Month: November 2009

So I was pleased to see last week that the Washington Post's "Under God" blog picked up on my 2012 review at Christianity Today in a post on the film — and that they specifically called out a "Catholic" coda at the end of the review, in which I expressed my difficulty with the depiction (and non-depiction) of Catholic clergy at key points in the film:

A Tibetan monk is among the survivors, but "the only Christian clergy shown are the Catholic prelates who die at St. Peter's . . . If Emmerich is going to specifically show the Vatican leadership going down with St. Peter's, I want to see Catholic (and/or Orthodox) bishops among the survivors–somewhere on the planet."

Apparently Canada's CBC took note, and this morning I did a half-hour segment on the CBC's morning show "The Current." While I always walk away from a broadcast appearance thinking about all the things I wished I had said, I thought that it went pretty well, all things considered.

Now this morning I see that NYTimes.com's Arts Beat blog picked up on my New Moon review for Christianity Today in their round-up of reviews! This time, there's not a specific faith angle; the CT.com review is quoted alongside Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek and Slate.com's Dana Stevens — and they note, amusingly, that mine is probably "the only 'New Moon' review to invoke C. S. Lewis." Heh!

They also quote what is really the heart of my critique of the whole Twilight saga:

Twilight and New Moon are essentially uncritical celebrations of that overwrought, obsessive passion that is the hallmark of immaturity — passion that wholly subordinates all sense of one's own identity and elevates the beloved to summum bonum, or even the sole good; passion that leaps as readily to suicidal impulses and fantasies as to longing for union.

Pretty cool. (My editor at CT.com says he's going to have to keep me on all the two-star cheese-fests from now on…)

Incidentally, the WaPo blogger, David Waters, comments on my 2012 reservations, "Personally, I think that expecting to find any theological sensitivity from a Hollywood blockbuster is like expecting to find nutritional value in a jelly donut."

Maybe. First, though, how plausible is it that an enormous international project to save a remnant of thousands of people from all over the world, including many of the powerful and connected, would not include bishops? Certainly among those thousands would be some Catholics and Orthodox who would want to make provision for their faith life aprés le deluge, and would arrange for the inclusion of clergy.

Second, it's more the contrast of Catholic bishops explicitly being killed onscreen but not shown among the survivors that bothers me.

And third, I wouldn't say I had any "expectations" of "theological sensitivity" … I was merely commenting on something that's a problem for me watching the film. I might have similar reservations about a jelly donut.

Hey, Tim Jones here, again. Hoping JA.O's resident film critic par excellence, Steven D. Greydanus, might have some more information or thoughts on this project;

It looks like Jose Maria Escriva, founder of the Catholic organization Opus Dei, is the subject of a movie soon to be out in theaters.

The movie has finished shooting and is in post-production under the watchful eye of director Roland Joffe, who also directed The Killing Fields and The Mission.

I haven't seen The Killing Fields, but The Mission
I thought was a great film, and in one particular sequence gave one of
the most powerful demonstrations of the value of penance I've ever
seen. Not so much the value of penance in what they call the Economy of
Salvation, but the deep human need for meaningful penance… the longing all spiritually healthy people have to do something to make up for our selfish acts.

This is not at all
to say that we can earn our salvation through acts of penance apart
from the grace of God. Without his grace, we could not even begin to
repent, and our actions would be worthless.

Repentance and the desire
to do penance is one of the surest indications of the working of God's
grace, so the idea that acts of penance – actions we take to help make
up for our sins – are somehow opposed to faith is self contradictory.
Our sins can be forgiven only through the shed blood of Christ, but
that does not relieve us of the responsibility to do all we can to contribute to the process of our own salvation (which is also called "sanctification" – they are two names for the same process).

Anyway,
I'm sure members of Opus Dei will be looking forward to the film, as I
will be. It sounds pretty highly fictionalized, but Joffe is reportedly
sympathetic to the teachings of Jose Maria Escriva. I hope the movie
provides some cultural balance to counter the loony speculation that
followed in the wake of The Da Vinci Code.

Get The Story!

(This was cross-posted at Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)

SDG here, belatedly responding to a number of requests I received a few months back when Jimmy mentioned on the air that I had once corresponded with anti-Catholic apologist James McCarthy.

Here’s the background: In 1992, James McCarthy’s video “Catholicism: Crisis of Faith” was first coming out under the banner of a group called Lumen Productions (read a short critique of the video from Catholic Answers).

In November 1992 I contacted McCarthy to express my objections to this project. (This was only a few months after I was received into the Church, though I had been researching and reading about the Faith for years, and had just begun my graduate work at St. Charles Borromeo.)

McCarthy sent me a free official transcript pamphlet based on the video, and we subsequently exchanged a series of letters. During the course of this exchange McCarthy sent me his pamphlet “The Mass: From Mystery to Meaning” as well as manuscript drafts from The Gospel According to Rome, which he asked me to critique from a Catholic perspective. (Just last night Jimmy mentioned to me that he had recently run across a text I wrote in those days in which I critiqued The Gospel According to Rome. I had forgotten all about writing that critique, so I’ll be looking over that in the (hopefully near) future, and perhaps posting here any points worth making public.)

In my first letter, I quoted the words of Martin Luther: “One thing I ask, that neither truth nor error be condemned unheard and unrefuted.” I wrote that I appreciated the research that went into the project, and commended them for turning to good Catholic apologetical and catechetical works as well as ecumenical councils as sources. On the other hand, I added, “precisely because your sources were so good, I fail to understand how this pamphlet could contain some of the simple factual errors that it does.” After pointing out numerous instances of misstatements and distortions of Catholic teaching in Lumen’s video project “Catholicism: Crisis of Faith,” I concluded in my closing paragraph:

In short, the video appears to be aimed at Catholics whose faith is shallow, ill-informed, and unstable, who will not realize that there is anything more to the issues than you have presented here. It seems to seek to make a case that will appear unanswerable and unarguable to those who have never heard the arguments and answers. It looks like its purpose is to prey on the weak and sick of the flock … with promises of greener pastures: but it seems unwilling to admit to its prey that their flock may have healthier sheep (not to mention shepherds) who might withstand the attack; or that there may be greener pastures within the very fold which they have never known.

McCarthy’s reply was courteous and irenic. He thanked me for the “loving tone” and reasonable approach of my letter (which he contrasted favorably with the “enraged” tone of a Lutheran woman who had also written that week to take exception of the film). In subsequent correspondence he expressed appreciation for my “good writing style and patient reasoning.” (Alas, looking back at those early letters, I cringe at some of my stylistic quirks in those days.)

The following is a summary of salient points of our exchange, organized topically and generally moving from shorter and less consequential exchanges to longer and more substantial ones.

A few notes: I have made minor typographical corrections and such both to McCarthy’s letters and to mine. At times I have expanded upon comments from my original emails with additional analysis (it should be fairly clear where this has been done). Third, while I believe I have the complete correspondence before me, and while I’ve tried to be as complete as possible, I can’t be sure I haven’t lost or missed something. Finally, this exchange took place over fifteen years ago; I expect that neither McCarthy nor I would necessarily approach all of the issues below exactly as we did at the time. That said, I offer the following highlights of our exchange for whatever light it may shed on works that are still offered by McCarthy.

Continue reading “Corresponding with James McCarthy”

My colleague at Catholic Answers Jim Blackburn was telling me about a stop-motion video made by his son Justin, with help from his brother James. The two boys appear in the film, which stars their cousin, Jackie Jo and also features her sister, Jamie Sue. (Notice anything about the letter J in this family?)

Here's the video. Enjoy!