The Last Remake (Hopefully) of A Star is Born (Spoilers)

In 2015 pop diva Lady Gaga (a.k.a. Stefani Gernanotta) showed she could sing with the big kids by performing an irony free, refreshingly straight forward medley of songs from the Sound of Music at the Academy Awards ceremony to commemorate that film's 50th anniversary. She further demonstrated her range a year later with her folk and rock influenced album Joanne. This latter day queen of the dance floor "subverts expectations" again in '18, mixing standards, rock, country, and, of course her usual genre, danceable pop, while also showing she can act, in her latest project, A Star is Born. 

Lady Gaga, though, is a symbol of what's right about this third official remake of the 1937 classic movie, but also what's wrong with it. By herself, she's great. Along with music you'd expect, you also get her channeling Edith Piaf, while throwing in a sly tribute to Judy Garland, who stared in the most successful version of this story back in 1954. I don't what to over sell her acting, but she is certainly up to the task here. Bradly Cooper shows some range of his own. He not only stars, but also sings, quite well, and directs for the first time. Andrew Dice Clay, Sam Eliot and Dave Chappelle offer solid supporting work. The concert scenes were filmed in front of live audiences between sets at actual music festivals, adding to movie's authentic feel. Each of these elements work well, and individually everyone involved deserves praise, especially Lady Gaga, who earns her top billing.

All this should be enough for me to make a positive recommendation, but it isn't. I found something lacking. By the middle of the movie I was bored, quite frankly, checking the time, wondering how exactly the movie was going to dispose of it's tragic hero. So far, the previous cinematic iterations have offered us two ocean drownings and a drunken dune buggy accident. Here we get diversionary foreshadowings, meant to keep us guessing how he will end it all, but end it all he does, as he must, I guess. 

Jackson Maine (Cooper) is an established countrified rock star (the music is tough to label, since the loud numbers are certainly rock and the ballads, definitely country). He's haunted by a troubled childhood, suffering from alcohol and drug addiction. Added to his difficulties is a severer case of tinnitus which is robbing him if his hearing. On the way back from a gig, out of liquor, he has his driver stop at the first open bar they pass. It ends up being a transgender establishment, but since booze is booze, what the heck. While there he catches a performance by the lone cisgender woman on the bill, Ally (Ms Germanotta) and is blown away by her performance of La Vie en Rose. By the end of a night of running around, getting into minor scrapes, Jack is completely smitten. After hearing a fragment of a tune she's been working on he encourages Ally to write songs. He insists she travel with him to his next gig, and after some serious persuading, that borders on stalking, she hops on the private jet. Once at the show, Jack draws her on stage to sing the number she demoed for him the night before, complete with harmony parts, chord changes and a bridge (I know, it's a movie). 

From there film pretty much follows the story that the others do. Ally gets an agent, she and Jack marry, and along the way she's introduced to the dark side of the cut throat music industry. Jack becomes jealous at his discovery's rise. He descends further into addiction as she continues to ascend up the pop music ladder. He embarrasses her publicly at what should have been her triumphant moment. When they reconcile Ally decides to put her still fledgling career on hold to help him recover. Her agent tells Jack what a useless drag on Ally he is, which prompts him to finish what he first attempted when he was 13 years old. 

Knowing how this was going to end the only suspense was over what method of suicide would be employed. At a certain point watching this movie was like playing the board game "Clue." All I could think of was "will it be drunk on a motor cycle over a cliff, or prescription pain killer coma in the swimming pool?" It was neither of those two options, but if you're paying attention you'll figure it out before the end. I was holding out hope that they would really subvert expectations and let the poor slob live, which is strange for me because I'm always complaining about unearned happy endings. While it's probably better they didn't go that rout, it's the only thing that would have really gotten my attention.  

It's more than just that the film's themes and ending are predictable for anyone familiar with the previous versions that left me yawning.  The fatal flaws with A Star is Born 2018 revolve around motivation and pacing. Jack is portrayed as being sweet, sensitive and, almost ego free. He's incredibly open and supportive of Ally’s growth as a singer songwriter it’s hard to believe that he would turn on her simply out of jealousy, especially since his career is humming along just fine. We never really see him preoccupied by the young turks coming up behind him, as we do Kris Kristofferson in the 1976 film. There's a scene late in the second act that hints at sweating the competition, but it seems forced. The turn of events comes out of nowhere, and seems like it happened because the script needed him to have a melt down right then. In general, he's a happy, if depressed, drunk so his eventual flashes of belligerence, as mild as they are, still don't make a lot of sense. 

There were other things that didn't make sense to me. When he ridicules Ally for her stylistic turn to dance music, it’s dismissed as a cover for his envy. I don’t have a hard time at all believing that a “serious” rocker would look down on his prized discovery for turning herself into a pop tart. On the other hand, I also can see him going along with it because their styles appeal to two different audiences, so in a way there’s no real competition at all. Think about it. In the real world does Jack White really compete for the same entertainment dollars as Ariana Grande? Plus, professional musicians tend to have a broader appreciation for the wide world of pop and classical styles than the fans do. So anything is possible there, but the way the character is established I don't see him turning into a jerk since it's never established that he was capable of that before. I also questioned why she had to wait for the agent to pick her up in the first place. I find it hard to believe that Jack’s people wouldn't have signed her up once she started singing at his shows. If he wanted her for himself I’m sure Jack could have set her up with representation and a record deal pretty quick.

While the movie goes against the current Hollywood trend of concocting a contrived happy ending, it still makes Jack's character too nice. We have to love this man, and by extension the actor playing him, so the choices made may render him pathetic, but still completely sympathetic to the audience. The late Burt Reynolds once said that what separates the B list actors from the Stars is that a Star is dangerous. He gives off at least a small dose of menace, to go along with the requisite charm and good looks. To paraphrase the old cliché, the danger is why men wanted to be someone like Reynolds, Robert Mitchum or Sean Connery, and women want to be with them. Cooper never hints that he's dangerous to anyone but himself. While Lady Gaga and Cooper have real chemistry, I see Jackson Maine as too much of a self pitying sad sack for the relationship to leave the friend zone. Unless, that is, Ally's just a user taking advantage of her new friend to get ahead, which again would go against the character as established from the beginning. 

So, every body does their jobs really well. The acting is great and I really liked the music, even the pop stuff, which usually isn't my bag. But because the Jackson Maine character seemed off, and thus motivations questionable, it never felt right as a whole package.

Which brings me to Bradly Cooper's direction, which again points to what works and what doesn't. I liked his visual style a lot. I had the feeling he was doing more than a little experimentation with lighting and angles, which I think is a good thing. On the down side the movie stalls at times in the second act, but seems to creep to a stop in the last third. The musical finale, when the star is finally born, paying tribute to her dead husband while stepping out into the spotlight on her own, is the crowning moment of the story. In this case, it's Lady Gaga's moment to shine. Judy Garland and Barbara Streisand were established stars of stage and screen already when they made their movies (Janet Gaynor plays an actress, so the '37 original didn't end with a musical number). But Stefani Germanotta is truly birthing her movie career here, if you will. She deserved the stage to herself, so I was put off by the ill-timed flashback. It was supposed to make me cry, instead all I thought was, "there's that jealous, selfish, Jack again, ruining Ally's big spot."

So, a mixed reaction. Good acting, good music, signs that Bradly Cooper could develop into a fine director and that Lady Gaga can make it in the movies. But fuzzy characterizations, muddled motivations and erratic pacing keeps A Star is Born from really taking off. There are other reasons I'm not sure the movie works, that have more to do with if the story itself even makes sense in 2018. But I've written enough for now. Maybe I'll get into that further on down the line. 

Paganism and the Dictatorship of the Narrative

One of the oldest tropes going is comparing the Twentieth and Twenty-first century United States to the ancient Roman Empire. Post Republican Rome was in reality a monarchy that went to great pains not to self identify as such. For instance they didn't call their emperors emperors, this is a title applied by later historians. They called them princeps, or First Citizen, among other non monarchical titles they held. It's hard to argue that the US isn't an empire, what with manifest destiny, extraterritorial possessions and military bases in foreign countries, but no president or presidential hopeful would ever cop to something like that. And the average citizen would recoil at such a claim, as well. The reason for the dissonance between perception and reality is linked to the founding "myths" of both Rome and the US. In fairness I, think myth is too strong a word, in both cases, but at the very least the founding ideals of both places got perverted somewhere long the way. 

The comparisons go on. Football is compared to the gladiator fights. The entertainment industry and industrial news complex is often said to be nothing more than purveyors of bread and circuses, mindless diversions meant to keep the masses distracted from what is really going on. More recently some have observed that with the decline of Christianity and traditional religions pagan practice has begun to reemerge. The anything goes sexual mores of the Sexual Revolution also echo antiquity. The acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, the contraceptive mentality are a part of the re-paganizing of Western society. Each of these examples doesn't offer a perfect match between then and now, but as is said, history doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme. 

My purpose here isn't to compare and contrast the sexual mores of the ancient and contemporary worlds, or even to compare both civilizations more broadly. All I'm suggesting is that as Christian and Jewish values, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, exert less influence over the culture something else needs to come in and fill the gap, and what seeps in may not necessarily be pagan, but in our case, it is. What I've been thinking about lately is the concept of due process and the burden of proof. We don't appreciate how Biblical these concepts are, and as we put our traditional notions of innocent until proven guilty aside we are reverting back to the days of Rome, and this isn't a good thing.

The Romans believed in guilty until proven innocent. That a charge was made was sufficient for a person't life to be ruined. It was the accused's responsibility to prove that they didn't do something, and as is often said, proving a negative is practically impossible. Many were imprisoned, exiled and executed because of unsubstantiated accusations. Because the accuser only had to lay the claim, but not prove it, the system was often abused, with courts sometimes used to settle personal or political scores. 

The Old Testament says that an accusation needs to be attested to by at least two or three witnesses before a person could be condemned (Dt. 19:15), with harsh a punishment exacted if the testimony is proven to be false (v.16). Was justice perverted at times? Of course. Just look to the case of Ahab stealing Naboth's vineyard through "legal" treachery (I Kings 21). Jesus' own trial before the Sanhedrin was a miscarriage of justice (Matt. 27:1-31; Mark 15:1-20; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28-19:16). No system of jurisprudence is perfect. But the Bible lays down a solid basis for judging guilt or innocence that at least makes people think twice before bringing false or frivolous charges.

Guilty before proven innocent often rules the day in the court of public opinion. It's always been the case. But the criminal justice system functions so that the passions of the moment don't determine the final judgment. Guilt or innocence is meant to be decided in an systematized, organized, dispassionate setting where just the facts determine the outcome. Do judges and juries get it wrong at times? Yes. As I wrote before no system is perfect, and none on this earth ever will be. But what we have is a solid system that shouldn't be scrapped so quickly or thoughtlessly. And make no mistake, there are those who would, in the name of social justice, tear asunder the very foundations of the justice system itself to arrive more speedily at the outcome they want. This isn't justice at all, but the will to power exercised in a most grotesque way. 

As for the court of public opinion, it's not ruled by principles of jurisprudence. As individuals and as a community we make judgments based on the best information we have at our disposal. We follow our gut instincts most of the time, not rock hard evidence. While I’m a firm believer in the power of intuition, hunches aren’t infallible. They may be guided by common sense and experience, but they can also be influenced by prejudices. In a politically polarized age we can be quick to judge guilt or innocence based on our ideology rather than on an honest examination of the facts as we understand them. We can be ruled by the dictatorship of the narrative, that automatically reads discrete, complicated situations through the lens of an overarching archetype that may not even apply. Our judgments are deemed honest and true because they fit the narrative, not because they fit the particular facts. Decisions reached in the court of public opinion should always be held as suspect, but the dictatorship of the narrative renders a healthy self doubt impossible.


As we lose the sense of due process, and with it the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, these snap judgments based on a narrative as opposed to the facts become more likely, not just in the court of public opinion, but in actual courts of law as well. Jurors are chosen from among the general public. As more and more people are educated to follow the prevailing narrative as opposed to following the facts, the actual discerning of evidence and reaching an impartial verdict becomes more and more difficult, with miscarriages of justice far more likely. 

Serious allegations against politicians seeking public office or nominees to cabinet positions or judgeships should be investigated. The vetting or nomination process isn't a court trial, but the same principles need to apply. The seriousness of the charge alone, or even the apparent sincerity of either the accused or accuser, shouldn't be what determines the outcome of the process. We have gone from looking at the facts to deciding with emotions, which are easily manipulated. Emotions are even more easily manipulated when people approach a case with an ideologically driven narrative already firmly planted in their heads.

When due process and the burden of proof are thrown aside, whether formally or informally, we all lose. Justice becomes a matter of power alone. The left witch hunts against the right, and then when the right takes power, the opposite is the case. Anyone can be denounced for any reason by anyone for an offense allegedly committed at anytime, or even at some indeterminate time in the past, in a place that no one can remember with people who can't recall being present. No one needs to prove what they are accusing, the accusation is enough to unleash a moral panic. All that matters is that people are turned into players who fit a narrative, and it's the narrative that makes it true. 

Jesus commanded us not to judge, lest we be judged (Mt. 71-3). Most moralists will tell you the our Lord was speaking of judging the heart, but that we can and at times should judge actions (Lk. 12:57, 1 Cor. 11:13). Courts of law are primarily concerned with actions, though judging motivations and intent are certainly a part of the process. When discernment of facts is replaced by appeals to emotion we become less rooted in our Jewish Christian values, and become more like the mob of ancient Rome. We all become potential targets of enemies, personal and political. We become suspicious of others and they in turn look side eyed at us. We are all potential felons, whether the evidence adds up or not. No one is safe in a world ruled by the dictatorship of the narrative.

Scripture Reflection for September 30, 2018 (26th Sunday of Ordinary Time)

Mark 9:38-43, 45, 47-48

At that time, John said to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be letter for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut if off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye
than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"

This is one of those scripture passages we are given that is compact, but rich with diverse messages. In it, Jesus offers us lessons on at least three of the great dangers we can encounter in the Christian life. One is jealousy of others' gifts. The second is being the cause of scandal that leads others astray. The third is near occasions of sin, and attachment to vices that run deep into our soul that that may or may not lead to sinful actions, but are nonetheless obstacles to our salvation. 

The first part of the Gospel passage is an echo of the first reading, when two of Israel’s chosen leaders, not present with the group, are gifted with the promised Spirit anyway, and begin to prophesy in the camp. Joshua, Moses assistant, wants them stopped, but Moses tells him to not be jealous on his account. The ideal situation, he explains, would be if all the people shared in the prophetic office. In this statement we see a foreshadowing of God’s plan to make a Kingdom of prophets (as well as kings and priests) through baptism in Jesus Christ. 

In the case of the Gospel passage, John is concerned about an exorcist expelling demons in Jesus’ name, but is not one of their group. Jesus instructs him to let the man be, since those who are not against Him, and indeed speak well of him, are “with” Him.

Jesus, like Moses, is warning us against jealousy. In a parish or school, it’d easy for a ministerial tribalism to take hold. Each group or department thinks it’s superior to the others, that it’s concerns are paramount. We need to see that we all work together, building up the Body of Christ, when was he uses their talents and abilities in the service of the whole. This tribalism is usually accompanied by territorialism, that is fearful of those on the outside of the tribe who may be doing the same work. Again, we are called to work together, and have the humility to accept help from others. In this way we are more effective witnesses to Christ.

This passage also has obvious ecumenical implication. Many non-Catholics make great contributions to the pro-life movement, and organizations like Lutheran Church Charities are a great service to the poor. The Quakers, through the American Friends Service Committee, work for justice for migrants and other marginalized people. When we can cooperate with them we should. Of course discernment is necessary. Not all Christian and non Christian groups are friendly with the Catholic Church. Some are down right hostile. While we should be open to dialogue, full on cooperation may not be possible at this time. At the same time Jesus is calling us to an openness to those not of our tribe.

Jesus segues into a discourse on not giving scandal to the little ones, whose faith is simple. We usually associate this passage with children, and while the example certainly applies, it can be read as referring to anyone of any age who’s faith is simple or fragile. Giving scandal is a sin, but taking scandal is a sin as well. The one who gives bad example leads another astray, but the one who takes scandal allows his faith to be weakened. I’m not speaking here of experiencing moral outrage or shock at the misdeeds of others (this is normal and usually appropriate), but of those who use these misdeeds as an excuse to go down the wrong path themselves. 

That a priest or bishop, for example, scandalizes the faithful by their public sins is particularly egregious. It’s a form of murder. They may not kill the body, taking the person’s natural life, but they are potentially killing the supernatural life of grace in those who take offense. In spite of this, the sins of bishops and priests is still no excuse for breaking the commandments ourselves, or abandoning Jesus and His Church. The cleric, or anyone who leads people astray is guilty of a double sin, for sure. But it’s for us to keep things in perspective. Our faith is in Jesus Christ, who is true and the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Our spiritual guides may be holy (please God) or they may be sinners, but it’s Jesus Christ who is our Rock.

In the last section Jesus speaks of occasions of sin, warning us that if our foot or hand I the cause of a sin, we should cut them off, and if it’s our eye it should be plucked out. Jesus is speaking quite clearly in hyperbole when he talks of cutting off limbs and plucking out eyes. He is speaking more directly about a spiritual amputation we need to endure. There may be things in our life that need to be eliminated if we are to cut sin out of our life and truly live the life of holiness Jesus intends. 

Before I begin let me be clear: I’m not anti technology or anti smart phone, but we know that so much filth can enter our lives through such tech if we aren’t vigilant. How much easier it is to give in to the temptation of pornography now that it’s available at anytime, practically anywhere and in the palm of our hands. How many people have secret, impure relationships with other people’s wives and husbands through text message. They may never actually commit a sexual act with the other person, but they communicate in a way that consents to adulatory in their hearts. This spiritual infidelity, if you will, that is still sinful while making actual sins against the flesh much more likely.

Facebook and other social media platforms can be great ways of keeping connected with family and friends. They can also be ways of spreading gossip and calumny. They can be platforms for bullying and social shaming. In the extreme, they can lead to violence and murder. This is not some wild hypothesis on my part. A young boy was shat and killed just steps from our parking lot a few years age, the result of a fight started on Facebook. The saddest part was that the boy wasn’t involved directly in the argument, but standing by to support his sister. 

If your smart phone causes you to sin, smash it on the ground. It’s better to go through life unconnected than into hell with the latest update. If your social media account causes you to sin, drop out. It’s better to go through life off line than to enter hell with 10,000 likes. If the “innocent” texting with with a colleague not your spouse turnes ambiguous, romantic, or sexually suggestive, never mind explicit, block the number. It’s better to go through life with one less contact than to risk your marriage in this life, and your immortal soul in the next. 

Jealousy, scandal and occasions of sin. These are the three dangers to our life in Christ our Lord is calling us to avoid today.

Scripture Reflection for September 26, 2018

These reflections won't be daily, but I'll try to get them up at least three days a week. Some will be on the daily Mass readings, some, like today, will be drawn from the Divine Office. These are quick meditations taken from my half hour morning meditation. They may not be fully formed, and I'm sure there will be gaps in logic. I only hope they aren't superficial. I hope they help you in your own praying over the Scriptures. 

From the Office of Readings for Wednesday of the Twenty Fifth Week of Ordinary Time 

Ezekiel 37:1-14

Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Listen! I will make breath enter you so you may come to life. 

I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow over you, cover you with skin, and put breath into you so you may come to life. Then you shall know that I am the LORD. (v. 5-6)

He said to me: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel! They are saying, “Our bones are dried up, our hope is lost, and we are cut off.”

Therefore, prophesy and say to them: Thus says the Lord GOD: Look! I am going to open your graves; I will make you come up out of your graves, my people, and bring you back to the land of Israel. (v. 11-12)

This striking passage, typical of the extraordinary visions that fill this book, was meant to be a sign of hope for the Israelites in exile. Ezekiel wasn’t speaking literally of the resurrection when he wrote of the people rising from their graves, but was pointing to their eventual rising from the metaphorical grave of exile, and their return to Jerusalem. Renewed by His Spirit the Lord would restore their integrity as a nation dedicated to His service. As disciples of Christ we see this passage’s highest fulfillment in Jesus’ own resurrection, along with the promise that those who have faith in him will one day share in that fullness of life, with their graves literally opening, and their glorified bodies 

We as a people and as individuals can feel like those dry bones. It could be aridity in prayer, or the stress of work or family crises that drains us of our energy. Sometimes plans and dreams that we have for our life or the lives of our children don't come to pass, and we wonder where God is. We were so sure that our will and the will of God were the same, and yet heartache is all we feel. We can't see beyond the present troubles to perceive the big picture of our lives and other possibilities that the Lord might have in store us. We certainly need to live in the here and now, but it’s possible to get so caught up in the present moment we miss the forest for the trees. We can lose hope, forgetting that the trials of the present are nothing compared with the future God has in mind.

When I read these passages from Ezekiel from the Office of Readings in these days I can't help but think of the big picture. Israel was in exile because she didn't follow God's commandments. Israel's history is a series of triumphs and defeats, and theses risings and falls are connected to alternating periods of fidelity and infidelity to God. The fall of Jerusalem, the dispersal of the people and the destruction of the Temple were seen as fatal blows by those who suffered these indignities. God told them through Ezekiel that He could restore life to that which was thought dead. He would restore the nation, the people and the Temple, breathing into them new life.

The Church, in the West anyway, can be said to resemble these dried bones. The numbers of people who self identify as Catholic or Christian is declining, and many of those who remain can feel confused and disheartened. There is a revival of the scandals of the last decade that is shaking the confidence of the faithful in their leaders, while confirming the agnostic or atheist in their skepticism. Vatican II was supposed to be a second Pentecost, and the Millennium was going to see a new springtime for the Church. Yet the march of secularization seems to be driving the Church into a deeper cultural exile with no end in sight.

Of course, we must have faith. God's will will be done, if not now, if not during our earthly life times, it will be completed certainly in His good time. As Catholics faith is not a noun but a verb. Israel lost the land because they did not live the faith that was handed on to them. They thought they were adult enough to do their own wills, and of course God would go along with it. They were collectively like Adam and Eve who stretched out their hands to grasp the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They would judge for themselves what was right or wrong according to their consciences. They would adopt the practices of their gentile neighbors, in cultic, economic and moral matters, keeping the Law in word but not in deed. So God, in His mercy, at the very least permitted the exile to happen in order to wake them up to their sins, call them back, purify them, and return them to the Land.

As Church the Lord is permitting us to pass through this trial. We have long believed that we can live on our own, following our own ways, and somehow in the following of our own wills is equal to following God's. As a wider society we have made the personal conscience sovereign, and it has brought cultural disintegration and spiritual sterility. The Church has made a decision to swim with the flow of these societal trends, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that fragmentation and spiritual dryness have followed. 

The bones of the Church may appear lifeless, dry and disjointed. But it will be the breath of the Lord that will revive her. He will raise us up, while literally on the last day, metaphorically here and now whenever now happens to be. As I wrote, faith is a verb, so we need to respond by repentance. Only then will the New Pentecost and Spring Time promised to us will truly come to pass. Only when we have the humility to align our consciences with the will of God will, when we stop willing our own power but surrender to God's, will we really be given a vivifying portion of His grace. 

Scripture Reflection for September 25, 2018

The mother of Jesus and his brothers came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd. He was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you."

He said to them in reply, "My mother and my brothers 

are those who hear the word of God and act on it." (Luke 8:19-21)

I’ve actually heard this Gospel passage for today's Mass used to denigrate Marian devotion.  So sad, as the president might say. It wouldn't have been quite so bad if the culprit wasn't a vowed religious teaching a classroom full of undergrads in a Catholic college (I'll save that tirade for another time). The point of this passage isn't that Mary was somehow estranged from or even hostile toward her Son and his mission (as the professor argued) but that blood relationship alone doesn't connect us to the Lord or warrant us privilege. It is the faith that we put into practice that makes us truly a part of Christ's family.

In this spirit we venerate the Blessed Mother more for her faith than for her physical relation to her Son. That she is Jesus’ mother isn’t insignificant, but we know that being a biological parent isn’t a guarantee of parental love. There are parents who abandon their children. There are parents who abuse or neglect their children. There are parents who snuff out the life of their child before he or she is even born. So while Mary being the mother of the Savior is important, we know on an instinctual level that it isn’t enough to give her honor, as we do. 

We are devoted to her because she heard the word of God and acted it out. I should say, she acts it out, since she is still active in her Son’s service to this day. She said yes to the Father’s invitation to be bear the Son of God. She prompted Jesus to reveal himself in the first of His signs at Cana. She stood by at the cross, suffering a spiritual crucifixion, when so many others had abandoned Him. She was present at the beginning of the Church at Pentecost, receiving the outpouring of the Spirit. She continues to be a prophetess by way of her apparitions. 

We honor her for her faith. In saying yes to the angel who delivered God's call to be mother of the Messiah, she was risking, not only her reputation, but her very life, since she would have been accused of adultery, which carried with it a punishment of stoning. She suffered physically and materially when she had to travel late in her pregnancy from Nazareth to Bethlehem, then after His birth during the flight to Egypt to escape Herod. She had faith that her Son was truly the Son of God, so she didn't fear to prod Jesus at Cana to reveal Himself in the first of His signs. She continues to point Jesus out, delivering his message of repentance and mercy when she appears in places like Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima. 

Succeeding generations continue to call her blessed because of her faith. When we live out our own call from God faithfully we are imitating Mary. When we venerate her, call her blessed, we are fulfilling the prophesy contained in Luke's Gospel. We do not contradict the Word of God, but putting the Word very clearly into action.

Struggling into the Future: Third in a Continuing Series on the Current Crisis

I put a lot of stock in the Venerable Fulton Sheen's theory that history has progressed, since at least the birth of Christ, in a succession of roughly five hundred year long epochs. According to this theory we are presently at the end of an age that began with the Reformation in the early 1500's. Changes in epoch are rarely peaceful, and it takes time; decades or even a century or so, for the new normal to settle in. On the worldly level we are still in the process of secularization that began with the French Revolution. In the Church we are still coming to grips with the meaning of the Second Vatican Council, and how it's pastoral initiatives should be interpreted theologically and, implemented. We are in the final phase of the secularizing of Western society, but are only in the middle of the project that is the implementation of Vatican II. In some ways the scandals we are experiencing, and fault lines that they have exposed, are an extension the epochal changes we are passing through.

What is the meaning of Vatican II and how should it be implemented? This is not easy to say. I'm reminded of the story about a well loved Salesian who had died. A year or so after he'd passed away one of his lay devotees asked another confrere when the process of canonization was going to be initiated. The Salesian retorted dryly, "When all the witnesses are dead." My point in bringing up this anecdote isn't to imply that this particular Salesian wasn't holy, or that Vatican II was in anyway flawed. But for many who lived through the Council, especially if they were young, it was a defining, if not the defining moment of their lives. For priests and religious especially, who were either newly minted or still in formation when the documents were being promulgated, there is a nostalgic enthusiasm surrounding that period. They had hopes and dreams for what the Council was trying to do that may or may not be the case. I feel sometimes as if they have tried to impose a meaning, or push an agenda, that was important to them, but may not be all that important to the generations that have followed, and may not even be a part of what the Council was trying to do. The struggle over how the Council should be interpreted is really only going to be settled in the decades ahead, when those not so emotionally invested in desired outcomes have passed from the stage (I'm including myself in this category). Then those with more objective eyes, freed from preconceived agendas will be able to see the project home. 

Right now the struggle goes on at the edges, between the enthusiasts of rupture and the guardians of a mythic past. Human beings aren't all that creative, and on this point we seem even less so. We drive ahead while looking in the rear view mirror, as Marshall McLuhan put it. But some see as far back as the '50's while others are stuck in 1968. Neither era was perfect, and both eras are gone, never to be recovered. What the Spirit is guiding us toward probably looks nothing like the felt banner and paper mâché butterflies of the 70's, when I grew up, and even less like the fiddle backs of the counter-reformation era. But these paradigms, or some variation on them, is all we really know. What both sides, progressive and conservative alike, are engaging in is an exercises in repackaging doubling for authentic development. Rather than being open to truly new possibilities we are struggling over agendas, that no matter how novel they appear are really rooted in the past.

Regrettably, these divisions that have been present in the Church for quite a while now have only deepened. The Holy Father has become a polarizing figure, and the scandals have made his critics more emboldened. In the past they would hint at what they found troubling in the Pope’s pronouncements, but now they feel justified in not simply questioning or criticizing, but actually demanding his resignation over how he has handled the sex abuse crisis thus far. His supporters have rallied around him, and the Holy Father himself has maintained a disciplined silence, punctuated by not so cryptic daily homilies addressing those who seem to revel in the scandals. The attitude one has on how Francis has handled the crisis is a litmus test for how he or she views his papacy as a whole. If you are critical of his leadership in this area it means you want to scuttle Amoris Laetitia, turning back the clock on Vatican II. If you defend the Pope it means you’re for leading the Church down the road to secularized Protestantism. We are at a change of epoch, for sure, and mood is apocalyptic.

What this change of epoch is going to look like once the dust settles I'm hesitant to predict. I'll go as far as to posit that we are being called back to a simpler faith. This doesn’t mean that we are being called to live as Catholics did in the first century, or fourth or seventeenth. It is an age of the Church that is now, rooted in the eternal Truth responding to the needs of the present moment with our hope in the Kingdom to come. This doesn’t mean change of doctrine, or even discipline. It means getting to the root of what the Master meant when he said we have to be converted so as to be like children. It means an open acceptance of God’s will, especially when it contravenes our own desires and the wider conventional wisdom. In an age that makes economics the standard by which morality is judged, we live a detached poverty. In an age that makes sexual pleasure the highest experience and sexual proclivity the basis of personal identity, we live a disinterested chastity. In an age that puts the will to power as the prime directive, we live a dynamic obedience to God’s will.

We are at a point in time that seems to confirm the prophecies of our Lady of Akita, where the Blessed Mother spoke of a crisis that pits bishops against bishops. But some of the Pope's strongest critics and defenders right now come from within the laity (especially his critics). There is a feeling that the clerics haven't governed the Church correctly and now it's time for the lay faithful to step up. We shouldn't be shocked by this. They have heard from their pastors for over fifty years that the Church isn't a hierarchical pyramid, with the pope sitting on top and the pew sitters at the base, with religious and clergy stacked up on top of them. The Church is instead a circle of collaboration with the pope as the center of unity. The rallying cry had been the "Church is the People of God," not the institution or the clergy. It's going to come as news to some, but they actually believe that, and prelates on both sides of the divide are going to have to come to grips with it.

As I've written in the past I am hopeful because I'm a Christian. As a Salesian I'm optimistic, but not delusional. Christ has won the victory, but we are still a Church struggling, freed from slavery like the Israelites of old, but still wandering in the desert, awaiting entrance into the eternal Promised Land. The present crisis won't kill the Church, but it has already maimed her. Whatever the future paradigm will be, at its core will be greater simplicity, humility, fidelity and active participation of the laity in the actual governing of the institution. The future won't be realized, and the scandals adequately handled, until the agendas are put aside and the real issues at hand dealt with honestly.

10 Day Movie Challenge - Part One

After a couple of heavy installments I'm going to take a walk on the lighter side this time out. A couple of weeks ago I noticed a post from a friend on Facebook that read "10 DAY MOVIE CHALLENGE DAY 1: You are to post just an image, no explanation, from 10 movies that had an impact on you. 10 movies, 10 images, 10 nominations. No explanations." Below the text was a still from the movie Sideways. I didn't bite right way, but as the days passed, and the cinematic images piled up, I started putting my own list together, and I'm going to go over it now, beginning with the first five. For the most part I saw these movies within the first fifteen years of my life. They hit me at an early age, helping to form my movie going habits and tastes. I think enough time has past since the challenge was made, so I'm throwing the "no explanations" part of it out the window right here.

The first three movies I selected have nothing in common other than that they were filmed in black and white, and had visionary directors at their helm. But each is linked in my mind for the above mentioned formative effect they had on me growing up. Within less than a year, when I was 13 going on 14, I saw La Belle et la Bête, Citizen Kane and, Raging Bull. The first is Jean Cocteau's French masterpiece, whose production design was robbed quite openly by Disney almost a half century later when they made the animated Beauty and the Beast. Kane often tops the list of greatest movies of all time, which is obviously subjective. But there is no denying that with his 1941 magnum opus Orson Welles changed how movies were to be made in the future, from their visual style and dialogue, to their story structure and pacing. Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull opened to mixed reviews and a lukewarm box-office when it first came out in late 1980, though Robert De Niro's Oscar winning performance was universally hailed. When I saw it, after having snuck into the "wrong" theater at the multiplex in the spring of '81, I thought it was the best movie I had ever seen. In a delayed reaction similar to what happened to Kane, in 1990 it showed up consistently at or near the top of critics' lists of best movies of the previous decade. 

Each of these films deserves it's own post; series of posts even, but a couple of paragraphs will have to due. For me each film impressed into my mind the power of image over dialogue. La Belle et La Bête is a French film, so the visuals had to be powerful to keep my attention at such a young age, and needless to say they did. Both Kane and Raging Bull have strong scripts (the former won the Oscar for best screenplay), but like the Cocteau's film used strong visuals to tell their stories. As I wrote, all three were filmed in glorious black and white, using shadow and light to create an other worldly, atmospheric feel. Even though Welles and Cocteau worked in the 1940's when black and white was still the usual formate, it's hard to imagine any of these movies being shot in color and working as well.

When I was 14, after having seen these three movies, I was convinced that my calling was to be a film director. I'd been a cinephile from practically the time I was in diapers, but the vision of these three artists changed my life. Film from then on wasn't just something that was entertaining or amusing. It could make a statement, dig deep into human emotion and experience, and provoke thought and discussion. Obviously God had other plans for me, but deep down within me there is still an inner child who wishes he could be a part of the magical art of filmmaking. For this I thank Jean Cocteau, Orson Welles and, Martin Scorsese. 

Don't let the above paragraph fool you. I appreciate artful films, love them even, but I'm as much a sucker for a swashbuckling adventure or screwball comedy as the next guy. Did I mention buttered popcorn is a weakness as well? The fourth film on my list is sort of a combination of both: 1974's The Three Musketeers. Directed by Richard Lester (who worked with he Beatles on their two live action movies) and boasting an all star cast including Michael York, Oliver Reed and, Raquel Welch, to name only three of the big time stars in this flick, it's a mashup of adventure, romance and absurdist comedy. 

The Three Musketeers also represents my first trip to a movie theater, back when I was seven years old. Long story short, for some reason lost to the annals of time, my mother was off at some family event, and neither of my grandmothers was available to babysit me, so I was stuck at the family grocery store on a Saturday afternoon. My father, in no mood to put up with a rambunctious child during business hours, gave me five dollars and told me to go around the corner to the UA Bronxville Theater to catch the next show (yes, five bucks got me a 12 years old and under ticket, popcorn and a Coke back then, with change). I vaguely remember him asking one of the college kids working for him what was playing and if it was ok for a little boy. Once they gave the green light I was off like a shot. 

Looking back, even though it was almost forty five years ago, it's amazing they let me in unaccompanied. But they did, and I'm eternally grateful. What at show! Sword fights, explosions, double crossing scoundrels and noble heroes, beautiful maidens (did I mention Faye Dunaway co-stared with Ms. Welch?). I played at being d'Artagnan in the back yard with friends, and daydreamed about what adventures could be had. The impact was that this film showed me the power of imagination and play. 

The fifth film on my list is actually the weakest. It's the Jonathan Demme directed, 1984 Talking Heads concert film Stop Making Sense. I say the weakest, not because it's a bad movie, but because it had the least impact on me as a movie among the ten. I chose it more for nostalgia's sake: it was my first midnight film, out with high school friends, mainly from my parish youth group. If memory serves me I owned the album first, which was a mainstay on my turntable, and only saw the film after it had been out a while. It brings be back to a more innocent age, to old friends, most of whom I haven't seen in years, but still pray for. 

As for the film itself it offered alternate arraignments for familiar Talking Heads songs. Lead singer David Byrne wore his famous oversized grey suit, that kept on expanding as the movie went on. The band emerged gradually onto the stage, the ensemble growing song by song. He, and the band, came off as very deep but vague as to what the songs or the exaggerated gestures Byrne was pulling off were supposed to mean. For me, it was about the music. The album and the film were the first in either medium to be released with an all digital soundtrack, and sounded almost too perfect. At the same time, there was no denying that Stop Making Sense contained the definitive versions of many if their songs, most notably Burning Down the House, which has a driving, building intensity that the original studio version lacked.  

So that's the top five. The list really doesn't go in any particular order, except for the numbers one through four. Even that is more for sentimental reasons than for matters of art, per say. I'll be back soon with the rest of the list, and a few honorable mentions that didn't make the initial cut. 

Who Judges Peter?: Second in a Continuing Series on the Current Crisis

Pope St. John Paul II in Winter

During the final decade plus of John Paul II's pontificate there were those who openly questioned if he should retire. I'm not talking about journalists or commentators, though that may have been the case. I'm not talking of those who opposed him on theological or political grounds, though there were many of those. I'm speaking anecdotally, of conversations around dinner tables or over beer and wings after a long day. These were priests and religious who were otherwise devoted to John Paul, but had concerns. He was declining physically, and especially in the last five or six years of his life saw a marked decline in his health. The once vigorous, athletic man was increasingly stooped, unsteady on his feet, his face rendered expressionless by the Parkinson's disease that ravaged his body. People wondered out loud if he should step aside for a younger, healthier man. What if he became disabled? What if his mental faculties fail him? How can the Church function with an incapacitated pope? I heard more than one priest wonder out loud if there should be a mandatory retirement age for popes like there is for other bishops.

I understood the arguments, but was left unmoved. The pope is the successor of Peter. He is only a man, true. There is politicking that goes on before and maybe during the conclave. While the Holy Spirit directs, He's not a dictator. The cardinals don't lose their freedom when they enter the Sistine Chapel. There are human agendas that can steer the electors to one candidate or another. We can argue if God's candidate always wins the papal election, but once the vote is validly held and decided, and the bishop elected accepts in freedom, it is God's will that he faithfully fulfill the Petrine ministry he is entrusted with. He holds the Keys, he enjoys the charism of infallibility, he bears the terrible responsibility before God to tend His flock until the Lord returns, or calls him home in death (a far more likely scenario). 

Beyond that the pope is a bishop. For well over the first millennium  and a half of the Church's history, bishops were assigned for life, to preside over one local church, as the lone bishop. He was seen as the father of the diocese. The father of a family doesn't move from one household to another, and he doesn't stop being the father because he is old or sick. And there is only one father at a time. So a bishop didn't get "promoted" from one local church to another. He was married to his local church, and the commitment was until death dis they part. A great scandal in the Middle Ages involved bishops holding the title of several sees at once, collecting the revenue from each. Beyond the obvious greed and neglect (since most of these bishops never set foot in their other possessions), this kind of bishop was a bigamist, married to more than one church at a time. Even the practice of having auxiliary bishops is a relatively new development. A bishop, even to this day, has to be the bishop of somewhere, and there can be only one ordinary at a time. So auxiliaries are made titular bishops of defunct diocese, often in the Middle East or North Africa, where the local church died out centuries ago. It's a sort of legal fiction, but it maintains the illusion of the bishop as the sole father of his family church. And, as I wrote, he was bishop unto death; none of this mandatory retirement letter at 75 business.

I'm not going to argue the wisdom of having auxiliary bishops, or moving experienced men from lesser responsibilities to greater, or even mandatory retirement ages (or maybe I will at another time). It's simply this: the pope isn't just a regular bishop.  He holds a singular position in the Church as Christ's Vicar. He presides over the other churches in charity. He isn't a first among equals: he alone carries the Keys entrusted to Peter by Christ. He alone enjoys the charism of infallibility. He is a spiritual father to us all. He can not be deposed lawfully. He can not be impeached like a common politician, because he isn't a common politician. He is the Supreme Pontiff.

I know that in a rebellious and lawless age authority means nothing, and even those legitimately filled with righteous rage can be blinded by their condition, but have we no shame or fear of God? To demand that a pope resign, as if he were some governmental functionary, staggers belief. 

Some will point to St. Paul challenging Peter over the issue of table fellowship with gentile Christians. Paul opposed him to his face, but he didn't demand he hand over the Keys. Some will invoke Catherine of Siena. Catherine called the pope back to his rightful place, but she didn't demand he take off the tiara. There have been saintly popes and there have been scoundrels on the Chair of Peter. There have been holy men and moral disgraces wearing the papal robes as well. The failings of a pope gives none of us the right to stand as his judge, or jump to conclusions based on the testimony of one man. If David feared deposing Saul, when he had a clear claim to the thrown, just because Saul was God's anointed, how much more should we tread lightly here, with more than simple respect.

I understand that there is a great deal of pain out there. As I wrote last time, just when it seemed like the worst of this mess was passed us, it has come back with a vengeance. Some of Pope Francis' critics were themselves victims of clerical abuse or harassment. I don't think that Archbishop Viganòs testimony should be brushed aside without seriously examining it's veracity. The Holy Father, by his own admission, hasn't always handled the sex abuse crisis well, especially in Chile. I don't think the pope, any pope, is above scrutiny or questioning. I do think he's above being treated presumptuously. 

The thought of popes resigning, or having a mandatory retirement age imposed upon then was repugnant to me twenty years ago, and the feeling hasn't changed. I respected Pope Benedict XVI's decision to step down, but was made uneasy by it. My impression is that it helped contribute to the present atmosphere where the pope is treated like a company head or civil leader, subject to stock holder votes and daily tracking polls. If we don't like the job he's doing, we can boycott or put pressure on him to step aside. He isn't our father, in this case, just an interchangeable functionary. 

St. John Bosco had a deep devotion for the pope. He was close to Pope Pius IX in particular. It was this pontiff who encouraged Don Bosco's mission, and urged him to write his story in what became the Memoirs of the Oratory. Don Bosco didn't have such a close relationship with Pius' successor Leo XIII. There were times when that pope made decisions that hurt Don Bosco's cause. On one such occasion when an assistant asked why he was deciding against the priest, even though he knew the he was in the right, Leo replied, "Don Bosco is an obedient son; he will follow my commands faithfully. The other I'm to so sure about." But when Leo asked him to build the Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Rome, (a project that pretty much killed him) he did it without hesitation. For Don Bosco it didn't matter who the pope was, any request was considered an order to be fulfilled as a son obeys a father. 

So, I stand with Francis: not because of his agenda. Not because I think he's perfect in everything he says and does. I stand with him because he is Peter. Because I believe the promise of our Lord that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. And because I believe that all that is hidden will be revealed in the Spirit's good time.

Until then, question, demand the truth, put pressure on bishops and priests to tell the truth and live their call faithfully. I'm not suggesting passivity. But I am expecting that we work out our salvation with fear and trembling as we live out these confusing days. I expect that we understand that in our present situation, with so much contradictory information and spin going on, we should acknowledge what we know, but also admit what we don't. Be slow to judge, quick to listen, always at prayer, and always trusting in the Lord. 

A Time to Heed the Prophets - Part One of a Series on the Present Crisis

I

Over the last month or so the daily readings at Mass have been dominated by selections from the prophets, (beginning this week we've switched to selections from St. Paul) which has also been true of the Office of Readings (a part of the prayers known as the Divine Office priests and most religious are required to pray daily). For a good part of August we heard specifically from Ezekiel. He was prophet during the time of the Babylonian exile. He had a hard message for the Israelites separated from their homeland. They were told that they were in this particular situation because of their collective sins, and in spite of the dire situation that they found themselves in, they still hadn't learned their lesson.

Ezekiel was a prophet who taught by symbolic actions as well as word. In one instance he was told by God that his beloved wife would die, but that he was not to go through the normal mourning rituals. He was to act as if everything was normal. When pressed by the people about why he wasn't following the regular routine for when a loved one died, he answered it was because the remnant left in Jerusalem would be slain and the Temple destroyed by foreign enemies. They were not to mourn, though. They were to abandon the idea of a speedy return home. They were to establish themselves in Babylon - start families and be good examples for the native population. Their time of trial and purification was to go on longer than they had anticipated. 

Ezekiel also wrote extensively of evil shepherds who did not follow the Lord's ways. They didn't shepherd the sheep, but were instead looking after themselves and their own needs first. They had grown comfortable, allowing the weak and struggling to go astray without helping them. He predicted destruction for those negligent shepherds.

II

In early 2002 the Catholic Church, mainly in the United States, suffered a first wave of the sex abuse crisis. It really wasn't a new issue, but because of a series of investigative articles in The Boston Globe, what had been sporadically reported incidence of child sex abuse by Catholic clergy came together into one narrative of abuse and cover up. After The Globe ran its stories, The Dallas Morning News began it's own investigation. From there the story ran like wildfire through the media. 

The first five or six years after the scandals broke were particularly hard. A new normal settled in, at least as far as the Church in the US was concerned. We grew accustomed to background checks, yearly audits of records, safe environment training, getting fingerprinted. Many were afraid to wear clerical clothing in public because of confrontations that some priests suffered for just dressing like a priest. I never had that happen to me, but I did feel self conscious when out on the street or in an airport. I always wondered if passers by were looking at me out of devotion or scorn. I felt like people would see me and walk the other way, especially if they had children with them. While I'm sure there was some psychological projection going on on my part, I'm also sure my suspicions of bad feelings were true, at least some of the time. 

The pressure has never gone way (and I'm not sure it should), but I would say that over the last few years I've felt it lightening at bit. People are more likely to approach me in public than before, and almost universally the interaction is positive. I never abandoned the wearing of the collar in public, but for a while I made the conscious choice to travel in "civvies" more times than not. I've since reversed that practice. It seemed like finally we had reached a point where the new normal of greater accountability felt, well, normal, with the public's trust being regained little by little. 

Then June 20, 2018 happened. That was the day it was revealed that then Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had been credibly accused to child sex abuse, offenses that happened many decades ago. Along with that there were reports of payments made related to the more recent sexual harassment of adult men - mainly seminarians. This part of the scandal was handled as more of an inside Church matter. The secular press reported on it, but didn't pursue it too much. It isn't my desire to go into the details of the affair - there's plenty out there in the Catholic press and blogosphere. Just to say it the first stirrings that a return to the bad old days of 2002 were making themselves known.

Then came August 14, and the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report. I was on retreat, but in this age of smart phones it has hard for me to resist following what was going on. I only read the introduction of the 800 plus page report, but those first 24 pages were enough to make me want to vomit. Now the spirit of the Long Lent of 2002 was officially back with us.

We usually speak of two shoes falling, but this week a third boot hit the floor in the form of a self described testimony by former Papal Nuncio to the US, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. In the 11 page document he accuses the Pope of knowing about McCarrick's misdeeds and covering them up. He also claims that McCarrick had undue influence over who was named bishops or which bishops got promoted to larger sees or the College of Cardinals. The testimony exposed fissures that have existed in the Catholic Church in the US for a long time, but were often covered over. We have bishops and cardinals openly taking sides either for or against the veracity of Viganò's account. No prelate I've seen has joined the former nuncio in calling for Pope Francis to step down, but some Catholic media figures have.

The scandals here in the States are part of a larger crisis that has unfolded in the past months in Latin America. At one time the Church overseas saw this an "America" problem, but now the scandal is clearly understood to be international in scope, which it should have always been. 

III

So what is the link between the readings we have been pondering these weeks from the Old Testament prophets and the current scandals we are suffering through right now? I'll offer two possibilities.

First, the shepherds of the Church have been too busy shepherding themselves and their agendas instead of shepherding the flock. There are too many clerics who see the priesthood as a career choice instead of as a vocation. I believe most begin their vocational journey listening to the voice of the Lord calling them to serve in the spirit of the Apostles, but something goes off the rails along the way. Most priests don't get rich, by any means. But there can be such a preoccupation with days off, vacations, retirement planning and the like, it makes me wonder where the fire to evangelize went. I'm heart broken, for instance, when I hear that a parish has canceled daily Mass because it's the priest's day off. 

Are there priests who routinely skip days off or don't use all the vacation time due them because of their dedication to the mission? Sure. I knew a dedicated pastor from the Bronx who spent most of his vacation time running a summer camp for boys and otherwise lived more simply than a Franciscan. And there is nothing wrong with taking time to recharge the batteries, both physically and spiritually. I'm not condemning days off or vacations. But as a priest is anything more important than celebrating the Eucharist for the people? I mean, you'll have the rest of the day to unwind and engage in whatever legitimate diversion you wish. 

There can also be a careerist mentality involved with priests vying for particular parishes based on the Sunday collection or judging the assignment based on the living quarters more than on the mission possibilities. The goal is too often personal promotion instead of mission advancement.

I've hesitated to "go after" the bishops here, because I'm not one. I have no idea of the pressures that they face, and pray to God I never will. But bishops are chosen from among priests, so it's not a stretch to say that this careerist mentality is promoted with some of them into the episcopate. Most bishops I've known are sincere men who are trying to fulfill their duty the best they can. There is a temptation for them though to adopt the ways of the chief executive or politician. The preoccupation is more with protecting the brand than leading the flock into all truth. There is a creeping political correctness that keeps them from proclaiming the entire Gospel for fear of offending people. Maybe one sees himself as a progressive, so he'll down play the Church's teaching on human sexuality, so as not to fall out with his "party." Maybe he's a self styled traditionalist or conservative, so he'll proclaim the truth about abortion and the nature of marriage, but will neglect the social doctrine. We are called to proclaim the whole truth, not just the part of it that makes us comfortable, or wins us the "right" friends.

My second point may be a bit more controversial. Ezekiel reserved his harshest words for the shepherds, but he had a strong message for the flock as well. They were exiled because corporately they had strayed from following the commandments of God. It is in this spirit I offer this part of the reflection.

Both clergy and laity are guilty, to one degree or the other, of building a wall around the Sixth Commandment in order to find all sorts of excuses for why it doesn't really mean what it means. No one would try to find ways of excusing theft, murder, slander or lying the way we do sins against chastity. In this present PC culture that places so much emphasis on what people say or think, it's as if coveting is a graver offense than the actual committing of adultery, fornication or sodomy. Catholics have accepted the contraceptive and divorce culture along with the rest of society. Instead of standing apart, we have gone with the flow. Much of the clergy has enabled this drift into a secularized mentality when it comes to sex and marriage, but the laity by and large were happy to go along for the ride. 

We should have been at the vanguard of the Counter Sexual Revolution, but instead we gave token resistance and have just gone along to get along. Is it any wonder that there are priests and bishops, who are chosen from among the faithful, who grew up in this culture, who are quite frankly soft on this issue. And there are even those who see the Sexual Revolution as a positive good. So in formation programs too often proclivities are over looked, red flags are ignored, and candidates are promoted who should been sent home. 

Let me be clear though - it's not just the clergy who have softened on this issue, it's the entire Church. God is calling us back to the purity He intends for us. This isn't about witch hunts, but its about honesty. It's about recognizing that we have strayed as a people and need to once again follow the entire Gospel - the Gospel of peace and justice, and the Gospel of purity and self control, because they are one Gospel, not two political platforms. 

It's the whole community that has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but it is the shepherds who bear the greater burden. Reform starts with us. We need to be renewed in our hearts, rededicated to the chastity that sets us free. We are celibate (meaning unmarried in the antique definition) continent (not sexually active) and chaste (faithful to our calling in life) in imitation of Christ and as a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven where there will be no marriage or giving in marriage. If we really don't live this call faithfully, in mind as well as action, the faithful will see it and act accordingly. They will either feel justified in their own sins, scandalized to the point of leaving the Church, or stay but not respect us all that much. 

It is now that we heed the call of the prophets to rend our hearts, not our garments. For bishops and priests it's the time to reignite that early love in our hearts that led us to follow our vocation to begin with - to be renewed in the spirit. To not be conformed to the fads and trends of now, but be transformed by the eternal truth of God. To not be afraid to let go of status and influence as the world understands it, but live the truth of the entire Gospel with pure hearts.

We are still suffering as a Church because we haven't learned the lessons of 2002. We have changed or strengthened procedures, but he haven't really changed our hearts. We still believe we can make peace with the spirit of the world and live as disciples of Jesus Christ. Because of this failure the spiritual exile continues, and may be extended for longer than we imagined. 

I have admittedly side stepped a discussion on the thornier issues at work here (the veracity of Vignò's letter, the response of the Holy Father and the role that homosexuality plays in this scandal). As the title indicates, this is intended to be the first of a series. But this is the foundation from which I will begin. I will have more in the future. 

An Ode to Ace Pitchers in their Twilight

I must confess up from that I was helped out a great deal by Baseball Reference, which keeps detailed stats and descriptions of thousands of MLB games from years past. I have a pretty good memory, but not THAT good.

I have rarely seen stud pitchers in the prime of their careers. In my trips to the ball park I've more often witnessed lions in the winter of their playing days. 

I was in attendance when Tom Seaver, a legend with the Mets, made a late career appearance at Yankee Stadium in a White Sox uniform. He got beat up that August night in 1984, only lasting for 3 and two thirds. When he left the game the Yankee faithful gave him a standing ovation. He tipped his hat in recognition. It was a parish sponsored trip, and the girl sitting next to me, not a baseball fan, asked why we were cheering a player on the other team. "Because he's Tom Seaver, that's why!" I derisively barked back. I had a crush on the girl, but crush or no crush I couldn't tolerate the ignorant impiety of the question. It didn't matter that he was the Franchise for the disrespected Metropolitans. In our arrogance Yankee fans hate the Red Sox, but don't think much about the Mets at all, except to heap scorn on them for trading the best pitcher of his generation for a bag of balls and a couple of bats (all apologies  to Pat Zachry, Steve Henderson, Doug Flynn and Dan Norman). Reggie Jackson once said that blind people go to ball games to hear Tom Seaver pitch. Those days of greatness were long gone, but no matter. He was and is a New York legend, as well as a baseball immortal, which meant that night we stood and we cheered, because we knew that his likes don't come around very often. I wasn't in attendance a year later when he came back to the Bronx, still playing for Chicago. This time he went all nine innings, defeating a superior Yankee squad to the one he had faced the previous season, for his 300th win. The packed house stood and cheered as if he was one of their own, which in the big picture he still was. 

A few years later I was at the old River Front Stadium in Cincinnati. It was Tom Browning, a promising young hurler who had won 20 games a few years before, and would pitch a perfect game later that same season, against Nolan Ryan. Ryan was in his 22nd season in the big leagues, playing for Houston. Like Seaver he made his start in Queens in 1966, later pitching for the same 1969 Miracle Mets. He was traded away before his legend was solidified (he was still mainly a reliever transitioning to the starter role when he was exchanged, along with a few other less notable players, in 1971 for Jim Fregosi - arguably an even worse trade for the Mets than the Seaver debacle). He didn't have the deep New York roots of Tom Terrific, but he was no doubt Hall of Fame candidate. His seven no-hitters and 12 one hitters put the lie to the often made accusation that he was just a flashy .500 pitcher. His winning percentage was hurt by years pitching for mediocre California Angels and intermittently competitive Astros teams. He had broken Walter "Big Train" Johnson's career strike out record five years before, and by 1988, in his early 40's was still routinely leading the league in Ks. Browning would end up with a solid, but otherwise unremarkable twelve year career in the bigs, his early potential undermined by injuries. That season he was the ace of the Cincinnati staff, so it didn't take much for one of my college roommates to talk me into braving a frigid April night to take in this march-up between two marquee pitchers. 

The Ryan Express was rolling along this night. Both men were pitching well, actually, with Browning taking a 2-0 lead into the ninth. Even though he was on the losing end when he exited after the 7th, Ryan had struck out 11 and given up only four hits. 

I was feeling good. It was cold, and wanted to get out of there. Both pitchers had been efficient, with the game on pace to end before 9:30pm, which would give us plenty of time to get a bus before public transportation shut down at 10:00pm. Otherwise we'd have to pay for a taxi: we were at the end of the semester and my funds were low enough already. Then, with two outs and a runner on, the partisan Reds crowd on their feet screaming, anticipating the complete game shutout, disaster struck. On an 0-1 pitch first baseman Glenn Davis drilled a home run into the lower deck in left. The stadium went from being a house party to a mausoleum with one swing. Browning finished the inning, but had to settle for a no decision, a fate his counter part was more than happy to share in. 

For me this wasn't about winning or losing. I'm a Yankee fan, so I had no dog in this fight. It as about the pitching match up, which I had seen, so could we please go home now? Greg Daugherty, my pal who had talked me into this game, insisting we had to see Nolan Ryan before he retired, was and is a diehard Reds fan, so there was no way we were leaving. Enduring the winds whipping around the upper deck, the game dragged on for 16 innings. Houston broke through for five runs in the top of what would be the last frame. The Reds went down 1-2-3 in the bottom half, as we were then stuck paying for a cab. 

In the initial aftermath of the contest the story was about the heartbreak of letting a win slip away, and freezing in the early spring night as extra innings piled up. In the last thirty years since its about seeing Nolan Ryan, an ageless wonder defy the calendar, pitching like a player half his age.

Last night I was at White Sox Park, aka Guaranteed Rate Field - possibly the worst naming rights deal since Enron sponsored the Astros' ballpark before they went belly up amid scandal a decade ago. Their logo is a down arrow, which unfortunately denotes the direction the South Siders have been heading in the last few seasons more than the interest rates the stadium's sponsor offers on mortgages. The sad part is that this successor to the old Comiskey Park is a good place to see a game. Wrigley has the charm but Comiskey II has spacious and conveniently located lavatories. It may seem like a small point, but we're baseball fans, not angels, and when the beer is flowing no one wants to turn finding the restrooms into a scavenger hunt. The food selection is great (I recommend the Cuban Sandwich). I've never been, but they tell me the restaurant is first class. The staff is friendly (which is not to say Wrigley's isn't, by any means). If I were to put it in a nut shell, the North Side has the outside the stadium street experience down. The neighborhood has great atmosphere, with plenty of cool bars and restaurants for pre and post game noshing. But the Sox have the inside game down pat.

Unfortunately, that game in 2018 isn't baseball. While I just spent a paragraph talking about the pros and cons of the "fan experience," as the kids call it, of the two Chicago baseball teams, the only experience I go to a ball game for is the game. Right now there is no denying the Cubs are putting the better product on the field. This didn't stop me from availing myself of a friend's generosity and going down to see my beloved Yankees face off against the Sox at the ball yard on 35th and Shields. 

The Yankees are coming off a brutal four game sweep at the hands of those other Sox from Boston, punctuating a five game losing streak. New York won on Monday, pounding the White Sox 7-0. Tuesday night they put up C.C. Sabathia to face Chicago's Reynaldo Lopez. 

Sabathia isn't in the same category as either Seaver or Ryan, both first ballot Hall of Famers (Seaver was elected with highest percentage of votes in history). But by the time its all over C.C.'s plaque very well may end up in Cooperstown, even if it takes him a few tries to get there. He was a big flame throwing lefty when he was young, who has learned how to pitch now that he's entered the twilight of his playing days. It looked like he was done a few years back when injury and alcohol sent his career into a tailspin. He stopped, removing himself from the MLB merry-go-round just before the post season in 2015 to enter rehab. Realizing not just what the game meant to him, but more importantly his wife and children, and got the help he needed to put the bottle away and get himself back into shape: as a player but also as a husband and father. Other players bow out before the play-offs and you hear whispers about lack of guts or wimping out. Not with C.C. He had already proven himself to be a tough competitor, a team player, who knew what it meant to pitch through adversity. So, with the blessing of his teammates Sabathia made the tough call, but also the right one. He did comeback, and was key to the Yankees unexpected playoff run 2017. This year he's been a steady presence in an otherwise questionable starting rotation.

As I wrote, C.C. doesn't mow them down as he once did. He is now the image of the cagey southpaw using guile and finesse to induce ground outs and swings and misses out of the zone. He struck out 12 in 5 and two thirds innings last night. He got in and out of trouble a few times, with the Sox managing to scrape across a run on a sac fly in the third. His landing knee is shot, and he needs to pitch with a brace. At one point they bunted against him, and C.C. didn't get off the mound cover first: not because of indifference, but because he simply couldn't. I though the they could do this all night against him, but they didn't. He struck out the side in the 4th and pitched out of a jam in the fifth, including that devious bunt. He got two outs in the sixth, but after giving up a ground rule double to Ryan LeMarre, manager Aaron Boone made the long walk to the mound to pull his starter. 

There were plenty of Yankee fans in the crowd, and as he walked to the dugout Sabathia received a standing ovation. But there were Sox fans cheering too. Because they understand that this might be the last time he pitches in Chicago, they showed their appreciation. 

Lopez, who's not having a particularly good season for Chicago, pitched the game of his life. He took a no hitter into the sixth, before Aaron Hicks hit a ground rule double to start the frame. He was helped by his fielders, highlighted by center fielder Adam Engel who, for the second night in a row, robbed a Yankee of a home run with a leaping catch over the left centerfield wall. A long fly by Miguel Andujar in the 7th went a bit farther so that Engel's acrobatics didn't come into play. Lopez left with a tied game, but was replace in the top of the eight, so he was denied the ovation he richly deserved. 

The Yankees took the lead in the top of the 10th, then the Sox tied it up again in the bottom of the inning - both teams exchanging two run homers. The Yankees won in the 13th on an Andujar RBI single. 

Like that game in Cincinnati in 1988 and the Tom Seaver appearance in 1984 (which the Yankees eventually won, staving off a Chisox comeback attempt) what I'll remember about August 7, 2018 are the pitchers. In this case, the old, battle tested veteran using all the tricks he's learned over the years, against the young hot shot still trying to find himself. It's seeing a player who's glory days are behind him, but who's guts and will drive him to give every last ounce he has, in spite of the pain. Sabathia is loved in New York, a place he came to reluctantly, because he's always given his all. What's more, he quickly grew to love playing in the Bronx and it showed. For that, as well as for his personal courage, we stand and cheer one more lion in winter.