A thoughtful reader pointed out that Steven and my posts didn’t have sig lines, making it hard to tell them apart. I’d assumed the system automatically turned those on when I added Steven as an author and didn’t notice that this wasn’t the case. They’ve now been turned on. Thanks for pointing it out!
The right hand bar has been loading a little slower than I like, so I’ve turned off the links to the recommended books, though they’ll be back in the future.
After all the warnings that Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ would cause violence and have a harmful effect on people’s . . . well, morals, presumably, if it was going to cause violence . . . comes this amazing story of a murderer being driven to repentance and confessing his crime after seeing the film.
What this man did is horrendous, but the story shows the power of the story of God’s Son, even via the medium of film, to touch the most hardened hearts.
Thanks for the welcome, Jimmy.
Yes, it’s true: I’m not Jimmy. I don’t even play him on TV. At least for awhile, though, I’m going to be blogging on his site. (Since Jimmy is a guest critic on my site, Decent Films, perhaps there’s some cosmic balance in me being a guest blogger on his site.)
As Jimmy mentioned, this is my first venture into the blogosphere (as a publisher I mean), so I’m not sure yet what I’m going to blog about. I have a lot of the same areas of interest as Jimmy (language being one notable exception — not that I’m UNinterested in languages, but I don’t study them), so hopefully if I think something’s interesting it will stand a good chance of interesting those of you who read this site regularly (as I do).
So, here’s my first item: Could Jim Caviezel, best known as Jesus in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, be the next Superman?!
As a film critic and a comic-book fan, I follow closely news regarding comic-book movies, which, beginning with
Until 2000, the big player in comic-book movies was DC Comics / Warner Bros, with their Superman and Batman franchises. Marvel Comics, home of Spider-Man and the
Lately, though, the shoe’s been on the other foot. Marvel has enjoyed a number of hits, especially in the
Tim Burton, I kid you not, wanted to cast Nicholas Cage as Superman. Yes. Nicolas Cage. This from the same guy who cast Michael Keaton as Batman. And while Batman has arguably NEVER been well cast, Superman has never been POORLY cast. George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain, Tom Welling — they’re all good. Fortunately, Burton and Cage are long since gone from the project.
Now, though, DC may finally have gotten their act together. They’ve hired the creative team from the
Would Jim Caviezel be a good Superman? Maybe. His work on The Count of Monte Cristo, more than anything, suggests he’s up to the challenge. In the abstract, though, I’m not sure I’d want to see Jesus playing Superman. Somehow I worry that it might alter my experience of The Passion of the Christ. Yet I enjoy Caviezel in Frequency and other roles without worrying about that. So maybe it would be all right after all.
BTW, it looks like Batman might finally be getting a break too. Christopher Nolan is directing Batman Begins, and has cast Christian Bale in the title role. The trailer looks promising.
I’m going to have to devote my attention to other things the next couple of weeks and, though I will still be posting, I won’t be able to post as often as usual, so I’ve invited Steven D. Greydanus of the massively bodacious Decent Films Guide to join me as a guest blogger ’till I’m able to get back in the swing of things.
Hope y’all will show Steven a good time, as this is his first foray into blogging, and I hope y’all’ll also check out his excent films reviews on his own site.
Maybe here on the blog he’ll share with us some insight into upcoming movies, like the rumored new Superman film or something?
Let’s hope that the capture of key figures involved in the plot and their hard drives will convince al-Qa’eda leadership that the operation has been so compromised that it needs to be called off.
Let’s also pray that the information that has been captured is sufficient to let the authorities capture the rest of terrorists involved in the plot and to continue to disrupt al-Qa’eda operations.
Lord, hear our prayer.
I haven’t received any questions or complaints that would indicate confusion on the following point, but just as a precaution I want to clarify something to forestall any confusion arising in the future. What I want to clarify is this:
My blog is mine.
What I mean by that is that it is something I do on my own. I write it on my own time. I pay for it out of my own pocket. And the opinions that I express on it are mine.
My employer, Catholic Answers, does not give me time to blog. It does not pay for this blog. It does not ask for or give input concerning what I say on it (not even on this particular post, which I decided to write all on my own).
Consequently, when I blog I am writing purely in my capacity as a private individual, not as a representative of Catholic Answers.
For example, I might express opinions about political matters on my blog. I might even express opinions about particular political candidates. In so doing, I am speaking only for myself. Catholic Answers, as a non-profit corporation, does not take positions on political candidates or races.
Just wanted to clarify what should be obvious, in case anyone might potentially, hypothetically one day be confused about the matter.
Hope this helps!
This is a common question asked by a great many people. Often times they have heard that they might not need an annulment for various reasons (e.g., their prior wedding was outside the Catholic Church, it wasn’t a Christian wedding, it was done in a courthouse, one or both partners were not Catholics). Unfortunately, what they have heard is often incorrect.
Here is a simple list of questions to ask to determine whether an annulment is needed:
1) Does the person wish to get married or to possibly marry in the future?
2) Has the person attempted marriage before (meaning: has the person ever had anything that someone would regard as a wedding ceremony)?
3) Is the prior spouse still alive?
4) Is it the case that the Catholic Church has not yet investigated the marriage and found it to be null?
If the answer to all four of these questions is “yes” then the person needs an annulment.
These questions should be asked both for Catholics and non-Catholics, and they should be asked for each prior marriage the person has attempted.
The reasons that you sometimes hear suggested for why a person may not need an annulment do not actually mean that the person doesn’t need an annulment. More often, they are indicators that it will be easy to show that the marriage was null. For example, if a Catholic married outside the Church without a dispensation then the marriage was automatically null, and this will be easy to show when the annulment is sought. However, the annulment is still necessary.
In order to be faithful to Christ’s teachings on matrimony (Mark 10:2-12, see also Romans 7:2-3), the Church has a pastoral duty to investigate it whenever a person has attempted marriage and make sure that the person really is free to marry before giving that person permission to marry again. This investigation is commonly called the annulment process. It may be easy or hard to show nullity in a particular case, but the Church has a responsibility to Christ to investigate the matter.
The way to get the annulment process started is to call a local parish, explain that you would like to seek an annulment, and they can help you from there.
NOTE: There is one class of exception to the above. There are a few cases in which it is possible for a marriage to be dissolved. The most common such case is when two unbaptized people marry and then later one of them is baptized and the non-baptized partner will not continue living with the baptized partner (1 Cor. 7:12-15). However, even in cases such as this, where dissolution is technically possible, annulment is still generally the best way of handling the case. If you think such a case may apply in your situation, contact the marriage tribunal at your local Catholic diocese for further guidance.
Alan Keys, a conservative Catholic and Republican candidate for the Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate being contested this fall, laid into his rival, Barack Obama, accusing him of holding a position on abortion comparable to that of slaveowners regarding slaves. In both cases, a class of human beings is denied full humanity and then systematically exploited for the benefit of others.
According to the Associated Press story:
Up at dawn for a whirlwind round of broadcast interviews, the conservative former diplomat [Keyes] started his first full day of campaigning as the GOP candidate by saying Obama, a state senator from Chicago, had violated the principle that all men are created equal by voting against a bill that would have outlawed a form of late-term abortion.
Keyes said legalizing abortion deprives the unborn of their equal rights.
“I would still be picking cotton if the country’s moral principles had not been shaped by the Declaration of Independence,” Keyes said. He said Obama “has broken and rejected those principles– he has taken the slaveholder’s position.”
The remarks underscore the uniqueness of this Senate race in which both candidates, one an outspoken conservative and the other a favorite of party liberals, are black.
Obama, who has been basking in national celebrity since delivering the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, suggested Keyes is outside the moderate mainstream of state Republicans.
Asked specifically about the phrase “slaveholder’s position,” Obama said Keyes “should look to members of his own party to see if that’s appropriate if he’s going to use that kind of language.”
Faced with the Keyes onslaught, Obama was ambiguous on the number of times he would meet Keyes in debate:
Obama said Monday that there would be “a sufficient number of debates” between himself and Keyes– both men are Harvard-educated, polished debaters– but not the seven such clashes he had promised [former senate candidate Jack] Ryan.
IMPACTING HARD.
Alan Keys, a conservative Catholic and Republican candidate for the Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate being contested this fall, laid into his rival, Barack Obama, accusing him of holding a position on abortion comparable to that of slaveowners regarding slaves. In both cases, a class of human beings is denied full humanity and then systematically exploited for the benefit of others.
According to the Associated Press story:
Up at dawn for a whirlwind round of broadcast interviews, the conservative former diplomat [Keyes] started his first full day of campaigning as the GOP candidate by saying Obama, a state senator from Chicago, had violated the principle that all men are created equal by voting against a bill that would have outlawed a form of late-term abortion.
Keyes said legalizing abortion deprives the unborn of their equal rights.
“I would still be picking cotton if the country’s moral principles had not been shaped by the Declaration of Independence,” Keyes said. He said Obama “has broken and rejected those principles– he has taken the slaveholder’s position.”
The remarks underscore the uniqueness of this Senate race in which both candidates, one an outspoken conservative and the other a favorite of party liberals, are black.
Obama, who has been basking in national celebrity since delivering the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, suggested Keyes is outside the moderate mainstream of state Republicans.
Asked specifically about the phrase “slaveholder’s position,” Obama said Keyes “should look to members of his own party to see if that’s appropriate if he’s going to use that kind of language.”
Faced with the Keyes onslaught, Obama was ambiguous on the number of times he would meet Keyes in debate:
Obama said Monday that there would be “a sufficient number of debates” between himself and Keyes– both men are Harvard-educated, polished debaters– but not the seven such clashes he had promised [former senate candidate Jack] Ryan.
IMPACTING HARD.
The new method is billed as strictly in conformity with Catholic moral teaching (whereas so many fertility therapies are not).
Let’s hope it is as advertised and that it helps many couples end the heartbreak of infertility!