Movie alert: The Hand of God

This came out of today's New York Times. If anyone see it, drop us a line!

"HAND OF GOD": A FILM BY JOSEPH CULTRERA

"This film is the best thing I have seen on the clerical sexual abuse crisis", according to Oliva Blanchette upon leaving the theater after a viewing of this powerful film. We are drawn into the heart of a wonderful Catholic family and see the damage done to it by a pedophile priest who abuses the oldest son, Paul Cultrera. We see how Father Joseph Birmingham misuses the Holy Eucharist to weave a web of seduction around a child, creating confusion and guilt in an innocent soul.

As an adult coming to terms with the impact of this abuse on his life and seeking accountability from the hierarchy, Paul is treated with scorn by his abuser and stonewalled by Bishop McCormack. The powerful visual imagery lays bare the machinations of a deceptive priest who has an oppressive hold over the community and its children, whom he is ordained to serve.

I'm hoping this film is good. We need to keep holding the clerical caste's feet to the fire on this and every other scandal they are dumping on us. Never let them forget the torture and humiliation they inflicted on so many innocent children. No amount of hush money or counseling will make up for the massive betrayal of trust,

And believe me, they are trying to sweep it under the rug and blame it on gays. The only way these guys know how to handle things is to oppress the weak (women, gays, children) and hang onto power for dear life.

Vicars of Christ, my eye.

The film's website has a list of screenings, including a showing at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts (MFA)from Sept 21 thru October 5th. Other screenings are scheduled for Overland Park, Kansas (Sept 21 thru October 5th), the Mount Shasta International Film Festival (Sept 13 - 15) and the Capitol Theater in Olympia, Washington.

Check it out! A bring a friend!

In the News: USCCB Tinkerbells at it again?

Browsing through Newsweek, of all places, I ran across an item about changes the US bishops are maiing in the Mass. here's the full text of the press release from the USSSC web site:

WASHINGTON (June 19, 2006)—The U.S. bishops have voted to accept changes in the English-language version of the Mass proposed by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) and introduced sixty-two amendments to the text.

They voted 173-29 to accept the translation of the Order of the Mass in the dioceses in the United States. They also voted 184-8 to approve the adaptations to the Order of the Mass of the Missale Romanum, editia typica tertia for the dioceses of the United States. The bishops voted on the changes in Los Angeles, June 15, on the first day of their three-day spring meeting.

Changes accepted by the U.S. Bishops include the response to “The Lord be with you,” which becomes “and with your spirit,” rather than the current “and also with you.” Another change would be to start the Nicene Creed with “I believe” instead of the current “We believe.”

The changes will have to be ratified by the Vatican, which must consider the amended U.S. version along with the versions from other English-speaking countries.

Future changes in the Order of the Mass will concern other prayers, including the collects, also known as the opening prayers before the Liturgy of the Word, and the Prefaces, which precede the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

A timeline for the actual implementation of the changes has no yet been decided upon by the Bishops.

"And with your spirit"? While this is a better translation of the text, "Et cum spiritu tuo," I don't

A Father's Day offering

Father's Day is today in the US, a day when dads get sloppy kisses and neckties and handmade cards from their little ones. It's a beautiful day, usually, and is a day off for many of us from housework and discipline. A great day to overeat and enjoy the beach, catch a movie or just relax.

My brother gave a beautiful talk about fatherhood at Mass yesterday. He's a younger father, with 3 boys ranging from 6 to 12. My guys are 15 and 18, and I am a different person from my brother. What I would have talked about had I been asked to speak?

What I would have said is that on aspect of fatherhood for me has been the way it eats away at the fantasy that some people have about having children. I suspect that all of us imagine the happy Kodak moments that will fill or lives. But fairly frequently, those moments do not appear in our loves. Our kids may not be as expressive as we'd like them to be; they might not bring home the grades we'd like or be as popular as we imagined they'd be. They might not be into sports (or music or drama or academics) as we imagined, or they might be much more interested than we would like. They might not give us the respect or admiration or attention we'd like.

What is common about these fantasies is that all revolved around us as fathers. Our children seem hell-bent on reminding us that they are not our clones. They are human beings in their own right, with drives and desires and interests all their own. Sure, they might share our interests to some degree, but that's a bonus more than a guarantee. Fatherhood teaches us that it's not about us as fathers, but about creating an environment of love and support that lets our kids be whatever they are intended to be.

To be a dad is a most noble occupation -- it's the 2nd job that we sign onto when we vow "for better and for worse." It's exhilarating and exhausting; fulfilling and maddening. And its success is measured not be our own sense of satisfaction, but by the happiness, maturity and ability of our children to make it in their world.

I am reminded of Christ's dictum that "the one who saves his life loses it; the one who loses his life saves it." Fatherhood at its best is not an inward-focused activity, but an outward-focused one. The goal of being a writer (or car mechanic, or football player) is to have people acknowledge you for your work; the goal of being a good father is that people admirer not you, but your children.

I once heard a childless woman talk about her idea of great parenthood: having one perfect child. While horrified at her immature assessment of parenthood, I confess that I shared a bit of her outlook. But I have learned that parents don't get perfect children, who fulfill their parents' personal desires. What we do get are human children, full of personal desires that can contradict our own. And just as much as we seek to mold our children, they mold us by forcing us to interact with hem as living reflections of God, rather than as mirrors of our own vanities and illusions.

And that is what I reflect on this Father's Day.
__________________________________________________________________
Image from http://www.kitt.net/blog/dad/archive/2005_02_01_index.html

Thrashing Theists: The Board of Miracles

I was watching one of those reality shows on TV -- the kind that show people who survive crazy things -- "99 Greatest Stunt Survivals" or something like that.

Anyway, there was on about a guy in England who lost control of his car (English: "telly") on the highway ("bonnet") and rolled over a wooden picket fence. (Can you see this coming?) Well wouldn't you know but he got impaled on a fence post! This 2x4 is literally went two feet (5.2 kilograms) into his body, blah, blah , blah.

The annoying part is when the doctors and others were talking about what a miracle this was. That a millimeter either way, and he would have severed an artery, wrecked an organ, etc., etc.

But think about it. People get in accidents all the time. Most people who get impaled on something aren't fortunate enough to miss their vital spots by that millimeter. They bleed to death. But doesn't it stand to reason that there have to be certain paths through the human body than don't transit major blood vessels or organs? So isn't it likely that sooner or later, somebody who has an object pierce his body will "get it" in the right place?

I'm glad our English driver ("barrister") had such good luck to have lived in the 21st century when our medical knowledge was so advanced. But a miracle? I don't think so.
_____________________________________________________________________
Image from http://www.anniewilkinson.com/blog.html -- a blog by, from and about Annie Wilkinson. Also, apologies to Dave Barry for shameless ripping off his trademark humor.

Loony Liturgy: Throwin' the horns

The Sign of Peace seems to have atrtacted more than its share of lunacy. The latest atrocity occured two Sundays ago. Short story long: My wife and I had intended to attend Mass in our parish, but we noticed that the presider was a crazy old coot whom we can't stand. Nice man, horrible homilist. Never prepares, but makes it up as he goes along without relationship to the scriptures thatwre read. Rather than preaching a well thought out message, he "throws bombs" -- makes absurd unpredeictable staements like "The Consitution is full of sin!!" that might make sense if he explained them. But he doesn't. So we made an about-face went and drove to the church up the street.

Anyway, come time for the SoP and we are doing the usual hugs and handshakes. Now, some folks (usually in the 60-70 year old range) find it cute to throw the old hippy Peace Sign -- aka "V for Victory" -- to those who are too far away for more personal contact. This irritates me, I must admit. There's somnething vaguely pagan...no, vaguely unworshipful about using the "Peace, man" sign.

But then, I saw something that blew me away. Worse then the Peace Sign, even. Looking to my left, a woman was doing the long-distance signing -- by throwin' "the horns" at the people around her like she was at a rock concert!

Now I'm not superstitous or overly worried about demonic influence in the Church. But throwin' the horns? Not likely she was an Aggie, way up here in the Northeast. So there was no particularly appropriate reason to display the Devil's horns at Mass, especially at a time we are supposed to be acknowledging Christ -- not His Satanic Majesty -- in our neighbors.

Brrr!
______________________________________________________
Image from http://baysingersworld.com/randoms13.htm in which random losers gets drunk and throw the horns at the camera. Tellement originelle, n'est-ce pas?!!

Book Review: The Sins of Scripture

The Sins of Scripture : Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love by John Shelby Spong

2 steps off the shoulder of the road

The Bible is a very dangerous book, especially in the hands of the ignorant. It spans the spectrum of literary effort - from mythic/moral storytelling, to half-reconstructed history, to religio-poltical critique, to religious poetry to old-fashioned advice. Misunderstanding the writers' intentions and biases can lead to all sorts of odd beliefs.

John Shelby Spong is at the very margin of those who hold the Bible to be religiously important. In "Sins of Scripture," he does his best to winnow biblical chaff from wheat, by critiquing biblical verses and interpretations that lead people to embrace causes and actions he finds deplorable. While normally I would find this a worthy activity, Spong often comes up short.

For instance, Spong claims that the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply is at the root of the population explosion that is a factor in impoverishing large areas of the world. But even the Roman Catholic Church, long pilloried as the major culprit in banning birth control, does not base its anti-BC position on this verse. It uses a natural law argument: God's purpose in creating sex being reproduction, interfering with the purpose of the sex act is tantamount to interfering with God's will. While intelligent and faithful people may disagree with this position, and argue that population control is both moral and necessary, Spong is just plain wrong to ascribe the Christian position on birth control to Genesis 1:22.

Spong's non-scholarly speculation does no service to his arguments. He speculates on the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (or Mary of Bethany) based on a few verses from John's mystical gospel. He ignores the fact that three evangelists used the story of an anointing for quite different purposes, then picks John's gospel as the "historical" one, based largely, it seems, on his desire to present a married Jesus. Again, it's not that I disagree with his conclusions or his politics, just with the way he supports them.

Spong's take on the Bible's view of women is reductionist in the extreme. While there is no doubt that the Bible springs from a patriarchal culture, Spong ignores its tales of strong-willed and independent women - from Eve through Sarah, Rebecca and Judith. Eve is described (in Spong's biased retelling of the creation myth) as a sub-human servant of Adam, even as he exclaims that she has a more equal stature: "This one, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." Having rewritten Scripture, he then proceeds to denigrate its meaning.

Politically and morally, I share much with Spong - appreciation for women's equal value in the eyes of God, tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals, appreciation for the gift and wonder of the natural world. But to rewrite Scripture for one's own purposes is the greater sin, to my mind. And to deny that it is the "Word of God," as Spong does repeatedly, is both wrong and misses the point. Scripture need not (and should not) be taken at face value as an instruction guide for modern behavior - a lot of lobster fishermen would be out of a job if it were (see Leviticus 11:10 -- "But of the various creatures that crawl or swim in the water,...all those that lack either fins or scales are loathsome for you, Their flesh you shall not eat..."). The humanity and morality of Scripture often lie on its surface or barely beneath it. Interpreted correctly, many of its seamier stories are lessons in how NOT to behave toward our fellows. The story of David's rape of Bathsheba (and abandonment of her husband to death) is not a lesson in how to acquire new wives, but a condemnation of such behavior. By attacking the Bible's status as "The Word of God," Spong merely inflames those who see it as an unerring guide to morality, while doing little to advance the understanding of those who wish to use the Bible more fruitfully in advancing the cause of righteousness.

Hokey Hierarchy: Diocesan Roulette

My poor brother called yesterday to report that his favorite pastor, the one who had been stationed at his parish for 13 years, was being moved. June, as many of us know, is Fright Month in many Catholics parishes. It's the month when priests and pastors learn they are being transferred to new assignments -- often to new parishes.

This is a bittersweet time. Some parishes -- which have suffered under clueless, idiot, warped or larcenous priests -- find that "Fr. McBad" will finally be taken from them. Other parishes (like my brother's) learn that the good man they have come to rely on is leaving, to be replaced by God (and the chancery) knows who.

I confess that my first reaction to my brother's plight was a bit less than charitable. “Hey, bro,” I thought; “everybody has to deal with this.” But the more I thought about it, the more I came to see June's “Diocesan Roulette” was just another symptom of the autocratic nature of the Church. Not only does the laity have to endure regular disruption of their faith lives, but they have no control over the process, or over the replacements. By no means would the bishop (or his minders) share their rationale for moving priests. Does another parish truly need some special talent that only our priest possesses? For instance, is our Serbian-born priest moving to a new Serbian parish? Has another parish finally tossed its alky pastor? Does a parish with one priest need to share with one that doesn't have any? We are not likely to know.

In my most paranoid moments, I sometimes wonder whether priests get moved just to show who is in charge. I wish I could say that this opinion was too wild to contemplate. But my spidey-sense tells me that there beats in the heart of many of the ordained a furious disdain for the laity. I don’t recall which film this is from, but I a movie where a new husband got the advice that he should strangle a cat in front of his bride -- his to show her what kind of a maniac he could be if he doesn’t get his way. Sometimes I think that priests and bishops do the same thing -- make an outrageous, unsupported and unpopular decision, just to show who runs the place. I wonder whether they teach how to “strangle a cat” in seminary.

Anyway, my bro's parish is losing a good man. Maybe he's being punished for being compassionate and outspoken. Maybe the bish puts everyone's name in his miter and "assigns" them alphabetically to new parishes.

Anyway, the Diocesan Roulette just shows us -- in spite of pro-laity happy talk to the contrary -- how little the laity matters to the higher ups. Will there be a day when parishioners get to validate the choices on their behalf? Or are we perpetually to be kept in servitude to men who do not have our best interests at heart? Will the bishops -- faced with dwindling numbers and plummeting quality of priests -- allow married men and females to join the ranks of the ordained? Or will they really let the Church completely fall apart before they decide to act?
________________________________________________________________________
Image from http://www.refocus-now.com -- a consignment shop for images submitted by photogs and other artists.

Book Review: The Essential Jesus

I've no doubt that John Dominic Crossan will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before many who see themselves as good Christians; anyone who wrestles with Christ as much as he deserves a free pass. But it won't be on the strength of his theology.

In this slim book, Crossan asks us to focus on Jesus's "program", which included a healthy dose of criticism of the current world order. Crossan goes as far as to re-translate (I would suggest "rewrite") a number of Jesus's sayings to fit his thesis. "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" becomes "Only humans are homeless"; "Blessed are the poor" becomes "Only the destitute are blameless." Crossan's idea is to deliberately heighten the "kingdom" aspects of Christ's sayings, stripping away the sugary accretions of later ages for the pith he imagines were Christ's original words.

There is value to this exercise. But also danger. The kingdom that Christ proclaimed is not completely congruent with the idea of heaven that many Christians accept. But to equate it with a here-and-now critique of 1st century economics seems equally absurd. Crossan also denies the apocalyptic aspects of Christ's preaching in favor of a "sapiential" eschatology that focuses on the presence of the Kingdom in the present. Yet one need not hold a doctorate in theology to recall the many instances when Christ spoke of an ultimate time of final judgment. Crossan ignores these sayings.

"The Essential Jesus" contains a couple dozen images of Christ from the early centuries of Christianity, which Crossan deploys to make his case that Jesus's "program" was centered on healing and meal commensality. These black-and-white images are of middling quality and spread throughout the book, but explained in a hard-to-find appendix in the back of the book. The middle section contains Crossan's rewritten versions of Jesus's sayings, one to a page, making the slim volume even leaner. Crossan's explanations for these sayings is also found in the back, which makes reading the book tedious and confusing.

Still, there's (accidental) value in the book. By focusing so much on the kingdom, Crossan brings attention to an all-but-neglected aspect of Jesus's teaching. And his interpretation of Christ's parables provide insights into their meaning that don't always come from more conventional writers. To see a mustard plant as an aggressive and uncontrollable weed gives new insights into what Jesus was talking about when he compared the Kingdom to a seed of that plant.

In the old Superman comics, the Man of Steel visited a strange planet where a lived "bizarro" version of himself. Bizarro Superman was strange inversion of the real Superman -- his face was bleached and craggy and his speech was brain-damaged. The Jesus that Crossan presents is just as strange, representing an extreme edge of the fully-limned (if dificult to understand) portrait Jesus of the Gospels. It's sad that a man of Crossan's obvious intellect and passion goes to such lengths to fashion a Christ that is so evidently made in his own image.

Book Review: "As I Lay Dying"

As I Lay Dying: Meditations Upon Returning by Richard John Neuhaus

I hate to beat up on a guy who practically died, but having suffered through this tedious little book, he owes me.

"As I Lay Dying" is a well-meaning book by a very intelligent, well-placed and well-read Catholic priest who (sadly) has nothing much to say. The book is an endless, detached musing on the meaning of death, on the experience of dying, and on the thoughts of poets, saints and philosophers. But it adds up to very little in the end. Neuhaus offers very few definitive insights and few interesting stories. He knocks (rightly) the dopey bravado we assume when facing death as well as our inability to help our loved ones to face the end of their lives. But these insights are told in passing -- as though he is retelling tales learned from others. Neuhaus tells little of his own story -- you don't even know what was making him sick until a third of the way through the book. (Spoiler: a tumor caused his colon to rupture -- now you know!) His suppositions and musings circle and circle aimlessly on the winds of his own meandering reminiscences.

I picked up this book as an aid to a family member who lost her father. She never made it past the dust jacket. It was a wise decision: the book would not have helped her in her own grief.

Some may interpret my harshness as my confession to being shallow. So be it. But now I know what it is like to wait for death; it is like reading this book.