THE TWELVE CLIPS OF CHRISTMAS: DAY 6: LET’S CELEBRAKE

You know what, Popeye may have a face that looks like it should be on the opposite side of his body rather than on his shoulders, but when it comes to his heart, I’d say it’s right where it should be…

“The elderly are those who transmit history to us, who transmit doctrine, who transmit the faith and give it to us as an inheritance.” the seventy-seven year old Pope Francis said recently. “Grandparents are a treasure. Often old age isn’t pretty, right? There is sickness and all that, but the wisdom our grandparents have is something we must welcome as an inheritance.” Well, there you go. There may be lots of speculation out there that Olive Oyl is Jewish, but as for Popeye, it sure sounds like he’s been listening to the Pope. So should we all.

THE TWELVE CLIPS OF CHRISTMAS: DAY 5: JUDGE FOR A DAY

“Who am I to judge?” Those were the famously misunderstood words spoken by Pope Francis which contributed to his being nominated Time magazine’s person of the year for 2013. Regardless of what some hoped to make of it, though, the Pope’s statement didn’t really approve of homosexual activity, it just reiterated the Church’s teaching that homosexual’s "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity" and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." We don’t get to judge other’s souls. Actions, though, that’s a different story. And really, don’t we all occasionally dream about being able to sit in judgment of others when they act in a manner we don’t approve of…

The problem is, there’s that whole pesky “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” clause in the Our Father that kind of puts a damper on our wholesale condemnation of others. We need to be pretty sure before we go casting stones at individuals, lest we risk a little judgment ourselves.

It’s like Jesus said in the verses from Matthew which showed up in today’s study of the Gospels in a Year, "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.”

Yeah, that’s Jesus, the supposed feel-good hippy, saying that he’s going to pass judgment on people (including us if we’re not careful) and allow them to go to the hell they chose. He gets the final word. Who are we to judge? Humans who can make mistakes. Who is he to judge? Well, come on, it’s Christmas, haven’t you been paying attention?

THE TWELVE CLIPS OF CHRISTMAS: DAY 4: THE TOOTHBRUSH FAMILY

Well, we’ve just come off the Feast of the Holy Family which, as I’m sure you know, celebrates Jesus, Mary, and Joseph as a unit. It was kind of an odd family at first if you really think about it. An unwed teenage mother marries a man who becomes the adoptive father of the incarnation of the living God. Not necessarily a Norman Rockwell family portrait. Still, it’s not the weirdest family you’ll ever run into. This group from the old Captain Kangaroo show has to be in the running, though…

Yeah, I don’t know. Toy Story was creepy enough if you thought about it too hard. You know, inanimate objects lying around your kid’s room come to life when you’re not looking and follow their own agenda. I saw all those Child’s Play movies, so let me tell you, that kind of thing can go bad in an instant. But the Toothbrush Family is even worse if you ask me. When these things are playing possum, you actually put them inside your mouth. I know, right? You’re scrubbing your teeth with intelligent creatures. And don’t even think about the places you’ve put that sentient intelligent sponge. Just don’t go there.

On the other hand, depending on how you look at it, we Catholics put a living thing in our mouths all the time, don’t we? Have you ever just stopped and thought what a weird belief that must seem to all those non-Catholics out there, the notion that we believe we’re eating the actual body and blood of our God whenever we receive communion. Heck, the idea even freaked out the Apostles when they first heard it all the way back in John 6. It would be so much easier to just dismiss it all as symbolism, as a weekly bit of make believe we all participate in just because Jesus told us to.

But I have to go along with famed author Flannery O’Connor on that point when she penned this oft quoted piece on Holy Communion…

“Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the ‘most portable’ person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, ‘Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it.’ That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.”

Exactly. If the Eucharist is nothing more than a symbol, it’s simply not worth the trouble. Ah, but if it’s true… well, J. R. R. Tolkien may have said it best…

“Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament… There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves on earth, and more than that: Death. By the divine paradox, that which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste -or foretaste- of which alone can what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man’s heart desires.”

I couldn’t agree more, and next Sunday, conscience allowing, I’ll happily stand in line to receive the real body and blood of my Lord placed on my tongue.

I still don’t want anything to do with those living toothbrush people, though. That’s just too weird.

THE TWELVE CLIPS OF CHRISTMAS: DAY 3: HECTOR’S HECTIC LFE

Seems you can’t go more than a couple days of studying the Gospels in a Year before you run into yet another odd phrase buried in Scripture somewhere. This time around it comes from Matthew 7:6 which informs us “Do not give dogs what is holy.” Really? What’s so bad about dogs? Well, you know, besides the fact that they’re destructive, promiscuous, and all around self-centered. At least that’s what this little Christmas story would have us believe…

Huh, apparently dogs have a conscience and fear the fires of hell, at least according to this cartoon. I guess if that was true in real life it actually would be okay to toss them something holy. Alas, that’s not the way things are though.

According to Msgr. Charles Pope, when Jesus said not to give what is holy to dogs, he was referring to “a Jewish saying that was rooted in tradition. Some of the meat that had been sacrificed to God in the Temple could be eaten by humans, especially the Levites. But in no way was it ever to be thrown to dogs or other animals to eat. If it was not eaten by humans it was to be burned. Hence holy and sanctified meat was not to be thrown to dogs because it was holy… So what is being said? Sacred matters, sacred things, wisdom and participation in sacred things should not be easily offered to those who are incapable of appreciating them.”

And who are these folks incapable of appreciating holiness? According to the monsignor, “There are those who despise what we call holy. There is little that can be done in such cases except deny them the pleasure of tearing apart holy things or trampling them underfoot. Jesus is saying that some people are like dogs who tear apart sacred things and have no concept of their holiness… They simply trample under foot anything that does not please them or make sense to them in the same way that pigs would trample pearls underfoot or dogs irreverently tear apart blessed food dedicated to God.”

Okay, so he doesn’t give out names, bit I’m sure we can all think of a few comedians and political personalities who fit the bill. Not sure it’s politically correct to call such people dogs these days, but hey, if the collar fits…

THE TWELVE CLIPS OF CHRISTMAS: DAY 2: RANKIN & BASS’ THE THING

On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me… two turtle doves? That’s nice, but why are there two of them? Is this some kind of trick? What if one of them isn’t a dove at all, but just something that looks like a dove? What if it’s not a bird at all, but someTHING else!?! AIEEEE!!!!

Blasted Things, they’re worse than roaches, almost impossible to get rid of once one of them gets in the house.

Fortunately, that’s not really what’s going on with the two turtle doves. Along with the usual connotation of peace that a dove symbolizes, that line from The Twelve Days of Christmas could also be a reference to the practice of sacrificing two doves mentioned in the Bible. As the Biblical Archaeology Society points out, “Several passages of the Torah (especially Leviticus) specify occasions that require the sacrifice of two doves (or young pigeons)—either as a guilt offering or to purify oneself after a period of ritual impurity (including the birth of a child). Several columbaria, or dovecotes, have been excavated in the City of David and the Jerusalem environs. These towers were undoubtedly used to raise doves for sacrificial offerings, as well as for the meat and fertilizer they provided—a popular practice in the Hellenistic and Roman periods that continued into the modern period.”

As pointed out in the Gospel of Luke, Mary and Joseph followed this tradition after the birth of Jesus. “When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, just as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,’ and to offer the sacrifice of ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,’ in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord… When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.”

Interestingly enough, this passage is the only one in the New Testament which directly alludes to the financial status of the Holy Family. While Joseph is referred to as a craftsman (tektonos) in the Gospel of Matthew, that could mean anything from a day laborer to a master in his field. But the offering of two turtle doves, which Leviticus points out was a practice reserved for the poor who couldn’t afford one dove and one lamb, strongly suggests the Holy Family wasn’t very well off. That doesn’t mean they were dirt poor as Joseph obviously had a job, but they weren’t rolling in the dough either.

So who knows, by giving you two turtle doves on the second day of Christmas, your true love might be wishing you peace, but it’s also possible she could be suggesting that (a) she’s too poor to give you anything else, or (b) you might just have your very own Nativity on the way. Hopefully it’s ‘a’, because if it’s ‘b’ then you’ve got some confessing to do as the golden rings don’t show up for three more verses. Still, if it is ‘b’, at least you’ve already got the two turtle doves as a guilt offering.

You know what, let’s just stick with the peace thing.

THE TWELVE CLIPS OF CHRISTMAS: DAY 1: THE HAND IS PINKER THAN THE EYE

Last year (Church year that is) I had some fun with the Catechism in a Year mailing list, so this year, it seemed natural to sign up for studying the Gospels in a Year, a short daily reading accompanied by notes from the Ignatius Study Bible.

Today, this little verse from Matthew 6:22 popped up. “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” What is that supposed to mean exactly, if your eye is sound? Is Jesus warning us not to trust our eyes? Well, that can definitely be a problem sometimes, as the Pink Panther once learned firsthand…

Actually, according to the Ignatius Study Bible, “the eye is the lamp” is “an ancient metaphor (Tob 10:5; Prov 15:30; Sir 23:19),” one which references the poetic concept that our eyes are the windows to our hearts and minds. In other words, what we focus our vision on (metaphorically speaking) is what our hearts treasure. In the context of Matthew 6, Jesus is using it “to advocate generosity. Those with evil or unsound eyes are stingy with their belongings (Deut 15:9; Sir 14:8-10; cf. Mt 20:15); they are full of darkness (6:23). Those with sound eyes share their goods with the needy (4:7); they are filled with light.”

So if your inner eyes are focused on your own selfish desires rather than on helping others, then you need a little spiritual help. However, if your problem is that your actual physical eyes are seeing things like the Pink Panther did, perhaps a psychiatrist might be of more immediate benefit.

PULP CATHOLICISM #048

WEEKLY NEWSREEL

Good evening Mr. & Mrs. Catholic, and all you other Christians at sea, welcome to another edition of the Newsreel. We’ve been away for a short while, but our recent review of Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues at Aleteia has prompted our return. Now off to press.

DATELINE: BETHLEHEM – Unless you’ve spent the last few weeks in cave, then you’re probably well aware that Christmas, the day Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary, will soon be upon us. Parthenogenesis, the act of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual, is actually pretty common amongst certain insects and invertebrates, and occurs much less frequently in some of the lower vertebrates. But it is nigh impossible for a highly developed creature like a human, at least according to Marisa Bartolomei, a molecular geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania, due to the overwhelming number of random mutations which would be required to make the process work. “Is there a mutation that could eliminate all imprinting, so we would see that we didn’t need Dad or Mom in order to have normal development?” the doctor asks. “This is a question that people have asked a lot, and we don’t know the answer.” So unfortunately for all of us who celebrate the virgin birth of Jesus, science appears to say that no such event is ever likely to occur barring an act of God. Oh, wait…

DATELINE: INNERSPACE – In other news that comes as absolutely no surprise to Christians, but appears to have flummoxed a few scientists, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania (they sure are busy there this year) have determined that the brains of men and women are different. The study, one of the largest of its kind, indicates “greater neural connectivity from front to back and within one hemisphere in males, suggesting their brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action. In contrast, in females, the wiring goes between the left and right hemispheres, suggesting that they facilitate communication between the analytical and intuition. Ragini Verma, PhD, suggests, “These maps show us a stark difference--and complementarity--in the architecture of the human brain that helps provide a potential neural basis as to why men excel at certain tasks, and women at others.” Blessed John Paul II, who in his 2004 letter to the Bishops on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the world, wrote, “The second creation account (Gn 2:4-25) confirms in a definitive way the importance of sexual difference.” could not be reached for comment on the scientists’ findings, but we imagine his general reaction would be something along the lines of, “Well, duh!”

DATELINE: THE DEEP BLUE SEA – Speaking of the creation account, perhaps you remember the episode from Genesis wherein God allowed Adam to name all of the animals. “So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals.” Well, you know us humans, we couldn’t just let it go at that. Take the octopus for example. A recent article in the Scientific American informs us that having now given a name to each of the creature’s tentacles, scientists are now working feverishly to individually identify each of the 2,000+ suckers that line the appendages. Ah well, the Catechism does tell us that “basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation.” So if nothing else, this research will show those octopi that from now on there’s no way that they can sneak in an extra sucker without us knowing about it. We were left in charge here, after all.

And on that note, we’ll close out the latest of the Newsreel, ending it, as is our custom, with the immortal words of the great Les Nessman. Good evening, and may the good news be yours.

PULP CATHOLICISM #047

SHORT FEATURE: THE HOBBIT

Hmm, let’s see.

1. Catholic blogger.
2. Asked to review new releases by Catholic website.
3. Major motion picture being released this week based on a novel by a beloved Catholic author.

Yeah, I’d say all that makes the odds about 1000% that I reviewed The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug for Aleteia this week.

Okay, so if you read the review, you know I opened it with a brief history of the very first attempt to bring The Hobbit to the big screen back in the mid-60s. Well, if that 12-minute long version of Tolken’s novel with no dwarfs and an ending wherein Bilbo marries a princess sounds like something you’d want to see, here you go…

Kind of makes the changes Peter Jackson made to his version of the story seem trivial in comparison, doesn’t it? And make no mistake, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is Jackson’s version, not Tolkien’s, not even close. If you can accept that, then it’s not impossible that you just might find you’re able to enjoy the movie for what it is, an extremely well made fantasy adventure with themes that pale in comparison to the original, but can be worth exploring in their own right. You know, it’s sort of the same thing you have to do when watching Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, which is in no way the same story as Stephen King’s The Shining.

But if your well justified devotion to Tolkien doesn’t allow you to do any more than sit in the theater with a dog-eared highlighted copy of The Hobbit reading along with the movie and tsk-tsking every little deviation between the page and the screen, well, you might as well stay home. You have nothing to look forward to in Jackson’s movie except bitter disappointment.

If any of you do manage to get to the theater to see The Desolation of Smaug this weekend, be sure to drop me a note and let me know what you thought, positive or negative. Until then, I’ll be out in the backyard with my son lopping the heads off of orcs with his Nerf swords.

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

Unfortunately, my review gig over at Aleteia doesn’t always involve movies full of space aliens, wizards, or things that go bump in the night. For instance, this past week I took a look at Inside Llewyn Davis, the latest quirky character study from the Coen Brothers which follows one week in the life of a sullen, miserable folk singer in pre-Bob Dylan Greenwich Village. Doesn’t that sound awful? Well, don’t disown me, but I actually kind of liked it. What can I say? I spent my high school and college years hanging out with musicians, so I’ve got a soft spot for them, sue me.

While I was being all serious, it actually fell to Brantly Millegan to discuss 6 hilariously weird Christmas movies that actually exist. It probably comes as no surprise that three of those movies have already been reviewed in full here, here, and here at the B-Movie Catechism. Never let it be said that we don’t keep the Christmas spirit around these parts.

Also over at Aleteia (they’ve really been churning out the movie stuff this month), Daniel McInerny discusses the philosophical underpinnings of the three act structure, Lilia Draime opines on the trials and tribulations of being a Catholic fangirl, and Kim Scharfenberger asks what’s so great about the Hunger Games? Actually, I myself found Catching Fire to be only slightly above average, while Sr. Helena at Hells Burns considered it entertaining, but problematic.

On the flip side, one movie I did really like this year that many of my fellow critics didn’t was Man of Steel (Superman killed people in the comics, look it up and deal with it), so I’m always happy when I run across a fellow blogger like Nod over at Wynken, Blynken & Nod who seems to have enjoyed it as well. I also like running across genre-related posts by bloggers who don’t normally dip their toes in the murky waters we swim in here on a daily basis. Such is the case with Maria Johnson at Another Cup Of Coffee who foregoes her usual musings to ponder the storylines on Almost Human and Agents of SHIELD.

As long as we’re talking television, we may as well help everyone cope with the mid-season hiatus of The Walking Dead by pointing out a couple of articles from a couple of unlikely sources. It seems both The Crescat and Deacon Greg Kandra have declared the show to be fully Catholic. You can find out why here and here. And for those anxiously awaiting the annual Doctor Who Christmas special, Terry Mattingly discusses why the show’s faith is real, but it’s never really Christmas.

And finally, just in case you missed it, Patrick Coffin reminds us that The Exorcist just turned 40, and offers up his thoughts on why the film remains a one of a kind masterpiece.

That should be plenty to keep your browser busy for awhile. I’ll see you next time.

PULP CATHOLICISM #046

THINGS TO COME: DOMINION & THE LOST YEARS

“Believing in God, the only One, and loving him with all our being has enormous consequences for our whole life.” the Catechism tells us. “It means living in thanksgiving: if God is the only One, everything we are and have comes from him.” And sometimes his generosity is overwhelming.

You see, my love for pooping on the 2010 film Legion is well known around these parts, so you can imagine my reaction when the SyFy channel announced it was considering a weekly series based on the film. Well, according to Entertainment Weekly, it’s happening.

The network’s version is called Dominion (working title) and will be based on characters from the film. Official description: “Dominion is an epic supernatural drama set in the year 25 A.E. In this transformed post–apocalyptic future an army of lower angels, assembled by the archangel Gabriel, has waged a war of possession against mankind. The archangel Michael, turning against his own kind, has chosen to side with humanity against Gabriel. Rising out of the ashes of the 25 year-long battle are newly fortified cities which protect the human survivors. In Vega (formerly Las Vegas), the largest of these cities, two houses vie for control and the stage is set for political upheaval and a dangerous power shift. Meanwhile, a rebellious young soldier begins a perilous journey as the war between the human race and the fallen angels hell-bent on their domination escalates.”

Even from that brief description, the opportunities to poop on this show seem endless! But I’d best not waste it all on Dominion because it just might have some stiff competition from a new show The History Channel is developing. If Deadline.com is correct…

The History Channel is finalizing deals for the project, from feature writer Scott Kosar (The Machinist) and producers Eli Roth (the Hostel franchise) and Eric Newman (The Thing). Titled The Lost Years, the drama explores the undocumented years of Jesus’ life as a young adult… The Lost Years is based on an original idea by Kosar who developed it with Roth and Newman. All three have strong horror pedigree — Kosar co-wrote The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror and The Crazies, and Roth and Newman jointly produced The Last Exorcism franchise in addition to their other horror credits. That is not a coincidence — nor is Roth and Newman’s exorcism connection. I hear that The Lost Years was conceived in the horror genre, and it explores a theory about Jesus’ origins as an exorcist.

Oh, that sounds like a good idea, right? As I asked of our reader (and sometimes contributor) Xena when she brought this to my attention, what was the History Channel thinking? “We broke ratings records by producing a mini-series that was goofy, but generally reverent to the world's largest religion. I'm sure all of those same people will tune in again if we make something that craps all over their beliefs, right? It stars that same Jesus character, after all!” Amazing.

Bless us, Oh Lord, and these thy gifts! You love the little bloggers so much you have given them two shows to poop upon! "What shall I render to the LORD for all his bounty to me?"

SHORT FEATURE: THE SNOW MAN

So, last week I reviewed Frozen for Aleteia. This was the film that was supposed to mark Disney’s big return to the glory of their animation Renaissance which began with The Little Mermaid. Unfortunately, the film fell a little short of the mark. Still, it had its good parts and my kid thought the talking snowman was pretty funny.

That’s to be expected, of course, because usually such creatures are jolly happy souls. But not all of them. This guy, for instance, is a downright cold hearted monster…

That’s the way it is sometimes, isn’t it? One second your snowman is a playful pal, and the next he turns into a cackling, slobbering, butt-naked, homicidal maniac intent on devouring you whole (they just don’t make quality children’s entertainment like that anymore). I hate it when that happens.

The Catechism tells us that “St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best.” Well, being a Saint, he would say something like that, wouldn’t he? Personally, I wish I could say I had that kind of faith every single time events turn tail and head in a rotten direction, but, alas, God still has a bit of work to do on me before I get to pose for my holy card.

But even though I don’t always show it, I still believe deep inside, as the Catechism says, that “only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God "face to face", will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive Sabbath rest for which he created heaven and earth.” Even the bad times mean something, and that’s nice to know.

PULP CATHOLICISM #045