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

PULP CATHOLICISM #044

INTERMISSION

Between the upcoming holiday, pressing family matters, and the usual pre-holiday work crush, it looks like blogging will be light this week. You can always head over to Aleteia to see what I thought of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and I’ll try to keep the cartoon schedule intact, but otherwise, you’ll mercifully be spared my ramblings for a few days. I hope everybody has a happy Thanksgiving and a great start to Advent. See you in a bit.

PULP CATHOLICISM #043

OUTTAKES #047

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

I felt like I needed a break from all the planet shattering destruction to be found at the local cineplexes (at least for a day or two), so I decided to take in Giacomo Campiotti’s Mary of Nazareth for Aleteia this week. It’s probably not going to make the list of ten best biblical epics of all time, but it’s a decent movie with a few nice touches. Marya Jauregui from Catholic Mom has pretty much the same impression of The Christmas Candle, the first movie produced by former Senator Rick Santorum.

Now if you’ve just got to have a religious epic, though, then you’re probably going to have to wait for Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, coming out in March 2014. Peter Chattaway has an exhaustive frame-by-frame breakdown of the first trailer over at Film Chat.

As for non-biblical epics, you might remember that a few weeks ago I reviewed Ender’s Game, the adaptation of Orson Scott Crad’s classic sci-fi novel. Well, some other folks have finally gotten around to seeing it, and as I expected, those who were really big fans of the book were a little disappointed in some of the things left out of the movie. If you want to know just how much didn’t make the transition, then look no further than Jimmy Akin’s review for all the disappointing details. Jordan J. Ballor over at the Acton Institute, however, still managed to find some good moral lessons in what was still left in there.

Speaking of recent releases people are still talking about, Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity is still impressing people, as this piece by Daniel McInerny illustrates.

But enough of all that serious stuff, let’s have some fun. Otaku Catholic recently watched the anime series, The Devil Is a Part-Timer, in which an extra-dimensional Satan gets trapped in our world and decides to get a job at McDonald’s. Meanwhile, in other comic related news, Matt Archbold has a post up about Catholic with capes, those super-heroes with strong ties to Rome. And if those guys aren’t Catholic enough for you, there’s always Father Dangerous: Bionic Priest whose first trailer is up and running at YouTube (h/t Mark Shea).

Finally, if you haven’t had enough goofiness, Donald R. McClarey takes a little time at The American Catholic to discuss Shakespeare in its original Klingon.

And with that, we’ll leave you until next time. See you then.

PULP CATHOLICISM #042

CUTAWAYS: GHOSTBUSTERS

One of the more noticeable things in Thor: The Dark World (which I just so happened to review for Aleteia this week, plug, plug) is how the filmmakers go out of their way to explain that the Asgardians are not gods, but rather just really, really powerful and long-lived aliens instead. I don’t know, maybe they had an aneurysm or something, because it seems like somebody on the screenwriting staff completely forgot about this scene from Ghostbusters…

So, yes, if somebody asks you if you’re a god, you say yes! Besides, the Catechism says it’s okay to do just that, doesn’t it? You know, right there in paragraph 460 where it quotes 2 Peter 1:4, as well as the writings of St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius…

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

See, we’re gods. Gods I tell you! Or maybe not.

What Peter and the other saints are talking about here is the concept of Divine Filiation, aka Divine Sonship. As Fr. Joseph Ponessa, S.S.D., co-author of the “Come and See” Catholic Bible Study Series, explains it, “While St. Athanasius’s quote might be easily misunderstood, the previous line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catechism), from St. Irenaeus, provides the appropriate context… To be the Son of God and to be a son of God are therefore two very different things: Christ is Son by nature (the “only Son” in John 3:16), while we are sons by grace (“sons in the Son” according to Gaudium et Spes, 22). Further, since man is a creature and there is only one God, man can never be God in the proper sense. Within the context of this paragraph, we see that St. Athanasius’s statement means something other than a man becoming the one God.”

So, what does it mean exactly? Well, basically, it all has to do with God making Himself accessible to us. As Fr. Ponessa puts it, “When God created Adam and Eve, He desired them to participate in His divine nature—to be able to love Him in an intimate way that exceeded the normal ability of human nature. So in addition to their human nature, God bestowed on Adam and Eve the supernatural gift of grace of original holiness (Catechism, no. 375). He thereby invited Adam and Eve to love Him as He loves Himself—that is, in a divine way. However, when they sinned, Adam and Eve forfeited this ability to love God supernaturally. Christ became flesh in order to restore our union with God. In Baptism, we are united to Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27)—sharing in His Passion, Death, and Resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:3-4)—and so become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Because there is only one divine nature and this nature is God, we are said to “become” God.”

So, no, we don’t become all powerful gods, or even really powerful Asgardian type gods for that matter. But what we do get when we “become God” is the chance to spend an eternity basking in the light of the one true God’s love. That’s a pretty good deal.

PULP CATHOLICISM #041

THE B-MOVIE CATECHISM: THE B-LIST: QUESTIONABLE MUSICAL MOMENTS #15 – DONNIE & MARIE: MONSTER MASH

Okay, so this clip isn’t actually from a movie, but it has Michael Landon reprising his role as the Teenage Werewolf (and singing while doing it, no less) and Don Knotts & Billy Barty belting out a rendition of the Monster Mash, so frankly, who cares where it came from? Plus, on top of all that, there’s a couple of Mormons running around dressed up as vampires. No, no, not Bella and Edward, I wouldn’t be so cruel as to do that to you. I’m talking about those other two Mormon vampires…

I’ll admit, Twilight notwithstanding, vampires and werewolves aren’t normally the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Mormons. Usually the first image that pops into someone’s head is probably that of well-dressed men riding around on bicycles and knocking on your door way too early in the morning. Alright, so there’s also polygamy and magic underwear, but to be fair, the former has been officially discontinued by the LDS and the latter is just a snarky term for one of their religious customs. For my part, I won’t cast any stones at their Mormon long-johns as long as they lay off my Catholic “magic amulets” (yes, I know and you know they’re not magic, but that’s what some people who don’t understand sacramentals call them anyway). I say, let the LDS wear whatever they want to wear.

When it comes to doctrines of faith though, well, there I suppose I’m going to have to give the Mormons a bit of a tough time simply because the differences are just too great. True, it doesn’t always seem that way on the surface, but once you dig around a bit, it becomes more obvious. For instance, back in 1994, a gathering of well known Christian theologians released a document entitled Evangelicals and Catholics Together which was basically an ecumenical attempt to reach a minimum level of agreement on the basics of the Christian faith. After a lot of thoughtful debate (and the requisite amount of yelling at each other), they finally settled on the Apostles’ Creed (the one we say with the rosary) as the minimum standard for an agreed upon Christian doctrine. Oh sure, they haggled over stuff like whether or not the Creed meant “catholic church” or “Catholic Church” (those capital letters can make a big difference), but in the end they all accepted the wording.

Now the LDS weren’t a part of ECT, but some of their holy writings would seem to indicate they wouldn’t have been able to accept the group’s conclusions even if they had been. After all, according to the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, when he asked God which church he should join, he writes, “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith – History 1:19).” But apparently things have softened up a bit out in Salt Lake City these days, because most modern Mormons appear to have little trouble with the Apostle’s Creed. In a response to a fan’s question regarding the subject, Donnie Osmond claims that “If we were to insert The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in place of ‘The Holy Catholic Church’, it would define our beliefs about God and Christ very well.”

That sounds pretty good, until you get into specifics. The trouble starts almost immediately with the first words of the Creed, “I believe in God the Father…” Obviously the Mormons believe in God, that’s not the problem, but they do have an entirely different concept of who and what God is than does traditional Christianity. The LDS believe, for example, that “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s… (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)”, a belief that stands in stark contrast to the orthodox teaching that God is pure spirit. So, everybody can say the first line of the Creed together, but they don’t really mean the same thing as they’re saying it.

But so what, right? What does it matter as long as Mormons are good people? I mean, Donnie & Marie may have been guilty of putting on a silly variety show, but offstage they seem like decent folks, so why worry about their beliefs? Well, because the kinds of differences we’re talking about actually get to the heart of the purpose of religion. You see, religion isn’t just about making good people. Any good course on ethics, even perhaps an atheist one, can manage that. Religion is about responding to God’s call “to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength” so that we may eventually “share in his own blessed life.” That would seem to indicate that a false knowledge of God might just have some pretty big consequences.

For instance, the Mormon belief that God has a physical body implies that something, somewhere, at some point in time, must have created God. If that’s true, why bother worshipping God? Why not worship the even more omnipotent thing that made him instead? Worse yet, if that larger thing is unknowable (the Mormon’s certainly haven’t said what it might be), then why bother worshipping anything at all? See, bad knowledge can lead to bad results. Now contrast that idea with the traditional understanding of God whom the Catechism describes as “the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is.” Now that’s a God worthy of worship.

So let the Mormons keep their itchy underwear and their non-threatening vampires, those things are no big deal. Some of the other stuff, though, I’m afraid we’re just gonna have to keep butting heads over. The stakes (sorry, vampires, no pun intended)are a bit too high.

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

Yes, I know we did a Now Showing recently, but every time Halloween rolls around the big shots in the blogosphere can’t seem to help dipping their toes in the murky waters we splash around in on a weekly basis, so there’s lots of fun stuff to be found out there.

First up, we have our review of Ender’s Game, the much anticipated, and much protested (to the disgust of John C. Wright), adaptation of Orson Scott Card’s classic sci-fi novel. Fans of the book will likely wince out how much has been left out of the story, but at least they can console themselves with the fact that the finished product doesn’t stink. But let’s face it, no matter how good the adaptation, the book will (almost) always be better. For instance, as much as I love Robert Wise’s 1963 movie The Haunting (and equally loathe the 1999 remake), nothing will ever top Shirley Jackson’s original novel The Haunting of Hill House, as Scott and Julie over at A Good Story Is Hard To Find will attest to.

Speaking of that proposed protest of Ender’s Game, early indications from the box office are that the movie will probably earn a few million more than originally projected, so it looks like all that fist raising on the Internet will have a minimal effect on its success. Regardless of how well Ender’s Game does, though, it still won’t come close to Gravity, the hands down runaway blockbuster of the season. As you might remember from our review of Gravity, we found the film visually stunning and emotionally immersive, but perhaps a bit light on philosophy. Others have not had that problem, however. Sr Helena at Hell Burns found the movie a bit more spiritual than I did, and CatholicSkywalker found it even more so. And then there’s Kathryn over at Aleteia, who dug really deep and managed to find in Gravity an allegory for botched abortions. So there you go.

Maybe people are just hungry for any hint of real spirituality in movies these days. And really, it’s hard to blame them. After all, it’s not like religion, especially Christianity, has gotten that fair a shake from Hollywood over the past few decades. As evidence, just take a look at Donald R. McClarey’s review of Dr. Peter Dans’ book Christians in the Movies: A Century of Saints and Sinners, which chronicles the portrayal of Christians and Christianity in films made between 1905-2008. I’ll give you a hint. Starting in the 60s, it ain’t a pretty picture.

Speaking of which, I can’t imagine an uglier spectacle than Spears The Musical: The Gospel According To Britney. That’s right, some intrepid playwright is proposing a mash-up of the gospels with the pop princess’ performances. As ridiculous as the idea sounds, I’m sure it will find an audience. Liturgical dancers everywhere are probably already salivating.

I suppose we’ll just have to try and laugh that one off. If you’d rather look at something intentionally funny, however, you can always head over to Sword of Peter, where Jeff has his latest cartoon up.

And with that, I’ll stop living off of other people’s posts for the moment and try to get to work on my own stuff. Until then, see you next time.

PULP CATHOLICISM #040

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

Look, I know I was complaining earlier about the lack of scary movies in theaters this Halloween, but I was talking about the fun make-believe kind. 12 Years A Slave, which I reviewed for Aleteia this week, is an all too real horror story. Still, if you don’t mind being reminded just how terrible people can be to their fellow man, then it’s definitely a movie worth watching.

But you can only sit through so many depictions of real human misery before it’s time to take a little fantasy break. Fortunately, while the multiplexes may have forgotten Halloween for the most part, the blogosphere hasn’t. Edward Mordrake at Crisis Magazine takes a look at the presentation of evil in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, while Terry Mattingly at Get religion gives The Exorcist yet another viewing.

In more general overviews of terror, Jason Dietz at Non-Modern considers the genre of werewolf films and their reflection of the curse of sin on mankind. Meanwhile, A. T. Ross from Speculative Faith discusses ways in which we can redeem zombies by diving into the symbols and spirituality buried (so to speak) in the tales of the walking dead.

Of course, it just wouldn’t be Halloween if someone didn’t take up the perennial question of whether or not Christians should celebrate the holiday or not. This year the honor falls to Sean Fitzpatrick at Crisis Magazine, who takes the yea side with his post, All Hallows Eve or Halloween?, and C. W. Lyons at Catholic Exchange, who falls on the nay side with his article, The Mystery & Modern Mayhem of Halloween.

Curious as to which side of the debate the ever popular Simcha Fisher falls on? Perhaps her post on making her son a paper mache Army of Darkness chainsaw hand might give you a clue.

And that, my friends, is as a good a place to end this edition of Now Showing as any. See you next time.

PULP CATHOLICISM #039

SHORT FEATURE – THE SHINING IN 8-BIT

What’s going on in Hollywood? It’s Halloween season and the best the multiplexes can muster up in the way of scary movies is another tired remake? Is that really all we’re getting? Oh well, it is what it is. You can check out my review of the latest take on Carrie over at Aleteia. Trust me, if you’ve seen even one of the four previous versions of this story (I highly recommend tracking down the 1988 musical on YouTube for some jaw-dropping hilarity), then there’s absolutely nothing new for you in this one. Now, maybe if they had taken a different approach, like say in this remake of The Shining…

Well, it’s like I keep telling my kids, there’s always more than one way to tell a story. That’s true even in the Bible. The books of Kings and the books of Chronicles overlap one another, but with varying perspectives due to the different times they were written in. And, of course, the four Gospels cover pretty much the same material (give or take a few incidents), but each has a different audience in mind, and so each has a distinct feel, not to mention theological emphasis, from the other three. Mark concentrates on Jesus as a man like ourselves, while John emphasizes Jesus' divine nature. Matthew details the Jewishness of Jesus, while Luke concentrates on how he relates to the gentiles. Each gospel tells the same story, and yet each brings something fresh to the story, some new insight into our relationship with God through Jesus.

Alas, Hollywood seems to have learned little from the Gospels. Oh, occasionally we’ll get something like John Carpenter’s The Thing or David Cronenberg’s The Fly, but for the most part we get remakes like Carrie, movies that cover the same exact ground as their predecessors while offering little new insight to the characters or situations. These things have little reason to exist other than to make a quick buck, but that’s the only reason Hollywood needs to keep making them anyway, so we’re stuck with them. And I’ll have to go review them, probably even the upcoming remake of (why, Lord, why) Endless Love. Now that’ll be scary.

PULP CATHOLICISM #038

HAPPY HAPPY HALLOWEEN VII

It’s that time of the year again, time for the B-Movie Catechism to present it’s annual suggestions for cheap and easy to make costumes based on some of the movies we’ve discussed over the past twelve months, either here or at Aleteia. We do this every year as a service to those Christians who don’t particularly like the selection of serial killers & naughty panthers to be found at the local costume shop, but who also don’t want to resort to dressing up as angels or shepherds AGAIN just to go trunk or treating in the church parking lot.

First up is Frankenstein Island, Jerry Warren’s last foray into the fever dream world of low budget film making. Choosing just a single character from Frankenstein Island is tough. Should it be the insane one-eyed pirate? Or maybe the bikini clad amazon? How about the strange Phillipino guy with a syringe and an eyeball fetish? No, for pure low budget goodness it’s probably best to go with the zombie holding a magic plastic pitchfork that turns people into vampires. All you need to put together this ensemble is an old black sweater, a ratty wool cap, and a prop from the dollar store. Then you can explain to everyone who asks what the heck it is you’re supposed to dressed as how your costume represents the seemingly random stuff we’re confronted with in life and how God has an answer to it all if you’re willing to listen.

If you’d prefer something a bit more recognizable, however, then perhaps Kris Kringle himself from Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny would be more to your liking. Any dirty old Santa suit will do, even a homemade one, just as long as you remember the most important detail, the horrifying sweat stain puddling up in the crotch area. If the people whose homes you trick or treat at don’t immediately slam the door shut in your face, you’ll be able to explain to them that your costume is a not-so-gentle reminder that during the upcoming Advent season, it’s really not Santa they should be waiting for anyway.

As nice as that idea is, though, perhaps you’d rather stick with something a bit more Halloweeny, and what says Halloween more than witches? Now the great thing about the witches (or casters, as they prefer to be called) from Beautiful Creatures is that they all look and dress just like any other teenager pouting around the mall on a Saturday afternoon, so if you already shop there, your costume is 99% done. If not, chances are you can probably find some cheap Forever 21 stuff down at the consignment shop. The only other thing you’ll need to make this costume a success is an atrocious Hollywood-style Southern accent, the kind that would put Foghorn Leghorn to shame, on account o' y’all knows thass how all us Southerners talk. As your neighbors rush to burn you alive (either for being a witch or for hamming up your dialog so horribly), you can use your new dialect to explain how no one should rush to judge another. Even the Pope says so.

One costume His Holiness might be a bit iffy on, however, is the shotgun wielding nun from Freejack. It’s not just the big double barreled boomstick the good sister is carrying that the Pontiff might find questionable, but the constant stream of profanities that apparently come with it. Who did the writers of this movie think the nun was anyway, a seminarian arguing eschatology in his dorm room late at night? Nuns shouldn’t talk that way. But still, she made some good points in between all the cussing. And if you decide to wear this traditional get-up with a twist, so can you, using your words (and possibly your weapon) to convince others that there’s more to people than just their memories. They all have immortal souls as well.

Speaking of heady thoughts, what could possibly be more contemplative than a Terrence Malick film? If you’re looking for a costume with a more artistic bent to it, why not dress up as one of the characters from Malick’s To The Wonder? This is another outfit where most of it is already hanging in your closet. Just pick out your favorite casual wear and you’re almost ready to go. You’ll only need two accessories. One is a big picture of a tree, so that whenever anyone looks at you, you can quickly hold it up in front of your face so no one can see you for more than a minute at a time, just like Malick films his actors. The second accessory is some kind of voice recorder which will be used if someone begins to question your sanity over of the tree thing. If that happens, just hit play and have your prerecorded message tell them in voiceover that everything’s alright because the “love that loves us” is watching over us and will make everything okay. To make it even more Malick-y, be sure to twirl around wistfully while your message plays.

And that should do it for our costume ideas this year. Have a fun time trick or treating and don’t forget All Saints the next day. Happy Happy Halloween everyone.

SHORT FEATURE: POPEYE & THE PIRATES

My latest review for Aleteia is up. It’s been awhile since Tom Hanks has had a chance to give a really good performance (sorry, Dan Brown movies just don’t cut it), but odds are that Captain Phillips (the last 15 minutes in particular) will net him another Oscar nod. Not bad for a guy whose first role was in the Halloween knock-off, He Knows You’re Alone.

Now, unless you’ve completely missed every commercial for Captain Phillips, then you know the movie is based on a true incident involving a merchant ship that comes under assault by Somali pirates. From what’s depicted onscreen I’d have to say it was a pretty harrowing situation, but Phillips and his crew dealt with it well all things considered. Still, I couldn’t help but think, you know who really knows how to handle pirates? Popeye, that’s who…

So, what was with that mysterious edit around 4:38? Just what the heck was Popeye whipping out of that dress that someone really didn’t want us to see? I mean, what could possibly be worse than Popeye in a dress to begin with? According to Fred M. Grandinetti’s book, Popeye: An Illustrated Cultural History, nobody knows and probably nobody ever will. The edit was made for the short’s first run in television syndication way back when and no unedited version seems to exist. I guess we’ll just have to use our imaginations. Which, you know, will probably result in a far worse mental image than whatever the  mystery editor actually removed in the first place.

Probably best not to think about it. Besides, when it comes to Popeye, what most people really tune in to see is the eating of spinach followed by the inevitable kicking of somebody’s rear end, in this case a lecherous pirate captain obviously in need of a good monocle. It’s a shame Captain Phillips didn’t have a can or two of the stuff lying around when pirates paid him a visit because, believe it or not, thanks to its high concentration of nitrate, eating spinach really can help you get stronger. Who knew? Besides Popeye that is?

Of course, it shouldn’t come as that much of a shock to us Catholics. Most of us should already know how eating certain things, especially the Eucharist, can bring benefits. According to the old Baltimore Catechism, “the chief effects of a worthy Holy Communion are: first, a closer union with Our Lord and a more fervent love of God and of our neighbor; second, an increase of sanctifying grace; third, preservation from mortal sin and the remission of venial sin; fourth, the lessening of our inclinations to sin and the help to practice good works.” Not bad, huh? Oh sure, it’s not the kind of stuff that’s going to help you punch a pirate in the face, but really, how often are you going to need that? A closer union with God, though, is probably something you’ll want every day.

PULP CATHOLICISM #037

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

This week’s review for Aleteia is Gravity, a tight little nail-biter with outstanding visuals. The movie falls a bit short on philosophy, but makes up for it in suspense and action. That doesn’t seem to be enough for author and critic Jeffrey Overstreet, though, who finds Gravity to be, like so many other modern movies, loud, obnoxious, and almost completely lacking in human qualities. To help calm Mr. Overstreet down and convince him that there is still good in the world, here’s a quick tale of two wise women helping a young astronaut as he faces an all too human crisis…

Wow, you could really feel the tension there near the end, couldn’t you? I didn’t know which way Bobby was going to go. Fortunately it all worked out “okay” and nothing blew up. Maybe they’re saving that for the sequel.

Perhaps it would be better if we simply moved on to a movie almost everybody can agree was just plain dumb. If you remember my review of World War Z, you know I found the Brad Pitt vehicle to be enjoyable enough for a night’s viewing, but ultimately brainless (no zombie puns intended). Well, now that the DVD has hit the shelves and those who skipped the theatrical release have had a chance to see it, it looks like a consensus is forming. Scott & Julie over at the A Good Story Is Hard To Find podcast discuss both the book and the movie, and ultimately decide the movie was much less meaty (okay, I did that one on purpose). Later, Julie goes into a bit more detail at The Happy Catholic as to why she enjoyed the film, but thought it would be better if were entitled Fast, Furious, and Stupid. Jason Dietz at Non-Modern, alas, couldn’t even manage to find too much enjoyment in the film, finding the whole thing to be pretty lifeless (I can do this zombie stuff all night, folks, although it would be best if someone stopped me).

Let’s face it, it’s hard to find a movie everyone will enjoy. Fortunately, it’s October, and that means Turner Classics will be rolling out plenty of classic horror and sci-fi titles this month, so there’s bound to be something for everyone. Check out the schedule, especially Fridays and Saturdays. I may not leave the house on the weekends.

If you’re one of the unfortunate few who can’t handle the scary, however, don’t worry, there’s some funny stuff out there as well. Rebecca Cussey has an interview with Everybody Loves Raymond’s Patricia Heaton in which the actress discusses faith and culture. Meanwhile, over at the National Catholic Reporter (what, even they can print something worth reading every now and then), noted sitcom writer Tom Leopold discusses how a 75-year-old ex-Marine riding a homemade motorcycle with deer antlers for handlebars brought him to the Church. Mysterious ways indeed.

And finally, in the shameless plug department, Pope Awesome and Other Stories, the first book by our Internet pal and occasional commenter Cari Donaldson, is available for preorder. A lot of big shots out there, including Jim Gaffigan, really seem to like it, so why not check it out.

That should do it for now, see you soon.

PULP CATHOLICSM #036

SHORT FEATURE: THE BODY ELECTRIC

This week for Aleteia I took in Rush, Ron Howard’s latest biopic in which, for the first time in a long while, he doesn’t completely butcher history. It’s a pretty good movie, but I have to admit, the first time I heard Howard was making a biographical film entitled Rush, the old D&D playing nerd in me got my hopes up for this…

Wait, no, not that! I meant this…

What can I say? If you rolled a d20 back in the 80s, you listened to Rush. Bytor and the Snowdog. The Trees. The entire first side of 2112. Their lyrics were a musical goldmine for fantasy/sci-fi geeks. So much so, that in 1985, Canadian television aired a half hour animated sci-fi tale featuring not only themes based on Rush’s lyrics, but also a soundtrack composed entirely of Rush songs. Go ahead and watch it, but don’t blame me if you feel the urge to dig out your dusty old dice bag before it’s over.

I’m thinking someone from Nintendo must have watched this when it first aired, because that nerdy kid was totally messing with everybody with his Power Glove, even though it would be another four years before that useless thing would be released to an unimpressed public.

But I digress. Back to Rush.

You know, Rush has never been a band that was overly sympathetic to Christians. Although never too in-your-face, Neil Peart’s lyrics have at their best communicated a kind of stoic agnosticism. In fact, in his younger days he seemed to have toyed around with some of Ayn Rand’s ideas, although he appears to have rejected most of the extremes of Objectivism as he’s aged. In recent years, however, following the death of his wife and daughter within ten months of one another, there’s no denying that Peart’s lyrics have taken on a more bitterly antagonistic view of religion. The words to the song Faithless pretty much sum up where his head appears to be right now.

I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
I've got my own spirit level for balance
To tell if my choice is leaning up or down
And all the shouting voices
Try to throw me off my course
Some by sermon, some by force
Fools and thieves are dangerous
In the temple and market place

It’s actually kind of easy to sympathize a little with Peart. As the Catechism points out, “Illness and suffering have always been among the gravest problems confronted in human life. In illness, man experiences his powerlessness, his limitations, and his finitude. Every illness can make us glimpse death. Illness can lead to anguish, self-absorption, sometimes even despair and revolt against God.” While I can’t really know what’s in his heart, Peart’s latest songs seem to suggest that the recent tragedies in his family have pushed his agnosticism closer to outright atheism. That’s what it sounds like to me anyway.

It doesn’t have to go that way, though. The Catechism goes on to note that illness and suffering “can also make a person more mature, helping him discern in his life what is not essential so that he can turn toward that which is. Very often illness provokes a search for God and a return to him.” Through his songs and writings, Peart strikes me as thoughtful guy who’s always reading, always searching. We may not have heard his final verses on the subject of faith just yet. At least I pray that’s the case, both for Peart and all those others out there plagued with doubts.