MOVIES: "PUBLIC ENEMIES"

YYY

First off, if you don't like loud noises or violence, don't even go to the cinema NEXT DOOR to "Public Enemies." "Public Enemies" is a gun fest. A shoot fest. A machine-gun shoot-fest. If you have a good, strong heart, you'll be fine.

"Public Enemies" is not, however a gore-fest. You'd think it would be with all that shooting. The only thing I didn't buy in PE was the constant point blank, direct-line-of-vision shooting-with-no-barriers and no one even gets nicked? C'mon! Everything else I bought.

Johnny Depp, with his guy-liner and first becoming hairdo in a long time (on- or off-screen), captivates in that slow, smoking way of his. He's got a bit of a drawl and even looks a little like a very young Elvis. His character is somehow sympathetic (excuse: horrible childhood; charm: he's nicer to the gals than the guys, is calm, cool, collected and witty), but not out-and-out glamorized. Because he comes off as totally sane, we can forget he's a cold-blooded killer. And I do mean cold. HUGE body count, LOTS of innocent bystanders (this might be another thing I don't buy. Really?) Although he's not a Robin Hood,* he's kind of desperate, so we start to see the cops and FBI as the enemy, too. Dillinger being played by America's box office offbeat male sweetheart doesn't hurt to get us on Dillinger's side either.

Dillinger's total confidence in himself and a carefree future (he was so close), combined with his criminal genius makes him outshine the often bungling law enforcement. But let's remember that the lawmen think twice before THEY shoot. They are a bit like lambs led to the slaughter in some scenes. A young J. Edgar Hoover (the always astonishing Billy Crudup--another chameleon like Depp) is building up the FBI and his own career. Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) is the "star" FBI guy, who knows and has what it takes to bring the lawless down. John Dillinger is the prize for both of them. Purvis brings in a crack team from Texas and Oklahoma to do the job. In a sense, these hardened outlaws CREATED a lean, mean "scientific" FBI machine. Both Dillinger and Purvis seem to have the same character trait, or flaw, of pushing too hard, pushing others too hard and never being able to "let go." Dillinger committed a kind of suicide by the risks he took. It was reported that Purvis actually committed suicide in 1960, but that's under question.

What's even more sinister than watching one reckless individual? Watching the birth of the mob: syndicated, systemic, "coast to coast," organized crime, that is so tough it doesn't even need guns, just phones. Dillinger and his ilk are passe. At 31, Dillinger is already an old-fashioned crook. Perhaps the mob crime boss was Dillinger's real nemesis--if the FBI hadn't gunned Dillinger down, perhaps he would have done away with him (inter-state laws being passed on account of Dillinger were redounding on the mafia).

Dillinger's love interest, Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), is portrayed as a rather innocent coat check girl. In real life, she associated with criminals even before Dillinger, but she was no Bonnie (of Bonnie and Clyde). What does she see in Dillinger? Someone who truly loved her. He never lied to her. It's almost as though their love story happened on an island. She wasn't part of his bloody sprees, and they love each other in a vacuum that has nothing to do with "that other part" of his life. There's definitely a woman's touch in the story here (one of the screenwriters is a woman). He was her hero, and indeed, Dillinger was a hero to many Depression-era Americans. But as members of today's mob admit, the Feds will always get you, it's just a matter of when.

"Public Enemies" speaks to the contradictory American spirit: so proud of our rule of law AND our scofflaws. We want "just the facts, Ma'am," and are pragmatists, BUT we love to escape into unrealistically optimistic fantasy worlds. Maybe it's just part of being human.

Set in Chicago (I watched it being filmed!) by Chicagoan, Michael Mann, a notoriously meticulous director, PE is a solid period piece, and I was eager to see it because:
1) I love Chicago.
2) I love Johnny Depp's acting.
3) To see what "they'd do with it."
But I don't really care about John Dillinger or criminals in general. They just don't do anything for me except turn me off.

In the end, Dillinger and his gang, like the much-feted "Sopranos," are just a bunch of thugs, out for illicit personal gain and an eventually easy life. The really exciting man is the working man, doing the right thing. The honest thing. The hard thing. Every day. (See "A Bronx Tale," "Norma Rae," "On the Waterfront," "The Great Debaters.")

OTHER STUFF:

--Populous, authentic-looking cast! (Found out later why: the cops are real cops, the reporters are real also--cast by "detailist" Mann himself!)

--Don't ya just love the dapper FBI--fighting crime in those gorgeous suits and hats? Far cry from S.W.A.T. gear.

--Johnny Depp is such a great actor. Such a chameleon. Great actors can act with just their eyes. Depp can act with just his irises.

--Remember "The Untouchables" TV series with Robert Stack? Wasn't that in B & W in the 70's?

--Southern blues, gutbucket and jazz soundtrack. Nice.

--Some accents, instead of sounding like those old-time American radio broadcasts, just sounded British.

--Johnny Depp and John Dillinger have the same initials. (Like Jim Caviezel and Jesus Christ.)

--Go to http://www.imdb.com/ to catch all the cameos and itty-bitty parts. Did you see Diana Krall? Channing Tatum? LeeLee Sobieski?

--There's really not much of a story-line. JD holds up a few banks and gets killed. But the ending is terribly ironic: life imitating art. The gangster watches a gangster movie and then goes out and lives it. And at this point, he even looks like Clark Gable (with little moustache), and you can see Billie's resemblance to Myrna Loy also.

--Wonderfully shot in lots of close-up, extreme close-up and some mid-range and long range. Reminiscent of "The Insider," but without being in the constant "extreme closeupness of the foreheadless people."

--But if the real Dillinger loved Billie so much--what was he doing with Polly? (They were lovers.)

--I still don't get why the FBI shot Dillinger up and didn't arrest him? Did they just lose it in the heat of the moment?

__________________
*Actually, wouldn't he be just the opposite from a Robin Hood? Stealing little people's hard-earned money for himself? People that might be just scraping by?

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28kristof.html

PRIESTS' FAVORITE MOVIES AND BOOKS ON PRIESTHOOD

"Gran Torino"

So, what movies and books about priests/priesthood do PRIESTS (and seminarians) like best?

Well, we asked 'em and here's what we came up with (many polled were from the Chicagoland area).

The National Catholic Register recently ran an article of the "Top 10 Priest Movies" (gleaned from their "Top 100 Catholic Movies" list from an online poll of 1,000 people). http://www.ncregister.com/daily/top_10_priest_movies/, but we asked the man of the cloth on the streets himself. The NCR article is also strict about it being an American movie, the movie being about a priest (rather than bishop or pope), and having the priest be the main character. Our responses below are much more varied! (Great gift ideas!)

1. Romero* (1989)
2. On the Waterfront* (older priests especially inspired by this) (1954)

3. The Mission* (1986)

4. Diary of a Country Priest (1951)

5. Becket* (1964) (Protestant pastors also inspired by this to go into the ministry!)

6. Blackrobe* (1991) (Canadian film, historical fiction of Jesuit missionaries in 1600's)

7. Scarlet and the Black (1983)

8. Exorcism of Emily Rose* (2005) (based on a true story, priest is a real hero)

9. Keys of the Kingdom (1944)

10. Keeping the Faith* (2000)

Other feature films priests recommended:

--"True Confessions"* (1981) (some nudity, deals with how priests are tempted to get caught up in Church politics, deals with the true nature of priesthood and tough choices to be made)

--"The Cardinal" (1963) (some priests said too "cardboard" and "pollyanna," but good historical snapshot)

--"Ninth Day" (2004) (priests in Dachau, the book is "Priestblock 25487")

--"Molokai: The Story of Fr. Damien" (1999)

--"Monsieur Vincent"* (1948) (French, award-winning film on St. Vincent de Paul)

--"Beyond the Gates" (aka "Shooting Dogs" 2005) (true story of a priest in Rwanda)

--"The Prisoner" (1955) (based on either Hungary's Cardinal Mindszenty or Croatian Cardinal Stepinac--tortured by Nazis)

--"Father Brown" (G. K. Chesterton's mysteries)

Priest not main character, but good priest parts:

--"Men with Guns"* (1997)

--"Gran Torino"* (2008)

Documentaries:

--"Fishers of Men"* (inspiring vocation film by the amazing "Grassroots Films")

--"With God in Russia"* (true story of Polish-American Fr. Walter Ciszek, SJ)

--"Road of Hope--The Spiritual Journey of Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan"*

*Sr. Helena highly recommends:

--"JESUS" (2-hr Gospel of Luke), "Gospel of John," "The Passion of the Christ" (Jesus, our high priest!)

--"Diary of a City Priest" (2001) (film adaptation different from the book; the unglamorous life of a parish priest in a poor, inner city neighborhood; should be required seminary viewing!)

--"The Father Clements Story" (1987) African-American priest adopts kids to set an example

--"Hoodlum Priest" (1961) (surprisingly good, gritty drama of ex-con priest, based on true story)

--"Saving Grace" (1985) (pope gets locked out of Vatican)

--"Gran Torino" (2008)

--"Gospa" (1995) Medjugorje Franciscan played by Martin Sheen

--"Open City" (1945) (Italian, Rossellini, Nazis torture a priest in WWII occupied Rome)

--"Little Flowers of St. Francis" (1950) (Italian, Rossellini, St. Francis and his first followers)

--"Into Great Silence" (2005) 3-hr "silent" movie about Carthusian monks (the Church's most austere order) who live in silence, except for prayers
--"Of Gods and Men" (2011) The Trappist martyrs of Algeria
--"The Rite" (2011) Some theological inaccuracies, but Anthony Hopkins does a great job playing a priest-exorcist
--"Keeping the Faith" (2000) A young priest and young rabbi are friends

--"The Priest and the Devil" (French, B & W) The Cure of Ars

--John Paul II movies--take your pick!

Are YOU a priest or seminarian? Don't see YOUR favorite "priest movie" here? Comment!

Priests/seminarians favorite BOOKS on priests/priesthood:

--"You Are a Priest Forever" by Fr. Groeschel

--"Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom of the Church"

--"Quickening the Fire in Our Midst: The Challenge of Diocesan Priestly Spirituality" by George Aschenbrenner, SJ

--"Reclaiming Our Priestly Character," by Fr. David Toups

--"Gift and Mystery"* by John Paul II

--"The Keys of the Kingdom" by A. J. Cronin

--"The Power and the Glory" by Graham Greene

--"Silence"* by Shusaku Endo

--"Father Brown"* mysteries by G. K. Chesterton

--"The Unchanging Heart of the Priesthood" by Fr. Thomas Acklin, OSB

--"The Priest Is Not His Own" by Fulton Sheen (one priest says it makes him depressed, another seminarian LOVES it)

Sr. Helena recommends (even though she hasn't read some of them):

--"In Defense of the Priesthood" by St. John Fisher, bishop & martyr (written to refute his contemporary, Martin Luther! One of Fisher's only extant writings!)

--"Letter for Year for Priests" Pope Benedict XVI (lots of Cure d'Ars quotes)

--"The Meaning of the Priesthood" by Cardinal Avery Dulles

--"Theology of the Priesthood" by Jean Galot

--"Joy of the Priesthood" by Fr. Stephen Rossetti

--"Behold Your Mother, Priests Speak About Mary" by Fr. Stephen Rossetti

--"Priests for the Third Millennium" by Archbishop Timothy Dolan

--"Priestly Celibacy" by Paul VI

--"Priestblock 25487" (priests in Dachau)

--"With God in Russia" and "He Leadeth Me" by Fr. Walter Ciszek, SJ

--"Alter Christus--St. Paul Speaks to Priests"

--"Virgin Mary and the Priesthood" by Pierre Philippe
--"Priesthood, Manhood and Theology of the Body" Fr. Thomas Loya www.tinyurl.com/FatherLoyaPriesthoodBook

--Anything on or by St. Jean-Marie Vianney, the Cure of Ars (now patron of all priests, not just parish priests)

Books on Women and the Catholic Priesthood:

--"Women and the Catholic Priesthood" by Sr. Sara Butler

--"Priesthood of the Heart" (Alba House)

For more books on priesthood:

http://www.albahouse.org/ (Publishing House of Society of St. Paul)

http://www.ignatius.com/ (Ignatius Press)

http://www.ipfpublications.com/ (Institute of Priestly Formation)

Are YOU a priest or seminarian? Don't see YOUR favorite book on priesthood here? Comment!

National Shrine of St. Paul named in St. Paul, MN

By Maria Wiering

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

As the Year of St. Paul draws to a close on June 29, the Cathedral of St. Paul is announcing its new designation as National Shrine of the Apostle Paul. The Cathedral is among about 100 U.S. Catholic churches that have been honored with the designation — and it's the only one dedicated to St. Paul the Apostle, said Msgr. Anthony Sherman, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Divine Worship. The designation comes from the Holy See and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at the request of Archbishop John Nienstedt. The title 'shrine' recognizes the Cathedral's national importance and designates it as a pilgrimage destination for groups from across the United States, said Father Joseph Johnson, the Cathedral's rector. Already, visitors from beyond the archdiocese —  Catholic and non-Catholic alike — tour the Cathedral when they visit St. Paul. Parish groups from around the Midwest have organized pilgrimages to the building, Father Johnson added. The shrine designation may result in more pilgrims, he said. Today, the USCCB wants a national shrine to be a place that can accommodate national pilgrimages — in this case pilgrimages intended to increase devotion to the Apostle Paul, Father Johnson said. Becoming a shrine More Info Photos of the Cathedral of Saint Paul can be found in our photo gallery. Visit the Cathedral's website HERE. It's significant that this shrine was named in the Year of St. Paul, Msgr. Sherman said. "This was a church that, even by its design and architecture, revealed the life of St. Paul and the challenges of his ministry and his preaching and proclamation," he said. The Year of St. Paul began on June 29, 2008. "We're hoping that . . . this shrine in particular might be an impetus for evangelization, that people will get the spirit of St. Paul and begin to want to try and reach out and proclaim the message of Christ," he added. The USCCB granted the designation on March 25, but it is now just being announced by the archdiocese. The shrine designation will add another layer to the many roles the Cathedral already plays in the community, Father Johnson said. It is a parish serving about 3,000 households; it is the mother church for the archdiocese; and it is a civic monument because of its impressive architecture and history. Because the Cathedral often hosts group pilgrimages, it has already played a role on the national scene, Father Johnson said. However, the designation will increase its "national spiritual significance," he added. To be considered for a shrine designation, a parish must complete a questionnaire and provide extensive information about itself, which is confirmed through a visit of a bishop on the Committee for Divine Worship. For the Cathedral, about 16 months passed from the beginning of the application process until the designation, Father Johnson said. National shrines are designated in the United States because of a specific devotion to a saint or the Blessed Virgin Mary, Msgr. Sherman said. This devotion draws more people to the church, he added. In the application process, the challenge lies in ascertaining whether or not  a shrine designation might be able to make a unique contribution on the national level, Msgr. Sherman said. Increased devotion The Cathedral began the application process when the Year of St. Paul was announced, Father Johnson said. He felt the Cathedral had a particular responsibility to heed the jubilee year's call to greater devotion to the Apostle Paul. He also thinks the national shrine designation honors the vision of the Cathedral's founder, Father Lucien Galtier, the first priest to establish a parish in the area in 1840. Because of his devotion to the saint, he named the log chapel he built after St. Paul, which led to the name of the city. "Father Galtier looked to the person of Paul when he arrived in this wilderness, and it's interesting that now the universal church has said we're all going to do that," Father Johnson said. Because of the shrine designation, the Cathedral will continue some of the programming it began during the jubilee year, including its First Saturday series, which featured speakers, prayer and reflection. It already offers several weekly tours. The new shrine has also established the Archconfraternity of the Apostle Paul to  help people feel connected to the shrine, Father Johnson said. Members serve as the spiritual apostolate of the National Shrine of the Apostle Paul in five particular ways: Greater devotion to St. Paul and his intercession. Study of and reflection on the Pauline epistles in the New Testament. Practice of corporal and spiritual works of mercy. Commitment to evangelization, especially in everyday encounters Connection with the spiritual life at the National Shrine of the Apostle Paul. Members are asked to contribute $15 in annual dues. The designation as a national shrine does not affect its designation as the Cathedral for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Father Johnson said, since it hosts the chair, or "cathedra," of the archbishop. 'Cathedral' and 'shrine' are unrelated designations, he added. The design for the shrine's insignia was taken from a carved medallion in the bronze grails behind the sanctuary which features a sword and a wreath, both symbols of Paul's martyrdom.

END OF THE PAULINE YEAR (never can say goodbye)

Keeping a Light on for Pauline Pilgrims
Archpriest Comments on Closing of Year of St. Paul

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 26, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Even though the Year of St. Paul will end this weekend, the archpriest of the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls says he will keep a light on and the door open for pilgrims wishing to visit the Apostle of the Gentiles.Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo said this today in a pressing briefing ahead of the closing of the Year of St. Paul. Benedict XVI will close the jubilee year marking the 2,000th anniversary of Paul's birth in a ceremony Saturday at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.

"The Pauline Year is coming to an end," the 83-year-old cardinal said, "but the great ferment of pastoral initiatives, catechesis, and cultural events is destined to continue, and to find a large following at both the local and the continental level.""The Pauline Door [...] will remain open, and the Pauline flame lit by the Holy Father at the beginning of this year will continue to burn in the quadriporticus," he added, "reminding all the pilgrims who continue to arrive from every corner of the globe of the richness and profundity of the Word of God transmitted to us by the Apostle of the Gentiles."Cardinal Montezemolo reported that tens of thousands of pilgrims visited the Pauline basilica in the last year, and that on May 1 of this year, the basilica saw more than 18,000 pilgrims. In recent weeks, he added, "we have certainly seen more than 10,000 a day."Pilgrims who visited were able to see Paul's tomb, he added, which hadn't been possible before."

"An opening was made in the ancient fifth century brickwork surrounding Paul's tomb under the main altar, so that pilgrims could see one side of the great marble sarcophagus, which has never been opened and which has held the mortal remains of the apostle for the last 20 centuries." Apostle's messageThe archpriest recalled that the jubilee was about more about than visiting the basilica. He noted that one of the year's main objectives was to "increase people's knowledge of, and invite them to meditate upon, the valuable message left to us by the Apostle of the Gentiles in his writings, which are often difficult and little known or poorly interpreted."

Another objective, he added, was "to create various programs in the ecumenical dimension, which means working to an ever greater degree with non-Catholic Christian communities on various initiatives of prayer, study and culture."Reflecting on the activity of the last year, Cardinal Montezemolo noted "the celebration of the second millennium of the birth of the Apostle of the Gentiles was perceived and experienced as a fresh stimulus, a further reason to work toward evangelization.""This was also felt in the Orthodox Churches and in many other Christian communities, and has become a shared commitment on the path to recreating unity among Christians," he added.Recalling the highlights of the Pauline year, the cardinal noted Benedict XVI's catechetical addresses on the Apostle of the Gentiles, which were delivered at the weekly Wednesday audiences from last July 2 through Feb. 4.Another highlight, he said, was the opening Mass of the synod of bishops on the Word of God, which took place at St. Paul Outside the Walls. He noted that at this meeting of bishops, St. Paul was the most mentioned figure, after Jesus Christ.

MEDIA WORKSHOPS

PRESENTER:
Sr. Helena Burns, fsp, is a member of the Daughters of St. Paul, an international congregation founded to communicate God's Word through the media.
She is finishing her M.A. in Media Literacy, has a B.A. in theology and philosophy from St. John's University, NYC, studied screenwriting at UCLA, and holds a Certificate in Pastoral Youth Ministry. She is the movie reviewer for

“The Catholic New World,” Chicago’s Archdiocesan newspaper.

Sr. Helena has been giving media workshops to youth and adults all over the U.S. and Canada since the 90’s, and believes that media can be a primary tool for sharing God's love and salvation.

Sr. Helena Burns, fsp Pauline Books & Media 172 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60601 hburns@paulinemedia.com http://www.hellburns.blogspot.com/ http://www.pauline.org/
facebook: Helena Burns twitter: SrHelenaBurns

MEDIA LITERACY:

INTRODUCTION TO MEDIA LITERACY

What does it mean to live in a media culture? What are the promises and challenges
of today’s media content and technologies? How can you be a "media smart" family?
What is the Church’s official position regarding media?Learn the basics of media literacy and how they can help discern and enhance all your media experiences.

MEDIA IS A FAITH THANG
(MEDIA IS A FAMILY THING for parenting or family/intergenerational catechesis)
Learn the basics of media literacy and how they can help you effectively communicate
about media with your kids, teens, and as a family.

GOD AND THE MEDIA (GOD ON "E"!)
Where is God in a wired world?

PHILOSOPHY 101: DISCOVERING THE POWERFUL PHILOSOPHIES BEHIND THE MEDIA
Ever wonder where the media gets its strength? Ideas have names...and consequences!

MEDIA AND YOUR PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE (teens)
Develop your personal philosophy of life as you meet the philosophers
who helped create the world we live in. (Great for Confirmation!)

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE MEDIA
John Paul II insisted on the dignity of the human person, and human rights is THE issue of our times. But what exactly is the human "person"? The foundation of human dignity and rights rests on "person." The basics of Catholic social teaching will be covered.

INTRODUCTION TO SCREENWRITING (teens)
Whether you're telling your story for the film, TV or computer screen--crafting character and story are the heart of your masterpiece! Learn the basics.

A MEDIA SPIRITUALITY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Do you feel “in control” or “out of control” in your use of media?
Are you overwhelmed with media content and technology? Do you find it a challenge to put your faith-life and media-life together? Do you feel the need for an integrated media spirituality? Fear not! A media spirituality already exists! Blessed James Alberione, SSP, a priest, filmmaker, author and founder of ten congregations, has developed a profound media spirituality in the spirit of St. Paul the Apostle.

LECTIO DIVINA—CINEMA DIVINA?
Our world loves movies. How can we use film to illuminate God's story?Not only are movies full of biblical themes, but we can use film as a springboard for meditation, prayer, and reflection on the liturgy. Lectio divina (sacred reading) can become “cinema divina."

THE MEDIA AND THE TRUTH
How can we decipher the truth in the myriad media messages we receive daily, especially in the news?

INTERNET SAFETY
In this age of Google, we now have the world at our fingertips! Along with this incredible gift
comes incredible responsibility. Along with the light, there’s a dark side.
Is it possible to for kids, teens and adults to be truly “safe” online? What about porn?

LEARNING NEW MEDIA
Need a quick tutorial on Facebook or Twitter? Want to know what the big deal is with social networking? Want to know where the future of media is heading? Get a handle while gaining confidence and insight.

FINDING TRUE LOVE IN THE MEDIA
What is true love? Can it be found in the media? We’ll use Pope John Paul II’s revolutionary “Theology of the Body” and Pope Benedict’s “God Is Love."

RELIGIOUS VOCATIONS AND THE MEDIA
What is the heart of a vocation to the religious life and/or priesthood?
How do you know if you’re called? Are there some clues in the media?

FAITH AND MEDIA WEEK
Create a “Faith and Media Week” for your parish or school! Custom-fit workshops for your parish or school. Book/media exhibits and bookfairs can also be included, as well as movie nights, etc.

TESTIMONIALS:

"The media presentations helped our teens experience the theme of hope."
--Paul and Tracy La Scala, Confirmation Coordinators, St. John Neumann, Irvine, CA

"The format was great for adult formation...a very comfortable environment in which to learn."
--Tish Petricca, Adult Education Director, St. Matthew, Schaumburg, IL

"Christianity has to be where the new generation is...."
--teen student, Toronto, ON, CANADA

"Excellent! A dynamic, engaging presentation that wowed the teens and parents...fun and thought-provoking."
--Mary Ann Snyder, DRE, St. Robert, Ada, MI

"I enjoyed your presentation very much. Usually I would fall asleep, but you have found a way to get to people."
--teen student, Toronto, ON, CANADA

“Fresh, relevant and informative. Brings the teaching of JPII to life is an easy to understand way for teens and adults.”
--Mike Zak, youth minister, St. Patrick's Church, St. Charles, IL

All workshops are highly interactive and can be adapted for teens and adults.
Each workshop uses TV, film, music video and other media clips.
For catechists: Ready-to-use handouts!


MISSION STATEMENT:
The Pauline Center for Media Studies was founded in 1993 to promote media literacy education in view of integrating human and Christian values in today's entertainment and information media culture.
"Glory to God and peace to people of good will." --Luke 2:14

FEES:
One hour: $200
Two hours: $250
Three hours (“full day”) or more: $500
Other expenses: (if distance) gas and lodging.

EQUIPMENT:
Almost all equipment is provided by the presenter. A large screen is usually the only on-site requirement (in a room that can be completely darkened).

RESOURCES FOR SALE
An exhibit of the finest topic-related media resources can be provided on request. Please provide two tables for display.

(OTHER TALKS)
PHILOSOPHY:

FAITH AND REASON--FRIENDS OR FOES?
Let's wrestle with this centuries-old riddle! What is the relationship between Faith and Reason?
Faith and Science? How can we and our youth respond to the "New Atheism"?

JOHN PAUL II’S PHILOSOPHY
Before he was pope, Karol Wojtyla was a poet, actor, playwright, athlete and…philosopher.
(The only thing that stopped Cardinal Wojtyla from teaching philosophy at the university level
was his election to the papacy.) How does JP2G’s philosophy continue to influence the Church?
What is phenomenology? Why did he insist so much on the dignity of the human person?

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY:

INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY OF THE BODY
Join the revolution! What does it mean to BE a body--not HAVE a body?

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY AND WOMAN'S IDENTITY IN CHRIST
Covers "The Dignity and Vocation of Woman," Mary, feminism, women and the Catholic priesthoood.

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY, VOCATIONAL DISCERNMENT AND CELIBACY
Covers religious life, priesthood and single life.

MOVIES: “MY SISTER’S KEEPER”

"My Sister's Keeper," much-loved novelist Jodi Picoult's first book-into-movie, is about death and familial love. It looks death straight in the eye and comes up blank. As it should. The film's conclusion is that we don't know much about death or the afterlife, but we do know about love.

I was immediately grabbed by the book's premise when it came out, meant to read it, and never did: A very determined mother is impregnated with a daughter who is specifically designed by medical science to be compatible "spare parts" for her sick older daughter (leukemia). At eleven years old, the younger daughter sues for control over her own body. Sound like creepy sci-fi? It's not at all portrayed that way. As these technologies become commonplace (think: Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick's twins, recently carried and birthed by a surrogate mother; Octomom; the widespread use of IVF; sperm and egg "donation"; frozen embryos; etc.), emotional, home-y narratives will accompany these decisions/choices/actions, and thus, these stories will become just "normal."

As is well known, the Catholic Church sees the above-mentioned "solutions" as disrespectful of human dignity. Anything that treats human beings as objects, things, products, tools, "rights," possessions, etc., is not in keeping with that dignity. (Certain technologies to aid fertility ARE approved, as long as it's within the context of the nuptial act, aiding the natural process. Contrary to popular belief, the Church wants you to have sex, and is very back-to-nature, crunchy granola.)

"My Sister's Keeper" is really a bio-ethical drama, but I've never heard anyone put it in that context which is kind of scary in itself. It's also a legal drama—what are the little girl's rights, if any? While watching the film, one is acutely aware that this is simply the state of the question/problem FOR NOW. Things are only going to get weirder.

Lots of great ponder-this statements and questions surrounding the issue are posed by characters:

"I'm important, too!" –the younger daughter, Anna

"We went against nature. It's our fault. Anna's reaction was bound to happen. If we force her to give her kidney, will she look at us from now on as though we used her? Maybe we just wanted what we wanted."—Dad

"I was engineered." –Anna

Mom to Anna: "You don't have a choice [to give kidney to sister]." Anna: "I do have a choice!"

"Who stands up for Anna?" –Lawyer

The action starts off with a bang—Anna's voice-over brings us up to speed in just a few minutes: how she came to exist and why, and then off she goes to the lawyer. But MSK is an uneven ensemble piece. In the beginning, we hear the thoughts of each character, but that stops abruptly and we switch to Anna's thoughts alone and we think she's the main character, but, no—suddenly it's Kate for a long stretch, including visual meditations of her illness and a budding romance with a fellow teen cancer patient. Perhaps this asymmetry is intentional—to defy expectations and remind us of the unevenness of life. And death. However, each family member, even the devoted, ditzy aunt, has their moment, gets their say by the end.

The conclusion-twist, although altogether a probability, clever, generous and heroic, felt like a bit of a cop-out (much like the miscarriage in abortion movie "Citizen Ruth"). Why NOT follow the real question through to the end? Actually, we know such cases have already happened (families having a child for the therapeutic purpose of healing another child). What ARE the rights of these too-young-to-speak-for-themselves-de-facto donors? Should this ever be done? (Starting from babyhood, Anna has been through many painful procedures with side effects that compromise and jeopardize her health.) Picoult sets her dilemma in the State of California, so she refers to CA law, and also federal law and precedents which I assume are real.

What side does Picoult come down? Hard to tell—if she's even taking sides. Is she trying to "accomplish something" through her literature? Picoult is a graduate of Princeton, does extensive research on her books, is the mother of three teens, and tends toward what is being called "child-peril lit." She does mention in a New York Times Magazine interview that she feels she is somewhat superstitious and hopes that by dragging these possible family disasters out into the light, maybe somehow they won't happen to her family.

This film is quite well done (director Nick Cassavetes, "The Notebook"), and only treads the edge, but never falls into the chasm of sentimentality. This is not to say that you won't be sniffling.

The actors are all outstanding and really mesh: Cameron Diaz (the control-freak, blinded-by-smotherlove Mom--we ALL know women like this, who have complete confidence that they alone know what's best for every member of their family), Jason Patric (the strong, often silent, makepeace fireman Dad), Anna (the strong-willed-as-her-mother fighter, who also loves her sister, literally "to pieces"), Evan Ellingson (the lost-in-the-shuffle middle child), Sofia Vassilieva (the dying-to-live but otherwise typical teen who bounces from highs to lows, from consoling her family to needing their consolation), Alec Baldwin (the slick personal injury lawyer doing one good thing in his life), and Joan Cusack (the judge, but why can't we have a Joan Cusack movie? A series of Joan Cusack movies? All Joan all the time? Why don't we see more of this consistent-bullseye, scrumptious actress with her thick as pea soup Chicago accent? OK, I'm done.)

MSK is like one of those really good "Lifetime" movies. There's not a lot of humor, but the overall tone of the movie is gentle, light, touching. The lack of laugh-out-loud-laughter feels right. Too many movies seem insecure by trying to make us laugh too hard, too often.

The everyone-talking-at-once, rollicking extended family dynamic feels unscripted. Watch the scene where Dad tries to take Kate (the sick older daughter) to the beach. Ugly to watch, but boy, is it true to life! (People clapped for the Dad in my theater.)

In the courtroom, Anna's lawyer comes close to asking: "Where does our 'culture of absolute choice' end?" We pretend it ends when my rights crash into yours, but that happens early on in many cases, and I'm afraid we've learned to deny, justify or just force our way.

OTHER STUFF:

--Abigail Breslin--forever our little Miss Sunshine!--is still totally natural and fluid and "her-age" and tripping the light fantastic. A pox upon Hollywood if they ever destroy her. Amen.

--Director Nick Cassavettes' daughter was born with a congenital heart condition, so he knows of what he directs.

--Bittersweet old and new soundtrack which includes Don Ho! Remember him, my FOFs?! (fellow old farts)

--Way too many fade-to-blacks

--Seamless flashbacks

--People in my theater were laughing at the wrong times, which made me wonder if they were just nervous because they would do the same thing to Anna if they had a Kate?

--When hip Mom (Cameron Diaz) calls the hospice lady "broad," and "sister," it felt like false notes—the words of a much older woman

--The full attention on Kate (and hardly anyone else) felt long and drawn out

--The "culture of absolute choice" and "doing what I want with my own body" comes back to butt-bite when the designated-designer-donor-daughter uses the same rhetoric!

--Just exactly was Jesse (the son) doing in Hollywood late at night?

--Problematic theology: Anna thinks souls pre-exist, floating around in heaven looking for bodies on earth....

--Wouldn't Anna's relationship with parents be MUCH more strained?

--There's no God in the movie. But there's lots of genuine sacrificial love.

Speaking of "The Insider":

"The word 'God' was not there but the Reality was; when someone lays down his life for another, God is present."

-- Fr. Bud Keiser, CSP (1929-2000)

MOVIES: TOP 10 PRIEST MOVIES

I shall be posting my own list soon, gleaned from my own poll of priests and seminarians!

Top 10 Priest Movies
Posted by Tom Hoopes
Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:40 AM

For the Year of the Priest, here are the “Top 10 Priest Movies” from our Top 100 Catholic Movies List (the full list, the result of an online poll of 1,000 people, is always under “Resources” above):

1. The Scarlet and the Black (1983)
2. The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945)
3. The Mission (1986)
4. Going My Way (1944)
5. The Keys of the Kingdom (1944)
6. On the Waterfront (1954)
7. I Confess (1953)
8. Boys Town (1938)
9. Molokai: The Story of Father Damien (1999), mature audiences
10. The Exorcist (1973) mature audiences*
11. Angels With Dirty Faces (1938)

(This list represents U.S. movies in which a main character is a priest. It omits movies focused on a bishop or a pope. The French films “Monsieur Vincent” [1948] and “Diary of a Country Priest” [1951] would come before “Angels With Dirty Faces” if foreign films counted.)

* UPDATED: Other sites have argued that “On the Waterfront” doesn’t count as a priest movie. I think it does. At any rate, I added an 11th movie so that there are 10 no-doubt-about-it priest movies in the list. Our Top 100 Catholic Movies List also includes two Jesuit priest movies whose votes didn’t rate the top 10: 97. The Hoodlum Saint (1946) which I personally would have put higher on the list100. Padre On Horseback (1977) which I personally would not have included on the list.
(From National Catholic Register)

TALK RADIO "IN EXTREMIS"

So I'm listening to Relevant Radio (Catholic radio) in my car, and the host says that Obama didn't use the words "terrorism" or "terrorists" in his speech in Egypt and didn't refer to terrorism at all.

Obama DID mention terrorism in his speech. He may not have used the word (why reinforce a stereotype: "All Muslims are *terrorists"?), but he referred (with anger in his voice) to "Al Quaeda" and spoke at some length about the innocent people (of America and various nations) who were murdered on 9/11. (Thank God I had heard NPR's airing of the speech earlier in the morning.)

I am NO fan of Obama's extreme anti-life policies or his Socialist drift (and I certainly didn't vote for him), but if we start attacking him for the good things he does (or worse, falsifying information), we will lose all credibility. It becomes an attack ad hominem. This is gravely dishonest.

Interestingly enough, I was on Chicago's 94 inbound where there were billboards for BOTH "Relevant Radio 950" AND "Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio 820." Hmmm, I thunk, I wonder what 820 is saying about Obama's speech? So I tuned in: "Breaking news! In a zoo in Germany, two male penguins are caring for an egg rejected by its biological parents!"

God bless America.
____
*Maybe we should retire the terms "terrorist/terrorism" all together. Makes 'em sound real powerful and scary. My mother says we should say "cowards/cowardism."

PHILOSOPHY: DIALOGUES

So I was in Minnesota doing my "Philosophy 101--Discovering the Powerful Philosophies Behind the Media" workshop for homeschool parents, held at a secular college. In my workshop, I identify 13 philosophers/philosophies that are most influential today. They are arranged on a chart with slogan, view of the human person, goal and result:

relativism
nihilism
phenomenology
skepticism
capitalism
communism
nonviolent action
scientism
existentialism
utilitarianism
pragmatism
hedonism
Thomism

I identify which philosophies (or some forms thereof) are compatible with the Gospel/human dignity or not.

After the workshop, a college student (who had been working in the soundbooth) approached me to talk. This young man was very intelligent, an economics major, with a keen ability to think logically and philosophically. He had no faith, and seemed to only have had courses in contemporary philosophy (he had never heard of "essences," for example). We ended up talking for about an hour, but we could/should have gone on.

The first thing he told me is that I seemed to be "hostile" toward some of the philosophies. Something he wasn't used to. Here at the college, he said, the philosophies are just presented as neutral and you choose which one you like. I told him I thought I was extremely fair, actually! That others would not have thought certain forms of certain philosophies compatible with the Gospel/human dignity. I told him some of these philosophies have been historically proven to be very harmful to individuals and nations, so I'm not just guessing.

Next, he said he thought of himself as a relativist (for him, the highest good is "as long as nobody gets hurt") and didn't see how I identified the result of relativism as greed, might makes right, war, etc. (We spent a great deal of time on this.) I asked him how he actually knew what was good. How did he really know what was good or bad for someone else, or even for himself. If he was ever hurting himself, that would be hurting someone. I told him that if we have no reference points outside ourselves, it's very hard to determine that, actually. We can look around and see that people are identifying completely opposite things as "good" that WILL effect others.

He eventually asked me: "What is it that we have to look to outside of ourselves? God?" (He really groped to find the word/concept of God--it didn't feel like a conversion moment.) I said, Yes! But if you can't jump right to God, you can look around at how things are, nature is speaking to us, natural law, things are intrinsically what they are, things have objective meaning and value (not just "the meaning and values we give them"). I told him how the Greeks' minds were blown when they came in contact with Judaism's tetragrammaton: "I AM." The Greeks instantly got it: God is the one Being who's very essence is existence. We talked about how we are so limited, there's a time we didn't exist, we get sick and die. We NEED to look outside ourselves for the source of our existence. I told him if God stopped thinking of us or loving us for even a nanosecond, we would cease to exist because He not only created everything, but actively keeps us all in existence.

I admitted that, yes, we MAY choose something good (and provided we stick with it), relativism, for us, may not lead to greed, war, etc., but we are only going on good will (or chance) in our choosing of that good thing. [I also told him that I would mention that from now on in my workshops--that not ALL relativism leads to greed, war!] I told him that good will is a big deal (the Christmas angels said the Good News was for people of good will!), but at the same time it's a starting point and an almost flimsy place to STAY. I told him one of the major tenets of relativism is that YOU COULD (AND MAYBE SHOULD) CHANGE YOUR MIND TOMORROW, so you can't even tell me that you WILL stick with that good choice. (He readily agreed.)

We talked about how Kant just presumed that everybody had good will and wants to be good (that's the only way his system will even sort of work). I talked about the fact that most people DO have good will and want to be good and are trying to be good, but asked: What about all the evil that people do in the world? Where does that come from? I told him how I argued with a philosophy professor who was enamored of Kant. I just kept saying to her: But why be good? Isn't the fact that I CAN choose away from the good prove that I'm human, isn't that my glory? She finally sighed: "You reason like the Marquis de Sade." The point was, not that I believe what the MDS believes, but I CAN see his point, and I CAN reason like he does IF there is nothing outside of myself that I need to refer to. At this point, I'm not sure if the young man was able to admit that the depths of evil might live in him, too. [We really needed to develop this point. We all like to believe we're good people, but unless we can believe we are capable of great error and evil, we can justify anything in our lives. Because we are basically good people, right? I should have said to him: "Can you admit that there is something wrong with the world? Could it be that we all have a part in it?" When G. K. Chesterton was asked: "What's wrong with the world?" He answered: "Me."]

My dialoguing partner was also surprised that I said certain forms of existentialism were compatible with Christianity. "Most existentialists are atheists," he said. When I mentioned that Kierkegaard, the founder of existentialism, was a Christian, he said: "Oh, that's just because he couldn't be an atheist in the culture of his time." (The "cultural" argument!) I told him that Nietzsche, from a long line of Lutheran ministers, had no problem being an atheist. I told him that these thinkers were radical and had no problem breaking away from cultural expectations.

My young friend wondered if President George W. Bush was a relativist, because he created his own reasons to go to war. I mistakenly agreed with him, but actually, W was a utilitarian in this.

My friend was SCANDALIZED, as many young and not so young people are, when the Christians in the audience (during one of the media clips) seemed to be cheering for a pro-war character's position. He just couldn't understand that. I told him of my own anti-war stance, the Church's original pacifist/nonviolent action stance, the fact that the so-called just war theory has been in question ever since WWII, and of the Pope/Vatican speaking out on the immorality of both Iraq Wars. He wondered aloud why Catholics wouldn't listen to the Pope/Vatican. [Egads.] I just told him it was totally tragic. [I need to be much stronger when I present nonviolent action and how it ends violence and creates lasting social change and improved societies. My Catholic audiences seem to scratch their heads on this one. Nonviolent action, too, is historically proven to be effective: India (Ghandi), Philippines, Poland, the Berlin Wall, USA (MLK), etc. One takes on ONESELF the violence and evil--in a very Christlike manner--in order to end the cycle, rather than retaliating. It requires LARGE numbers of citizens in order to work.]

When we talked further about this urge in people (men?) to go to war, he said: "Now you sound like Scientism." Ha ha. I told him we call it "original sin," but at this point our conversation got cut off. I wanted to tell him that Scientism believes we have no free will, but that we do have free will even though we have impulses, instincts, etc. ["Sin is crouching at your door, but you can be its master." --Genesis 4:7]

Please pray for this sincere young man.

MOVIES: “UP”

"Up," the new Disney/Pixar gem, takes the unusual tack of making a senior citizen the main character and hero. Kid-oriented films almost always have a kid as the protagonist. The kid in "Up" is the grumpy old man's sidekick, but becomes every bit as much a hero by the end. Carl (Ed Asner) and his beloved wife, Ellie, had always planned to go adventuring, but never did. Ellie dies, and Carl continues to talk to her regularly. The house they shared becomes the presence of Ellie for Carl, so when adventure calls, of course, the house must go with. A young adventurer, Russell (Jordan Nagai), inadvertently comes along for the ride (Carl's balloon-borne house sailing to Paradise Falls, South America), and Carl resents him until he discovers that Russell doesn't have the love of family that Carl once had. Two more companions join the unlikely duo: a gigantic, rainbow-colored, ostrich-like bird that is supposedly non-existent; and a friendly mutt with a collar that reads his simple, happy-go-lucky dog thoughts and interprets them out loud: "I have just met you, but I love you!" "Squirrel!" Everyone's mettle is tested by the hardships of the jungle and a dastardly plot to capture the bird (named "Kevin" by Russell). The animals are truly hilarious. Raucous laughter is in order. Sample: To the dogs, all humans are just different kinds of "mailmen," Carl is known as the "one who smells of prunes."

Everything is just right in "Up." The animation is uber-realistic, while at the same time being very much caricature-esque (balloon-y, block-y and button-y all at once). Due to the careful craftsmanship and artistry of the Pixar gang (director Peter Docter, Bob Peterson, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, etc.) the voice-acting is perfect, never sounding a false, disconnected-from-the-visual note as often seems to happen in other animated flicks (think: "Horton Hears a Who"). The narration is recorded first, so actors are basically sitting around a studio reading from a script, trying to imagine the action. The child performances are especially well done, with a big shout out to the young Ellie (who happens to be Elie Docter, the director's daughter), a half-toothless seven-year-old, who sounds like a youthful Granny from "The Beverly Hillbillies." (Incredible expression and dynamics. This young lady is going places.)

The Disney/Pixar ethic allows the artists at the helm to do their thing. Loving attention is paid to each detail. The filmmakers actually went to South America to sketch the flora and fauna and get ideas. The crew also play music, so they performed Tin Pan Alley gigs at old folks homes just so they could watch the mannerisms and movements of the residents. You'll be saying to yourself throughout the movie: "How do they think of these things??" Case in point: the sound that Russell's face makes as it slides across the windshield of the dirigible. At Disney/Pixar an old-time sensibility, the sense of wonder, remembering what it's like to be a kid, and the spirit of adventure are all alive and well.

Much has been made about the image of Carl dragging his house behind him, or rather, above him, held aloft by balloons, and tethered to earth by Carl's living in the past. It is not a burden for Carl, but a labor of love. It makes us instantly reflect: What am I carrying around that is ridiculously too old and large? The fact that Carl was able to remove the house at will by tying it to a tree for a rest, reminds us how easily we can let go what needs to be let go, if only we will.

Carl was a devoted husband, but seems to think that that's all life asks of him. His answer to everything else is: "That's none of my concern." As the saying goes: "Old dreams kill new ones." And sometimes we just can't have both. But Carl uses his ingenuity to incorporate the old into the new. He transforms his comfortable nest into a vessel of rescue for the living. And he knows Ellie would have approved.

OTHER NOTES:

--The old guys' fight!

--Some dreams turn deadly (Charles)

--Russell is the fat-kid hero!

--Afraid of heights like me? You're palms will be totally sweaty since much of the action takes place at 30,000 feet above sea level.

--Reminded me of the "island of misfits" from "Rudolph."

--There was a yellow house that looked JUST like Carl's house in downtown Toronto in the 90's, surrounded by skyscrapers, holding out against development. It was uninhabited but you could still see the old lace curtains in the windows. Would love to get a picture of it. It's gone now.

--Tons of production babies in the credits!

--Film dialogue/plot understatement of the year: "Assisting the Elderly" badge.

--A charming, waltzing, muted brass soundtrack peppered with way-south-of-the-border bold brass dance music. It's on my wishlist of movie soundtracks.

--Coming full circle for Pixar: didn't they start with a short of old guys playing chess??

MOVIES: “THE STONING OF SORAYA M”

"The Stoning of Soraya M" is a disturbing, devastating, yet triumphant film. The truth got out. The book was written, and now the film was made.

Soraya M. was a real woman, living in Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran. Her husband, Ali (Navid Negahban), wanted to marry another woman, had Soraya falsely accused of adultery and stoned to death. "Stoned to death," should give you the shivers. It's a hideous way to die, buried in the ground up to your waist, and then stoned to death. You can't move, you're facing your executors. You don't go right away. There's lots of blood. People left my screening theater saying: "It's like 'The Passion of the Christ.'" Indeed, some of the same filmmakers who made "The Passion" worked on "The Stoning": producer Stephen McEveety and composer John Debney. The stoning is like an agonizing "ballet." Soraya (Mozhan Marno) is in the prime of life. Soraya's doleful eyes, long brown-red ringlet hair and white bridal-like dress become matted with more and more innocent blood. We endure her passion with her. The stoning never really becomes a blood sport. That would have been easy. It gets off to a halting start, there are pauses, Soraya is still very much alive. You just won't be able to watch at a certain point. (Rated R.)

The actual stoning is at the end of the film—not sensational, but prolonged. That is, personal. At one point, it's the camera that's being stoned, so you can almost feel the rocks hail down on you. We've gotten to know Soraya by then. She is a kind woman, a good mother and as good a wife as she can be to an abusive, philandering husband. Her crime? She won't go along with the divorce because she and her children would starve. It's easy to push those who die in violent, heinous, unjust ways into some fateful, unreal realm. But we are forced to watch this travesty unfold increment by increment, compromise by compromise, intimidation by intimidation. We feel how completely trapped she is. We are forced to admit that this is a real person, as real as us. Particularly as a woman, I think: that could be me, if I was born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"Stoning" is not all that foreign to Jews and Christians. We've heard of these things in our Bibles (including the New Testament: think Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, the stoning of Stephen). It seems that Moses allowed divorce because the only way out of a marriage for a man was the death of his wife. And it seems there were a lot of untimely deaths of wives. Jesus said that "Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not that way in the beginning." What happened to Adam's cry: "At last! This is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh!"??

The story/action is riveting and never lets up. There's a slightly anti-climactic period when Soraya awaits the town council's decision. She doesn't seem quite scared enough. But it's a minor flaw.

This was a story that had to be told in the name of everything decent under heaven. Soraya's aunt, Zarah, (Shohreh Aghdashloo) describes the event to an Iranian journalist (Jim Caviezel) passing through the town right after the stoning. The real-life journalist, Freidoune Sahebjam, died in 2008, and didn't get to see the film released. If you saw "Persepolis," and was as extremely disappointed as I was (a young Iranian girl is irked by the Iranian Revolution mostly because she can't be as dissolute and aimless as the West), "Stoning" tells another, much more serious story of the Revolution.

The everyday religiousness of the people is well-woven into the story. God is a part of everything. There are simply good religious people and bad religious people (because everybody's religious!), true religion and false religion. Soraya's aunt demonstrates true (spunky) religion. A simple, good man, Hashem, who ultimately caves and perjures himself against Soraya, sums up the "true religion" worldview: "God is watching." The mayor offers a distorted, "magical" prayer: Stop us, O God, if it isn't Your will. What a horrible, horrible abuse of religion! I won't spoil the movie by telling you the other gross abuses of religion. Interestingly, Soraya herself is probably the least "religious" character. She is just an upright woman. When given her chance to address the villagers, she simply says: "How can you do this to me? You know me. I am your neighbor, wife, mother, daughter."

"Stoning" is THE anti-Theology-of-the-Body movie. Even more so than decadent films. Soraya has almost no rights. She is despised for being a real woman (not a plaything or slave). For being a good woman. The film accentuates what is wrong with the whole backward—yes, backward—system of women being responsible for the honor of men. No. Men are responsible for the honor of women. If virginity and the vows of marriage are so important in these cultures, how can there possibly be a "double standard"? For what else are promiscuous men out doing other than deflowering and disrespecting women? You CAN'T have it both ways. As one woman in the movie says of their men: "They never stick up for us." Women can never win in this system. (The many demeaning attitudes towards and customs regarding women are pointed out—but not overplayed.)

Thank you to everyone (especially the men) who made this film possible. Thank you for caring about this beautiful, ordinary woman and her brave aunt who spoke out for women everywhere. Unfortunately, Soraya's stoning was not an isolated event. It's estimated that 1,000 women in the Middle East and North Africa were put to death by stoning last year. For more information: http://www.thestoning.com/
http://www.stoningparable.com/

OTHER NOTES:

--ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED READING about women in Islam: Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "The Caged Virgin—An Emancipation Proclamation for Women in Islam," "Infidel" (her autobiography) and Benazir Bhutto's "Reconciliation." Ayaan is an easy read, Benazir is dense.

--Will there be an outcry from Iran or the Islamic world regarding this film?

--Did American feminists of the 70's go abroad and help women in other countries in any kind of a big way? See the wonderful, small doc, "Kabul Beauty School," about present-day American women teaching Cosmetology to women in Afghanistan.

--Another very important issue: FGM (female genital mutilation)—so-called "female circumcision": Sorry, you can't circumcise a female. Jay Leno's wife has been fighting this for a long time.

--The whole film is in Persian with subtitles, but the dialogue is quick and easy, shot mostly in close up. Non-tedious reading.

--We are God's wife. God would never let us undergo that. He not only takes on the pain FOR his Bride, but He takes on the pain OF His Bride.

--Agisherderloo is a bit theatrical, but I haven't seen her in anything else. However, this lends her character the air of a kind of prophet, because she sees the stoning as a kind of cosmic happening that she's determined to tell the world.

--As in "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," there's the "reality jumping out at you" moment when Zarah says: "The whole world will know what happened here!"

--Why do people insist on eating popcorn at these types of movies?

--Women in audience crying. I wonder what the men were feeling?

--I would have just run and not stopped running out of the town and fought every inch of the way. I would not have gone with Soraya's quiet dignity.

--Many of the actors are Iranian ex-pats.

--Jim Caviezel, once again speaking a foreign language, has a small "bookend" part that he acts very well. If you didn't know who he was, you'd really think he was Iranian.

--The film starts off with a quote from one of my favorite Islamic writers: Hafiz!

--Will this movie (and the activism it inspires) help bring an end to this barbarism? Like the monk responsible for the end of the gladiators, or the (Dialogue of the) Carmelites who were some of the last slaughterees of the Reign of Terror?

--The "See? All religion is violent" crowd may have a field day with this.

USA: MORE PRO-LIFE NOW? (GALLUP POLL)

?????????????

To ask Americans whether or not they are for/against abortion (and to gauge the answers as truly indicative of a culture of life) is NOT helpful.

Americans are an optimistic, hope-filled people. We are, in some ways, a "culture of life." But the better question is: "If I found myself with an 'unwanted'* pregnancy [this question could hold for women and men]--what would I DO?" But this, too, is a hypothetical question. The real question is "What DO Americans DO?"--not what do they SAY they BELIEVE. Allegedly, U.S. abortions went up in January for the first time in a long time.

The "abortion question" is a band-aid question. We need to be asking the diagnostic questions: "What do you believe/do about outside-of-marriage sex?" "What do you believe/do about artificial contraception?" "What do you believe the human person is?" "What do you believe true love is?" "Should love and life ever be separated?" "What happens when they are?"

As Pope Benedict so simply and beautifully put it in regard to AIDS and condoms in Africa: "We need a new way of relating to each other as persons." (Harvard University research shows that condoms DO spread AIDS--the AIDS virus easily passes through the porous condom. This fact has been surpressed for a long time.) Uganda has cut new cases of AIDS by 50% by putting into practice the "beat AIDS by fidelity to your marriage partner" campaign.

_____

*"Unwanted" is relative. Unwanted by ME, not by millions of other people. And ironically, it's MY child that's unwanted by ME, while millions of other people want MY child.

MOVIES: “ANGELS AND DEMONS”

Dan Brown has—with the inexplicable help of Hollywood (Howard/Hanks)—created his own genre of film. The "Dan Brown" Genre. That is, fantasy--VERY loosely based on reality—fantasy when Dan Brown says it is, and reality when Dan Brown says it is. Facts be darned. History be darned. And now, science be darned. This new genre could also be called the "Simon Says" Genre.

Why do I say that Hollywood (Howard/Hanks) has inexplicably aided DB? Doesn't money explain all things? No. There are standards in Hollywood. If something exists in reality, like say, oh, the Catholic Church, or a certain landmark, or period in history, or discovery of science, one must present it as accurately as possible. It's called "verisimilitude." So, if you show an airplane pilot in a cockpit in a movie, you must take the time to learn the real names of the controls, the jargon pilots use, etc., so that 1) you introduce the audience to this world into which they would otherwise not gain access 2) the audience will have a simulated experience of this world 3) the audience will come along with you for the ride because they can trust your basic foundation for the story 4) experts in the field (pilots) will be able to say: "they got it right." Fiction/fantasy employs some semblance of reality from which the imagination then jumps off ("what if"?). Otherwise, we have entered the world of the hubristic babblings of someone too lazy to do their homework at best, or the world of the malicious, insane or absurd at worst. One is allowed one or two "cheats" per film—impossibilities that everyone knows (or could easily discover) are impossible. But Hollywood has bent all the rules for Dan Brown. Dan Brown's (only?) genius is that he has delved into the arcane world of Church history and spouts off supposed factoids that—quite frankly—your best-educated priests, Catholics, theologians WOULD have to look up to ascertain their veracity. Or not.

I must stop and give credit where credit is due. This "Dan Brown" genre of public discourse (of whatever medium) already has a name (coined by the razor-sharp wit of Stephen Colbert): "truthiness." Colbert often used the term with regard to President Bush, but it applies to so much more in our culture. Permit me to explain what this word and this very "climate" are all about. I have ripped the following references from the "truthiness" entry in Wikipedia.

"Truthiness is a term first used in its recent satirical sense by American television comedian Stephen Colbert in 2005, to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or 'from the gut' without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."

"We're not talking about truth, we're talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to exist." –Stephen Colbert

"Now I'm sure some of the 'word police,' the 'wordinistas' over at Webster's are gonna say, 'hey, that's not a word'. Well, anybody who knows me knows I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn't true. Or what did or didn't happen. Who's Britannica to tell me that the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I want to say it happened in 1941 then that's my right." –Stephen Colbert in jest

"Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word…. It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty."—Stephen Colbert

"Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that "I" feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality."—Stephen Colbert

Why am I not giving you any examples or referring to the plot of "Angels and Demons" at all in this review? Because the examples of "truthiness" in "A & D" are simply legion (in the book and the film, just as they were for "Da Vinci Code"). For a brief attempt at cataloging errors, check out Steven Greydanus' article in "The Catholic World Report," May 2009, "The Hollywood Illuminati." What I'm really waiting for (someone else to do) is a "pop-up" version of both movies with footnotes/corrections. For "DVC" corrections, check out Amy Welborn's excellent (and not too large) books: "De-Coding Da Vinci," and "De-Coding Mary Magdalene." I'm afraid that, even though we don't talk about "DVC" any more (we all got "DVC"-ed out), it has taken its toll and planted a deep-seated skepticism about Jesus, the Gospel, women and the Church in many people. (Just one quick note: The Blessed Virgin Mary has NO place in DB's history of the world. And women are simply objects through which MEN get in contact with the divine. The feminists of the 70's, to their credit, would never have swallowed these things down as 21^st century women have done.)

Are we wasting our time "answering" Dan Brown? Are we behaving like Dan Quayle carrying on a dialogue with the fictional Murphy Brown? No, because DB claims his research on the "things which actually exist in real life" is factual. When someone claims to be saying true things about you and they're not, it's called slander. We are simply correcting gross inaccuracies and slander. For the record. For those who "prefer" facts to fiction.

What is "A & D" all about? A conclave, a conspiracy, and the red herring of The Church vs. Science. One can't help note a sense of creepy glee ("in the hatred of the faith") as we witness the graphic, brutal torture of four elderly Cardinals. (Let's hope this isn't prescient!) At least the Cardinals can't be hated for being white any more. Just old and male and celibate. The screenplay (which is kinder to the Catholic Church than the book) zigzags rapidly between insulting the Church and patting her on the head. By the way, the Church's enemy is not Science (they're BFFs!). It's Evil. Check out JP2G's "Fides et Ratio" ("Faith and Reason") document at http://www.vatican.va/ . Check out the Vatican's world-wide Science/Theology/Philosophy project: http://www.stoqinternational.org/ .

There are two BDDBNTOBOW moments: "Boy, Does Dan Brown Need Theology Of the Body Or What?" One in the beginning of the film when Professor Langdon walks by a bunch of naked male statues with fig leafs on. He declares in a loud voice: Pope Pius IX hacked off the genitals and the fig leafs were put on later. (Is that true? I have no idea, and I'm not spending one extra second on this review to find out.) The second BDDBNTOBOW moment is when one of the clues turns out to be Bernini's sculpture of St. Teresa of Avila in ecstasy. The face of this statue is often compared to the likeness of sexual ecstasy. The clue is "woman on fire." "DVC" was much more concerned with sexuality, but poor DB seems to be dancing all around Theology of the Body and missing it (much like the clues in his novels that are often in broad daylight). It's a new day, Dan! Wake up and smell the TOB! Perhaps a little "anti-matter" is needed here, so that Dan Brown will be "consumed with light!"

The only off-the-wall "A & D" lunacy I will concern myself with here is a scientific one. We'll all blow up if the real-life "God particle" super-collider succeeds. It won't be the Big Bang, it will be the Big Buh-Bye. We won't be talking about what a wonderful experiment that was, "proof for the existence of a divine power." (We can't prove God exists anyway.) Regarding "A & D," this time it's the scientists who should be up in arms (even though CERN—the European Organization for Nuclear Research—consulted on the project).

Sure, go see "A & D" if you wish. But leave your brains at the door. Over each "A & D" cinema should read: "Abandon ALL rationality, ye who enter here."

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS AND LOWLIGHTS:

--They fixed Tom Hanks' hair.

--Ewan McGregor does a good acting job, but unfortunately his character is made to be so angelic that it gives the plot away from the get-go. McGregor looks like he knows this is a bad script/story and is in "let's just get this over with" mode.

--Ayelet Zurer, who plays a scientist joining Robert Langdon in his sleuthing and who is one of Israel's most acclaimed actresses, is superb. She somehow manages to give the role (and the film) gravitas, without taking the overall story TOO seriously.

--The exposition is just a chore. Like "DVC," lots of standing around blah, blah, blah-ing, episodic giving of clue after clue, explaining meaning after meaning, then rushing off to the Next Big Clue like a scavenger hunt. Except that you paid $10 to watch this.

--Nothing follows any logic. Not even the simplest of conversations. Example: Langdon is asked if he BELIEVES in God and answers that he doesn't UNDERSTAND God and the conversation goes on without anyone saying: that's not what was asked. I don't want to speak for Fr. Robert Barron, but I was sitting next to him in the theater, and at every illogicism, he would mutter: "Oh brother."

--In case you had any suspicions, "A & D" will confirm for you that Professor Robert Langdon is, indeed, Dan Brown's alter ego. One reason is that, although "A & D," the book, was written BEFORE "DVC," the "A & D" screenplay is written as a SEQUEL to "DVC." So in other words, "DVC" is triumphantly referenced in "A & D," the movie, and how it "did not endear Langdon to the Vatican." Robert Langdon is summoned by the Vatican who now needs his help! But this Catholic Church, remember, has already been completely undermined as a fraud! And the Vatican thanks him for his services at the end!

--I find Church protocol, bureaucracy and intrigue boring ("The Third Miracle," "The Cardinal"). Anyone else?

--There are all kinds of Obvious Proclamations: "He has a gun!" "St. Peter was the first pope!" [Although it was supposed to Mary Magdalene, right? ha ha] "The Vatican City-State is a separate country from Italy!" "It's a pentagram!" "What are you doing?!"

--The villain responsible for a huge body count, who shoots with impunity anyone who even sort of gets in his way, meets up with our hero and heroine who are out to bring him down, and just lets them live. Okee dokee!

--The music is very exciting and will artificially prolong your interest in the film long after your brain has atrophied and your "give a darn" has busted.

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: CHRISTOPHER WEST COMMENTS ON HIS “NIGHTLINE” APPEARANCE

ABC interview 'sensationalized' Theology of the Body, Christopher West says

Share

Sat 3:34pm

 

Philadelphia, Pa., May 9, 2009 / 11:01 am (CNA).-

Christopher West, a Catholic speaker on Catholic sexual ethics and the Theology of the Body, says the recent ABC television segment about him made understandable but "sensationalized" misrepresentations and distortions. In the interview, West was described as having as his "two big heroes" Pope John Paul II and Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner.

On Thursday ABC News published a story and a seven-minute video segment on its interview with West, describing him as "not your average sex therapist."

"As Christians, we are desperately in need of a renewed vision of our sexuality," West said. "The union of man and woman itself is meant to be here on planet Earth an image, a foretaste, a little glimmer of the eternal ecstasy that awaits us in heaven."

ABC named as West's "two big heroes" Pope John Paul II and Hugh Hefner, reportage West later disputed.

"I actually see very profound historical connections between Hugh Hefner and John Paul II," West told ABC, which reported that West believes each man rescued sex from prudish Victorian morality.

According to ABC, West said Hefner had a "yearning," an "ache" and a "longing" for love, union and intimacy.

On the other hand, West said Pope John Paul II took the sexual revolution further in his "Theology of the Body" which taught that sexual love has been central to God's plan for mankind.

West has sold more than a million copies of his books and more than 3 million CDs. Attendees at his retreats told ABC his talks "revolutionized" their marriages and their views of their spouses.

"Christians must not retreat from what the sexual revolution began," West said in a lecture excerpted by ABC. "Christians must complete what the sexual revolution began."

"We have to bring God and sex back together," he added.

CNA spoke with West in a Friday interview to follow up on ABC's report, asking him to give his opinion on the report and to explain his view of the Theology of the Body and Christian marriage.

"The Theology of the Body is the vision of what it means to be human," West said. "The Theology of the Body teaches us that our bodies as male and female are a sign here on earth of the eternal mystery of the Trinity. Ultimately the mystery of the Trinity is revealed through Christ and the Church.

"Pope John Paul II says that, right from the beginning, the holy nuptials of man and woman are a primordial sacrament, a foreshadowing, a sign that points us to the love of Christ and the Church. Love is sacramental, revelatory."

He said it was "very important" to understand that the Theology of the Body is not only for married people.

It is "for everybody, married, single, or consecrated celibate, because it provides a vision for us of what it means to be human. That was very lacking of the story."

"The story [by ABC] sensationalized some of the sexual aspects," West said.

"Certainly the Theology of the Body provides a beautiful vision for us of marital love. But to reduce the Theology of the Body to its teaching on sexual morality, or to some kind of Catholic version of a sex manual is terribly missing the mark."

He said the ABC correspondents were generally "very professional" and "very interested" in giving a fair hearing to the Theology of the Body. However, the two hour interview and four hours of speaking footage had to be reduced to a 7-minute interview.

"I can understand why they put it together the way they did. They did a decent job," he told CNA, but his concerns prompted him to encourage people to read his articles and books for "the very important context."

Responding to ABC's characterization of Hefner and Pope John Paul II as "heroes," West said the statement was not given proper context.

"I never said Hugh Hefner is a hero, never," he remarked, explaining that Hefner said he started Playboy as a personal response to the hurt and hypocrisy of Americans' Puritan heritage.

"The point I was making with ABC was that we as Catholics agree with Hefner's diagnosis of the disease of Puritanism, a fearful rejection of the body rooted in heritage of Manicheanism. Sadly, that very important point did not come out in the interview."

"Let the record stand very clearly: the pornographic revolution that Hugh Hefner inaugurated, the medicine that he suggested, proves to be in many ways more dangerous than the disease itself.

According to West, Hefner has remarked that he has never "found the love that's satisfying."

"The man is just going to the wrong menu to feed the hungry," West said.

"We disagree radically, in that we do not agree with his remedy of the disease. Pope John Paul II provides precisely the proper remedy to a 'Manichean' or 'prudish' Puritanism."

In West's view, Pope John Paul II was in agreement with Hefner that the body and human sexuality must not be rejected.

"The very, very important distinction is that Hefner began a sexual revolution of indulgence, of indulging libido, without concern for a proper understanding of the true dignity of the human being and of human love."

While the Sexual Revolution started people talking about sex, this conversation must be brought "into the glorious mystery of why God made us this way in the first place."

"We must redeem the body, redeem sexuality," he remarked. "That's what I mean by 'completing the sexual revolution.' Only Christians can do that because of the work won through the bodily death and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The Sexual Revolution led people away from a "prudish" rejection of the body, but also led people to "wallow in the mud."

"Now we need to take a bath," he told CNA.

These points were made in his interview with ABC but were cut for the section that was broadcast, West reported.

He added that Pope John Paul II "rescued" sex both from the "fearful Puritanism" in which many Christians are raised, but also from "the pornographic distortion of sex that is rampant in our culture."

West said a hunger for the true understanding of the human body and sexuality is implanted by God, but charged that Christians have placed themselves on a "starvation diet" that leads other hungry people to the "fast food" of pornography.

"Why was Hugh Hefner a successful 'evangelist'? Because eating fast food is a lot better than starving to death," West said. "What Pope John Paul II does is, he shows us that Christianity is considered an invitation to the banquet of love that truly satisfies."

West also disavowed the characterization that he sees the Bible as "the ultimate sex guide," saying he never made such a statement and that the phrase can be seriously misunderstood by "our pornographic culture."

"The Bible provides for us a guide to learn how to love," West told CNA. "Our culture has such emphasis on the mere physical mechanics of sex… the Bible is not a sex guide in that context. Rather, it is an ode to love, an invitation to love as Christ loves."

He also issued a response to the interview on his web site, saying that he is not a sex therapist but an educator, author, lecturer, and faculty member of the Theology of the Body Institute.

BOOKS: "THE SHACK"

I fully expected this book to be hokey, heretical, New Agey, or all of the above.

After a horrific personal tragedy, a man gets to meet the Trinity in a shack. Yes, the Trinity. The Father is a maternal African-American woman figure, the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman, and Jesus is a Jewish carpenter. This is not divine gender-bending, and that's made clear. The Father only appears as a woman because the main character couldn't handle him as "Father" at the moment. But "she" is still called "he," and "Papa." (It's not as confusing as it sounds.) Make no mistake, this is a profoundly Christian reflection, written by a Canadian Christian who was looking for answers himself. (His mysterious personal tragedy is only hinted at on the back cover.)

"The Shack" is a kind of Job fable/parable--Job questioning God. And it totally works. I'm sure there are theological inaccuracies and impossibilities when one takes on the Trinity, but they escaped my attention. There ARE glaring omissions: Um, where's Jesus' Mum, pray tell? But one could conceivably INJECT these huge M.I.A.'s, and wind up with a Catholic "Shack."

I believe that "The Shack" has entered the library of Christian books on "theodicy and the problem of evil and suffering." Some of my other favorites: C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain," "The Humility and Suffering of God," JP2G's "The Christian Meaning of Human Suffering."

We have NEEDED a book like this for a long time. To realize that we CAN talk to God like this. That He DOES talk to us like this. To delve into Trinitarian theology--how DO the persons of the Trinity relate to Each Other, and to Us? What could be more important than this?