SCREENWRITER ESZTERHAUS CONVERTS TO CATHOLICISM

Article published Saturday, August 23, 2008
A HOLLYWOOD PLOT TWIST
'Basic Instinct' author writes book about faith

Joe Eszterhas, who has written the screenplays for movie thrillers, now is the author of a book on faith: "Crossbearer."  ( ASSOCIATED PRESS/RON SCHWANE )

TOLEDO BLADE RELIGION EDITOR
Joe Eszterhas' latest book is a shocker, but not the kind that made him rich and famous.

The upcoming release from the man who penned dark thrillers such as Basic Instinct and Jagged Edge tells the story of his spiritual conversion and his newfound devotion to God and family.

In Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith, to be published Sept. 2 by St. Martin's Press, Mr. Eszterhas describes how his life got turned around during the summer of 2001.

He and his second wife, Naomi, had just moved from Malibu to a suburb of Cleveland - where he had grown up; she was from nearby Mansfield. They felt Ohio would be a better, more wholesome place to raise their four boys (he had two grown children from his first marriage).

A month after the move, Mr. Eszterhas was diagnosed with throat cancer. Doctors at the Cleveland Clinic removed 80 percent of his larynx, put a tracheotomy tube in his throat, and told him he must quit drinking and smoking immediately.

At age 56, after a lifetime of wild living, Mr. Eszterhas knew it would be a struggle to change his ways.

One hot summer day after his surgery, walking through his tree-lined neighborhood in Bainbridge Township, Mr. Eszterhas reached a breaking point.

"I was going crazy. I was jittery. I twitched. I trembled. I had no patience for anything. … Every single nerve ending was demanding a drink and a cigarette," he wrote.

He plopped down on a curb and cried. Sobbed, even. And for the first time since he was a child, he prayed: "Please God, help me."

Mr. Eszterhas was shocked by his own prayer.

"I couldn't believe I'd said it. I didn't know why I'd said it. I'd never said it before," he wrote.

But he felt an overwhelming peace. His heart stopped pounding. His hands stopped twitching. He saw a "shimmering, dazzling, nearly blinding brightness that made me cover my eyes with my hands."

Like Saul on the road to Damascus, Mr. Eszterhas had been blinded by God. He stood up, wiped his eyes, and walked back home a new man.

In a phone interview this week, Mr. Eszterhas said it was "an absolutely overwhelming experience."

He went from doubting if he could make it through life without tobacco and alcohol, to knowing that he could "defeat myself and win."

He and Naomi have been faithfully attending Catholic Mass on Sundays ever since, and as the book title states, Joe carries the cross down the aisle. He asserts his nonconformity, however, by wearing jeans and Rolling Stones T-shirts when he does it. Despite the rebel attire, he says he carries the cross with more reverence than most.

Although he is a devout Catholic, Mr. Eszterhas writes bluntly of his disgust for priests who are pedophiles and bishops who have covered up for them. He and Naomi decided they could not, in good conscience, donate a dime to the church because of the clerical sexual abuse scandal.

He also writes about the inner turmoil he felt when he took his boys to catechism classes or other church events and kept a protective eye on them the whole time, making sure they were never alone with a priest.

And he complains about priests' homilies being boring and pointless.

When Mr. Eszterhas visited a nondenominational megachurch, he heard a sensational sermon. But he felt empty afterward, missing Holy Communion and the Catholic liturgy.

"It may have been a church full of pedophiles and criminals covering up other criminals' sins … it may have been a church riddled with hypocrisy, deceit, and corruption … but our megachurch experience taught us that we were captive Catholics," he wrote.

Mr. Eszterhas told The Blade that despite his mixed feelings over the church and the abuse scandal, the power of the Mass trumps his doubts and misgivings.

"The Eucharist and the presence of the body and blood of Christ is, in my mind, an overwhelming experience for me. I find that Communion for me is empowering. It's almost a feeling of a kind of high."

He said that living in the heartland, he sees how much Hollywood producers are out of touch with most Americans.

"I find it mind boggling that with nearly 70 percent of Americans describing themselves as Christians, and witnessing the success of The Passion of The Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia, that Hollywood still doesn't do the kinds of faith-based and family-value entertainment that people are desperate to see," Mr. Eszterhas said.

He has turned down hefty offers to write scripts for movies with sinister plots and dark themes like the 16 other ones he wrote that made it to the screen- some paying as much as $3 million a script.

Mr. Eszterhas said he spent too much of his life exploring the dark side of humanity and does not want to go there anymore.

He was born in Hungary during World War II, grew up in refugee camps, and then moved to the United States and lived in an impoverished neighborhood in Cleveland.

He worked as a police reporter in Cleveland and "was always fascinated with the darkness. I covered countless shootings, urban riots, and in several situations I was there before police were because I had a police radio and used to drift around the city until something happened," he said.

But after his spiritual transformation, he said, he had had enough of death, murder, blood, and chaos.

"Frankly my life changed from the moment God entered my heart. I'm not interested in the darkness anymore," he said. "I've got four gorgeous boys, a wife I adore, I love being alive, and I love and enjoy every moment of my life. My view has brightened and I don't want to go back into that dark place."

Mr. Eszterhas' love and appreciation for life was magnified even more last year when his surgeon told him he didn't need to schedule another visit.

"He used the word 'cured,' a word that oncologists generally don't use," Mr. Eszterhas said. "He said I didn't have to come back for any checks, that my tissue had regenerated to the point where you cannot only not tell that there was ever any cancer there, but you can't tell that there had been any surgery there.

"Naomi and I were, of course, overwhelmed when he told us. I think it's truly a miraculous blessing."

One miracle Mr. Eszterhas has hoped for but not seen since returning to Ohio is to see his beloved Cleveland Indians win the World Series. But he is using the Tribe's woes as a lesson in faith and patience for his children.

"I think that our deity may have a pretty nasty sense of humor," he said with a laugh.

His new book is evidence of Mr. Eszterhas' victory over writer's block, something that struck him after going sober. It was a difficult adjustment to write for the first time in his life without sipping wine or cognac.

But he was compelled to write Crossbearer as "a thank you to God" and "to tell the world what he has done for me."

When his wife finished the book, he said, she gave it a hug. "That's how I feel. I'm very proud of it."

- David Yonke

TV: FALL SHOWS

 

Don't know what to watch on TV this Fall? Confused by all the cancelled shows and changing show times/dates? Why not watch some "real life TV"? Before you run screaming for the hills (oops, "The Hills" is a "reality TV" show), did you know there's a difference between "real life TV" and "reality TV"? Yup. "Real life TV" is following real people around their real lives or real jobs, unscripted. "Reality TV," instead, is a concocted, fully- or partially-scripted show like "Survivor," "Big Brother," "The Surreal Life," often throwing a bunch of strangers into a competition and having them behave badly towards each other.

 

When you think about it, we already love different kinds of "real life TV," as evidenced by wildly popular cooking shows, talk shows, sports shows, and top-of-the-charts talent shows like "American Idol," "So You Think You Can Dance?" and "America's Got Talent." Not only is it great to see non-celebrities on the little screen, we can interact by voting via cell phone for whomever we think is most deserving.

 

Interested in expanding your cranium? Why not dip into the Discovery Channel, the Learning Channel, Chicago's own WTTW (channel 11), the History Channel, C-Span (Capitol Hill), or BookTV on C-Span2?

 

Need to get in touch with nature (but it's cold, dark and late at night) or learn about the world? Try the Animal Planet Channel, National Geographic Channel or Travel Channel which boast fantastic shows that will take you all over the world to explore diverse cultures and observe all creatures great and small in their natural habitats.

 

True "real life TV," (chronicling real lives, real jobs) would be shows such as "Jon and Kate Plus 8"--the family life of a young couple with twins and sextuplets; "Project Runway"--although a competition, aspiring clothing designers have their creations judged by experts; "Ice Road Truckers"--those hearty souls who risk their lives hauling goods and supplies over frozen lakes, rivers and, yes, oceans, to the planet's northernmost reaches; and my fourteen-year-old nephew's favorite: "Dirty Jobs," (the smellier and grosser, the better). Other "real life TV" shows throw charity into the mix, constructing or refurbishing homes for families in need.

 

But remember, the first rule of media literacy is: "All media messages are constructs." Therefore, no media are "pure reality," no matter how objective the media makers are trying to be. The media product is a human creation, filtered through perspectives and choices. What was focused on and emphasized? Why? What was left out? Why? What was put in a favorable light through use of music, camera angles, composition, juxtaposition? What was put in a bad light?

 

How can we know whether or not something is scripted, falsified, exaggerated? The truth of the matter regarding these shows usually outs itself, due to the close scrutiny of the shows' fans! For example, "Laguna Beach" and "Real Housewives of Orange County," 'fessed up to being part myth. Other shows (not recommended) like "Keeping Up with the Kardashians," "Denise Richards: It's Complicated," smack of trumped-up conflicts and motives of extreme self-promotion. They are shows about the show. (Sometimes you can trust what you see: looks phony? Just might be….)

 

Rather than voyeurism, "real life TV" can help us experience vicariously "how the other half lives," what daily struggles and victories our fellow human beings face. Some shows drag a little ("World's Deadliest Catch"), kind of waiting for something big to happen, while others consistently scintillate ("Dog, the Bounty Hunter").

 

 

MOVIES: "FIREPROOF"

YYY1/2

"Fireproof" is the story of two strangers living in the same house. And they're married. The metaphor of firefighters "never leaving their partner behind" fits perfectly. Caleb (Kirk Cameron) is a fireman married to Catherine (Erin Bethea) for seven years, and their relationship is in serious trouble. On fire. In a bad way.  

Caleb, although a heroic lifesaver, isn't terribly heroic in his marriage. He and Catherine have separate schedules, separate bank accounts, separate lives, and Caleb has become demanding and selfish. And if that weren't bad enough, he's addicted to internet porn and Catherine knows it. She tells her mother how humiliating it is and asks: "Since when did I stop being good enough for him?" She confronts Caleb more than once about it, to no avail. Although the problem of internet porn doesn't take over the story, it's a huge hurdle for the relationship. We are shown discreetly and effectively how tempting, easy and available internet porn is, and how radical a cure is sometimes called for.

Catherine is first to throw in the towel. Both have a good sense of their self-worth, so neither is going to let the other trample over them.  They are well-matched for the battle that lies ahead, although they continue to live together for practical reasons. The fights, the hurt, the lack of respect--all rings painfully true. There are literally millions of marriages in this very predicament right now. It is truly hopeless, even when Caleb starts to change, because Caleb's heart isn't in his "changes" and Catherine can feel it. Catherine also misinterprets his every out-of-character move (with the "help" of some well-meaning gal pals). Caleb is being coached by his Dad, who sends him a forty-day "Love Dare" book with daily instructions on how to woo his wife back (something that saved his own marriage), but more importantly, these daily instructions are about how to transform himself into the man and husband he needs to be permanently. Is nothing Catherine's fault? Basically, no, except the fact that she takes up with a doctor at the hospital where she works, while still married to Caleb.

"Fireproof" screams that working at a marriage—especially one on the rocks—is very, very hard work that takes lots of time and patience. But the film also provides a roadmap that either a husband or wife can use. And of course, everyone is going to want this book tie-in! Actually, there are two books: "Love Dare" and "Fireproof: the Novel."  www.fireproofmymarriage.com offers lots of resources for home, school and church. (I'm surprised the classic "His Needs, Her Needs" wasn't listed.)

Theology of the Body (John Paul II) enthusiasts will be delighted by this film. Without explicitly saying it, the film revolves around a key TOB passage, Ephesians 5. Marriage between a man and woman has a direct correlation to Christ and the Church.

When push literally comes to shove, there's no way around God. When Caleb tries to justify himself as a "good person" to his father, his father simply asks him, but do you love God, the God who gave you life? Whoa. Thank God for these fearless filmmaking Christians who are getting better and better at bringing the Good News to the screen. For every ninety-nine scoffers, there will be one who hears the message of salvation loud and clear. And repents.  And the angels shall dance and rejoice.

This scene of Caleb with his Dad is really the crux of the whole film. And it involves a big crux (you'll get it when you see the film). And I just have to quote Dad here: "God's standards are so high that He considers anger to be murder and lust to be adultery." Whoa again. I would put it a different way and say simply that our interior life is as real as our exterior life. It's not so much "God's standards" as "simple reality." To paraphrase Jack Nicholson: "Can you handle reality?" Lots of great advice and wisdom in this film: "You can't just follow your heart. Your heart can be deceived. You have to lead your heart."

"Fireproof" is definitely a "Christian" film—there are lots of portrayals of people of faith, Bible quotes, prayer, giving one's life to God, etc., far beyond what mainstream films show. Corny? Why should faith be corny? But yes, sometimes. A non-believer unfamiliar with Christianspeak might ask: Do people really talk this way? The answer is, um, yes.  Lots of people.  Are they for real? Indeed. The faith depicted is a kind of Southern Evangelicalism.  It seems that one just "confesses Jesus with one's lips" and that's that (no mention is made of baptism). However, there are no pat answers or easy solutions. We can feel the torture of people who believe they are doing everything right, and yet that's still not good enough. Every Christian who seems to have their life together is also one of the walking wounded. The difficulties tearing at this marriage are the same as everyone else's:  the little everyday attitudes, words and run-ins that belie much bigger deficiencies, and that build up over time into an impasse. Omissions are as important as commissions. Curiously and very effectively, we only see the estranged part of this couple's relationships throughout the entire film, but we know only too well what they have lost, or what could have been.

Perhaps we need a "Christian" genre in film, one that will allow for some detailed, in-depth conversations between characters, rather than just quips. We've been trained to not even want to get down to the nitty-gritty of relationships in films. We get nervous when a soundbite develops into a three-dimensional, reasoned-out motivation. "Fireproof" is not a big talkfest, either. The Kendrick Brothers (who created this film) excel at tense, big action moments like a car wreck on train tracks and a little girl trapped in a burning house. The realism was every bit as good as "Ladder 49." In some ways, "Fireproof" is a profounder "Ladder 49," that forces us to look beyond universally-acknowledged heroism (firefighting) to another dimension of heroism—but every bit as important—the heroism of the heart and hearth. (More fire imagery!)

Isn't it enough to save other people's wives and husbands and children? No. Real men dry the dishes (and not just at the firehouse). (Catherine works full time while Caleb has a much more flexible work week). Is this some kind of Promise Keepers "real men serve their wives"? Yes. But Promise Keepers doesn't have a patent on the "servant king" model. It was started by the first Servant King, Jesus, who laid down His life for His Bride, the Church. Wouldn't it be just ducky to see movies like this on "Lifetime"?

"Fireproof" offers a completely different view of marriage than is commonly accepted today: covenant, not contract. If it isn't working, you don't walk away, you try everything to make it work, even if you are "two different people now," even if "I don't love you any more," because you are both part of something bigger than yourselves here. "Fireproof" successfully lays out the theology of marriage, even the fact that marriage is a natural institution recognized by the Church even if between non-Christians.

The jokes and pranks are rather old, flat and predictable. The soundtrack boasts great ambience music as well as that ubiquitous "Third Day" Contemporary Christian Music sound ("Third Day" also contributed to the soundtrack), and there's a poignant and fitting song about waiting that accompanies an important montage/sequence like a Dalmatian on a fire truck. (This song became the answer to a prayer for me, as I found myself applying Caleb and Catherine's marriage covenant to my own vowed covenant with the Lord!) If the cinematography/editing were just a tad fancier, "Fireproof" would have a complete big screen Hollywood feel.

 "Fireproof" is a well-crafted story with plenty of secrets, questions and twists to keep us guessing. And it never looks away from the pain. There's pretty much solid acting all around, especially from the two leads. The dialogue is some of the most honest I've ever witnessed in a movie (it's the same reason I liked "Brideshead Revisited-- the way characters talked and related to each other was intimate, fleshed out and non-oratorical).  Catherine is truly a "modern" woman, right up to the end.  (Sorry, can't be a spoiler.) The ending is slightly long, but has a GREAT closing shot.

"Fireproof" augurs well for the future of Christian films. (And it doesn't hurt that it was distributed through giant Sony Films.)

NB: The cool graphics of the wedding rings in the title! (The use of wedding rings throughout reminded me of Karol Wojtyla's "Jeweller's Shop.")

The pitch-perfect trailer truly represents the movie. You like? You go see. Check it out on the superbulous website: www.fireproofthemovie.com

THEY TELL ME WORDS ARE DEAD

Let me tell you of MY HISTORY with words.

ENGLISH words.

I was raised on words in BOSTON.

We consider ourselves KEEPERS OF THE LANGUAGE.

Even with our funny accents.

But then I entered the convent with nuns from all over.

And I lost a lot of words.

Then I went to TORONTO for eight years

where hardly anyone has English for a FIRST language

and being in the heart of LITTLE ITALY every fourth phone call

was in ITALIAN and I was the phone operator and all our staff were ESL.

And I lost a lot of words.

And then I was diagnosed with a non-functioning thyroid and that caused "brain fog" (yes, the technical term) for many years.

And I lost a lot of words.

And then five years ago

I almost died.

An experience far beyond words and poems and even music.

And I lost a lot of words.

Now they tell me words are DEAD.

That it's all about the viz-yoo-al now.

IMAGES. Post-word-literacy.

As much as I LOVE and USE

ALL the NEW media:

iPods, Bluetooth, txting, Flickr,

YouTube, Google, Facebook, cell phones,

digital cameras, Tivo and the like

I believe there is a qualitative difference,

not better, just different

when it comes to words

deep words vis-a-vis utilitarian words

deep reading vis-a-vis utilitarian reading

and it's not so much about words really

but LANGUAGE.

But now we're wading hip-deep into PHILOSOPHY and CULTURE and WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN

and I am not afraid of that. BIO! (Bring it on!)

They tell me words are DEAD.

Well I say: poppycock.

I am tired of losing words.

You will have to pry WORDS from my cold, dead fingers.

"Only a continuous tradition of gentle speech, with all its implications--the avoidance of boredom and vulgarity, the exchange of complicated ideas, the observance of subtle nuances of word and phrase--can preserve the written tongue from death, and lifelong habitude to such speech alone schools a man to write his own tongue."
--Evelyn Waugh

YOUNG ADULT VOCATION RETREAT--CHICAGO, AUGUST 2008

Taken at night by Lake Michigan! The camera was on a trashcan.

back row: Sr. Margaret Michael fsp, Jennifer Dittman (IL), Sr. Laura Rosemarie fsp, Lindsay Trapp (SC),

Sr. Triphonia, fsp (KOREA), Veronica Han (CANADA), Angela Frayna (IL)

front row: Cheryl Galema (CANADA), Sr. Helena Raphael fsp, Jackie Gitonga (with water bottle) (KENYA/IL)

MOVIES: "BRIDESHEAD REVISITED"

 

YYYYY

"Brideshead Revisited" is one of the most Catholic movies I've ever seen. Not just because a Catholic aristocratic family is at its center with a cornucopia of Catholic images and vocabulary, but because of the way Catholicism matters, as it bumps up against the biggest vagaries of life and delivers some big answers. Charles (Matthew Goode), a non-aristocrat, enters into a relationship with every member of the eccentric  family who live at the majestic Brideshead manor. He is introduced into the inner circle by the son, Lord Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw), a fellow student at Oxford with whom he begins a homosexual relationship. The teddy-bear-toting Sebastian is thoroughly miserable due in part to his completely overbearing, hyper-religious "Mummy" (Emma Thompson). But Sebastian is also the wisdom figure who is not deluded by life, who goes on to become a hero—the only one willing to break free of family, wealth, privilege, and "destiny" to find true Happiness.

"Brideshead" requires some familiarity with the inner workings of Catholic spirituality in general and early twentieth-century British Catholicism in particular. In filmmaking lingo, it "cuts deep" into the world of its characters. It's up to us, the audience, to do our homework if we want to take full advantage of the story. Without this prior knowledge, the jokes could seem like cheap potshots at the Faith (they're not: Evelyn Waugh--who wrote the novel that BR is based on--was a convert to Catholicism), and the portrayal of the family's religiosity could seem like a condemnation of hypocrisy and superstition. Waugh, like a good writer, stares the tragicomic truth in the face and lets no one off the hook.  As Dorothy Day said: "I converted with my eyes wide open." (Perhaps the most uncluttered Catholic character in BR is the happy-to -the-point-of-annoying Irish priest at Papa's bedside, trying to help him make a "beautiful death.") The filmmakers seamlessly capture Waugh's profound and satirical sense of humor which is so subtle that it mischievously echoes long after the credits roll. They also marvelously "get" Waugh's voice and don't just squeeze it into a droll, established formula. Either they are geniuses or Waugh is imminently adaptable to the screen!

As British as Waugh was (check his bio), I find him free of the usual British cynicism. (None can be as cruel as the British when it comes to lampooning the sacred.) Perhaps because, for him, Christianity was the only alternative to "chaos." Like his contemporary, Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World"), Waugh peered into the "post-Christian" future and shuddered.

How does Catholicism matter in BR? In the marriage covenant. Some really tough, heart-breaking choices need to be made, and they are. Unlike Graham Greene's "The End of the Affair," which relies on supernatural interventions in order for characters to do the right thing in regard to marital fidelity, BR relies on the unconditional faith and hope of some extremely flawed individuals.

The emphasis on guilt and sin, so prevalent in a pre-Vatican II milieu, could feel off-kilter today, but Waugh may be holding up a mirror-opposite (our all-too-frequent response) to what Catholicism is really all about (God's love). On second thought, BR is not about sin but about the absolution of sin. What greater gift is there?

The best love stories are horizontal AND vertical, but they are very, very difficult to execute. It's also very, very difficult to portray an inner journey of faith, prayer to an unseen Being, etc., in film (although there have been some very successful attempts recently:  see "Amazing Grace"), but the semi-autobiographical BR manages quite well through its ruthless, wart-exposing frankness. Would that we could all live our lives in the constant scrutiny of God's tender light.

FURTHER THOUGHTS:

Purists may find the screen adaptations not to their liking--especially since the book is a beloved classic--but many of the liberties taken are in keeping with the medium and structure of a film-story.

The 11-hour BBC 1981 made-for-TV version that launched the career of Jeremy Irons, now available on DVD, seems to have kept to the book verbatim. However, in a film, with only two hours, you can't be verbatim, and in film school one is taught that books SHOULD be adapted for the screen, not just slapped up there as they are.

Every poppet, of course, is entitled to their own opinion.

Some major differences of book/movie:

(In general, in keeping with the medium of film, drama is heightened, events conflated and strategically timed, relationships are tighter/closer, stereotypes employed, circles/levels of conflict are multi-layered, and information is given by showing, not telling. To have a same-sex kiss to show that Sebastian and Charles were in a same-sex romantic relationship would be consonant with the medium of film, although not found in the book. The book makes it very clear they were in a same-sex relationship, however. Their relationship does not appear to be any kind of agenda-pushing in the film, but rather a very three-dimensional, sensitive look at a commonly-known British "tradition" in all-male schools. It is rumored that Waugh himself may have engaged in one of these dalliances. One must not run out of the cineplex at the first kiss, but stay and see how both Charles and Sebastian are redeemed.)
BOOK: Lady Marchmain (Mummy) is not such a monster as she is in the film.
MOVIE: Lady Marchmain's character is a much more imposing presence than in the book.
BOOK: Charles is not obsessed with possessing Brideshead Manor for himself, nor does he "buy" Julia.
MOVIE: Sebastian and Anthony Blanche are both gay (as in the book), but not portrayed as lovers, as in the movie.

--What does the title "Brideshead" signify? Without having done any research into the matter, I believe it's a metaphor for the Church--Virgin and Mother, soothingly divine and shockingly human.

--If we don't understand that God is the Lover and Spouse of every soul, we'll never understand what Julia means by "I can't cut myself off from His mercy." However, I'm not sure that the characters or Evelyn Waugh himself saw God this way (due to the times), however much enamored he was of the Faith. The "awful," "fearful" element is very strong.

--The "little characters" flame onto the screen fully formed and fully necessary: Nanny Hawkins, Papa's mistress, Rex—Bravo!

--The soundtrack is lush, gorgeous, Romantic and sad. SPOILER: The "sad" part was a tad misleading.

--My first introduction to Evelyn Waugh (and of course I thought he was a she) was years ago in the "Vatican II Weekday Missal" meditations. It was a quote from BR and went something like this (probably Julia speaking): "'Living in sin,' 'living in sin'—it has a terrible ring to it. You bathe it in Dial and clip diamonds to it, but you never get rid of it." And years later I have discovered a new favorite author in Evelyn Waugh! I have never been able to unreservedly warm up to Tolkien, C.S. Lewis or even Chesterton. I think it was Waugh I was looking for. He even considers his best work his novel on my patron saint, "Helena."

--Evelyn Waugh is incredibly original (without trying too hard), his characters are "writer's-agenda-free" and truer to life than any I have ever met, and he is very, very funny. You never know what the characters will say next, but it's not quirky. It's real. And it's intelligent and clever. Check out the excellent entry for EW in Wikipedia.  Don't be fooled, you've never read/seen/heard anything like Waugh. He's in a category by himself.

--Great line: "Don't be vulgar, Cordelia. Vulgar is not the same as funny." –Lady Marchmain

--Great line: "As Catholics, we have to do all in our power to save those we love from themselves." –Lord Bridley Marchmain

--Sebastian's gay friends, the atheists, the Catholic matron, ALL have their say. (And when "Mummy" stated that the only important life was the life hereafter, EVERYONE in my theater snorted. Including me. Ha ha.)

--The house, of course, is a character.

--This is Charles' story and many people tell Charles who he really is, and it's a mixed picture (Charles is a painter). Good people automatically trust him, but the wicked also recognize their own wickedness in him and his capacity for monstrous greed.

--The actress who plays Julia Flyte, Hayley Atwell, is a sweet blend of innocence and passion.

--Who is the true believer(s) in "Brideshead"?

MOVIES: "THE DARK KNIGHT"

YYY

From the opening scenes of thugs holding up a bank and blowing employees and each other away, to the Joker carving smiles into people's faces (remind anyone of the Black Dahlia?), to a horrific half-faced burn victim, "The Dark Knight" is dark indeed. Definitely not for most kiddies under twelve. DK is shaping up to be a controversial film because of its genre-mixing: comic book (kid friendly) with psycho-thriller (not kid friendly). The Joker's makeup alone, in early publicity photos, clued me in that this Batman tale would be different. It wasn't cartoon/graphic novel/comic book style. It was disturbingly realistic.*

The Wall Street Journal blasted "Dark Knight" for being almost nihilistic in outcome, for "humiliating" the superhero in his own movie, and for killing off a main character. The Hollywood community is focused on Heath Ledger's "fearless" and brilliant performance as the antagonist (so, who's the main character here?)

Another point of controversy is: Did the depravity of DK send actors Ledger (who presumably accidentally OD'ed on prescription drugs he was taking for insomnia and depression) and Bale (charged with assault by his mother and sister) over the edge? As we know, actors have to bury deep inside their roles. But if this were the case, wouldn't there be such incidents after every horror, war and action movie?

A huge problem with DK is that there are many, many ideas—some of them inchoate, confused, complicated, unclear. I'm sure that if we were to do an exit poll of moviegoers, we would get cosmically different opinions about what just transpired, for this reason.** I found myself asking, "What did I just see?" A coherent story-line doesn't seem to be important in DK. The value seems to be examining the recesses of the psychotic mind, and setting up "Sophie's Choice"-type "social experiments."

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that this is a series, and writer/director Chris Nolan can get away with a down, ambiguous ending because another installment will follow on DK's heels. Already, there were several "resurrections" of characters we thought dead, so my money is on future character comebacks.

I also disagree with the critics who think that somehow The Joker won, that the only way to stop The Joker is for Batman to become like the Joker. Rather, Batman's seeming defeat is similar to the seeming defeat of nonviolent action: We pay the price ourselves rather than kill others (in this case, Batman won't kill the Joker). It takes more time when we won't do evil in order that good may result. But this is the only way to create lasting change. It seems that Batman's "one rule" is never to kill anyone. Actually, whenever he comes on the scene, the violence de-escalates. He doesn't use guns, but more of martial-arts, mano-a-mano type fighting. The nine year old next to me in the cinema will be chewing on this lesson for a while. He kept asking his big brother: "Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker?"

As the audience, we can't relate to the psycho, but we can relate to a good person who has overwhelming evil coming against them, or as The Joker says (he has all the good lines): This is what happens when "an unstoppable force meets and immoveable object." At the end, the young boy in DK says: "Batman did nothing wrong," and the Dark Knight's role as "watchful protector" is reiterated.

ALL that being said, this new addition to the Batman saga is certainly a very serious exploration of the Caped Crusader's escapades.

Some of the central questions are:  1) Who is the real hero of Gotham? Batman (the mysterious, brooding Christian Bale); Harvey Dent, the D.A. (a mighty, strong performance by Aaron Eckhart), or perhaps even the people of Gotham themselves?  2) What will a real hero do and not do? What is their code of honor? How far will they go? Just when does a hero become an anti-hero? What's the difference between a vigilante/outlaw and a hero?  3) Are Batman and the Joker both freaks? Two sides of the same coin?   4) Why be good anyway? The lengthy (2 hrs 32 min)"Dark Knight" is dripping with moral musings and conundrums worthy of an ethics thesis, and is stocked with some of Hollywood's finest: Gary Oldman as the police commissioner, Michael Caine as Alfred the butler, Morgan Freeman as Batman's technology meister, and Maggie Gyllenhaal*** (who thankfully replaced the lightweight Katie Holmes) as lawyer Rachel--Batman's love interest.

Of course, the real, real hero of DK is our fair city of Chicago! How grand that New York (the real Gotham) was evidently not good enough for "the Batman" (I noticed for the first time that this is his proper title). Lower Wacker, Navy Pier, the River, La Salle Street canyon, the Christian Scientist Church, Chicago Police bagpipers, Lake Street, the Wrigley Building--Chicagoans who hung out at the peripheries during the filming will get a kick out of seeing how the locations are utilized.

What is the Batman fighting in DK? What he's always fighting: corruption in Gotham. This time his nemesis is The Joker (RIP, the scene-dominating Heath Ledger, rumored to be a shoe-in for a posthumous Oscar). This Joker is a far cry from the Jack Nicholson character. Ledger plays a vicious psychopath who is motivated, not by money like the mob, but by blood sport, the game, torturing and killing to see what makes people tick, inciting anarchy for the sake of chaos. As Alfred says of him: "Some men just want to watch the world burn."**** The Joker wants to show Batman that the rules by which he lives his life don't work. Batman, of course, is also fighting himself. Is he responsible for the people the Joker kills (because Batman won't kill the Joker?) Is it all right for him to do some dirty dealings (so Harry Dent doesn't "have to"?) Will Rachel wait for him or will she marry Harry Dent?

Most of the humor involves The Joker and is sadistic. But it's not exactly cheap laughs, it's some kind of relief in a very bad world that cannot be escaped but only negotiated. A few people laughed very loudly in my theater, the rest of us grimace-smiled to ourselves.

There are incredible car/truck/motorcycle/Batmobile chases, aerial views, cool new techie toys, pyro-technics and my favorite shots: The Batman gliding through gleaming cities at night. (I think I like the Batman best of the superheroes because he has the coolest costume, based directly on one of the coolest critters in Creation.) There are many levels of the good guys' and bad guys' power structures (some reaching to Hong Kong), and The Joker aptly describes his battle as being "for the soul of Gotham." The people of Gotham figure in pretty heavily in DK. Batman has to be "what the people need him to be" (relativism?), and the Joker sets up a fascinating life-and-death choice to be made by ordinary people on two ferries, both set to blow up.

Why is a movie with such a demented character breaking box office records? First--it's a BATMAN movie. Second, at least for the USA, we're in a time of war, and I think people can handle, want to handle, feel obliged to handle darker themes (but only as metaphors, not head on).

DK incorporates some comical, paunchy Batman impostors trying to "help" Batman, which reminded me of Comic-Con (the world's largest comic book/pop arts convention in San Diego—in progress as I write--that is now an industry bellwether and project maker or breaker) attendees who are actually true romantics. They want to save the world, too. But how to translate saving virtual Gothams to saving real Gothams? Virtual nobility to real-world nobility?

The people in my theater clapped at the end of the show.  I hope for all the right reasons.

_____________
*Media Literacy Core Concept #2: "Each medium has its own media language."

**Although Media Literacy Core Concept #3 is: "Different people experience different media differently," reaction to DK will be all over the board in great part due to a wildly spinning story compass.

***Gyllenhaal, known for her quirkier roles, didn't seem to totally commit to the one-dimensional role of Rachel.  I could be wrong, but I seem to sense when brilliant actors hate their part or their lines and subtly sneer and mock their way through them. So don't take the job! Aaron Eckhart treated his--(albeit more fleshed out)—role like he was a figure in a Shakespearean tragedy. A joy to watch.

****Media Literacy Core Concept #5 is: "All media messages are for profit and/or power." The Joker is quite clear what his motive is: "It's not about money, it's about sending a message."

 

LEAVING LOS ANGELES (AGAIN)

(To the tune of "Green Acres" theme song:)

 

DA DA DA DA DA, THE SUN!

DA DA DA DA DA, THE NUNS! 

 

  

 

 

DA DA DA DA DA, THE BUNS! (imitating bedroom slippers)

 

(Roxie with Jack asleep in the litter box)

 

DA DA DA DA DA, THE STARS!

DA DA DA DA DA, THE CARS!

YOU ARE MY WIFE!

GOODBYE, LA LA LAND LIFE!

CHICAGO, HERE I COME!

 

 

 

MEDIA LITERACY CERTIFICATION IN LOS ANGELES!

MEDIA LITERACY CERTIFICATION IN LOS ANGELES!

Here we are at Sony / Columbia / Tristar / MGM. (Marilyn Monroe walked up these steps.)

DVDs: "THOU SHALT LAUGH"

 

"Thou Shalt Laugh"? Where does it say that in the Bible? Did you miss a Commandment? No, but if you miss "Thou Shalt Laugh 1 & 2" on DVD, you'll be missing the best comedy of the summer.

"Thou Shalt Laugh" is a collection of some of today's brightest and funniest stand-up comedians. And they're all Christians.  Not only is the humor decent and suitable for the whole family, it's also original, brilliant and hilarious. Lest you're thinking that "Christian comedy" is somehow inferior to what's in the mainstream: it's not—partly because many of these comedians are in the mainstream. Michael Jr. was recently seen on BET, and Victoria Jackson is a Saturday Night Live alum. TSL is actually not "Christian comedy," but "comedy by Christians."

(I put off watching TSL because I was skeptical, having seen all kinds of Christian comedy through the years, from the best [Mark Lowry] to the outright bigoted, unfunny and obnoxious.)

So what do Christians joke about? Pretty much what everyone else does:  everyday incongruities and annoyances, dating, work, family life, with the occasional reference to God, prayer or church as a normal aspect of life. No topic is off limits or avoided, but everything is handled with good taste and respect for human dignity. Some comedians like Thor Ramsey and "The Village Idiot" are more physical, others barely move a muscle. They are male and female; young and old; Black and Latino, white and multiracial (Dan Nainan uses his East Indian and Japanese heritage as fodder). We are treated to their diverse entertainment skill-sets: ukulele, singing, piano, handstands. Special mention must be made of Taylor Mason who wraps up each DVD. He's a razor-sharp ventriloquist/puppeteer who is by far the craziest crouton in the Caesar's salad of TSL. He involves the audience extensively, even to the point of making them the puppeteers while he ad-libs. Both TSL's are worth it just to see Mason do his thing—it has to be seen to be believed.  He's even better than Comedy Central's Jeff Dunham (the ventriloquist with Walter and the dead terrorist), if that's possible.

TSL1 is hosted by Patricia Heaton ("Everybody Loves Raymond") who was raised Catholic and makes the only explicitly Catholic reference (Purgatory).  Tim Conway (yes, THE Tim Conway from "The Carol Burnett Show") is the delightful host of TSL2, along with doing a little schtick of his own in between routines.

Hint: TSL2 is a tad funnier than TSL1, but once you see 2, you're going to want more. Several performers appear in both DVDs.

Will adolescents/teens like TSL? If the teens busting a gut in TSL's live audiences are any indication: affirmative.

TSL is as good as anything on Comedy Central, and there's no need to mentally edit profanity or raunch. TSL is one "commandment" you'll enjoy keeping. Don't transgress: feed your funnybone. See www.thoushaltlaugh.com for a sample!

MOVIES: "WALL-E"

 

YYYY

 "WALL=E" (Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth-Class) is the name of a darling little trash-compacting robot of the future, and Disney/Pixar's latest computer-animated treasure. The humans have evacuated Earth to a spaceship while robots clean up the mountains of trash left behind. There doesn't seem to be any other functioning robots around (we see a robot graveyard of sorts). His only friend is an almost-cute roach. After a hard day's work, WALL=E goes home to his neatly-categorized  human artifacts (everything from cigarette lighters to garden gnomes) strung about with Christmas lights, and plays an old video of the 1969 musical, "Hello, Dolly." His favorite part is when the man and woman hold hands. He keeps looking at and clasping his own claw-like appendages. Enter "EVE." EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) is a "probe" robot sent from the spaceship. She's pristine white and blue with expressive eyes. WALL=E is smitten. There's only one problem—EVE is a bit of a femme fatale. She shoots first and asks questions later. And when she shoots, it's more of an incinerating atomic firestorm. (The roach, of course, is immune.)

As EVE collects data, she finds the holy grail among all the synthetic debris: a living, breathing, plant seedling, which means that Earth can once again support life and the humans can return home. However, certain robots aboard the spaceship have taken over, and don't want Earth re-colonized. A fierce and amusing struggle ensues.

At first I was bothered, but later delighted by the paucity of dialogue. WALL=E and EVE hum, giggle and make electronic exclamations, but their words are very few. And this is as it should be. Movies are a visual medium. It's "Lights, camera, ACTION!" not "Lights, camera, TALK!" In film school, budding filmmakers are often required to make their first short film without dialogue. The words WALL=E and EVE use most are each other's names, over and over. And I do mean over and over. At a certain point, the little munchkins in my cinema were calling out their names as well. The lack of chatter also makes us focus on all the loving detail in each scene.

The soundtrack is a surprisingly fitting jukebox of warm jazz ballads from yesteryear--humanity's finest emotive music, the story seems to say. WALL=E is a romantic at heart (or shall we say "at solar battery pack"), and longs for companionship with one who is "bone of his bone," "flesh of his flesh," so to speak.

Although any story primarily about non-human, non-sentient characters can feel a little cold, the whole enterprise is ultimately for the humans. Humans are not demonized over against the environment. Rather we're seen as a bit ignorant, foolish and sheep-like for not choosing what is actually best for ourselves. It's good to see that even though we are gently chided and caricatured for a) creating so much waste b) behaving like unthinking (robotic?) consumers c) preferring virtual reality to reality--the message is one of hope. We can turn things around, we can make better choices, and—apologies to Thomas Wolfe—we can go home again.

Definitely take the kids to this one and have a good discussion afterwards!

FURTHER REFLECTIONS:
The movie reminded me of other movies,
--"A.I." for its non-human, futuristic main characters (a robot boy an a teddy bear)
--"Blade Runner" for its consumeristic/advertising-everywhere vision of the future
--"Citizen Kane" for all the "stuff"
--"Veggie Tales--Madame Blueberry" for all the "stuff" ("Stuff-Mart"!!!)
--"Star Trek" because the spaceship, "The Axiom," looks very much like, and may be a nod to, the U.S.S. Enterprise
--"2001--A Space Odyssey" for the HAL-like mutiny (and hilarious use of the theme song)
--"Bella" and "Juno" for their "here's a way back from where humanity is headed" stories

I got into the cinema late in the middle of, not "Coming Attractions," but an animated short! It was a magician and his rabbit--pure slapstick, almost vaudevillian. The rabbit never got his reward during practice (a carrot), and now refuses to cooperate with the magician during the performance. You had to hear the audience, especially the grown men, laughing uproariously at every gag. Some (good) things never change. The kids laughed hardest (during "Wall-E") at the bra joke and when an avalanche of shopping carts pin "Wall-E" up against a wall.

Things to note:
--Hell hath no fury like a female robot.
--Wall-E's special reverence for living things--the plant.
--Wall-E not knowing what all his "stuff" was for until EVE looked through them and made them work (the lightbulb, the cigarette lighter).
--The bubblewrap. :]
--As futurists predict, there is only "one company": "Buy-n-Large." Which, by the way, makes people large.
--Google 5.0 on the spaceship. All voice-activated: "Define ____." "Define ____." Absolutely no need to retain anything in our brains.
--The poor reading skills of the captain of "The Axiom."
--Wall-E disrupts virtual reality and gets the humans more in touch with reality: talking to each other face to face instead of by screen, touching each other (holding hands, of course), splashing around in the pool. ("I Wanna Hold Your Hand" could've been "Wall-E's" theme song.)
--This is a film about the environment, but in its right order: The environment as the home of humans.
--"I don't want to survive--I want to live!" (The battle cry of the new human revolution? Cf. Chief Seattle)
--Were the human babies all conceived and gestated in a lab?
--The "rogue robots"--who's really crazy?
--The personification of the various robots and their personalities!
--"Wall-E" is an example of media critiquing itself.
--Check out the quick little history of art during closing credits: cave drawing, hieroglyphics, mosaic, Renaissance sketches, pastels, stippling, Impressionists, pixels.

SCARIEST MOMENT:
--"Seeing" ourselves in the future: Obese, infantile, demanding, unable to walk in our Laz-Y Boy hovercrafts, eating/drinking everything out of a supersize cup/straw, living vicariously through a SCREEN PERPETUALLY IN FRONT OF OUR FACES (kind of like the one I'm at right now)....

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY MOMENTS:
--primordial relationship without which life doesn't make sense: male / female
--bodily contact absolutely essential
--when Wall-E first SEES EVE
--hands "go together"
--the kiss and "dance" in outer space

The sound effects are a whole world in themselves, and include a distorting of "real sounds" from the "real world"--everything from Niagara Falls to raccoons. All one can wonder is--how do the creators THINK of these things (and execute them)? I'm just glad they do.

MOVIES: "YOUNG @ HEART"

YYY1/2

The Gene Siskel Theater in Chicago's Loop has been showing "The Singing Revolution," a documentary about Estonia. The people of Estonia--a former USSR country--would take to the streets in the thousands and sing to both protest what was being done to their national identity and to preserve it. The documentary, "Young @ Heart," about a rock n' roll chorus of septuagenarians, octogenarians and one nonagenarian, is a different kind of "singing revolution."

 

What are these utterly inspiring senior citizens "revolting" against? Stagnation, hopelessness, and, ultimately, death. The "Young @ Heart" chorus is from Northampton, Massachusetts, and tours all over the world. Their demanding director, Bob Cilman, 53, is not graced with patience, and becomes exasperated at their memory lapses during rehearsals.* He doesn't baby them at all, and they love him for it. The live band also sports some venerable musicians. Are they any good? There is obvious talent among the multi-ethnic group, including an Italian tenor, a resonant bass, a bluesy female singer, but others are just average. Aside from some touching solos, the bunch tends to generally oversing and blast every syllable out at top-volume, but who cares? If you've got the lungs and singing chops in your sunset years--be my guest.

 

So, why rock n' roll? Why not show tunes? Cilman actually began in 1982 having seniors sing vaudeville, but when a rock song was once covered, it brought the house down, so he switched. Cilman chooses all the eclectic rock songs, and for some reason, the group seems to excel at punk rock. (Check out their rendition of Sonic Youth's "Schizophrenia.") He picks ironic songs also, like David Bowie's "Golden Years," and the Ramones' "I Wanna Be Sedated." Do these folks even like rock n' roll? No. They are classical and opera aficionados, but they want to open themselves to new forms of expression. It's fascinating to watch these elders--with so much life-experience--interpreting lyrics written by artists fifty years younger than they. Many of the songs, like Coldplay's already-rich "Fix You," are given added layers of profundity by those who have lived these universal human sentiments over and over, for years and years. You can literally watch them meditate on the lyrics, their eyes far away.

 

Music is the universal language. Arthur Fiedler caused a stir when he began covering Beatles' songs with the Boston Pops. Now it's just commonplace that Metallica would record with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, or that Northwestern University's student musicians would cover Radiohead at the Pritzker Pavillion in Millennium Park.

 

The tone of the documentary, by British filmmaker/narrator, Stephen Walker, is low-key (no pun intended), and at first rather airy and humorous, and we wonder if we're ever going to really get to know these performers. The answer is yes, gradually. "Young @ Heart" skillfully avoids nostalgia and dwelling on the past. We get to know the singers in the now. Their aches and pains, spouses and children, medical prognoses. Much is made of their exact physical conditions, which become all-consuming for some (three members of the chorus pass away before the documentary is finished). Suddenly, we are looking in a time-mirror. We are looking at ourselves. We're all dying. That's what makes "Young @ Heart" so poignant. As we watch Fred--oxygen tubes up his nose, body filling with fluid from congestive heart failure, only able to sing while sitting--we ask ourselves: Will I be that enthusiastic, caring, brave in my old age? (There's also a hilarious rehearsal where Stan stiffly belts out James Brown's "I Feel Good." He's suffering from a painful spinal problem and feels anything but good.)

 

Are they afraid to die? No more than the rest of us. Many calmly refer to the Lord knowing when their time is up. There's a feeling of right order, that everything is as it should be somehow, and they're grateful. Starry-eyed, 92-year-old Eileen speaks blissfully of the rainbow she'll be sitting on in the next life. Their "revolution" is not so much against the "dying of the light," but dying before you're dead. And it's wonderful to see how this cohort, more or less my mother's age, widows and widowers, who lived through the Depression and World War II, have such solicitude for each other. The solicitude expands to their audiences. One of the most moving scenes in the film is a concert at a prison. The chorus sings seemingly incongruous songs of joy, hope and good wishes that seemed to say to the prisoners: Hey, you made a mistake, so what? Life is still beautiful.

 

There is something healing about being in the presence of thoughtful older people. When I was very sick several years ago, I made it a point to hang out only with our older sisters because they were softer around the edges, had learned to let a lot go, didn't need to understand everything, had no great and busy projects and plans, and lived simply in the present moment.

 

For many, the chorus has become central to their immediate purpose in life. Some are literally living for the next rehearsal, pushing themselves beyond doctor's orders. They feel a commitment to each other, the audiences, Bob Cilman. Rock n' roll is full of life, and so are the aged.

 

I vote for "Young @ Heart" as the "feel good" movie of the year.

 

_________
*So get them a teleprompter for Pete's sake!

 

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY--FR. THOMAS LOYA

Notes from page 177 to chapter 2.

Father saw "Sex and the City" movie. As the characters began to live TOB, they became happier. (Even though they didn't know it was TOB.)

This dense TOB text is immediately applicable. It is looking at old things (principles, Scriptures, Creation, the Church, God's relationship with us) anew. John Paul II wanted to go through these age-old principles thoroughly so that there is nothing left to be said. Our conclusion is irrefutable. The text is like the melody, and Father is going to add harmony!

Who are we as persons, gendered persons?

FTNOTE 23, P 178: We need an "adequate anthropology." The key is: "What is human"? What is different about us from the animals? (Not just scientifically: "What is a living organism?")

GIFT—one of JPII's favorite words. What does he mean by it? Everything God does is GIFT. In Creation, only man can give a GIFT. Man is the one whom it is for. Only man can understand the meaning of GIFT: the call from nothing to existence. One can also say that the world has received man as a gift. The nature of GIFT is that it is freely given and freely received. We need to go through life with open hands: giving and receiving.

GIFT is the language of liturgy.

If Father could say anything to us, he would say: return to the sacramental world view. If we return to this, it's the key to happiness, especially in our relationship with others…. We need to live FOR others.

"It is not good for the man to be alone," means man is not complete alone, he needs to exist in relationship.  The way to have our legitimate needs met (emphasis on legitimate), is to live the spirituality of gift—to move out toward the others. Personal fulfillment is reflexive, reciprocal. We only are fulfilled by reaching out to others. We need to be aware that WE are gift and that others are GIFT to us. This is why contraception is so wrong. It is living in the opposite direction of reciprocity. It is holding back, not going in the direction of the other. And our bodies tell us so. A celibate priest lives FOR the Church.

Q: Is a married priest like a double symbol?
A: Yes. Celibacy also subsists in marriage. The married priest is living two mysteries: the ESCHATALOGICAL marriage and the SACRAMENTAL marriage. The priest relates to his parishioners as spouse, father, brother—like we all have various levels of relationships.

Often the married priest marries a daughter of priest. She is like a spiritual mother of the community also. Being a married priest is not about a priest who happens to be married to a woman. It's about a woman helping in the ministry. All of this can be summed up: we all have to live spousally, which means GIFT. Our bodies are made FOR the other sex. Male for female. It doesn't matter what you feel/think, the body doesn't lie. It is very insensitive to call someone a "homosexual"—we define people in TOB as "gift," as "person." You may have SSA (same-sex attraction), but that's a whole 'nother issue that you have to deal with.

When we're unhappy, it's always because we're not living the spousal gift of ourselves/our bodies adequately.

You first have to be able to possess yourself to be able to give yourself away. You can't give what you don't have. You have to have a self to give. Our culture hates discipline! (Or thinks it does.) If you play an instrument, you have to be disciplined and practice, and you have the FREEDOM to play music and make a gift of that.

What does it mean to be gendered? Someone from Mars would say—Oh! They're meant to give themselves to each other.

Q: What about hermaphrodites (intersex)?
A: It is out of the order of things. A disorder. This is not a bad word or thing, or insensitive, it's just what it is. The exception doesn't change the norm. Hermaphrodites are usually more male or female, however. But no matter what you are,

Gender means: FOR the other, and they for me. Everybody has to be "married," to be happy. Even celibates. Life won't make sense without marriage. Our society isn't sexual enough!!
[VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!] Be more genuinely human! Be more and more in the image of God!

Q: How does the single person live spousally?
A: The Church doesn't say that singleness is a vocation! There isn't permanency about it. They will be married one day to God! But even now, they have to live by making a gift of themselves. A person doesn't really live singly for any "good reason."

Q: Can't you stay single in the world to serve God?
A: You may be called to do work for God/world AS a single person, but your VOCATION is to "marriage." The single state can always be changed. It's not permanent. Once you're a consecrated layperson, you're not "single," you're in a covenant relationship, it's explicit, it's permanent.

We must be FRUITFUL.

We need to be disciplined fully, in our totality as persons, not just mind, for example. Our desires should not CONTROL us. We need to be able to look at each other, male and female, with the "peace of the interior gaze." Like Adam and Eve did.

Father was an art student, and because he was an artist, he was free to look at the human body properly, as beautiful. If you can master the human body as an artist, you can do anything, because it's the most beautiful thing in creation. It's a difficult discipline. Without that discipline, you'll be overcome with lust. If you are looking with lust, you're not free. JPII doesn't say: "custody of the eyes, look away," because that is imperfect.

Non-TOB, non-sacramental worldview sends us into individualism, narcissism, relativism. The Catholic worldview sends us into community. Laypeople for centuries lived in a more monastic style: a rhythm, prayer, sacraments, nearby church, God as the reference.

Catholic is not a religion, institution—it means to be human. The truth about being human. [Reality. Living in accord with reality.] What is being human about? The invisible being made visible through the physical. We humans have a fundamental desire to make the invisible visible also! Birthday cakes, flags, fireworks!

Everyone is called to marriage. Everyone is called to celibacy. Heaven is perpetual virginity: that is, total openness to God, total union with God. That's why we say: "Till death do us part," because we belong to God ultimately. To be Catholic is to keep these two things together: marriage and celibacy. We think: celibacy/virginity—loneliness, gross, don't want that. We think: marriage—love, intimacy, sex, yes! we want that. But that's wrong to think that way.

The Eastern Church says: "Till you are united forever." (But meaning in Christ in heaven, and not exclusively any more.)

The best celibates make the best married people and vice versa!!! Don't separate them! Catholic is integrated, Catholic is good, Catholic is the best!

We find our IDENTITY only in relation to the other sex. The only way something comes back to us is if it first moves out of us.

[Check out top of p. 202! Woman is not an object!]

If we keep pushing towards each other (two hands pushing against each other) everything stands. If one pulls back and only receives and doesn't give, then it all collapses.

Biologically, intercourse makes people bond to each other (bond to one person). There are actual specific male and female hormones secreted. One of the causes of teenage suicide is sleeping around. It's just so biologically painful to keep breaking up.

Scientists study animals to learn about humans. JPII says study humans to learn about humans. ("Adequate anthropology.")

Assignment over the summer: up to page 364. Next meeting: 2^nd Wednesday of September.