PULP CATHOLICISM #005

Okay, so I gave you the alligator, but do you recognize the remaining three tasty treats shown above which we are allowed to eat on Fridays during Lent?

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

There’s plenty of movie & religion talk going on right now, must be because of the Academy Awards. To begin with, my latest review for Aleteia is up. This time around I take a look at Snitch and try my best to explain why, though it will doubtless never be nominated for best picture, I actually kind of liked this movie starring The Rock.

Speaking of the Academy Awards, while you’re over at Aleteia, why not stick around and check out Daniel McInerny’s thoughts on the dirty hands at the Oscars.

But enough of that, right? What about the kind of movies we’re used to seeing around these parts? Well, for that, how about Warm Bodies, the zombie rom-com which Sr. Helena Burns surprisingly enjoyed.

Or there’s John Morehead from TheoFantastique looking for signs of religious fundamentalism in the Planet of the Apes franchise.

And finally, for those who want both bad movies and art together, then head on over to The Trousered Ape where the titular blogger has composed a ballad to Donovan’s Brain.

Happy reading, see you next time.

BMC MOVIE OF THE WEEK: FRANKENSTEIN ISLAND

“This uproariously bad film marks the less-than-glorious return of producer/director Jerry Warren, shameless purveyor of such cinematic abominations as Teenage Zombies, of which this is a remake of sorts. The crazy-quilt story line defies all rational explanation, but essentially begins with a wayward hot-air balloon crew - including Warren alumnus Robert Clarke and a dog named Melvin - becoming stranded on an island overrun by nubile jungle girls in Frederick's of Hollywood leopard-skin thongs. What sounds like an ideal vacation is disrupted by a bunch of zombies in Ray-Bans, the monster-making practices of a bleach-blonde mad scientist named Sheila, and the superimposed face of John Carradine (lifted from another film) mumbling "The Power! The Power! The Power!" Also on hand is a gibbering, drooling Steve Brodie as a howling mad pirate, and Cameron Mitchell as an equally deranged sea captain. It's very likely Warren himself had no idea what his own film was about, so viewers shouldn't waste valuable time trying to make sense of it.” – rovi’s AllMovie Guide

February 24, 2013: Second Sunday of Lent (Year C)

So what exactly is it that makes Frankenstein Island so excruciatingly painful to watch, even for the most inveterate bad movie aficionado? Is it the direction (or lack thereof) by Jerry Warren, the same auteur who brought the world the likes of Face of the Screaming Werewolf, Attack of the Mayan Mummy, and The Wild World of Batwoman? Is it the unavoidable fact that the movie was released in 1981, but looks like it was filmed sometime in the late sixties on a budget leftover from the fifties? Or is it the impression that the actors appear to have spent a lot of time rehearsing… some other movie besides the one they’re in, because they sure as heck don’t know their lines in this one?

No, while all that certainly adds to the misery, what really brings the pain to Frankenstein Island is the script. Or perhaps scripts would be a better description. The whole movie is so disjointed that it seems like Warren took five or six unfinished film treatments he had lying around, tossed them all into the air, and then picked up random pages and filmed them, oblivious as to whether any one scene connected to another. The most glaring example of this is the sheer number of seemingly unrelated characters who periodically wander in and out of the film, doing things that have no relationship to anything else going on. Over the course of the first 60 minutes of the movie, the viewer is introduced to the following:

• a bedridden mad scientist who mugs it up worse than Jim Carrey in full Riddler mode
• a tribe of bikini clad Amazons
• the Frankenstein Monster (who apparently has a deep hatred of empty plastic jugs)
• a few lumpy white dudes and their jungle girl protégé who mistakenly believe they’re in Enter The Dragon
• a brain in a jar
• Melvin the dog
• an insane one-eyed pirate
• a horde of the walking dead dressed like the Penguin’s henchmen from the old Adam West Batman show
• a cougar-esque Sheila Frankenstein von Helsing (no, really, that’s her name)
• a snapshot of John Carradine
• a weird Phillipino guy with a syringe and an eyeball fetish
• a strange assortment of mannequins
• a tribal sorceress who manages to hide snakes and tarantulas in her lingerie until she needs them
• Cameron Mitchell in a drunken stupor near coma
• a constipated looking homeless guy
• and a zombie with a plastic pitchfork that turns people into vampires

None of it makes a lick of sense, but undaunted, Jerry Warren has every single character in the movie (except for the insane one-eyed pirate who dies one scene earlier) show up to participate in the climatic showdown, as if that will somehow bring everything together into some semblance of coherency. You have to see it to believe it…

Pretty sad, huh? It’s like they scheduled a WWE battle royal, but forgot to work out any of the plot points beforehand, so everybody just wanders around trying to figure out what’s going on. But hey, that’s the way life is sometimes, isn’t it? Heck, if you read the Bible, it seems like even the apostles spent half their time just asking questions and trying to make sense out of all the things they saw and heard during their brief time together, and that’s despite the fact that they had Jesus himself there to explain things to them.

But finally, near the end of the second year of Jesus’ public ministry, things finally started to become a bit clearer for the apostles, beginning with the event we commemorate in this Sunday’s reading, the transfiguration. As I’m sure you remember, this is where Jesus took Peter, James and John up on a high mountain where His body took on a dazzling brightness, He is visited by Moses and Elijah, and the voice of God calls Him son and tells the apostles to listen to Him. We’ve already discussed the theological significance of the transfiguration, how it brought to the forefront the concept of the holy trinity, but there are also more personal reasons the event was important for the apostles, and for us as well if we allow it to be.

Pope St. Leo the Great points out that “the great reason for this transfiguration was to remove the scandal of the cross from the hearts of his disciples, and to prevent the humiliation of his voluntary suffering from disturbing the faith of those who had witnessed the surpassing glory that lay concealed. With no less forethought he was also providing a firm foundation for the hope of holy Church. The whole body of Christ was to understand the kind of transformation that it would receive as his gift. The members of that body were to look forward to a share in that glory which first blazed out in Christ their head… In the preaching of the holy Gospel all should receive a strengthening of their faith. No one should be ashamed of the cross of Christ, through which the world has been redeemed. No one should fear to suffer for the sake of justice; no one should lose confidence in the reward that has been promised. The way to rest is through toil, the way to life is through death. Christ has taken on himself the whole weakness of our lowly human nature. If then we are steadfast in our faith in him and in our love for him, we win the victory that he has won, we receive what he has promised.”

So if Pope St. Leo the Great was correct (and considering he’s known as “The Great” the odds are pretty good that he was), then the transfiguration becomes our first sign that all the crap we put up with for our faith, all the insults and prejudices and (in some places) persecutions, will make sense in the end, that they will all be worth it. Probably not a bad thing to remember as the news coverage surrounding the election of a new pope amps up over these next few weeks.

PULP CATHOLICISM #004

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

Not getting your fill of of flicks and Catholicism around these parts? Not to worry, there’s plenty more showing around the blogosphere right now.

First up is… well, to be honest, it’s more of ME! While I will continue as always to examine the sometimes tenuous connection between faith and bad movies here at the B-Movie Catechism, the kind folks at Aleteia have asked me if I wouldn’t mind offering my take on some of the new releases being unleashed on unwary moviegoers these days. So if for some reason you feel compelled to find out what I think about films with real budgets starring people you’ve actually heard about before, be sure to head over to Aleteia and check out my new column. The inaugural review features this month’s hopeful (but unlikely) successor to all that Twilight moola… Beautiful Creatures.

However, if teen romance isn’t what you’re looking for in a movie this coming weekend, then maybe the adult variety will do. For that, the folks at Catholic Media Review have a few brief words to say about Safe Haven.

It’s early in the year, but chances are neither of those films is likely to win any Oscar nominations when the time rolls around. That’s fine though, since fewer and fewer people are watching the Academy Awards anyway. With this year’s ceremonies less than a week away, Catholic Skywalker offers a few suggestions on how to fix the Oscars and make them more enjoyable to watch.

But whether you sit through the Academy Awards or not, be sure to hang around the television set in March as the History Channel airs its original miniseries, The Bible. Donald R. McClarey from The American Catholic can’t decide from the trailer if the show is going to be worth spending time with or not, but he does have some thoughts on why its very existence might be good either way.

In less palatable movie news, the recently released McAleese Report on the Magdalene laundries indicates that most (but not all) of the tales of abuse at the infamous nun run facility were fabricated. In light of that news, Trent Horn over at Catholic Answers takes another look at the 2002 film The Magdalene Sisters and ponders how Catholics should respond to a movie designed to make people hate nuns.

And finally, for those still skeptical about why myself and others waste so much valuable time on all this stuff, Screenwriter John Darrouzet has started a new series of posts over at Catholic Stand designed to help those who would like to learn how to find faith at the movies.

Happy reading, see you next time.

DOUBLE FEATURE: VOYAGE TO THE PREHISTORIC PLANET & VOYAGE TO THE PLANET OF PREHISTORIC WOMEN

ST. AUGUSTINE ON VENUS

A Guest Review by Xena Catolica

In the world of B-Movies, few films have suffered a weirder fate than the 1962 “Planet of Storms”, by the Leningrad Popular Science Film Studio.  Filmed while the Soviet space program declined, it was swiped by American director Curtis Harrington, who added two characters, dubbed it into English, and  falsified the Credits to hide his theft. The result: “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet” in 1965, featuring Basil Rathbone and lizard men. He got away with it, and director Peter Bogdanovich then reworked the same film in 1968 to produce “Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women.” Only about ten minutes of added material are different, but in that ten minutes lies a world of difference, and that difference leads us to St. Augustine.

“Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet” tells the story of the first scouting mission to Venus, which fails. After the loss of their first ship to an asteroid, a team of astronauts and a robot land on Venus and quickly encounter a slew of rubber suits. After losing contact, another team flies out to rescue them, leaving Dr. Marsha Evans in charge of the ship and maintaining communications. The rescuers hear singing and one astronaut is especially taken with it. The robot starts to carry the two scientists across a lava stream, only to have its self-preservation program insist it jettison the passengers. The robot’s creator destroys the robot to save their lives. The teams meet but contact with Dr. Evens is lost.

Meanwhile, Dr. Evans decides it is her duty to attempt to rescue her “brother astronauts”, and she prepares to fly to Venus.  They return to their rocket and make an emergency escape. The last scientist to board the rocket hears the singing again, and discovers a beautiful image of the ancient inhabitants. After the ship leaves, a robed figure like the carved image is shown reflected in a pool of water.

The moral universe of the movie is an attractive one. The scouts are genuinely curious and open-minded. They show mercy, console the sorrowing, and counsel the doubtful. They have scientific disagreements without huge egos, and a distinctly masculine sense of humor. When someone else is in danger, the language of piety creeps in, most especially when they hear Dr. Evans may be in danger—suddenly it’s “I pray” this and “I pray” that. And while the role of the female astronaut isn’t what we could hope for, in 1965 it’s nothing to sneeze at that she’s competent to run a large ship, take care of communications, and apparently fly a shuttle.  Evans is brave and loyal, even if going to Venus alone is foolhardy.  It’s a case of loyalty not governed by prudence, and her lack of prudence  is offset by obedience to legitimate authority. Her appearance is feminine and professional. As a scientist and moral agent, she has more in common with Dejah Thoris than Lt. Uhura.

The reflected image of the alien is the most famous shot of the film. How many mysterious or disguised figures stand by water in life-changing events for travelers? Moses, Elijah, Raphael, John the Baptist, Christ, Philip the deacon…for a bunch of communist propagandists, the folks at the Leningrad Popular Science Film sure knew what messengers of revelation look like. The attraction of the astronaut to beauty can lead him to further beauty, to discovering a hidden truth.

The less said about the “Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women”, the better. In brief, Dr. Evans and her boss have been replaced by the Venus Swimsuit Edition. Enter the native women of Venus, psychic blondes who worship idols of murderous gods, who all have very prominent…cheekbones. When not praying for the destruction of the scientists, they pass the time knitting exciting undergarments out of seashells. References to praying by the scientists are cut, as is counseling the doubtful. The last sequence of the aliens shows them replace one hideous idol with another, ironically the robot who was sacrificed to save the same men they pray to be murdered.

Just in case anyone missed the pagan theme while admiring their cheekbones, the narrator at the beginning compares himself to Odysseus hearing the sirens and wishing to return to Venus. Somebody needs to reread their Homer, or at least watch the Dino de Laurentiis version, since Odysseus flees the sirens because they are Certain Death. He longs to return to his wife to defend his son from Certain Death. Should he return to Venus, our narrator would find himself in a nasty inversion of Odysseus’ actual return, as well as Certain Death. At the end, the attraction of the astronaut to beauty is a terrible danger.

And it’s a terrible movie. The director, who narrates, quit directing and went on to play Dr. Elliot Kupferberg in “The Sopranos”. Leave the movie, bring the cannoli.

So what has Venus to do with Hippo? These two movies illustrate the two responses to paganism by St. Augustine. The puzzle posed by paganism was that it was false, but its natural virtues, like loyalty, bravery, and respect for legitimate authority are the origin of rational morality in the West. As grace builds on nature, so faith perfects reason, and St. Augustine wasn’t about to let their natural virtue and reason go to waste. Instead, he emphasized the best in paganism and inviteded pagans to life in Christ by using reason. That’s response #1, and a short homily that illustrates it is here:  (link to Sermon XCL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.xciii.html )

The attraction of beauty and right use of reason (including the natural virtues as rational action) prepare the educated person for the revelation of Truth. That’s exactly what we see in “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet” along with dinosaurs, carnivorous plants, and the Batmobile with antigrav.

Many pagans themselves had figured out that the gods of Greece and Rome were not worthy of worship by rational moral agents. Socrates, Euripides, and Ovid got in big trouble for saying so out loud. Remember the burning of incense to idols St. Polycarp got martyred over? The gods’ favor of Rome depended on worshipping them, so even if Zeus was a parricide and rapist, refusal to burn incense for the gods’ favor was treason because they would retaliate with plague, famine, and military defeat. It was still held by lots of pagans in St. Augustine’s day, who believed their continued worship of Zeus and pals was the only thing preventing disaster. So St. Augustine devised response #2, which was to demonstrate that the favor of the gods did not even exist!  He began a history of all the pre-Christian disasters, showing that the gods had not prevented disasters even when they were widely worshipped. That much Certain Death got boring real quick, and Augustine delegated it to Bishop Orosius, hence it’s known as Orosius’ Seven Books of History Against the Pagans.

Response #2, demonstrating the futility and destructiveness of paganism is what we see in “Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women.” Idolatry is the failure of reason, as Augustine points out. And paganism without reason and virtue is ugly indeed. The attraction to beauty is made a life-threatening liability. It also deprives women of their dignity and moral agency. It’s still a rotten movie, but it’s not wrong, and the one moment of irony is distinctly religious.

Pagan gods keep popping up in the fiction of two prominent Catholic SF authors, John C. Wright and Gene Wolfe, and we have St. Augustine to thank for that. They are still gods unworthy of worship. But the virtues of paganism, and the fundamental goodness of human attraction to the good, the true, and the beautiful are strongly affirmed as an alternative to the violence, cowardice, and slavery of that idolatry we now call the Culture of Death. The Christian evangelist has at much at stake in the preservation of reason and natural virtue in America now as those Russian filmmakers did who snuck an angel past the censors in 1962.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: VOYAGE TO THE PREHISTORIC PLANET & VOYAGE TO THE PLANET OF PREHISTORIC WOMEN

Well, today may be a day of fasting, but coming up tomorrow we have a real Valentine’s Day treat for everyone. After years of badgering, one of our most frequent commenters has finally consented to take a shot at reviewing not just one, but two count’em two whole movies. Sort of. But I’ll let her explain that. So join us as Xena Catolica drops by The B-Movie Catechism to ponder Voyage To The Prehistoric Planet (sort of directed by B-movie legend Curtis Harrington, whom we met years ago with Devil Dog) and Voyage To The Planet Of Prehistoric Women (sort of directed by Peter Bogdanovich, a future Academy Award nominee, though obviously not for this).

Alas, there doesn’t seem to be any official trailers floating around for either movie, but here’s a couple of fan made previews for Voyage To The Prehistoric Planet that are fun in their own right.

PULP CATHOLICISM #003

Some Catholic pop culture for those of you out there not yet counting gray hairs. The Flying Nun was an actual TV sitcom starring future Academy Award winner Sally Field (yes, The Amazing Spider-Man’s Aunt May). It was a modest hit, running for three seasons on ABC in the late 60s.

GARGOYLES

THE PLOT

“Incorporating themes from horror films of both the '50s and the '70s, this suspenseful TV movie stars Cornel Wilde and Jennifer Salt as an archaeologist and his daughter, who discover a strange skull on display at a roadside tourist trap. After the museum owner is killed during an attack from an unseen foe, the pair are subsequently pursued across the American Southwest by a tribe of humanoid creatures that bear a striking resemblance to the gargoyles of myth, leading to a manic game of cat-and-mouse across the desert. This enjoyably spooky film essentially riffs on this one-note premise for over 70 minutes -- sort of an inversion of Night of the Living Dead's claustrophobic scenario -- and fortunately comes off quite well thanks to superb use of the desert locations, an eerie score, uniformly good performances, and Emmy award-winning monster costumes from Stan Winston. A young Scott Glenn appears as a roguish biker who throws in with the good guys after taking a shine to the professor's daughter.” – Rovi’s Allmovie Guide.

THE POINT

So here’s the deal. If, like myself, you were in elementary school during the 1970’s, loved monster movies, and happened to catch Gargoyles on one of its many late night showings, then you know it’s next to impossible to write an unbiased review of this movie. So I’m not even going to try. I loooove Gargoyles.

First off, I love the setting. The barren outskirts along the Texas/New Mexico border give the movie a weird isolated vibe (which is important since the story asks you to accept that a bunch of six foot tall gargoyles have been skittering around unnoticed), while the Carlsbad Caverns gives the creature’s gargoyle hive nicely authentic. It just goes to show how a talented location scout can go a long ways towards making a low budget look good.  Dependable actors help also, and I love the group they rounded up for Gargoyles. The cast is made up of a number of recognizable faces such as Cornel Wilde (The Great Sebastian himself), Woody Chambliss (who apparently started portraying ornery old coots shortly after birth), Grayson Hall (whose character doesn’t have a single scene without a glass of booze in her hand), and even a young Scott Glen (who doesn’t do much but stand around and look like a young Scott Glen, but still). They all come through reliably and play the whole thing straight.

But let’s be honest, the thing that I (and most everybody else) love the best about Gargoyles has to be the old school rubber monster suits. Sure, they may not look like much now, what with their barely concealed zippers, “skin” that creases suspiciously like fabric whenever somebody bends a joint, and wings that just kind of hang there and jiggle around whenever the gargoyles walk, but for their day they were top notch. In fact, the special effects team (including future great Stan Winston in his first credited gig) won an Emmy for Outstanding Achievement in Makeup for their work on the film. I don’t know, maybe it’s because they left the actors’ eyes visible and built the suits around them, allowing the monsters some means of expression, or maybe it’s the decision to almost always film the gargoyles moving in slow motion, giving them a kind of otherworldly feel, but whatever it is, the suits just work.

As I implied earlier though, I’m well aware that whenever I watch Gargoyles, I do so through a thick, thick haze of nostalgia. That’s why I’m fairly positive that others coming to the movie brand new might somehow be able to find a few faults in it. And though it would be easy to dismiss such people as a bunch of cynical world-weary jerks with no ability to see things through the eyes of a child (that would be an objective evaluation, of course, no bitterness involved), I suppose if pushed hard enough I would begrudgingly admit Gargoyles might have one or two teensy weensy problems. Scott Glen or no Scott Glen, the inclusion of his character and his fellow dirt bikers seems more like padding than anything else, and truth be told, the gargoyles aren’t really scary once they’re out of the shadows and running around in the open.

But even those minor nitpicks are turned into strengths later in the film. After the misunderstood biker subplot is quickly and mercifully dispatched, Scott and the boys join up with the rest of the humans to take part in a pretty effective slow motion chase scene involving the bikers, the police, a shotgun wielding professor, and a gargoyle riding a horse! That’s good stuff right there. And although the gargoyles do lose some of their mystery once they start parading around in front of the camera, the movie makes up for this by turning some of them into characters in their own right. There are some neat moments involving Bernie Casey’s winged leader and his jealous mate after the former takes the professor’s daughter Diane captive. He does so under the pretense of having her teach the gargoyles from her father’s books so the two races can better understand one another, but it isn’t long before Diane begins to suspect the male has other things on his mind besides facilitating inter-species harmony, especially once he begins to mack on her during a reading about a 14th century tale of a maiden’s seduction by an incubus. The lady gargoyle, not having any of this “players gonna play” business going on in her breeding chambers, decides to intervene and gargoyle domestic turmoil ensues.

We the viewers, of course, never come close to being taken in by the gargoyle’s sob story, because at the very beginning of the movie we’ve already been treated to this opening narration:

The devil was once the most favored of the angels serving the Lord, but pride welled in his breast. He thought it unseemly for him to serve. The devil and his band of followers, who likewise suffered from the sin of pride, were defeated in battle by the Lord and his hosts and were banished to the outer most depths of hell, never to know the presence of the Lord or look on Heaven again. Smarting from his wounds, but all the more swollen with pride, the devil cried out from the depths, “It is better to rule in Hell, than to serve in Heaven!” The devil proclaimed what was lost in Heaven would be gained on Earth. He said, “My offspring, the gargoyles, will one day rule the Lord’s works, Earth and man.” And so it came to pass that while man ruled on Earth, the gargoyles waited, lurking, hidden from the light. Reborn every 600 years in man’s reckoning of time, the gargoyles joined battle against man to gain dominion over the Earth. In each coming the gargoyles were nearly destroyed by men who flourished in greater numbers. Now it has been so many hundreds of years that it seems the ancient statues and paintings of gargoyles are just products of man’s imagination. In this year, when man’s thoughts turn towards the many ills he has brought upon himself, man has forgotten his most ancient adversary… the gargoyles.

Yeah, not exactly the kind of information to inspire confidence that  the monster standing in front of you really means it when he claims he just wants to be a good neighbor. Especially considering he’s pretty much a lord of hell lookalike to begin with.

And speaking of the physical appearance of the gargoyles, because so many of them do happen to sport what is traditionally considered a demonic visage, what do you suppose carvings of them are doing hanging around on the roofs of so many old Christian churches? I mean, even though all that stuff in the introduction about gargoyles being the living spawns of Satan is almost certainly made up movie malarkey, you have to admit that the existing sculptures still look the part. In fact, it was their very appearance which caused a bit of anxiety in the 12th century founder of the Cistercian order, St. Bernard of Clairvaux. "What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters under the very eyes of the brothers as they read?” he wrote, “What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, strange savage lions and monsters? To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man? I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body. Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat... Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities we should at least regret what we have spent on them."

Okay, so maybe the good saint was worried as much about collections as he was countenances, but still, he asks a good question. Probably the first answer that jumps to mind is one of simple functionality. Gargoyles have been around since at least ancient Egypt where animal-headed carvings served basically the same purpose as the gutters and downspouts found on most of today’s homes, funneling water away from the sides of buildings. But a closer examination of medieval structures where some pretty grotesque gargoyles are found in places water couldn’t possibly reach would seem to undermine this theory, at least where cathedrals are concerned. Because of this, historians have postulated a number of theories about the purpose of medieval gargoyles ranging from the Church’s inculturation of pagan practices to their acting as good luck charms to legends surrounding St. Romanus defeating a dragon (gargouille) and mounting its head on a wall. In short, they really don’t know the answer. However, Janetta Rebold Benton, PhD, in her book Holy Terrors: Gargoyles on Medieval Buildings, suggests some ideas that are at least worth considering. 

It’s Dr. Benton’s belief that gargoyles on churches likely served a duel purpose, to educate and to frighten. Benton speculates that since illiteracy was fairly common during medieval times (at least among those social classes who had no real need for it yet), gargoyles functioned the same as paintings and stained glass, as a way to convey religious ideas visually. Given their demonic appearance, Gargoyles naturally could be used as a representation of evil spirits, reminding those who glimpsed them of the unseen forces seeking the ruin of their souls. This theory not only makes sense in regards to the gargoyle’s presence on holy places, but would also go a long ways towards explaining why so many of the creatures sit in high nooks and crannies that are almost hidden from sight; just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there watching you (Bwah Ha Haaa!!!).

As there are no official Church writings on gargoyles, there’s no way to know if Benton’s theories are the correct ones, but they are consistent with the Church’s teachings and practices. During every mass we rise to say the Nicene Creed which contains the pronouncement that we believe in God, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. So, in short, it is a central tenant of the faith that part of God’s creation is invisible. And even though we don’t use gargoyles too much in our church architecture these days (sniffle), a quick glance around most Catholic churches will reveal we still use a lot of other items to convey the presence of the unseen. The statues and stained glass are still there, as are the candles, incense, and crucifixes. But there’s one thing in particular we have which more than anything else in the building points towards God’s invisible reality… and relatively few people even pay any attention to it.

According to a 2007 survey of adult Catholics in the United States conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, only about 14% of adult Catholics participate in Eucharistic Adoration. Which means that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ is present under the appearance of a physical object readily accessible to anybody who cares to walk in the door, and most Catholics don’t even bother to stop by and sit with it for a few minutes. And that’s a shame, because as Sherry Weddell points out in her book Forming Intentional Disciples: The Path to Knowing and Following Jesus, Eucharistic Adoration is the one traditional devotion particularly suited to today’s postmodern mind-set. “Adoration appeals to postmoderns because it is experiential, mysterious, and accessible to everyone: the nonbaptized, the non-Catholic, the unchurched, the lapsed, the badly catechized, the wounded, the skeptical, the seeking, the prodigal, and those who aren’t sure that a relationship with God is even possible. An acquaintance of mine aptly describes it as ‘Spiritual Radiation Therapy’ because it places the soul in the direct presence of Jesus Christ in the trust that he will act if we leave the door open the merest crack. All it requires is the ability to sit down.”

So while it’s a shame (at least to this ‘monster kid’) that we rarely use gargoyles anymore to point our minds towards the invisible part of reality, it’s comforting to know we have something much better, not just something that instructs, but that actually has an affect on those who take the time to contemplate it. Still, it’s been about 600 years or so since medieval times ended, so according to that opening monologue it’s about time the gargoyles started showing back up. Maybe we can have both.

THE STINGER

A new gargoyle did actually pop up recently. In January 2013, 89 year old Nora Sly, a parishioner and former secretary at St Mary’s Anglican church in Cowley - Gloucestershire, was memorialized by the members of her parish by having her face used as the model for their latest gargoyle. When asked about the honor, the aged Mrs. Sly noted simply, “I didn’t feel it was all that flattering!”

POPE TO RESIGN! NEXT GUY SURE TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, WOMEN’S ORDINATION, AND CONTRACEPTION, RIGHT?

Watching the coverage of the Pope’s upcoming resignation I can’t help but smile a little in thinking how this particular pontiff is going to be a teacher right up to the end. If this morning’s newscasts are any indication, the next few weeks will be full of nattering nabobs breathlessly speculating on whether this means the Church will finally fall in line with their pet causes such as gay marriage, women’s ordination, contraception, abortion, et al. And then I’ll smile as the truth smacks them in the forehead. Clever, Pope, very clever.

Even so, the coverage is bound to get tiresome at times. So, when you need a break, be sure to check in around here where we’ll be keeping things light as usual. In fact, the review for Gargoyles will be up later today. But for the moment, here’s a picture of Godzilla playing a guitar. Enjoy.

PULP CATHOLICISM #002

Yeah, I know that technically speaking Thomas Caninas up there should be an Italian breed, but I just liked the way the tonsure looked on a Scottie, so there you go.

CUTAWAYS: LEGEND

Oh sure, there’s plenty of things wrong with Ridley Scott’s epic fairy tale Legend, just ask every single person on the Internet and they’ll be happy to launch into a diatribe about shallow characters and inappropriate use of modern vernacular. But despite its problems, the parts in Legend that work do so really well, especially Rob Bottin’s make-up and Tim Curry’s scenery chewing performance (I’m pretty sure that’s the only kind he knows how to deliver) as Darkness, the living personification of evil.  Plus, if you look really hard, mixed in amongst all the fairies, unicorns, and goblins, you just might find a pretty good symbol for the Church. Take a look.

Did you catch it? That’s right… it was the plates. Yes, the plates, you know, the ones Jack and his pals used to reflect the sunlight from the surface down into the depths to bring doom to Darkness. You see, while perusing the selection for Day 113 of reading through the Catechism in one year as a part of the Year of Faith, I was struck by the paragraph that notes how “according to a favorite image of the Church Fathers, the Church is like the moon, all its light reflected from the sun.” The Catechism calls to mind this imagery while discussing the part in the creeds in which we profess our belief in the holy Catholic Church. It does so that we always remember “not to confuse God with his works and to attribute clearly to God’s goodness all the gifts he has bestowed on the Church… The Church has no other light then Christ’s.” In short, the only light we have to shine on the shadowed evils of this world come not from us, but are reflected from God above. Without his light, we are powerless before darkness.

THINGS TO COME: WORLD WAR Z

On Superbowl Sunday, millions of people around the world will see this trailer, and I’m guessing there are a number of them who might be left with one question…

What is this movie about?

Oh sure, I know and you know, because we’ve read the book. And even though no scenes remotely resembling the contents of this trailer appear in the novel, we at least know what the general plot is based on the title. But for the uninitiated, the trailer leaves out one tiny little detail that might be relevant to those contemplating plunking down hard earned cash to see this movie. I’m talking about, of course… zombies.

Maybe it’s just me, but I would think if you’re going to make a multi-million dollar zombie movie based on the best selling zombie novel of all time, you might want to tell folks that, oh, I don’t know… there are some zombies in your motion picture! Yeah, they may look like some crap leftover from a video game what with their physics defying activities and all, but nevertheless, they’re zombies. And if you just can’t bring yourself to say the word, at least put some small print somewhere on the screen saying something like Warning: Film Contains Zombies. Trust me, I worked in a movie theater for years, and just because a lot of people read the book does not mean everyone knows what the movie is. And some folks might just like to know about the flesh rending gut chomping zombies up front before they buy a ticket. Just saying.

And thinking about it a bit more, shouldn’t the same principle apply to evangelization as well? I’m not saying every word that comes out of your mouth should be about your faith, because, well, that would get annoying real quick. I mean, if someone asks you what you think they should do about their cat’s hairball problem, then yelling at them to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior will probably result in nothing more than their avoiding you for the next few years. But in those instances where they actually question you about faith-related things, like what’s the deal with that rosary hanging from your rear view mirror or how is it you’re able to handle the stresses of the office just a little bit better than most people, then don’t clam up and tell them it’s personal. Don’t be afraid to tell people what’s the driving force behind your story. They may not buy a ticket right away, but in the long run they’ll appreciate the honesty.