MOVIES: "FIFTY SHADES OF GREY"

Me holding forth on the Drew Mariani Show: www.RelevantRadio.com (I start at 36:10)

http://relevantradio.streamguys.us/DM%20Archive/DM20150212b.mp3 

#1--I will not read the book or see the film because it's porn. (This is the third film I am reviewing without seeing--normally a big no-no--because of the mainstreaming of porn. The other two are "Magic Mike" and "Don Jon" because I feel these films are important because of their particular take on these topics and their influence as films.) However, I have probably done more in-depth reading about and discussions with people who HAVE read the book or seen "50 Shades" than the average reader/viewer or even fan.

#2--I will not do spoilers in my review because I respect the sacred human trust of the confidentiality of "the story"--even when it comes to tripe.

I wish I could simply greet this movie with scornful laughter, but the film is just too sad and harmful for that. Many are making the point that most women like Ana wind up in women's shelters. Check out the super-creepy "The Fall" (a British TV series) which stars Jamie Dornan (who plays Christian Grey) as a SERIAL KILLER who is also into bondage and has a "type" of woman (brunette). "The Fall," at least, is more realistic about the profile of these obsessed, predatory abusers.

Now. Let's dig in.

Although "50 Shades of Grey" and its great popularity is a real tragedy, I'm GLAD that it is also being used as an opportunity to talk about sexual abuse, domestic abuse and THEOLOGY OF THE BODY (which heals and informs and leads to true fulfillment of desires)! God can bring good out of anything!

TRUE LOVE and TRUE SEX are actually very simple. But very challenging. But very worth it. There is no other way. So many novels and films today are about an endless search for love. But here it is.

BUT if we look at what's really going on in the story, I think a lot of us are missing the point of the whole story. I missed it for quite a while, too, but I've changed my whole tack now because it's really quite simple.

"50 Shades" is not about love or relationships or even sex. It's not even about control. It's about power, and Christian and Ana getting what they want from each other, out of each other. They are USING each other.

"50 Shades" is about two people USING the most intimate of gifts and relationships and contact and connection to get what they want. There is no "we."

And actually, there's not even an "I." Once we treat others like things, we treat ourselves like things. We treat our bodies like things. We can even treat our babies and our children like things.

"We must move from a thing-based society to a person-based society."--Martin Luther King, Jr.

And as we know, the opposite of love is USE. By using someone (sexually or otherwise) as a means to an end, we are taking away their humanity and reducing them to a thing. As soon as we begin to USE someone, we are also USING ourselves and reducing ourselves to a thing. We rob ourselves of our own humanity and dignity at the same time.

John Paul II calls this: "the culture of death."
Benedict XVI calls this: "the dictatorship or moral relativism."
Francis calls this: "the throwaway culture."
(credit goes to @MattSwain for juxtaposing these descriptions)

But we should never use another person because we love persons and use things, not use persons and love things.

The human person is not a means to an end, but IS an end in himself/herself. The human person is the only creature created for himself/herself.

The only appropriate response to a human person is LOVE.

Why has "50 Shades" struck a chord today? Why this record-breaking popularity?

1. Is it because our world is sex-starved? No.
2. Is it because there has never been BDSM erotic literature like this before? No.
3. Is it "the tipping point": enough "influencers" got behind this e-book (its original form) and spread it word-of-mouth? Perhaps.
4. Is there something, anything new and unique about this story? Not being an expert on erotica, I tenuously say: perhaps.
5. Many women aren't experiencing true love and true sex in their marriages (because, for starters, our world--women and men--doesn't know what true love/true sex is)? Bingo. (Women who don't feel a lack in their marriages don't seem to "need" to read/see "50 Shades.")
6. Different people are reading it for different reasons: a) those who read erotica regularly b) those who never read erotica but gave themselves permission since "50 Shades" is now mainstream c) curiosity, to be "in the know" d) feminists (of whatever ilk) doing a read of it--and either hailing it or demonizing it e) the proverbial bored housewives ("mommy porn"--what a sad phrase!) seeking to "spice up" their marriages f) many other reasons

What might be "new" about "50 Shades"?

What might be new is this phenomenally warped idea that as long as women CONSENT to participate in their own degradation, it's EMPOWERING. Sorry, honey. It doesn't work that way. Degradation is degradation, and we must always afford ourselves and others our human dignity even if we/they don't want it. But this idea is not totally new. Lena Dunham of "Girls" (HBO) and other feminists of the hour think, live and create their media this way also. AND just about every young woman who engages in drunken, anonymous sex every weekend on college campuses (to a lesser degree). The layers and entanglements of LIES here is staggering.

The lie about men: men want to abuse women, and it's good for men.

The lie about women: women want to be abused, and it's good for them.

And don't even get me started on "rape culture"--which I firmly believe we ARE living in. http://hellburns.blogspot.ca/2013/04/teen-rape-culture-is-blowing-up-now.html#.VN07KPnF-So

"My girlfriends and I are all in sexually degrading relationships with men. But we consider ourselves feminists." --Lena Dunham (who, I believe sees the inconsistency, but can't quite comprehend it, doesn't quite know what to do about it--because she doesn't know Theology of the Body!)

A deep, thoughtful article in "Entertainment Weekly" does a certain kind of feminist read on "50 Shades": http://www.ew.com/microsites/longform/fiftyshades/. But it ends in the same inconclusive, disillusioned, insular haze of today's non-Theology-of-the-Body culture. Leslie Bennetts, the author, bemoans that because women continue to be abused and sexually harassed (even in daily life, walking down the street, on the job), we are hopelessly conditioned and will never know what our true sexual desires are (and "transgressive" is good). What's wrong with this picture? Like an article on the present state of feminism that I read in "America" magazine not too long ago, it was just women. By themselves. Talking to themselves. About themselves. Writing men off as never being able to be a part of the solution. Not working things out together in the complementarity of the sexes.

WHY would women think abuse and pain is sexy or liberating?

Ah. The trillion dollar question. The first thing I'd like to say is: "WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS OF THE 70'S?" They would have seen through this smokescreen so fast! The problem with feminism today is that it has morphed into: "Anybody should be able to do anything, even if its self-destructive, and we can't say anything to anybody about anything, we can only fight for your right to destroy yourself and others." So they can't say that Ana's hurting herself and they can't say that Christian is abusing women.

Take the 2014 Grammys. President Obama did a PSA against domestic abuse, and a survivor, Brooke Axtell, gave a moving, impassioned speech. And then...cut to an ad for "50 Shades of Grey"! Oh, the irony!

Now, the deeper question is why do women fall for this book/concept in the first place?

Christopher West says: one answer might be that it's like "cutting." Where people are in such deep emotional pain that they need to express that externally, in their bodies. They get relief by transferring the interior pain to the exterior (which also gets their attention ofF the spiritual pain that they're in).

Some of my close friends, one who engaged in cutting and another who actually lived the S/m lifestyle for many years say that they think it could be: if someone is abused (especially as children), they try to gain control of the abuse later by re-living the trauma with some degree of "control." My friends said that for some, it's a relief of the guilt and shame if they feel they are somehow punished.

Some psychologists have suggested that since women and men are supposed to be exactly the same today, and that much of the feminist movement has virtually turned women into men even when it comes to the sexual act, and women are trying to differentiate themselves in the sexual act by way-overcompensating in a kind of sick, twisted "surrender."

Some Christians have said that since women ignore the Bible where it says: "Wives be submissive to your husbands," women are feeling this need to submit somehow. But I disagree with this because if you look at the WHOLE passage of Ephesians 5 (what comes before and after this passage), it is all about MUTUAL submission (and actually, the man's role is to DIE! To lay down HIS life for his bride, not lay HER life down for himself!).

Pope John Paul II is ADAMANT about this MUTUALITY in his Theology of the Body and ADAMANT about men being attentive to women's sexual desires in marriage, not just their own. Yeah. No wonder he called himself "the feminist pope"! NOW. Is this how Christian is treating Ana? Laying down his life for her? No! Just the opposite. Oh, and guess what? He's not her husband! We've gotten so used to all kinds of sexual sin and sex outside marriage that we're not even looking at the fornication going on here--which, of course, is eclipsed by the sexual abuse.

Instructions for Christian Households -- Ephesians 5

(ALL CAPS emphasis mine. Duties of wives, for once, removed. :)  )

^"21 Submit to ONE ANOTHER out of reverence for Christ.²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER ²⁶ to make her holy, cleansing^[b] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷ and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ²⁸ In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰ for we are members of his body. ³¹ “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”^[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. ³³ However, each one of you also must LOVE HIS WIFE AS HE LOVES HIMSELF."

We have all the stats on how sexual abuse works (even if it's a "consenting" adult). The victims are conditioned, they have low self-esteem, they are very, very confused about what love is, what dignity is, many of them were abused as children and then they either become abusers or abused or both as adults. Why are we pretending that we don't have this information?

What about the argument that if it's consensual it's OK?

First of all: are you married? No? BUZZER SOUND. Then, no. Sex outside marriage is never OK. Why not? Because the language of the body, the language of sex is: FUNDAMENTAL, FREE, FULL, FAITHFUL AND FRUITFUL. Sex says: "You alone forever." Sex is a total gift of self, body and soul. Every time we have sex with someone, our bodies are saying: I just married you, I just married you.... And now we know that the body releases powerful bonding chemicals during sex that are meant to bind us to our spouse forever: physically, emotionally, psychologically, emotionally, etc. OR as Cameron Diaz said in "Vanilla Sky": "When you sleep with someone, your body makes a promise whether you do or not."

Now, what if we are married? Does that mean we can do whatever we want sexually or otherwise with and to each other as long as it's consensual? No. True love and human dignity still applies, and in marriage there can easily be coercion (usually of the woman)--OR the woman might agree to something she doesn't really want just to "please her husband" without him even knowing that she doesn't really want to do something. Or maybe he does know and doesn't care. Or he refuses to communicate about it. And if PLEASURE becomes the highest good and goal in the marital embrace, then lust and addictions can take over where there's supposed to be a loving, mutually-deferring relationship. PLEASURE is awesome and good and holy and God-invented, but it's only one of the aspects of the marital embrace which have to be kept together in a big, messy jumble. Start extracting and focusing on JUST maximum pleasure? The holistic unity/integrity of sex falls apart.

I cannot tell you how many Catholic wives I have met (while presenting Theology of the Body) who are doing all kinds of things they don't want to do in the bedroom because "he" wants it, and they feel obliged or want to please him or keep him or they think they aren't allowed to say no and they've tried talking to him about it but he doesn't want to talk about it. How SAD is this? I hope "50 Shades" won't ingrain this false "duty" into these women, but actually be an occasion for them to get healing in their marriage as they hear many women coming forward about their various experiences and degrees of abuse.

This gentleman says "anything goes in marriage" according to the Catholic Church, as long as its open to life, culminates in a certain way, and is consensual: (commenter "paulpriest") http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/02/12/is-a-pink-bus-really-more-offensive-than-50-shades-of-grey/#.VNzK8VLsYxk.twitter

This gentleman says "consent is not enough": http://www.patheos.com/blogs/everydayethics/2015/02/50-shades-of-grey-when-consent-is-not-enough/

True love always wants and does what's good for the other.

Want the big principles and nitty-gritty details about what's "OK" sexually in a marriage? "Good News About Sex and Marriage" by Christopher West.

Do some women actually enjoy BDSM (in marriage)?

Probably. And so, Ana might be that kind of woman. We might not be able to say that Christian "corrupted" her because she may have really, truly wanted him to do whatever he did to her. But of course, again, they weren't married.... Soooo...how is it that Anastasia is NOT a courtesan?

What can people DO about this phenomenon?

1. Don't read the books or see the film because you're curious or think you have to be part of the conversation. This is not just because you don't want to give your financial support, but because of this: Tell me how you're going to read/watch without sinning? Willing your own sexual arousal through words, images, etc., unrelated to the marital act with your spouse, is sinful. Yes, Sister said "sin." :)

2. Learn, live and love Theology of the Body. Theology of the Body is the ultimate life hack. It's about what you CAN have, not what you can't. Be a living, JOYFUL witness to true love and true sex whether you're single, married or priest/religious. Introductions to Theology of the Body: www.tinyurl.com/TOBresources

3. Talk to your friends about it, calmly. Use soundbites. Send them to websites.

www.WomenMadeNew.com   www.ReclaimSexualHealth.com

4. Teach your kids and teens Theology of the Body in age-appropriate ways. Our ignorance, embarrassment and silence is killing them. God, the Church and their parents have nothing to say about the most important area of our lives? Where we give and receive love and life? While they're swimming in a sex-saturated, sex-addicted culture? Really? Give them a context! Kids who learn Theology of the Body FIRST know when something is off in the way the human body is portrayed, treated. You're giving them God's beautiful, glorious, positive vision of beauty, sex, love and relationships--goals and something noble to strive for. www.FamilyHonor.org   www.LittleDouglings.com

5. Watch "Old Fashioned"--also opening Valentine's Day, 2015! (My review here)

A good film (starts off all Hallmark: just get through it). It goes through all the fallacies and slogans of the day that mess people up with regard to love, sex, relationships.
"Old Fashioned" tagline is: "Chivalry makes a comeback," but it's more about two wounded souls who need to trust that true love is possible. He's a young curmudgeon (but you have to see why)! She's a rolling stone, afraid of getting burned again....

HELPFUL LINKS:

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: http://50shadesisabuse.weebly.com/
A NUN REVIEWS "MAGIC MIKE" AND "50 SHADES" TRILOGY: http://hellburns.blogspot.ca/2012/07/movies-magic-mike.html#.VN093PnF-So
A NUN REVIEWS "DON JON": http://hellburns.blogspot.ca/2013/10/movies-don-jon.html#.VN0-c_nF-So
SOME REAL ROMANTIC FILMS FOR VALENTINE'S DAY: http://lifeteen.com/show-me-real-love-romantic-movies-worth-watching/
WHAT WOMEN REALLY WANT (AUDIO): http://hellburns.blogspot.ca/2013/01/what-do-women-want.html#.VN0-qfnF-So

HOW 50 SHADES WILL ENTER THE POPULAR MENTALITY:

AMAZING INSIDE LOOK AT PRIESTHOOD (IDENTICAL TWINS BECOME PRIESTS IN MICHIGAN)

Disclose.tv - This Is Life With Lisa Ling Season 1 Episode 8 - Called to the Collar

WOMEN'S RADAR IS BROKEN

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY LENTEN PARISH MISSION--INDIANA

50 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT "FIFTY SHADES OF GREY"

"Feefty Sheeeyaydes of Greye!" --@MattFradd (the Aussie guy you're watching)

MOVIES: "AMERICAN SNIPER"

Is "American Sniper" war porn? I hate to use the word "porn" because of the way it's being tossed around to describe so many different things today (e.g., Instagrams of "food porn"). If everything's porn, than nothing is porn, and porn is its own unique, hideous reality. But I really wanted to know if "American Sniper" glorifies war. Does the film pretend to take very seriously the colossal cost of war, the human toll on both sides, the fact that "war is an adventure from which there is no return" (John Paul II)--but actually delights in it? Kinda, sorta. Even though Clint Eastwood insists he's more of a dove than a hawk. Some would argue that all war movies are "war porn."

OSCAR WORTHY?

First of all, 84-year-old Eastwood is one heck of a director: short and medium juxtaposed scenes one after the other. No wasted nothing. Cutting in deep and leaving early (that's how you shoot a scene). USA/Iraq. USA/Iraq. Towards the end of the film, you're just like, "Wow, I'm really here in the middle of this firefight in the middle of this sandstorm." Jason Hall is an amazing writer: no false words, false notes, false emotions, false dialogues. Dude is an actor. If actors can write? They make the best writers. He is nominated for an Oscar.

A transformed, rugged and plain Bradley Cooper--although a solid actor--is surprisingly emotionless, unexpressive and stoic throughout, but maybe he was trying to channel Chris Kyle, the real soldier he plays. Maybe it was a stretch for Cooper to play this "God, country and family" Texan, who was so focused in every way and had so few doubts about his trajectory in life, his identity and mission that he was able to hold it together better than most soldiers. Likeable, not-stuck-on-himself, unassuming, not-self-absorbed Cooper shines most when he is being a charming woo-er and then husband, or joking with the guys in that "hopeful or die" (not gallows humor) way American soldiers evidently do. Eastwood or Hall deserve an Oscar, but not Cooper, not for this role.

A JUST CAUSE?

Chris' then-girlfriend (a smart performance by Sienna Miller--a Brit who made me believe she was a Yank) asks the karmic question: "Do you ever think of the person at the other end of your gun?" Yes, he does. He refuses to take killing lightly as some of his buddies seemingly do.

At one point a soldier wavers: "I want to believe in what we're doing." And that's really the question with so many wars and military actions, isn't it? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Did we really go in there after WMD's (weapons of mass destruction) that some are now reporting do exist (Bush was right?) and are now in the hands of ISIS? Were we planning to go back to Iraq anyway to begin fighting state-sponsored terrorism on the ground, and 9/11 was the perfect "excuse" or opportunity? Why did we choose Iraq (even though 15 of the 19 9/11 attackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia--our "untouchable" ally) as the place to begin--because of high-profile terrorists connected with Osama bin Laden? (Going into Afghanistan/Pakistan was going after Bin Laden, I can comprehend that.)

I found myself getting angry at the hell we brought on beautiful Iraq, watching simulated sequences of hapless civilians getting murdered as "collateral," or because they helped the Americans, or whatever. And in war zones, there's always the demonic unleashed in myriad other little and big ways. Yet, I'm firmly convinced that the majority of our soldiers who went to Iraq did so with the right intention (to protect country, freedom, because they were sent, as a visceral reaction to 9/11). So it is possible to have a right purpose in a wrong war. And it is possible to be for the soldiers and against the war.

GLAMOR OF EVIL

Is this a "glamorous" war film? Yes. Glamorous to men (must look like fun to them--from firsthand accounts I've read of the adrenaline rush of war--and you can't beat the camaraderie), and glamorous to women because each and every one of these soldiers (there really aren't any female soldiers in this film--just one quick shot of a few women in a briefing session) is a sincerely good guy and drop-dead gorgeous (no pun intended).

MEN: PROTECTORS OR AGGRESSORS?

I love that Chris' father raised his sons to be fiercely protective. Good! Chris got the right message loud and clear: "There are three kinds of men: wolves, sheep and sheepdogs who protect the sheep." He preserved his humanity throughout and understood the gravity of "stopping a heartbeat." But as a sniper, he had to protect his comrades. He was their cover. I heard recently that because we don't necessarily require/demand much of our young men, challenge them, and because there are no specifically noble traditional male rites of passage, boys don't get signaled that they are men now. Grown up. Responsible. That they are the protector and not the aggressor. That they should be protecting the weak and innocent from aggressors.

SEX AND VIOLENCE

It's interesting how basic training and drill sergeants for  the all-male Navy Seals that Chris was a part of use sexual terms, sexual belittling, etc., to toughen the guys up. But it's also so tongue in cheek and everyone knows it. The talk is rough throughout the film, and the violence is quite intense. Sex and gore shots are fleeting. The soldiers alternately dismiss and demean women, as well as live for them.

CONCLUSION

The ending was a total shock for me. I gasped audibly.

I have a priest friend who sincerely thinks that war is good for men. That going to war is the best and most noble and "manly" thing a man can do. Can we not offer men something higher than war to live for?

OTHER STUFF:

--"American Sniper," no doubt, will go down in the annals of filmography as one of the best-shot, best-produced war movies ever.

--Is the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War even over? Has it been declared over? I'm serious. Do we even know? Are they part of some larger unending war on terror? Am I just ignorant? Because I have dearly tried to keep up.

--My Canadian audience was really digging the kills, even cheering a little. It was strange for Canada, but these were also young, seemingly first-generation, immigrant Canadians. Maybe the screen looked just like their videogames. Meanwhile, I, an American, am playing anti-war song "American Woman" (by Canadian band "The Guess Who") in my head.

--There were small children in my theater which was sad, but I guess their parents must let them see this stuff on TV all the time, too.

--I kept thinking of Jesus and nonviolence and MLK ("Selma") during the INTENSE battle scenes. Nonviolence requires superhuman courage and strength: to take on oneself the violence and end it within one's own body.

--So why is Cooper nominated for Oscar? I think he's a Hollywood darling. And Hollywood--although traditionally left of left on most issues--was ostensibly behind the second Iraq War.

--Excellent portrayal of the dilemma of split loyalties: family first or my buddies "over there" first?

--Why do people pay $15 to talk and snore in movie theaters?

--One of the most powerful credit rolls ever.

--Constant reference to the enemy as "savages." Which, of course, is standard operating procedure in any war: dehumanize the enemy.

--This war film is VERY much about (American) aftermath and PTSD. No aftermath/epilogue for the Iraq side. Not even a whisper. The Iraqi people are not responsible for Saddam, terrorism, 9/11, Osama bin Laden.

--Are soldiers really allowed to call home from the field? Yes, says my vet friend! Wild!

--Chris Kyle is completely disciplined and subordinate, not rogue, even though he was revered as a "legend" and he knew it.

--Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller actually look like Chris Kyle and his wife.

--"War puts lightning in your bones. And pretty soon it's all you can hold on to."

--Was it really that calm in the battlefield? Hardly any fear or meltdowns are depicted.

--Chris Kyle being Texan explains a lot. You do know Texans are more American than Americans, right?

--Soldier: "I want to believe in what we're doing here."
Chris: "We're fighting evil here. We've seen it."
Soldier: "There's evil everywhere."

--Kyle is justifiably upset--when he's back in the USA between tours--that the war is not even on the news, nobody even seems to care....

--Check out this wonderful organization: www.CatholicPeaceFellowship.com, made up in part by vets. Includes Church teaching on war, conscientious objection, etc. Their website is unclear and disorganized (there's an old and new version--the old is better), but lots of great stuff. (The way conscientious objection works in USA is you must declare yourself a combatant or non-combatant in the military from the get-go. You are not allowed to opt out of specific military actions/wars as they arise because of your judgment that they are unjust.)

--What do Iraqis think of "American Sniper"? Here you go:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/iraq/150128/what-moviegoers-baghdad-think-american-sniper (Also proves my point that men love war. Any war.)

--Did you know there are still U.S. soldiers (conscientious objectors from the Iraq War) in Canada?http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/02/08/more-us-soldiers-could-be-sent-back-for-court-martial-on-desertion-charges.html  

--Myla, a young woman from Hawaii (who had to finish her time in the Army), was going to become a Daughter of St. Paul but was killed Christmas Eve in Baghdad. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600230.htm

WHY MEN LOVE WAR:

(I think men also "love," or feel inexorably drawn, called, programmed to "protect" or do what they perceive as protecting. This is a very good thing. It's how God made them. But it has to be channeled as rightly as possible. This reflex is clearly shown in the Chris Kyle character, and I've witnessed it in my brother and other men.)

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/525819-men-love-war-because-it-allows-them-to-look-serious

http://public.wsu.edu/~hughesc/why_men_love_war.htm

THE REAL HOCKEY NUN: SHE PLAYS AND SHE'S FROM MONTREAL

This is the REAL hockey nun. She plays and she's from Montreal. Can't beat that. http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/on-a-winger-and-a-prayer-nun-has-a-lifelong-passion-for-hockey …

POPE FRANCIS AUTO-TUNED!

MOVIES: "SELMA"

"Selma," the story of a pivotal point in the civil rights work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is a well-cast, well-acted re-telling. At times it lacks a bit of a spark, especially as David Oyelowo delivers MLK's rousing, eloquent and inspired speeches in an almost too polished fashion, even though MLK was a great orator. But this is one of the film's only flaws.

The very word "Selma" should be fraught with meaning for Americans, but with each generation, once-shocking and galvanizing events fade. Historical dramas are an excellent way to bring to life crucial personages and moments, to "never forget" where we came from as a country. Many historians loathe these re-enactments because they know all the finer complexities of situations and fear that what people now see on the screen will become ingrained as Gospel truth. But getting 80% of history right is worth it if the alternative is knowing 0%.

"Selma" truly focuses on this one event in MLK's life with just enough backstory to get us going, with just enough hints at the even worse recent nightmare of slavery. Nothing is gratuitous or maudlin in "Selma." This shows great restraint in proper filmmaking, much like the great restraint required by the nonviolent movement. Rather than overstuffing the film with every great event  and character of the 60's, "Selma" is focused. For example, we see Malcolm X only once, at just the right time and in just the right way.

Oprah Winfrey is almost unrecognizable as she gives an incredibly humble and unprepossessing performance. Carmen Ejogo looks eerily like Coretta Scott King, so much so that you would think she had cosmetic surgery. MLK's small entourage of planners and activists give just the right aura of men powerful and determined in their own right, but willing to trust the thinking, leading and strategizing genius of Dr. King. But the real heroes of the film and the movement are the completely ordinary everyday folks, black and white, who put it all on the line. Tom Wilkinson is brilliant (and comical) as LBJ. There is subtle humor everywhere if you know a little something about these times: Edgar J. Hoover's bit part is hilarious.

The film does not forget that Dr. King (doctorate in theology from Boston University) was also, or perhaps first, a pastor. God is the ultimate reason, the ultimate giver of freedom and rights and dignity, and the civil rights movement is very much seen as God's will--"who created all men equal"--by many of its participants.

The tone of the film is mildly tense with a few flares in violence and raw emotion. There are many scenes of a kind of minimalist stillness. The film could have been made in a more dynamic way with intensity, blasting score, with quicker cuts and shorter dialogue, but it gives us the feel of real life unraveling in real time. The cornucopia catalogue of this era's music (including all the jazz, blues, Gospel, folk, rock, spirituals, etc.) is used sparingly and to great effect.

For the most part, little of the actual footage of the Selma March(es)--there were two!--is used, which puts the burden on the current-day filmmakers to deliver their own images, rather than using the real images as a crutch. Only towards the end, and with purpose, do we see long cuts of the actual marches. The first march was all-Black. The second march was integrated. The media played a great role in raising awareness of the invisible horrors transpiring in the South by reporting in print, but also and much more powerfully, photographing and filming, and then displaying on worldwide television.

Today's social justice movements (e.g., "Occupy" and #BlackLivesMatter could really take a page from Dr. King's, Ghandi's and others') playbook. If possible, go stringently by the existing laws in order to change them. Otherwise, highly organized civil disobedience. (An unjust law is no law at all.) A cogent list of demands, outcomes and desired goals. Use the system itself in order to be able to truly use the system (in "Selma's" case, be able to vote). And above all? Nonviolence. Because nonviolent action works and brings lasting change. But who will be able to stick to nonviolence in the face of all kinds of unwarranted, blatant and brutal intimidation; oppression and bigotry, and flagrant disregard for the law by those in power? Who will have the superhuman patience to be able to carry on in the face of stubborn attitudes that refuse to change? Only those who truly believe in the depths of their hearts that hatred is weaker than love.

OTHER STUFF:

--Woman director! Woman director! Ava DuVernay (snubbed by #OscarsSoWhite). This is the whitest Academy Awards (noms) since 1998. Angelina Jolie was also snubbed for "Unbroken."

--I chuckled aloud a few times, gasped a few times, and learned a lot.

--LBJ's confidential n***** comment (like Sony's hacked emails), shows how deep racism is in the USA. This is what Black people understand only too well and know that many white people don't. If I was Black? I would just be full of simmering anger at the hypocrisy. I wouldn't want to be, but I know I would be.

--King's purported womanizing is dealt with with economy and gravitas. It had to be.

--"Negotiate, demonstrate, resist." MLK's strategy in a nutshell. (He keeps repeating this.)

--As an American, I feel proudly that somehow this is my story, too.

--Most African-Americans have been in the United States longer than most white people.

--People were so much more articulate in the 60's. Sigh. The film has such incredible attention to detail that it captures older pronunciations of words, antiquated expressions, etc.

--I don't know if the (older) Canadians in my theater got all the jokes. But then again, Canadians do not engage in boisterous laughter.

--Other related must-see movies and docmentaries: "Eyes on the Prize" (Civil Rights Movement), "Malcom X" (Denzel Washington), "42" (The Jackie Robinson story). And if you want to understand who Malcolm X was at the end of his life, you MUST watch the interviews he gave about his journey/transformed thought.

--Did you know that MLK's niece, Dr. Alveda King, is a pro-life activist?

--"Selma" really showcases above all the inner workings of the movement. How easily factions and infighting sprung up and how it was resolved.

--Couldn't help thinking of the song "Sweet Home Alabama" and Neil Young. :(

"Through many dangers, toils and snares, I have already come...." Amazing Grace

"The man on the news said China's gonna beat us,
We shot all our dreamers, there's no one left to lead us.
We need a solution, we need salvation,
Let's send some people to the moon and gather information.
They brought back a big bag of rocks.
Only cost thirteen billion. Must be nice rocks.
You think it's such a sad thing when you see a fallen king
Then you find out they're only princes to begin with
And everybody has to choose whether they will win or lose
Follow God or sing the blues, and who they're gonna sin with.
What a mess the world is in, I wonder who began it.
Don't ask me, I'm only visiting this planet." Only Visiting the Planet, Larry Norman

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY -- TORONTO

MY VOCATION STORY

How did I go from this...

to this....?

CLICK HERE: www.tinyurl.com/MyVocationStory

BASKETBALL, THE PRIESTHOOD, JESUS & JOHN PAUL II

TV: "THE SISTERHOOD: BECOMING NUNS" (6 PART SERIES)

Reality TV about five young women discerning their vocation at three different convents? How could this be the proper vehicle? Won't the cameras interfere with or even hamstring this very personal and intimate process? Will it "work"? When I heard that such an animal was coming down the pike, I had great apprehension, even when assured that it would be "respectful," and that one of the producers is Catholic and loves nuns. This producer was taught by nuns and wanted to show the world how awesome nuns are. (Thanks!)

THE NUNS WHO KNEW TOO MUCH

Let me give my verdict up front. "Sisterhood" is wonderful. Even though it would seem--as a Daughter of St. Paul: media nuns!--I would jump at a chance to participate in such a project, I'm glad that we did not. But in the same breath, I'm very glad "Sisterhood" was made. I think as Daughters of St. Paul we are TOO media savvy to let the dynamic play out. It almost took congregations with a certain media naivete--as well as a trustworthy production company--to pull this off and capture the total experience, setbacks, breakthroughs, spontaneity, honest emotions, revelations, etc. (We Daughters of St. Paul are "The Nuns Who Knew Too Much.")

Being savvy media nuns, our postulants took full advantage of tweet-watching with the hashtag #RealPostulants and even hosted online Q & A sessions before viewings!

Some of our media-savvy #RealPostulants and young Sisters in formation.

A SUCCESSFUL MEDIA EXPERIMENT

I have come to see "The Sisterhood" as an exciting new experiment with a generation totally, totally at ease in front of and behind a camera. For better or for worse, they are so used to externalizing every thought and movement of their souls, and publicly chronicling every aspect of their lives. Why NOT bring radical faith into the frame? A few times one of the young women and/or a nun demands the cameras be turned off, which shows an understanding that not EVERYTHING in a person's life should be seen/heard by the world.

NUN STARS

The lovely young women are all in their 20's: Eseni (NYC), Christie (California), Stacey (Virginia), Francesca (New Jersey), Claire (Illinois). They visit three congregations: Carmelite Sisters of the Aged and Infirm (NY), Daughters of St. Mary of Providence (Chicago), Sisters of St. Joseph the Worker (Kentucky). It becomes clear early on that these solid, wise, true-blue nuns are the stars of the show! One young woman watching the show tweeted: "It has become apparent to me that I need a team of nuns advising my life!"

HOT SNAKES

The production company, Hot Snakes ("Breaking Amish"), are masters, MASTERS of reality TV. The snippets, the bumpers, the interviews, the poignant moments are incredibly intriguing. They have a great way of making something look (through sly editing) that something is going one way, when it's not. Great reveals. We learn more and more about the young women each week. You will be hooked. But at first I was so afraid they would trump up the drama to make "discerning"--essentially a very interior thing--worth watching. The first episode is a bit that way, sometimes even feeling set up, or with "repeated" conversations for the sake of the camera. It even looks like the convent is a very scary, militaristic place! (Think "American Horror Story.") My Sisters and I--and our younger Sisters in formation--were very concerned: "This show is going to make young women AFRAID to discern!" We agreed, for example, that we would never traumatize a young woman with acne by insisting she can't wear make-up while she stays at the convent--and let her have a meltdown on camera over it. But, guess what? She got over it, with the support of the other young women!

FLAWS

The biggest drawbacks to this media format and what is being shown?

1. The production company vetted the young women and the nuns. They knew nothing about each other, and the girls had no idea what "the rules" would be or even what States the convents were in (so the raw initial reactions could be seized). At first it was a little misleading because of the subtitle: "BECOMING NUNS." What is really going on in "The Sisterhood" is a prolonged live-in (not just quick visit) "nun run"--with some young women who had barely begun discernment. In real life, this kind of intense live-in experience would be one of the last stages of discernment.

2. The nuns and the girls "talked about" each other in private interviews, sharing negative details and impressions. My understanding of the virtue of charity would prevent this, even if, in the end, everyone would see what everyone said and be OK with it. Even if, in the end it was "real" and "helpful."

3. The attitude toward cell phones. On our discernment get-togethers and retreats, we do not confiscate cell phones. We only strongly encourage certain modes of use at certain times. (NOW my "media nun-ness" is coming out!) The confiscating of cell phones at each convent was a real bone of contention for the young women. Two of the young women were very attached to their phones--mostly because of WHO they called: a mother and a boyfriend. It's true that (not just) our young people are rather addicted to phones/media devices today. However, if we just go whole hog with swearing off media use cold turkey and don't teach them, model for them how to use media well, they are left without media skills, self-discipline, and get the message that the Church is opposed to media. Yes, we need to learn how to unplug (and love unplugging as much as we love being connected) for many reasons, at many times, but the Church should be a leader (and nuns are female leaders in the Church) regarding optimum use of the latest media technology!

When cell phones first came out, people were so amused that we nuns (Daughters of St. Paul) had them in our pockets. I used to explain: "Well, we're media nuns." But I quickly decided that ALL nuns (except cloistered nuns BUT SEE COMMENT SECTION!), and priests, and religious people should have cell phones! If this is where people are at, where the culture is at, are we going to stand back and NOT engage in people's experience, NOT be a part of the conversation? NOT share the travails of modern life? NOT be digital missionaries? Rubbish!

REASONS YOU SHOULD WATCH

--snapshot of the faith of our young women today (the Millennials' faith and lack of it are much studied, and it's not a hopeful picture--but there's always another story, there are always individuals giving the lie to statistics)
--could help a young woman and her family in her discernment
--discerning the religious life is alive and well (close to 500,000 young married Catholic men and women in the USA have discerned religious life or priesthood)
--religious life is alive and well--smaller numbers, but alive and well
--get to know nuns
--get to know THESE particular nuns and listen to their wisdom
--get to know these amazing congregations
--see how closely related marriage to a guy is to marriage to The Guy. The nuns and girls really, really get this. I love how Darnell, "the boyfriend," says: "You want God? I have God in my life, too."

There are so many other details I would like to break down and assess, but I can't be a SPOILER! Are concrete decisions made by the end. YES.

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY
a young woman in discernment for the Sisterhood
must defend her virginity to other young women in discernment

One disturbing detail was the existing/persisting attitude of some of the young women toward chastity and pre-marital sex. The girls themselves reveal that two of them are virgins, at which two of the other girls were truly shocked, but not only shocked: completely uncomprehending! They expected virginity of one already nun-like girl--although they challenge her never having dated--but they are shocked by the virginity of the more "normal" girl! The attitude was: "But if you DON'T have sex with a guy you like, you will lose him and he might have been 'the one' you will marry." WOW. WOW. WOW. I know this is a completely common viewpoint/practice today, but it was just so taken-for-granted, so ingrained in these otherwise deeply faith-filled, faithful young women.

These young women don't even see how sex is profoundly related to their relationship with themselves, with God. Their attitude toward men is: "Of course you HAVE to give it to them. That's just the way the world is." This is not gender equality. These are NOT "liberated" young women in any sense of the word! Not in a feminist way,* not in a Christian way. They don't realize how their philosophy undermines their whole feminine self. And undermines the masculine self of every man they date, even if one of them becomes their husband.

It's one thing to say/believe: I don't always live chastity perfectly, but I try. It's another thing to say/believe: sex before marriage is no big deal. You have to/should do it, and virginity has no value. Any such cavalier attitude toward sex means: "The body doesn't matter. My body doesn't matter. I don't matter." I firmly believe this is one of the root-causes of widespread low self-esteem among women. Other women turn this "I don't matter" into a kind of ambitious, hardened drive toward acquiring.

The "normal" girl in question was shocked at their being shocked. She summed up her own ethos perfectly: "But why should I NOT be who I am for someone who is supposed to LOVE who I am and get to know me as I am?"

Such a crying, crying need for Theology of the Body. These young women--like our culture--has so much going for it, and yet is being eaten up alive from the inside out with a completely destructive understanding and praxis regarding sexuality: the place where we give and receive love and life with our whole person at the deepest level. And yet: "it's just sex"???

Check out this following news article that is similarly troubling on so many levels. Just like the Church's mishandling of the clergy sex abuse crisis, the Church's failure to teach and adhere to her beautiful vision of human sexuality has resulted in messes like this incident below. And the messes are getting bigger and more complex and far-reaching by the day. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. A precedent. A legal precedent. Expect many more such scenarios to follow: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/diocese-to-lose-2-million-in-teachers-ivf-lawsuit/

"The Sisterhood" is available for purchase at www.MyLifetime.com and on YouTube. Not available for download in Canada unless you have a VPN.

_______
*None of the young women said: "I like having sex. I want him to show me how much he loves me by having sex." It was just a huge cave-in: This is what guys expect and we have to give it to them.

JIMMY STEWART'S "OTHER" CHRISTMAS MOVIE

Prayer is a lifelong conversation with God!

"When you pass by a church, always stop and make a visit,

So when you die and go to Jesus, He won't say: who is it?"

MOVIES: "EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS"

"Exodus"--the story of Moses--proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that atheists make the best Bible movies (see my review of "Noah": http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2014/03/movies-noah.html#.VI0ZVSvF-Sp). I don't know that atheists necessarily make the best contemporary movies about faith or people of faith, but they certainly do the oldies well. Perhaps this is in part because they mine an amazing text/source that believers might take at face value and/or are afraid to delve to deeply into. Also, atheists are hungrier than us spoiled, slothful believers who take everything for granted. Simply having faith doesn't mean we have mastered the human depths of a Bible figure's journey. That's pretty much open to anyone. To do a Bible story well, an atheist filmmaker must suspend their OWN disbelief and ask "what if"? I think Ridley Scott has done that here.

BALE AND EDGERTON. LIKE BOSSES.

Does Christian Bale pull it off as Moses? Oh yeah. At first, I disliked his trim little facial hair and cropped-but-artfully-tousled hair that didn't look like it fit the era, but it leaves him room for growth and aging. Ramses is played by the unearthly, superlative, uber-uber Joel Edgerton. Edgerton plays Ramses (backstory: unaffirmed by his father) with complexity: a royal that is weak, sniveling, and yet utterly ruthless and driven at the same time. (He reminded me a bit of the dauphin in "Joan of Arc" with Ingrid Bergman.)

Bale is Welsh and Edgerton is Australian, and it just shows. Americans are too American and the British are too British. I'm really digging these other-accented male actors (include New Zealanders) for the Big Roles (although Brooklyn-born John Turturro as Seti, Ramses' father, made me forget all his other, often humorous, deeply American roles).

FLAWS & APPLAUSE

In general, this is a well-made film, part of a new generation of Bible films. I am thrilled that our visually-oriented youth are being treated to these nouveau masterpieces. Most young people have not seen any of the older Bible films or lives of Christ. The special effects are phenomenal--nothing new that we haven't seen in recent years, but it's still awesome to see it applied to Bible stories--and it does pay to see "Exodus" in 3D. The dialogue is rather minimal--and once in a brief while unintentionally laughably simplistic or expository--but the great Ridley Scott mesmerizingly pulls us through visual sequence after visual sequence of battles and plagues. I'm not usually one for epic films with wars and lots of noise and action, but Scott is a genius and is really moving the story ahead through the action-reactions of characters to these grandiose, sweeping events.

There are a few scenes that could have been re-shot. The actors looked like they were trying to remember lines, weren't sure how to play the scene, or it just wasn't their best take. Dude. Just reshoot.

But these are my only complaints. It's a great film.

ANCIENT YET CONTEMPORARY

Although the Bible is an "ancient" text about ancient times and peoples, human nature doesn't change, and so "Exodus" has a contemporary feel. I could totally relate to Moses as he struggled to relate to God. I loved seeing this incredible, incredible man of God questioning, fighting with and arguing with God. Remember, Moses saw God. He did so many epic things like, oh, leading the Hebrew people to freedom after four hundred years of slavery, parting the Red Sea, the Ten Commandments, etc., etc. But I love how the film starts him off as a skeptical, practical man with no faith.

GOD

The film has ample room for God as a huge player, a huge character. In fact, God makes it abundantly clear that mostly, once Moses has obeyed (a very creative, two-way-street type of obedience), God will DO everything. In a colossal way. There are no other explanations for why the cataclysms visit the mighty Egyptian empire. It reminds me of a quote of Blessed James Alberione: "Always start from a stable, start in Bethlehem, because God wants to show that it is He who is doing everything. Those who begin the works of God with money are naive."

This larger-than-life drama of the Exodus is faithful enough to Scripture (with some poetic license as it should have, but not as rock-and-roll as "Noah"), and  although this event is just so foundational for the Jewish people, it is also our foundation as Christians: as Pope Pius XII said: "Spiritually, we are all Semites." I couldn't help thinking of the Easter Vigil liturgy and Fathers of the Church that rely so heavily on the imagery of the Exodus for celebrating Baptism and the Redemption: freedom, transformation through water, the Passover.

The supposed cruelty, arbitrariness, and unreasonableness of God is also dealt with--and not just that of the Hebrew God, but that of the gods of other peoples in the region. That there IS a diety(ies) is assumed, taken for granted, obvious, almost unquestioned . But just what this God is like is hotly debated: "What kind of God would...?" Do we ask these same questions today with the same seriousness of purpose?

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY?

This is a very male movie. Women barely play a part. Sigourney Weaver is miscast as the young pharaoh's mother, Miriam has two small (albeit significant) scenes. Zipporah, Moses' wife, is truly the love of his life, but we see so strongly how faith, leadership, the direction of tribes, nations and history is patriarchal. As I will always maintain, patriarchy--although a system massively open to massive abuse--is not evil, and in a certain sense, God has ordained and used this system throughout salvation history (it's also deeply rooted in simple biology but has nothing whatsoever to do with superiority--just a different task in life than women).

It is up to men and women (with the onus on women) to bring to light and emphasize the unique identity, heroism and essential contribution of women throughout history and salvation history. And we do not have to do this in a strident way, just a firmly insistent, truthful, and complementary way. It is up to us to read the Bible with women's eyes and see all the amazing strong women of God everywhere in the Bible--and imitate them. And yes, much of this revolves around motherhood and the protection of vulnerable human life (um, what could be more noble and important)? Men, too, are called to protect vulnerable life, but they do it in a different way. Moses' mother, his sister and Pharaoh's daughter are directly responsible for saving Moses' life as a baby. Liturgists have often commented what a tragedy it is that the story of the Hebrew midwives in Egypt is not included anywhere in our liturgical readings! They are even named which is always significant in Scripture. (Exodus 1:15-21)

One more word about patriarchy and the absolute need for good men, for good men to lead. When good men lead, women and children flourish. When good men lead, women and children flourish.  Just before the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, a husband and father of two, a very good man (who leads) said this:  "I hope they start the Synod with 'the father.' Because if there is not a good father in the family, he will not do the right thing, and the children won't know right from wrong. He must imitate St. Joseph when it comes to his wife, and their marriage has to be Christ-centered."

I hope that men in particular will feel called to a deeper, truly masculine relationship with God through this film.

A PRAYERFUL, CATECHETICAL, EXEGETICAL EXPERIENCE

I hope audiences will sit back and consider their own wrestling with God, their own prayer life, their own dilemmas and choices alongside those of Moses. Enter into the story with their own story. I received tremendous insight through this film. Many years ago, I was once told by a Jesuit spiritual director that I could "negotiate" with God. "What?!" said I. "What do you think Abraham and Moses did?" he asked me. This conversation changed my life and my relationship with God forever. Of course, the Jews totally understand this as they have continuously and intimately wrangled with God and kept their conversation with Him going for millennia: collectively and individually.

This bargaining with God is not meant to be a venal begging for things or circumstances that we want, but as intercession for the good, for others, to become better people ourselves. Although not all of Moses' life is covered in this film, I was reminded of him so often "standing in the breach" for others.

There's a touching and tender scene regarding the Ten Commandments where it is evident that Moses is still free at every step to agree or disagree with God. And of course, by this time, the fiery Moses had become "by far the meekest man on earth" (Numbers 12:3).

FAITH AND LOVE

There is much explicit talk about "faith" in this film, but little about love (beyond familial love). Of course, for men, love is often summed up in silent deeds. If a man loves you, he'll mow the lawn and fix your car but not necessarily say: "I love you." Again, think St. Joseph who says exactly nothing in the Bible. I wonder if Scott was toying so much with faith that he forgot about the great love of God for Moses and Moses for God that motivated everything. Or maybe it is just implied. At UCLA, we were taught that in all good screen love stories, "I love you" must be shown in a plethora of different ways whether or not it is ever voiced. The story of God and Moses is nothing if not a love story amongst God, Moses and "his people."

OTHER STUFF:

--I need to read WHY Ridley Scott made this film.

--During the film I kept thinking of Ridley's filmmaker brother, Tony, who committed suicide not too long ago. At the end of the film, there is a dedication: "For my brother, Tony."

--My verdict: Bale did Heston proud.

--"Exodus--Gods and Kings" is not violence porn.

--Remember, the Hebrews were promised "a 'prophet' like Moses"--who was Jesus! (Acts 3:22)

--Unlike "Noah," which was the vegetarian Bible film and set animals apart as the "innocents" and almost the apex of Creation--or at least a remembrance of lost innocence--"Exodus" has plenty of animal sacrifice, as well as animals living, working and dying en masse alongside humans. It's a much more realistic view of a postdiluvian "we're all in this together" Creation. And let's remember, it was JESUS who ended animal sacrifice.

--Whenever I see any Old Testament movies, I just heard this drumbeat: wait for it...He's coming...Jesus...Jesus...Jesus.

--LOTS of guyliner. And gal-liner.

--God uses nature, not man to punish the Egyptians.

--Really creative visual storytelling with a challenging genre--communication with the Divine--(besides the easy spectacles). Sumptuous sets. And of course, with CGI, we can do ANYTHING now. Anything. Whatever is inside a person's imagination can be displayed on a gigantic screen.

--"Noah" and "Exodus" really showcase the majesty and magnificence of God, albeit in a kind of raw, brutal way. And it reminded me that GOD REALLY DID THESE THINGS. THESE THINGS REALLY HAPPENED. And then He became a little Infant. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD.

--The physicality of the landscape, climate, and daily life of the times is impressive.

--A hint of modern psychobabble.

--The film is sometimes like a big, romantic Western. Set in the Middle East.

--Dear Jewish people: If you are not chosen, neither are we.

--"I thought you people were good storytellers."

--"Not one Hebrew child died."

--"Leaders can falter, but these rules [10 Commandments] will guide them in your stead."

--I really wanted to see ALL of Moses' life and more of Aaron and Miriam.

--Fr. Barron's review of Exodus shows what's missing. I still like film & believe u should read Bible 1st so u can mentally fill in: http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/ridley-scott-and-missing-the-point-of-the-book-of-exodus/4596/ … (I totally agree that we needed to see/hear "Song of Miriam" after the crossing of the Red Sea!)

DO YOUR CHRISTMAS SHOPPING WITH THE NUNS & HELP A GOOD CAUSE!

The nuns have NEW thank-you gifts that make excellent Christmas presents!

‪#‎ChristmasShopWithTheNuns‬ 

THANK YOU!

CLICK HERE:

http://www.tinyurl.com/WeNeedMoreNuns