2010 – Page 12 – Jimmy Akin

The Changing Economics of Animation

Longtime readers of the blog know that I have interests in technology and economics and in how the former is impacting the latter.

One of the ways it is doing so is changing the world of entertainment. In times past, as it has been said, freedom of the press belonged to those who owned a press–presses being expensive things that most people didn't have. But with the Internet, everyone can have the equivalent of a press if they want it, and the blogosphere is radically changing things.

So are electronic publishing and print-on-demand services.

Something similar is happening in the world of film. Now ordinary folks can make films on the cheap and distribute them in ways that would never have been possible before. Like the fan-produced film I blogged last year, The Hunt For Gollum.

New technology is also affecting the world of animation. Not only is traditional animation being impacted by computer generated animation at the studio level, it's also being impacted as the level of ordinary folks, with people using machinima to produce series like Red vs. Blue.

Machinima (a Japanese-esque variation on the word "machine") commonly involves taking the cgi-producing graphics engine of a video game and re-purposing it to serve as the cgi-engine for the user's own videos. In other words, you're hijacking a game's graphics capabilities to make your own movies.

The premier example of this is the afore-mentioned Red vs. Blue, which is often hilarious but which also often involves bad language (so be warned).

Machinima typically involves using a technology in a way other than what it was designed for, but that's not the only way technology is impacting animation by ordinary people.

"So what does all this have to do with Kara Thrace?" you are asking.

Well, we are now at the dawn of text-to-animation services, such as those offered by XtraNormal.Com, where their slogan is, "If you can type, you can make movies."

With their service, you type in a script, with stage directions that their software can make sense of, and it produces a short CGI movie that you can upload to YouTube or whatever.

I've been tempted to try it myself, but . . . y'know . . . stuff.

And the technology is still at a primitive stage. . . . So Far. (Expect this to change radically and rapidly. Y'know, within our lifetimes type stuff.)

This hasn't stopped YouTube user HighlandsTechno (or people connected to him) from using the service to produce a series of Galactica-related videos.

Some of these involve people from their web board (wherever it is), who ask questions of Ron Moore in the wake of the Galactica finale (which makes this a surprise bonus post on the finale, yay!)

For some reason (not quite sure why, but not trying too hard to guess, either), Ron Moore is depicted in these videos as a clown. Go figure.

(BTW, "Ron"'s responses aren't authentic, either. They're what the creators suppose his responses might be–commedically.)

One video is by ChamallaExtract/Mo, who asks "Ron" some questions regarding Kara Thrace.

I find myself much in agreement with him. Like him, I don't need a technical explanation of how everything that happened with her, but I would like a little more clarity regarding what happened.

Specifically: I don't mind her suddenly disappearing after her angelic nature had been revealed (angels do things like that), but when did she actually become an angel?

Was it when her ship blew up over the gas giant? If so, why did we find her body (which should have been blown into itty-bitty pieces) on Old Earth? Was it when she returned from the dead and met Lee in the season 3 finale? Had she always been angel, the whole time we knew the character? Was she an angel appearing in the form of a pigeon to Lee in the series finale flashbacks? What about her apparent human (Colonial marine) mother and apparent angelic (struggling musician) father?

And how shocking is it that Baltar would find Kara's blood on her dog tags when Kara herself provided those dog tags to Baltar? What does that prove?

I'm not looking for full, detailed explanations but for . . . something Moore.

Anyway, here's the video:

Also, there are similar videos telling the story of the making of the series.They also include adolescent jokes and bad language so, y'know, viewer beware.

And that's how animation is changing.

Amazing how far we've come technologically, and how far we haven't.

What are your thoughts?

I Want A Word With Dr. Edward Peters!

I want a word with Dr. Edward Peters (pictured).

And that word is . . .

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

According to Vatican Information Service, Pope Benedict XVI has–

Appointed as relators of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura: Fr. Eduardo Baura de la Pena, professor at the faculty of canon law of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross; Fr. Paolo Giuseppe Bianchi, judicial vicar of the Ecclesiastical Regional Tribunal of Lombardy, Italy; Fr. Bruno Esposito O.P., professor at the faculty of canon law of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; Fr. Luigi Sabbarese C.S., dean of the faculty of canon law of the Pontifical Urban University, and Edward N. Peters, professor of canon law at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary of the archdiocese of Detroit U.S.A.

Over at his blog, Ed writes:

As one of some dozen international consultants to the Church’s highest administrative tribunal, it will be my privilege and responsibility to advise, on an as-needed basis, the officials of that dicastery regarding matters impacting the administration of law and justice within the Church.

A number of persons have graciously conveyed their congratulations to me on this honor, and I am truly grateful for their kind words. But I want to underscore that I see this appointment not so much as an honor, but rather, as an invitation to serve more effectively the mission of the Church as the Speculum Iustitiae [Mirror of Justice].

Even as I prepare, however, to place my training in canon and common law more readily at the service of the Church, I recall what Canon 1752 stresses, namely, that “the salvation of souls [is] the supreme law in the Church.” Salvation is not, in the end, a work of law, but one of love. As such, it is a work toward which we all can, and must, contribute.

Ergo, oremus pro invicem [Let us pray for one another]!

He also notes:

It bears mentioning perhaps that (1) in canon law consultors express opinions only and do not enjoy decision-making authority over the matters presented to them, and (2) my opinions as a canonist carry only the weight of the arguments I adduce for them, or in other words, that in all matters, I speak only for myself and not on behalf of the Church.

Rocco Palmo also notes (CHT: American Papist):

In a move recognizing a canonist held as one of the nation’s “premier” specialists in church law, the pontiff named Dr Edward Peters — the discipline’s lead hand at Detroit’s Sacred Heart Major Seminary — as a referendare of the Apostolic Signatura, a consultant to the church’s highest court. (One now, of course, led by its first-ever American prefect.)

A blogger and father of six beyond the classroom, the honor for a layman is unique — Peters becomes the lone non-cleric among the dozen or so consultors. What’s more, the four priests likewise added to the group this morning are all based in Rome or Milan.

So again, congratulations, Ed!
And definitely, oremus pro invicem!

Okay, Let’s Talk Galactica Finale (Part 4)

In this post we’ll look at the third and last hour of the Galactica finale, Daybreak (summary here: Act 6 to Act 10).

The first act of this hour–Act 6–is the climax of the entire series. These ten minutes are where it all comes to a head. After this, it’s a comfortable downhill ride (so we’re going to have more to say about it than anything else).

When we last saw our heroes, a tentative truce had just been worked out and everybody stood down from active combat.

The basis of the truce was the Final Five’s offer to Cavil resurrection technology if he would release Hera, who he was holding hostage.

Cavil agreed.

Continue reading “Okay, Let’s Talk Galactica Finale (Part 4)”

What Are the True Facts Regarding the Abortion-Approving Nun?

I’ve had several requests to comment on the announcement in the Diocese of Phoenix that Sr. Margaret McBride of the Sisters of Mercy (pictured) has incurred automatic excommunication for approving an abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix.

So here goes.

As you would expect, Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix is being pilloried in connection with this, with the mainstream media and others trying to fit it to the “Cruel Bishop vs. Victim Nun” stock narrative (as opposed, e.g., to the “Conscientious Bishop Trying To Do His Job after Nun Approves Horror” narrative).

So let’s try to take an objective look at the situation, starting with the facts of the case.

Unfortunately, the facts of the case are not entirely clear. The identity of the mother who had the abortion, for example, has not been disclosed due to medical privacy laws, but here is what we know:

1) Last December a 27-year old woman with pulmonary hypertension was 11 weeks pregnant and sought some form of care at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix.

2) According to a statement of St. Joseph’s, a consultation was held “with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member.”

3) It was decided that “the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy.”

4) The abortion was performed, though the means by which it was done is not clear. Presumably it was suction aspiration, or possibly dilation and curettage since RU 486 does not seem to be recommended for 11 pregnancies. The Arizona Republic states that it was a “surgery,” which would also point to either suction-aspiration or D & C, but it mentions this only in passing, and so it could be something the reporter assumed, not what actually happened. If it was (as I strongly suspect), suction-aspiration or D & C then the child was directly torn in pieces as part of the procedure.

5) At some point this came to the attention of the Diocese of Phoenix, and Sr. McBride confirmed to Bishop Olmsted that she had approved the abortion.

6) At some point, presumably after this, Sr. McBride was reassigned within St. Joe’s. Neither the diocese nor the hospital has said whether Bishop Olmsted had a role in the reassignment.

7) Also at some point, presumably at about the same time, Sr. McBride was informed that she had incurred a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication per canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

8) At some point the reassignment of Sr. McBride came to the attention of the Arizona Republic, whose staff contacted both Bishop Olmsted and St. Joseph’s for statements.

9) On or about May 14, St. Joseph’s confirmed to the Arizona Republic that an abortion had taken place there in December. On or about this same date it provided a statement to the newspaper.

10) On May 14, Bishop Olmsted provided a statement as well.

11) On May 15, the Arizona Republic published the statements online (kudos to the Arizona Republic for doing so instead of hiding them and merely quoting and summarizing them without showing us the context).

12) The same day, it published this story by Michael Clancy on the matter (for some reason the story now carries a date of May 19, though it originally came out four days earlier; perhaps this is an unacknowledged revision of the original story). It was at this point the story became known to the public in general.

And those are the basic facts as we know them (or seem to know them).

Let’s see if we can answer a few questions:

1) Is the bishop really being mean?

From the way this is being reported, you’d think that Bishop Olmsted was issuing thundering public denunciations of Sr. McBride, that he took the initiative to sent out some kind of press release announcing the excommunication, perhaps to warn members of his flock that Sr. McBride is to be publicly shunned or something.

From what I can tell, this is the exact opposite of what happened. It appears that Bishop Olmsted issued his statement only in response to the hospital confirming the story for the press. Had the hospital kept its mouth shut, Bishop Olmsted would not have made it public.

To minimize public humiliation of Sr. McBride, Bishop Olmsted did not say in his statement that she had been excommunicated. In fact, she was not mentioned in his statement at all. The only mention of excommunication the statement makes is a general one, with no specific individuals in focus. It is just the general caution, “If a Catholic formally cooperates in the procurement of an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated by that action.”

Reporter Michael Clancy also seems to acknowledge that the Bishop did not speak explicitly of Sr. McBride, stating in his story only that he “indicated” (as opposed, e.g., to “said”) that McBride was excommunicated.

My guess is that what happened here is that the Bishop wanted to deal with these matters privately, but someone at the hospital tipped the press, which then asked both the Bishop and the hospital about the matter. When the hospital confirmed, the Bishop felt obliged to respond as well, but of a desire to protect the reputations/privacy of those involved, he responded only in general terms, acknowledging that an abortion had taken place, that he was horrified by this, and explaining the Church’s position on such matters.

Scarcely the “Cruel Bishop vs. Victim Nun” narrative. No thundering public denunciations of Sr. McBride; no attempts to publicly shame her—quite the opposite!

But the press ran with it, making explicit the fact that she had been excommunicated. The bishop hadn’t said so, but presumably she and/or someone else who knew about it told the Arizona Republic, and the Arizona Republic took the reference to the Church’s law in the bishop’s statement as confirmation.

The story then went all over the place, and the diocese felt obliged to provide a Q & A to clear things up.

This Q & A was released on May 18th by Rob DeFrancesco, the diocesan director of communications. It is online here (.pdf), and it seems to have been written by the communications office, because it contains a number of imprecisions regarding canon law that Bishop Olmsted, who is himself a canonist, would not be expected to use in his writing.

The document is notable, though, in that it confirms that Sr. McBride—and ostensibly others (none of who are named)—automatically excommunicated themselves due to their involvement in the abortion.

Again, this does not support the narrative of a bishop being cruel by publicly humiliating someone. Instead, it suggests a bishop trying to preserve the reputations and privacy of all involved but feeling compelled by the press to reluctantly confirm certain facts in order to prevent public misunderstanding.

2) Did Sr. McBride automatically excommunicated herself?

This is an important question, because if she did then one can scarcely fault Bishop Olmsted for informing her of this fact. It would be his duty as a pastor to inform her of the canonical consequences of her action and encourage her repentance and reconciliation with the Church. In other words, he would be doing his job, seeking to encourage reconciliation in the wake of a tragic error.

So . . . did she?

As outsiders, it’s hard for us to say for ourselves because the specific facts of the case aren’t known. Bishop Olmsted has sought to preserve Sr. McBride’s privacy, and according to Catholic News Service, “Sister Margaret . . . has declined to comment on the controversy.”

But let’s look for a moment at the law as it seems to apply to this case.

According to canon 1398, quoted above, a person who “procures a completed abortion” incurs automatic excommunication. Among other things, this must be understood in light of subsequent Magisterial teaching (e.g., Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae) as referring to a “direct abortion, i.e., every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb ‘whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end’” (EV 62).

This excludes procedures that do not directly kill the child but that foresee the child’s death as a non-intended, non-desired side effect (e.g., radiation or chemotherapy treatments for a pregnant mother with cancer). It is also why I dealt above with the fact that the child was almost certainly killed by suction-aspiration or dilation and curettage, both of which tear the child into tiny bits and are thus unambiguously the direct killing of an innocent individual, with no dispute possible, even hypothetically.

So far as we can tell, there is no dispute that a direct abortion occurred in this case, meaning that this part of the question is off the table.

So did Sr. McBride “procure” such an abortion?

Before we answer this question, we must mention another canon that has relevance to this case. Canon 1329 provides that:

§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae [automatic] penalty attached to a delict [offence] if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them . . .

One might hold that only the woman who has an abortion and/or the one who pays for or arranges for it “procures” it, but canon 1329 makes it clear that the penalty of automatic excommunication also applies to accomplices “if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed.”

So one can either argue that by voting to approve the abortion Sr. McBride fell under the provision of “procuring” the abortion or that she functioned as a necessary accomplice under the provision of canon 1329 §2.

In either case, she would have incurred automatic excommunication.

Thus Bishop Olmsted would have been simply doing his pastoral duty of informing her of the fact that she had excommunicated herself and needed to take steps to reconcile with the Church.

3) Is there another option?

Suppose that Sr. McBride did not “procure” an abortion and that she was not a necessary accomplice in procuration one. Is there a theory that would allow her to be seen as automatically excommunicating herself?

Maybe.

Such a theory seems to be suggested by the Q & A that the Communications Office of the Diocese of Phoenix released.

This Q & A states:

Why was Sr. McBride excommunicated?

Sr. McBride held a position of authority at the hospital and was frequently consulted on ethical matters. She gave her consent that the abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to Church teaching. Furthermore, she admitted this directly to Bishop Olmsted. Since she gave her consent and encouraged an abortion she automatically excommunicated herself from the Church. “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2272) This canonical penalty is imposed by virtue of Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The significant part of this is the quotation from CCC 2272, which states that formal cooperation in an abortion is a grave offense to which the Church attaches the penalty of excommunication.

Formal cooperation is a much lesser test than that provided for in Canon 1329. To formally cooperate with an act one need only cooperate with it (as Sr. McBride clearly did by voting to approve the abortion) and approve of it (as she did if she consented to it as “a morally good and allowable act,” per the Q & A). This involves much less than being an accomplice without whom the offense “would not have been committed.”

Still, an unquoted part of the Catechism text notes that this application is “subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law” (presumably including Canon 1329). It then references Canons 1323 and 1324, neither of which seem apropos to this case.

Nevertheless, it seems that the Communications Office of the Diocese of Phoenix may be holding to a theory that, based on CCC 2272, any formal cooperation with a direct abortion will trigger automatic excommunication, and if it is true that Sr. McBride “gave her consent that the [direct] abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to Church” then it seems she formally cooperated in such an abortion and triggered the penalty on this theory.

There would be several defenses against this view (among them: The Catechism is a teaching document that does not establish legal requirements; also, Canon 18 requires that a strict interpretation be given to laws involving the penalty of excommunication).

And the theory just articulated is not the common understanding among canonists, which is one reason why the Q & A seems to contain imprecisions that one would not expect of Bishop Olmsted as a canonist, but it deserves to be mentioned since it’s in the Q & A.

Okay, Let’s Talk Galactica Finale (Part 3)

In this post we'll look at the second hour of the Galactica finale, Daybreak (summary here: Act 1 to Act 5).

The hour opens with flashbacks to Caprica before the Fall illustrating why Caprica deserved to fall (the Tigh/Ellen/Adama club scene; ick).

Across town, Kara is having dinner with Lee and Zak,and Roslin is becoming . . . uh . . . involved with one of her former students.

We get small moments of illumination into these characters, but . . . none are as interesting as the already resolved flashback story involving Baltar and his father.

Speaking of Baltar, meanwhile back in the future, Baltar's cult is preparing to leave Galactica, and expecting him to go with it, but Head Six appears and tells Baltar to trust God's plan.

END OF ACT 1

Continue reading “Okay, Let’s Talk Galactica Finale (Part 3)”

A Moment of Fringey, Comicy Goodness

So the Fringe season 2 finale has aired, and I really liked it.

I'm still planning on doing an intro post to the series to invite people who want to try out the show so that they can catch up over the summer before season 3 starts this September (yes! it has been renewed!), so I'm not going to spoil anything in this post (please likewise don't in the combox).

At least, I'm not going to spoil anything significant. Just a minor moment that deals with something never even explicitly mentioned by the characters.

It displays the kind of creativity and subtlety that the show regularly displays. Unlike many shows, the creators of Fringe regularly load the show with easter eggs that will delight the sharp-eyed, attentive viewers–like the mysterious man who rarely has any dialog but who appears in every single episode, usually just walking through the shot or standing around in a crowd scene, allowing in-the-know viewers to have a live action version of Where's Waldo? every episode (and yes, this character does have a crucial role in the overall series arc).

Another easter egg appeared in the in the finale, where at one point we are in a hotel room in an alternate universe and the wall is decorated with framed comic book covers, which can be seen only out-of-focus in the background.

As I watched the scene, I said, "Hey, that's the cover of the first issue of the revived Justice League from the 1980s. I have that comic! And that one's The Dark Knight Returns #1! And on a show like this they've got to have a cover from Crisis on Infinite Earths. Do they? They do! Woo-hoo! I've got all of these!"

Except that I don't.

As became apparent when one of the covers came just enough into focus to make it recognizable as a famous Green Lantern/Green Arrow cover. Not that I don't have that issue (I think I've got it in a trade paperback edition), but because this is an alternate universe and it's actually a cover of Red Lantern/Red Arrow!

So now I knew that all of the covers were "alternate" in some way.

But what ways?

By happenstance, I found good-resolution versions of all of them on DC's blog.

YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM HERE.

DC made them up for the producers of Fringe, and they're all versions of comic covers that were famous in one way or another–in our universe.

I love the re-casting of Guy Gardner from the original cover as Jonah Hex! That works!

Also, the DC blog post is newbie-safe if you don't want to be spoiled on Fringe and just want to see the covers. They don't spoil anything in the blog post (I can't vouch for the comments because, y'know, always in motion the future is).

Now if I can just find a good-res version of the alternate map of the United States from the show.

I'm given to understand that Texas is two different states, and I want to see which one I (or the alternate me) was born in. (Since I was born in Corpus Christi, right down at the bottom of the point of Texas, I'm pretty sure I'm from South Texas, but I want to be see for myself.)

Okay, Let’s Talk Galactica Finale (Part 2)

Yesterday I said I'd continue this series by talking first about the things I liked and then the things I didn't, but after further thought I decided to go hour-by-hour and talk about both. So here are my thoughts on the first hour of Daybreak.

The episode started with flashbacks to the main characters lives before the fall of the Twelve Colonies.

Fine. Good move. Nice to tie back to the beginning now that we're arriving at the end. Nice to have a little extra insight on where these characters came from.

In principle.

Of course, it's the execution that counts.

I like the flashback with Baltar's dad the most. Roslin's family members' deaths was also interesting. The Starbuck/Lee/Zak thread that starts in this hour is much less interesting (and finishes poorly in later), and the William Adama "I don't want to do some unspecified thing" eventually pays off okay kinda but isn't that interesting here.

Meanwhile, back in the future, Roslin is dying and Lee is stripping Galactica of spare parts, and everyone is getting ready to ship things over to the rebel base star to serve as the new capitol ship after Galactica (which I think is a really cool idea).

Back at the Colony, though, Cavil is preparing to do horrible medical experiments on Hera to find out how she was created so that the cylons can replicate the process now that the resurrection system is shot. Nice creepy stuff, here.

And after a chance encounter with Hotdog, Adama decides to conduct a rescue mission to get Hera back.

This is a point where I think the writing stumbles. I don't mind them rescuing Hera. They need to do that to make the overall arc of the series pay off (the Opera House scenes, the commercials from season 2 indicating that Hera would "change everything"). That's fine. But I don't think they set it up right.

As the balance of the episode reveals, this is a high-risk mission. Adama bluntly says that it is likely one-way, and that it's volunteer-only, with even the former conspirators from the recent mutiny/coup getting a pardon for their participation (nice touch! and a good way to get Racetrack and Skulls back in the action). All this is fine, too.

But there's a mismatch: They didn't do enough to establish Adama's motive for undertaking such a risky mission (that could wipe out a significant chunk of surviving humanity) to save Hera.

Perhaps Roslin should have made an impassioned plea based on her visions of the Opera House. Or perhaps someone should have pointed out that if the cylons kept Hera then they might find out how to reproduce and overrun humanity.

Or something.

But it should have been something.

A moment of sentiment looking at a picture of Hera is not enough to risk a large portion of humanity on a likely one-way rescue mission.

Let's do the math: How many lives are they trying to save? One. How many lives are likely to be lost in an assault on the cylon stronghold? Waaaay more than one. This mission is a Guaranteed Net Loss to the human race in terms of number of lives, and at a point where there are fewer humans alive now than at any point in the series. Therefore, there needs to be something powerfully important about Hera to justify the mission.

But eventually we get the dramatic "Will you go on the mission?" scene on the hangar deck. The build up to this was quite nice, and Admiral Eddie was definitely emoting the heck out of his part, but I think he failed to adequately sell the case for going on the rescue.

It's interesting that less than half the people agree to go. On the podcast, Ron Moore says that's deliberate: That everyone would want to think they'd sign up for this kind of mission, but in reality many people will think, in essence, "I've got a wife, a kid, my own life to think about, so I'm staying."

I think that's true, and I like having many people stay. That's a realistic dramatic choice. Too often we see unanimous "Lock and load; we're all with you, Captain!" scenes, and having more realism to people's choices is good. But I think that in this case Admiral Adama completely fails to make the case why anybody should go on this mission.

I don't have a problem with the idea of likely one-way missions, but a sacrifice of that nature requires a clear and compelling motive, and the most Adama gives us is "This is a decision I have made for myself."

To my mind, "It's a personal choice" + "This is likely a one-way mission" = "Good luck to you, buddy!"

But then we're not dealing with reality here but the final act of an opera–a space opera–and there can be some operatic license here.

So even though I thought the big dramatic volunteering scene needed a more clear and compelling motive, we finally get to the mission itself, which we the viewers know is important.

So. Racetrack and Skulls jump to the Colony to scout things over, we've got battle plans drawn up and explained to us, and everybody cowboys up for what's about to happen in . . . Hour 2.

Okay, Let’s Talk Galactica Finale (Part 1)

So. I am finally getting around to re-writing the Galactica finale review that got eaten by the mist monsters of cyberspace.

Thanks to those who have waited patiently . . . and to the reader who keeps sending emails that just say “bsg finale analysis?” Polite. Succinct. I like that.

So here goes . . .

The reimagined series of Battlestar Galactica ended with a 3-hour finale called Daybreak. In case you’ve forgotten what happened in it,

HERE’S A SUMMARY OF PART ONE.

AND ONE OF PART TWO.

For those who (still) haven’t seen it, I’ll put the spoilers below the fold. But let’s answer the first, more general question here: Love it or hate it?

Mmmmmmmm . . . neither.

I certainly didn’t hate it, but I didn’t find myself thinking it was the best possible ending, either. I put it in the “Basically liked it but had some stupid parts” category.

So I wasn’t disappointed. I wanted to come out basically liking the ending, and I did. I don’t expect shows to wow me in the final episode with a “Best. Episode. Evah!” experience. That’s too much to ask. The Best Episode Evah is statistically far more likely to come before the series finale, so I don’t go into the ending with my hopes set too high.

I just want them to tell an engaging story that answers the series’ major questions, ties up the major loose ends, and gives me a sense of closure and satisfaction.

I thought the BGS finale did that, with a few blemishes that I’ll talk about.

To give you a sense of how I think this finale compared to other sci-fi finales, I guess I’d rank them this way (series that got cancelled and didn’t have a proper finale, I won’t cover):

Star Trek: Deep Space 9: * * * * of 5 stars (fire cave sequence needed to be better and Sisko should have become a prophet, per the plan)

Babylon 5: * * * 1/2 (nice closure, but not the series’ best/most exciting, which wasn’t what I was looking for; get to see the main characters 20 years later in their lives; Sheridan’s final goodbye to Delenn, etc.)

Battlestar Galactica: * * * 1/2 (better than B5 in some ways, but also marred by stupid stuff, making them about equal)

Star Trek: Next Generation: * * * (okay; didn’t wow me; didn’t deserve the Hugo it got; felt like an ordinaryish 2-hour episode; drama hampered by the fact that there was no overarching series goal to be resolved, so they had to come up with the fakey “you’re still on trial” thing in an attempt to provide one; it’s such a pity that–although there was still a lot of good Next Gen to come–the series technically jumped the shark with “the best of both worlds” (~~2nd~~3rd season cliffhanger (thanks for the correction!); Picard becomes a borg); that really should have been one of the feature films)

Star Trek: Voyager: * * (no post-climax cooling off period; very important for this kind of story; we need to see the returnees starting their new lives and enjoying (or not) the home they’ve struggled so long to get to, not just sighting the planet in the distance; also BTW, this is where the bottom of the barrel starts; if your series finale scored lower than this, you really have something to be ashamed of, no matter how good it was in its heyday–or even one episode before)

Stargate SG-1: * 1/2 (ihh. that was an ending? sit around for a long time and hit the reset button? it wasn’t unending, it was uninteresting as a finale)

Star Trek: Enterprise: * (horrible! abominable! never do this! the holodeck thing was bad enough, but the worthless death of a major character was insane! this episode was so bad that the producers deserve to be doomed to a sisyphean ordeal of constantly struggling to get new sci-fi shows on the air only to have them swiftly cancelled and . . . oh, wait.)

The X-Files: * (gaaahhh! unbelievably bad writing in the final episode! the whole mulder-on-trial thing was a disaster! and that franchise-killing movie you followed it up with was horrible, too! LISTEN, CHRIS CARTER!: BEG, BORROW, OR STEAL WHAT YOU NEED TO DO A THIRD MOVIE IN 2012, TELL US THE STORY OF THE ALIEN INVASION THE SERIES WAS LEADING UP TO, AND THEN PUT THE FRANCHISE DOWN AND BACK AWAY SLOWLY, KEEPING YOUR HANDS IN SIGHT AT ALL TIMES!)

Hrm.

Okay, I have more on this to say than will make a comfortably sized post, so up next will be things I liked about the finale, then things I didn’t like.

In the mean time, why don’t y’all argue about the relative merits of series finales like the ones above? (That’s the whole point of rankings–to quantify an opinion for purposes of discussion, after all.)

MESSAGE TO CARDINAL: Shut Up, They Explained

From Canada’s National Post comes this urgent message:

Stop the presses! Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the primate of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, has created shock waves across Canada by … reiterating conventional Church doctrine on the subject of abortion.

Now, it must be admitted that the good Cardinal was reiterating Church teaching on a point that is difficult for many to accept—that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape, that a child should not be killed for the crime of its father. Even many pro-life American politicians allow for rape and incest exceptions.

Mistakenly.

But the climate toward unborn babies is so . . . er . . . cold in Canada that the Cardinal’s comments have occasioned what the National Post refers to as a “freaked out reaction by many pro-choice politicians and pundits.”

How freaked out?

Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois said she was “completely outraged” by the Cardinal’s remarks. A columnist with Montreal’s La Presse newspaper, Patrick Lagace, said he wished that the Cardinal “dies from a long and painful illness.” Even Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Josee Verner—whose international maternal-health policies the Cardinal supports—declared that the man’s remarks were “unacceptable.”

The National Post thus asks a reasonable question:

When, exactly, did it become “unacceptable” for a man of faith to articulate his Church’s position on a controversial bioethical issue? Are there any other issues that Ms. Marois, Mr. Lagace and Ms. Verner would like Christians to shut up about? Gay marriage? Stem cells? Pre-marital sex? Perhaps they should make a list, just so everyone can keep track.

For years now, this newspaper and other conservative outlets have been warning Canadians that the trend toward liberal dogmatism among much of Canada’s political class—buttressed by an out-of-control human-rights constabulary—is serving to muzzle religious Christians who are doing nothing else than giving voice to their cherished beliefs. The appalling reaction to Cardinal Ouellet’s speech demonstrates how serious the problem has become.

Indeed.

While I hate to see our neighbor to the north playing the lead role for a cautionary tale, Americans also need to recognize that our country could go in the same hard anti-family, anti-faith direction that Canada has—if Americans don’t resist the same trends in our own culture that have seized the reins in Canada.

In fact, there has been a good bit of reins-seizing here in America of late.

Fortunately, there is an opportunity to correct some of this coming up in . . . oh . . . November.

What do you think?

Grant Official Threatens Catholic Schools over Lesbian Case

Since Lord Alfred Douglas’s 1894 poem “Two Loves,”which was used at Oscar Wilde’s trial, homosexuality has been referred to as “the love that dare not speak its name.”

But that’s so 19th century.

We’re living in the 21st century now, so that was . . . like . . . 200 years ago, right?

Why, then, can’t Michael Reardon—executive director of the Catholic Schools Foundation—just come out and state the facts about a recent incident in the Archdiocese of Boston’s Catholic schools?

In a statement on the Catholic Schools Foundation website (.pdf), Reardon writes:

Dear School Administrators:

You may be aware from recent publicity about an exclusionary admissions practice at St. Paul School in Hingham, which does not receive support from the Catholic Schools Foundation. In light of those media reports, we thought it important to clarify the position of the Catholic Schools Foundation – – namely, that no school that promotes an exclusionary admissions policy or practice will be considered for support.

We believe a policy or practice that denies admission to students in such a manner as occurred at St. Paul’s is at odds with our values as a Foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching. Our concern is the education of young people. We will not fund any school that that treats students and families in such a manner. This policy has been unchanged since our founding in 1983.

We are proud that Catholic schools are known for being welcoming communities for all students. So although this incident is disturbing, we know that it is isolated, not a policy of the Archdiocese, or indicative generally of the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese. Know that we appreciate all you do to make your schools places where all feel welcome.

Please contact me at 617-778-5981 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you.

With hope for the students we serve and the future of Catholic education, I am

Sincerely yours,

Michael B. Reardon
Executive Director

From Reardon’s letter, you’d have no idea whatsoever was at issue in the St. Paul School case. He vaguely refers to “an exclusionary admissions practice” and ominously warns that “no school that promotes an exclusionary admissions policy or practice will be considered for support.” He speaks opaquely of “a policy or practice that denies admission to students in such a manner as occurred at St. Paul’s.” He uses lofty rhetoric about the values of the foundation, its donors, and “Gospel teaching.” He warns that they will not fund “any school that treats students and families in such a manner.” He uses touchie-feelie language about Catholic schools being “welcoming communities,” “where all feel welcome.” And he says that the St. Paul School incident “disturbing.”

So disturbing, apparently, that he can’t even speak forthrightly about the subject. The whole thing has to be shrouded with indirectness, shielded from frank discussion, and wrapped in comforting PC rhetoric.

It certainly isn’t the case that Reardon would want Catholic schools to accept any student whatsoever. If Catholic schools set no limits whatsoever on enrollment, the sheer volume of potential students would overtax the schools’ resources to the point that they couldn’t fulfill their mission. Schools must for economic reasons alone have “exclusionary admissions practices.” Similarly, some students are so disruptive that they cannot function in a normal classroom environment. Some students, frankly, belong in the juvenile justice system. So it isn’t a question of whether Catholic schools should have “exclusionary admissions practices.” The question is which exclusionary admissions practices they should have, and Reardon knows that full well. He just isn’t being forthright about the kind of exclusionary policy he has in mind.

Mr. Reardon may not understand the importance of being earnest, but let’s look at what he might have said had he chosen to be frank.

Dear School Administrators:

You may be aware from recent publicity that St. Paul School in Hingham has declined to enroll an eight-year old boy who has two lesbian “mothers.” St. Paul’s School does not receive support from the Catholic Schools Foundation, so we have no leverage over them, the way we do you. In light of the media reports, we thought it important to clarify the position of the Catholic Schools Foundation so that none of you get the idea of copying St. Paul’s example. Consider this letter a shot across your bow. Our policy is that no school will be considered for support if it either by policy or in practice declines enrollment for students with same-sex “parents.”

It does not matter how disruptive a situation such enrollments would create. It does not matter how difficult a position it would put the thus-enrolled children in. It does not matter how it would put pressure on teachers not to fully and vigorously proclaim Church’s teaching about marriage. It does not matter what other parents in the school might say about the way their children should be educated. None of these things count. What matters is that these children be admitted. This is the sine qua non.

We believe a policy or practice that denies admission to students with openly homosexual parents is at odds with our values as a Foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching. Gospel teaching requires that we turn a blind eye to all the concerns named in the previous paragraph. The necessity of admitting children with openly homosexual parents trumps them all. There can be no rational disagreement on this point, and if you do disagree, you are opposing Gospel teaching.

Our concern is the education of young people. We will not fund any school that that treats students and families (note that I am classifying two homosexuals and a child as a family without qualification) in such a manner. You heard me right. We are so concerned with the education of young people that we will deny funding to all the other students in your school if even one child is not enrolled because he has openly homosexual parents. The need of the one outweighs the needs of the many. We care more about providing a Catholic education for this one student more than providing Catholic education for all the other students we would otherwise provide assistance to. This tells you what our values are. We will use financial scorched-earth tactics against any school that disagrees with us, even at the urging of the parents whose children attend the school. This policy has been unchanged since our founding in 1983. [Really? They would have yanked funds in 1983 over this issue?—ja]

We are proud that Catholic schools are known for being welcoming communities for all students except the ones who must be denied enrollment for various rational reasons that I am ignoring here. So although this incident is disturbing to politically correct sensibilities, we are thankful that it is isolated, not a policy of the Archdiocese, or indicative generally of the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese. Know that we appreciate all you do to make your schools places where all, including open and active homosexual partners but not including parents who would disagree with us, will feel welcome. And remember that if you fail in such efforts, we will withdraw all financial support from your school and the other students it has. Consider them financial hostages to this issue.

Please contact me at 617-778-5981 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you.

With hope for the students we serve and the future of Catholic education, I am

Sincerely yours,

Michael B. Reardon
Executive Director

Ahhhhhhhh.

Isn’t a little forthrightness refreshing?

What do you think?