MOVIES: "THE RITE"

“The Rite” is not scary. Not for adults (and I’m a scaredy-cat adult) at least. But it’s a good story with lots of thought-provoking dialogue.

An almost-ordained American seminarian, Michael Kovak (Colin O’Donaghue), winds up in Rome at “exorcist’s school,” but his skepticism and doubts about the devil AND God continue to plague him. His Rome professor sends him off to an unorthodox but experienced and successful exorcist, Fr. Lucas (Anthony Hopkins--in both a brilliant and delightful performance--makes a great priest), in order to be “convinced.” But Michael is a tough nut to crack and remains of the belief that all he is witnessing is psychological pathologies.

The film avoids clichés and puns about the devil, but manages a very sophisticated humor in the face of evil—something that just rings so true. God and humans are fun and funny, Satan is not. He’s kinda angry and takes himself very seriously and is closed to and incapable of any originality.

Is this a film about faith? Yes, but not just religious/theological faith--which it is, explicitly! It’s also about human faith in our fellows, in ourselves, and in where “life” leads us. When we can’t see the total picture, we need to believe there is a “reason,” that somehow things make sense in spite of our limitations, in spite of ourselves, and that we’re all on the way—we’re not there yet—and it’s not terribly helpful to dig our heels in in disbelief. Life is not static. Michael makes the mistake of equating truth with certainty, something no one is entitled to.

Accuracy? The film is “suggested” by the book “The Rite,” by Matt Baglio, a journalist, and the book is based on Baglio’s experiences as he accompanied an American exorcist, Fr. Gary Thomas, through his exorcist’s training in Rome. Fr. Gary was available for interviews to promote the film which I thought was odd, since generally exorcists keep a low profile. But perhaps--with his bishop’s permission I’m assuming--and in an effort to educate (and re-educate) the public about the reality of the demonic, this might be seen as a “catechetical” effort. It's also a bit vocational--not that anyone would or should aspire to being an exorcist, but it shows priests standing up to evil....

The movie gets a few things askew that are probably only irritating to Catholic geeks like myself: 1) the movie keeps talking about Michael getting ready to take his vows. Diocesan priests don’t take vows. They get ordained, and make a promise to the bishop. 2) The devil keeps calling Michael “priest,” but he’s not yet. Maybe the devil respected him like a priest or something, but the devil is pretty shrewd and only obeys ordained authorities. If even that. 3) Um, a doubting, in-a-vocational-crisis seminarian would NOT be sent to Rome to exorcist’s school. 4) The screenwriter couldn’t resist having a little bit of a showdown between the faith/strength of the exorcist and the temptations/strength of the devil. But it’s not about that, even though Satan would love to destroy all people and especially priests and exorcists. It’s about God vs. the devil. But it seems to be so hard for film to take God seriously as a real character, a real person who really acts. But “The Rite,” does not totally miss the mark on this! St. Michael and Our Lady majorly figure in, too, which is quite correct. Who-Is-Like-God? Viva la Virgen! Actually, "The Rite," does a fine, fine job of making spiritual things, the spiritual world, palpable.

Fr. Gabriel Amorth (who is one of our Society of St. Paul priests and former exorcist of Rome) wrote two best-selling books printed in English by Ignatius Press: “An Exorcist Tells His Story,” and “More Exorcist Stories.” I held off reading them for a long time because I felt they would be sensational, and who wants to give Old Scratch any limelight, anyway? But when I read them, they were very instructional about how evil works, even in very ordinary circumstances. Without going into a lot of details, my first encounter with manifestations of a demonic nature and deliverance prayer (NOT said by me) was in the Charismatic Renewal in the 90’s. I was instructed in and read a little about it back then. There are different levels of demonic interference: infestation, obsession, etc. “Possession” is a total taking-over the person by a demon—or as much as a demon is capable of invading a person.

It’s important to know that a person is not always to blame for this interference. The first books I read said there are three ways that the devil gains entrance:

1. Dabbling in the occult or explicitly calling on Satan.
2. A life of unrepented sin.
3. Emotional wounds inflicted by others.

Fr. Amorth added another in his books:
4. We’re not very bad, we’re very good, and Satan tries to stop us from doing more good.

The important thing to remember is that no matter what the case, Satan can’t force our will. As long as we’re alive there’s hope, and often this interference can be healed with the help of the ministry of the Church.

The movie, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose,” which IS scary--based on the true story of a young woman in Germany--bears out #4 above. We might think that getting possessed is the worst thing that could happen to us, and although it’s totally dire, the worst thing that can happen to us is that we freely choose to sin. As Fr. Jeffrey Grob—Chicago’s exorcist since 2006--said in a recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times: “One good sacramental confession is more powerful than 100 exorcisms.”

OTHER STUFF:

--Interesting, good stuff about how a vocation can work in someone’s life, and, indirectly, the call to celibacy for the Kingdom.

--Stuff I question (even for poetic license): “A persistent tremor in a limb” is a sign of possession?

--Love those sourpuss Italian priests and nuns! Ha ha ha.

--True: “Spiritual liberation can take months or years.”

--True: Exorcists don’t always know how things will turn out….

--True: The work of exorcism takes its toll on the exorcist.

--Fr. Lucas gives lots of great advice.

--Movie really brings out how much Satan hates us.

--Movie actually moves a bit slowly in places, breaking the tension.

--O'Donoghue also makes a good seminarian, but is a bit one-tone, one-note, one-mood. Perhaps he could have played it slightly more nuanced?

--VERY interesting how temptations to fornicate are seen as coming straight from hell.

--The devil knows all our weaknesses and sins and knows a lot about a lot of things. Except how to love.

Chicago exorcist: The ‘evil one’ is very real - Chicago Sun-Times

Read More

MOVIES: "SEASON OF THE WITCH"

“Season of the Witch” is one of those movies that had such potential, but drowns (like the three women accused of being witches in the first scene) under the weight of its own petering out of imagination. The premise was solid, the casting was appropriate, the execution mostly enjoyable: What went wrong?

A frail, pretty young woman (the fetching Claire Foy from “Little Dorrit” whom we’ll be seeing plenty more of) is accused of being a powerful witch who has brought a deadly plague on every town she passes through. Two errant knight-crusaders (Nicholas Cage and the always spot-on Ron Perlman) are charged with bringing her safely to a monastery where she will have a fair trial. So far so good. The best scenes are the subtle, creepy interactions with “the witch,” a harmless looking creature, but as soon as you engage in conversation with her, she will find your weakness and use it against you.*

Without giving too much away, the whole thing climaxes with a ridiculous-looking, goofy, gray winged gargoyle that looks like an enhanced Antz. After tons and tons of supernatural powers and special effects, this wimpy reptilian bad guy can be pinned against the wall in mano a mano fighting with Nic Cage. Yeesh.

There are uneven directing and editing problems, also. So many times I wanted to shout: “Cut! Cut!” And some of the camera movements are so Austin Powers-like, I couldn’t believe the folks in my cinema didn’t burst out laughing. But these missteps occur in the middle of some great, tense sequences, which is a shame. This is not a tongue-in-cheek movie, although there are funny lines. It’s more of a supernatural thriller, with sometimes comic-book-hero action.

The Church is made to look like the powerful worldly entity it was back in the day, and there’s a fair amount of anti-religious barbs and jokes-at-the-expense-of-religion (which, of course, would have been very appropriate to the times, and no doubt, often well deserved). But Hollywood also recognizes the spiritual power wielded by the Church. However, the only hope to stop the darkness is “The Book of Solomon,” painstakingly copied by hand by monks. Oh dear: “Book of Solomon.” At first I thought—professional, informed Catholic that I am—“You mean the real book of the Bible: The Wisdom of Solomon? But how can you slay witches and demons with aphorisms?” I was so confused. Then I realized we were in quasi-fictional Dan Brown territory, because this Book of Solomon, although written and illuminated by monks, is “the book used by all the holy men through the ages” to overcome evil. Ooooh. This isn’t the Catholic brand, it’s generic. Leave it to a nun to spoil all the fun (by pointing this out).

A word about Nicholas Cage. In the first scene we see him in, we think “oh-oh.” He is sticking out like a sore thumb with his distinctly American-casual-diction and “I am Nicholas Cage” presence. My thoughts drifted to Kevin Costner in “Robin Hood.” The cast is mixed with Brits who can make ANYTHING sound like Shakespeare and make you utterly believe ANYTHING they say. I don’t know if Nic Cage can do period pieces. And I like the guy’s acting. I just think he needs really extreme characters with psychological-type quandaries.

Is “Witch” worth seeing? Yes. But I think things are at their spookiest without CGI! Why did the realistic-looking wolves (who were probably CGI themselves) suddenly need turbo-CGI faces? They became LESS scary! This is my beef with Stephen King, too. He sets up these amazing scenarios that get under your skin, and then he jumps to some outlandish, bad drug trip story-line that could definitely never happen in my living-room/house/town/life. And I can no longer relate, and I’m no longer frightened or interested.

Although in “Witch” much is made of chivalry and vows to God--the true nature of evil is never dealt with. The evil of sin that lives in our hearts. There are fleeting references to sin and penance, but actually with a sense of disbelief. In the new book “Light of the World,” Pope Benedict says: “We have to recover the understanding that it is really necessary to come to terms with evil. We cannot simply shove it aside or forget it. It has to be worked through and transformed from within.”

Hollywood gets evil half-right. But we will not be saved by a book. Not even the Book of Eli. We are saved by our relationship with God, the living Word of God.

It’s so much easier to draw a sword and decapitate demons than it is to wrestle the demons within. Interior battles are hard, lonely, unseen, unapplauded and unvalued in our completely external, Twitterized, publish-my-life world. But as Thomas More said in “Man for All Seasons”: God and your little circle around you will notice, “not a bad audience, that.” Want to really man-up? Take up your cross of a life of discipleship, spiritual discipline and self-sacrifice. Only love, truth, beauty and goodness will win the day.

OTHER STUFF:

--*I am tempted to a do a feminist read on the whole female witch thing, but I’ll spare you. Suffice it to reproduce a line of dialogue here: “The witch will turn men against each other.”

--“The greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church.” –Pope Benedict XVI

--Another word to Hollywood about CGI: I hate things morphing into other things all the time. Cease and desist, you shape-shifters!

--Like I said, I don’t believe this movie was meant to be tongue in cheek, so I think it was a bad thing when Monty Python came to mind once or twice.

--“Witch” might even be a candidate for “Mystery Science Theater 3000” because I was reflexively thinking up awesome MST3K lines as we went along.

--Director Dominic Sena also did “Swordfish,” “Gone in 60 Seconds,” and “Kalifornia.”

--The real outdoor settings are spectacular with a mottled color palette of brown, blue, black and white.

--We could have done without the frequent “Happy Trails,” suspender-snapping, horseback reminiscences of the two knights. But Nicholas Cage looked like a good horseman.

--What was with those doctors with the bird beaks surrounding the dying Cardinal?? Looked occult.

--Great line when the merry band realizes the proportions of the evil they’re dealing with: “We’re gonna need more holy water.”

--Good switch from knights killing people to spiritual warfare.

--Some good advice from “Witch” about evil:

Don’t even talk to evil. It’s way smarter than you.

Turn to God and the Church.

Don’t sell relics.

“God will never abandon us.”

“We believe what we want to believe” to our own salvation or ruination.

Satan is the “accuser”—he’s always bringing up our sins before us (and not in a good way, to do something about them, but so that we’ll despair over them).

Read More

MOVIES: "THE FIGHTER"

The buzz is true. “The Fighter” is a contender. An Oscar contender. If you ever, ever doubted Christian Bale’s acting chops (after those stiff Batman performances—hey, maybe the Batman WAS stiff and Bale is just playing to character)—get yourself to a cinema and be prepared to gape. “The Fighter” (based on a true boxing story) could be either Dicky (Christian Bale), a one-hit (literally) wonder, “the pride of Lowell, Mass.,” now washed up and on crack, OR his brother Mickey (Mark Wahlberg, who puts in an interestingly gentle and almost contemplative performance). Bale totally nails the Boston charmer/wiseguy attitude, Boston accent and mumbling-and-talking-in-bunches which isn’t easy to do. The entire cast gets it, too. Amy Adams, as Mickey’s girlfriend Charlene, latches on to the immediate, in-your-face, rapid-fire, Bostonspeak. Amy plays against type here as a lovely toughie who could probably hold her own in the ring, and is firmly in Mickey’s corner, even over against his family. Melissa Leo—whom we just saw in another Boston story, "Conviction," as the evil small-town police chief—plays the boxers’ scheming manager Mom.

The opening sequence is a wonderful introduction to the love between the brothers, their place in the community, and who they are as people and sluggers. This story never lets you go, there are no lags, only plenty of Oscar scenes, moments and performances, without them posturing to be “memorable.” Masterful movie-making all around. David O. Russell (“Three Kings,” “I Heart Huckabees”—both also starring Mark Wahlberg) directs, and it probably doesn’t hurt that one of the screenwriters is a native of the Bay State and also wrote the gritty “8 Mile.”

Dicky has always coached Mickey, but Mickey’s career is going nowhere and Dicky’s addiction is becoming a liability. Will Mickey stick with family or take advantage of other opportunities? This is the deceptively simple choice Mickey has throughout the movie. “The Fighter” has miles and miles of heart. You almost want to be part of this crazy, brawling, dysfunctional family that sticks together like glue. Almost. The dialogue is some of the real-est, non-stop, conversational banter I’ve heard in movies in a long time.

“The Fighter” is rated “R” for “language throughout, drug content, some violence and sexuality.” The instances of the “F” word are certainly pervasive and it’s used constantly both as an expletive and a verb, but the drug abuse is an object lesson, and “sexuality”? We see Charlene in her underwear, there’s implied sex between her and Mickey, and off-screen oral sex performed on a john by a prostitute in a car. The violence is not excessive or glorified—it’s just what this family does, the family business, almost matter of fact—but the punches during the fights are audio-enhanced to sound like oil drums thudding around inside a cement mixer.

God/prayer/religion are natural and interwoven like they really are in the lives of people of faith. Children are ever-present, and although they don’t have many speaking parts, they are important, precious members of the family who count, and about and around whom important decisions are made (even if the adults are often acting like big kids).

Definitely a feel good movie (after the bruises and cuts heal) about wanting to make your mark in life, and doing it for your family and the place on the map you call home.

OTHER STUFF:

--Make no mistake. This is Christian Bale's movie. Without the character of Dicky (and Bale's embodiment of him) this could have been a middling movie. Bale has managed to make his character a backdrop, a landscape for the whole film, thus enabling the other actors to shine. Amen.

--Sugar Ray!

--Like the actor who plays the pivotal role of the serial killer in “Changeling,” actor Jack McGee does such a realistic turn as Dicky’s and Mickey’s stepfather that you forget he’s an actor, too! (But I could also feel that in real life he is a New Yorker, and so he is. New Yorkers are truly unedited because they have a completely closed worldview--they have it all figured out, and they know New York is a world-class, world-vital city. Bostonians ARE edited because their worldview is not quite closed. For all their bravado they hesitate, they're not sure, they don't have it all figured out, they're still open and they have the "small city," "little brother" complex, especially toward the city of New York.)

--The extremely short epilogue of the real Dicky and Mickey doesn’t say much at all, but is just tastily random.

--“You owe me $200!”

--Christian Bale is a sold-out-to-his-art actor. Period.

--THEOLOGY OF THE BODY? Well, “Fighter” certainly shows how a MAN can be USED for his body, how others can use his body as a commodity to make money. The female prostitution is a sad note. The premarital sex is not taken terribly lightly because both Mickey and Charlene are people of integrity in other aspects of their lives, and Charlene’s main concern is for Mickey to the right thing for himself, and even breaks up with him until he does.

--The soundtrack exposes Michael Brook as a fine connoisseur of the best music of the 70’s (even though the story is set in 1993) and present day. He includes at least two Boston bands: Aerosmith and the DropKick Murphys.

--The way Bostonians (and I’m sure they’re not alone) don’t want their own to get ahead is shot through this movie. (“Thinks she’s superior ‘cause she went to college!”)

Read More

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY & WOMEN

Click here for an excerpt of George Weigel's review: http://tobgroup.blogspot.com/
Order from: www.pauline.org

Read More

DIGITAL NATIVITY STORY!!!

Read More

Read More

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY – “LOVE & RESPONSIBILITY”
FATHER THOMAS LOYA – DECEMBER 11, 2010

Metaphysics of love:
Senses – cognition – impression – emotion. Our culture gets stuck at the first two. Feelings are not the sum-total of reality. Our culture has such a hard time understanding this, because it’s all subjective. Feelings are like indicators on our dashboard, they are pointing at something else, asking us to look at something else, take some kind of action.

But our ultimate value should be THE TOTAL PERSON. Our goal is “integrated love.”
There is a kind of backlash today—some couples today are only wanting to use sex for procreation, and do things like having sex in the dark, half-clothed, trying to diminish enjoyment! (But this, too, is a kind of utilitarianism! It would make God utilitarian, also—just using us and not loving us.) There is a belief that all pleasure is bad (p. 59), but the Church has condemned this heresy a long time ago! (Manichaeism).

Sooo…we can’t “use” sex just for pleasure OR just for children. It has to be both, otherwise it becomes utilitarian—even for good purposes! K.I.T.=Keep It Together (see movie “Bowfinger”). Can’t separate LOVE and LIFE. Human beings can even understand how they are PARTICIPATING WITH God, (not being used by God).

The evolution story: “We have sex to procreate and keep the race going” is just a little tiny piece of it and doesn’t take into account the whole person, and is not EVEN utilitarian, because nature is blind and can’t have a will or purpose!!!

Advent/Christmas is nuptial: God, the Bridegroom coming to wed the Bride, HIM coming to participate in OUR humanity, wedding humanity to Himself. And this is directly connected with our sexuality, because it’s about INTIMACY AND INTIMATE UNION. The whole liturgical year is ONE MOVEMENT: even the gifts of the Magi foreshadow his death and resurrection.
The Church Fathers called Christmas “the great condescension.”

Q: “What’s the morality of participating in erotic, racy love scenes in movies, because you’re supposed to enter into the experience of the character?”A: “Know yourself, monitor yourself.” There are layers of insincerity in a sense there. Those actors are not really in love with each other. [Other levels of insincerity with body doubles also!] All acting is “lying,” in a sense. The author of TOB was an actor and playwright! [Aristotle believed in acting, Plato did not.] [Sr. Helena thinks there’s a lot of work to be done in this area, now that we have TOB.]

There is something unique that happens in “love between man and woman”—they develop to a fulfillment of themselves as persons. This kind of going out to the “other” does not happen in same-sex relationships.

p. 78—If “love” is based only on attraction/feelings (which are of their nature fleeting!), we are basing love on something fleeting! Sometimes we project qualities on people that aren’t there.
Father said he is counseling couples who are not married (pre-marriage counseling) as though they are because they are living together and living a married lifestyle! And usually, the man doesn’t want to commit and the woman is trying to get him to! [WE THINK WE ARE BEING SO “NATURAL” AND FREE, BUT WE ARE WORKING AGAINST NATURE BY SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE MEANS THE MAN WILL BE BONDED TO THE WOMAN AT MARRIAGE.]

FATHER TELLS THESE GOOD YOUNG CATHOLIC MEN (who aren’t even having sex before marriage): IF YOU’RE NOT SEEKING MARRIAGE, DON’T DATE. YOU’RE HURTING THESE WOMEN.

COUPLES LIVING TOGETHER BEFORE MARRIAGE HAVE A HIGH DIVORCE RATE because they’re playing at something and expecting to derive the full benefits by only going halfway. THE MAN IN PARTICULAR DOES NOT FEEL THAT THIS IS AN EXCLUSIVE RELATIONSHIP (AND RIGHTLY KNOWS THIS BECAUSE MEN ARE MORE ABOUT EXTERNALITY). We need to just keep affirming that 1) you want true love 2) God wants you to have true love 3) HERE’S HOW TO GET IT....! [“Sex and the City” is all about that: wanting the benefits of commitment without the actual commitment: trying things out, trial run, etc.]

Young couples today are good at the subjective but terrible at the objective! Perhaps couples of the past were good at the objective, but not so good at the subjective. JP2G says: feelings are GOOD, but is that ALL there is?

p. 79--Don’t do the… “I love you because….” No. We love the WHOLE person, not just their qualities.

In counseling, Father asks couples having problems: Go home and just look at each other as a Christian man and Christian woman in a Christian home (forget that you’re married). What does that mean in everything you do and say? What would a day in the life of the Holy Family be like? What’s your real family life like? How do I get them to match? (3 sheets of paper) It’s called a “family covenant” because it’s above everyone and everything. It’s higher than all those involved.

Q: Should couples get married younger?A: Yes—the vocational part of life (wife, mother, religious, husband, father, priest) is put on hold for a long time. And then the reversion to the faith happens, the vocation rises up. It’s almost a new area of ministry. [New York City has become a city of singles!] It takes a harder toll on women, in a sense, because they are told you must have a career (whereas men would be working/providing for the family anyway) and then they get totally involved in that, and motherhood requires a much greater commitment/cost/involvement physically, etc., on the woman than fatherhood does on the man, the biological clock for women is much shorter, juggling career and motherhood is much more difficult for women, etc., etc.

Read More