The White Album at 50 Part 1

November 22, besides being Thanksgiving in the United States, marks fifty years since the release of the Beatles self-titled double LP set, commonly known as the White Album. As with last year’s observance of Sgt. Pepper’s golden anniversary, a remix has been prepared by Giles Martin, son of Beatles producer George Martin, presented for public sale in several deluxe additions. Again I went for the regular, ordinary, run of the mill deluxe as opposed to the super duper deluxe baby. Unlike Pepper’s, getting the obligatory extra tracks that come with the basic package is actually worth it, but more on that later. 

First, some background. 

1968 saw the Fab Four coming off their greatest triumph to date, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, which spent a staggering 27 weeks at number 1 from the summer of ’67 through the beginning of February 1968. While Pepper’s was still reigning supreme over the charts, they dropped the sound track for their ill-fated TV special Magical Mystery Tour. The British EP, U.S. LP release was a success as well; the TV special, broadcast in the UK on Christmas Day 1967, not so much. The disjointed, heavily surrealistic trip on a tour bus through the English countryside was panned by critics, confused the British public and was never shown in the United States. 

On the personal side, 1968 began with the band still reeling from the death of their manager Brian Epstein the previous June. John Lennon’s marriage was falling apart and George Harrison was more interested in Eastern meditation than being a junior partner in the Beatles. They entered the studio in early February, recording the single Lady Madonna (which would go to number 1 a month later), before jetting off to Rishikesh, India to engage in a Transcendental Meditation course with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. They were accompanied on their expedition by an entourage that included members of the Beach Boys and actress Mia Farrow with her sister Prudence. 

The purpose of the retreat was to clear their minds, achieve transcendence without the aide of chemicals, and gain some emotional stability. Though they were supposed to leave being Beatles behind, John and Paul would clandestinely get together to work on songs. All three songwriters in the group worked on material that would eventually end up on both the White Album and 1969’s Abbey Road. 

The trip to Rishikesh is shrouded in a bit of mystery, in so far as each member had a different response to it. Ringo Starr left about two weeks in because he couldn’t take the food. Though McCartney has spoken positively of the experience, he left after about a month. Lennon and Harrison lasted until April, with John leaving in anger over rumors that the Maharishi had tried to take liberties with some of the women guests – claims that were later disproved to the satisfaction of all, including Lennon’s then wife Cynthia. 

Once all four were back in Britain they began working on the new material begun in India. In early May the band gathered at Harrison’s house in Esher, Surrey to demo songs. From May 30 through October they recorded at odd hours and inconsistent intervals at EMI Studios (aka Abbey Road) and Trident Studios. Along with tracks for the White Album, they produced the singles Hey, Jude and Revolution during this time. 

The album itself is almost a photo negative image of its predecessor Sgt. Pepper's. In place of the colorful, elaborately staged portrait of the Beatles surrounded by cutout images of various celebrates, over looking a flower bed (grave?), we have a plain white cover. On early editions "The Beatles" was embossed on the front along with a serial number pressed near the lower right hand corner. Later, the numbering was dropped, with the name printed faintly in gray. The package included a poster collage with lyrics printed on the back, along with four individual color head shots of the band members. Sgt. Pepper's Band was supposed to be their alter ego, an escape from Mop Top Beatlemania, a mask to hid behind as they meandered in the studio. Here the album is simply called The Beatles. The January 1969 sessions that would become Let it Be were billed as an attempt at getting back to their rock and roll roots after a period of psychedelic experimentation. You could argue that this desire to get back to basics actually began here.  

In place of the heavily produced psychedelic music of the previous two projects, The Beatles offers an eclectic mix of good old fashioned rock and roll, stripped down acoustic folk, blues, hard rock, ska (a predecessor to reggae), dance hall songs and a lullaby. The penultimate track is an eight minute avant garde sound collage, Revolution 9, that is somewhat polarizing to this day. Unlike Pepper's or Mystery Tour, there is very little here that couldn't have been credibly reproduced on stage in some form with contemporary technology. 

When the sessions started getting tense is hard to say. The presence of Yoko Ono in the sessions is the default excuse given for the problems in the band. The Beatles rarely had visitors at recording sessions, and almost never had their wives or girlfriends around. Lennon insisted that his new found love be in the studio, and collaborate on material. In some studio chatter from from the Get Back sessions in early '69 McCartney tried to downplay the reports of friction, joking that in fifty years people would say they broke up because Yoko sat on his amplifier. In the Anthology documentary Harrison admitted that her presence did make the situation tense, and that he did feel Ono was a wedge separating John from the band. Looking back twenty-five years later in the same film, Paul felt that John and Yoko had to clear the decks of the rest of them if their relationship was going to work. Whether Ono was the cause of the tensions or a symptom of deeper problems we may never know. 

Even before Yoko Ono became a constant presence at sessions the Beatles had begun to record separately, sometimes working in different studios with different engineers at the same time. This has always been chalked up to the personal conflicts between the bandmates. Each was becoming protective of their material, wanting it done their way as opposed to presenting songs to the band for suggestions. McCartney, for instance, is said to have gone back and recorded his own drum parts when he wasn't happy with Ringo's take. He wouldn't let Harrison add a lead part to Hey, Jude, a sore point the guitarist had a hard time letting go of.  This might not have been so bad, but for that George was blooming as a song writer, and felt held back from presenting material by the other two writers. Lennon later said that the White Album was basically a four headed solo project, where each served as backing musicians for one another's songs.

Things got frustrating enough that various members walked out of the sessions at different times. Most famously Ringo ran off to Sardinia on holiday for ten days because he thought the others were freezing him out. He returned after some pleading to find his drum kit covered in flowers, a peace offering from George. Harrison, feeling the others weren't enthusiastic enough about his contribution, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, invited Eric Clapton in to play on the track. Other than supplying a killer lead part, Clapton's presence put the others on their best behavior, focusing them on the song. Things got so fractious that even producer George Martin took a vacation, leaving production work for a time to an engineer. Geoff Emerick, an engineer who had worked with the band since the Revolver sessions abruptly quit all together in July, he was so worn out by the bad vibes surrounding the band.

In popular lore the White Album is usually seen as the beginning of the end for the Beatles. 1995's Anthology documentary presented the release of Hey, Jude, in August '68, as the band's high water mark as a functioning, cohesive unit: the implication being that it was all downhill from there. Last year I argued in my review of Pepper's that the band was already breaking up during those sessions: before Brian Epstein's passing, before Yoko hit the scene, before the squabbles over Apple Corp and who should manage their affairs in general. I contend that the decision to stop touring in 1966 put the process of disillusion in motion, and that the subsequent resistance to going back on the road by Lennon and Harrison made a split inevitable. All the White Album does is illustrate what a band falling apart sounds like, even though I'm not sure fans at the time understood what was happening before their ears.  

Giles Martin also disputes The Beatles as break up album narrative. He goes even further against the conventional wisdom to say that, all things considered, the band was actually humming along rather well. In reviewing hours upon hours of outtakes, filled with studio conversations, he heard very little in the way of fighting or disagreements. Ringo and Paul had a blow up over Starr's drumming, but other than that things sounded like any band putting an album together. 

The problem, from his point of view, was that his father wasn't happy about how the group was working in the studio this time around. They were recording at all hours of the day and night, working songs out in extended jam sessions as opposed to disciplined rehearsals. They also wanted to use as much of the material they had written in India as possible. The Beatles, and especially Lennon, were almost obsessed with recording every song they wrote, leaving nothing "in the can." George Martin wanted a single album, leaving the weaker material for B-sides or even the trash bin. As Harrison observed, there was a lot of ego in the room: no one wanted to see their own contribution sacrificed, even if it wasn't up to Martin's standards. Obviously, the band won that fight. Giles believes the White Album represented the Beatles taking back control in the studio, and it put his father off. Whatever the truth, The Beatles was released as a double LP in time for the Christmas shopping season to monster sales and critical acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic, in spite of its troubled history.

The White Album came at the end of a turbulent year globally, not simply for the Beatles. 1968 is one of those watershed years, like 1848 or 1914 when the paradigm shifted. To get into that demands a second post. So next time I'll talk about the White Album's legacy, and go through the songs themselves, critiquing them in light of the new mix. I'll also get to why, unlike with most deluxe additions, I think giving the surplus material a listen is worth it.

Streaming Review: "The Romanoffs" (SPOILERS)

I was catching up on the latest season of the inter-dimensional alternate history sci-fi mash up The Man in the High Castle on Amazon Prime last week (I might get to that at some later point). In between episodes were ads for a new program called The Romanoffs. I didn't look that closely, so I missed that it was produced, written and, directed by Matthew Weiner, of Mad Men fame. It's hard to believe that that show has been off the air for over three years now, but so it has. Once I woke up the fact that The Romanoffs was a Matt Weiner production I  caught the first episode tout de suite. According to Wikipedia there was a bidding war between the various cable and streaming outlets for his next project, and Amazon came out the winner. Now there's only one question left: is this a prize Amazon wishes it had lost?

A new episode is dropping every Friday, and so far five out of the eight are available. I've only caught the first installment, as I've said, but since this is an anthology series it's not like there's a narrative, recurring characters or the highly addictive cliffhanger ending that's impelling me to binge watch like a serial might. The central conceit is that each story revolves around different ancestors, real or presumed, of the Russian royal family that was slaughtered in 1918 during the Russian Revolution. 

The first story, called The Violet Hour, features Aaron Eckhart as Greg Moffat, an American expatriate in Paris, running a small hotel and caring for his aging and ailing aunt (Marthe Keller), who happens to be a descendant of the Romanoffs. For someone who's dying, Aunt Anushka is incredibly vital, and feisty. She can't keep a caregiver because of her royal disdain for servants, never mind her acid tongue that scorches anyone within earshot irrespective of lineage. After rudely dismissing her latest domestic, she is mortified when the agency sends over Hajar, an Algerian Muslim in traditional headdress (Inès Melab), to serve as her maid. To be honest, I don't know any home caregiver who would put up with the insults that this young woman endures, but she stoically perseveres and eventually she wins the old lady over. Greg is a decent fellow, but is hanging on, along with his girlfriend (Louise Bourgoin), for the old lady to kick off so he (they) can inherit her palatial apartment. After a few missed phone calls at a crucial moment, the mercurial Anushka writes Greg out of the will, and leaves the apartment to Hajar. 

After trying to talk Hajar out of taking the apparent, she and Greg end up sharing a passionate embrace, as the kids these days would say. She leaves Anushka's employ, but shows back up two months later, with her own mother, to tell him that she's pregnant. In an unforeseen turn of events, Hajar reveals that she is in love with Greg; sleeping with him wasn't about gold digging. He reveals that he's actually happy that they're going to have a baby, and the aunt is ecstatic that her lone wish, that the family "line would continue," was being fulfilled. The only predictable thing was the girlfriend losing her stuff, again, kids say the darnedest things, finally walking out of the apartment while grabbing a (presumed) priceless Fabergé egg as her parting gift.

As Rotten Tomatoes noted, and I agree, this first episode of The Romanoffs anyway, is both self indulgent and trying on the viewer. In a way I can forgive Matthew Weiner both sins. As good as Mad Men was, and I was a big time fan, his hands were tied by AMC on a number of fronts, not the least of which was the strict running time, which varied, but was nonetheless a bone of contention. AMC wanted to fit the show into the hour time slot with space for commercials. So, scenes sometimes had the feel of being cut short, monologues or dialogues didn't always have the time to develop the way they could have if time allowed. He was also restricted by basic cable rules on language and sexual content (which isn't the worst thing from my stand point), but I can see Weiner's side, since he'd worked on The Sopranos where just about anything went, and it usually did, with pretty much as much time as they wanted to do it in. How can I blame him for spreading his creative wings bit?

In the case of The Violet Hour, the language problem has little to do with profanity (yes, there's some, but not a lot), but with French. The majority of the dialogue is delivered in the Gallic tongue, and it did get a little tedious to my anglophone ears. I'm no stranger to foreign language films, but because I wasn't prepared mentally to have to read subtitles three quarters of the time, I found myself getting impatient. As for pacing, the episode ran a little under an hour and a half. Weiner takes his time unfolding the story, but I'm not sure he needed all the time to do it. It's a pretty simple plot, so cutting it back ten minutes or so wouldn't have hurt things at all. 

The excess really isn't all that excessive, and in many ways The Violet Hour highlights some of Weiner's signature strengths. He's extremely literate, and constructs the story subtlety, yet deliberately. He's writing a novel, or in this case a short story, with themes, foreshadowing and symmetry. He's not simply telling a cute story, or trying titillate or shock. He may throw titillating or shocking elements in, but there's always a payoff down the line that points to something deeper. He doesn't use music, whether it's popular standards or classical, without a reason, either. Having the Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers classic Refugee play over the title sequence that features the Czar and family being eliminated way back when, is on purpose. I'm not familiar with the popular French songs he chose, but the use of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade was particularly telling, and not just because the composer was Russian.

Scheherazade is the symphonic rendering of the "One Thousand and One Nights," in which the titular heroine staves off her own execution by the unreasonably jealous sultan by telling him stories each night, leaving them on a cliff hanger so that he wants to hear more the following evening.  Through these stories, a 1001 of them to be precise, she not only delays her own death, but wins the sultan's heart. In this way Anushka and Hajar win each other over by sharing their stories and histories. At first Anushka rubs the younger woman's face in past European victories over Muslim invaders, using history as a weapon. But soon a mutual appreciation develops. It's mainly Anushka who shares the stories of her family's ups and downs, and her personal tragedies. Later, when Greg tries to convince Hajar to give up her claim, he abandons his initial tough guy approach and opens up about his own background. He's estranged from his mother, his father is dead, and Anushka is the only family he has. It's Sophie who's obsessed with the apartment, for him his aunt is the only connection to where he came from and where he's going. 

For her part, Hajar has nothing to really gain by sticking with this assignment, and her boss knows it. She's reputed to be the best caregiver at the agency, so there's no doubt she could get another client easily. She perseveres, standing by Anushka through her tantrums and health issues (as the doctor says, even a hypochondriac gets sick). Of all the people in her life, Anushka believes that Hajar is the only one without an agenda. There's no doubt that the move is meant to be punitive: more to get Greg and Sophie to split than to really reward Hajar. But the affection she feels for the young woman is real.

The underlying tension nagging at both Anushka and Greg is that the world she knew is dying, if it's not dead already, and the world he is inheriting is one of dislocation and loneliness. Anushka holds on to vestiges of their Russian Orthodox faith, which he is totally divorced from. He's not an atheist, per se, but doesn't believe he's capable of knowing if there's a God or not. As for religion, he isn't against it, but sees it as keeping people apart. 

Hajar identifies as French, since she was born in Paris, and has never been to North Africa. It's not French as Anushka or Greg understand it. The old lady remembers the decorum, high life and glamor of an earlier age. Her roots are Russian, her bearing regal, with all that submerged into her perceived identity of what a Frenchwoman is supposed to be. That she scoffs at Hajar's claim to be French isn't just, or even primarily, about race. It's about a disconnection with the main stream of French history and culture, both high and pop, that causes the perceived rift. Anushka points to her drab cloths, head scarf and light makeup as proof that she's "not even trying" to assimilate. 

Greg, in spite of living there for four years, still has the idealism of a tourist gaping at the scenery. Hajar is the new reality: she wears a hijab, believes in her faith, but still questions. She agrees with Greg that we can't know with certainty that there is a God, but every so often she sees signs, such as his kindness, that points her in the affirmative direction. She has ambitions, and is putting off marriage while not openly rebelling against her parents' traditional ways. She sees her brother enjoying more freedom than she does, especially in the romance department, and silently ponders the inequity. An old world is dying, but the new world being born is uncertain, for both groups. 

Hajar's pregnancy is the coming together of the two worlds, to create something new as the old dies away. Earlier, Anushka reveals to Hajar that her son died tragically years before. She remembers the violet Paris dusk, and how she connects that unique phenomenon with his death. The final scene shows Hajar, heavy with child, sitting in a chair with Greg standing behind her. Her hair is flowing, and he, now bearded, is wearing one of his ancestor's smoking jackets (looking very Romanoff, if you will). As they gaze out the window at the sunset, Anushka admires them from the door. Holding a candle, she retreats to anther room, a look of contentment on her face. She places the candle down, blows it out, and moves out of frame, leaving us with an image of the leaded window, through which the sky turns a deep violet.

In typical Weiner style, he drops hints throughout the program that only make sense in hind sight (which makes a second viewing almost a must). We have these over arching themes of dislocation, existencial angst and, cultural shift coupled with quitter touches of personal longing. Sophie makes it very clear she wants no part of having children, they're too much of a buzz kill. Greg never protests, but through looks and glances we know he's not on board: he obviously loves children, isn't totally sold on the materialistic pleasure seeking life, but sticks with Sophie anyway. Anushka's vicious attack on Sophie's self imposed sterility isn't just meant to be hurtful for its own sake, but reflect her own disappointment that the family is dying off and there will be no one to carry on the name. She would give anything to have her son back, and along with him the hope of future progeny. Her attachment to Greg isn't some sort of quasi Oedipal perversion, as Sophie insinuates. They are blood. They are the last of a long line, of a dead and dying world, and until the end Anushka is bitter about it. 

That is until the final scene. The sky turning violet in this case signals a death (Anushka's off camera?) but also a birth. An old world is dying, but a new one is being born. There is still uncertainty. Will these two cultures be able to, not simply co-exist, but join together to form something new and stable? We don't know, but we have hope. As long as there is life, and openness to future generations, there will always be hope.

While the Romanoffs doesn't have the flash of Mad Men, it does have at least a bit of the sizzle. Weiner is one of the few out there asking real questions about the impact of culture, heritage and, religion on our individual and collective identity. My guess is that this is going to have a limited viewership, but my hope is that it's enough to keep getting him offers to make more of these explorations. 

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.