Mark Shea Is Coming Here!
To St. Joseph and Benton Harbor, Michigan, that is.
Mark, otherwise known as His Serene Munificence, the Holy Roman Emperor, is deigning to bless our fair burg with his Grace, Wisdom, and Wit.
In other words, he's coming here to give a couple of talks to St. Joseph Parish in St. Joseph, and SS. John and Bernard Parish, in Benton Harbor.
Mark will be here on Monday and Tuesday, May 3-4.
Monday, May 3
"An Evangelical Discovers the Eucharist"
St. Joseph Catholic Church; St. Joseph, Michigan
7:30 PM
Tuesday, May 4
"An Evangelical Discovers Mary"
St. Bernard Catholic Church; Benton Harbor, Michigan
7:30 PM
Come one and all!
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Once In a Lifetime Opportunity!
Go on a pilgrimage to France with Mark Shea and I! Not only do you get to see all this cool Catholic stuff in France, you get to do it with us!
September 21 to September 29, 2004.
Pilgrimage includes trips to Lourdes, Paris, Chartres, and Lisieux.
Our gracious and competent tour director is Mark Windsor. To make arrangements, e-mail him at yawper1 [at] comcast.net. For more information, go here or here.
Hope to see you!
Go on a pilgrimage to France with Mark Shea and I! Not only do you get to see all this cool Catholic stuff in France, you get to do it with us!
September 21 to September 29, 2004.
Pilgrimage includes trips to Lourdes, Paris, Chartres, and Lisieux.
Our gracious and competent tour director is Mark Windsor. To make arrangements, e-mail him at yawper1 [at] comcast.net. For more information, go here or here.
Hope to see you!
A Belated Happy Easter to You!
I hope you and yours are enjoying every good spiritual fruit of Our Lord's resurrection. Remember, this whole week is Easter!
Regina Coeli, laetare, Alleluia!
Quia quem meruisti portare, Alleluia!
Resurrexit sicut diixt, Alleluia!
Ora pro nobis Deum, Alleluia!
Christos Anesti! Alleluia!
I hope you and yours are enjoying every good spiritual fruit of Our Lord's resurrection. Remember, this whole week is Easter!
Quia quem meruisti portare, Alleluia!
Resurrexit sicut diixt, Alleluia!
Ora pro nobis Deum, Alleluia!
Christos Anesti! Alleluia!
Friday, April 09, 2004
Good Friday
Sano di Pietro, The Crucifixion, c. 1450
O Sacred Head, surrounded by crown of piercing thorn;
O Bleeding Head so wounded, reviled and put to scorn!
The pow'r of death comes o'er Thee, the glow of life decays,
Yet angel hosts adore Thee, and tremble as they gaze!
I was the celebrant today for my parish's Good Friday service, and it always affects me very deeply. I usually cannot get through all the verses of the Passion Chorale above without choking up, and sometimes weeping. I am struck by my priestly identity as Alter Christus, and by my profound unworthiness for that distinction and privilege. Nonetheless, I am grateful for it, and for my Savior's infinite mercy towards me.
At my parish, we have a large wooden cross that the celebrant carries into the church for the Veneration of the Cross. It stands about 6 feet high and 3 feet across, and weighs about 100 pounds. So I really felt it as I carried it in, and cried out "This is the wood of the cross, on which hung the savior of the world!" And as I carried it, I thought and prayed, "O Lord, how unworthy I am to carry Your cross. How unworthy I am." Never have I felt more deeply how much Jesus has given me. I weep for my sins, and for the immensity of Christ's saving gift of Himself.
We all show our faith and devotion in different ways. But today, even the strongest, most self-disciplined man should have no shame or self-consciousness in weeping at the foot of the cross. Weep for Christ, and for His mercy on us, who merit it not.
For today, God Himself died for you.
What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest friend,
For this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever; and should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee.
Sano di Pietro, The Crucifixion, c. 1450
O Sacred Head, surrounded by crown of piercing thorn;
O Bleeding Head so wounded, reviled and put to scorn!
The pow'r of death comes o'er Thee, the glow of life decays,
Yet angel hosts adore Thee, and tremble as they gaze!
I was the celebrant today for my parish's Good Friday service, and it always affects me very deeply. I usually cannot get through all the verses of the Passion Chorale above without choking up, and sometimes weeping. I am struck by my priestly identity as Alter Christus, and by my profound unworthiness for that distinction and privilege. Nonetheless, I am grateful for it, and for my Savior's infinite mercy towards me.
At my parish, we have a large wooden cross that the celebrant carries into the church for the Veneration of the Cross. It stands about 6 feet high and 3 feet across, and weighs about 100 pounds. So I really felt it as I carried it in, and cried out "This is the wood of the cross, on which hung the savior of the world!" And as I carried it, I thought and prayed, "O Lord, how unworthy I am to carry Your cross. How unworthy I am." Never have I felt more deeply how much Jesus has given me. I weep for my sins, and for the immensity of Christ's saving gift of Himself.
We all show our faith and devotion in different ways. But today, even the strongest, most self-disciplined man should have no shame or self-consciousness in weeping at the foot of the cross. Weep for Christ, and for His mercy on us, who merit it not.
For today, God Himself died for you.
For this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever; and should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Update On Terri Schiavo
And, unfortunately, the news isn't good.
Yesterday, Judge George Greer handed down a ruling denying a motion filed by Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri's parents. The motion requested that Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian, be held in Contempt of Court for failing to comply with a 1996 order issued by another judge. That order required Michael to keep Bob and Mary apprised of Terri's medical condition.
I'll have more to say about the ruling itself later, but first I'll put this in context. The fact is that Michael has consistently withheld information about Terri's condition from the Schindlers since he vowed in 1993 that Bob and Mary would "never see [their] daughter again." When Terri nearly died of a urinary tract infection in 1993, due to Michael's refusal of treatment (which would have consisted of a $10.00 course of antibiotics) the Schindlers only found out about it after the fact from sympathetic medical workers who told them in spite of Michael's gag order, as he himself admitted in a guardianship hearing:
This behavior of Michael's continued, which led the Schindlers to seek and, successfully obtain, a court order from Judge Thomas E. Penick, requiring Michael Schiavo to provide the Schindlers with copies of Terri's annual medical reports, as well as apprising them of any "significant change" in Terri's condition. Unfortunately, Michael persists in stonewalling the Schindlers' requests for medical information and records, and maintains instructions to Terri's caregivers to do the same.
In a conversation with Bob Schindler Monday night, he told me that up until last year, they had never really pursued the enforcement of that order because he and Mary were focused on simply keeping her alive, which fight in the courts and in the organs of public opinion has occupied almost all of their energy for the last 6 years. But recent problems with Terri's health and the deterioration of her level of care had brought this problem to the fore.
Several weeks ago Terri began to have bouts of vomiting. Bob and Mary, understandably concerned, asked personnel from Woodside Hospice for an explanation. They were refused, hospice personnel stating "we can't tell you anything."
Terri's Care Deteriorates
This situation comes on top of a general decline in the quality of care that Terri has been receiving. Many people think that Terri is in a nursing home. She is not. Until recently, she was at Woodside Hospice, in Pinellas Pines, Florida. Hospices, by definition, are dedicated to caring for terminally ill patients in the final stages of life. Hospices offer only basic care to keep the dying person comfortable. They don't offer the same level of care as a nursing home.
The Schindlers have always objected to Terri being kept at the hospice, because Terri is not terminally ill. Furthermore, the Hospice Patients Alliance has also forcefully condemned the placing of disabled people in hospice facilities, saying that such a policy "endangers all disabled citizens of the United States and directly violates their Constitutional rights".
In addition to the inappropriateness of putting Terri in the hospice, the Schindlers have also been unhappy with the lower standard of care Terri has received there. "Before, when Terri was at the nursing home," Bob Schindler said, "the care there was great. They took very good care of her." But nursing homes are a lot more expensive than a hospice, and a look at the summary of expenses from Terri's trust fund (which is solely controlled by Michael), shows that the vast majority of that fund has gone to pay for Michael's lawyers, particularly George Felos. Michael's high expenditures on legal fees explain the apparent need for economies elsewhere. George Felos formerly was on the board of directors of the organization that runs Woodside, Hospice of the Sun Coast, a regional organization that manages Woodside and a number of other hospices in the Tampa - St. Petersburg area. Felos retains close ties to that organization, which doubtless gives him a high degree of control over Terri and her care.
Terri was moved some time ago from the Woodside Hospice to another facility, which, although in a different location, is nonetheless also run by Hospice of the Sun Coast. The move was explained to the Schindlers as motivated by the desire to give Terri a private room. Whatever the reason for the move, it wasn't to provide better care for Terri, as there are now signs that the minimal level of care given by Hospice has declined to outright neglect.
Bob told me Monday night that Terri has not been kept clean at the new facility. He and Mary have noticed on a number of occasions that her hair was greasy and obviously unwashed for days at a time. One employee of the facility, when asked by Mary why Terri had not been bathed, said that the hospice would not supply the toiletries necessary, and asked Mary for money to get shampoo, etc. for Terri. Mary gave the employee $20.00, but the money was returned the following day by a manager, who informed Mary they couldn't accept it. However, Terri is still not being kept clean.
They have frequently visited her and found that she had not been dressed. Terri is frequently not taken out of bed for lengthy periods, and she is not being turned regularly, as is necessary with bedridden patients. This lack of turning has led Terri to develop a decubitus ulcer on her buttock. Decubitus ulcers, commonly known as bedsores, are almost entirely preventable with the most basic of nursing care. Every nursing student learns how to prevent them early in training. Their presence is commonly taken as a sign of neglect.
In addition to the lack of hygiene and the development of the ulcer, Terri has also recently lost a tooth. Bob and Mary have long complained that Terri has not received a dental examination in years, and that she frequently has not had her teeth brushed for lengthy periods. Last year they brought to the attention of the hospice staff that one of Terri's teeth appeared seriously decayed, and had turned black. When several weeks passed and no action was taken, they pressed the hospice staff, who told the Schindlers that they had given Michael recommendations of dentists and oral surgeons, but that apparently he had done nothing. Well, several weeks ago the Schindlers noticed that this tooth was now missing, but that a decayed stump still remained.
The unexplained vomiting, the issue with Terri's tooth, etc., finally got to be more than the Schindlers could bear, and they filed a motion asking that Michael be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with Judge Penick's 1996 order requiring that he keep the Schindlers informed of Terri's condition.
The Unjust Judges Strike Again
Judge Penick's order is rather brief, and seems quite clear. It orders Michael to instruct facilities caring for Terri that they may discuss Terri's condition with Bob and Mary Schindler. It further orders Michael to notify the Schindlers of any "significant change" in Terri's condition.
Judge Greer, who has consistently ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo all along, sometimes despite the evidence and any semblance of logic, did not hand down his ruling last Friday, on the date he had initially set. But he gave a clear indication of how he was going to rule, by making a Clintonian remark about the need to revisit the phrase "significant change" and interpret what it meant. Apparently Judge Greer, when rulings made by other judges are inconvenient, sees his role as helping George Felos to "interpret" them into meaninglessness.
So Judge Greer's decision to deny the Schindlers' motion did not surprise them. "He's been protecting Michael all along," Bob Schindler said, "he almost has to keep doing it now." What is at stake, ultimately, is Michael's guardianship. "If Michael were found to be in contempt," Bob said, "he'd be finished as Terri's guardian." Such a ruling would be new grounds to challenge Michael's guardianship, and any judge would practically have to remove Michael. And once Michael was removed for cause, that would give Governor Bush additional grounds for taking new testimony, re-opening Judge Greer's "findings of fact", upon which his whole history of tendentious decisions is based. For these reasons, one could have reasonably predicted that Judge Greer would do almost anything to avoid finding Michael in contempt. The only good news is that Judge Greer issued his decision "without prejudice", which means that the Schindlers can re-introduce the issue at a later date.
Governor Bush also is seeking to have the venue of the Terri's Law case changed to the Florida circuit court in Tallahassee, the capital of Florida. Florida statute provides that, in any case involving the governor in litigation, the governor can change the venue of that case to that of the county of the Capital. Such a change, since it is statutory, is granted almost as a matter of course. However, Judges Greer and Baird are opposing that change of venue. What their legal rationale may be, I don't know. But it's clear that they don't want to lose their control over this case. A fresh judicial nose might sniff out the odor, no, the outright stink emanating from Greer and Baird's chambers regarding Terri's case.
Speaking of doing almost anything, you'll recall that last month, a Florida appeals court issued a ruling overturning Pinellas County Judge Baird's decision barring the Schindlers from joining the litigation regarding the constitutionality of Terri's Law, and rejecting Governor Bush's petition to take new witness testimony. The appellate court ruled that Baird's decision was erroneous. But that hasn't stopped Baird from re-issuing those same orders, in spite of the Appeals court's rulings. This will necessitate another legal challenge by Gov. Bush and the Schindlers.
Finally, Judge Greer is up for re-election this November. Unfortunately, at this time he's running unopposed. Is there anyone in Pinellas County willing to stand up and oppose Judge Greer?
That's something to pray for...
And, unfortunately, the news isn't good.
Yesterday, Judge George Greer handed down a ruling denying a motion filed by Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri's parents. The motion requested that Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian, be held in Contempt of Court for failing to comply with a 1996 order issued by another judge. That order required Michael to keep Bob and Mary apprised of Terri's medical condition.
I'll have more to say about the ruling itself later, but first I'll put this in context. The fact is that Michael has consistently withheld information about Terri's condition from the Schindlers since he vowed in 1993 that Bob and Mary would "never see [their] daughter again." When Terri nearly died of a urinary tract infection in 1993, due to Michael's refusal of treatment (which would have consisted of a $10.00 course of antibiotics) the Schindlers only found out about it after the fact from sympathetic medical workers who told them in spite of Michael's gag order, as he himself admitted in a guardianship hearing:
Attorney: When you made the decision that you were not going to treat Terri’s infection and you were, in effect, going to allow her to die, did you think that you had any obligation to tell her parents?
Michael: To answer that question, I probably would have let them know sooner or later.
Attorney: You never did let them know, though, did you?
Michael: No.
This behavior of Michael's continued, which led the Schindlers to seek and, successfully obtain, a court order from Judge Thomas E. Penick, requiring Michael Schiavo to provide the Schindlers with copies of Terri's annual medical reports, as well as apprising them of any "significant change" in Terri's condition. Unfortunately, Michael persists in stonewalling the Schindlers' requests for medical information and records, and maintains instructions to Terri's caregivers to do the same.
In a conversation with Bob Schindler Monday night, he told me that up until last year, they had never really pursued the enforcement of that order because he and Mary were focused on simply keeping her alive, which fight in the courts and in the organs of public opinion has occupied almost all of their energy for the last 6 years. But recent problems with Terri's health and the deterioration of her level of care had brought this problem to the fore.
Several weeks ago Terri began to have bouts of vomiting. Bob and Mary, understandably concerned, asked personnel from Woodside Hospice for an explanation. They were refused, hospice personnel stating "we can't tell you anything."
Terri's Care Deteriorates
This situation comes on top of a general decline in the quality of care that Terri has been receiving. Many people think that Terri is in a nursing home. She is not. Until recently, she was at Woodside Hospice, in Pinellas Pines, Florida. Hospices, by definition, are dedicated to caring for terminally ill patients in the final stages of life. Hospices offer only basic care to keep the dying person comfortable. They don't offer the same level of care as a nursing home.
The Schindlers have always objected to Terri being kept at the hospice, because Terri is not terminally ill. Furthermore, the Hospice Patients Alliance has also forcefully condemned the placing of disabled people in hospice facilities, saying that such a policy "endangers all disabled citizens of the United States and directly violates their Constitutional rights".
In addition to the inappropriateness of putting Terri in the hospice, the Schindlers have also been unhappy with the lower standard of care Terri has received there. "Before, when Terri was at the nursing home," Bob Schindler said, "the care there was great. They took very good care of her." But nursing homes are a lot more expensive than a hospice, and a look at the summary of expenses from Terri's trust fund (which is solely controlled by Michael), shows that the vast majority of that fund has gone to pay for Michael's lawyers, particularly George Felos. Michael's high expenditures on legal fees explain the apparent need for economies elsewhere. George Felos formerly was on the board of directors of the organization that runs Woodside, Hospice of the Sun Coast, a regional organization that manages Woodside and a number of other hospices in the Tampa - St. Petersburg area. Felos retains close ties to that organization, which doubtless gives him a high degree of control over Terri and her care.
Terri was moved some time ago from the Woodside Hospice to another facility, which, although in a different location, is nonetheless also run by Hospice of the Sun Coast. The move was explained to the Schindlers as motivated by the desire to give Terri a private room. Whatever the reason for the move, it wasn't to provide better care for Terri, as there are now signs that the minimal level of care given by Hospice has declined to outright neglect.
Bob told me Monday night that Terri has not been kept clean at the new facility. He and Mary have noticed on a number of occasions that her hair was greasy and obviously unwashed for days at a time. One employee of the facility, when asked by Mary why Terri had not been bathed, said that the hospice would not supply the toiletries necessary, and asked Mary for money to get shampoo, etc. for Terri. Mary gave the employee $20.00, but the money was returned the following day by a manager, who informed Mary they couldn't accept it. However, Terri is still not being kept clean.
They have frequently visited her and found that she had not been dressed. Terri is frequently not taken out of bed for lengthy periods, and she is not being turned regularly, as is necessary with bedridden patients. This lack of turning has led Terri to develop a decubitus ulcer on her buttock. Decubitus ulcers, commonly known as bedsores, are almost entirely preventable with the most basic of nursing care. Every nursing student learns how to prevent them early in training. Their presence is commonly taken as a sign of neglect.
In addition to the lack of hygiene and the development of the ulcer, Terri has also recently lost a tooth. Bob and Mary have long complained that Terri has not received a dental examination in years, and that she frequently has not had her teeth brushed for lengthy periods. Last year they brought to the attention of the hospice staff that one of Terri's teeth appeared seriously decayed, and had turned black. When several weeks passed and no action was taken, they pressed the hospice staff, who told the Schindlers that they had given Michael recommendations of dentists and oral surgeons, but that apparently he had done nothing. Well, several weeks ago the Schindlers noticed that this tooth was now missing, but that a decayed stump still remained.
The unexplained vomiting, the issue with Terri's tooth, etc., finally got to be more than the Schindlers could bear, and they filed a motion asking that Michael be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with Judge Penick's 1996 order requiring that he keep the Schindlers informed of Terri's condition.
The Unjust Judges Strike Again
Judge Penick's order is rather brief, and seems quite clear. It orders Michael to instruct facilities caring for Terri that they may discuss Terri's condition with Bob and Mary Schindler. It further orders Michael to notify the Schindlers of any "significant change" in Terri's condition.
Judge Greer, who has consistently ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo all along, sometimes despite the evidence and any semblance of logic, did not hand down his ruling last Friday, on the date he had initially set. But he gave a clear indication of how he was going to rule, by making a Clintonian remark about the need to revisit the phrase "significant change" and interpret what it meant. Apparently Judge Greer, when rulings made by other judges are inconvenient, sees his role as helping George Felos to "interpret" them into meaninglessness.
So Judge Greer's decision to deny the Schindlers' motion did not surprise them. "He's been protecting Michael all along," Bob Schindler said, "he almost has to keep doing it now." What is at stake, ultimately, is Michael's guardianship. "If Michael were found to be in contempt," Bob said, "he'd be finished as Terri's guardian." Such a ruling would be new grounds to challenge Michael's guardianship, and any judge would practically have to remove Michael. And once Michael was removed for cause, that would give Governor Bush additional grounds for taking new testimony, re-opening Judge Greer's "findings of fact", upon which his whole history of tendentious decisions is based. For these reasons, one could have reasonably predicted that Judge Greer would do almost anything to avoid finding Michael in contempt. The only good news is that Judge Greer issued his decision "without prejudice", which means that the Schindlers can re-introduce the issue at a later date.
Governor Bush also is seeking to have the venue of the Terri's Law case changed to the Florida circuit court in Tallahassee, the capital of Florida. Florida statute provides that, in any case involving the governor in litigation, the governor can change the venue of that case to that of the county of the Capital. Such a change, since it is statutory, is granted almost as a matter of course. However, Judges Greer and Baird are opposing that change of venue. What their legal rationale may be, I don't know. But it's clear that they don't want to lose their control over this case. A fresh judicial nose might sniff out the odor, no, the outright stink emanating from Greer and Baird's chambers regarding Terri's case.
Speaking of doing almost anything, you'll recall that last month, a Florida appeals court issued a ruling overturning Pinellas County Judge Baird's decision barring the Schindlers from joining the litigation regarding the constitutionality of Terri's Law, and rejecting Governor Bush's petition to take new witness testimony. The appellate court ruled that Baird's decision was erroneous. But that hasn't stopped Baird from re-issuing those same orders, in spite of the Appeals court's rulings. This will necessitate another legal challenge by Gov. Bush and the Schindlers.
Finally, Judge Greer is up for re-election this November. Unfortunately, at this time he's running unopposed. Is there anyone in Pinellas County willing to stand up and oppose Judge Greer?
That's something to pray for...
An Oversight Corrected
I just realized that I forgot to add a permalink over on the right to my Crisis Magazine article, Killing Terri Schiavo.
If you haven't read it, please do so!
I just realized that I forgot to add a permalink over on the right to my Crisis Magazine article, Killing Terri Schiavo.
If you haven't read it, please do so!
Friday, March 26, 2004
Charmingly Irascible, I would say...
Saint Jerome is praying for you! To learn more
about this irascible saint go to the Patron
Saint Index at http://www.catholic-forum.com
Which Saint Would You Be?
brought to you by Quizilla
Saint Jerome is praying for you! To learn more
about this irascible saint go to the Patron
Saint Index at http://www.catholic-forum.com
Which Saint Would You Be?
brought to you by Quizilla
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Today Is the Solemnity of The Annunciation
The Annunciation
Fra Angelico, c. 1430
Prado Altarpiece
At this day's Mass, we are to genuflect during the Creed, at the words "he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." Bending our knee, we pay homage to the Son, who condescended to become one of us for our salvation.
Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia caeli
Xporta manes, et stella maris, sucurre cadenti,
surgere qui curat populo: tu quae genuisti,
natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem,
Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore
sumens illud Ave, peccatorum miserere.
You can hear a sample of the ancient Gregorian Chant of this antiphon here ( ".au" file). Or you can listen to a sample of John Dunstable's (c. 1370-1453) polyphonic setting here (RealAudio file).
The Annunciation
Fra Angelico, c. 1430
Prado Altarpiece
At this day's Mass, we are to genuflect during the Creed, at the words "he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." Bending our knee, we pay homage to the Son, who condescended to become one of us for our salvation.
Xporta manes, et stella maris, sucurre cadenti,
surgere qui curat populo: tu quae genuisti,
natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem,
Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore
sumens illud Ave, peccatorum miserere.
You can hear a sample of the ancient Gregorian Chant of this antiphon here ( ".au" file). Or you can listen to a sample of John Dunstable's (c. 1370-1453) polyphonic setting here (RealAudio file).
The Truth About "Goddess" Theology
Words of wisdom today from Kathy the Carmelite at Gospel Minefield. "Goddess Worship" and all the other Mists of Avalon and DaVinci Code nonsense are just "the whole Eve deception all over again", or:
Women, who will you serve? Will you serve God, or will you serve Man? Because, in reality, those are the only options.
Words of wisdom today from Kathy the Carmelite at Gospel Minefield. "Goddess Worship" and all the other Mists of Avalon and DaVinci Code nonsense are just "the whole Eve deception all over again", or:
The only hope women have of ever being treated like humans and not objects is in the Kingdom of God...
Women, who will you serve? Will you serve God, or will you serve Man? Because, in reality, those are the only options.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Mark Shea and Me Lead The First St. Blog's Pilgrimage
Mark Shea and I will be leading a Pilgrimage this September to Lourdes and the Shrines of France!
Mark Windsor at Vociferous Yawpings will be our gracious pilgrimage director.
Here is a summary itinerary:
2004 Pilgrimage to Lourdes and the Shrines of France
Hosts:
Fr. Rob Johansen (Thrown Back), Mark Shea (Catholic And Enjoying It)
Trip Coordinator: Mark Windsor (Vociferous Yawpings)
Departs September 21, 2004 and returns to on September 29, 2004. This is a 9 day, 7 night trip to France with scheduled visits at Lourdes, Paris, Chartres, and Lisieux. Each day we will celebrate mass at some of the most significant shrines and cathedrals in Europe.
The trip includes:
* Mass celebrated daily
* Breakfast daily
* Dinners as noted below (no lunches are included)
* Hotel accommodations, tax and VAT
* Small group; minimum 20 passengers, maximum 30
* Baggage transfer (1 bag per person)
* Services of a professional and fully licensed tour manager
* Motorcoach service throughout
* Paris Metro tickets
* All prearranged entry fees (there are some optional tours that travelers may choose to take at additional cost)
* Roundtrip 2nd class TGV rail service between Paris and Lourdes
Tour Costs
* For 20-29 passengers the fare is $2215 per person, based on double occupancy
* For 30 passengers, the fare drops to $1978 per person, based on double occupancy
* Deposit for the land portion of the trip is $200 per person due at the time of booking. This deposit is fully refundable up to 90 days before departure; 50% refundable 89-45 days before departure; nonrefundable within 45 days of departure.
Airline Tickets
* Roundtrip airfare available on American Airlines at additional cost. Air costs vary based on departure city. Space is EXTREMELY limited, so book early!
* Deposit for the air portion of the trip is $100 per person due at the time of booking. This deposit is fully refundable 120 days before departure. Deposit is nonrefundable within 120 days of departure.
Itinerary:
Day 1 - Sept 21 - Tuesday
Depart US
Day 2 - Sept 22 - Wednesday - Paris & Lourdes
Arrive Paris DeGaulle airport
TGV rail service from Paris to Lourdes
Day 3 - Sept 23 - Thursday - Lourdes
Mass at the grotto in Lourdes
Half day guided tour of Lourdes
Visit to the sanctuaries of Lourdes
Day 4 - Sept 24 - Friday - Lourdes & Paris
Half day orientation tour of Paris
Visit to Chapelle de la Medaille Miraculeuse (St. Catherine)
Day 5 - Sept 25 - Saturday - Paris & Chartres
Morning mass at Sacre Coeur or Shrine of the Miraculous Medal
Visit to Chartres Cathedral
N.B. This is also my birthday!
Day 6 - Sept 26 - Sunday - Chartres & Lisieux
Morning Gregorian Mass at Chartres Cathedral, Visit to the Chapelle du Sainte Therese
Transfer to Caen by motorcoach
Visit Normandy D-Day landing beaches and American Cemetery
Day 7 - Sept 27 - Monday - Lisieux & Paris
Day 8 - Sept 28 - Tuesday - Paris
Visit Notre Dame Cathedral - guided tour if no mass scheduled
Farewell dinner at hotel
Day 9 Return air to the US Wednesday Sept 29
For more details go to Mark Windsor's announcement, or e-mail him at yawper1 [at] comcast.net
This is looking like a great trip. I hope you can come!
Mark Shea and I will be leading a Pilgrimage this September to Lourdes and the Shrines of France!
Mark Windsor at Vociferous Yawpings will be our gracious pilgrimage director.
Here is a summary itinerary:
Hosts:
Fr. Rob Johansen (Thrown Back), Mark Shea (Catholic And Enjoying It)
Trip Coordinator: Mark Windsor (Vociferous Yawpings)
Departs September 21, 2004 and returns to on September 29, 2004. This is a 9 day, 7 night trip to France with scheduled visits at Lourdes, Paris, Chartres, and Lisieux. Each day we will celebrate mass at some of the most significant shrines and cathedrals in Europe.
The trip includes:
* Mass celebrated daily
* Breakfast daily
* Dinners as noted below (no lunches are included)
* Hotel accommodations, tax and VAT
* Small group; minimum 20 passengers, maximum 30
* Baggage transfer (1 bag per person)
* Services of a professional and fully licensed tour manager
* Motorcoach service throughout
* Paris Metro tickets
* All prearranged entry fees (there are some optional tours that travelers may choose to take at additional cost)
* Roundtrip 2nd class TGV rail service between Paris and Lourdes
Tour Costs
* For 20-29 passengers the fare is $2215 per person, based on double occupancy
* For 30 passengers, the fare drops to $1978 per person, based on double occupancy
* Deposit for the land portion of the trip is $200 per person due at the time of booking. This deposit is fully refundable up to 90 days before departure; 50% refundable 89-45 days before departure; nonrefundable within 45 days of departure.
Airline Tickets
* Roundtrip airfare available on American Airlines at additional cost. Air costs vary based on departure city. Space is EXTREMELY limited, so book early!
* Deposit for the air portion of the trip is $100 per person due at the time of booking. This deposit is fully refundable 120 days before departure. Deposit is nonrefundable within 120 days of departure.
Itinerary:
Day 1 - Sept 21 - Tuesday
Depart US
Day 2 - Sept 22 - Wednesday - Paris & Lourdes
Arrive Paris DeGaulle airport
TGV rail service from Paris to Lourdes
Day 3 - Sept 23 - Thursday - Lourdes
Mass at the grotto in Lourdes
Half day guided tour of Lourdes
Visit to the sanctuaries of Lourdes
Day 4 - Sept 24 - Friday - Lourdes & Paris
Half day orientation tour of Paris
Visit to Chapelle de la Medaille Miraculeuse (St. Catherine)
Day 5 - Sept 25 - Saturday - Paris & Chartres
Morning mass at Sacre Coeur or Shrine of the Miraculous Medal
Visit to Chartres Cathedral
N.B. This is also my birthday!
Day 6 - Sept 26 - Sunday - Chartres & Lisieux
Morning Gregorian Mass at Chartres Cathedral, Visit to the Chapelle du Sainte Therese
Transfer to Caen by motorcoach
Visit Normandy D-Day landing beaches and American Cemetery
Day 7 - Sept 27 - Monday - Lisieux & Paris
Day 8 - Sept 28 - Tuesday - Paris
Visit Notre Dame Cathedral - guided tour if no mass scheduled
Farewell dinner at hotel
Day 9 Return air to the US Wednesday Sept 29
For more details go to Mark Windsor's announcement, or e-mail him at yawper1 [at] comcast.net
This is looking like a great trip. I hope you can come!
I Never Thought of Myself As Being "Cool"
Magister Mundi sum!
"I am the Master of the Universe!"
You are full of yourself, but you're so cool you
probably deserve to be. Rock on.
Which Weird Latin Phrase Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
I've never posted my results for one of these things before, but since this one is Latin, I had to make an exception.
Magister Mundi sum!
"I am the Master of the Universe!"
You are full of yourself, but you're so cool you
probably deserve to be. Rock on.
Which Weird Latin Phrase Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
I've never posted my results for one of these things before, but since this one is Latin, I had to make an exception.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Blugging Some Great Blogs
Some of you may recall that a while back, I coined the neologism "Blug". To "blug" is to give a blog a plug.
The fact that absolutely no one else seems to have picked up on this new term will not, in the slightest way, dissuade me from using it.
At any rate, here are some great blogs:
I have blugged The Great Commandment before. The author, Fr. David Hudgins, is my friend and classmate from Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. His most recent post is on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and is spot on. Also, his recent post "From Chaos back to Civilization" is a must-read if you want to get to the heart of the culture wars.
Another great blog by priests is Catholic Ragemonkey. Don't let the odd name throw you off. These guys are great, and once you get to know them, the name makes sense. This blog is the product of the fevered intellects of Frs. Shane Tharp and Stephen Hamilton. Fr. Hamilton is a sometime commentor here and on other blogs, and always has thoughtful things to say. Fr. Tharp was my classmate for the two-and-a half years I was at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia. Because Fr. Tharp was there longer, the damage on him is more pronounced. He may very well have an even lower threshold for suffering fools than I do. Fr. Tharp and Fr. Hamilton make a good team.
Oswald Sobrino's Catholic Analysis is just that: thoughtful examinations of all manner of things - events in the news, social problems, and culture - from a Catholic perspective. His principal concern seems always to be "what does it mean to look at 'X' through the eyes of the Faith."
Pansy and Peony (those are their hobbit names) are the Two Sleepy Mommies. Their blog is a great place for thoughts on family life, being a Catholic woman, and living one's faith in the world. They're also pretty funny. They're two reasonably-well-adjusted Catholic women who take their faith seriously. They're now on my list of blogs I check every day.
Some of you may recall that a while back, I coined the neologism "Blug". To "blug" is to give a blog a plug.
The fact that absolutely no one else seems to have picked up on this new term will not, in the slightest way, dissuade me from using it.
At any rate, here are some great blogs:
I have blugged The Great Commandment before. The author, Fr. David Hudgins, is my friend and classmate from Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. His most recent post is on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and is spot on. Also, his recent post "From Chaos back to Civilization" is a must-read if you want to get to the heart of the culture wars.
Another great blog by priests is Catholic Ragemonkey. Don't let the odd name throw you off. These guys are great, and once you get to know them, the name makes sense. This blog is the product of the fevered intellects of Frs. Shane Tharp and Stephen Hamilton. Fr. Hamilton is a sometime commentor here and on other blogs, and always has thoughtful things to say. Fr. Tharp was my classmate for the two-and-a half years I was at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia. Because Fr. Tharp was there longer, the damage on him is more pronounced. He may very well have an even lower threshold for suffering fools than I do. Fr. Tharp and Fr. Hamilton make a good team.
Oswald Sobrino's Catholic Analysis is just that: thoughtful examinations of all manner of things - events in the news, social problems, and culture - from a Catholic perspective. His principal concern seems always to be "what does it mean to look at 'X' through the eyes of the Faith."
Pansy and Peony (those are their hobbit names) are the Two Sleepy Mommies. Their blog is a great place for thoughts on family life, being a Catholic woman, and living one's faith in the world. They're also pretty funny. They're two reasonably-well-adjusted Catholic women who take their faith seriously. They're now on my list of blogs I check every day.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Homily for The Third Sunday of Lent
Cycle C
Exodus 3:1-8a,13-15
1 Corinthians 10:1-6, 10-12
Luke 13:1-9
I want to begin with a question for all of you. I'd like to a see a show of hands to answer this. How many of you want to be Holy? Good. Almost everyone, it looks like. Now, how many of you want to be Saints? Hmmm. Not as many hands... I think some of you are getting suspicious; you're wondering what I'm going to get you into here...
Well, I think most of us, when asked, would answer "yes" to those questions. Most of us, at some level, want to be Holy, or at least we know we're supposed to want to be Holy. But if we mean what we say, that means we have to be serious about repentance.
Jesus makes that clear. He said, "If you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!" Now, Jesus was talking to good Jews. They were people who kept the Law. These were people who went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and went to the Temple on Holy Days. These were people who probably thought "hey, I'm doing what I'm supposed to do." But He says to them "If you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!"
These words of our Lord present a challenge to us. They were not merely addressed to his hearers 2,000 years ago. They're in the gospel because they're addressed to us as well. And we're like those good Jews Jesus was addressing: we're the people who go to Mass on Sunday; we're the people who try to raise our kids Catholic; we're the people who support the parish. We're the people who might be tempted to think, "I'm doing what I'm supposed to..."
Once I knew man, I went to college with him. He was pretty successful: married, had a couple of kids, nice house, made good money. He had what you might call the "prototype" life of middle class comfort and respectability. He wasn't very religious at that time: he went to Mass once in a while. Well, one time I visited him shortly before I was to go to the seminary, and he asked me "come on Rob, you're not really serious about this priesthood stuff...?" I told him I was totally serious. And that got us to talking about faith, and he shared with me his view on things. He said "I'm a pretty good guy. I try to be decent to people. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't steal. I try to be good to my kids. I think God will give me credit for that."
Well, I think sometimes we're all tempted to think that way. I know I have been at times. And so St. Paul warns us against that: "whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care..." Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, "it's at those times when I feel most confident that I'm doing right, and all is well with my life, that I am probably at my worst." So I had to burst my friend's bubble, and perhaps ours too.
Those things he mentioned are all good and necessary, but they're not Holiness. Jesus didn't say "Be decent to people." He said "Be Holy, even as I am Holy."
We get a glimpse, a hint, of what Holiness is like in our first reading. Moses was afraid to look at God! He hid his face. Holiness is not warm and fuzzy: it is not a "Tender Moments" figurine. It is something in whose presence we feel awed.
And in the presence of holy people, we feel awed: A friend of mine knew Mother Theresa. He worked with her quite a bit, and helped her found a couple of her missions in the U.S. One time, he told me, he had spent a day working very hard in helping to move sick people into one of these new missions, and Mother Theresa, in gratitude, gave him a hug. Now my friend is a big guy, like me. And Mother Theresa was a tiny woman. He said to me, "Rob, it was like hugging an oak tree. She's that solid, that substantial. You could just feel the strength in her, like she's rooted to the ground."
If we are to be Holy like that, we have to be people of repentance.
Repentance not about big things: most of us aren't bank robbers or adulterers or swindlers. If we're looking for big changes, we're looking in the wrong place. Repentance is about little things. It's about bringing all the little details of our lives in conformity with God's will and plan.
Repentance is about doing penance for the times we swore at people in traffic. Repentance is about doing penance for the times we said "yes, dear" to our spouses without really listening. It's about doing penance for the times we were with people who belittled the faith, but sat silently and allowed it to go unchallenged. Repentance is about doing penance for our kid's school play that we "attended", but all the while we were on the cell phone with work, or thinking about what we had to get done at the office the next day.
Repentance is about doing penance for the times we've gossiped or backbitten one another. It's about doing penance for the indecent movie we watched at the hotel when we were away on business. It's about doing penance for the times we've given to the parish or to charity out of what's "left over", and not from our substance. It's about doing penance for the times we've attended Mass, but were here in body only, and not in mind or spirit. It's about desiring God more than anything else.
Now, if we don't feel that sort of desire, we can ask God to give that to us. He will, if we ask Him. We are called to be Holy, but we're not on our own. We don't have to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. We have God's grace, given to us through Jesus. We have it through prayer. We have it in the support of our brothers and sisters. And we have it, most powerfully, through the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. God will give us whatever we need to be Holy, if we but ask for it.
If we ask for holiness, and become people of repentance, we will be like the fig tree in the parable. The gardener gave it an extra year: we have been given the time and opportunity for repentance. By repentance we will become like that tree: watered, nurtured, and fertilized, and we will bear rich and abundant fruit.
Cycle C
Exodus 3:1-8a,13-15
1 Corinthians 10:1-6, 10-12
Luke 13:1-9
I want to begin with a question for all of you. I'd like to a see a show of hands to answer this. How many of you want to be Holy? Good. Almost everyone, it looks like. Now, how many of you want to be Saints? Hmmm. Not as many hands... I think some of you are getting suspicious; you're wondering what I'm going to get you into here...
Well, I think most of us, when asked, would answer "yes" to those questions. Most of us, at some level, want to be Holy, or at least we know we're supposed to want to be Holy. But if we mean what we say, that means we have to be serious about repentance.
Jesus makes that clear. He said, "If you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!" Now, Jesus was talking to good Jews. They were people who kept the Law. These were people who went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and went to the Temple on Holy Days. These were people who probably thought "hey, I'm doing what I'm supposed to do." But He says to them "If you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!"
These words of our Lord present a challenge to us. They were not merely addressed to his hearers 2,000 years ago. They're in the gospel because they're addressed to us as well. And we're like those good Jews Jesus was addressing: we're the people who go to Mass on Sunday; we're the people who try to raise our kids Catholic; we're the people who support the parish. We're the people who might be tempted to think, "I'm doing what I'm supposed to..."
Once I knew man, I went to college with him. He was pretty successful: married, had a couple of kids, nice house, made good money. He had what you might call the "prototype" life of middle class comfort and respectability. He wasn't very religious at that time: he went to Mass once in a while. Well, one time I visited him shortly before I was to go to the seminary, and he asked me "come on Rob, you're not really serious about this priesthood stuff...?" I told him I was totally serious. And that got us to talking about faith, and he shared with me his view on things. He said "I'm a pretty good guy. I try to be decent to people. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't steal. I try to be good to my kids. I think God will give me credit for that."
Well, I think sometimes we're all tempted to think that way. I know I have been at times. And so St. Paul warns us against that: "whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care..." Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, "it's at those times when I feel most confident that I'm doing right, and all is well with my life, that I am probably at my worst." So I had to burst my friend's bubble, and perhaps ours too.
Those things he mentioned are all good and necessary, but they're not Holiness. Jesus didn't say "Be decent to people." He said "Be Holy, even as I am Holy."
We get a glimpse, a hint, of what Holiness is like in our first reading. Moses was afraid to look at God! He hid his face. Holiness is not warm and fuzzy: it is not a "Tender Moments" figurine. It is something in whose presence we feel awed.
And in the presence of holy people, we feel awed: A friend of mine knew Mother Theresa. He worked with her quite a bit, and helped her found a couple of her missions in the U.S. One time, he told me, he had spent a day working very hard in helping to move sick people into one of these new missions, and Mother Theresa, in gratitude, gave him a hug. Now my friend is a big guy, like me. And Mother Theresa was a tiny woman. He said to me, "Rob, it was like hugging an oak tree. She's that solid, that substantial. You could just feel the strength in her, like she's rooted to the ground."
If we are to be Holy like that, we have to be people of repentance.
Repentance not about big things: most of us aren't bank robbers or adulterers or swindlers. If we're looking for big changes, we're looking in the wrong place. Repentance is about little things. It's about bringing all the little details of our lives in conformity with God's will and plan.
Repentance is about doing penance for the times we swore at people in traffic. Repentance is about doing penance for the times we said "yes, dear" to our spouses without really listening. It's about doing penance for the times we were with people who belittled the faith, but sat silently and allowed it to go unchallenged. Repentance is about doing penance for our kid's school play that we "attended", but all the while we were on the cell phone with work, or thinking about what we had to get done at the office the next day.
Repentance is about doing penance for the times we've gossiped or backbitten one another. It's about doing penance for the indecent movie we watched at the hotel when we were away on business. It's about doing penance for the times we've given to the parish or to charity out of what's "left over", and not from our substance. It's about doing penance for the times we've attended Mass, but were here in body only, and not in mind or spirit. It's about desiring God more than anything else.
Now, if we don't feel that sort of desire, we can ask God to give that to us. He will, if we ask Him. We are called to be Holy, but we're not on our own. We don't have to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. We have God's grace, given to us through Jesus. We have it through prayer. We have it in the support of our brothers and sisters. And we have it, most powerfully, through the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. God will give us whatever we need to be Holy, if we but ask for it.
If we ask for holiness, and become people of repentance, we will be like the fig tree in the parable. The gardener gave it an extra year: we have been given the time and opportunity for repentance. By repentance we will become like that tree: watered, nurtured, and fertilized, and we will bear rich and abundant fruit.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
My Prediction Fulfilled
My prediction of yesterday was fulfilled almost as I uttered it.
A reader calls our attention to a CNN.com story of the vandalism of a Denver synagogue.
When asked who might have been responsible for spraying Nazi graffiti on the synagogue, only one answer leapt to mind:
That's right, rabbi. We've all seen those mobs of angry Christians leaving the movie theatres looking for Jews to beat up...
Of course, we all know how much Hitler and the Nazis loved the Catholic church... And we all know how modern neo-nazis are mostly church-goin', bible-totin', scripture-quotin' folks...
But who needs evidence when you're sure:
Why look for the actual culprit and punish him when you can blame a movie?
I amend my prediction: from here on out, any sort of anti-semitic activity anywhere will be linked to "The Passion" and Mel Gibson. The Lawsuit, as one reader also predicted, will not be far behind. Also not far behind will be rehashing of claims that the Vatican aided and abetted the Nazis, and renewed demands that the Catholic Church condemn Gibson and his movie. When Rome fails to acquiesce, this failure will itself be hailed as proof that the Catholic faith is inherently anti-semitic.
My prediction of yesterday was fulfilled almost as I uttered it.
A reader calls our attention to a CNN.com story of the vandalism of a Denver synagogue.
When asked who might have been responsible for spraying Nazi graffiti on the synagogue, only one answer leapt to mind:
Rabbi Daniel Cohen said the vandalism may have been sparked by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which just finished its second weekend as the No. 1 movie in the country. The movie, which some believe wrongly blames Jews for the death of Christ, has been criticized as anti-Semitic.
That's right, rabbi. We've all seen those mobs of angry Christians leaving the movie theatres looking for Jews to beat up...
Of course, we all know how much Hitler and the Nazis loved the Catholic church... And we all know how modern neo-nazis are mostly church-goin', bible-totin', scripture-quotin' folks...
But who needs evidence when you're sure:
Elise Zakroff said she was sure the film inspired the graffiti.
"What Mel Gibson did is terrible," Zakroff said. "It is happening all over. We are tired of anti-Semitism. All we want is peace."
Why look for the actual culprit and punish him when you can blame a movie?
I amend my prediction: from here on out, any sort of anti-semitic activity anywhere will be linked to "The Passion" and Mel Gibson. The Lawsuit, as one reader also predicted, will not be far behind. Also not far behind will be rehashing of claims that the Vatican aided and abetted the Nazis, and renewed demands that the Catholic Church condemn Gibson and his movie. When Rome fails to acquiesce, this failure will itself be hailed as proof that the Catholic faith is inherently anti-semitic.
Monday, March 08, 2004
A Prediction
In my previous post, I alluded to the noticeable lack of any actual anti-Jewish reaction among Christians resulting from Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ". Of course, that hasn't prevented some pundits from continuing to wring their hands about the anti-semitic "potential" of the movie.
Well, bookmark this post, because I am making a prediction: Sooner or later, someone, somewhere will make an anti-semitic remark or engage in some form of anti-semitic behavior which will make the news. That person, on further investigation, will be revealed to be or to have been at one time a member of a Christian church. Further probing will reveal that this person, in fact, saw "The Passion of The Christ". It might have been a month, or a year, before the incident. But that will make no difference. In the minds and in the op-ed columns of the professional axe-grinders and hand-wringers, their thesis will be proved: "See!" they will shout. "We said all along that 'The Passion' was anti-semitic." And there will be a renewed burst of lamentation at this beginning of the foretold "wave" of anti-semitism resulting from the movie.
Mark this well, also: There will not be any disclaimers (commonly granted to Islamofacists) about how that person's extremism can't be taken as "representative" of Christians or the Christian faith. The problem, they will say, is clearly Christianity's fundamental and irremediable anti-semitism. There will be renewed demands that Christian churches reshape their doctrine to satisfy the hand-wringers. And some Christian leaders and churches, long-schooled in tremulous acquiescence to any charge of anti-semitism, no matter how absurd, will comply.
You read it here first.
In my previous post, I alluded to the noticeable lack of any actual anti-Jewish reaction among Christians resulting from Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ". Of course, that hasn't prevented some pundits from continuing to wring their hands about the anti-semitic "potential" of the movie.
Well, bookmark this post, because I am making a prediction: Sooner or later, someone, somewhere will make an anti-semitic remark or engage in some form of anti-semitic behavior which will make the news. That person, on further investigation, will be revealed to be or to have been at one time a member of a Christian church. Further probing will reveal that this person, in fact, saw "The Passion of The Christ". It might have been a month, or a year, before the incident. But that will make no difference. In the minds and in the op-ed columns of the professional axe-grinders and hand-wringers, their thesis will be proved: "See!" they will shout. "We said all along that 'The Passion' was anti-semitic." And there will be a renewed burst of lamentation at this beginning of the foretold "wave" of anti-semitism resulting from the movie.
Mark this well, also: There will not be any disclaimers (commonly granted to Islamofacists) about how that person's extremism can't be taken as "representative" of Christians or the Christian faith. The problem, they will say, is clearly Christianity's fundamental and irremediable anti-semitism. There will be renewed demands that Christian churches reshape their doctrine to satisfy the hand-wringers. And some Christian leaders and churches, long-schooled in tremulous acquiescence to any charge of anti-semitism, no matter how absurd, will comply.
You read it here first.
"The Passion" Provides Opportunities for Hand-Wringing
Many churches are sponsoring guided discussions of "The Passion of The Christ", to help people understand the meaning of the movie and what Jesus did. This is a good thing.
Some churches and synagogues are sponsoring interfaith "dialogues" about the movie, to bring Christians and Jews together to help each other understand the different reactions they may have to the film, and the religious beliefs and assumptions underlying those reactions. This too can be a good thing, as long as the fundamental beliefs of each "side" are expressed honestly and respected.
But, based on what I have read, all too many of these "dialogues" turn out, like this one at a suburban Chicago synagogue, to be exercises in collective handwringing over how "anti-semitic" the movie is, or how it is "too violent", etc, ad nauseam.
The more I read about these things, and the statements made by those professed Christians who dislike the film and trot out the two canards I just mentioned, the more I am convinced that such people simply subscribe to a different religion than I do.
Now, if a Jew dislikes the movie because he objects to the Christian message within it, I don't have a problem with that (except insofar as I'd like him to become a Christian). After all, if he accepted the Christian claim, he'd be a Christian.
But if a Jewish person fundamentally misunderstands the Christian message, or uses the "anti-semitic" charge as a club with which to pummell Gibson or those Christians who have found the movie inspiring, I do have a problem with that.
One participant in the "dialogue", Alison Kinard, realized what was going on, and said:
Apart from being patronizing, Liebman's remarks are also insulting to Christians. The overwhelming evidence is that Christians who have seen the movie react in much the same way as Kinard: with a feeling of personal responsibility for Christ's sufferings, and a conviction of the weight of their own sins. I have yet to meet or hear of a Christian who has emerged from this movie motivated to do violence to Jews. But Liebman nonetheless says "If everyone saw the movie through your eyes, we wouldn't have a problem".
What exactly is " the problem", Mr. Liebman? Where are the hordes of Christians coming forth from the movie to attack Jews or mount a pogrom? The fact is that there is no "problem". But the absence of any actual anti-Jewish response resulting from the movie does not faze the Liebmans, Foxmans, or Krauthammers of the world. That is the power of Ideology. Ideology enables one to sustain a position in spite of its manifest contradiction to the actual state of reality. The real problem is that such people are Ideologues.
And when self-professed Christians seem to miss the entire point of the movie, and distort its content, I have to wonder what went awry in their catechesis. The Rev. Mark Lund's bizarre reaction to the conclusion of the movie illustrates my point:
Talk about reading into something! Lund's reaction provides an interesting glimpse into his own psyche, but little else. I suppose the Rev. Lund imagines that after Jesus rose from the dead, he went and apologized to the Sanhedrin for causing so much trouble.
Here are two "litmus-test" questions I suggest we propose to all the objectors to the movie's "violence" or "anti-semitism", especially the self-proclaimed Christians:
Do you believe that Jesus, according to the will of the Father and his own will as the Son and Second Person of the Trinity, offered Himself up for all mankind for the forgiveness of sins? Do you believe that Jesus' death on the cross was in some way expiatory for your sins and the sins of the whole world?
The answers to those questions will tell you where people are really coming from.
Many churches are sponsoring guided discussions of "The Passion of The Christ", to help people understand the meaning of the movie and what Jesus did. This is a good thing.
Some churches and synagogues are sponsoring interfaith "dialogues" about the movie, to bring Christians and Jews together to help each other understand the different reactions they may have to the film, and the religious beliefs and assumptions underlying those reactions. This too can be a good thing, as long as the fundamental beliefs of each "side" are expressed honestly and respected.
But, based on what I have read, all too many of these "dialogues" turn out, like this one at a suburban Chicago synagogue, to be exercises in collective handwringing over how "anti-semitic" the movie is, or how it is "too violent", etc, ad nauseam.
The more I read about these things, and the statements made by those professed Christians who dislike the film and trot out the two canards I just mentioned, the more I am convinced that such people simply subscribe to a different religion than I do.
Now, if a Jew dislikes the movie because he objects to the Christian message within it, I don't have a problem with that (except insofar as I'd like him to become a Christian). After all, if he accepted the Christian claim, he'd be a Christian.
But if a Jewish person fundamentally misunderstands the Christian message, or uses the "anti-semitic" charge as a club with which to pummell Gibson or those Christians who have found the movie inspiring, I do have a problem with that.
One participant in the "dialogue", Alison Kinard, realized what was going on, and said:
"It saddens my heart that you're missing the whole essence of the movie," she said. "It's the message that Jesus came and he did what he did for us."
She said she did not leave the theater blaming Jews. "If anything, I left saying, `Woe is me,'" she said.
Richard Liebman, 54, a member of B'nai Torah, said he appreciated Kinard's comments, but the issue of anti-Semitism is too personal. "If everyone saw the movie through your eyes, we wouldn't have a problem," he told her afterward.
Apart from being patronizing, Liebman's remarks are also insulting to Christians. The overwhelming evidence is that Christians who have seen the movie react in much the same way as Kinard: with a feeling of personal responsibility for Christ's sufferings, and a conviction of the weight of their own sins. I have yet to meet or hear of a Christian who has emerged from this movie motivated to do violence to Jews. But Liebman nonetheless says "If everyone saw the movie through your eyes, we wouldn't have a problem".
What exactly is " the problem", Mr. Liebman? Where are the hordes of Christians coming forth from the movie to attack Jews or mount a pogrom? The fact is that there is no "problem". But the absence of any actual anti-Jewish response resulting from the movie does not faze the Liebmans, Foxmans, or Krauthammers of the world. That is the power of Ideology. Ideology enables one to sustain a position in spite of its manifest contradiction to the actual state of reality. The real problem is that such people are Ideologues.
And when self-professed Christians seem to miss the entire point of the movie, and distort its content, I have to wonder what went awry in their catechesis. The Rev. Mark Lund's bizarre reaction to the conclusion of the movie illustrates my point:
Rev. Mark Lund of Zion Lutheran Church in Deerfield, [IL] another panelist, criticized the film's origins, faithfulness to Scripture and anti-Semitic overtones...
Lund especially criticized the movie's final resurrection scene, which he said was accompanied by a cadence resembling a battle march.
"With a new hardness not seen before, Jesus jumps up to seek revenge on those who killed him," Lund said. "In Gibson's version, that can only be one group of people. The [first] two hours and five minutes of the film make it clear just who is going to be in trouble now."
Talk about reading into something! Lund's reaction provides an interesting glimpse into his own psyche, but little else. I suppose the Rev. Lund imagines that after Jesus rose from the dead, he went and apologized to the Sanhedrin for causing so much trouble.
Here are two "litmus-test" questions I suggest we propose to all the objectors to the movie's "violence" or "anti-semitism", especially the self-proclaimed Christians:
Do you believe that Jesus, according to the will of the Father and his own will as the Son and Second Person of the Trinity, offered Himself up for all mankind for the forgiveness of sins? Do you believe that Jesus' death on the cross was in some way expiatory for your sins and the sins of the whole world?
The answers to those questions will tell you where people are really coming from.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
The Passion – Part II
I am away right now, visiting my Dad in Texas, where he has taken up wintering since his retirement. So in addition to visiting with other relatives and seeing the sights of the Hill Country, he and my stepmom and I went to see the "The Passion of The Christ", which is the second time for me. I almost never see a movie twice at the theatre, but I was happy to do so in this case. And, of course, that second viewing is the source of some further reflections about the movie:
Satan: This is, as far as I am concerned, one of the most theologically insightful depictions of Satan I have ever seen on screen. (Another one - though of a lighter, and utterly different character - is in the original Dudley Moore version of "Bedazzled".) Satan's malevolence in "The Passion" is utterly cold. Not even Satan himself derives any satisfaction from it. Satan’s hatred for us is almost palpable: he drives Judas to his death after using him, discarding him like a soiled, useless rag. He is all negation: At the beginning, in the Garden, his "temptation" of Christ is negative: You can’t do this. No one can do it. It isn’t worth it. Give up. And on the Via Dolorosa, Satan mocks Christ with another negation: after being comforted by His Mother, who is the archetype of all motherhood, Satan carries a hideous and grotesque man-infant in caricature of what Christ just experienced and what Mary just remembered. Mel Gibson clearly understands that while Satan is, in a sense, clever and devious, he nonetheless is ultimately a one-trick pony.
Violence: On the second viewing, the violence has less sheer punch-in-the-guts impact, but it is still gripping. It is gripping because it is Real. I am not an “expert” in Roman punishments and crucifixion, but I do have an M.A. Classics and have read quite a lot about such things in both primary and secondary sources. I have given presentations on the topic to parish groups and high school classes. I have to say that in most ways, Gibson’s depictions of the scourging and crucifixion are accurate in their brutal detail. To complain that it is "unnecessary" is to miss the point. It happened. Obviously, in some sense, God thought it was necessary because He asked His Son to endure it. Jesus thought it was necessary because He willingly chose to undergo it. He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. He had power to come down from the cross, but he chose to stay on it.
Peter Nixon at Sursum Corda comes closest to offering a substantive objection to the violence, but I find his points fall short. He seems to think the violence is gratuitous, and compares it to a hypothetical "film depicting a concentration camp victim choking to death on gas and then having his skin removed by Nazi doctors", and asks whether such a movie would really tell us "a truth about the Holocaust that we don’t already know?" I think the holocaust movie analogy falls short, because, as horrific as what they endured was, nonetheless they weren't bearing all the weight and burden of all human sin and evil. Jesus was. The scourging and crucifixion were ugly and brutal because sin is ugly and brutal. The Christian can never become complacent or forgetful of this fact. Peter complains that the violence is the "stuff of nightmares". Yes, and Sin is nightmarish. If only more of us had nightmares about our sins! Seriously, how many people do you suppose these days have nightmares about their sins? And if they do, they're more likely to go to a therapist and medicate them away than they are to go to confession. Our salvation was purchased at a terrible price, and "The Passion" brings that point home.
Peter also compares the movie to devotions such as the Stations of The Cross, which obviously don't have the same level of brutal realism as Gibson's movie. But this comparison is also false. The movie isn't a prayer or devotion, though I, and I believe many others, prayed during it. The movie is Art. And there is ample precedent in Sacred Art for making depictions of Christ's passion as "realistic" and "brutal" as the artist's medium and technique would allow. Just look at much of medieval and baroque art, or the paintings of Gibson's claimed patron, Caravaggio.
Is the violence of the film "necessary"? Obviously, in a literal sense, no. The violence is not logically or morally necessary. Gibson could have made a powerful movie that did not feature such a graphic account of the Lord's suffering. But the fact that it could have been done that way doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done in the way Gibson has. Gibson's movie is a powerful antidote to the many inside and outside the Church who would say that Jesus was all about "preaching a message of love." This sentiment is insipid and false. Jesus came to die for us and our salvation, "and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)
The Critics: Amy Welborn has rightly cautioned us not to equate criticism of Gibson's movie with hatred of the Church or the Gospel. I can disagree with Peter Nixon about the merits of the movie and still respect his opinion, because he is trying to look at it and think about it as a Catholic and from "within" the faith. He also shows that he is at least trying to meet the movie on its own terms. So I have no doubt that there are very good Catholics and others who will not like the movie for all sorts of credible reasons.
Nonetheless, there are critics of the movie who I think can justly be accused of bad will and/or bad faith. One such critic is Andrew Sullivan, whose criticisms are a monument of intellectual dishonesty. Sullivan's entire life-project revolves around overthrowing the Christian tradition regarding his "one little thing". In that light his denunciation of Mel Gibson for his "heterodox" theology is rather rich. Of course, Sullivan is also wrong: "The Passion" is clearly based on a "substitutionary atonement" theology which is not only mainstream, but may even be considered normative for the Western Christian tradition. And for Sullivan, whose enjoyment of his "lifestyle" revolves around making the scriptural condemnations of homosexual behavior "go away", to upbraid Gibson for his artistic liberties with the Gospels is almost comical in its irony.
Evangelism: Many, especially evangelical Protestants, have been touting "The Passion" as a medium of evangelism. If by that they mean converting those who have no faith in Christ, I doubt it will be effective. I think that unbelievers may very well be moved to compassion and pity for Christ, but it is faith which makes one understand the meaning of what He did and suffered. On the other hand, I think that this movie has the potential to reinvigorate the faith of many, and to rekindle fervor for the gospel. I know of many who have been moved to repentance, and to a desire to spread the Good News, by this movie. I think, that followed by a time of meditation and prayer, such as what we are organizing in my parish for a high school Youth Ministry event, it could be a very powerful instrument for deepening one's faith in and love for Our Lord.
The "Ordinary Man's" Reaction: I mentioned that my father went with me to see the movie this time. I think his reaction is instructive. Now, my father is in many ways no "ordinary" man. But he is in this sense: he is not a church professional and has no theological degrees. He is college-educated but has spent his life working very much in the "real world". He does not read blogs. (Not even my own – how's that to keep me humble!) But he knows his faith, and he knows Jesus, and tries to live accordingly. And he was very moved by this movie. He had to wipe the tears from his eyes more than once, not that I'd ever make him feel self-conscious by pointing out that I'd noticed. He was pretty choked up by it. And he observed to me afterwards that nobody came out "looking good" in this movie except Jesus and Mary. Not the Jews, not the Romans, no one. "I suppose that's about right", he said, "none of us [emphasis mine] come out looking good." He got it, and I think most people will as well.
I am away right now, visiting my Dad in Texas, where he has taken up wintering since his retirement. So in addition to visiting with other relatives and seeing the sights of the Hill Country, he and my stepmom and I went to see the "The Passion of The Christ", which is the second time for me. I almost never see a movie twice at the theatre, but I was happy to do so in this case. And, of course, that second viewing is the source of some further reflections about the movie:
Satan: This is, as far as I am concerned, one of the most theologically insightful depictions of Satan I have ever seen on screen. (Another one - though of a lighter, and utterly different character - is in the original Dudley Moore version of "Bedazzled".) Satan's malevolence in "The Passion" is utterly cold. Not even Satan himself derives any satisfaction from it. Satan’s hatred for us is almost palpable: he drives Judas to his death after using him, discarding him like a soiled, useless rag. He is all negation: At the beginning, in the Garden, his "temptation" of Christ is negative: You can’t do this. No one can do it. It isn’t worth it. Give up. And on the Via Dolorosa, Satan mocks Christ with another negation: after being comforted by His Mother, who is the archetype of all motherhood, Satan carries a hideous and grotesque man-infant in caricature of what Christ just experienced and what Mary just remembered. Mel Gibson clearly understands that while Satan is, in a sense, clever and devious, he nonetheless is ultimately a one-trick pony.
Violence: On the second viewing, the violence has less sheer punch-in-the-guts impact, but it is still gripping. It is gripping because it is Real. I am not an “expert” in Roman punishments and crucifixion, but I do have an M.A. Classics and have read quite a lot about such things in both primary and secondary sources. I have given presentations on the topic to parish groups and high school classes. I have to say that in most ways, Gibson’s depictions of the scourging and crucifixion are accurate in their brutal detail. To complain that it is "unnecessary" is to miss the point. It happened. Obviously, in some sense, God thought it was necessary because He asked His Son to endure it. Jesus thought it was necessary because He willingly chose to undergo it. He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. He had power to come down from the cross, but he chose to stay on it.
Peter Nixon at Sursum Corda comes closest to offering a substantive objection to the violence, but I find his points fall short. He seems to think the violence is gratuitous, and compares it to a hypothetical "film depicting a concentration camp victim choking to death on gas and then having his skin removed by Nazi doctors", and asks whether such a movie would really tell us "a truth about the Holocaust that we don’t already know?" I think the holocaust movie analogy falls short, because, as horrific as what they endured was, nonetheless they weren't bearing all the weight and burden of all human sin and evil. Jesus was. The scourging and crucifixion were ugly and brutal because sin is ugly and brutal. The Christian can never become complacent or forgetful of this fact. Peter complains that the violence is the "stuff of nightmares". Yes, and Sin is nightmarish. If only more of us had nightmares about our sins! Seriously, how many people do you suppose these days have nightmares about their sins? And if they do, they're more likely to go to a therapist and medicate them away than they are to go to confession. Our salvation was purchased at a terrible price, and "The Passion" brings that point home.
Peter also compares the movie to devotions such as the Stations of The Cross, which obviously don't have the same level of brutal realism as Gibson's movie. But this comparison is also false. The movie isn't a prayer or devotion, though I, and I believe many others, prayed during it. The movie is Art. And there is ample precedent in Sacred Art for making depictions of Christ's passion as "realistic" and "brutal" as the artist's medium and technique would allow. Just look at much of medieval and baroque art, or the paintings of Gibson's claimed patron, Caravaggio.
Is the violence of the film "necessary"? Obviously, in a literal sense, no. The violence is not logically or morally necessary. Gibson could have made a powerful movie that did not feature such a graphic account of the Lord's suffering. But the fact that it could have been done that way doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done in the way Gibson has. Gibson's movie is a powerful antidote to the many inside and outside the Church who would say that Jesus was all about "preaching a message of love." This sentiment is insipid and false. Jesus came to die for us and our salvation, "and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)
The Critics: Amy Welborn has rightly cautioned us not to equate criticism of Gibson's movie with hatred of the Church or the Gospel. I can disagree with Peter Nixon about the merits of the movie and still respect his opinion, because he is trying to look at it and think about it as a Catholic and from "within" the faith. He also shows that he is at least trying to meet the movie on its own terms. So I have no doubt that there are very good Catholics and others who will not like the movie for all sorts of credible reasons.
Nonetheless, there are critics of the movie who I think can justly be accused of bad will and/or bad faith. One such critic is Andrew Sullivan, whose criticisms are a monument of intellectual dishonesty. Sullivan's entire life-project revolves around overthrowing the Christian tradition regarding his "one little thing". In that light his denunciation of Mel Gibson for his "heterodox" theology is rather rich. Of course, Sullivan is also wrong: "The Passion" is clearly based on a "substitutionary atonement" theology which is not only mainstream, but may even be considered normative for the Western Christian tradition. And for Sullivan, whose enjoyment of his "lifestyle" revolves around making the scriptural condemnations of homosexual behavior "go away", to upbraid Gibson for his artistic liberties with the Gospels is almost comical in its irony.
Evangelism: Many, especially evangelical Protestants, have been touting "The Passion" as a medium of evangelism. If by that they mean converting those who have no faith in Christ, I doubt it will be effective. I think that unbelievers may very well be moved to compassion and pity for Christ, but it is faith which makes one understand the meaning of what He did and suffered. On the other hand, I think that this movie has the potential to reinvigorate the faith of many, and to rekindle fervor for the gospel. I know of many who have been moved to repentance, and to a desire to spread the Good News, by this movie. I think, that followed by a time of meditation and prayer, such as what we are organizing in my parish for a high school Youth Ministry event, it could be a very powerful instrument for deepening one's faith in and love for Our Lord.
The "Ordinary Man's" Reaction: I mentioned that my father went with me to see the movie this time. I think his reaction is instructive. Now, my father is in many ways no "ordinary" man. But he is in this sense: he is not a church professional and has no theological degrees. He is college-educated but has spent his life working very much in the "real world". He does not read blogs. (Not even my own – how's that to keep me humble!) But he knows his faith, and he knows Jesus, and tries to live accordingly. And he was very moved by this movie. He had to wipe the tears from his eyes more than once, not that I'd ever make him feel self-conscious by pointing out that I'd noticed. He was pretty choked up by it. And he observed to me afterwards that nobody came out "looking good" in this movie except Jesus and Mary. Not the Jews, not the Romans, no one. "I suppose that's about right", he said, "none of us [emphasis mine] come out looking good." He got it, and I think most people will as well.
Look What Happens…
When you’re gone for a few days. I left my blog alone for the last few days, trusting that all would be well. But, much to my chagrin, a troll whom I thought would never again befoul this atmosphere with his poisonous exhalations managed to return, another oversight stemming from my switch to SquawkBox for comments.
So I apologize to you readers who had to endure yet another monomaniacal outburst of "every-known-evil-in-the-world-is-the-fault-of-John Paul II" from our favorite advocate of the atomic bombing of much of the Muslim world. He was up to his usual tricks, such as using multiple IP addresses. But this time we were also able to witness yet more staggering theological ignorance from the self-appointed arbiter of the True Gospel, in the form of his call for excommunicating people for grave sin. Never mind that stuff about God desiring not the death of sinners, but that they be saved.
At any rate, my oversight has been corrected.
When you’re gone for a few days. I left my blog alone for the last few days, trusting that all would be well. But, much to my chagrin, a troll whom I thought would never again befoul this atmosphere with his poisonous exhalations managed to return, another oversight stemming from my switch to SquawkBox for comments.
So I apologize to you readers who had to endure yet another monomaniacal outburst of "every-known-evil-in-the-world-is-the-fault-of-John Paul II" from our favorite advocate of the atomic bombing of much of the Muslim world. He was up to his usual tricks, such as using multiple IP addresses. But this time we were also able to witness yet more staggering theological ignorance from the self-appointed arbiter of the True Gospel, in the form of his call for excommunicating people for grave sin. Never mind that stuff about God desiring not the death of sinners, but that they be saved.
At any rate, my oversight has been corrected.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Veritas? Quid Est Veritas?
Truth? What is Truth?
Those words of Pilate's have been echoing in my mind all last night and this morning, after seeing "The Passion of The Christ" last night. In one scene of the movie, Pilate spoke of "his" truth to his wife. Many in our world today seek to relativize the truth or pretend there's no such thing.
But there is. Ultimately, there is only one Truth.
There is Christ, who IS Truth.
There is Christ, and Him crucified. Everything else, though it may be "true" and important, pales in significance to the Truth of Christ and Him crucified.
That's what the movie left me with. There are many things I could say about the movie, and I'll share some of them here. But no description I could write will do justice to the experience.
You must see this movie. Fr. Robert Sirico, whose Oratory of St. Philip Neri sponsored last night's screening, said in his prefatory remarks that he wasn't sure whether any movie will change people's lives. But, he said, the decision one must make in response to the proposition this movie makes will change people's lives. I think that's an excellent summation of the effect and impact of this movie. It does make a proposition:
He was wounded for our transgressions. By his stripes were we healed.
Some of the the things that hit me the hardest were little things. For example, when Pilate questions Jesus, he begins doing so in Aramaic. But then, without warning, Jesus switches to Latin. The effect was electrifying to me. Perhaps that's because I've studied Latin extensively (M.A. in Classics) and so can follow the Latin dialogue. But just the effect of Jesus doing so (I was so bowled over that I actually missed the first sentence of what he actually said) hit me like a punch in the gut. It struck me, on reflection, as "right". I found myself thinking, "yes, of course he would have."
Another little thing involves a flashback scene with Jesus and His mother, while Jesus was working as a carpenter. I won't say what happened because I don't want to spoil it, but I will say that Mel Gibson managed, in one 3 - 4 minute scene, to capture the real humanity of Jesus and the motherhood of Mary.
Since it is de rigeur in discussing this movie to answer the question, I will: No, this movie is NOT anti-semitic. If one has a problem with this movie, the problem isn't with the movie, it's with the Gospels.
Is this movie accurate? Not in some literalistic, tot-up-the-scripture-references way. Gibson makes use of his artistic imagination to paint a portrait. But this movie is Faithful. Faithful to the Gospels. Faithful to the Tradition. Faithful to who Christ is and what He did.
And it is Faithful to the most profound mysteries of our Faith. I was struck by how Eucharistic the movie is. Not just in the flashback scenes of the Last Supper, but as a whole. I don't think I'm giving anything away here because others have written about this, but there is a scene after Jesus' scourging where Mary wipes up His blood. I was moved to think about the Mass, and every time I look into the Chalice when I say "this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant...". That blood, and the blood at the foot of the Pillar, are the same.
I will never celebrate Mass the same way again.
This movie is Art. Art in the best and highest sense. One of the panelists last night said we tend, in our day, to think of art as a private expression of what is internal to the artist. But of course, that's not what Art is really all about.
The real purpose of Art, he said, is to show us the Truth about things. Art, because it reveals beauty, points the way to Truth. Art at its best shows us the Truth.
That is what this movie does. It shows us the Truth.
Truth? What is Truth?
Those words of Pilate's have been echoing in my mind all last night and this morning, after seeing "The Passion of The Christ" last night. In one scene of the movie, Pilate spoke of "his" truth to his wife. Many in our world today seek to relativize the truth or pretend there's no such thing.
But there is. Ultimately, there is only one Truth.
There is Christ, who IS Truth.
There is Christ, and Him crucified. Everything else, though it may be "true" and important, pales in significance to the Truth of Christ and Him crucified.
That's what the movie left me with. There are many things I could say about the movie, and I'll share some of them here. But no description I could write will do justice to the experience.
You must see this movie. Fr. Robert Sirico, whose Oratory of St. Philip Neri sponsored last night's screening, said in his prefatory remarks that he wasn't sure whether any movie will change people's lives. But, he said, the decision one must make in response to the proposition this movie makes will change people's lives. I think that's an excellent summation of the effect and impact of this movie. It does make a proposition:
He was wounded for our transgressions. By his stripes were we healed.
Some of the the things that hit me the hardest were little things. For example, when Pilate questions Jesus, he begins doing so in Aramaic. But then, without warning, Jesus switches to Latin. The effect was electrifying to me. Perhaps that's because I've studied Latin extensively (M.A. in Classics) and so can follow the Latin dialogue. But just the effect of Jesus doing so (I was so bowled over that I actually missed the first sentence of what he actually said) hit me like a punch in the gut. It struck me, on reflection, as "right". I found myself thinking, "yes, of course he would have."
Another little thing involves a flashback scene with Jesus and His mother, while Jesus was working as a carpenter. I won't say what happened because I don't want to spoil it, but I will say that Mel Gibson managed, in one 3 - 4 minute scene, to capture the real humanity of Jesus and the motherhood of Mary.
Since it is de rigeur in discussing this movie to answer the question, I will: No, this movie is NOT anti-semitic. If one has a problem with this movie, the problem isn't with the movie, it's with the Gospels.
Is this movie accurate? Not in some literalistic, tot-up-the-scripture-references way. Gibson makes use of his artistic imagination to paint a portrait. But this movie is Faithful. Faithful to the Gospels. Faithful to the Tradition. Faithful to who Christ is and what He did.
And it is Faithful to the most profound mysteries of our Faith. I was struck by how Eucharistic the movie is. Not just in the flashback scenes of the Last Supper, but as a whole. I don't think I'm giving anything away here because others have written about this, but there is a scene after Jesus' scourging where Mary wipes up His blood. I was moved to think about the Mass, and every time I look into the Chalice when I say "this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant...". That blood, and the blood at the foot of the Pillar, are the same.
I will never celebrate Mass the same way again.
This movie is Art. Art in the best and highest sense. One of the panelists last night said we tend, in our day, to think of art as a private expression of what is internal to the artist. But of course, that's not what Art is really all about.
The real purpose of Art, he said, is to show us the Truth about things. Art, because it reveals beauty, points the way to Truth. Art at its best shows us the Truth.
That is what this movie does. It shows us the Truth.
Monday, February 23, 2004
I'm Going to See "The Passion" Tonight!
I can hardly wait! I'm going to be one of the lucky 300 or so people who get to see a special preview of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" at an event organized by the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in Kalamazoo.
I will give my reactions and impressions tomorrow.
I can hardly wait! I'm going to be one of the lucky 300 or so people who get to see a special preview of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" at an event organized by the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in Kalamazoo.
I will give my reactions and impressions tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
