PULP CATHOLICISM #009

SHORT FEATURE: EXTINCT PINK

So this week for Aleteia I reviewed The Croods, a movie I felt managed to pull a last minute save and extract itself from the near-omnipresent “children know best” theme found in most other animated features these days. Be warned, however, premier Catholic movie critic Steven D. Greydanus had very much the opposite reaction. But regardless of which side you choose, if there’s one thing we can all agree was missing from The Croods, it would probably be dinosaurs. Oh sure, I realize that since The Croods are an even more modern stone age age family than The Flinstones, they’ve got to be historically accurate and can’t have cavemen running around with sauropods. But still, weren’t cartoons much more fun when the facts didn’t matter…

Of course, there are some folks out there who believe the occasional mentions of dragons, leviathans, and behemoths in the bible indicate the possibility of dinosaur-like creatures running around in ancient times. The majority of modern theologians, however, tend to accept the current scientific theory that dinosaurs predated the appearance of humans and that those creatures in the bible were something else entirely.

Which leads to an interesting question for Christians, assuming current theories are correct, why did God bother creating dinosaurs to begin with? The short answer is, we just don’t know. From a pragmatic standpoint, it could just be simply that in order for a world to develop where humans could exist, maybe something like the dinosaurs were necessary to help get the place ready. Heck, there’s still things floating around today that we haven’t discovered yet, but they’re part of an ecosystem somewhere. So there’s that idea.

But since God works on any number of levels simultaneously, Michelle Arnold, apologist for Catholic Answers, postulates some possible philosophical reasons behind the existence of dinosaurs, notions such as:

• “Dinosaurs teach that there is such a thing as universal death, which is one of St. Thomas Aquinas's five arguments for the existence of God.”

• “Dinosaurs teach the possibility of life after death. There may be no dinosaurs currently inhabiting our world, but, in a certain sense, they live on today -- in our imaginations, in our scientific studies, in our hope that we may one day see such extraordinary creatures in the next life.”

• “The existence of dinosaurs forces believers to more deeply understand their religion and thus more deeply understand God's hand at work in the world. Questions of the creation of the universe are thrown into a new light and we are forced to re-assess the merit of apparently simple understandings of divine revelation through the Church and the Bible.”
• “The existence of dinosaurs forces unbelievers to re-assess their rejection of God that may be based at least partly upon the fact that they have not seen him with their own eyes. The fact that there are created beings that we know existed only because of the remnants of their lives that have been uncovered point to the existence of a God who can be known through the use of reason if one is willing to look at the "fossil record" of creation.”

So we’ve got lots of ideas, but in the end, the real reason for dinosaurs is just another one of those mysteries we probably won’t get the answer to while we’re in this world. And that’s fine. After all, the Catechism reminds us that there are “insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust.” And when those instances pop up, “Man is [to be] dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.”

And as for my desire to see men (or pink panthers for that matter) square off against dinosaurs, well, we’ll always have Jurassic Park won’t we?

CUTAWAYS: THE THREE AMIGOS

Day 162 of reading through the Catechism in one year as a part of the Year of Faith has rolled around, and this little nugget popped up. “God speaks to man through the visible creation. The material cosmos is so presented to man's intelligence that he can read there traces of its Creator. Light and darkness, wind and fire, water and earth, the tree and its fruit speak of God and symbolize both his greatness and his nearness.” Of course, I understand that the Catechism is speaking about hearing and seeing God in nature much in the same way you recognize an artist’s hand in a painting. But still, wouldn’t it be neat if we really could hear what nature was saying…

Hmm, probably better to just skip all that and keep reading the traces like God intended in the first place.

GREAT, ANOTHER TWIT

Because what the world needs now is one more person on Twitter, I’ve decided to sign up and bore people with random movie quotes, instantaneous rants about whatever I’m watching, and other unnecessary things. Feel free to add me to your already cluttered Twitter feed. You can sign up in the sidebar. Actually I decided to go ahead and join up after Pope Francis followed Benedict VXI’s lead and started to send out tweets. It’s just kind of neat to look at my phone and see the occasional inspirational quote from His Holiness. So, that’s one more begrudging step I take into the modern era. Still not going to buy a Blu-Ray player though, not gonna do it.

Speaking of twits.

NEWS FLASH: MAGICIAN PRODUCES ANCIENT IDIOCY OUT OF THIN AIR

Good evening Mr. & Mrs. Catholic, and all you other Christians at sea. We interupt this blog with this news flash. As fate would have it, right on the heels of our review of Oz The Great And Powerful, the fine folks at Aleteia have also requested we take a gander at Steve Carell’s latest effort, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. Moviegoers haven’t seen this sort of magical mini-trend since 2006 when they were pummeled with the one-two punch of The Illusionist and The Prestige. Of course, this year’s presentation of prestidigitation isn’t quite as angsty as the previous go around, but still, if you like magicians, it’s not a bad time to be a ticket buyer.

But if the recent spate of pseudo-mystic movies hasn’t brought enough magic into your life, then not to worry because apparently there’s another place where you can catch a magician at work… your local church. That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, according to world renowned illusionist David Copperfield, there’s one name that towers above the rest when it comes to magic craft, one man who rises above the great, the powerful, and the incredible, one man who is the greatest magician of all time, and that man is… Jesus Christ.

To be fair, the clip from TMZ provides no real context, showing nothing more than Copperfield spouting off a quick answer to some bothersome reporter. From only that brief exchange, there’s no way of telling if he’s being serious or snarky, or perhaps even a little bit of both. But it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suspect Copperfield believes what he’s saying because the notion that Jesus was simply a really good stage magician with delusions of grandeur goes back a long, long way.

The accusation seems to have first appeared in print during the 2nd century when Greek philosopher Celsus published his book On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians. In a treatise worthy (if that’s the proper word) of Richard Dawkins, Celsus insinuated, among other things, that an adulteress Mary gave birth to Jesus illegitimately and then raised him in Egypt where he picked up the magic tricks he would later use to befuddle the poor and stupid into believing he was a god. The early church father Origen of Alexandria was so unimpressed with these arguments that he wrote Contra Celsum, a work Professor Henry Chadwick describes as “the culmination of the whole apologetic movement of the second and third centuries.” In this book, Origen systematically demolished Celsus’ arguments, pointing out some obvious inconsistencies such as the fact that your average magician doesn’t typically cure the sick or come back from the dead.

But as Origen was quick to add, the “tricks” performed by Jesus weren’t just designed to prove his superiority over others. “There would indeed be a resemblance between them” Origen wrote, “if Jesus, like the dealers in magical arts, had performed His works only for show; but now there is not a single juggler who, by means of his proceedings, invites his spectators to reform their manners, or trains those to the fear of God who are amazed at what they see, nor who tries to persuade them so to live as men who are to be justified by God. And jugglers do none of these things, because they have neither the power nor the will, nor any desire to busy themselves about the reformation of men, inasmuch as their own lives are full of the grossest and most notorious sins. But how should not He who, by the miracles which He did, induced those who beheld the excellent results to undertake the reformation of their characters, manifest Himself not only to His genuine disciples, but also to others, as a pattern of most virtuous life, in order that His disciples might devote themselves to the work of instructing men in the will of God, and that the others, after being more fully instructed by His word and character than by His miracles, as to how they were to direct their lives, might in all their conduct have a constant reference to the good pleasure of the universal God? And if such were the life of Jesus, how could any one with reason compare Him with the sect of impostors, and not, on the contrary, believe, according to the promise, that He was God, who appeared in human form to do good to our race?”

In short, miracles are indeed spectacular, but unlike with ordinary stage magicians, the important question one should ask of Jesus and the wonders he performed is not really how did he do that… but why. Of course, be it Celsus or Dawkins or even Copperfield, the skeptics don’t seem to be in too much of a hurry to ask that question. Maybe they don’t want to hear the answer.

And with that, we return you to your regularly scheduled blog, signing off as is our custom with the immortal words of the great Les Nessman. Good evening, and may the good news be yours.

PULP CATHOLICISM #008

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

So, what’s showing around the blogosphere this week? Mostly there’s a lot of buzz surrounding some small event that happened in Rome yesterday. Maybe you heard about it? But if you managed to get stuck in a cave or something and somehow missed out on the big news, then just click on 90% of the links in the sidebar and I’m sure you’ll find a word or two about what transpired.

As for non-pope related happenings, last week the fine folks at Aleteia asked me to tackle two assignments, to watch and review Oz The Great And Powerful (which I actually enjoyed) and to take a look at the phenomenon of Real Housewives (which I… at least took a look at).

Speaking of Aleteia, you may remember that a few weeks ago I reviewed the Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson movie Snitch for them and didn’t hate it. Well, for those who thought I had lost it (I mean those few of you who hadn’t already reached that conclusion before this), it seems Jared Zimmerer over at Fr. Barron’s Word On Fire blog found some good stuff in it also. So I guess that makes two of us who’ve lost it.

But enough of what’s been lost, what about things found? Our pal Robert discovered and passed along an article from The American Chesterton Society on the serious but funny Vincent Price. Be sure to read through to the end for a special treat, an audio recording of Price discussing Chesterton’s thoughts on writing. And John Darrouzet from The Catholic Stand has unearthed some hidden messages for Catholics in Shakespeare movies.

Finally, there’s some things we found, but wish had stayed lost instead. According to the Hollywood Reporter, author Robert Kirkman is expending whatever good will he’s earned from The Waliking Dead by developing a show “set in the world of exorcism”, whatever that means. “The script centers on Kyle Barnes, who has been plagued by possession since he was a child. Now an adult, he embarks on a spiritual journey to find answers, but what he uncovers could mean the end of life on Earth as we know it.” At the same time, director James Marsh is developing The Vatican Tapes, a film “said to be in the same vein of The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby as it follows a series of events that unfold after a tape gets leaked from the Vatican displaying an exorcism that goes wrong.” Call me cynical, but I’m not counting on accuracy in either production when it comes to portraying possession or the Church. Still, we’ll let you know when and if these two projects ever see the light of day.

And with all that to keep you busy (as if researching the new pope wasn’t taking up enough of your time), we’ll leave you until next week. See you then.

PULP CATHOLICISM #007

Okay, so we haven’t actually seen any white smoke yet as of this posting, but I’m pretty sure the sentiment will still be applicable no matter what day the cheering starts.

OUTTAKES #045

AND SO THE WAITING BEGINS

In less than 24 (or 48 or 72 or more) hours we could know who will chosen as the next pope! Who’s it going to be? Scola? Turkson? Scherer? Dolan? No, he’s American and everybody hates us. What about Ouellet, though, he’s a Canadian and that’s pretty close right? Maybe it’ll be someone nobody has even been paying attention to. Augh!!! Who’s going to be the next pope!?!

That’s better. I’m ready to wait and watch now.

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

This week the nice folks at Aleteia asked me to check out Bryan Singer’s big budget fairy tale, Jack The Giant Slayer. It’s already being called this year’s John Carter, so that may give you an idea about whether you’ll like it or not. Also over at Aleteia, in the wake of the dismal reception of The Last Exorcism Part II, Caitlin Bootsma ponders Hollywood’s portrayal of exorcism versus the reality of the rite.

For entertainment with a little more weight behind it, you can visit Matt Emerson at the venerable First Things where he recently viewed the Academy Award nominated Silver Linings Playbook. Tony Rossi at Christopher Closeup has some things to say about that movie also. On the TV front, Scott W from Romish Graffiti has been watching the “gritty” A&E series The Glades and the “grittier” AMC show Hell On Wheels and found more than a little liberal wish-fulfilment fantasy.

Now, if none of those movies or shows strike your fancy, but you’re still looking for some films to watch while waiting on the white smoke to rise at the Vatican, well not to worry, Donald R. McClarey has you covered over at The American Catholic.

And if those still aren’t enough to keep you occupied, then there’s always the off screen antics of the Hollywood elite to keep you entertained. Jim Carrey recently tweeted some rather nasty things about the Catholic Church and Matthew Archbold spends some time explaining why Jim was full of it. Elsewhere, The Crescat has some things to say about the feminist uproar over Seth McFarlane’s “I Saw Your Boobs” song at the Oscars.

And finally, Roger Ebert recently devoted a column explaining how he is a Roman Catholic. While he basically ends up being a Catholic in the same way agnostic Jews are Jewish, it’s still a pretty thoughtful and sometimes surprising piece (Ebert’s stand on abortion might not be what you imagine).

And that should be plenty to keep you occupied, at least until next week. See you then.

PULP CATHOLICISM #006

Hope you haven’t seen any these guys are hanging around your house lately. Did I make it easy enough to tell which ones are which?

REWRITE: INDEPENDENCE DAY

It’s inevitable. After watching hundreds and hundreds of movies, you start to think to yourself, “I could do that. Why don’t I just write my own screenplay?” But after a bit more consideration, I just don’t think it would work. To show you what I mean, let’s take a look at what I would do with an existing script, like say the scene from Independence Day in which Steve (Will Smith) and Jasmine (Vivica A. Fox) rush to get married before Steve has to fly off into space with Jeff Goldblum and an iBook to try and disable the alien mothership.

First, here’s how the original script played out…

INT. SMALL GATHERING HALL

Jasmine is kneeling as Dylan tries to zip up the back of her dress.

DYLAN

It's too tight.

JASMINE

I had to borrow it. I guess that's good enough.

Jasmine stands, turns to Dylan.

JASMINE

How do I look?

She looks great. But Dylan only gives her the "so-so" hand gesture.

JASMINE

You're a lot of help.

The door behind her flies open and Steve marches in.

JASMINE

You're late.

STEVE

You know me...

JASMINE

I know, you like to make a big entrance.

Steve moves next to Jasmine, takes her hand.

STEVE

Before we do this, I want you to know I'm sorry.

JASMINE

Sorry for what?

STEVE

(serious)

I should have done this a long long time ago.

MALE VOICE (O.S.)

Do you have the ring?

As we REVERSE ANGLE we see that we are in a military CHAPEL, a large crucifix on the wall. A CHAPLAIN stands by the altar.

STEVE

You bet.

Steve pulls out the famous "dolphin" ring.

CHAPLAIN

Witnesses?

Just then the doors open and David and Constance enter taking seats on opposing sides of the aisle.

CHAPLAIN

Then let's get this show on the road.

Okay, I would leave the setup, nothing wrong there. But something about the dialog at the very end of the scene bugs me, something’s missing. So let’s pick up where Steve enters and see what I would have done differently…

Steve moves next to Jasmine, takes her hand. As we REVERSE ANGLE we see that we are in a military CHAPEL, a large crucifix on the wall. A CHAPLAIN stands by the altar.

STEVE

Before we do this, I want you to know I'm sorry.

JASMINE

Sorry for what?

STEVE

(serious)

I should have done this a long long time ago.

JASMINE

(serious)

You’re right, you should have.

STEVE

Wha… huh?

JASMINE

You heard me. Not only did you put me through the scientifically proven increased stress of living with someone without any commitment, but the insecurity inherent in the situation contributed to my reluctance to leave my degrading job giving lap dances to fat smelly strangers. Plus, even though you’re finally marrying me, statistics show we now have a much greater chance of divorcing because people who cohabitate before walking the aisle generally have less conventional ideas about marriage and are more open to dissolving things when times get rough. So now me and my son Dylan, who’s already lost one father, have to worry about that every day. And did I mention how the Catechism plainly states that all that premarital sex you insisted we have was “gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.” So the whole time you felt entitled to get the milk without buying the cow, you were also endangering my immortal soul. Did I mention that?

Just then the doors open and David and Constance enter taking seats on opposing sides of the aisle while at the same time noticing the obviously stunned look on the faces of Steve, Dylan, and the Chaplain.

CHAPLAIN

(clearing throat)

Can we just get this show on the road?

Yeah, maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think Hollywood is going to be calling me anytime soon.

THE B-LIST: QUESTIONABLE MUSICAL MOMENTS #12 – CAVEMAN

I don’t know, is it a good thing when you’re at the teen mass and the flute and drums start up, the first thing that jumps to mind is this…

Actually, I kind of prefer this to some of the hymns I’ve heard recently because this has an actual melody and isn’t played in a key that requires me to castrate myself before I can (try to) sing along with it.

Sorry. I’m in a mood. I’m just not convinced some of the stuff I hear at mass meets the criteria for liturgical music outlined in the Catechism, you know, “the beauty expressive of prayer, the unanimous participation of the assembly, and the sacred character of the celebration”, that stuff. But maybe I’m just old and crotchety. Either way, at the end of the day I’m certainly not more Catholic than the Church and I’ll (try to) sing along with whatever music she permits. Still, if you’re going to utilize songs that sound like they’re being played on bones, could you at least toss me one every now and then by playing a tune in my register?