WHY WE URGENTLY NEED THEOLOGY OF THE BODY (JUST IN CASE SOMEONE IS UNCONVINCED)

JUST TODAY'S HEADLINES FROM "THE HUFFINGTON POST"

(Thanks, Ariana!)

Please excuse the explicitness, but if you have AOL (as I do)--
this is the "news" you are treated to every day.
And of course, there are VERY racy photos/vids accompanying.

--GOP CHILD PORN ABUSE  

--MICHIGAN FAST-TRACKS ANTI-ABORTION SUPER-BILL

--10 LGBT VIDEO GAME HEROES

--SARAH J. PARKER GAY MARRIAGE CONTROVERSY

--JC PENNEY GAY DADS

--EMMA'S RACY SHOOT

--BIKINI'D COCO

--TEEN MOM'S TROUBLE

--CAN WOMEN REALLY BE HAPPY SINGLE?

--MORE SEXY ADS

--BREAKUP FLICKS

--NO VIBRATORS?

--KIM KARDASHIAN WARDROBE MALFUNCTION

--CONTRACEPTION IS MORAL FOR MAJORITY OF CATHOLICS

--DANISH GAY CHURCH WEDDING

--18 LGBT ACTIVISTS

--SEX TRAFFICKING ROUTE FOUND

--10 WORST BABY SHOWER CAKES EVER  [NOW EVEN CAKES ARE "EXPLICIT" & ULTIMATELY MOCKING OF THE FEMALE BODY]

--CANNIBALISM CAN BE ADDICTIVE

--JAIL VIDEO: 100'S OF PILLS SPILL FROM WOMAN'S CROTCH

--LOWEST RANKED SCHOOLS FOR SEXUAL HEALTH  [WITH CLOSE-UP OF MULTI-COLORED CONDOMS]

--ADULTERY SITE POSTER BOY

--ANNA KOURNIKOVA'S SKIMPIEST OUTFITS

--ESCORT AT HEART OF SECRET SERVICE SCANDAL HAS NEW BIZ PLAN

VOCATION RETREAT 18-30 YR OLD WOMEN

SPREAD THE WORD!

THE REAL WAR ON WOMEN--"40 FILM"

MOVIES: "MEN IN BLACK 3"

Sequels are hard to do. “Men in Black 3” is no exception. After an attention-grabbing, keeping-in-the-MIB-mode (and a once-only-ultra-risqué scene) opening, "MIB3" strives in a ho-hum way to maintain the MIB quirky vibe and “odd couple” relationship between Agent J (Will Smith) and Agent K (a wan-looking Tommy Lee Jones). Each actor does their best with mediocre, drawn-out, contrivedly intricate situations and dialogue. The beginning of the film goes on and on with a one-note joke about Agent K’s sour countenance and disposition.

The plot? Agent J must go back in time (to the 1969 Moon Launch) to save Agent K so that he can save the world. Along the way, he learns a few secrets of the past. (Therefore, most of the movie is without Tommy Lee Jones. Josh Brolin plays the younger Agent K.)

The villain is “Boris” (NOT “Boris the Animal”)—from an almost-extinct race of aliens—who is pretty ticked about Agent K having blown his arm off. He’s determined to go back to the past and retrieve his arm.

A tedious but sweet, altruistic alien named “Griffin” helps our heroes with his clairvoyance and ability to see ALL future possibilities.

The premise is still fun: The world isn’t what you think it is—there are undercover good guys keeping the world going, saving us from danger. Even Andy Warhol (a truly funny gag). There are lots of squishy, gooey, gross, evil life forms to be subdued. But sentient beings (albeit CGI) are also treated rather brutally—even a “human” head used as a bowling ball.

"MIB3" is colorful; well-lit; chock-a-block with special effects, goofy and exotic aliens; Josh Brolin does a fantastic job as a younger version of Tommy Lee Jones, but the film doesn’t MOVE. Even though we are told how urgent everything is, it doesn’t translate into heart-pumping, mind-tickling action. Much of the clever, interspecies shoot ‘em up gyrations take place in a Chinese restaurant, but it seems like the movie’s budget was primarily expended here (and in Act 3 at Cape Canaveral) and the rest of the film simply strolls along.

As much as I love Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, "MIB3" is only mildly funny, mildly amusing, mildly interesting. Even with the bright addition of Emma Thompson as “O”--J’s and K’s British boss--and a truly BIG SURPRISE ending, nothing serves to light the story/screen on fire.

If you want my humble opinion, I would say that MIB3 is just not worth the price of admission or your precious time.

OTHER STUFF:

--One sequel (not adapted from a ready-made trilogy or series of books) that I think was BETTER than the original: “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.”

--Reading through my notes taken during the movie: “I’m not laughing yet.”

--The old, avocado push-button phone! My family had one just like that.

--The old, clunky, Zenith TV remote.

--I think after viewing the sharp, smart “What To Expect When You’re Expecting”—“MIB3” is just so draggy in contrast.

--Undercover agent at Warhol’s “The Factory”: “Get me out of here. I can’t listen to any more sitar music and I can’t tell the men from the women.” :]

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTOPHER WEST

In the face of the continuing criticism of Christopher West and the way he understands and teaches Theology of the Body, I am writing this little defense.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CW'S "CRITIQUERS" WHO SERIOUSLY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH CERTAIN POINTS OF HIS TEACHING (THOSE WHO HAVE GOOD WILL TOWARD CW, CW'S WORK, TOB AND OUR HURTING WORLD) AND CW'S "DETRACTORS" (THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE GOOD WILL TOWARD CW, CW'S WORK, TOB AND OUR HURTING WORLD). I DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW EXACTLY WHO'S WHO, BUT I ASSURE YOU, THERE ARE BOTH TYPES.


IMHO, I WOULD SAY CW GETS IT 95% RIGHT. THAT'S NOT BAD. AND HE IS COMMITTED (AS I AM AND MOST STUDENTS OF TOB ARE) TO GETTING IT 100% RIGHT. I HAVE DISABLED COMMENTS ON THIS POST BECAUSE IT WAS GETTING UNWIELDY AND I FEEL SOME COMMENTS WERE OBFUSCATING THE ISSUES.

"Remind people of these things
and charge them before God to stop disputing about words.
This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen." --2 Timothy 2:14

First of all, I have done three weeks with Christopher at the Theology of the Body Institute in PA, have read some of his books and watched some of his DVD series and YouTubes. Part of the reason I first went to see him is because I was hearing so many criticisms of him and I wanted to see/hear for myself. Not only did I NOT hear anything unorthodox, I was totally blown away by the content of everything he said, and had no problem with the way he said it. In fact, I LOVED the way he said it.



One personal criticism I have of CW would be this: He may be overstating for effect, but I think he has a LITTLE too much sympathy for Hugh Hefner (just because your mother didn't hug you when you were little doesn't give you license to found a worldwide soft-porn empire). :]

Here are some of the criticisms of Christopher West:

“HE’S TOO GRAPHIC.”
I understand that in the beginning, CW WAS too graphic/explicit. He was mostly talking this way on college campuses (and many of the young people loved it). He has since ceased this kind of talk and has suppressed his early recordings. If/when he gets some finer points of his teachings incorrect, he allows himself to be corrected by priests and others.

I tell my male TOB speaker friends to be careful of explicit language in mixed groups. I tell them, if it’s all guys—use your locker room vocabulary, say whatever you need to to get your point across (TOB always respects women and sex, of course), but not in front of women. Why not? Even though our culture is super-crude and treats women like “one of the guys” (I hear young men and women using the “F” word continuously to each other in conversation like it’s nothing and AS IF THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEXES)—TOB women are not down with that. If—according to TOB--men “initiate the gift of love and women receive it and give it back in love,” then sex talk coming from a man can feel like an unwanted initiation. It sounds aggressive, assaulting and even violating to women (or it should). Why is there such a thing as “phone sex”? I rest my case.

“HE’S ARROGANT.”
I’d say maybe a little “cocky.” But not in an obnoxious way. He has a kind of rockstar/artistic personality (he writes/plays/sings music VERY well). He’s a showman, and this showmanship is what makes him such a great speaker/presenter. God can use any kind of personality. CW is also tenacious, which keeps him at what he’s doing in the FACE of all the criticism. He also will never give a talk without prayer teams backing him up and soaking the talk/event in prayer.

“HE’S NOT QUALIFIED.”
CW has a B.A. in Anthropology and got his graduate degree from the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family in Washington, D.C. He taught theology for the Archdiocese of Denver under Archbishop Chaput, teaches at the Institute of Priestly Formation in Omaha, and at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne, Australia. His flagship book: “Good News About Sex and Marriage” (St. Anthony Messenger Press) has been in print since at least 2000 (and revised at least once). He authored an entire commentary of John Paul II’s text: “Male and Female He Created Them—A Theology of the Body” (Pauline Books & Media—Daughters of St. Paul) and “Theology of the Body for Beginners,” (Ascension Press) among others.



“HE PRESENTS JOHN PAUL II’S THOUGHT AS HIS OWN THOUGHT.”
Christopher is very clear about what is his and what is John Paul II’s. He quotes TOB verbatim extensively in his talks and in his books.

“HE PRESENTS HIS OWN THOUGHTS AS JOHN PAUL II’S THOUGHT.”
If CW has crafted some principles of TOB in his own language, it’s a tool to understanding John Paul II’s words. Also, what CW says faithfully reflects the Church’s perennial teaching on human sexuality. Kudos to him on whatever IS original!

"HE'S SEXUALIZING GOD AND HEAVEN, AND SACRALIZING SEX."
No. He's saying that sex is from God, reveals God and is meant to lead us back to God. The marital embrace is a very particular participation of the married couple in God's love and life. The Bible itself tells us that heaven is a Wedding Feast (the Marriage of the Lamb, the Bridegroom, to His bride, the Church). The Bible uses marriage as the primordial image of God's love for us. The Bible begins and ends with marriage.

Sex IS sacred. (That's why sex outside marriage is a sacrilegious-type sin.) Christopher is not sexualizing God, he's God-izing sex. As it is and should be.

“SOME VERY SMART, PROMINENT CATHOLICS DISAGREE WITH HIS PRESENTATION.”
Some very smart, prominent Catholics AGREE with his presentation. After CW appeared on “Nightline” (and Nightline twisted some of his words, but actually got it about 90% right)—all hell broke loose, and his “behind closed doors” critiquers came out in the open and the "battle of the PhDs" began.


Some of the people who DISAGREE with CW’s understanding and presentation of TOB are:

--Some of his past professors at JP2 Institute for Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C.

--Dr. Alice von Hildebrand

--Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger, Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, who runs the website www.MaryVictrix.com.

--Fr. Gregory Gresko (whose article was recently published online by Catholic News Agency)

--Both Catholic News Agency and the magazine "Inside the Vatican" consistently give a platform to CW's detractors

--Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein (author and convert from secular Judaism to Evangelical to Catholic). She published her thesis publicly online criticizing CW’s approach. She wrote the fine, fine books “The Thrill of the Chaste” and “My Peace I Give You—Healing Sexual Wounds with the Help of the Saints.” I question if, as a new convert, she may have come under the sway of CW detractors who may have even used her for their own ends.

After the Nightline flap, some who came out in DEFENSE of CW:

Dr. Michael Waldstein & Assorted Nuns

--Dr. Michael Waldstein (teaches at Ave Maria University, FL)--found the original Polish text of JP2’s TOB, and wrote the lengthy introduction to it.

--Dr. Janet Smith (teaches at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit)

--CW’s bishop at the time: Bishop Rhoades of Harrisburg, PA, and Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia

--CW also continues to be invited by dioceses around the world to speak/teach.

Unfortunately, if you look at the criticisms (I have not mentioned all of them, of course), you will see that some of these criticisms actually are of John Paul II and his Theology of the Body itself, rather than CW. Others feel Christopher is not giving a complete enough foundation/overview of Catholic theology or TOB itself. Other criticisms take issue with specific points.


Sometimes CW is a smoke screen for a deeper rejection of TOB. Such as:

“SEX IS DANGEROUS.”
It is? John Paul II certainly doesn't say that. God gave us something dangerous with which to hurt ourselves and others with? I would say it’s “powerful.” A powerful gift. This attitude belies a deep fear and suspicion of the body, the body as lesser/tainted/not-quite-good—precisely the attitude John Paul II was trying to correct with his TOB.

“SEX SHOULD NEVER BE SPOKEN OF IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR IN THE MEDIA.”

It shouldn’t? Alfred Kinsey, Sigmund Freud, Helen Gurley Brown, Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, Howard Stern, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Katie Perry, “Family Guy,” Planned Parenthood and internet porn have all been telling their story of sex. Who will tell God’s story of sex? The beautiful thing about Theology of the Body is that it’s THEOLOGY, not anatomy, biology or sex ed. So it speaks of sex in an indirect, symbolic, almost metaphorical way (BTW, our brains do not apprehend ANYTHING directly, but always work metaphorically)—but in a way that’s very clear what we’re talking about. TOB--when done right--can be done in a mixed group, even of varying ages, and no one needs feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.

The Church’s silence and parents’ SILENCE about sex has HARMED young people beyond belief. ALL young people hear is the false, twisted story of sex that leads to emptiness and sadness, damage and destruction, alienation from self, God and others.

“CW DOESN’T TALK ENOUGH ABOUT GUILT AND SHAME AS A GOOD THING THAT WARNS US THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG.”
Yes, he does.

“CW ACTS LIKE WE CAN OVERCOME LUST IN THIS LIFE.”
CW says that we should be making progress in chastity and purity as we continually fight lust. He says that, with the grace of God, a sacramental life, understanding, believing, seeing, living correctly, we SHOULD be making progress in this area. He says that God didn’t die on a Cross so that we could do “sin management,” “lust management” in our lives and remain stuck in the same sinful place for our entire life, never overcoming. CW says that if we say that certain sinful behavior, like victory over lust, are impossible, we empty the Cross of its power.

“CW SAYS THAT WE SHOULD GET TO POINT WHERE MEN CAN LOOK AT PORN AND NOT LUST.”
No, he doesn’t. And neither does Fr. Thomas Loya (Byzantine Catholic priest & TOB speaker) who is also accused of that. They both say instead that porn is always wrong—in all its forms--and should never be looked at. It is using human beings as things for selfish gratification (never OK). Porn’s very intent and construction is to titillate and cause us to lust and sin. Oh yeah, and it’s addictive.

“OVEREMPHASIS ON THE SEXUAL ACT CAN ECLIPSE HUMANITY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, WHICH IS FIRST AND FOREMOST THAT OF FATHER AND CHILD.”
Hmmmm. I know this cautionary objection is well-intentioned, but I think there are few believers on the face of the Earth who don’t have some sense that we’re all “children of God” because God is our Source and our loving Father. BUT the whole point of John Paul II emphasizing our SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIP to God is because that is what has been lost and therefore the HORIZONTAL-ONLY, HUMAN SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP has come to replace it as the be-all end-all.

Our post-Christian world has jettisoned a lot of Christian values, but it has not given up on body-sex-love-relationships-beauty (even though it often makes a mess of them because it doesn’t know what they truly are). BJP2G says: We’re all about these things, too! And we can start there and get to the transcendent, to God from there because the physical reveals the spiritual and divine.

To state that the Father/child relationship is “foremost” is to take into account our relationship with only one Person of the Trinity. What of our (spousal=Church as Bride of Christ, Marian) relationship with the Son? What about our relationship with the Holy Spirit? What about our being in the “image of God” likeness of the Trinity in the communion of persons that marriage/family is? THIS is what has been MISSING! These are the “signs of the times” that need to be emphasized! While we always remain Father/child, we must also reach maturity, “full stature” (Ephesians 4:13), which would also imply adult faith/behavior/relationships.

“IN ORDER TO PROPERLY INTERPRET THE ‘THEOLOGY OF THE BODY,’ THE MAGISTERIUM SHOULD ENSURE THAT ST. JOHN PAUL II'S TEACHINGS ARE ‘NEVER USED TO CONDONE SEARCHING FOR SEXUAL SATISFACTION’ BY WAYS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY ‘NOT CONJUGAL’ OR THAT OBJECTIFY THE OTHER SPOUSE.” (Said in critiquing CW.)

Good grief! This is EXACTLY what CW is trying to do.

PARTING THOUGHTS:

Could CW go astray? Start being explicit again? Apostasize? Get confused? Make a mistake? Yes, to all of the above. He’s only human. But—how many marriages have his critiquers (the ones who don't support his work in general) prepared couples for, enhanced, saved? How many priests and religious (myself one of them) have his critiquers given a whole new perspective to and helped to deepen dimensions of their living of their vocation? (Did that last sentence even work grammatically?)

Unfortunately, many Catholics are uneducated in important aspects of their Faith (and prefer to remain that way), and as soon as doubt is cast on someone/something, their first reaction is to go with the critiquers/detractors: “just in case,” “just to be safe,” or to “err on the side of caution.” This is a very sad way to live one’s life, and leaves one open to Jansenism, gloom-and-doom thinking, cloaking of one's own sins, lack of hope, lack of trust in God and His grace, retreating into darkness/silence, letting others do one’s thinking, and simply an unjustifiable ignorance.

Eve and Mary

If one has taken the time to listen to critiquers/detractors, why not read what JP2G wrote? Why not read what CW wrote? Why just immediately go with CW’s critiquers/
detractors and not his defenders? It may NOT make you a better Catholic to be suspicious.


It may make you a worse one, and the devil may be laughing up his sleeve because he has neutralized you in a murky cloud of doubt. And--in these crazy times we're living in--we and our families cannot afford to be neutralized in a murky cloud of doubt! Christopher West preaches not the repression OR indulgence of sex, but its redemption (as does JP2G)—all according to the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

                    And you can quote me on that.

MY BOOK: "HE SPEAKS TO YOU" IS OUT!

Daily book for young women seeking God's will in their lives!


--Jesus Speaks
--Scripture
--Advice
--To Do
--To Journal
--Prayer

Order here: 

https://store.pauline.org/English/Books/tabid/126/ProductID/3847/List/0/Default.aspx?SortField=ProductName%2CProductNameH

MOVIES: "WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING"

I thought I was gonna hafta hate on this film, but lo and behold I am pretty much lovin’ on it!

First of all, this is a very well-constructed film. Excellence in filmmaking. Excellence in COMEDIC filmmaking which is NOT easy. Excellence in ENSEMBLE filmmaking which is even harder. THIS is how it’s done, people! Hollywood never ceases to amaze when they get it right.

Second of all, this is slightly more a guy/Dad’s film than a gal/Mom’s film, so I assumed the writer was male. Nope. Two chicks. I wonder if they asked guy friends “what they would say or do” in a given situation, because the guy parts are the funniest.

Why was I all set to hate on this film? Because I thought it was going to be another one of those: “Babies actually emasculate men” films. “Being married is a drag, and being a Dad is even worse” films. But, it’s not! This is a laugh-a-minute, fun ride of a film that follows several couples through pregnancies (some quite unplanned ) and births (with one adoption). Each character is more unique and well-developed than in most single-couple romantic films! Each scene is working overtime to give us lots of information and delight us with all kinds of hilarious “touches.” The acting is superb, the transitions are superb, the directing and editing, the dialogue and plot points are superb. Did I mention that the acting is superb? The cast simply out-acts each other scene after scene.

Is it crude? Oh yeah, but mostly in the beginning, and then it becomes much sweeter and realer (and stays just as funny BECAUSE it’s being so honest). I’m still surprised that women wrote this because the writing is so tough-minded—but kudos to Shauna Cross (“Whip It”) and Heather Hach (“Freaky Friday”) for a smart, tight, fine job. British director, Kirk Jones ("Waking Ned Devine," "Nanny McPhee") is scrumtrulescent.

Remember, the whole movie is about sex because it's about pregnancy and babies.

As is the custom today, things are mostly done backwards: jump in the sack immediately, have the baby, get married.

Is this a “Theology of the Body” film? Indirectly, yes. It shows the best of what’s possible in male/female relationships and the joy of being parents when both partners are “in it” no matter what. It shows taking life on the chin, the sorrows with the joys, turning lemons into lemonade, and having a healthy sense of humor about it all. Babies are called “miracles” many times, only once or twice with a hint of sarcasm.

The best part of the movie is the REAL issues, problems, and seemingly irreconcilable differences between the couples. Dilemmas that in other films (and perhaps real life) would be deal-breakers. But the “What To Expect” couples stay the course, and the big blowout arguments and all-too-typical fights are either resolved or semi-resolved in extremely healthy ways. We are served up that genuine relationships are an ongoing process of give and take. We just do NOT see this. Anywhere. And we need it so badly. Children of divorce do not know how to deal with marital conflict and they’re terrified of it. “What To Expect” handles it fabulously. Bravo.

“What To Expect” totally prepares one for the grossness and pain and “imperfectness” and uncontrollability of the whole process. It even shows how both men and women need to overcome all their false notions of being parents, but also false “expectations” of male/female relationships.

Not to be missed is the hysterical Daddy Dude Group that meets Saturday mornings in the park. Let’s just say it’s male-adaptive parenting. Emphasis definitely NOT on hovering, helicopter-parenting. Much more laid back. Guys just do parenting differently. MUCH differently.

There is warmth in this film, and it seems to be coming from a good place. The marital arrangements may be heterodox, but the “spirit of the law” is observed. Moral of the story: “When it comes to babies, there’s no such thing as ‘ready.’”

DISCLAIMER: Some feedback I got on this review said I wasn't clear enough about the wrongness of sex outside marriage. I do not believe in sex outside marriage in any form. Sex speaks the language of "you alone forever." Sex outside marriage is a kind of a lie spoken with the body. It is damaging and destructive. Sexual love is FUNDAMENTAL, FREE, FAITHFUL (marriage), FULL AND FRUITFUL.


OTHER STUFF:

--E-N-T-E-R-T-A-I-N-I-N-G.

--This movie reminded me of a time recently when I was with a bunch of home-school Moms who were trying to outdo each other in “small child ickiness” stories. They talked about having barf buckets around the house and at the kids’ bedsides (what is it with the peewees’ digestive tracts?) The Mom who won the Groddy-to-the-Max Award was the Mom who told of holding her baby over her head and the kid puked into HER mouth.

--I have friends who’ve been married 15 years. Their younger college-age friends greatly admire their marriage. But when the college students see them argue, they get scared and disillusioned: “But I thought you loved each other! But you’re fighting!” My married couple friends take this opportunity to tell them: “Yes—we’d better be fighting or our marriage isn’t real! Lovers’ quarrels!” Young people can tend to think that any kind of discord means “road to divorce.”

--“What To Expect When You’re Expecting” might be good “required viewing” for marriage prep courses!

--There are quite a few great side characters, too. All fleshed out. Well inserted, well used. Great, great filmmaking.

--Interesting how today everyone talks like a scientist: IVF, genetics, DNA, etc.

--Abortion is simply not an option. Not on the table.

--Some great affirmations of the need to man-up to fatherhood. And loving fatherhood.

--“What to Expect” gets so real. Says what people are really thinking and feeling. And it’s not the “awful truth.” It’s a pretty beautiful truth.

--It’s OK to fight and feel crappy and sick and be scared and make mistakes in this whole new world of parenting!

--Dennis Quaid!

--The golfcarts!

--Margaritaville!

--Trophy wife as heroine!

--The ovulation app.

--“Babies can smell fear.”

--I would actually watch this film again (partly to catch ALL the jokes). And I hardly ever watch films twice.

ZOMBIES VS JESUS TRAILER

MOVIES: "FOR GREATER GLORY"

(stars Andy Garcia, Eva Longoria, Peter O'Toole, Eduardo Verastegui, Oscar Israel)

“For Greater Glory” (“Cristiada” in Mexico) is the untold story of Mexico’s Cristeros War (or “Cristiada”): 1926-1929, between the government and Catholics (the actual involvement of the Mexican clergy/hierarchy and Rome is a little murkier). The events are historically accurate, and certain characters are real personalities from the struggle.

Most Americans have never heard of the Cristeros War, and, it seems, just as many Mexicans are ignorant of it as well! Why? Understandably, it makes 33rd degree Mason President Calles and the Mexican establishment look bad, so it’s not in the history textbooks. His brutal enforcement of anti-clerical laws, expelling of foreign clergy, forbidding of Catholic Masses and sacraments, as well as the outright slaughter of many priests, nuns and laity was extreme repression and a complete denial of religious freedom. Calles thought the Catholics would bow to such pressure. No such thing. The “Cristeros” took up arms and fought back--clergy among them.

“Viva Cristo Rey!” was the rallying cry of the resisters, fighters, and all faithful Catholics. Calles set up a schismatic “patriotic Church” much like the Communists in China today. (Incidentally, Cubans echoed the same allegiance before being put to death by Fidel Castro’s firing squads—see the excellent book “Against All Hope” by Armando Valladares.)

If anyone DOES know about the Cristeros War, it’s usually because they know the story of the daring young Jesuit, Blessed Fr. Miguel Pro, who used to travel around Mexico in disguise to administer the sacraments. In a huge PR blunder, Calles had the executions of priests photographed. He thought this would terrorize and deter Catholics. It had the exact opposite effect. Martyrs were created, AND there was government-issue proof! The photos of Fr. Miguel’s execution by firing squad can easily be found on Google. Fr. Pro is not mentioned in “For Greater Glory,” but no need, there are other amazing stories of heroes and heroines to be told.

The film starts off with a light, “It can’t happen here,” “It won’t be that bad,” blasé attitude and quickly deteriorates into something much more serious. This early progression of events is well-done: swift and devastating, but then the 137-minute film drags on and on. The film begins as a kind of ensemble piece: but gradually becomes Cristero General Velarde‘s (Andy Garcia) story.

This epic’s set direction and costuming is pitch-perfect, but the cinematography—although lush—is distracting and halting with far too much hand-held: in all the wrong places. Poor direction and editing make the fine cast look bad at times—all except for my guy: Oscar Israel* (who plays Victoriano Ramirez) who, for the most part, spun gold out of dross. However, I really have to give the benefit of the doubt to the possible fact that an over-the-top-Mexican-style-melodrama-western (which Americans often find laughable) was what the filmmakers were going for.

The dialogue is extremely simplistic and on-the-nose: “We will need guns! Yes, and ammunition!” “Be careful! You could get killed! Yes! I know I could get killed, but it will be for God and country!” Characters talk mostly in cliches. Several times I almost burst out laughing at very unfunny moments: “War is chess.” (Oh! I thought it was hell!) And Andy Garcia chomping on a cigar with one foot up on a rock in the background waiting for his tough guy line was just too much to bear silently.

We are automatically supposed to feel sympathy for the Catholics and identify with them, which I don’t think was achieved except on an intellectual level. I think many non-Catholics (and even some Catholics!) will bring their “Gripes Against the Catholic Church Baggage” into the cinema with them. But I guess that’s not the filmmakers’ problem. As long as the gripers don’t root for Calles. :]

It’s very important to read the text on the screen at the beginning and end of the film or you will not understand what’s going on OR the impact the Cristiada has had on modern-day Mexico.
What “For Greater Glory” lacks in cinematic prowess, it makes up in ambitiousness to tackle a crucial and uncannily timely subject. Like “October Baby,” which had its own filmmaking issues, “For Greater Glory,” too, succeeds on certain levels and is firmly in the must-see category.

Viva Cristo Rey!
________________
*Oscar Isaac played St. Joseph in “The Nativity Story.” Remember? The guy who stole Mary’s movie? Well I didn’t recognize him in “FGG,” but I just said to myself: “Put this guy in a Western and I will be glued.” (And I don’t even care too much for Westerns.) The way he moved made me believe he was a horseman and gunman, and he’s just totally otherwise riveting.

OTHER STUFF:

--Many Mexicans say that many of the stories of the Cristeros War were handed down to them in their families. Um, nuns fared very, very badly—worse than many laywomen. If you know what I mean.

--The Catholics were called “fanatics” by their enemies.

--Auxiliary Bishop Rojas of Chicago grew up in a region of Mexico where the Cristeros War was particularly intense. He recommends a 3-volume set of books on this era by _______, whom he says gives a good, unbiased account. Yeah, sorry, missed the author’s name.

--The film is doing VERY well at the box office in Mexico (#1 against “Titanic 3D”), but there are rumors that the government wants it shut down.

--Calles pretends to be doing everything for the “dignity of Mexico.”

--Eva Longoria is really pretty here. Much prettier than in “Desperate Housewives.”

--This movie was NOT timed to come out during the religious-freedom-reducing HHS mandate stand-off with the Obama administration. It was made several years ago and got held up with typical movie-delay issues.

--Acting problems or directorial problems? Sometimes the fine actors looked like they were not in good hands and didn’t know what was expected of them. This could also be an editing problem. Cut! Cut! Switch cameras! I couldn’t stop thinking of “Meet Joe Black” (Brad Pitt, Anthony Hopkins). Although FGG is MUCH better than “Meet Joe Black.” Bad directing/editing can make ANY ACTOR look bad. I actually felt that by the end, Andy Garcia looked like a buffoon. Sorry, but that’s my honest opinion.

--The grandiose soundtrack did not match the action. Sweeping-landscape-type musical segments were used for intimate close-ups between characters. The same strains just ground on and on to the point of monotony, and there’s hardly any silence. Just music, music, music at high-drama setting at all moments. It’s wearisome.

--The director or editor did not seem to know how to get into a scene late and leave it early. A rule of filmmaking. Every scene was grandly set up with pauses, longshots, grand entrances, etc. A very old style of filmmaking. The transitions from one scene to another were random and disjointed which made the whole thing feel episodic, like a bunch of vignettes strung together. There is much mugging, posing and general standing around.

--There is no impetus, no feeling of urgency, no through-line in every scene, no suspense that keeps us watching (only some mild suspense within scenes). It needed DOGEWA (from film school): “What is the character DOing to GEt what he/she WAnts at every single minute?”

--United States government involvement in the war (on Calles’ side) is explicit!

--Knights of Columbus figure in big here! (“Good guys”—in case you were wondering.)

--I got bored several times.

--The intricacies of the war are handled pretty deftly by the screenwriter. Pretty easy to follow.

--Kind of twisted theology/logic at the end when General Velarde talks to warrior priest.

--Lots of gunfights and small battles, but very little gore. The “R” rating is probably for the unusual, not-in-keeping-with-the-rest-of-the-film, violent ending. Hint: Worse than “Hunger Games,” but don’t wanna spoil.

--Absolute must-read about the fierce hatred against the Catholics and the beautiful stories of the faith and sacrifice of the Cristeros, BUT this article insinuates that Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI were part of, favorable to or at least pawns of the Freemasons: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/history/cristero.htm

DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL--VOCATION LIVE-IN: AGES 14-18

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES IN 3 MINUTES

DOG PRAYS FOR MY TALK

MOVIES: "THINK LIKE A MAN"

When I read comedian Steve Harvey’s serious book: “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man,” my first thought was: “Wow! He’s breaking the code of silence! Men must think he’s a traitor—telling the ladies all the guy secrets!” (The book came about as a sincere effort on Harvey’s part to genuinely help clueless women in bad relationships with men.) The premise of the movie: When a group of guy-friends realize that the women in their lives are using the book to “change the game” and get what they want from the relationship, the men decide to use the same book to make the women THINK they are getting what they want.  But, as the voiceover says: “The only problem with PRETENDING to step up? You may find that you actually HAVE to step up.”

Harvey’s main point to women is that men are inherently lazy, or rather, that they’ll take the easy way out whenever given it. (The “player” character admits he prefers women with “no standards.”) Women need to raise the bar. Women need to require men to do certain things and take certain steps in the relationship. The book itself is brilliant, exceedingly helpful, and is quoted all through the movie. The movie also includes snippets of Harvey himself on a fake talk show giving pointers. However, one unfortunate guideline in the book is “The 90-Day Rule,” that is, women should make men wait 90 days for sex, and then it’s OK. (Harvey has no problem with pre-marital sex.) Of course, this is a longer waiting period than many, many “couples” utilize, so at least it’s getting people thinking about the value of waiting at all.

DISCLAIMER: Some feedback I got on this review said I wasn't clear enough about the wrongness of sex outside marriage. I do not believe in sex outside marriage in any form. Sex speaks the language of "you alone forever." Sex outside marriage is a kind of a lie spoken with the body. It is damaging and destructive. Sexual love is FUNDAMENTAL, FREE, FAITHFUL (marriage), FULL AND FRUITFUL.

Actually, the more I think about it, Harvey undoes and undermines all his good info and good advice (book & film) with his stance on pre-marital sex! Eeeeeek! 

Sex IS marriage and marriage IS sex. Don't believe me? If you don't have sex, is your marriage consummated? I rest my case. If you still don't believe me, just listen to Cameron Diaz:

The film good-naturedly calls love a “battlefield” and accuses the ladies of starting the “war.” Guy “types” (player, Mama’s boy, dreamer, non-committer, happily-married man, miserably divorced man who thinks he’s happy) are pitted against gal “types” (powerful CEO that can’t find her equal, the one-night stand woman, the woman in the live-in relationship whose partner is too comfortable and is not proposing, the single Mom who can’t find a guy who likes kids). These are, of course, extremely realistic  and common situations.

The conclusion of the film is a kind of a win-win for both “sides.” It’s true that men are leaders in so many ways, but women must also exert their feminine power to help shape overgrown boys into real men, NOT to emasculate them, but to call them to true manhood! The guys may rise to the occasion kicking and screaming, but as Harvey says at the end of his book: down deep, men really want to be the real men that women want.

OTHER STUFF:

--Theology of the Body? Except for the premarital sex...HECK, YEAH!

--The screenwriters are men. It feels like there was a woman’s touch in there, but it might simply be that Steve Harvey really LISTENED so well to his female callers-in to his radio show (the inspiration for his book) that he is now an expert on “what women want.”

--The movie highlights my FAVORITE parts of the book!

--Sad-but-true, watch-and-weep, super-short comedic cartoon “history of men” at beginning of film. THEN: Cavemen=difficult rituals to become a man. NOW: Modern men=internet porn.

--Funny black guy/white guy humor.

--Some politically incorrect gay jokes. Interesting.

--VERY slight overtone of kids being a “problem.”

--Excellent character and plot development. Especially for an ensemble piece.

--The basketball scene could've been funnier. That includes the outtakes at the end, too.

--This film is FILLED with lots and lots of banter. Guys really talking stuff out with each other (and gals, too, of course) in their guy way. The audience in my theater (young adults) were glued to the long dialogue parts. It felt like they were trying to catch some wisdom.

--Hardcover books, Barnes & Nobles, and Oprah felt old.

--The live-in female partner is treated like “one of the guys”!

--The happily-married man…really is!

--The high-powered CEO gal calling Harvey’s book “sexist” proves to be just so flimsy. Men and women ARE different. Very different.

--Lots of sex talk, but it’s somehow sweet and, ultimately PERSONAL, not IMPERSONAL, and ultimately HUMANIZING, not DEHUMANIZING.

--Men also expect a lot from women. “It’s 2012. She can open my door for me!” Even sadder commentary: “Women will put up with anything once they’re into you.” Actually, it’s even sadder than that. Women LOVE. And sometimes they love very badly and put up with all kinds of things when they should be loving themselves, too, and should either be changing the situation or getting out of it.

--There is a faint underlying Christian element in the film. One couple briefly pauses (before having passionate sex on a first date) because they’re “Christian.” At LEAST we see that religion matters and has something to say here.

--I have come to believe there’s nothing more beautiful than a Dad. (Actually saw two happy fathers—without Moms--bringing their 3 kids each into the cinema—but not for THIS movie! It was just such a beautiful sight.) Especially nowadays. Because they don’t have to be. Society today does not push men in that direction at all. And they can always impregnate and take off—as it has always been, but now that is totally socially acceptable. Dads aren’t necessarily respected by other men (but they get BIG props from women!)--and in popular media, fatherhood is portrayed mostly as EMASCULATING and a DRAG—when fecundity used to be (and actually IS) the epitome of masculinity!

--Men lie to women. Men won’t lie to other men, but they’ll lie to women. Or at least some will. Just one more double standard. Women, perhaps, manipulate, but are we as much outright liars as men are? I don’t think so. Unless we’re just imitating bad men once again.

--The male/female differences are captured sooooo well in this film. So true to life. And there’s plenty of defects on both sides.

--Sad notes that somehow feel light: stripper culture, STD jokes, condoms.

--Men can’t become fulfilled if “all they want is sex.” Men can’t become fulfilled without becoming “real men” WITH “real women.” Men just THINK all they want is sex. Men just think they want to be “free.”

--Most honest comment which is actually a good thing and the way God made us:
Zeke to Maya: “OK. I DO want the sex. And YOU.”

:) :) :) :) :) :)

"LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER" MT 19:6

MOVIES: "THE HUNGER GAMES"

“The Hunger Games” books-to-movies juggernaut has captured the imaginations of young people and adults alike. It’s been said that writers of young adult literature are the true risk-takers and innovators today, creating believable, daring and intriguing new worlds and characters. (Full disclosure: I have not read the books, so this movie review will not be a comparison.)

“The Hunger Games” is set in a way-beyond-dystopian future in which the rulers living in the Third-Reich-like “Capitol” keep the peons in the “Districts” in fear and subjugation by holding gladiatorial games each year. The combatants are children and teenagers, picked at random to fight to the death, each representing their District. This shocking and unusual premise keeps its promise and delivers all kinds of unusual twists, which are at the same time familiar to us because—everything is televised. Like a gruesome reality show.

Katniss Everdeen (the flawless Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers to take the place of her little sister when her little sister’s name is drawn. A young man, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who has a crush on Katniss, is also chosen from her District. Out of twenty-four contestants, there is only one victor. We follow Katniss through her Hitler Youth-like “show no mercy” training and prepping in fighting and survival (which includes a stylist, played by Lenny Kravitz, because Katniss will need “sponsors”). The mechanics of fame are clearly delineated for the young combatants as they are packaged and presented to the public. All of this does not come naturally to the honest, unvarnished Katniss. When the games begin, alliances are made to stay alive. Some are genuine and others’ only self-serving.

“The Hunger Games” books are written by a woman, Suzanne Collins, and she gives us a strong female heroine in a cruel and violent world (although some of the other young people are also kind). Katniss never loses her humanity through it all, and never initiates the killing. Instead, she tries to flee it, and help her friends at her own peril. My one beef with the film is that Katniss has no character flaws. None. She is perfectly noble at all times. Even her weaknesses are her strengths (pluckiness, her inability to be anything but herself and play-act, etc.). It’s true that some people in real life are like this, but it makes them less relatable/imitable on screen, and it’s just one of those cardinal rules of storytelling/screenwriting: the main character has to have at least one flaw!

“The Hunger Games” is a story of veracity and self-sacrificial love in the face of power, control, image and spin. It is sharp social commentary on the very military-business-elite-media complex system that surrounds us more and more. The Games are schadenfreude, others’ misfortune as entertainment. Entertainment as control and distraction for the benefit of the few. There are potent ideas to chew on: “Not everyone likes the underdog.” “We don’t always have the luxury of being heroes and rebels if we are responsible for others.” “A little hope keeps the status quo—too much hope can foment rebellion/revolution/resistance.” “Hope is the only thing stronger than fear. Contain the hope.” “What if no one watched the Games?” (This last idea reminded me of the 60’s expression: “What if they held a war and no one came?”)

The young cast is fabulous, but so is the star-studded adult cast, and they work together like a well-oiled machine. Woody Harrelson plays Katniss’ and Peeta’s mentor. Elizabeth Banks is a Capitol operative that needs a visit from the fashion police. Wes Bentley is the TV producer of the games. Donald Sutherland is President Snow, and Stanley Tucci is simply at his best as the effervescent, toothy, blue-ponytailed host and commentator of the games.

President Snow is clearly in iron-fisted charge as a kind of Wizard of Oz-like social engineer. And the ending—showing him dissatisfied with the outcome of the Hunger Games—segues us to “Catching Fire,” the pending sequel (#2 in the trilogy).

One of the big questions surrounding “The Hunger Games” has been: Is it too violent for children? Especially since this is kids killing kids? I would say: know your kids, and at what age YOU think they can handle this. A fascinating article appeared in the Chicago Tribune citing a Hollywood script doctor turned pediatrician (yes, you read that right). The article talks about the difference between violence in print (the imagination protects the child) and violence on the screen (the imagining is done FOR the child). Another point brought up in the article is that when the aftermath of killing, maiming and violence is NOT seen, this can be more desensitizing than when it is. (There is not much aftermath in “The Hunger Games.” Most injuries and death are swift and the camera swoops away.) http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-ent-0321-violence-hunger-games-20120321,0,4551798.story

The question I would ask is: Why do we need/want to see this at all? I realized halfway through the film that I was actually watching a show within a show. What makes ME essentially different from all the people in the Districts and the Capitol who are watching this AS ENTERTAINMENT? Why do we find this entertaining and not repulsing? Is it simply: “I like to put myself in that situation and wonder what I would do?” “I like to see the good win out over evil?” (Good is firmly portrayed as good and evil as evil.) Am I desensitizing/preparing myself to accept a possibly more vicious future in reality by allowing myself to imagine one? Of course, World War II (or any real war) is far more hellish than this film. I couldn’t help thinking of the Jewish children of the Warsaw ghetto who were shot on sight--for sport--by Nazi soldiers.

The film is extremely well done on all counts. Once you know what you (and your children) are in for at the cinema, it’s your call.

OTHER STUFF:

--Jennifer Lawrence (who is 22 but looks like a teen) has an incredible ability to project innocence, resentment, simplicity, fear, anger. In an interview with “Rolling Stone” magazine, it was said of her (by those responsible for casting her)—they had never seen such reserves of emotion in an actress before. Lawrence already played a “girl surviving in the woods” in the small but acclaimed film “Winter’s Bone.” Evidently, in real life, she’s a tomboy from Kentucky with a wild streak.

--From the moment Katniss rises up on the pedestal in the middle of the wilderness to kill or be killed, we feel what war really is: an arena for mayhem and slaughter—with very few rules. She is now fair game. She is now meat.

--The movie is 142 minutes (and feels a bit long), and there were a few lulls in the rivetingness.

--The soundtrack is subtle and invisible (a good thing).

--Jennifer Lawrence has this incredible ability to put a look of "unknowingness" in her eyes.

--Katniss—although she never articulates it--would rather die with her humanity intact. She is trying mightily to win and preserve her life, but she won’t stoop to treachery or cruelty to do it. “Better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil” –1 Peter 3:17.

--The set design is sheer eye candy, from the Appalachian-like hills and woods, the miners’ drab homes, 1930’s plain Depression-era dresses; to the contrasting, garish Wonka-like world of the Capitol; to the Riefenstahl-esque propaganda-pageantry of the opening of the Games.

--I like how Katniss’ enemy was humanized at the end. We actually feel sorry for him. He was created by the Capitol.

--5 FACTS ABOUT "HUNGER GAMES" FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T READ THE BOOKS: http://screenrant.com/hunger-games-movie-books-facts-kofi-160434/ (I just have to laugh at one of these facts: "The young actors can act, too...." I find it's just the other way around these days! I have to put a good word in for the adult actors because young adult/teen/child today usually act the adults--even the seasoned ones--under the table.)

--The mocking jay is not a real bird. :]

NUNS IN RECENT MOVIES :]

"Three Stooges" (Larry David, far right)

DILBERT: THE "DIGISEXUAL"

| More

LIFE OF ST. AUGUSTINE DVD

It will be called "Restless Heart" in English.

There's a great new DVD from Ignatius Press in the works! (I got to see a screener.) It's one of those big production Lives of the Saints that they've been producing in Italy lately. British cast. The whole life of Augustine with occasional narration from what else but "The Confessions"--um, hard to beat that source material.

Clever and profound dialogue. Startling facts from Auggie's life--that you may not know or may have forgotten--startlingly portrayed. St. Ambrose as we've never seen him before. Wait--we've NEVER seen Ambrose on screen!

This a great film if you like: philosophy, history, oratory, Church history, apologetics, BOOKS (you'll see), heresies (Arians! Donatists!), barbarians (Vandals!), St. Augustine, St. Monica, "Man for All Seasons," or Milan.

Ambrose: "Man doesn't find the truth, the Truth finds him."

Augustine: "I'm not worthy to be a priest."
Ambrose: "O, God's going to ask a lot more from you than that." :]

There are subtle themes about CIVILIZATION and the nature of civilization.

Sr. Anne Joan (@nunblogger) and I were totally laughing (at the jokes) and talking back to the screen the whole time. It's that engaging. It was like Mystery Science Theater 3000 for Church nerds and professional Catholics. (E.g., When Augustine tries to talk King Genseric of the Vandals out of sacking Hippo, we were catcalling: "Dude!  Don't do it! Your tribe will be forever associated with petty criminals!") Sr. Anne Joan and I agreed that today, our barbarians are from within. :[

This is a movie in which man's spiritual nature is successfully portrayed and God is a real character. This is a Catholic film that could only have been made by Catholics living in a Catholic country, methinks. Hollywood production standards, but not Hollywood sensibilities. It's coming from an insider's point of view. A NEW GENRE? The "CATHOLIC FILM"?

Monica figures in real big. And not just her pious praying for Augustine, but her motherly authority and personal Christian conviction. Also, Augustine's mistress and son.

This film is what we've been waiting for (always thought St. Augustine would make a good film)! Well done. Brava!

HE SPEAKS TO YOU

My book is dropping in June!

For young adult women:

365 days of conversation
with Jesus 
about life.
Your life!

























to order:

http://www.amazon.com/Speaks-You-Helena-Raphael-Burns/dp/081983419X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1333671330&sr=8-2

sample page: