Culture – Page 103

Galactica Leaving?

Given what folks have said in the comboxes, I’m sure many are jazzed about tonight’s season finale for Battlestar Galactica.

It’s apparently got so much story in it that the show’s creators convinced the network to allow them to break out of the hour-long format and do a 90-minute finale (airing from 10-11:30 Eastern & Pacific).

I’m expecting a major clifffhanger at the end–if not a major rolling cliffhanger (that is, multiple cliffhangars involving different plot lines, piled on top of each other).

Last season we got a cliffhanger involving the sudden self-outing of Sharon as a Cylon in an out-of-the-blue act of extreme violence.

This year the cliffhanger may be even more intense. (The show’s creators like to top themselves.)

But it appears we’ll have to wait even longer to find out what happens on the other side of it.

And we may not find out on the Sci-Fi Channel at all.

Huh?

Here’s what’s going on: Normally Sci-Fi’s shows run 20 episode seasons, divided into two blocks of ten. The first 10 episodes air as a "summer season" and the second 10 episodes air as a winter season, starting in January. That’s the way SG-1 and Atlantis work, and it’s the way BGS has . . . until now.

Word is that Galactica will skip the "summer season" and will not start showing new episodes again UNTIL OCTOBER.

I am majorly unhappy about this.

I also wonder what it’ll do to the ratings of Sci-Fi’s Friday night lineup. Despite being last in the lineup of shows for that night, Galactica pulls higher ratings than SG-1 and Atlantis. That’s the OPPOSITE of what normally happens on a network: The lead-in shows get higher ratings, which then fall off as the evening wears on.

Galactica has been so good that it’s done the reverse. I’m sure that SG-1 and Atlantis have benefitted from this, with viewers deciding to tune in early since they’re committed to be there to see Galactica. But without Galactica in that 10 p.m. slot, the ratings for SG-1 and Atlantis may suffer, with viewers having less motivation to tune in.

(I know I’ll be less motivated to rush home after Friday night square dancing and tune in, meaning that I may not stay up for the replays of the Stargates and may instead just wait to see them on DVD.)

Why would Sci-Fi do this?

I don’t know. They may be trying to bring Galactica in line with the way TV series normally air their new shows, which have a fall premier and then play through spring, with a summer hiatus.

But there may be more to it than that.

SY-FY PORTAL IS REPORTING THAT NBC UNIVERSAL, WHICH OWNS SCI-FI, MAY BE MULLING WHETHER IT WANTS TO YANK GALACTICA OFF SCI-FI AND PUT IT ON NBC.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

That’s a prospect that makes me distinctly . . . nervous.

Many have called BSG the best show on television, and I certainly think it stands up against the junk normally airing on the Big 3 networks (none of which I tune in to watch).

It’d be nice to see Galactica get the mainstream success that its quality merits.

But.

You need much bigger ratings to stay on the air on a major network than on a cable channel, and if Galactica’s ratings don’t take off fast, NBC could decide to pull the plug on the show . . . whereas it could have stayed on Sci-Fi for years and years and years. (Like SG-1.)

Also: NBC network executives could "take more of an interest" in BSG if it were promoted to the bigtime, meaning more interference with the way Ron Moore and his team have been running the show.

And since the suits at NBC don’t understand science fiction the way the suits at Sci-Fi presumably do, that could mean a lot of idiotic, ham-fisted interferences in the show . . . like the ones that killed Crusade.

So I’m nervous, and we’ll have to wait to see what happens.

Looks like there’s more than one Galactica-related cliffhanger afoot.

But, Is It Art? Part III

Hey, Tim Jones, here.

It has been several weeks since my last post in this series on art, but my schedule was cruelly interrupted by some paying work. Things have slowed just a bit, so I want to encourage all of you to VISIT MY WEBSITE.

Idle hands are the devil’s workshop, y’know.

In my FIRST POST, I offered a framework for thinking about the different aspects of man-made objects (design, decoration, illustration and fine art).

In the SECOND POST, I broadly defined some categories of visual art (realism, abstraction, non-objective and non-representational art).

Now I want to talk about the implications of these categories for artists, offer some views on the opportunities that visual art presents, as well discuss the problems and strengths of different kinds of art. This time we’re talking about realism.

THE GREAT THING ABOUT REALISM

– I love impressions. One of my favorite TV shows (briefly) as a kid was called Copycats and starred impressionists like Rich Little and Frank Gorshin. Not long ago, I caught part of a TV bio of Dean Martin, and saw some old footage of Frank Gorshin doing an impression of Martin. It was a really good impression. Not just kinda good, but dead-on, scary good, which made it hilarious. Gorshin (who played ~~the Joker~~ The Riddler on the original Batman TV series) could do that. Dean Martin was entertaining to watch, but Gorshin’s impression showed everyone what it was that made him entertaining to watch. Gorshin studied, analyzed and practiced Dean Martin until he was almost more Martinesque than was Dino himself.

This is the kind of power that realism can have, whether we are watching an impression, or looking at a work of art. Great realism can grab people and stop them in their tracks. At an art exhibit, you might hear people saying things like, "Wow. How do they do that? I can’t even draw a stick man.". This is perfectly natural, and nothing to be ashamed of. People admire great skill, whether they see it in art, hear it in music, watch it demonstrated in dance or in any other human endeavor.

Neither artists or art lovers need to apologize for appreciating, or striving for, a high degree of realism. It not only can have great visual power, but is one of the few ways of actually measuring artistic skill (gasp!!). Oddly, this makes it seem both controversial and dangerous to some. Though most people readily acknowledge that not everyone can be a great musician (just watch American Idol), or dancer, or athlete, there are those who behave as if everyone is born an artist, and the one thing we must never talk about is whether they deserve the designation.

I earlier offered a very broad definition of abstraction, saying that every piece of art, even the most "realistic", is to some extent an abstraction. I will add to that a very broad definition of realism as any faithful representation of the physical world. This doesn’t necessarily mean expressionless copying, or one-to-one reproduction of every detail, but simply art that is inspired by and faithful to the physical aspects of reality. This broad understanding of realism can include a wide range of styles, from hyper-realism up to and including impressionism.

Realism can be quite expressive. Simply in the selection of the subject, the composition, the lighting, or the surroundings, a straightforward realistic depiction can express quite a bit of subtext. In other words, a lot of the artist’s self expression can be present before the brush ever touches the canvas. A good deal of it can happen at a subconscious level. This is one reason that I tell my art students please not to worry too much about self expression, as it will happen on it’s own as they mature and develop their skills.

The work of Ralph Goings (left) is a good example of highly realistic art that functions effectively as an authentic artistic expression. In his obsessively observed and subtle renderings, we can get a sense of why he paints the things he does. He finds great beauty and interest in the most mundane objects and settings. He apparently loves to hang out in diners, and that means he can’t be all bad. His stuff is just fun to look at, and you get a sense that in his work he celebrates his fascination with everyday life.

In terms of learning, realism is by far the best way to start developing the physical and perceptive skills that a good artist needs. For this reason, there was for a long time a strong emphasis on realism in academic art training. Not that realism ought to be an end in itself, but it is a natural starting place for visual art. Every discipline has rules, and you need to know the rules before you can meaningfully break the rules.

The work of Nicolai Fechin (left) is a good example of art that is faithful to reality, but also ventures into meaningful abstraction, and even a kind of expressionism. A typical Fechin painting includes interesting abstract passages, highly energetic brushwork, bold use of color and an obvious love just for the paint, itself. But holding all that together and transcending it, is Fechin’s clear understanding of light, space and physical form. A study of his work reveals a deep knowledge of anatomy and the subtleties of the human face. Frequently in his work, the realism of the face serves as an anchor for the rest of the piece.

THE PROBLEM WITH REALISM

– Realism is this property of faithful representation, but if that is all that realism is (in other words, if it is only the work of a highly trained copyist) then it will fall short of what art should be. If the artist is not capable of infusing into the image some sense of how they think or feel about the subject, then it does indeed fall flat. If this is the case, then all painters could be replaced by photographers, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out..

A painting can be a very realistic representation and still be trite, silly, dull, or in any number of other ways, just bad art. There is such a thing as an accurate, but lifeless, representation.

A great deal of 19^th century academic realism was bad art. It sometimes seemed to be a cold, academic exercise. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it was just as often the victim of maudlin sentimentalism. The same problems plague artists to this day, and are hardly unique to realistic art. Modern art suffers much from the same diseases. There is such a thing as calculated spontaneity, and manufactured angst.

Great realistic art doesn’t just give us a dry representation of the subject, but also highlights and enhances what is unique about the subject, as well as offering some insight into the artist’s feelings about it. The caricature of Orson Welles (at left), by the famous Al Hirschfeld, is a great example. Hirschfeld had a wonderful knack for reduction, simplification and enhancement. If Welles’ head were really shaped like that, of course, he would be in a long-term care facility. No one’s head is really shaped like that… and yet, somehow the drawing looks just like Orson Welles. Hirschfeld departs from strictly literal realism in order to emphasize the most Welles-ian aspects of Mr. Welles. He distorts, but (and this is important) it is a lovingly faithful distortion that draws its inspiration from Welles himself. Hirschfeld studied Welles… in a way, loved Welles. It seems a simple drawing, but I guarantee that it was not simple for Hirschfeld

In addition to what the image says about Mr. Welles, though, we have the delightful calligraphy of the drawing itself, the crisply rendered shapes, the flowing lines… overall, an elegant simplicity combined with an exuberant energy and humor that begins to tell us a great deal about the artist. This is art (simple as it is) that is firing on all cylinders. It is the result of preternatural giftedness (talent), combined with careful study, hard work and enthusiasm.

This highlights the important distinction between a work of art as a representation of something else (subject), and a work of art as an interesting and beautiful object on its own. Great art is both.

Next: "Modern" Art, and Why Art is Important.

Gumming Up The Works

A young boy has learned an expensive lesson: The painting pictured to the left was not a trash receptacle for his wad of gum. (Click on the image to enlarge.)

"A 12-year-old visitor to the Detroit Institute of Arts stuck a wad of gum to a $1.5 million painting, leaving a stain the size of a quarter, officials say.

[…]

"The gum stuck to the painting’s lower left corner and did not adhere to the fiber of the canvas, officials told the Detroit Free Press. But it left a chemical residue about the size of a quarter, said Becky Hart, assistant curator of contemporary art.

[…]

"’Even though we give very strict guidelines on proper behavior and we hold students to high standards, he is only 12 and I don’t think he understood the ramifications of what he did before it happened, but he certainly understands the severity of it now [that he has been suspended and disciplined by his parents],’ said [school director Julie] Kildee."

GET THE STORY.

I certainly hope that Ms. Kildee is correct that the boy did not intend harm, but stories like this have me shaking my head over how much longer it takes children to mature these days than it did fifty to one hundred years ago. Or, even twenty-five years ago, considering that when I was twelve most kids knew better than to stick a wad of gum to an artwork. They might stick it to the underside of the desk, which does show immaturity, but they knew better than to stick it to a painting.

PigsPolytheists In Space!

A reader writes:

I have a massive quandry… I am having a problem rooting for the colonials in Battlestar Galactica due to the fact they are polytheists. The cylons are Monotheists.

What did you think of [last week’s episode] Downloaded??!!! <SPOILER DELETED> is great.

Okay, second question first. I thought that "Downloaded" totally rocked. Having an episode from the cylons’ viewpoint was totally great, and I can’t way to see how they play out the implications of this episode in the two-part season finale that starts this week.

I also thought that <SPOILER DELETED> was really, REALLY great. (For those who have seen the episode, <SPOILER DELETED> is the revelation that Caprica 6 has as soon as she wakes up in the rebirth tank–the one that "could cause a problem" for her with the other cylons. DO NOT spoil this in the combox for those who haven’t seen the episode. Just refer to it as "<SPOILER DELETED>".)

It was also nice to have numbers assigned to some of the other cylon models–to know that Sharon/Boomer is an 8, that the Lucy Lawless character is a 3, and that that TV-reporter-male-cylon guy is a 5.

Now to the main question: the monotheism/polytheism question.

In principle, I don’t have a problem watching a drama in which the good guys are polytheists and the bad guys are monotheist, because in reality some polytheists are good and some monotheists are bad.

For example: Suppose Battlestar Galactica got re-envisioned as an earth-based drama occuring in Kashmir.

Instead of the twelve colonies, we’ve got twelve Hindu villages–which are then wiped out by an invading hord of Taliban that have been skulking around Pakistan after their defeat several years ago in Afghanistan. The surviving Kashmiri villagers then are forced to flee for their lives to the lost, thirteenth village–called Earthstan–while constantly being persecuted by the Taliban hordes.

In watching such a series, I wouldn’t have any problem at all rooting for the villagers over the Taliban. It doesn’t matter that the villagers are Hindu and thus polytheists, while the Taliban are Muslim and thus monotheist.

Being a monotheist is not enough to get you on the side of right in my book. If you’re a monotheist who persecutes innocent polytheists, you’re a bad guy in my book, and I’ll root for the polytheists against you.

Now let’s apply this to the complexities we actually see in the series.

Yes, it’s true: The human culture presented in the series is largely polytheistic. But it’s not entirely polytheistic. There are atheists in the population (like Baltar) and agnostics (like Adama).

And there even seem to be human monotheists. If you watch the original mini-series, you’ll notice that the cylon they find at Ragnar Anchorage is walking around with Adama and talking about God (singular) and what he wants and Adama talks back to him about God (singular) and the conversation plays naturally. The fact that the guy is a monotheist isn’t a dead giveaway that he’s a cylon (something else gives him away, but not that), so there seem to be human monotheists out there somewhere.

So human culture isn’t monolithically polytheistic. (I guess it’s polylithically theistic.)

The cylons, by contrast, do seem to be solidly monotheistic, except for lone individuals who have "gone human," like the original Galactica Boomer (who is now on Caprica).

So what are we to make of this? Are we to approve or disapprove of polytheism?

I don’t think that the series means for us to do either. The polytheism of the main humans in the series is something of a relic of the original Galactica, with its Mormon-Egyptian-Greco-Roman themes. (They even visited the tomb of one of their gods of Kobol in the original series.) What’s new is that they’ve made the cylons monotheists.

Since our native sympathies are with the humans rather than the cylons, this could be read as an endorsement of polytheism over monotheism, but that doesn’t seem to be what the producers are doing.

Watching the show carefully, it seems that they’re trying to explore the viewpoints of both sides and not establish either side’s religion as right or wrong. It’s certainly true that the cylons were wrong to wipe out human civilization, but that doesn’t make their monotheism wrong in the eyes of the show.

Thus there are episodes in season 1 in which Galactica 6 stresses to Baltar that one of God’s main commands is procreation (true) and in which she tells him God loves him (true) and wants to redeem him from his sins (true) and that he needs to open himself to the will of God (true) and that he can thereby become an instrument of God (true)–which he then does BY HELPING THE HUMANS BLOW UP A CYLON BASE.

6 also tells Baltar that God doesn’t take sides in this conflict–that he transcends our conflicts and is not to be viewed as a tribal deity who always endorses the wars of one side over the other. Instead, God wants the love of all. This is certainly a rather enlightened view of God that doesn’t square with a monotheism=evil interpretation.

We also have the cylons distinctly calling into question the deity of the colonists gods, suggesting that they were mortal beings (like Athena, who lept to her death on Kobol) and calling them "idols"–which we from time to time see the colonists actually using. The monotheist perspective is thus allowed to critique the polytheist one in a way that does not happen in reverse. The polytheists on the show never attack the monotheistic view. They may attack the cylon’s beliefs about what God is like, but they don’t mock the notion that there might be a single, supreme God.

Except for occasional expletives like "gods d*mn it!" or "oh my gods!" or an occasional prayer for the soul of a dead person, the polytheism of the humans really doesn’t come into the plot that much. (The tomb of Athena story on Kobol was an exception.)

For the most part, there is much more exploration of monotheism and the monotheist viewpoint. Monotheism is where the action is on the show.

And it’s not clear that God is pleased with either society we see in the series. The cylons, for example, can’t reproduce on their own and are thus unable to fulfill what they acknowlege to be one of God’s commands. This is apparently because they lack love (which also allowed them to destroy human civilization). Those cylons who have learned to love from humans (Caprica 6 and the two Boomers) immediately start questioning whether it was right for their people to wipe out ours. In the most recent episode, two of these characters are forced to conclude that the cylon invasion was just wrong and that they must work to atone for it.

Similarly, the humans (particularly Adama) have been driven to recognize the sins of humanity and to question–at least in the abstract–whether human civilization deserved to survive, what with having enslaved the cylons and (one might add) having permitted abortion. This isn’t to say that the cylons were right to invade, but it points to significant sins for which humanity deserved a comeuppance.

Of course, when the series first premiered, I was quite nervous about the polytheism/monotheism thing and where the series creators were going to take it, but as the show has unfolded, it’s become clear that they aren’t making a statement about whether polytheism or monotheism or atheism is true. They’re simply exploring the dramatic tensions that are latent in these worldviews.

That’s okay. In fact, that’s something I’d do if I were writing the series. Drama is all about tension and unease, and if you can make the viewer tense and uneasy then you’re creating drama–you’re hooking into the emotions that will bring him back for more.

If someone handed me a series about a bunch of polytheistic humans pitted against a bunch of robots and asked me to re-envision it (essentially what Sci-Fi did for exec producer Ron Moore), I might very well make the robots monotheists. That’s a good move dramatically, because it forces the viewers to not view this as a simple good vs. evil battle.

Nobody in a drama should ever be purely good or purely evil, because nobody in real life is purely good or purely evil (except for Jesus and Mary being purely good, but it is so hard to write dialogue for them).

Purely good and purely evil characters are what you may find in fairy tales, but in works written for adults they make the drama flat and uninteresting. If the creators of Battlestar Galactica flipped the religions of the two groups, making the humans
monotheists and the cylons polytheists (or atheists) then the series
would be a lot less interesting than it is.

The viewer’s native emotions will be on the side of the persecuted humans (because, well, they’re humans), but if you want the villains to be anything other than the Evil Walking Toasters that they were in the first series, you need to give them some good points–and a religion that the viewers sympathize with is a good way to do that.

The viewer thus feels tense–uneasy. He’s torn between sympathizing with the humans because they’re humans and sympathizing with the cylons because they’re monotheists. We know, ultimately, that the cylons were wrong to wipe out human civilization, but as long as you can keep that tension going–as long as you don’t resolve it by endorsing one religious view over another–you’re doing drama, which is what you’re here to do.

Good Listening For Fat Tuesday

Nick Alexander has a new song out.

For those who may not be aware, Nick Alexander is a musician doing the Weird Al Yankovic schtick in a Catholic vein.

His latest song is "This Time Of Forty Days," based on the Police song "King of Pain."

It’s available for download on the Catholic Music Network and makes suitably lighthearted listening for Fat Tuesday (before we get all serious on Ash Wednesday).

CHECK IT OUT.

The Temporal Prime Directive

After the recent post about time travel, some readers wondered about the morality of interacting with the past and whether we would be obliged to refrain from changing historical events or not. In other words, would we be bound by a "temporal prime directive" against interfering with history if we travelled into the past.

This is actually something I’ve thought about, so here are some reflections.

The fundamental moral axiom is "Do good and avoid evil." This axiom is binding on all people, all the time. It is part of human nature. If we were transported into the past it would be binding on us then. We would have to do our best to do good and avoid evil, just as we are bound to do it now.

The question is whether interfering with history is a good or an evil–and whether it is even possible.

As sci-fi writers, among others, have speculated, changing history may not be possible. It may be, for example, that if we end up in the past then this does not represent a change to history. We were always part of history, and so whatever actions we take in the past played their proper role in how history did unfold.

If this is the case then three things follow: (1) We can’t change history because our introduction into it was always there, and it will unfold exactly as it did in our timeline and (2) we therefore don’t have to worry about whether we’re changing history. We can just do our best to do good and avoid evil. Also (3) we can avoid wasting our time trying to prevent outcomes that we already know (e.g., we may as well not try to stop 9/11 from happening). The issue of a temporal prime directive thus fails to arise if this is how time travel works.

There is also another version of how history is unchangeable. It could be that we were NOT part of history the "first time" it unfolded, and our insertion into the past OF ITSELF represents a change. It would appear, if this is how things work, that arriving in the past of itself creates an alternate timeline–one that is different than the timeline in which we originated.

But if that’s the case then, no matter what we do in the alterate timeline, we aren’t really changing history–not OUR history. That’s back on the original timeline that we left. The new timeline that we’re living in is one that budded off of ours.

If that’s the case then we are under no obligation to protect our own history because we have no ability to affect that history. That’s a timeline we are no longer part of.

It might be possible (depending on how time travel works) to get back to that timeline, but that would mean leaving the alterate timeline (no matter what good or bad we’ve done in it) and getting back to our original reality, in which we never appeared in history. If this is the case then visiting the past is like visiting an alterate universe. No matter what we do there, we won’t have to live with the effects of it once we return to our own home timeline.

So while in the "past" (really an alterate past) we would have the liberty to do good and avoid evil to the best of our ability. Stop 9/11? Sure! It’ll help the folks out who live in that timeline, even if our 9/11 will still be there when we return to our own timeline.

On the other hand, it may not be possible to get back to our own timeline. If we jump forward into the future, we may be jumping into the future of the alterate timeline that was created by our insertion into the past. In that case, we’ll have to live with the effects of what we’ve done. That’s an added incentive to be careful about what we do, since we’re now personally invested in the future of this timeline, but it doesn’t affect the fundamental moral calculus of how we should behave in it. Even if we weren’t going to stay in this timeline, the Golden Rule would tell us "Don’t mess up someone else’s timeline if you wouldn’t want someone else to mess up yours."

Since, on this option, we’re not really changing our own timeline, the issue of a temporal prime directive does not arise–at least not directly.

Of course, we could get scrupulous about the effects out actions will have on the timeline. Perhaps all kinds of "Monkey’s Paw" situations will arise and by trying to fix problems, we’ll actually make them worse.

Could be.

But that’s something we have to live with all the time back home in our original reality. We don’t know what the ultimate effects of our actions are going to be. We just have to do our best, based on the knowledge we have at the moment, to do good and avoid evil. If we’re in an alterate timeline but have an idea where it’s going to go based on the way our timeline did then that’s a bit of extra knowledge for us, but we can’t start out by second-guessing ourselves to death, worrying excessively about whether we’re helping or harming. We have to just do the best we can with the info we’ve got.

(And if we don’t like the results, we can jump back into the "past" again and bud off a new timeline where we can try to do things better. This, however, isn’t really fixing the existing timeline; it’s just transferring us to a new timeline where we hopefully won’t make the same mistakes.)

At this point we don’t have any experience with changing the "past," so we don’t really know whether attempting to do so generally produes good or bad (or neutral) results. It could turn out that attempts to change major historical events invariably makes things worse, but at this point we don’t have evidence for that. If evidence started accumulating then instituting a temporal prime directive of some kind would make sense, but imposing one up front would not make sense.

The mere fact of us being in the past when we weren’t originally means that some changes are made to history, and once we’re there we can’t avoid affecting things–just breathing and taking up space does that. So we may as well not second guess our ability to help the new timeline that we’re in until we get solid evidence that such attempts are more harmful than helpful.

(NOTE: God could have a "Please don’t mess with history" rule, but since he didn’t put it in the deposit of faith in our timeline means that we would likely only figure it out by experience. However, the very fact that he lets us go into the "past" when we weren’t originally there is an indication that he doesn’t mind us working to improve alternate timelines.)

On both of the two theories I’ve just sketched out, changing history isn’t really possible: in the first case because we were always part of history and in the second case because we are in an alterate timeline and not our own.

But is there a third possibility?

Could we really go back into OUR history when we weren’t there originally and change things?

I don’t think so. If we weren’t in history originally and then we put ourselves there then it seems to me that it’s no longer OUR history. It’s a new history–an alterate timeline. That seems to be true by definition.

And, as always happen when you try thought experiments that involve breaking things that are true by definition, you get paradoxes.

Thus if you suppose that we can inject ourselves into a history that we weren’t originally part of, you get things like the Grandfather Paradox. Since I don’t think that physical paradoxes can exist in actuality, I don’t think that this kind of time travel is possible.

There are other ways conceptualizing all this. In fact, there are a mind-numbing number of other ways (see that Grandfather Paradox article for examples). But seems to me that in the end it boils down to the two kinds of considerations I’ve mentioned here: Either our actions in the past were always part of history or we aren’t really living in "our" history as soon as we’ve entered the past.

Either way (and in any other scenario one might want to propose), the fundamental moral axiom still applies to us: Do good and avoid evil. The knowledge we had of how "our" history unfolded simply gives us extra information as we attempt to do that.

True Confessions Writing Advice

NEW AND IMPROVED! Now with fewer typos!

A writer writes:

I’m a writer, working on something that incorporates a back and forth between a priest and a congregant in a confession booth. I’m not Catholic, and when I asked a Catholic friend for some help, he was sad to say he couldn’t remember the last time he went to confession. He did, however, give me your name as someone who might be able to shed a little light on the situation. You don’t know me from Adam,

That’s okay. I don’t know most folks from Adam. There are six billion of us, after all.

and I’m sure you’re a busy guy, but if you had a couple of moments to field a couple of questions, it would be most appreciated.

Sure, no prob.

The info I’m looking for is pretty basic. The character in the thing I’m writing hasn’t been to confession since he was a little boy. So he’s pretty rusty when he enters the booth.

Okay, first a bit of general info: They aren’t called "booths." They look like that–or used to, at any rate–but the term you’ll want to use is "confessional." Also, these days they don’t look like booths in most churches. They’re like little rooms, and they’re usually designed in such a way that you can either sit opposite the priest on one side of a screened partition or so that you can go around the other side and make your confession face-to-face if you want.

If your story is set in the past (say, pre-1970) or if you just want a more traditional feel, you can still use the booth set-up. A few parishes still have those.

As a bit of research for your story, I’d suggest visiting a Catholic church and looking at the confessionals. It’ll help give you a better idea how to describe them in the story. Notice the colors and textures and smells (though all of these will, of course, vary from parish to parish). If you need to know the names of things in the room–like the kneeler that may very well be present in front of the screen–ask someone from the church office to explain them.

BTW, try to pay this visit when confessions are not being heard. It’ll inconvenience folksand confuse the priest if you’re there poking in the confessional around while people are waiting in line for confession.

When someone enters a confession booth, who speaks first? And what’s said?

Typically the penitent will begin by making the sign of the cross (i.e., crossing himself) and saying "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." If the penitent stops at "and of the Holy Spirit" then the priest may say the "Amen."

If the penitent doesn’t say the Trinitarian formula, the priest will probably do so as a way of prompting the penitent to start. If the penitent still doesn’t start, the priest may say in a friendly, inviting manner, "Go ahead" or simliar words.

According to the rite (as found in a book called The Rites, volume 1, which goes into all this in great detail), the priest then invites the penitent to trust in God, using one of a number of different invitations.

May God, who has enlightened every heart, help you to know your sins and trust in his mercy.
The Lord does not wish the sinner to die but to turn back to him and live. Come before him with trust in his mercy.
May the Lord Jesus welcome you. He came to call sinners, not the just. Have confidence in him.
May the grace of the Holy Spirit fill your heart with light, that you may confess your sins with loving trust and come to know that God is merciful.
May the Lord be in your heart and help you to confess your sins with true sorrow.
If you have sinned, do not lose heart. We have Jesus Christ to plead for us with the Father; he is the Holy One, the atonement for our sins and for the sins of the whole world.

In practice, the priest doesn’t make this invitation if, as usually happens (so far as I know), the penitent launches into his confession after the sign of the cross is made.

The TV version has the congregant starting first, saying, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned." But if the congregant wasn’t sure how things went, might the priest start?

The classic way of beginning is by the penitent saying "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been X amount of time since my last confession." If the penitent doesn’t know how long it’s been, he may simply say "It’s been a long time since my last confession." The priest might ask how long, and the answer "Years" would be acceptable.

Actually–and most folks don’t know this–the mentioning of how long it’s been is not mandatory. The rite only calls for the priest to ask for this if he doesn’t know the penitent.

Is there ever any discussion re: what types of sins might be discussed? For example, if someone hadn’t been to confession in a long time, might the priest suggest he start with sins of the heart, sins of the flesh, sins of the mind, etc.?

Yes, this kind of thing will happen. If the penitent hasn’t made an examination of conscience before going in to confess, the priest will help him do so in the confessional (assuming that there’s time). The typical way this would happen would be for the priest to walk the penitent through the Ten Commandments, asking if he can remember any offenses against the individual commandments. (Be sure to use the Catholic numbering of the Ten Commandments if you go this route. SEE HERE AND SCROLL DOWN.)

The priest may, though, simply ask the penitent what sins are on his mind, and afterwards he may ask if there are any other sins that he is aware of that he needs to confess. (You only need to confess mortal or major sins; not venial or light ones.) The priest may also give the penitent counselling advice, particularly about how to avoid sin in the future.

After the penitent is finished confessing the priest will assign him a penance (typically some prayers, such as an Our Father and a Hail Mary or a decade of the Rosary or something, or he may assign him to read the Scripture readings for that day).

Then the priest invites the penitent to say an act of contrition, in his own words or using a set formula. If the penitent isn’t sure what to do the priest may lead him through a simple act of contrition like:

Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Then the priest extends his hands or his right hand and says the words of absolution:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

As he says the Trinitarian formula he makes the sign of the cross with his hand, and when he is done the penitent says "Amen."

Then the priest says something to dismiss the penitent, such as "The Lord has freed you from your sins. Go in peace."

There are a lot of variations on how this all happens. You might want to check out The Rites volume 1 (a local parish will have it) to see some of them. One thing that is not supposed to vary, though, are the words of absolution as I gave them above. The priest has a lot of flexibility elsewhere, but he’s supposed to say the words of absolution verbatim. (Regrettably, not all priests do.)

One thing I’d recommend is that after you write this scene you show it to an actual priest and ask him if what you’ve written rings true. If he spots any major problems, you’ll be able to fix them before turning in your story to–well, wherever it is you’re planning on submitting it.

Good luck!

The Great TV Self-Outing

Over at the InsightScoop, Carl Olson has just outed himself regarding the fact that he watches TV, including which particular shows he watches.

He did so because Mark Brumley dared him.

Then Mark e-mailed me and dared (well, suggested) me to do the same.

Now they have a blogstorm going of bloggers and other Catholic notables outing themselves as TV watchers and naming their favorite shows.

GET THE SHOCKING TV CONFESSIONS OF CARL OLSON, MARK BRUMLEY, DOM BETTINELLI, JULIE D, SANDRA MIESEL–AND OTHERS!

Now, per Mark’s ~~dare~~suggestion, here is my own:

Since I never use my blog to talk about anything other than apologetics, it may come as a shock to readers that I, too, watch television.

Unfortunately, I have to admit that I’m a bit out of the loop when it comes to some of the shows that they’re talking about over at InsightScoop. I mean, I’ve heard of them, but I can’t actually tune in to them due to the fact that I’m out square dancing much of the time–at least when the shows are on.

As a result, there is really only one current show that I’m guaranteed to tune in for every week, other shows that I’ll watch if I’m still awake, and other shows that I plan to watch when they’re released on DVD (allowing me to skip the annoying and offensive commercials, as well as the annoying and offensive waits until next week’s show).

So here’s my list, divided by subcategory:

WHAT I ACTUALLY TUNE IN FOR

Battlestar Galactica (I get home just in time from square dancing to watch this one)

WHAT I’LL WATCH IF I’M STILL AWAKE

The repeat of Stargate SG-1 immediately after Battlestar Galactica
The repeat of Stargate Atlantis immediately after the repeat of Stargate SG-1

SHOWS I’LL WATCH ON DVD ASAP AFTER THEY’RE RELEASED

Monk (I’d watch it live, but it’s on at the same time as Battlestar Galactica)
Stargate SG-1
Stargate Atlantis

SHOWS I’LL GET AROUND TO WATCHING ON DVD

Lost
24
The Simpsons
The 4400

SHOWS I HAVEN’T ACTUALLY SEEN BUT MAY WATCH ON DVD

Deadwood
Sleeper Cell
CSI

SHOWS I WON’T WATCH ON TV OR ON DVD

The latest lame Sci-Fi channel original movie (unless it has Bruce Campbell in it)

So how about you? What’s your list?

Jurassic Church

A reader writes:

You asked for more Sci-Fi questions to blog about, so I’m happy to be able to help. 🙂

1. Assume that a group of people who can time travel journey back to the Jurassic period. Among their number are some Catholics. Barring any other impediments (rampaging dinosaurs, etc.), are those Catholics still obliged to travel forward in time to attend Mass at some point?

The way the law is written now, the answer would be no.

The current Code of Canon Law (the one binding on the time travellers when they left–unless a new Code comes into existence before then) was promulated on January 25, 1983. Laws do not pertain to things prior to their promulgation unless the law in question expressly provides otherwise:

Can. 9 Laws regard the future, not the past, unless they expressly provide for the past.

The current Code makes no provision for creating a legal obligation to attend Mass prior to its own promulgation, so there isn’t one.

The same goes for the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which previously was in effect). And, in fact, the New Law (a.k.a. the Law of Christ) that was promulgated in the first century did not (so far as we know) contain any provisions on this topic.

Therefore, it would seem to me that if you travel back before the Mass obligation was legally binding that you simply are not bound by it.

There also, in the same manner, is no provision in the Codes of Canon Law requiring you to travel forwards in time to attend Mass.

Of course, it would be a very good thing to do so–assuming that you are reasonably able to do so–but not a legally required thing.

All of this applies to one’s ordinary Sunday obligation. The same would seem to apply, though, to one’s annual obligation to receive Commuion, at least during Easter time. It’s especially hard to enforce that if Easter hasn’t come into existence yet.

This is not to say that there are no religious obligations that would attach to time travellers. Anything that is part of human nature and thus natural law would continue to bind them (e.g., that we must worship the one true God, that we must devote adequate time to rest and worship, that we must not break the Ten Commandments).

So would any particular obligations arising directly from their reception of baptism, confirmation, marriage, and ordination–since these involve the entry into states of life that have obligations that are not temporally specific.

(The general duty to receive the Eucharist arising from baptism might oblige people to return to the future for the Eucharist in a general way, but not at any specific point in time–no pun intended.)

But matters specified by ecclesiastical law would not be specified if one travels to a temporal environment before that law comes into existence–unless it makes provision otherwise (which it doesn’t).

As a proof of this, note that ecclesiastical law does not bind AFTER a law ceases. Once you move FORWARD in time past a law’s existence, it is no longer binding. (This happens entirely naturally as time carries us forward.) In the same way, if you move BACKWARDS past a law’s existence then it also is no longer binding. Thus ecclesiastical laws do not bind BEFORE they are promulgated because they do not exist prior to promulgation.

Can. 7 A law is
established when it is promulgated.

If no ecclesiastical law exists when you happen to be then you are not bound by any ecclesiastical law.

2. If so, should they do so on their own personal timeline’s Sunday, or on Sunday according to the Jurassic’s calendar?

Since there is no binding law on this point, the question is moot.

3. Now imagine that a Catholic priest was among their number. Could he say Mass or offer any of the other Sacraments?

This is an interesting question. It is not clear whether priests who have time travelled to before the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ would have the power to perform the sacraments.

We do have some indication that these graces can be operable before the Christ Event (as some theologians call it). For example, from the first moment of her conception Mary received graces that were not usually given until the Christian age began (and, for many, before the end of the history).

Christ also confected the Eucharist before his Death and Resurrection.

But the matter is not 100% certain, and in doubtful cases it is advisable to administer the sacraments conditionally (e.g., "If it is possible to baptize you in this time zone, I baptize you . . . ").

4. If the group also included a bishop, would that change anything?

Yes. They could conditionally set up apostolic succession in the Jurassic and have a Church-before-the-Church–at least conditionally.

They might also be able to conditionally elect a Jurassic pope, though this is also uncertain and would have to be done conditionally.

At that point it would be advisable to send someone Back To The Future to consult with the known Magisterium to ask for rulings on the feasibility of all this.

And they’d need to listen to what the known Magisterium has to say.

We’d hate to have to heal a cross-temporal schism.

(NOTE: All this could change if a liturgical dancer accidentally steps on a butterfly.)

Abortion & Battlestar Galactica

Battlestar Galactica has recently addressed the issue of abortion–twice–and they’ve done it well both times.

The first time it happened was when the question of aborting Boomer’s human-cylon baby came up.

For those who don’t know, the cylons are artificial entities (who seem more biological than not) that wiped out human civilization in a distant star system. (The survivors are now fleeing the cylons and trying to find the lost colony called Earth.)

Boomer (left) is a cylon who was able to mate successfully with a human, and now she’s pregnant. In view of what her people did to ours, though, there are a lot of folks who want her and her hybrid baby dead, and the question of forcing an abortion upon her was floated on the show.

Ultimately, there was no abortion. This was good not only from a moral perspective (violence was done neither to the baby nor the mother) but also from a dramatic perspective. (Killing Boomer’s child would deprive the show of a huge amount of dramatic possibilities as well as completely turn off the audience.)

They also had the saving of the child result (via a kind of stem cell-like thing) in curing the terminal cancer of President Laura Roslin (below), who was the chief one wanting the baby dead. So even before the child was born, it saved a life.

Abortion then came up a few weeks later, when a girl from a pro-life colony tried get an abortion from the doctor aboard the Galactica.

This episode established that abortion had been legal before the cylon attack, and so it was still legal. Further, President Roslin was very much a pro-abort. Yet she was also regarded as a religious figure by the pro-life colony, and she needs their political support to stay in office and keep the ragtag fleet of survivors safe.

As we know from the opening credits of the show every week, there are only 40-something thousand humans who survived the cylon attack, and more are getting picked off each week.

As Roslin herself said in the immediate wake of the attack, human civilization is doomed if they don’t get away from their home solar system " . . . And. Start. Having. Babies."

So the episode pits her pro-abortion ideology against the fact that humanity is facing extinction, and in this episode she’s told that unless demographic trends change (the trends including new cylon attacks on a regular basis) that the human race will be dead in less than 18 years.

Dramatically, this is very good. We’ve got internal conflict in the character. Laura Roslin is in the process of being mugged by reality.

And so in the end she issues an executive order that criminalizes abortion and makes anyone who would interfere with the birth of a child–whether mother or doctor (fathers don’t get mentioned explicitly for some reason)–subject to criminal penalties.

Two points for BSG!

But only two, because the writers throw a bone to the pro-aborts in the audience by letting the girl from the pro-life colony have the abortion before the executive order is issued–possibly costing President Roslin the support of the pro-life colonials in the upcoming election.

This also may not be the last time the subject comes up, because Roslin–who is now a "personally-in-favor-of-abortion-BUT" candidate (how’s that for a switch!) is pitted against a true pro-abort.

Interesting stuff.

Part of what I find interesting is that the writers of the show seem to be quite liberal (as you learn if you listen to the podcast commentary), but they’re telling a story that regularly forces them into having to take conservative positions on the show, because the conservative positions are the ones that are required for the survival of mankind.

"Liberalism is a luxury we can’t afford" is the message that keeps coming out.

Watching the characters from a pampered civilization get mugged by reality and have to shed their former illusions may not be one of the reasons that TV Guide called this "The best show on television," but it could have been.