COMING ATTRACTIONS: SATISFACTION

The nice folks over at Spirit of Vatican 2 "Catholic" Faith Community suggested in the strongest, yet strangely loving and non-violent, way possible that I review the movies of a certain famous actress. Sadly, as the lady's movies don't really fit into the B-Movie category, so it seemed unlikely I would be able to fulfill their request. Until I remembered this little gem from 1988. This one's for you Che'. You can view the trailer here, with the usual obligatory advertisement of course. (And then you can take a good look at the poster, count legs, and see if you can figure it all out. I know I can't.)

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

As much as I hate to admit it, there does appear to be other movies besides what you can find at the drive-in or direct to video outlets. And a lot of the nice people on the other side of those links in the sidebar actually watch them. What's that all about? Anyway, since most of these films don't stand much of a chance of making anappearance in these pages, I thought I might occasionally assemble some links to movie reviews from my fellow Catholic bloggers. Let's see what's now showing at a blog near you?

The Sci-Fi Catholic recently took a look at both the early Miyasaki animated classic Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and Jet Li's Legend Of The Red Dragon, both which he rates as medium-high in quality. That's a lot of Asian cinema. Urge to watch Mighty Peking Man (again) rising.

The American Papist (not your average Catholic, you know) gives his not-so-average review of the recent blockbuster Spider-Man 3. Why not so average? Well, unlike a lot of other reviewers, he actually seems to have to liked it.

Dadwithnoisykids over at Scorpion Stalking Duck got the chance to see Die Grosse Stille, a documentary on monastery living that doesn't stand a chance of getting anywhere near my home town. Netflix, still one of the best presents I ever got.

Rod Bennett, author of "Four Witnesses", recently posted a series on Pop Typology featuring Christ figures in movies. Not sure you want to jump into an eight part series, then I have only one word for you... Tron.

James at The Daily Brouhaha provides a list of films he considers the most re-watchable. I don't know, I'm not seeing a single rubber monster suit in the whole thing, but you can judge for yourself.

And I would be remiss if I didn't point everyone to a couple of blogs by two guys who frequently post comments on this blog (and also happen to be some of my oldest friends in the world). Their blogs aren't oriented to religious discussion, but I have it from reliable sources (their moms) that they were raised good Catholic boys.

Wm over at The White Whale discussed why he thought John Carpenter's The Thing falls just short of being a classic. When one of my less-than-tactful comments rubbed him the wrong way, he felt the need to write a follow up.

Mr. Doob, author of The (very infrequent might I say) Blog of Doob and certified James Bond fanatic, took upon himself the task of ranking all of the 007 films from best to worst. Your list may vary.

That's it for this time around. I know I probably missed some good reviews out there, but this was kind of a spur of the moment, act on it now or never do it, kind of idea. If I left one out anyone would like to see in the next list, just let me know.

THE STUFF

TYPICAL REVIEW

"Always a better idea-man than a director, Cohen has a knack for killing surefire premises, yet he leaves plenty to salvage from the twisted wreckage." - Scott Tobias, The Onion A. V. Club

THE PLOT

A quarry worker discovers a puddle of bubbling white goo in the dirt and does what any normal person would under the circumstances; he eats some. From that humble beginning it isn't long before The Stuff becomes the desert sensation of the decade with a growing cult of Stuffies who refuse to eat anything else. Infuriated by their own dropping sales and hoping to "keep the world safe for ice cream", a conglomerate of Madison Avenue execs hire former-CIA spook and industrial saboteur Mo Rutherford to uncover the secret formula of The Stuff. Much to his horror, however, Mo discovers the secret ingredient in the desert is actually eeeevil! The Stuff is, in fact,... living sentient yogurt from the center of the Earth which controls the will of those who ingest it while parasitically devouring them from the inside. (You don't get to write sentences like that reviewing Children Of Men.) Along the way, Mo finds allies in Nicole (obligatory love interest), Jason (obligatory irritating child), Colonel Spears (obligatory crazed militant survivalist), and Chocolate Chip Charlie (um... whatever). But friends are few to be found as more and more people are succumbing to The Stuff. By the end of the movie, Mo and the gang are on the run in a world where the only rule is DON'T eat or be eaten.

THE POINT

Written, produced, and directed by Larry Cohen. Those are words which can bring a smile to just about any B-Movie lover's face. Now just in case you don't know, Larry Cohen is the man behind a string of low budget classics which include Black Caesar, It's Alive, Q - The Winged Serpent, and God Told Me To. And when I say classics, this time it's in the good sense. Every movie just mentioned is entertaining, thought provoking, and most likely to show up on these pages at some point. The Stuff probably doesn't quite warrant the title of a classic, but it's still has all of the usual Cohen touches that make his movies fun to watch.

First and foremost, Cohen gets good actors; ones whose names may not be big marquee draws, but who have talent beyond what the budget typically allows for. The under appreciated Garrett Morris chews up scenery as Chocolate Chip Charlie, the kung-fu snack maker ("My hands are registered as deadly weapons with the mid-New Jersey police force"). Danny Aiello has a brief cameo as the owner of a Stuff-addicted Doberman who meets a ghastly end once the dog realizes the refrigerator is empty. (How many actors of his stature get to play a death scene where their last words are "I'll buy more! I'll buy more!"?) Paul Sorvino is excellently over-the-top as the ultra-ultra-ultra right wing colonel with his own private army ("I will permit this colored man to speak. But speak one word of the Commie party, or one word in code, and I will blow his head off.") But it's Michael Moriarty who owns the movie with his characterization of Mo. From the instant he walks on screen, shaking hands with the manufacturers ("That's a sweaty palm. Ah, another sweaty palm! We just have a whole roomful of sweaty palms."), his performance is so bizarre and out-there that even Nicolas Cage probably sits and stares at it in gape mouthed wonder.

Still, all that talent would be wasted if the actors weren't given something interesting to work with, (just ask Halle Berry, she knows all to well) and The Stuff doesn't disappoint in the interesting department. The movie's combination of The Blob and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, depicted by surprisingly decent effects, should hold the interest of the sci-fi contingent, while the humor is entertaining enough for the casual viewer. (It's hard not to like a movie where an entire militia travels to New York by taxi, makes sure to give the drivers a 10% tip, and asks for receipts.) But for those who want a little more heady stuff, Cohen always puts some topical ideas into his movies. That's not to say he delves too deeply into his themes or browbeats you with his viewpoint, but it's there if you want to think about it later. As an auteur unwilling to to accept any major studio interference, Cohen can't help but infuse his movies with an undertone of triumphant individualism. His main protagonists in The Stuff include a possible lunatic spy, a racist separatist, a self-employed entrepreneur, and a kid who didn't fit in with his family even before they became zombies; yet it is these people who save the world, not the armed forces, Congress, or anyone else in charge. Cohen seems to place most of his hope for the future of our country in outsiders. And that's fine, God likes outsiders too. It's always good to remember that amongst all the fishermen and farmers, Jesus managed to sprinkle some zealots, a tax collector, and a possible schizophrenic harlot amongst his entourage.

But Cohen's main theme throughout The Stuff is obviously a broad swipe at the culture of consumerism in the United States. It's an easy target. These days, advertising has grown into an ever-present 130 billion dollar a year industry. A recent study estimates that the average person will see 576 or more commercials each week on television alone. 576! And that doesn’t even include the ads on the internet and radio or in print. Sure, that’s a lot of propaganda, but, so what? Everyone recognizes an ad when they see one, right? And just because they’re advertising Chia heads doesn’t mean we’re forced to go out and buy the things are we? No, but maybe force isn't what's being used on us.

Way back in 1933, a study was conducted called “Motion Pictures and the Social Attitudes of Children”. It used a simple testing procedure. A topic was chosen and then a movie dealing with that subject matter was shown to a group of children. Measurements taken before and after the kids had seen the film noted any change of attitude due to the contents of the movie. As you’ve probably guessed, changes in attitude, often very big changes, were common. For example, after seeing "All Quiet on the Western Front", the children became noticeably anti-war, no matter what scenario was offered them. The effects were also found to be cumulative. The more movies a child watched that held a certain viewpoint, the more likely the child was to agree with that particular view. Now that may not exactly represent a use of force, but it sure sounds like what the Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1 calls situationally adaptive belief change and thought reform. Our crazy friend Colonel Spears would likely call it brainwashing.

Luciano Benetton, founder and chairman of Benetton Clothing rather unwittingly confirmed that marketers engage in this sort of thing when he claimed that "the purpose of advertising is not to sell more. It’s to do with institutional publicity, whose aim is to communicate the company's values (...) We need to convey a single strong image, which can be shared anywhere in the world." I think it's fair to say that the majority of advertisers engage in this sort of "communication of values". In fairness, Benetton was commenting on his company's controversial commercials dealing with Aids and child labor laws, but are the values communicated by ads always so good intentioned? Not according to recent studies like the one from Arizona State University which researched the effects of "thin imagery" from magazines and television. They found that the more a woman was exposed to this type of advertisement, the greater the likelihood she would develop the symptoms of an eating disorder.

The communication of these kind of values is one reason why some Christians, like the Amish for example, try to literally separate themselves from mainstream culture. (“And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Romans 12:2) After all, much like The Stuff, it's hard for consumerism's messages to get inside you if you don't partake in them to begin with. Catholicism, however, does not stand aloof from "the world." As Catholics we are called to live in, or at least beside, the culture while retaining the right to judge its products based on our own values. And help "convert" them if we can.

Archbishop Barry Hickey of Perth put it this way, "If the principles outlined in the Catechism are to evangelise or re-evangelise the Western world, Catholic thinkers must be at the intersection of religion and public life. It is not sufficient to withdraw from current moral and ethical debate and to work only at the level of personal faith, because culture is so pervasive and influential. The only answer, it seems to me, is to enter the philosophical and moral debates of our age, to penetrate them with the spirit of Christ." (Man, where was that quote when I was writing my reasons for even attempting this blog?) Uphill battle all the way? To be sure, but as Pope Benedict XVI recently said, "This is the only way you can help them form a Christian conscience capable of resisting the increasingly insidious and invasive enticements of consumerism". Like Mo and his gang of misfits, those of us on the "outside" (as Christians seem to be more and more these days) may just be the ones called on to save the day.

THE STINGER

Before we Christians get too holier than thou over the mote in the advertisers' eyes, however, it might be a good idea to take a look at the beam in our own. Craig M. Gray writes in his book Consumerism-The Complete Book, “The rise of denominational, and now religious, plurality in modern societies has led to a situation in which we are increasingly encouraged to ‘shop for,’ and so to be consumers of, religion itself. The consumption of religion, furthermore, suggests a fundamental change in the meaning of religious belief such that it has increasingly less to do with conviction and more and more to do with personal preference. Many churches and religious organizations have responded to the changing meaning of belief by obligingly repackaging religion to make it conveniently and easily consumable. Such trends have contributed to the emergence of a kind of religious marketplace in which modern consumers are faced with a veritable smorgasbord of religious options”. Ouch.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: THE STUFF

CLASS OF 1999

TYPICAL REVIEW

"Even though this violent indie film has "exploitation" stamped all over it--with its gratuitous car chases, shootouts, and anarchistic characters--it is a guilty pleasure." - Bryan Reesman, Amazon.Com

THE PLOT

It's 1999 and teenage violence has escalated to the point that many inner city schools are now located inside free-fire zones, areas controlled by teenage street gangs which even the police refuse to enter. In a last ditch effort to "educate" the children, the principle of Kennedy High (Malcom McDowell!) contracts with Megatech's department of educational defense to supply robotic teachers (including Pam Grier!!) capable of dealing with the more troublesome students. Of course, what the head of Megatech (Stacy Keach as an albino with a rattail haircut!!!) conveniently forgets to mention is that these are in fact de-commissioned combat androids loaded with nifty built-in weapon systems like flame throwers and grenade launchers. It's not long before the rebellious kids provoke the terminat..., er, robots into reactivating their military protocols. As the student body count rises, bad boy Cody and good girl Christie try to end the gang war and rally the kids in a last ditch effort to destroy the (and I quote) "three inhuman teaching monsters".

THE POINT

Director/writer Mark L. Lester first visited the hazardous hallways of high school in the exploitation cult classic Class Of 1984. In that film, one lone teacher tries desperately to free Abraham Lincoln High from the grips of the drug-dealing punk rock gang terrorizing its faculty and students. The struggle escalates until the punks finally cross the line and rape his wife, at which point the teacher goes all Death Wish on the gang and dispatches them in gory fashion. Fans of the revenge genre loved it, others despised it. Roger Ebert summed it all up in his review, "Class of 1984 is raw, offensive, vulgar, and violent, but it contains the sparks of talent and wit, and it is acted and directed by people who cared to make it special." Needless to say, its reputation guaranteed an eventual sequel.

Eight years later by real world time, fifteen by the movie's, Lester went back to school with the Class of 1999. But, having pretty much mined the homicidal student vein for all it was worth in the previous film, Lester apparently felt the need to do something to spice things up this second go around. And the tried and true method for doing this in a sequel, which Lester unashamedly adopts, is to amp up the elements which made the first film successful (or abhorrent depending on your tastes). In other words, there's more violence in Class of 1999 than in most other two movies combined. Joe Bob Briggs gives the following tally; "Forty-two dead bodies. Two motor vehicle chases, with one crash and burn, one crash and plunge. Neck-snapping. Fireballs. Arm-ripping. Skull-drilling. Terminal spanking. Flaming supporting actor. Brutal push-ups. Student cut in half. Puke-a-rama. Six fistfights. Attempted rape. Kung Fu. Junkie Fu. Robot Fu. Forklift Fu." And that's AFTER the film was reportedly edited and resubmitted to the MPAA 9 times before finally being granted an R rating instead of an X.

But you can get all that from a Scorsese movie. The real draw here is, of course, the terminator-like educators. And what jolly old souls they are too. Seriously, whether they're spanking a student at super-speed or punching a hole through Stacy Keach's stomach (which inadvertently proves that route IS the way to a man's heart), these things just never stop laughing. And when the robots light-heartedly flip through the driver's manual in search of traffic violations to pin on Cody while trying to run him over, well, you just have to laugh with them. Still, in the end, you have to wonder just why the military would commission killing machines with an inappropriate sense of humor to begin with.

At first, the cartoonish level of violence and presence of the androids seem to distance this film from the heightened realism of its predecessor. But in its day, people scoffed at some of the visuals in Class of 1984 too. New York Times critic Vincent Canby wrote "when you see students having to pass through a metal-detecting device to get into the school, 'Class of 1984' is sort of crudely funny." You have to wonder how funny Canby still found that image when in 1994 the federal government began requiring school safety programs in an attempt to crack down on school violence, programs which included metal detectors in many schools, even my old alma mater. (Insert your own all-to-easy joke about the quality of Times writers here.) That's not to say we should expect maniacal military robots to pop up in our high schools anytime soon, just that we shouldn't so quickly dismiss any underlying themes or messages in the film just because the premise is a little out there.

And what could a movie which features Foxy Brown ripping open her chest to expose a bunch of sprockets and plastic tubing possibly have to say to us? Well, if you view the two Class movies as bookends, there does seem to be some progression of thought going on (intended or not). In the first film we see a breakdown of the social order where those in authority (the police and the school administration) fail to address the gang problem. One lone teacher realizes his only hope is to take action against the students himself. In the follow-up film, the problem has escalated to outlandish proportions and the authorities are forced to respond. But the response ends up being just as evil as the authorities institute totalitarian solutions. In the end, just like in the first movie, it is up to a single individual to find a middle ground and bring resolution to the problem. Whether we agree with Class of 1999's philosophy or not, we have to admit that it represents a maturing in the series' consideration of the problem even as it stays consistent with the first film's original statement on the solution.

We practice this combination of change and consistency in the Church as well as in movies. The Catechism states that "Tradition (the apostolic preaching which is preserved in a continuous line of succession) is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium." A simple example of this idea is the practice of the Mass on Sundays. While the early Church kept the idea of a weekly communal worship service as absolutely necessary, it had no problem changing the centuries old Jewish day of worship from Saturday to Sunday in order to distinguish itself from traditional Judaism as well as honor the day on which Jesus was resurrected. God's requirement for his people to gather together was an unchangeable truth, the day of the week however had some flexibility. This is what John Henry Cardinal Newman called the Development of Doctrine at its most basic.

Which brings up the obvious question, what must stay the same and what can be changed in the Church? Though not a Catholic, C. S. Lewis provided a simple but effective guideline when he wrote that "change is not progress unless the core remains unchanged. A small oak grows into a big oak; if it became a beech, that would not be growth, but mere change." With all of the hot button topics (women's ordination, married clergy, same-sex unions, etc.) being argued over in the Church right now, it would be nice if the discussions revolved around what does and does not represent unchangeable core teachings. Instead we get nutty stuff like Soulforce's 2001 open letter to the USCCB with a paragraph which reads "According to the book Roman Catholicism in America by Chester Gillis, 88% of Catholics in 1993 believed that contraception was a matter of personal moral judgment. Obviously the hierarchy's teachings on "natural law" are not a dogma accepted by the laity, which Cardinal Newman referred to as "the believing Church." When the Church refuses to listen to the "believing church," Cardinal Newman went on to say, it loses its authority to teach." In other words, at least in this part of the letter, Soulforce argues for theology by popular opinion rather than consistent teaching, and even tries to back it up with a quote from Newman. (sigh) Maybe it really is time to round everybody up and put them back in the classroom. Somebody send in the robots.

THE STINGER

Since the Church teaches that the Magisterium, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, will forever faithfully preserve the unchangeable Traditions, then we have to accept that the allowable changes in tradition (with a small t) implemented in Vatican II in no way contradict the core teachings of the Church. Which means stuff like wearing veils to mass, ringing a bell during the consecration of the host, and (sob) using Latin are all entirely optional. Still, the theology professor Christine Gudorf writes that “our ability to make sense of our world and of our relationships with others, even to understand ourselves, requires a certain degree of continuity in all of these. Both change and continuity are constants in our lives, and both are necessary for individuals and communities.” In short, while some things must necessarily change, it is the things that stay the same which actually give relevance and meaning to the here and now. So, would it really kill anyone to let those of us who want it have a little better access to Latin or even, dare I say it, Gregorian chant?

COMING ATTRACTIONS: CLASS OF 1999

I can't find a trailer for this one, or even a decent poster for that matter. Aren't they proud of their achievement?

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: WRATH OF THE DRAGON GOD

TYPICAL REVIEW

"A cheap jack, shot in Lithuania with an affordable unknown cast, direct-to-video sequel to one of the decade’s biggest flops is actually pretty darn enjoyable. " - David Cornelius, eFilmCritic.Com

THE PLOT

100 years have passed since the first Dungeons & Dragons movie (just long enough so that both the viewers and the characters mercifully don't have to give it much thought) and all is going pretty well with the kingdom of Ismir. At least until the villainous Damodar (the only character worth bringing back from part one), finally freed from the curse of the undead, reappears with a plan to rain vengeance on the city. Using a magical black orb, Damodar intends to awaken Faluzure, the dragon deity of energy draining, undeath, decay, and exhaustion, so that the monster can do that voodoo that he do so well. Forewarned, the rulers of Ismir assemble a team of five champions to find the orb, overcome Damodar, and defeat the dragon god. And all that's just the setup in the first five minutes; after that it really gets complicated.

THE POINT

Before Nintendo dropped the first NES on the world in 1985, Role Playing Games (RPGs) like Dungeons & Dragons ruled the gaming industry with players numbering over 20 million. According to a recent BBC news article that number has fallen to around 3 to 4 million, which is a staggering drop, but still leaves enough people to make RPGs a $2.5 billion dollar a year business and provide a sizable ready made audience for a movie bearing the D&D brand name. Unfortunately, the first attempt to cash in on the game was 2000's Dungeons and Dragons, a movie so painful to watch that I can hardly bear to even mention it. (If you feel the need to self-flagellate and just have to know more about that film you can head over to Rotten Tomatoes and wallow in the glory that is its 11% approval rating.) Instead, we're taking a look at the sequel, which turns out to be a different story altogether in more than one way.

First off, thanks to the one hundred year jump in movie time, Wrath of the Dragon God is viewable as a stand alone film. There's no need to watch anything like, say, some other preexisting film you'd rather forget nearly scarred you for life. And Second (and more importantly), unlike that other film I'm loathe to mention again, Wrath of the Dragon God is enjoyable in its own modest, retro way. This movie is, quite appropriately, a throwback to those old 80s style sword and sorcery flicks which were themselves inspired by the success of the D&D game to begin with.

What this means is that you get good guys who are heroes in the old sense, honorable men and women who accept a mission and see it through no matter the cost. There's not one single brooding tortured semi-sociopath on the roster. Neither are the bad guys misunderstood or possibly right, they're just rotten scumbags who deserve a butt kicking. There's a kingdom that needs saving, an adventure filled quest to find the object that will save it, and a mad dash to get the object back home with only seconds to spare. All of the old fantasy clichés are here, but without the self-aware smugness and excruciating attempts at irony that have sullied so many current fantasy films, especially that one I dare not mention anymore for fear of doing myself mental harm. Sure, Wrath's budget hurts a little. The acting is entry-level and most of the effects look like they came off some graphic design student's MacBook, but none of it is a real deal killer. You're not likely to pick up a movie like this expecting the depth and quality of Lord of the Rings anyway. But if you dig the likes of Beastmaster, Deathstalker, Krull, etc., you'll feel right at home in this movie.

While it's true that Wrath of the Dragon God can be enjoyed by the casual fantasy fan, the film goes out of its way to give winks and nods to those viewers who have actually played Dungeons & Dragons. (And yes, back in the day I was among those 20 million. Geek credentials assured, I now move on.) There are references to old adventures like Expedition to The Barrier Peaks and The Ghost Tower of Inverness. There are recognizable monsters like the color-coded dragons and the squid-like Darkmantles. There's cool loot like the Gem of True Seeing and the Ring of the Ram. And best of all, the heroes all have recognizable character classes with appropriate skills and abilities. I'm majorly geeking out right now remembering all those Thursday nights spent rolling dice, planning strategies, and just plain hanging out with good friends.

I'm sure there's more than one reason video games siphoned off so many players from RPGs. Video games have pictures and sound, they can be played alone, and let's face it, they’re not quite as associated with being a “geek” as RPGs are. But if I was forced to pinpoint one thing in particular, I'd have to say it's all of the blasted rules in RPGs. As one article put it, “the biggest game in the field…Dungeons & Dragons…grew into a mass of consistent and inconsistent rules, explained in as many as fourteen different hardcover rulebooks.” Fourteen! Start making video games that require fourteen rulebooks, and I’ll show you a bunch of kids who put down their gamepads, turn off their TVs and go outside to play ball. Most people hate having too many rules.

Except for, maybe, the ancient Jews.

According to written Jewish tradition, The Torah (our Old Testament) contains 613 precepts, or practical rules, that are derived from the original 10 commandments, and instruct the Jews on how to lead a holy life. (There are more rules in the oral tradition, but we’ll stick with the 613 written ones for now.) By the time Jesus came along, the Pharisees, the Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Law, had arranged these precepts into 248 “thou shalt” commandments and 365 “thou shalt not” prohibitions. There were even rule sets such as the Kashrut which instructed the Jews on what they could and could not eat. Most of us are familiar with a few of these guidelines such as no eating meat at the same time as dairy products or no eating pork at all. But most modern people, even a large number of Jews, have gotten the idea that the Kashrut were simply primitive health regulations that don’t apply since we invented things like the refrigerator. And it’s true that some of the dietary laws do have healthy benefits, but that’s not really the reason behind the Kashrut. Or any of the other rules for that matter.

In his book "To Be a Jew", Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin suggests that the Kashrut are meant to be a call to holiness. “The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control, requiring us to learn to control even our most basic, primal instincts.” As good Catholic boys and girls we should recognize this same principle behind some of our own practices during Lent.

The problem was that the Pharisees in Jesus' time had become focused primarily on performing these external practices perfectly while apparently giving little attention to the inner reality the rules were supposed to be pointing to. In short, they had adopted the attitude that the rituals mattered more to God than what was going on inside the hearts of his people. But, as Jesus correctly points out when questioned in Matthew 22 on what is the greatest commandment, the Law was founded upon the internal attitudes of love (charity) which were required to be present within a person’s heart. From the two most basic of commandments to love God and to love mankind, all the other 600+ regulations stem. The Pharisees knew this, but forgot it. I have to admit that sometimes, as a Catholic who prefers and argues for many of the Church's older devotions and rituals, I have to be careful not to do the same.

THE STINGER

We Catholics are no strangers to memorizing rules. In its final version, the old Baltimore Catechism had 1,274 questions and answers, many of which the students had to learn by heart before being allowed to receive confirmation. This probably seems a little frightening to today’s post-Vatican II generation, but in its day it was highly effective in training Catholics to respond to the over-zealous evangelizing of their Protestant neighbors who considered Catholics to be “mindless” followers of the Pope with no real knowledge of Scripture or doctrine.

The potential problem of this type of Q & A instruction is the same one we see with the Pharisees in Matthew 22. The catechist can become so focused on making sure the student knows “what” all the right answers are that they forget to examine “why” they are the right answers. In today’s cultural climate, “why” something is the right answer is more important than ever. On issues like abortion, assisted suicide, the death penalty, social justice, and even the environment, rational intelligent people (who never seem to make it on the TV talk shows) can look at the same set of facts and reach entirely different conclusions based on their experience, worldview, and preconceptions. Merely parroting the Church’s view on such issues will never convince anyone of the “rightness” of the Church’s position, we have to be able to explain the “why”.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: WRATH OF THE DRAGON GOD

There is an extremely short trailer here, but you'll get a much better idea of what this movie has in store for you here.