The Wall Street Journal also has an op-ed piece today about lawyer Jeffrey Anderson's
involvement. http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/talk.3.31.2010.shtml
The Holy Father That I Know
by the Most Reverend William E. Lori, S.T.D., Diocese of Bridgeport, CT
March 31, 2010
It is Holy Week, that time out of time, when we remember the most
important events of all time: Jesus' suffering, His crucifixion, and
His conquest of death. The world, of course, is filled with
distractions. In this holy season some, especially the news media,
want us to focus instead on the supposed failures of our Pope,
Benedict XVI. The New York Times is again leading the attack, now
accusing the Holy Father himself of being complicit in "the widening
sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church." I want to share with you my
reflections about this subject.
It appears that the timing of these articles is calculated. The March
25 New York Times story suggesting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger
permitted a known offender to continue in ministry for almost thirty
years was based upon documents provided to it by Jeffrey Anderson, an
attorney who has received over $100 million suing Catholic
institutions and who is now suing the Vatican itself. Mr. Anderson
received these documents in discovery in December 2008. Why did he
wait until now to hand them over to the Times? Was it to help his suit
against the Vatican? Was it to coordinate with claimant groups
protesting in the Vatican on the very day of the Times report? Was it
to promote legislation friendly to plaintiffs' lawyers such as we are
fighting here in Connecticut and elsewhere? Was it to sully the
holiness of this week? We don't know. We do know that Mr. Anderson
controlled the timing, and the Times helped.
The truth is that there is no widening problem of child sexual abuse
in the Catholic Church, at least not in our country. A comprehensive
"Causes and Contents" study conducted by the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice showed that, by the early 90s, this problem was
largely corrected because many bishops already had in place safe
environment programs and zero tolerance policies. In 2002 the U.S.
bishops took additional steps to reach out to victims and to ensure
the safety of children and young people by issuing their landmark
Charter and Norms. For our Church serving almost 70 million American
Catholics, there were six allegations of childhood sexual abuse by
priests occurring in 2009. No other institution working with children
gets close to this level of safe environment.
Let us now focus on the stories in the New York Times regarding
Reverend Lawrence C. Murphy, the deceased Milwaukee priest who was
accused of molesting young people during the 1960s and 70s when he
headed a school for the hearing and sight impaired. To be sure, his
heinous behavior was utterly reprehensible and destructive. At the
same time, however, the Times' story incorrectly reports that Cardinal
Ratzinger was complicit when, "instead of discipline," Father Lawrence
Murphy was "quietly moved" to the Diocese of Superior where he
continued "working freely with children in parishes" for twenty-four
years until he died in 1998. The police looked into the allegations
regarding Father Murphy in 1974 and apparently found insufficient
evidence to take any action. Nevertheless, Murphy lost his job as head
of the school for the hearing and sight impaired in 1974. The
documents the Times itself posts show that his removal was not "quiet"
but that the police were informed, that there were protests and
leafleteering, and that there was "disclosure and public humiliation
in 1974."
Finally, the Times states that Murphy was "never disciplined." This
simply is not so. The Times does not tell its readers that, shortly
after new allegations came his way in 1993, Archbishop Weakland
promptly suspended Murphy's faculties and ordered him to cease all
public ministry, all unsupervised contact with children, and all
contact with persons, places, and situations giving rise to
temptations. The Times either hid the fact that Murphy was disciplined
by suspension of his faculties because it did not comport with the
story it wanted to tell, or because Mr. Anderson withheld the
documents from the Times that detailed this discipline.
In fact, if the New York Times had bothered to check with Father
Thomas Brundage, JCL, the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of
Milwaukee from 1995-2003, they would have been found that at the time
of his death, Father Murphy was still a defendant in a Canonical trial
(an internal trial conducted by the Church) in Milwaukee for the
crimes of sexual abuse and solicitation within the confessional. Thus,
the New York Times either was less than forthcoming in stating that
Murphy suffered no discipline, or Mr. Anderson, through selective
document disclosures, played the New York Times like a fiddle. The
shameless and reckless assertions by the Times and other media outlets
that then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, somehow
interfered with the trial by the church are categorically false. Fr.
Brundage, who was the presiding judge of the Canonical trial, says
unequivocally "with regard to the role of then Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in this matter, I have no reason to
believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his
doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information."
Here's what I know about Pope Benedict XVI and sexual abuse. As
detailed by John Allen of The National Catholic Reporter, when
Cardinal Ratzinger became the Vatican's "point man" on the problem in
2001, he personally reviewed hundreds of files. He then wrote the
bishops of the world that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith would henceforth handle all sexual abuses cases involving
priests. Under his leadership the Congregation provided bishops with
crucial direction and support in canonically removing offending
priests from ministry. In most circumstances, the Congregation
approved direct administrative actions so that bishops could
discipline and remove priests without the delays of full canonical
trials.
In 2002, I assisted in writing the Charter and Norms for the
Protection of Children and Young People. I was also one of the four
U.S. diocesan bishops who went to Rome to secure approval of the
Norms. I personally witnessed the pivotal and positive role that
Cardinal Ratzinger played in helping the American bishops to respond
to the sexual abuse crisis. Thanks to Cardinal Ratzinger the United
States Norms won approval from the Holy See. Together with the Charter
for the Protection of Children and Young People, the Norms have helped
the U.S. Bishops to bring about a true culture change in the Church.
State of the art safe environment programs have been developed.
Countless victims have been assisted. Priests who posed a danger to
young people are out of ministry. Dioceses cooperate closely with law
enforcement officials (contrary to yet another faulty op-ed piece in
the New York Times). The Congregation also helped bishops of other
countries deal with the sexual abuse crisis. When he became Pope,
Benedict XVI made resolution of the abuse problem a priority. Instead
of attacking this Pope, we should be thanking him for helping the
Church confront this crisis in a way that benefits victims, the
Church, and society.
There is an additional problem with the New York Times report worth
mentioning. It states that Father Murphy "also got a pass from the
police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims." This
clause is the entire comment that the Times gives to the failure of
the one government entity that had the greatest power to conduct an
investigation and remove an alleged sexual perpetrator from being
around children. The Church has no search warrants or prisons. The
police do. When government fails to manage the risk of sexual abuse,
the New York Times and other media too often give government a pass.
If we really care about protecting children, then the fourth estate
needs to focus its spotlight on those institutions with the greatest
problems. In January of this year, the U.S. Department of Justice
reported that one out of ten young people incarcerated in
government-run detention facilities were sexually victimized by their
guards during the single year of 2008. This represents 2,370 victims.
Where was the Times report? And the number of sexual abuse victims in
public schools dwarfs the problem in juvenile detention facilities.
The Times sued our Diocese to acquire privileged documents from court
files so that it could re-publish stories of long settled sexual abuse
cases that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. Yet it ignores that
since 1992 in Connecticut alone, 112 Connecticut public school
teachers and coaches have lost their license to teach because of
sexual contact with students; and since 2006, 19 foster parents paid
by the State of Connecticut have been disciplined for sexually abusing
the children in their care. Where's the outrage and the calls for
resignations? Having the Pope and the Catholic Church bear the entire
blame of childhood sexual abuse may benefit the trial lawyers and
serve the agenda of their media partners, but it does nothing to
protect children today. Transferring billions from Catholic dioceses,
religious orders, and their charitable and educational ministries in a
time of economic crisis only creates new victims. It is time that
Church-bashing give way to responsible reporting and even-handed
public policy.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Miley Cyrus puts in a solid performance in the prolific novelist Nicholas Sparks' latest book-to-film offering: "Last Song." There's something genuine about this not-quite-sure-of-herself-yet, husky-voiced, sassy country girl singer-actress. In "Last Song," Ronnie's (Miley Cyrus) parents are divorced, and she and her little brother are spending the summer with their Dad (with whom Ronnie shares an exquisite musical talent). Only she hasn't forgiven her father (played with nuance by Greg Kinnear) for the break-up, and so has given up on music. Ronnie is real hard on her Dad. Real hard.
Ronnie makes some new friends, including a beau named Will (Miley's now real-life boyfriend, Aussie Liam Hemsworth). So much of "Last Song" looks and feels like "Dear John": the hunky blonde, the seaside summer romance, rich parents with expectations of a different match for their child, etc., etc. But it's a formula we like and a formula that works. (Channing Tatum was a better actor than Amanda Seyfried in "Dear John," and Miley is a better actor than Liam in "Last Song.")
Ronnie is righteous. Almost too righteous. Her unswerving commitment to justice can burn even those she loves. The message of this film—in contrast—is: "Nobody's perfect, we all make mistakes." Over and over again. The film doth protest too much! At a certain point it sounds like making excuses.* And it sounds like just generalized excusisization, not just about the divorce. It is said in the film that love is a "fragile thing" that we just hope lasts. I understand that 1,000,000 things can go wrong between man and woman, but I don't believe that love in general (of which marriage is the core and epitome) is fragile because love is not just a whimsical feeling that comes and goes. It is attraction, sympathy, friendship and a commitment of the will. "Love is strong as death" (Song of Songs 8:6). Please note which book of the Bible that's from. How apropos.
Part of Nicholas Sparks' genius is that he has something for everyone. The little brother (played by Bobby Coleman) is an astonishing little actor and quite the comedian (as are many in this next generation of thespians! They're a bumper crop!) His tears were so real and he looked so distraught that he kind of acted everyone else under the table (without overacting). As in "Dear John," everyone's perspective, everyone's story is given a full hearing, everyone in the audience can relate to at least one of the characters. Sparks seems to be offering healing for relationships, healing for families through his tales. He creates webs of love and forgiveness. There's a sweetness and cordiality to his characters' interactions that are almost instructive. "Life is what you make it," is what his stories seem to say. "It doesn't have to be this bad, this harsh." "Just have a little courage." Sparks is a master at small dramatic, romantic moments. Just Ronnie and Will taking turns stealing glances at each other is like a sonatina.
The visuals are a smorgasbord: mud fights, sea turtles, piano playing, stained glass making, volleyball, trying on dresses. Again, something for everyone.
The dialogue and scenes, for the most part, are to-the-point, not idle, believable, amusing and well-calibrated. Just what we need to know, then a twist and on to the next thing. Some of the dialogue is throwaway and expected. When Ronnie finally lets down her guard with Will, she quickly throws it back up again because she is afraid she is just one of many to him. Will begins feeding her the lamest lines which she doesn't buy and so he just shuts her up by passionately kissing her and all is well again. There are lots of little scenes to deliver us bits of information and make sure we're tracking. There are some rather stretched out saccharine scenes that the audience in my cinema didn't seem to mind. They only whooped and hollered at what they LIKED. (I've noticed that free screenings seem to bring out the whoops and hollers.) News of a super-tragic death suddenly drops like a bomb to add some gravitas (which almost made me laugh, but then I would have been the only one in the theater laughing).
Maybe audiences eat up the slight melodrama and schmaltzy moments because it's actually something new for them (although it harkens back to "old movies"). We don't see/hear any of these tender things in movies any more, and I think we're starved for it! Another incredible feat Sparks has accomplished is that women AND men like his love stories and they watch them together--just like the "old days."
___________
We do a lot of skits in the convent. One was "I'm Only Human!" about all the excuses we could make for ourselves. Ha ha ha.
MY 10-MINUTE INTERVIEW WITH NICHOLAS SPARKS (COURTESY OF GRACE HILL MEDIA):
Q: You seem to be single-handedly saving the love story genre. WHAT IS YOUR SECRET???
A: There's really no secret. I write stories for myself, for my readers. Something everyone will enjoy. I try to always write something better than anything I've ever done.
Q: Why do you think even TEEN BOYS like your movies?
A: Because they're GOOD STORIES! They can relate to them. It's their own experiences, which makes the story feel more real. Or at least you'll know someone like that. Or some girl like that. And I let them know what that girl is thinking!
Q: Why did you choose the romance genre to write in?
A: I write love stories, not romances. They can be kind of sad subjects. My first novel was "The Notebook," which was inspired by my wife's grandparents. It did so well that I figured: if it ain't broke, don't fix it, keep going.
Q: What's your creative process? Where do you get all your ideas? You seem to have so many!
A: Well, I do have a lot of ideas, but most of them are bad! Ha ha. I get 10,000 ideas and have to discard most of them. Some sequences of ideas just feel right. Yes, sequences of ideas. I'm always thinking of my next story. It needs to feel fresh. It takes me four to five months to write a story, then one month to edit it. I keep asking myself about the characters: Is she 17 or 30? What difference would that make?
Q: So the characters don't come to you fully formed?
A: No. I keep working with them. Sometimes I know one or two things about them that I know is intuitively correct, but the rest comes later. Like I didn't know right away that Ronnie reads Tolstoy.
Q: What are your inspirations as a writer?
A: I read a lot: novels, non-fiction. My family is also my inspiration.
Q: I know that some fiction authors don't read fiction while they're writing fiction….
A: Oh, no! Not me! I could never do that. I love to read. Reading is my passion. I read all the time.
Q: How does faith inform your writing if at all? [Sparks is Catholic]
A: A lot. When you're writing a love story, the characters can't be together. You have to find a reason to keep them apart. The easiest reason is that one character is married, and I'll never write adultery in (or profanity). I put in explicit faith if it's integral to the story, like in "A Walk to Remember."
Q: But you do put in pre-marital sex, like in "Dear John." Why?
A: Because nobody's perfect. I won't put in sex between teens, though. Only when they're older.
Q: You make writing sound so simple! But it's hard to write simple.
A: Thank you. That's sweet.
"Letters to God" is based on the true story of a little boy with cancer who wrote letters to God that he would then hand to the postman. And you think you have dilemmas at YOUR job. LTG is directed by none other than David Nixon, the director of "Fireproof" and "Facing the Giants." All we need to do is clone Mr. Nixon so that he can make lots and lots more movies.
LTG is a bright story of a child's faith that is more grown up than everyone else's around him. Although dealing with sickness and death, this is a real "feel good" movie for the whole family. For cynics who may think (with regard to faith): "Nobody thinks or talks that way"—think again. Millions of Christians think and talk this way. Tyler Doherty (the effervescent Tanner Maguire) is a mischievous, soccer-playing kid who just happens to be bald due to his chemotherapy. His best friend is a spunky tomboy , Sam (the equally ebullient Bailee Madison), who defends Tyler from teasing at school. But Tyler's not worried about being teased. The only thing Tyler is worried about is forgiving, being like Jesus, and trying to help others get to know God. It's all so obvious to Tyler, but not to his Mom, his older brother or his classmates, and certainly not to his troubled postman, Brady McDaniels (Jeffrey S. S. Johnson).
Brady is a divorced veteran with a dark secret and a drinking problem. (Kudos to Christian filmmakers for showing a bottle of Jack Daniels in context! Showing tragic behavior AS tragedy is not condoning. That sounds simple, but Christian filmmakers tend to shy away from portraying "bad stuff.")
When I first heard about "Letters to God," I thought: what a fantastic concept! Why didn't someone think of this before? Forget the letters to the man in the red suit! How about letters to the Man in the crimson suit of His own blood who brings us the best gifts of all? OK, that's a little florid, but I just got so enthusiastic about the premise of this film. And then I found out that the film was based on a true story of an actual little boy who thought this all up.
The best part of LTG (besides it being WELL-LIT—many thanks to the key grip or best boy or gaffer or whoever is responsible—and filmed in what looks like glorious TECHNICOLOR) is that it teaches us how to pray without being pedantic in the least. Grandma just naturally holds hands with her grandson and prays when there's a need. People bust out in short prayers whenever and wherever appropriate. Again, if anyone thinks that millions of people DON'T do this on a regular basis, maybe they need to get out more. Mingle more.
QUASI-SPOILER ALERT: Tyler gets almost his whole town writing "letters to God." He shows them how easy it is to pray. Yay! We get to hear not just all the townspeople's different prayers, but the unique voices and styles that people pray in—because everyone IS a unique individual with a unique relationship with God. (You can write your own letter to God at the movie's website: http://www.letterstogodthemovie.com/ under the tab: "Share the Hope"!)
The pace of the movie is definitely Southern. Mayberry slow. Deal with it. LTG never dips down into the dregs of the pain, loss, horror, or chaos of terminal illness, but I daresay not everyone experiences terminal illness the same way, either, and some may be little chosen "warriors" like Tyler. Tyler is a wonderful new kind of film hero. One who never loses faith, hope or love (when he has every excuse to). In fact, he defends God, faith, hope and love to everyone around him as he tries to get them to "ut cognoscant Te" ("to know Thee" is eternal life--see John 17:3).
The theme of community is strong in LTG. Together we "bear one another's burdens" and sorrows become lighter. Those characters that isolate themselves suffer most.
Tyler knew that we come from God and are going back to God, and that life—no matter how many years we are granted—is short.
Tyler knew where he was going. Do we?
OTHER STUFF:
--When I first heard the film title: "Letters to God," it reminded me of a great song by the father of Christian Rock, Larry Norman (1947-2008), called "Note from Mr. God." Here's a music video a college student created to go with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0qDL3ibbg
--Our Evangelical brothers and sisters keep it refreshingly simple.
--Awkward, intrusive use of CCM (Contemporary Christian Music).
--Is LTG too pollyanna? No, barring a few hokey moments. It doesn't shy away from people's generalized anger at God or from life's Big Questions, and doesn't answer them with easy (and often ghastly) "God's will" answers.
--Awesome film campaign: FB, texting, YouTube, Twitter….
--Best use of eyebrows in a film.
--Film's tagline: "Hope is contagious."
--A word about lighting on TV and in films. I am sooooo sick of murky. Sometimes I have to turn all the lights off in the room to kill the glare on my (old) TV screen, and I still can't make out what's going on in that back alley or office or hospital room or courtroom or whatever (cop/lawyer/doctor TV shows are the worst offenders). And God help you if it's a dark, RAINY night. The murk will then be SHINY and indecipherable. Splurge on some lightbulbs, people!
--Jesus knows we get discouraged: "Pray always and never lose heart," Luke 18:1. There's a fantastic book of Blessed James Alberione's called "Pray Always" which is out of print but I'm sure can be procured on Ebay for one of your kidneys. For some reason, out-of-print religious books sell for megabucks.
--How do you spell relief? P-R-A-Y-E-R
--I always tell teens: "Anything that makes prayer sound complicated is not of God. Anything that makes you not want to pray is not of God. Guess who doesn't want us to pray?"
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
THEOLOGY OF THE BODY – MARCH 12, 2010 – PATRICK REIDY FILLING IN FOR FR. LOYA
"THEOLOGY OF THE BODY FOR TEENS"
Pat teaches moral theology & TOB at Northridge Prep (all boys Catholic Opus Dei high school).
[Sr. Helena's dreck in brackets.]
How do good Catholic teens answer why it's wrong to have sex before marriage (before they learn TOB)? (Pat makes it real: "What do you tell your buddy at a party when he's ready to go upstairs with his girlfriend?") The students usually say: "It a mortal sin." (And after a little theology/philosophy: "It's INTRINSICALLY evil." They love that.) Then Pat says: do you really think that will stop your friend?
HERE'S A STUDENT'S ANSWER "AFTER" THEOLOGY OF THE BODY:
SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE? (ONE STUDENT'S "WHY NOT")
1. It's always using someone.
2. You're not giving a total gift and the language of the body (sex) says: "forever."
3. It's adultery in advance. (You are being unfaithful to your future wife/husband.)
4. It's re-gifting yourself.
5. We're supposed to be mirroring the "forever" love of the Trinity in our one flesh union, but in pre-marital sex we're sending a message of defiance to God. How does that feel?
It can be a lot of FUN with teens, actually, when you do apologetics with them and let them come up with their own ways of explaining TOB to their peers.
Youth need STRUCTURE. So even if you can digest JP2G's TOB, you need to break it down for teens into easily memorizable soundbites (that they can feel confident using with others).
We need to convince teens that the Catholic Church has something they are missing and need.
We don't challenge teens enough. We really lower the bar. They want the "ethos"—we need to show them the big picture (in a way their not-fully formed brains can handle).
MOVIE: "PATRIOT"—SCENE OF MEL GIBSON'S CHARACTER'S YOUNG SONGS SHOOTING BRITISH OFFICERS IN ORDER TO FREE THEIR OLDER BROTHER
What enabled those young boys to do what they did?
--training, instruction: REPETITIVE SLOGAN THEY COULD SAY TO THEMSELVES IN THE MIDST OF BATTLE:
"aim small, miss small"
--love for their brother
--confidence in their father
We're in a cultural war, a spiritual battle. "Steady…" You can do this…
ETHOS:
E—EXPERTS: we have to consider ourselves experts and make ourselves experts in this area (TOB). When adults get into TOB, they realize their own woundedness, and that's good! We can grow, too! We have DA COACH: VJP2G
T—TREAT them as LEADERS. Let teens know that we believe in them and want them to advance and be even better than us! Isn't that what good parents, do? Let them know that their friends/peers need them. Teens need to hear adults say: "I believe in you."
H—HANDLE HOT BUTTON ISSUES. Go there. We are not shadowboxing. In "Patriot," Mel Gibson's kids knew what they were doing. HEAR THEM OUT. Young people have a lot to say.
O-- ORIENT THEM TO CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. They HAVE to see the relevance of the Christ and the Church. Where can they go for answers in this crazy, mixed-up world? God came to re-integrate the spiritual and physical.
S—SHOWTIME: Using movies for TOB: the world is NOT that far off in the sense that we are all desiring the same good things…. Show teens how they can find TOB in the pop culture! Let THEM be creative.
Men are called to be warriors, defenders, lovers (not players), priest-father. (4 archetypes: men are more simple)
4 Original Archetypes of Man:
- King
- Warrior
- Lover
- Priest-Father
Women are:
(12 original mysteries of women: women are more complex)
- God's Masterpiece
- Model of the Human Race
- Garden Enclosed
- Fountain Sealed
- Master of her own mystery
- Genius (in her receptivity)
- Creator of Culture
- The First Evangelist
- Icon of the Church
- Icon of Heaven
- Daughter, Sister, Bride, Mother
- Sum total of all beauty
In short, the one who is loved.
Where you have a contraceptive mentality (more about women) you have a pornographic mentality (more about men).
PORN gives you a template to see all of the world:
Porn D-E-S-T-R-O-Y-S:
D- Acts lie a DRUG
E- Escalatory
S- Stealth/ Sneaks up on you
T- creates a new TEMPLATE
R- Replaces Reality
O- One-sided
Y- Stikes YOUTH
S- Seductive
TOP 3 QUESTIONS TEENS ASK ABOUT SEX:
- How far is too far? (You start by telling them the question itself is wrong, but then you can get more explicit with them.) Teens are black and white, they really want to know, BUT we have to start leading them toward the ethos and not asking: "How close can I get to sin?"
- Is oral sex sex? Is it wrong? (also "grinding"—dancing while rubbing body parts together, sometimes in a group) It's not sexual intercourse, [but it's mutual masturbation, it's sexual activity], so we as Americans like to compartmentalize. We live on the BELL CURVE. All of life is rhythm: agriculture, a novel /film(rising action, climax, denouement, etc.), the liturgical cycle. Sex is a "movement," a symphony, so you are doing "foreplay." You are pulling it out of its context, like going to the Tabernacle and just helping yourself to the Eucharist because you don't want to go to Mass. Don't we ask the same question about Mass? At what point am I technically late for Mass? (Pat doesn't tell them "it's sex," he just keeps talking about the context.)
- What about homosexuality?
VIRGINITY needs to be looked at through new eyes! It's sexual integrity. Integration of body and soul. What is sexual integrity? You have the capacity to give yourself totally to another (when the time comes). ["I adjure you, do not stir up love before its time." –Song of Songs 3:5 (the most erotic book of the Bible telling us to wait!)]
4 promises of marriage vows: total, faithful, fruitful, free
No longer a virgin? God can RE-CAPACITATE you to have the CAPACITY to make a total gift of yourself! ["See, I make all things new!" Revelation 21:5]
Teens are BOMBARDED with the SECULAR ethos constantly so we have to REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL.
Married couples don't "LOSE" their virginity (sexual integrity), they share it with each other.
Q: What does Pat tell teens about masturbation? (Once you give the TOB ethos/principles, tens can apply it themselves! One teen answered: "It's half flesh union." Instead of the "one flesh" union.)
Teens love: LANGUAGE OF THE BODY, THE OPPOSITE OF LOVE ISN'T HATE IT'S USE, GIFT OF SELF, TABERNACLE (guys love the concept that a woman's body is a living tabernacle—no man is really ever worthy to consecrate the Host OR to approach a woman). A man even genuflects when he proposes!
Give them assignments: Girls, dress like tabernacles! Guys, when you see a woman think: "Tabernacle"! [Not "hot." Dave Den Braber, former free agent with the Dallas Cowboys, now a Catholic youth speaker tells guys to stop using that term because it's a porn term.]
There are very few "stories": boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy fights for girl, boy gets girl. It's like the Mass, the Jesus story.
SCENE FROM "GROUNDHOG DAY" WHERE BILL MURRAY'S CHARACTER IS TRYING TO SEDUCE THE GIRL HE LIKES. HE LEARNS ALL ABOUT HER SUPERFICIALLY AND SAYS THAT HE "KNOWS" HER. BUT SHE DOESN'T BUY IT.
Pat assigns his seniors to write "TOB personals"!! Our teens are capable of A LOT!!
HERE IS ONE OF THE PERSONALS FROM HIS STUDENTS:
"CATHOLIC, VIRGINAL MAN LOOKING FOR TOB-LOVING WOMAN! INTERESTED?
--LOOKING TO MEET GOD'S MASTERPIECE
--RESPECTFUL OF WOMAN'S DIGNITY—THE "ONE TO BE LOVED"
--HANDSOME AND PRO-FEMININE GENIUS
--DESIRING TO LOVE FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS"
[PAT NEEDS TO WRITE A BOOK!!!]
PAT'S TOB FOR TEENS BOOK LIST:
- GOD'S PLAN FOR YOU DAVID HADJUK (TEXT BOOK)
- PURE LOVE, PURE WOMANHOOD, PURE MANHOOD (SMALL BOOKS) BY JASON AND CRYSTALINA EVERT
- REAL LOVE BY MARYBETH BONACCI (LOTS OF Q AND A ABOUT NITTY GRITTYS)
- TOB FOR TEENS BY BRIAN BUTLER (TEXT BOOK)
- TOB FOR BEGINNERS BY CHRISTOPHER WEST (HEAVIER)
- BODY AND GIFT , PURITY OF HEAR, BY SAM TORODE
PAT'S TOB MOVIES:
- SPIDERMAN SERIES (MANY SUPERHEROES ARE CELIBATE!)
- BATMAN BEGINS (ALL ASPECTS OF MASCULINITY, FALLEN AND REDEEMED)
- I AM LEGEND
- GRAN TORINO (R)
- CINDERELLA MAN (LIKE ROCKY)
- GLADIATOR (R)
- BRAVEHEART (R)
- TRUMAN SHOW
- MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (GUYS STILL LIKE IT, EVEN THO' OLDER WESTERN)
- ROCKY #1 AND ROCKY BALBOA #6 (ROCKY CAN'T DO WHAT HE HAS TO DO WITHOUT HIS GIRL)
[SR. HELENA WOULD ADD: "A BRONX TALE" (R) ABOUT TRUE MANHOOD & FATHERHOOD)]
Monday, 22 March 2010
Sunday, 21 March 2010
"Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is the best movie of 2010! Hands down. It's what we call in the biz "a perfect movie," because everything about it is sterling: the acting, the story, the dialogue, the soundtrack, the pacing, the humor, the editing, etc. Everything clicks. And pops.
Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon) is going to Middle School for the first time, and is trying to navigate and negotiate the labyrinthine, unspoken rules of popularity, coolness, behavior, traditions, rituals, etc. But mostly popularity. Greg is an overly-articulate little operator who desperately wants to be popular and is constantly scheming new ways to get to the top. He is even willing to sell out his decidedly uncool best friend, Rowley (Robert Capron). There are many layers to a tween's life, and Greg's include: a sadistic older brother, baggage from kindergarten (yes, kindergarten), where to sit in the cafeteria, bullies, girls, sports, growth spurts (or lack of them), and general pre-teen angst.
Greg is a keen observer of his own life, and journals and doodles it all. He is precociously civilized, dignified and refined for his age. But he's hell-bent on using his gifts (rather unsuccessfully) only for his own advancement. The moral of DOWK? Ambition and temptations to compromise on what's right start young. Greg is off to a bad start for most of the movie. Greg's only hope for salvation is learning the meaning of true friendship.
DOWK avoids all kinds of movie-making tropes, and is a surprisingly fresh and profound take on young people's development of character. There is no snarkiness or smart-aleckiness. Just kids as kids trying to survive and make their way in life, getting involved in downright hilarious, yet not too impossible, adventures. DOWK is non-stop entertainment—including adolescent boy gross-out humor—but it's never quick and cheap: it's all expertly folded in to a fully-fleshed out story. Every scene deftly advances character and plot. DOWK could be a model for how movies are supposed to be made, without being textbook, formulaic or trite. We don't see what's coming next (unless, perhaps, you've read the books, which I haven't). The props, sets and scenery are jam-packed with delightful sights. Visually, DOWK reminded me a bit of the kid-favorite movie "Matilda," especially the schoolyard scenes.
A wimpy kid exorcising his demons by writing about his own wimpy life and thus becoming a star is just a great underdog concept. I've always thought that growing up is harder for boys than for girls, what with all that stress on being macho and tough. Greg is a small for his age and it seems his only defense is to live by his wits. But Greg is often too clever for his own good. Even dorky kids are eventually liked for persistently and genuinely being themselves. Greg's grandiose ideas of himself and his future need to be tempered by the things that really matter in life. Can we adults learn from a wimpy kid's diary? You bet.
OTHER STUFF:
--My favorite movie of 2009 was "Gran Torino," but even IT was not a "perfect movie"!
--ALL the many families in my theater stayed through the credits (a great rarity in Chicago).
--On the way out of the theater, the Mom of a family with three young boys said: "They [the boys] said this is the best movie they've ever seen. And it was just like the book."
--Great TOB scene involving the older brother: Mom confronts him with a sports magazine found his room with a scantily-clad woman on the cover.
--The slacker older brother is very funny.
--The kid actors have great comedic timing. This is truly one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen. VERY creative. Why aren't there more movies like this?
--Something like "Malcolm in the Middle," but way better.
--The filmmakers really remember what it was like to be in Middle School.
--Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I should NOT have stifled my laughter in the theater!!! This movie was very, very, deep-down, belly-laugh funny.
--Stellar transitions and cuts. The movie NEVER bogs down or loses your interest.
--The adult and kid actors in DOWK do not have perfect looks! Braces galore! All kinds of imperfections!
--Greg can't catch a break and just digs himself in deeper and deeper (like Jennifer Aniston's character in "The Good Girl.") This is great drama. "Oh, what an evil web we weave…."
--There are too many funny predicaments to count: The safety guards with the kindergartners! Drawing the three teenagers' ire by scratching their red pickup truck! THE CHEESE! Ha ha ha. -
--Your tween vocabulary word from movie: "tool." Look it up in http://www.urbandictionary.com/
--Michael Phillips—The Chicago Tribune's movie reviewer—gave DOWK only 1 ½ stars. He was sooooo wrong.
--As Goldilocks would say, this movie is JUST RIGHT.
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Finally! St. Joseph has his own movie! "Joseph of Nazareth" on DVD, distributed by Ignatius Press. How is it? Not bad. Italy has been producing some ambitious full-length feature-film saint movies of late ("St. Maria Goretti, "Fr. Gnocchi"—quickly changed to "Father of Mercy," "St. Anthony," "Blessed John XXIII," etc.).
Joseph (Tobias Moretti, who looks a bit like Charles Bronson) is a strong, hard-working man of peace, but he's also a man of justice and his temper flairs when provoked by injustice. (He is not beyond grabbing someone's burlap tunic or smashing a clay pot or two. No milquetoast, this Joseph.) One thing that struck me funny is that Joseph is rather, well, talkative! (As is well known, Joseph has absolutely NO lines in the Scriptures. Not even "Yes, Lord." And I've always loved this because he doesn't need them. He was a man of action and obedience.)
Joseph has a lovely British accent, as do most of the other actors. If you liked "Jesus of Nazareth," you'll like "Joseph of Nazareth." It's a full-blown Bible movie of the grandiose sort we are now well-used to: sweeping, symphonic, Middle-Eastern-y soundtrack; elaborate costuming; elaborate scenery and props—sandy terrain, goats, humble huts, the Temple, evil kings and good kings, camels, Roman soldiers.
I was picking the film apart for Scriptural and theological errors as I watched, but it seems to pass muster in the main. (Ignatius Press is very choosy about the movies they carry and are pretty unimpeachable in their choices.) Each DVD case contains a 10-page booklet which includes an article by apologist Carl Olson on Joseph in Scripture. "BetaFilms," who produced "Joseph," were definitely trying to get it right, without being slavish about literally reproducing a verbatim rendition of Bible accounts. There are some clever plot points and reveals that will delight those knowledgeable about Scripture.*
The much-talked-about Joseph in the movie "The Nativity Story," who almost seemed to steal the movie from the Blessed Mother, is a younger, more carefree man than this Joseph who keeps stressing that he's older than Mary (for the census in Bethlehem he says he is 37). This Joseph agonizes over what to do with the suddenly pregnant Mary. He must physically protect her and Baby Jesus as they flee from Herod into Egypt in some tense scenes. He has a backstory with the treacherous Herod.
This Joseph knows who he is. He gradually comes to understand his role as the true earthly father of Jesus (heartily acknowledged by Jesus and Mary). But this Joseph was always a good man, which prepared him for the momentous part he would play in the drama of salvation history. He always trusted God's promises, God's unquestionable ways, while others around him lost faith or railed against God. Actor Moretti has incredibly large, luminous eyes that convey Joseph's inner life of prayer and an ability to imagine the unimaginable as it's unfolding. Joseph's God just gets bigger and bigger.
What about Mary? She is very pretty. Not beautiful. Pretty. Very pretty. She doesn't seem to age, either (a result of original sin). In "Joseph of Nazareth," SHE is the silent one! She doesn't say much, (the Magnificat at Elizabeth's house is reduced to one sentence), she seems to worry a bit which makes her appear vulnerable and truly in need of Joseph! She seems a little clueless now and again. Mary's pregnancy is handled rather awkwardly. At a certain point she says to Joseph: "It's not what you think" (after he ascertained she wasn't unfaithful or forced). I almost laughed. Poor Joseph! Um, what else could it be?? There could have been LESS fictional intrigue and exposition, and MORE non-fictional historical-theological exposition which is even more exciting! It's not clear exactly where Mary's baby came from. Suddenly, she is the pregnant "Mother of the Messiah." St. Anne and Joseph look a bit gullible in this scene by just accepting Mary's word about a "voice." The phrase: "The Holy Spirit will overshadow you" is left out. Every single syllable of the Annunciation dialogue is important, and I think these immensely vital scenes could have been fashioned better. Believers will fill in the blanks, but when we watch a movie, we shouldn't have to do that--the movie should tell us everything we need to know. I also watch religious movies with a "secular eye." Will this at least make some kind of logical sense to a non-believer?
Mary's intent to be a perpetual virgin is not totally clear (she tells Joseph what she told the voice at the Annunciation: "I asked him how this could be since I'm not married yet"). This kind of changes the meaning of what Mary actually said. Mary would never have asked the angel "How can this be?" UNLESS she intended to remain a virgin even after "living with Joseph." Mary was already betrothed to Joseph (but had intended to remain a virgin, most likely with Joseph's knowledge/agreement, or with his knowledge/agreement forthcoming) and it would have been the most natural thing in the world for her to become pregnant by Joseph soon enough IF she wasn't planning to remain a virgin. (The angel didn't tell Mary exactly WHEN she would become pregnant.)
There is some pain in her childbirth, but then a sudden (miraculous?) birth. The pain depicted in Mary's childbirth in "The Nativity Story" caused some Catholics to boycott/badmouth the film. It is true that pain in childbirth is a result of original sin (which Mary was free of), but God told Eve: "your pain in childbirth will INCREASE," suggesting that there was some kind of at least discomfort in childbirth before original sin. As C. S. Lewis writes in "The Problem of Pain," not all pain is a bad thing, and he gives the example that after running for the sake of exercise, our muscles ache in a good way. See Paul Haffner's excellent book: "The Mystery of Mary," for what the Fathers of the Church teach on this.
Mary dances for the Lord a little in the beginning. Very sweet. There is genuine affection and admiration between Joseph and Mary, a natural, chaste, tactile interaction between them. It's just wonderful watching the interchange of the Holy Family, the most chosen among the Chosen People! They reason things out together with God's reasoning.
"Joseph" is a great film to show the concept of vocation: people knowing who they are and what God is calling them to be and do, and then following it unreservedly, even when things are difficult and unclear. Even the twelve-year-old Jesus is fully struck--in His humanity—by His mission as He enters the Temple for the first time and knows He is home. (I love that He is upset by the moneychangers NOT because it was commerce in the Temple, but, as He says: "How can anyone PRAY with all this noise?" The moneychangers that the older Jesus gets angry with were selling in the Court of the Gentiles, where non-Jews could go to pray. That's why Jesus says in His anger at that moment: "My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples!"
The lack of using angels in films (I like angels! I wanna see their beautiful wings, or at very least their human form!) almost obfuscates what God is doing. There are no angels for the Annunciation, Joseph's dream, and not even, for pity's sake, the Christmas angels! There's just a really strong sun, a voice, and a really bright star. Soooo people are just acting on the direct voice of God in their heads. But that's NOT what the Scriptures say. There's a reason God uses intermediaries, witnesses as it were. Messengers who speak God's word out loud. It makes Mary and Joseph sound "less crazy" to an unbeliever. Bring back the angels! Away with the blobby lights!
I like almost all the "Life of Christ" movies. Each one has something to offer and some great parts. But none fully satisfies. That's how I feel about "Joseph of Nazareth." But there's some parts that you're really, really, really going to love.* Joseph, the virginal father of Jesus (not "foster father"), who LITERALLY—more than any other man with his child—was called to take the earthly place of God the Father, is the greatest saint in heaven. And this movie is a swell attempt to give him his due.
_______________
*I'll never tell which ones. Watch it!
OTHER STUFF:
--The Magi are from Persia! Correct! Yay!
--Joseph uses the Magi's gifts to get to Egypt! Yay!
--The shepherds give gifts, too! I never thought of that! What do they give? Why, a LAMB of course! (And remember, Jesus ended animal sacrifice!)
--Why does Joseph force Mary to go to the census? Because he's a "just man"? Do you think Jesus ever got counted in the census? Are censuses evil? Remember David regretting having his people counted? There's some talk in the movie about "only God can count his people."
--Big emphasis on us being God's "servants."
--Actors are not cardboard! Lots of fluidity and emotions!
--Methinks there were better means of communication back in the day than portrayed in the film. Merchants, pilgrims, etc., were constantly travelling around the ancient world…. And word of mouth is still effective. Even today!
--I wish they had called "Jesus" "Yeshua." Woulda sounded more authentic-like.
