge from the official Camelot Legend that endures, even if few people really believe in it anymore.

Personally, I'm not sure that his thousand days in office were as consequential as the effects of the violent way his life ended.  It seems people speak more of what he might have done if he had lived as opposed to what he accomplished in office.  Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have passed?  Some in the civil rights movement before the assassination were unsure, and Malcolm X, who was highly skeptical of the Kennedy record to that point wasn't holding his breath.  That August's March on Washington was in large part a response to what was seen as inactivity by the administration on civil rights issues.  If Kennedy had lived would the Great Society programs have been enacted?  One of his great fights with the Congress was over his plan to cut income tax rates, an issue still unresolved at the time of his murder.  There were even questions about whether JFK would be renominated by his party for a second term.  And lest we forget the question that usually dominates the "what if JFK had lived" conversation: would the U.S. role in Vietnam have escalated the way it did under Lyndon Johnson?  All these questions are unanswerable, as are the ones surrounding a possible assassination plot.  What we are left with is an image, a memory and a legend.  I write this not as a reflection on JFK the man, but on the media that helped create the Camelot myth and the culture that continues to foster it.

We mourn JFK because he was a symbol of youth and vitality in the service of a greater good, cut down unjustly, before he could fulfill his promise.  Huxley gives us a warning about putting our faith in well concocted images and trading our freedom for a bit of passing comfort and security.  Lewis teaches us the power of myth as a conveyer of a deeper truth.

Eternal Rest Grant unto Them, O Lord, And Let Perpetual Light Shine Upon Them.  May Their Souls and all the Souls of the Faithful Departed Through the Mercy of God, Rest In Peace. AMEN

Fr. Barron on the 50th Anniversary of C.S. Lewis' Death

The Catholic (Re) Marriage Dilemma

 

November is flying by, and I've hardly had time to generate new material for The Ax.  In some ways I'm still getting my bearings straight in my new assignment in Chicago.  Some people here figure that this should be easy since I was stationed here once before.  But while much is the same, there is still much that is different.  This parish has always been busy, but it's even busier now, with many new faces to learn, along with different or greatly expanded initiatives on the schedule.  As the month began I was working on a post about marriage and so pick it up again now.  

I ran across an article from a Catholic site that, to my best estimation, emanates from Australia about the whole issue of divorced and remarried Catholics' eligibility to receive Holy Communion.  This among many hot button issues effecting the Church have been featured prominently on both Catholic and secular news services of late.  The practice is for persons married in the Church who divorce and remarry without getting the first union annulled, or Catholics who marry civilly but never have the union con-validated by the Church to refrain from receiving Communion.  If they wish to participate actively in the Sacraments then they are asked to live as friends or brother and sister with their spouse.

I am not arguing perpetual abstinence from sexual relations is the easy or practical solution for these people. The plain fact is that most people in this position either leave the Catholic Church for what they perceive to be a more understanding Christian community, attend Mass without receiving Communion or simply stop practicing any religion.  None of the choices left open to a person who finds themselves in a difficult marital situation is easy, and I know that people truly suffer having to make the perceived choice between their faith and their marriage.

Of all the difficult teachings associated with Catholicism this is the one that effects me as a priest most directly on a day to day basis.  We hear a lot of confessions here at St. John Bosco Parish when compared to other parishes I've served in, and I don't go many days between having a person in what we call an "irregular" situation visit me in the confessional.  Many times these are people with children in our religious education program who have come back to Church because of their children.  Some times the solution to their problem is easy; either the couple is married civilly, or not at all, or if they are divorced their fist marriage was civil and so they can either begin their preparation for marriage in the Church right away or after a brief investigation to make sure the first marriage wasn't contracted during a religious ceremony.  If the first was a Church marriage then an annulment is required.  This can be a long, painful experience for people, and most who approach me about it don't proceed.  This often leads to years either alienated from the Church completely, or else separated from the Sacraments.  A painful situation, indeed.

Pope Francis has called a special Synod of Bishops for next year to look at this and other issued surrounding the present state of married people and the family.  The regularly scheduled Synod takes place the year after, reportedly continuing the theme.   High on the list of priorities is the examination of how divorced and remarried Catholics are to be tended to by their shepherds.  Is there a way to admit these people once again into full communion with the community by way of the Sacraments?   Pope Benedict XVI established a committee to examine the issue, but they came back to him saying, in essence, that there was no way around the status quo.

In dealing with this issue with honesty and integrity we must first face Jesus' revolutionary teaching on marriage, which prohibits divorce.  The Church's teachings are not a set arbitrary rules, but are the result of a reflection on Jesus' teachings and actions.  Jesus was merciful, but his words could also be strikingly stern.  And even his acts of mercy were always followed up by the admonition to "go and sin no more."  As Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out recently:

"The entire sacramental economy is a work of divine mercy and it cannot simply be swept aside by an appeal to the same.  An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God, by implying that God cannot do other than forgive.  The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice.  If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man.  Jesus encountered the adulteress with great compassion, but he said to her “Go and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11).  God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the Church.  Rather it supplies us with the grace and strength needed to fulfill them, to pick ourselves up after a fall, and to live life in its fullness according to the image of our heavenly Father."

Pope Francis has hinted that maybe a simplifying of the annulment process is in order.  I'm not a canonist, and won't venture to guess what a proposed simplification would look like.  The Holy Father recently told a group of top canon lawyers that their work should be seen as a pastoral ministry designed to heal broken souls and not simply a bureaucratic or legalistic process.  Again, what this means moving ahead I can't say.

All I can say is that considering the present state of marriage in the West, and the cultural shift away from the traditional Catholic - Christian understanding of the Sacrament by most people, I wouldn't be surprised if more couples than we want to admit approach the altar with a deficient understanding of the commitment that they are making, or in their hearts and minds are not making the same commitment at all.  This in spite of all the best efforts of pastors and diocesan offices of family life to prepare our newlyweds well.  I'm the first to say that we shouldn't use an appeal to mercy, no matter how sincere, to nullify the words of Jesus Christ.  At the same time we are dealing with people who are more influenced by the culture than by Christ, and so need a way back into the Church after a failed attempt at marriage, not more roadblocks. 

"Gravity" and the Rebirth of Faith at the Multiplex

The conventional wisdom on the new Sandra Bullock, George Clooney film Gravity is that it is a rousing, action packed, technically stunning masterpiece of special effects film making, that reminds some people of 2001: A Space Odyssey, while lacking that iconic movie's depth.  I made the mistake of reading some reviews and viewing a discussion by a round table of critics on You Tube before seeing the film, that backed up this impression.  In truth I was skeptical about Gravity from the first commercial for it on TV, feeling that it could never live up to the hype.  Plus, with even it's supporters claiming that it was a bit superficial in the message department, I figured this would be all WOW with nothing else there to support all the special effects, something very typical of contemporary Hollywood.  Not to be overly gratuitous in the pun department; Gravity has a lot more gravitas than most of the critics out there want to admit, or maybe have the ability to see.  Many mainstream critics function out of a secular humanist world view that either renders them indifferent or hostile to themes involving faith and religion in movies.  In the case of Gravity I think we can add a third category; blindness.  It is the only way that I can explain how this major theme has gone seemingly unnoticed by the major critics and taste makers.

Briefly; Bullock plays a scientist aboard the space shuttle who learned just enough about being an astronaut to get her on this mission to fix the Hubble Telescope.  George Clooney is a hot shot veteran shuttle pilot on his last mission (so you just know something is going to go wrong).  This is about the only cliche I can think of in the movie, though.  Soon the shuttle and the telescope are bombarded by space debris from a disabled and destroyed satellite, with little warning.  Bullock and Clooney are the only survivors of the disaster and have to find their way to a Russian space station in hopes that its escape pod is functioning.

As for similarities to 2001, it's been years since I've seen Stanley Kubrick's 1968 classic, so I'm ill prepared to make a full blown comparison of the two films.  But I can't see that the two movies have much in common other than that they take place, for the most part, in outer space, and are both groundbreaking technically in relation to their respective generations.  2001 is a sweeping film, following human evolution from the caveman, questioning the role of technology, the roots of violence in society and what it means to be human.  For all it's spectacle, Gravity is a very intimate story about one person's journey from spiritual and emotional death to rebirth.  2001 questions the reality of the transcendent, but leaves you wondering.  Gravity affirms that we are not alone, and that there are no atheists in escape pods burning their way through the atmosphere. 

What hit me from watching it, and talking with others who have, is how rich the film is in religious symbols, and where some of the more tangible symbols show up, and where they don't.  I'd noticed that the Russian station features a small icon of St. Christopher and a Chinese rig contains a Buddha, but it was pointed out to me that no such religious image can be seen among the debris floating from the U.S. wreckage.  The most prominent symbol that emerges from the gaping hole in the shuttle's fuselage is a statuette of Marvin the Martian of Bugs Bunny fame.  The two cultures that have experienced religious persecution and state sanctioned atheism in the last century still maintains the religious sense, while the one that has religious freedom codified in its constitution seems oblivious, exchanging centuries old touchstones for a trivial piece of pop culture nostalgia.

Gravity could have easily devolved into a "triumph of technology and human know how over adversity" story like Apollo 13, but as Fr. Barron points out in his analysis (which contains spoilers) the movie shows the fragility of technology and the need to be grounded in a deeper reality if true meaning in life is to found.  In her darkest hour Bullock's character begins to speak to no one in particular, coming to grips with the fact that her death is near. She expresses a desire to pray but feels lost because no one has ever taught her how.  I don't want to give anything away, but she has an unlikely encounter that can be variously interpreted as an apparition, a hallucination caused by a lack of oxygen or some mystical combination of the two.  The mysterious visitor, along with assuring her that she'll get home, reminds her of her training, and repeats to her, "you know this," as the protocols are reviewed.  I think she knew how to fix the problems that she faced all along, but had given up, essentially committing a form of passive suicide.  She was diverted from this course as soon as she was tuned into a reality beyond herself.  In coming to an understanding that she isn't alone she is renewed, and in her determination to get home alive begins to speak with purpose to someone in particular who has obviously passed on to another realm.

I could go on about Gravity's religious symbolism and themes, and maybe will in a later post, but for now I want to end off by saying that I very much see Gravity as falling in line with a couple of films that have come out over the last few years.  I'm thinking particularly of last year's Life of Pi, 2011's The Tree of Life and 2010's Hereafter: major Hollywood movies that take religion, God and the afterlife seriously.  Since the New Hollywood era of the late sixties and 1970's irony and iconoclasm have been the bywords in Hollywood.  All things related to tradition and authority were (and still are) fair game for ridicule and rejection, with religion held up for scorn in a particular way.  One could understand the movement to a point considering how subject matter and points of view that could be presented in films were so rigidly regulated by the old Production Code. Nonetheless the pendulum has swung so far the other way it's been rare to ever see faith or religious people treated in anything other than negative stereo types.   In these four films in particular I see a small trend that I pray grows, of Hollywood once again taking faith and God seriously.

Without a doubt I can say that I have never seen anything quite like Gravity on a movie screen anywhere ever.  I held on stubbornly to my snarky skepticism through about the first quarter, but it eventually melted away and I had to simply sit there, nodding my head and say "WOW," to the visual spectacle before me.  But this movie is much more than just visual wizardry.  The themes may not be as complex as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but they are no less profound.  Not only does Spanish director Alfonso Cuarón engage the mind, he touches the heart, something Kubrick was never able to accomplish in any of his films, as truly great as they are.  Keep in mind, I knew exactly what was going to happen walking in and I found myself getting choked up then, and still feel affected four days later.

So see Gravity:  a film that engages the imagination, the intellect and the heart.  A rare feat in any age. 

Pope Francis vs. Beelzebub: Round 2

I Posted a story about, and a video of, Pope Francis' homily from the Friday before last, which he offered at the Domus Sanctæ Marthæ.  The Gospel passage he preached on was Luke 11:15-26, where Jesus is casting out demons and is accused by the Pharisees of doing so by the power of the Evil One.  The Lord explains that this charge is absurd from the get go because a kingdom divided against itself can not stand.  Satan may be evil, but he isn't dumb; he knows that his only chance at wreaking maximum havoc is to maintain a disciplined unity among his minions (and these aren't the cute, yellow, goggle wearing weebles from Despicable Me we're talking about here).  The Holy Father went out of his way to say that neither Jesus nor the Evangelist were speaking metaphorically about possession, demons and the destructiveness of demonic powers.  

I bring this up because the Holy Father has raised eyebrows on both sides of the ideological divide since his election in March; some perplexed (on the right) others gleeful (on the left).  This divide has been a plague on the Church since at least the end of Vatican II, sapping us of our ability to truly put into practice the true aim of the Council; the evangelization of the contemporary world.  Too many of us within the Church are overly concerned about coming off seeming the most intelligent, most relevant, most enlightened or most orthodox, forgetting that all that really matters is that we all should be holy; which does means being bold and unafraid, but more to the point humble and simple.  

Satan is a real force, a personal being who made a choice to do evil; a choice that because of his angelic nature makes his an eternal option.  To paraphrase the Holy Father, his existence and mission are real not because I say it, or the Pope says it, but because the scripture says it.  How we understand the nature of demons may be a bit murky if we stick with the Old Testament, but by the time of Jesus things are made clear; Satan is not simply a jokster or some kind of cosmic prosecutor.  He is the Enemy who has set his back to The Lord, and is a murderer from the beginning.  This is not true because any earthly myth or legend says it's so, it is true because Our Lord and His faithful witnesses do.

There are those that in the light of modern psychology try to explain away these passages.  They are mistaken, as much as those who try to dismiss the Sermon on the Mount as some sort of pious impossibility.  Both are real and the challenge is to embrace them, along with accepting all the hard teachings required of a disciple.

If we do not learn to embrace the whole Gospel we will continue to be divided by idiological lines.  The Evil One is very happy with this.  While we squabble over the "true meaning of Vatican II" or the proper posture of the priest during Mass we are giving the devil a head start to steal souls.  Does this mean we shouldn't care about or discuss things like the direction the Church should be taking or how the liturgy should be celebrated?  Of course not.  But we have to understand that the average woman on the street doesn't care about how Lumen Gentium, 9 should be read or if the priest should be facing east or west during the Canon of the Mass.   Insignificant issues?  No.  But to a person on the outside, a person searching and poking her head in to the Church to see if Christ really will fulfill the longings of her soul these discussions probably strike her as navel gazing and more than a bit obtuse.  Rather than a refuge from an idiologicly confused and relativistic world, she sees nothing but a mirror image of the chaos she is trying to leave behind.

Unlike the Enemy we do not see the value in being united.  We are happy to be divided up, not only Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, but also within our own tribes (high church, low church, evangelical, nondenominational or what have you).  While we argue and keep a distance, Satan is cleaning our collective clocks.  Are there not real issues dividing those who bear the name Christian that can't be airbrushed away?  Yes.  But when we can't even agree on who the Enemy really is, or if he exists at all, we are not as intelligent, relevant, enlightened or orthodox as we suppose.

The Pope understands that greatest weapons against the devil are humility and unity.  It's time for us to stop worrying about if the Holy Father will change this teaching or that, and if it will be to our liking, and stand with him in the battle for souls. 

Salesian Loyalty to the Pope

I've always made it an unofficial part of what is an already loosely defined editorial agenda here at The Ax to cover the Pope, no matter who the pope happens to be, and explain his words and defend him as necessary (like he needs me to explain or defend him).  I did this with Pope Benedict, and I continue with Pope Francis.  It's important to me because I am a Salesian, and loyalty to the Pope is a central part of our spirit.  Don Bosco had a close relationship with Bl. Pius IX,  and a more distant one with his successor Leo XIII.  But when the latter pontiff asked Don Bosco to build the Basilica of the Sacred Heart for him the saint put all his energy into the project, to the point of possibly losing his health over it.  And so it is, or should be; our loyalty is not to Joseph Ratzinger or Jorge Bergoglio, but to the Pope, no matter who he is.  Though I must admit that it is with more than a little pride that I can mention that the Holy Father attended a Salesian school as a child.

The 6th grade graduation picture at the Salesian College of Ramos Mejia c. 1949.

At this point, seven months into his pontificate, I've already written more posts about the pope than in the previous three years of this blog's existence, during Benedict XVI's reign.   This is due in large part because of how new the Franciscan Papacy is.  Even though he's not much younger than Cardinal Ratzinger was at the time of his election, Pope Francis is demonstrating a dynamism and charisma that has seemed to be missing since the first decade or so of John Paul II.  While it was less than ten years ago, it seems many forget that there was a buzz surrounding Benedict's first months in the Chair of Peter, and how he was attracting larger crowds to the Wednesday Audiences than Bl. John Paul II.  Peggy Noonan wrote that people came to see John Paul, but they were listening to Benedict.  Yes, he was called "God's Rottweiler," and people viewed him as coming out of JPII's shadow, much like George H.W. Bush emerged from Ronald Reagan's when he became president, but people were also noting differences in style.  Benedict was going off script more than his predecessor did, speaking of himself, as well as the apostles he succeeded as sinners in need of God's grace. (sound familiar?).  

Without a doubt Francis' personal style is much different that that of Benedict, his ascendancy has brought with it a bigger dose of "buzz" than previously, and for good reason.  If people came to hear Benedict, they are hanging on every word that proceeds from Francis' mouth--words that are coming at us almost daily and in differing forms than have been used by pontiffs the past.  He is using interviews, off the cuff comments to reporters at impromptu news conferences, his daily homilies (which can be found most days on You Tube) among other informal methods of communication to get his message across.  This has been beneficial for the faithful and non-believers alike , but has also left the Holy Father open to misinterpretation, a modern danger for any pope in this secular, multimedia age.  But even more so now with a Pope who speaks simply, but in small chunks that can leave room for doubt as to what he "really means."

There is no denying that Francis is shifting emphasis from his predecessors.  He still thinks abortion is evil--the product of a disposable culture that sees value in convenience and instant gratification over the deeper values of life, but wants us to also think about economy justice and the plight of the poor as life issues.  He still teaches that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, and that young people should have the courage to settle down and raise families, but he also doesn't think we should single out or target gays as somehow the greatest sinners in the world, or the root of the world's problems.  The temptation among some long suffering progressives in the Church, who feel they haven't had a "pope of their own" since Paul VI is to read the change of emphasis as a change in doctrine; that Francis somehow wants to do away with the "old rules" and usher in some Post Vatican II Golden Age, or what Ross Douthat calls the desire to "Episcopalianize" the Catholic Church.  I think before we get too far ahead of ourselves we need to do what I've been saying for a while now; take a deep breath, exhale and really see what the Pope is saying.  

The Salesian Rector Major, Don Pascual Chavez Villanueva (center) visiting Pope Francis 

The temptation for the more conservative or traditionalist Catholics is to think that the Church is going to fly off the rails somehow with a "liberal" pope at the controls.  I don't worry, I really don't.  I am a part of the John Paul II Generation of priests who came of age during his pontificate, and was reading Cardinal Ratzinger's books before he became Benedict XVI.  In Francis I see a Salesian educated Jesuit with vast pastoral, as well as academic experience who's putting a human face on Catholic doctrine, connecting them to the Gospel, putting Jesus first.  Not that his predecessors didn't, but their scholarly style may have distracted some from that fact.  I don't worry.  Like Don Bosco I'm with the Pope, now as much as ever.

Next time out I'll give you a more concrete reason why Pope Francis is right on target when we take a second look on his recent comments about Jesus and the existence of the Evil One.

Pope Francis vs. Beelzebub: Round 1

Here's something from Asia News on the sermon Pope Francis gave this morning, and a clip of the Holy Father's remarks from the Vatican You Tube page.  I'm going to have something to say on this a little later.


Vatican City ( AsiaNews) - "We must always remain vigilant, on guard against deception, against the seduction of evil, " because the devil, against whom Jesus truly fought and won," always tries to come back," to "take possession of us. "

Today's Gospel in which Jesus responds to some who accuse him of casting out demons in the name of Beelzebub, gave Pope Francis occasion to warn about the reality of the struggle against the devil, for which he offered three "criteria" of " vigilance. "

During the Mass celebrated this morning at Casa Santa Marta, the Pope, as reported by Vatican Radio, noted that all along, " and even in our days " , there is the temptation to belittle the figure of Jesus.
 
"Some priests when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say : 'But , Jesus healed a person from a mental illness .' They do not read this here , right? It 's true that at that time you could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession, but it is also true that there was the devil! And we have no right to simplify the thing, as if to say: 'They were not possessed ; they were mentally ill .' No! The presence of the devil is in the first page of the Bible and the Bible ends with the presence of the devil, with God's victory over the devil. "

For this reason "we must not be naive". The Pope, therefore, observed that the Lord gives us some criteria to "discern" the presence of evil and to chose "the Christian path when there are temptations ." One of the criteria is "not to follow Jesus' victory over evil "only "halfway". "You're either with me - says the Lord - or you're against me." Jesus came to destroy the devil, "to liberate us" from the "slavery of the devil upon us ." And you can not say that this is an "exaggeration" . "At this point there are no grey areas. There is a battle, a battle where salvation is in play, eternal salvation , eternal salvation" for all of us. Then there is the criterion of vigilance. "We must always remain vigilant, on guard against deception, against the seduction of the evil one".

"And we should ask ourselves this question: 'Am I watching over myself, my heart, my sentiments, my thoughts? Do I still preserve the treasure of grace? Do I still preserve the presence of the Holy Spirit in me, or do I leave it, certain in the belief it is? ' But if you do not safeguard it, along comes someone stronger than you . But when someone stronger attacks it and overcomes it, he takes away the weapons in which one trusted, and divides the spoil. Vigilance ! With three criteria: Do not confuse the truth . Jesus fought against the devil: the first criterion . Second criteria: whoever is not with Jesus, it is against Jesus, there is no halfway. Third criterion: keep guard of our hearts , because the devil is cunning . He is never completely banished, only on the last day will he be. "

Jesus said that when the unclean spirit leaves someone " it haunts desert places , seeking rest and finding none it says : 'I will return to the house from which I came .' And when he finds it " swept and decorated". Then it goes "gathers seven other spirits more wicked than itself , and they take up their abode are". And so , "the last state of that man becomes worse than it first was".

"Vigilance! Because his strategy is this: 'You became Christian. Advance in your faith. I will leave you. I will leave you tranquil. But then when you are used to not being so watchful and you feel secure, I will come back'. The Gospel today begins with the devil being cast out and ends with the devil coming back! St. Peter would say: 'It is like a fierce lion that circles us'. It is like that. 'But, Father, you a little ancient. You are frightening us with these things...' No, not me! It is the Gospel! And these are not lies: it is the Word of the Lord! Let us ask the Lord for the grace to take these things seriously. He came to fight for our salvation. He conquered the devil ! Please do not do business with the devil ! He tries to find his home, to take possession of us ... Do not relativize this, be on guard! And always with Jesus! "

Fr. Barron Comments on the Pope Francis Interview

St. Francis of Assisi: The Transitus

Another Papal Interview

I was preparing a post about October being the Month of the Rosary and chock full of important saint's days, when I saw that Pope Francis has been interviewed yet again; this time in a secular Italian publication.  Eugenio Scalfari, the veteran journalist and publisher who conducted the tete a tete, is a self proclaimed non-believer who also stresses that he is not anti-clerical.  And he has reason not to be; after he deserted the Italian Army during World War II he was hidden in a Jesuit residence.


The interview is not long, and you can read it for yourselves, so I won't waste time with a line by line review.  I'll just give a few impressions.

The Pope as Happy Culture Warrior
The Holy Father approaches the encounter as a meeting of minds seeking understanding, not as a missionary meeting a heathen in search of a convert (he calls proselytizing "solemn nonsense.")  This doesn't mean that Pope Francis is somehow passive or without an edge.  While it is very obvious that this is a congenial encounter, at one point the Pope makes Scalfari articulate what he believes in if not in God.  It's always hard to judge tone in the written word, but it strikes me as a very forceful, passionate moment in the interview.  The interviewer becomes the interviewee, with the new interrogator always respecting the person while probing the ideas, challenging assumptions.

Also, while some might accuse Francis of being too subjective when he says that a non-believer following his or her conscience, that is following one's natural inclinations as to good versus evil, would be enough to make the world a better place, he speaks of grace in purely objective terms.  When Scalfari expresses incredulity that a non-believer could be touched by grace the Pope tells him that grace touches the soul, not the consciousness, so that we are unaware when of it.  Scalfari protests that he doesn't believe in the soul, to which the Pope assures him that he has one irregardless of what he believes.  The Pope is here to debate, but he's not accepting the world's terms, or acting like he has to necessarily defend Christianity's basic assumptions.  He is willing to be challenged as well as to lay down the gauntlet himself, always with respect, vigor and joy.

The Worldly and the Spiritual Intersect
The Pope states that the most serious evils facing the world right now are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly.  He is asked if these are not matters for governments and trade unions to sort out.  Francis agrees, but stresses that these conditions touch body and soul.  They sap the person economically and emotionally, robbing them of hope for a better life and a feeling of belonging in the social community.  But they also touch the soul.  The Church as an institution is not to get involved with politics, but the People of God certainly have this responsibility to be involved in the shaping of the public order.  Catholics do this not as people who seek to dominate, but rather contribute.

The Holy Father also stressed the importance of mysticism.  The Church has a distinct role from that of government, which is secular by nature.  We come to certain conclusions about what constitutes the correct social order because we have met Jesus Christ, not because we adhere to some political ideology.  He states clearly that "Religion without mysticism is philosophy."  While he does not see himself as being a mystic in the strict sense, he has had what he would describe as brushes with the mystical, particularly when he was elected and asked for a few moments to reflect before accepting.  While politics and religion are distinct, you can gather from the Holy Father's words he believes that faith brings with it political implications, even if the Church as an institution needs to let the state do it's job free of interference.  

The Liberation Theology Pope?
This is strictly me musing a bit, but a lot of ink has been spilt over Francis' views on liberation theology, and that his election signals a sea change in the Vatican's attitude toward that controversial theological school of thought.  Both Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were cool to LT, but with Francis, a native of the region where it was born, meeting recently with LT's founding father Gustavo Gutierrez there is much speculation that the theology of liberation's time has come.  I think we need to take a pause and a deep breath on that one.

It is true that the Pope has spoken on economic justice, both as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and in his recent interviews and talks.  It's safe to say that Francis, like most European and Latin American prelates, can probably be best described as a social democrat (as was JP II and BXVI).  In other words he believes in more government oversight of the economy than your average Republican, but is no Marxist.  He has stressed in the past that there is not one liberation theology, but rather theologies of liberation, some in greater accord with Church teaching than others.  Someone at a private audience with the Pope after the sit down with Fr. Gutierrez indicated that Francis made it clear that the approval of the theologian's work given by a curial cardinal was that person's personal opinion and did not necessarily reflect Francis' point of view.   Even in the latest interview the Holy father talks about the need for economic rules, but that "if necessary direct intervention from the state to correct the more intolerable inequalities" should happen (emphasis mine).   

Again, I'm not arguing that Francis is a free market libertarian.  He also said that "Personally I think so-called unrestrained liberalism only makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker and excludes the most excluded."  He means liberalism in the classical sense, not in today's U.S. political usage.  His words tell me that his threshold for when government should intervene into the economy would be lower than mine, but he still doesn't see the state as the first or only line of defense against economic injustice.  

In other words Francis will not be afraid to appeal to elements of LT, but is a true believer in Christ, not in an ideology, even one that dresses in theological cloths.
    
Who's Wig is the Holy Father Twisting?
It is becoming a cliche to say that Pope Francis is the liberal (in the contemporary political sense) answer to Benedict and John Paul.  There is no doubt that some conservative minded or traditionalist Catholics are nervous about the Pope's recent statements.  As one friend said to me recently, "I love Pope Francis, I just wish he wouldn't talk so much."  

If I can be so bold, both liberals and conservatives in the Church are getting things wrong.  We can't view the Holy Father's words through the lens of ideology or politics.  He is not advocating fundamental changes in doctrine but in structure and emphasis.  Look to his words on clericalism and role of Church councils and synods in Church governance and you will find the key to understanding the Pope's mind.  

Conservatives should be nervous about talk of conciliarism, but liberals shouldn't think they're off the hook when he speaks of clericalism.  Clericalism takes many forms, and I've encountered it here in the States, but also in Latin America where the clergy has by and large abandoned the use of clerical dress and some like to think of themselves as a part of the "People's Church."  It can take the form of priests overly concerned with liturgical pomp and circumstance and with those who are entrenched in diocesan bureaucracies more concerned with the maintenance of the Church "machinery" than in extending the mission they are there to serve.  In my experience people who think of themselves as progressive fall into the trap of clericalism just a easily those on the right.  If we think the Pope's words are meant for "the other guy," we better think twice.  The call is to move beyond ideology and into the pure light of the Gospel, and that should make all of us a little nervous.

St. Jerome from AOP

Third in a Series: Fr. Barron comments on The Sacrament of the Eucharist as Real Presence

The Value of Silence from AOP

Quick Takes: The Pope and Prince Amukamara

Further Thoughts on Pope Francis' Interview 

As I hinted at previously the Pope's recent interview, along with other statements he has made, has been read by many in both secular and Church circles as representing a change of policy, much like what happens when a new political party comes into power in a country, at the Vatican.  There is no doubt that Francis' words and actions are a change of tone over previous pontificates, but we should be careful not to read a change of substance in the Pope's words.  As I wrote before, the Pope has spoken out against abortion recently, and the Catholic News Agency reported today that he ordered the excommunication of a priest in Australia, functioning without the proper faculties, who was publicly supporting gay marriage and abortion.  As one cardinal put it in response to questions of Francis' orthodoxy, the Pope is still Catholic.

Nonetheless there are those who would normally be considered on the "right" and involved with the pro-life movement who are troubled by the Holy Father's words.  Janet Smith, apologist, speaker and philosophy professor at the University of Dallas, who has been out spoken for years about the evils of artificial contraception and abortion, wrote a piece in First Things questioning what the Pope meant by saying we shouldn't be "obsessed" with particular moral issues when preaching the Gospel.  While she is never hostile toward the Pope, and strikes a conciliatory note at the end, you can feel the hurt and confusion of one toiling faithfully in the fields for years who feels a bit betrayed (she doesn't say that, this is strictly my impression of the article).

I  have a great deal of respect for Dr. Smith, and have often drawn on her materials in preparing classes and homilies.  I don't disagree with many of the points she makes, but in the end we have to match the words and the actions together.  The Holy Father is trying to stress the love God has for us all while pointing out that sin is ugly.  He is telling us that we need to be mindful of a wide variety of concerns, and at the same time he isn't afraid to discipline someone who steps out of line in very particular ways.    

A Prince Among Men

New York (Football) Giants corner back Prince Amukamara revealed in an interview on the Muscle and Fitness website that some of his teammates call him the "Black Tim Tebow."  The 24 year old is engaged to be married, but is "unashamed" to say that the is a virgin and has never had an alcoholic drink in his life.  He is a practicing Catholic, and from his youth has seen the path of chastity and sobriety as a way to heaven.  He does say that he might break the no drinking policy at his bachelor party, though I hope he takes that one slow.

My first reaction was: Fantastic.  Professional athletes, musicians, actors and just about anyone in the sports and entertainment field are surrounded by temptations the average person can't imagine.  That is a big reason why lasting, lifelong marriages are so hard to come by in Hollywood.  Add on to that the ego that goes along with being in the NFL, and the sense of entitlement so many young, suddenly rich and famous people often feel; to not let it go to your head, to stay grounded and true to your faith is quite an accomplishment.  For a game that has been marred in recent years by stories of murder and off the field violence, the Tebows and Amukamaras of the world come as breath of fresh air.

My second reaction was, what a shame he felt compelled to say that he "wasn't ashamed" of living his faith. Against living virtuously there is no law, except in the eyes of the twisted.  But ours is such an age when virtue makes headlines.  I noticed the story last week on Drudge, who linked to the local CBS afiliate in New York, and the next morning it was all over the place, even making London's Daily Mail.  It reminded me a little bit of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where monogamy is thought of as perverted, and any one who only sleeps with only one partner is thought of as "one of those girls."

Prince, congratulatuions on your upcoming nuptuals, and remember;  If you stay true to the faith you'll never have to worry about feeling ashamed (well, maybe except for how the G-Men have played the first three weeks of the season).

The Pope's Interview: What He "Really" Means

 
Back in the 1960's, shortly after the Second Vatican Council, Rome announced modifications to the Friday abstinence from meat, which was in effect for the entire year, not just during Lent.  In essence, Friday was still to be observed as a day of penance in commemoration of Our Lord's Passion, but one could substitute some other appropriate penance for the ordinary practice of going meatless.  Individual dioceses were also able to modify the observance in light of local customs.  But not eating meat was still considered the ordinary way of observing Friday as a day of penance, with the Lenten practice of meatless Fridays remaining in force.  This is still the prescribed discipline of the Church today.  By the time the secular press got hold of the story it was reduced to VATICAN SAYS: HOT DOGS FOR EVERYONE ON FRIDAYS.  That meat was now permissible fare on Fridays, without any of the nuances, was all most of the faithful, and even many priests, ever heard about the change.  As one priest who lived through that period told me, most Catholics, including priests, got their news about the Church from secular tabloids like The New York Daily News more than from the L' Osservatore Romano.  To this day most Catholics think the Church changed Her long standing discipline without qualification.  I will admit that in the big picture whether you eat meat or not on Friday may seem like a small matter, but the example is illustrative of how the secular press often over simplifies stories about the Church, and sometimes just gets them plain wrong.
This past Friday I was on my way to the airport and saw a man standing on a median at a traffic light selling the paper.  It was the Sun-Times, which is the tabloid daily here in Chicago.  He wore a nylon vest with a see-through panel on the front and back that housed the front page.  The headline was bold and succinct as you would expect from a tabloid: POPE RIPS FOCUS ON GAYS, ABORTION. The Sun-Times was making reference to an interview of Pope Francis published last week in several Jesuit journals around the world and here in the States by the Society of Jesus' flagship publication America.  I read the interview finally, after hearing and reading much about it and can say that the Holy Father "rips" no one.  His comments about gays, abortion and contraception were less than a paragraph of a rather lengthy interview that covers a variety of topics.  He isn't supporting same sex marriage or suggesting abortion is OK. In fact the day after the interview first appeared His Holiness met with a gathering of Italian OG-BYNs and spoke of the evils of abortion and the need to promote the Gospel of Life.  So what did the Pope mean? 

What the Holy Father is saying that what comes first and foremost is the proclamation of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance.  We live in a wounded world with people who are spiritually injured and these wounds need to be healed first.  He likens the Church to a field hospital.  In a triage situation where a person has a compound fracture and is bleeding to death you don't ask about his cholesterol and blood sugar - to use Pope Francis' example.  There is time for that once the patient has been stabilized.  But the first proclamation of the Gospel needs to be about God's love and mercy.  Once the person has been introduced to Jesus Christ, and has that personal encounter with Him then the doctrines and moral  teachings can be introduced in a more systematic way.  Once the person knows Jesus, has a relationship with Him the doctrines will be better understood and seen as flowing naturally from being a disciple, as opposed to being a "disjointed" collection of moral imperatives that don't seem to have a link to life in general, let alone to life in Christ.

The Holy Father is at once subtle and clear that we are to always separate behavior from the person.  In the case of homosexuals, the teaching is clear on homosexual acts, and as a son of the Church the Pope holds to them.  But we also have the person who is a child of God who needs to be treated as such; with respect, dignity and love. 

Is the truth of the Church's teachings on human sexuality to be taught and proclaimed?  Yes.  But so are Her teachings on social justice, respect for the environment, the dignity of the disabled, the proper care of the sick and the need for an active and deep prayer life, to name a few things.  We need to preach it all, but as Pope Francis said, we don't have to preach it all at once.  So when the Pope talks to gynecologists he'll speak about abortion, and when he speaks to the unemployed in Sardinia, as he did the other day, he'll speak of the dangers of globalization and the need for an economic system that puts people and their right to work ahead of greed.  He will chose the right time and place to proclaim the message needed in the moment, and he is reminding all of us charged with preaching to do the same. 

In the end the reaction to the Pope's interview highlights our contemporary crisis of a politicized Church, with people taking sides as liberals and conservatives.  With his words of conciliation and talk of mercy many liberals see an ally in Pope Francis, hoping that the changes they've been waiting for since 1965 are finally on the way.  Conservatives, stung that the Holy Father is seemingly not as stringent on liturgy and "hammering heretics" as his immediate predecessors are scrambling to explain what the Pope really meant. This misses the point.  We are neither a liberal nor a conservative Church in the way that the world understands these words.  Christ is concerned about the poor and the afflicted, wants us to form a more perfect and just world.  He also calls us as individuals to a high standard of personal holiness and self control. He is interested about what goes on in the chambers of the senate and also in the spiritual chambers of our hearts, and yes, even in the privacy of our bedrooms.  Nonetheless we can never reduce Him to a political candidate, a self help guru or puritanical moralist.  He loves us with the deepest love imaginable, beyond our imagining, really, but will never flash an OK sign at us and say, "Your OK, I'm OK."  He will always challenge us to move beyond our opinions, beyond our certitudes and beyond our comfort to surrender all to Him. 

And one final message to everyone out there: beware stories about the Church appearing in the secular news services, be they print, radio or television.  They usually over simplyfy things and force bloggers like me to slave over  posts like this.

Lasting Peace

Last Saturday, September 7, the Holy Father asked Catholics to fast and pray for peace in Syria.  While there appears to be a diplomatic solution in the offing, the outcome of the crisis is still in doubt, albeit less so than forty-eight hours ago.  In taking such a strong stand against military action Pope Francis has faced criticism from some people in the press.  He has been accused of taking sides against the United Stated in the conflict.  This is a misinterpretation of the Pope’s words and actions.  He is calling on all sides to slow down, use the diplomatic process and avoid a conflict that could grow into a wider, far more destructive war.  The Holy Father is calling upon us,  as disciples of Christ, to use our spiritual weapons, namely prayer and fasting, to aid in bringing healing to a world in conflict.

This striving for peace must not be confined to nice thoughts or abstract wishes.  We must make peace an everyday reality of our lives.  It is true that we as individuals can do little to influence the course of human events directly and immediately.  We are living our everyday lives; trying to make a living, or going to school.  Maybe we are retired.  Either way we have worries of our own right here.  We are not great and powerful people.  How can we make world peace a reality?

We help make world peace a reality by making peace right here and now with the people we live with and around.  When we forgive a brother or sister who has offended us, we are making a more peaceful world.  When we act with kindness toward a neighbor, especially one we may not get along with, we are making the world more peaceful.  When we reconcile with someone who has offended us, or we reach out a hand and seek forgiveness for our own sins, we are making the world more peaceful.  We shouldn’t think of the world as only places that are far away.  The world for us is the house and the block in.  It is the place we work and the school we attend.  If there is no peace in these places we should not be surprised when there is no peace in the wider world.  

As active and honest citizens should we vote, call our congressman and sign petitions?  Yes.  But all the political action will be useless if there is no conversion of heart.  There is a saying that all politics is local.  We can also say that the struggle for peace in the world begins locally.  Actually, we should say it begins inside of each and every one of us.  The Holy Father asked us for a day of fasting and prayer, and I would like to think that the quick turn of events is a result of our heeding of this call.  But we simply can’t return to old ways once the crisis is diverted and expect lasting change.  An attitude of simplicity, self-denial and openness to the Spirit of reconciliation is a key to forming a world of true peace; not for a day or an evening, but every day and at every moment, beginning with the people right around us.  May Christ our light open our hearts and minds so that we can be peacemakers right here and now in the place we live.  

Here is Pope Francis in his own words from last Saturday

Blue Jasmine // Movie Review

 

I slipped away for a few hours last week and saw the latest Woody Allen directed film Blue Jasmine.  I would not count this as a must see, except if you are a dedicated Allen fan.  This is not a comedy, though it does have plenty of comedic touches.  That it's a drama is not why I don't recommend it.  Allen can do serious material.  He is also under-appreciated as a visual director, I think, and his keen sense of composition and the taking in of majestic landscapes is on display here.  But it is the writing, the thing that he's best known for, that bogs the movie down. There is a certain out of touch quality to Blue Jasmine, derived I think from a combination of the writer-director's age and socio-economic class, that makes it feel like he's imagining what his working class characters must be like without actually having met any in real life.   They're sympathetic, but more than a little superficial in their rendering.

To put it in a nutshell; Cate Blanchett plays the title character; a woman married to a Bernie Madoff like swindler (Alec Baldwin).  She's living the high life in New York, willfully unaware of her husband's crooked business dealings and numerous marital infidelities.  Eventually he's found out, on both counts; needless to say they lose it all.   The husband goes to jail, eventually commits suicide, and the emotionally fragile Jasmine goes to live with her working class sister in San Francisco.  Both sisters were adopted, and there is this ongoing debate between them, which never seems to go anywhere, as to whether genes are responsible for the divergence in their social standings.  The story is told in flashbacks, and we see that Jasmine was emotionally brittle even before her fall from grace, and may be responsible, in part, for her predicament.

Allen makes about a movie a year and writes his own material.  This is a clear formula for plenty of hits and misses, and this is a miss.  I didn't catch last year's To Rome with Love, but did see Midnight in Paris, and liked it very much.  But even there, as with Blue Jasmine, I was aware the entire time that Woody Allen had written the dialogue.  He has this strange way of trying to sound natural that still comes off as mannered and contrived.  I find this less problematic with comedy, but with drama it seems to undercut the power of the performances.  And beyond the visuals, the strength of this film lies in the performances, especially by Blanchett and Baldwin.  Unfortunately they are made to deliver lines that I'm not sure real people would ever say, or at least not in the way they're formulated.  The big exception is one scene between Blanchett and Baldwin that I have a strange feeling is mirroring real life way more than the whole Madoff thing they have going on here. 

As I think I've said in other places, mediocre Woody Allen is still better than most film makers out there when they bring their "A Game."  So a reluctant pass on Blue Jasmine, but maybe wait for the DVD and catch it then.