Catholic Thinker

She's not worthy of the name. The name belonged to the Blessed Virgin Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ first. But if you google "madonna" nine of the first ten entries are not about her, but about the Queen of Bad Music and Cheap Sacrilege. (The one that actually references our Mother is at the very bottom.) Before there was Charlotte Church or even Britney Spears, there was this lady. Her full name is Madonna Louise Siccone. I think I'll call her ... Louise.

Is it possible to get Catholic and Jewish and Muslim leaders to agree on anything these days? Apparently yes. For Louise is planning on holding a concert in Rome just minutes away from the Vatican tomorrow night during which she will reportedly crucify herself on a mirrored cross while wearing a crown of thorns.

In response, the Big Three in modern monotheistic religions have held up their hands and uttered a collective, "WHOA." Higher ups at the Vatican are even talking excommunication, which shouldn't bother the baptized Catholic Louise too much considering she is now a staunch practicioner of Kabbalah. I still don't know what that is, except that I'm pretty sure I saw a book at Barnes and Noble once written by a Kabbalah, entitled God Wears Lipstick. Uh huh.

Life Style Extra reports that Ersilio Cardinal Tonino, speaking with Benedict XVI's approval, told an Italian newspaper:

"This is a blasphemous challenge to the faith and a profanation of the Cross. She should be excommunicated. To crucify herself in the city of popes and martyrs is an act of open hostility."

"Act of open hostility." That sounds pretty canonical to me.

But oh, that's not even the best one, folks. Riccardo Pacifici, spokesman for Rome's Jewish community, said also:

"We express solidarity with the Catholic world. It's a disrespectful act, and to do it in Rome is even worse."

And Mario Scialoja, president of the Muslim World League in Italy, had this to say:

"We deplore it, we feel it is an act of bad taste. She would do better to go home."

Haha! She would do better to go home! The very thought brings such joy to my heart. If Louise could just chill with her millions in the Hollywood foothills (or wherever she lives ... somewhere in the UK?) how much more pleasant would our lives be? Or even if Louise has to continue performing, maybe if she could dispense with the public acts of open hostility to things Christian? Maybe if she could just desist with all the intermingling of religious imagery and sado-masochism? Would that be okay Ms Siccone? No?

Well, I suppose excommunication is not far off for little Louise. We all should pray for this troubled lady. But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the fact that she has gotten leaders from all three of the major monotheistic religions to agree on something: namely, that she is beyond the pale. Bravo Louise!

Posted by Lavergne at 6:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

I was asked by a friend a couple of days ago what I thought about Mel Gibson's much publicized tirade against Jewish people. I said quite frankly that if some blue-blooded Hollywood star had gotten pulled over for drunken driving and gone on a tirade against inbred simpletonistic divisive hate-mongering Christians, it would not have gotten nearly the press that this is getting.

This is not to defend the indefensible comments Gibson made. Certainly there are enough talking heads out there condemning his insignificant little rant. I merely wish to point out the equally indefensible double standard that exists in the mainstream press. How many of us, if we saw a headline saying something like, "Bill Maher defames practicing Catholics on late night show" would think someone in the news had become unusually agenda-oriented? The difference though is that Bill Maher uttering anti-Catholicism isn't news. He does it and loves it and never apologizes for it. Nor does anyone ever expect him to.

media can't contain it's anger
But I thought Mel spouting anti-Semitism wasn't supposed to be news either. We all knew he hated "the Jews" after his two-hour defamatory scandal The Passion of the Christ, didn't we? How does this change anything?

There's a couple of possible answers to this question. One is that the media simply knew all along that what they were saying about The Passion was crap. Mel Gibson turning out to actually have anti-Semitic feelings (albeit booze-induced) was just as much news to them as it was to the ordinary people who never bought their lines to begin with (and, I think, still don't).

Another theory: The media is bitter and jealous of and angry at Gibson. Why? Because he created a product that they hate with every fiber of their body, and that they could never produce themselves, and that despite all their hatred people still flocked to theatres in droves to see. Even though if these media elites had five minutes alone with their Hollywood pals in a room with no windows or recording devices they would have equally venomous and defamatory things to say about Pope Benedict, Opus Dei, Tom Selleck, Bill Donahue, Mel Gibson, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus Christ. Although anyone who watches the news knows it doesn't take a room with no windows for some of these people to let their vitriol flow.

All of this merely demonstrates that hatred of Christians and Christianity is the last accepted prejudice in Hollywood and in the mainstream press (and, incidentally, on college campuses). Mel Gibson is live bait for these bloodthirsty media sharks because he is an outspoken Christian, albeit a very eccentric one. If he was a Muslim, he would have the same standing in the mainstream press as Louis Farrakhan and Hezbollah.

mel and the UN: a match made in heaven?
And speaking of that, have we heard about what Mel actually said to the officer after being pulled over? According to several sources, here's what he said:

"The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?"

Now when I read what Gibson actually said the first thing that popped into my head was, "Hey, maybe Mel should join the UN Security Council." How is this any different from what we're hearing from those guys and from the mainstream press regarding the actions of the State of Israel in the latest MidEast conflict? Why is it okay for these elites to say that the Israelis' actions in war are "indefensible" and "wrong" but it's not okay for Mel to say basically the same thing in hyperbole on a drunken bender to a cop? Again, I'm not saying it should be okay for him; just that if it isn't, it's no more okay for these people to paint Israel as if they're just going after poor defenseless Hezbollahs.

bottom line
The Sydney Morning Herald Online asked today if people will want to go see Mel's next movie. My answer is yes, for the simple reason that for every Mel Gibson in Hollywood there are at least twenty or thirty other looney Hollywood types whose hatred for Christians and for the Gospel doesn't stop us from going to watch their pathetic movies.

Whoa ... I think my one-quarter Irish is out tonight.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

During his homily yesterday the priest, whom I love but do not always agree with, brandished a bumper sticker, which I have seen around previously, which read, “God Bless the Whole World. No Exceptions.” It’s a very high-minded notion of course, and something which all Americans have a solemn obligation to pray for, for solidarity with the rest of the planet.

Still, I find the bumper sticker just a bit unsettling, because I think I can discern what the subtext behind the message is. For I started to see the bumper sticker for some time after we all started seeing the bumper stickers and signs everywhere saying “God Bless America,” which mostly started popping up after 9.11. For a brief period following that awful day, the rest of the world felt solidarity with the United States, and shared in our mourning over the 3000 lives lost (many of whom were not Americans).

That period of solidarity, however, is most decidedly past now. Today it is once again quite fashionable to say that America sucks. Anti-Americanism, blame-America-first, is more popular today than perhaps it ever was. And this is why I can’t help thinking that the message of “God Bless the Whole World; No Exceptions” is not so much a sincere invitation to pray for the whole planet as it is a backhanded response to the explicitly patriotic message that came before it: “God Bless America.”

Of course we should pray that God bless the whole world, regardless of borders. The slogan “God Bless America” doesn’t imply otherwise, unless one is of the opinion that this country sucks.

For the record, I am of no such opinion. I am of the very low-minded and ethnocentric opinion that my country is pretty great. I believe that “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” is at the bottom of things an accurate description of this nation. I believe there are people here of real nobility, of real virtue, of real love, and I pray to God they don’t lose that when they go to college.

I believe many of these men and women of nobility and virtue are presently serving in our military. I have the same reservations about their mission as many Catholics do, but I’m not nearly so quick to pass judgment on the mission as is fashionable in Catholic (and political, and academic, and media) circles today. I believe that they believe in their heart of hearts that they are out there doing precisely what the bumper sticker really wants us Americans to do, which is to get up off our lazy bums and do something good for the rest of the world. They’re just doing it in a way that some people don’t like, because it is also fashionable these days to be of the opinion that military engagement is intrinsically evil, unless of course you’re an anti-American insurgent.

Of course we’re not perfect. We’re materialistic, yes. We’re wasteful, yes. We’re hedonistic. Very hedonistic. Yes. We are indeed too violent too often. Yes. We’re addicted to many things. Yes. We’re voyeuristic and narcissistic. Yes. We could all go on and on with the number of reasons why America is not perfect. But it seems to me this is that much more of a reason to invite God’s blessings in a special way down upon the Land of the Free. One could just as well create a bumper sticker that reads, “God Bless America, Cuz They Damn Well Need It.” (Although for the record, many of those imperfections just listed and otherwise apply just as much if not more to the rest of the world as they do to the Home of the Brave, which is a whole ‘nother can of double-standards.)

Having said all this, I do have my own reservations about the patriotic mantra, although of a different sort. The problem I have with “God Bless America” is that it’s one-directional. It makes a request of God without offering any measure of sacrifice or praise on our own parts.

My counter-sticker then would be “America Bless God.” It’s a message that would certainly be worth spreading around these days, what with the ongoing assault (mainly in our courts) on all things Christian in the public square which bears the misnomer of that great (un-)constitutional mythology known as “separation of church and state.” If we focused primarily on our own duty to give credit where credit is due, that is, to be religious, to give thanks and praise to our God and King, we would have very little to worry about in the way of God giving us all the grace we need to continue as a nation and a people to be great, and to be greater.

Having said that, I do think that the long-standing patriotic slogan serves a valid purpose. For love of country is an entirely healthy and even necessary form of Christian charity, provided it does not lapse into idolatrous nationalism. All the saints, even the Americans, were patriots—they loved their countries. Part of that love indeed involves challenging the cancers that infect the national culture.

But what I see in popular culture today is not so much a desire to challenge the culture as a seething desire to witness its very demise. What I see is an ostensibly high-minded and fashionable hatred of country. To the extent that such hatred exists, it is impossible for real love to thrive. If Americans are to become saints, they must love their country. And to the extent that this supposedly ethnocentric mantra can begin to rekindle a healthy love of this fruited plane, I have no problem saying it.

Therefore, Happy Fourth, Let Freedom Ring, and yes: God Bless America.

Posted by Lavergne at 9:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | Blog Reaction

This has been a good weekend in terms of discernment for me. A lot of issues that I have had on my mind lately have really come out.

The celibacy issue
I have begun reading The Courage to Be Chaste by Benedict J Groeschel, CFR. I like it so far. Here's one good passage from the book.

Perhaps one of the most persistent and obviously invalid assumptions of our civilization is that sexual behavior brings happiness. The media trumpet the message, "Sex brings happiness." If this were true, we would indeed live in an earthly paradise, and the world would be "Happy Valley."

I suppose that half the people you meet on the bus, or in a shopping center, or even at church on Sunday have had some genital sexual experience during the preceding few days. It is the observation of an old celibate from way back that they are not all so very happy. If sex brought happiness, the world would shine like the sun, at least half the time. Celibates need not try to convince themselves that chaste celibacy is the road to earthly bliss, but on the other hand they need not feel deprived of the key to happiness. If there is a single key to contentment, it cannot be sexual experience.

It's a good idea for me to be reading this book, especially at this juncture in my life, preparing to go into seminary and seriously consider a lifelong commitment to celibacy.

Fr Groeschel says that sexual experience can be ruled out as the single key to contentment. The single key to contentment, I would venture, is intimacy with Christ and to do his will. That is what I hope I will find at seminary.

My bishop on Catholic radio
As I was driving home from the parents today I was listening to Relevant Radio and was caught pleasantly by surprise to hear the voice of my bishop, Most Reverend Gregory Aymond of the Diocese of Austin, Texas. He was speaking along with Bishop Zubik of Green Bay on, precisely, vocations to the priesthood.

Bishop Aymond invited those listening to the program who were discerning the priesthood, in the words of John Paul II, to "Be Not Afraid" to be open to what they really desire. This ties in with what Fr Groeschel wrote about so aptly, for since the mantra of the media today is that sex brings happiness, it so goes that no sexual activity means no happiness. And that is indeed a frightening thing, if it's true. The battle of a seminarian and those discerning the possibility of a lifelong celibate vocation is to realize contrary to the cultural message that what really brings happiness is the will of God, whatever that may be.

Posted by Lavergne at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Folks if you are looking for any kind of advice on romantic relationships, stay as far away as you can from MSNBC.com. Every now and then I come across an article that after I read it I just have to look at it and say to myself, “Oh Lord, this is bad on so many levels.” I had that experience yesterday when I found an article posted on MSNBC’s website from the Today Show. Apparently a Today Show contributor named Dr Gail Saltz serves as a sort of Ann Landers for couples: individuals write to her and she gives them advice (if you can call it that—more on that later).

So yesterday as I said I found this article entitled: “My partner prefers watching porn to having sex.” The subhead directly beneath it reads, “A woman wants to know if she should leave her boyfriend. Dr Gail Saltz says she should find out more about his obsession – and then decide.”

Poor diluted “widow”
That by itself made me want to take a baseball bat to my computer monitor. But I calmed myself and read on. Here is what the lady seeking advice had to say to Dr Gail. (NOTE: I have reworded a couple of phrases from her original letter in order to make it sound less crude or irreverent. Reworded phrases are placed in brackets [like so.])

Dear Gail: My boyfriend and I have been dating for a rocky two years, and things were finally starting to mellow out. But now we have this porn issue! He has watched porn occasionally over the years, but it never [decreased our tendency to have premarital sexual intercourse.] So using the pick-your-battles theory, I’ve dropped it. But now that we’re living together, I find it increasingly hard to accept his obsession and I'm tempted to end our relationship.

He only watches porn alone, and he has refused my offers to watch it with him. Every time he’s home alone, he watches it. Then when I come home [hoping to have premarital sexual intercourse], he’s not interested. He has started lying and sneaking around. He basically told me, “I’m going to do this. I can either lie about it or you can leave me alone about it.” Can you give me some insight? —Weary Porn Widow

Shoddy advice
And this is the part where I said to myself, “Oh my dear woman, this is bad on so many levels!” But even more astonishing was the ineptitude of Dr Saltz’s advice. Now I’m not a counselor or a PhD or anything. But I know shoddy advice when I see it. And this is textbook shoddy advice. I’ll just take it line by line.

The first thing she says about the whole situation is: “If your boyfriend feels driven to do something — whatever it is — behind your back, your relationship is in trouble.” In other words, the fact that he’s watching pornography and not playing low-stakes poker with his buddies isn’t that big of a deal.

“Another concern is that you’ve been together for all of two years and he is no longer interested in having sex with you.” Why is this such a surprise? They’re not married. They’re having sex. The guy has lost interest. I’ve heard this story a million times and usually it takes a lot less time than two years. It’s called using a person, which is the opposite of love and which Karol Cardinal Wojtyla discussed at length in his book Love and Responsibility. Study after study has shown that the couples with the most fulfilling relationships—sexually and emotionally—are the ones who practice complete heterosexual monogamous fidelity in marriage. Surely Dr Saltz has familiarized herself with these studies? Or does she just watch Friends?

Next she says: “Keep in mind that I am not addressing the social or moral issues of pornography, which generate great controversy and which people have strong feelings about.” So she tries to straddle the fence, even though her remarks throughout the article indicate a distinct lack of consideration for the point of view of those who think pornography is what it is—a festering tumor on the face of the media industry. “Whether a couple includes pornography in their sex life is a personal choice.” Of course, what would a column like this be without paying homage to the false sense of moral autonomy?

But nothing could have prepared me for this: “Asking to be included in his porn watching was a good move.” Um, um, what? A good move? It’s the worst thing she could possibly do! Get down in the gutter and roll around in the filth with him? What is the widow supposed to say? “Now that you’re exploiting the people on the TV, won’t you exploit me as well”? This is absurd! How can Dr Saltz possibly claim to be morally neutral in her approach to pornography if she’s telling her client that it was a good idea to try to watch it with her poor excuse for a boyfriend? These are the people who think that it would be a good idea to teach our kids how to use condoms. I am the definition of incredulous right now.

“Porn can be an enhancement to your sex life, but it shouldn't be a substitute for it.” But that’s what it is. Pornography by definition is a substitute for the intimacy that takes place in any sexual relationship. Even in situations where the viewing of pornography leads to a “normal” act of marital intercourse, where is the arousal coming from? It’s not coming from the two persons. It’s coming from the images on the screen. And again, anyone who has done serious counseling work with married couples knows that pornography does not enhance the sexual life of a couple; it stagnates it. Why? Because just like contraception, it cuts off communication between the two persons. And I didn’t even learn this from the Church. I learned it from my interpersonal communications professor at UT. What leads to satisfaction in the sexual life of a couple is communication. Equally important are commitment and openness to life. Pornography destroys all three of those.

The myth of "empowerment"
But in a “morally neutral” society, where sexuality has been made into this sort of judgment free zone, even this plainest common sense is lost on people who should be the most educated and wise among us. The argument has been made in some circles of feminism that pornography is not about female subjugation or exploitation but rather female empowerment—that the woman is able to use her feminine wiles as a means to power. But what we see here is that the opposite happens in real life. Pornography reduces women to pathetic states of life, as in this story of a woman who hopes at best to share a man, who obviously does not care for her in the least, with a television screen, and is encouraged to do so by the closest thing our friends at MSNBC can find to a voice of reason.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to spend my Memorial Day Weekend thinking about happy things, and I hope you will too.

Posted by Lavergne at 9:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The BBC reports that in preparation for the Holy Father's visit to Poland, his beloved predecessor's homeland, a number of things are changing. The southern town of Wadowice, where John Paul II was born, has banned the sale of takeaway ice creams and cream cakes for the duration of Benedict's visit! If I were him, I would be outraged!

Polish authorities are calling it a health risk. Bozena Okreglicka, a spokeswoman for local health inspectors, said:

Cakes and ice cream can easily go off in summer temperatures and can pose a danger to health. That's why we're banning takeaway sales on the day many pilgrims will be arriving in Wadowice.

And that's not all either. Some places that the pope will visit, including Warsaw and Krakow, will be dry! Dry! For a German pope who has unabashedly expressed his approval of Bavarian Ale!

Polish police say the ban is in place to maintain public order and as a mark of respect for the pontiff.

Pope Benedict XVI himself will be offered both red and white wine as he attends a series of gala dinners, according to local media reports.

I read this and I'm thinking, is the pope the only one who will be offered wine at these things? Surely other people will too? They're not just all going to get together and watch the pope get sloshed are they? I think a guy like Benedict would likely prefer that other people get to share in the joy of drink. He's a German, for crying out loud!

If banning ice cream and alcohol wasn't enough, there's also a ban on certain television advertisements--such as advertisements for alcohol, contraceptives, lingerie and tampons. Tampons? I don't think there's any Catholic teaching that bans the use of tampons. Wait let me check the Catechism ... Nope, nothin' on tampons. In fact the only thing on that list that the Catholic Church actually prohibits outright is contraceptives. Why the sudden scrupulosity?

Apparently with the Holy Father's visit the Polish airwaves have rediscovered the art of modesty.

Even a television advert for a new television has been barred. The ad featuring a couple appearing to have sex promoting the "multiple pleasures" of LG Phillips television sets is currently only aired late at night and will not be shown at all during the Pope's visit.

"There is always the risk that the faithful may feel hurt if programming devoted to the Pope's visit is interrupted by frivolous ads," Zbigniew Badziak, head of advertising for Telewizja Polska, the state-run TV network, told the Associated Press news agency.

The double-standard
Well well well! They didn't want to offend the Catholics. Meanwhile in America, the number one movie in the nation, advertised and promoted to the nth degree, has drawn fire from Catholic ckergy and lay people, making many feel quite slandered and attacked for no other reason than because of where their allegiances lie. (I'm thinking in particular of American members of Opus Dei here.) And what have they gotten in return for their distress? A few explanatory words before or after the film about the reality of the organizations depicted? The pithiest acknowledgment of people's concerns? The slightest bit of empathy? No. Catholics are basically being told in this country, "It's just entertainment, get over it."

What we're seeing in Poland is an example of what it might look like if the Hollywood powers that be had half the respect for Catholics that they have for other ethnic and religious groups. The criteria that they used in Poland for Catholics, and in America for everybody else, is that if there is a possibility that someone might feel offended by something, it's time put our pandering caps on. We see here in America quite a strong and empirically verified fact that some Catholics will in fact be and are offended by the Da Vinci Load of Crap. But we are expected to be magnanimous and open-minded. But newspapers in this country won't run Danish cartoons of Mohammed because they're insensitive.

Pandering vs magnanimity
I'm not saying one approach is better than the other. I'm just saying let's have one standard for everyone, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu whatever. Either pander to and walk on eggshells around everyone, or rather expect everyone to have enough inner strength to choose not to be offended or threatened by malevolent or slanderous material. Perhaps in that sense pop culture is paying Catholics a compliment, expecting us to be stronger than anybody else because, after all, we knew this was coming didn't we? Jesus told us so.

What if he came here?
You know what I'm thinking, folks? I'm thinking the Holy Father ought to visit our fruited plane. Of course, of course, we know the network and film executives probably wouldn't care nearly as much what would offend the Catholics in this country. But imagine if the Holy Father commanded the same kind of respect in the Land of the Free that he commands in Poland? Would anything still be on the airwaves? Desperate Housewives? Friends? One Tree Hill? This may be hitting a soft spot for some people, even friends of mine, and even myself, but it's an honest question. If it's not worthy of the pope's viewing, is it worthy of ours? Just throwing it out there.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Steven Greydanus of Decent Films writes a fantastic review of the DaVinci Load. This part in particular struck me:

Is it possible to put all this aside and just enjoy the story as a thriller, an enjoyable yarn? I honestly have no idea how people can take that approach.

Catholic writer Mark Shea tells an anecdote about a college bull session among students at Central Washington University over The Da Vinci Code. “Even if it’s just fiction,” a student opined, “it’s still interesting to think about.”

To which another student replied: “Your mother’s a whore.” And then, to the first student’s stunned incredulity, he added, “And even if that’s just fiction, it’s still interesting to think about.”

Snap. When I read this it really got me thinking about just how personal this situation is, even if I don't realize it. This isn't just about some high-browed arteests slandering some old geezers in the Vatican and some fringe kooks in a secretive organization.

The reality is that I am a son of the Church, whom is classically referred to as Mother Church. And it is this Mother Church whose son I am and whose sons and daughters populate the whole United States and the world over, who is being maligned and slandered and pooped upon by the popular world. And how passionately are we sons and daughters defending the mother who has been feeding us with the Word of God since we were little kids? I hope that next time the topic comes up in conversation, I will have the guts to say something, if only to point out that my mother is not, in fact, a secretive murderous whore.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Well the weekend that heralded the gigantic opening of Ron Howard's cinematization of Dan Brown's Catholic smear tome The DaVinci Code has finally come and gone. Whew. Now I can't wait until it's three months from now and everyone has forgotten about this. Course there's always that second media campaign with the release of the DVD to look forward to.

The movie made $77 million in the United States (which is not anywhere close to what The Passion of the Christ made in the US in its opening days). The DaVinci Load of Crap also grossed $147 million everywhere else in the world, including recordbreaking sales in Italy and Spain.

We saw this coming of course. And now the Church is bracing for all sorts of confusion and misconceptions on the part of the folks who watch the movie and don't know that what they're watching is about as grounded in reality as Fox's 24, which, by the way, has featured public service announcements from Kiefer Sutherland (AKA Jack "If everyone followed his instructions the show would be called 12" Bauer) inviting people to recognize that most Muslims and Arabs are in fact ordinary decent people. Anything like that from Ron Howard? Tom Hanks? Dan Brown? Course not. Why not?

Sorry I know I've covered this ground before but I feel the need to say it again: When it's Christians and Catholics being maligned in a Hollywood load of crap it's cool, it's in demand, or at least it's "just entertainment." But when it's Muslims or homosexuals or anybody else you can't portray anything less than the highest nobility without being expected to run a public service announcement. And there's nothing wrong with that. But we Catholics would like one as well. I think we deserve it. Especially the real Silas. Did you know he's a stockbroker in New York with a wife and kids? And heres the kicker: the dude is Nigerian.

The LA Daily News ran a piece today rejoicing over the sizeable ticket sales of the Da Vinci Load. Exhibitor Relations Co. president Paul Dergarabedian said: "The critics certainly weren't kind to ("Da Vinci") but audiences heard so much about it, so how could they not see it?"

How could they not see it? What kind of silly question is that? They could not see it the same way I'm gonna not see it: by not going to see it. It's not that complicated. And frankly, I do wonder how it is that so much curiosity can be ginned up. The promoters of the film argue that protesters of the films are just promoting it by speaking out. But seriously, what are they supposed to do? Not speak up? Not defend themselves and their honor? If Opus Dei members were to keep their mouths shut it would be taken as a confirmation of the argument made by the film and book: that Opus Dei is a secretive and probably corrupt organization.

If the DaVinci Load of Crap is going to rake in hunreds of millions of dollars then so be it. It won't be the first two-and-a-half-hour baloney-fest to do so. I just hope the people who go to see it realize that what they're watching is in fact baloney.

But the fact of the matter is that whether they know that going in or not, they should be able to recognize the fact as soon as they walk out of the theatre and are confronted with numerous Catholics and members of Opus Dei and Catholic clergy etc, all of whom are saints. Of course, we would have to actually be saints in order for those who see the movie to recognize that. Perhaps that is the good that will come from this whole Catholic smear-fest. Perhaps now all we Catholics will have to be saints.

Posted by Lavergne at 8:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Harmless fiction?
So, the DaVinci Code is just a bit of entertainment right? It's just a bit of fiction, it's not meant to mirror reality or anything. And besides most people aren't going to have their beliefs altered or really be influenced at all by what's in the book anyway. Right?

Wrong.

Disclaimer too much to ask?
Lifesite News reports that Bill Donohue of the Catholic League had some harsh words for director Ron Howard, who announced recently that there will be no disclaimer at the beginning of DVC. The story includes a list of films which had disclaimers at the beginning expressing that there was no intention of maledicting the groups depicted therein. Get a load of these:

· Asians: "Year of the Dragon"
· Blacks: "Birth of the Nation"
· Gays: "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"
· Jews: "Merchant of Venice"
· Mormons: "Big Love"
· Muslims: "True Lies"
· Native Americans: "Pocahontas II"
· Nearsighted: "Mr. Magoo"
· Wolves: "White Fang"

Now that's crazy. The most striking example to me is True Lies. If DVC was really the innocent little bit of fictional action fluff it claims to be, there would be no problem with a disclaimer of that sort. The fact of the matter is, for all their pretensions and posturing, the makers of this film are objectively hostile to bona fide Catholicism and to the image of the Church. These filmmakers and Hollywood in general are clearly not hostile to any of the above groups because they recognize the kind of sensitivity that all of them rightly warrant. They do not recognize that Catholics have a right to the same kind of sensitivity. In light of this double-standard, perhaps it would be appropriate to redub the movie, maybe something like, False Lies.

Posted by Lavergne at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Well there's controversy in Britain. From the Indepent Online Edition a few hours ago:

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales sacked a senior aide because he was gay, it was reported last night. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was personally involved in the dismissal of his personal press officer, according to The Mail on Sunday.

A spokesman for the Cardinal declined to deny the claim last night, fuelling controversy over the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality.

The new equality minister Ruth Kelly, who is a member of the Catholic Opus Dei sect, has appalled leaders of Britain's gay community by failing to say whether she believes being gay is a sin.

Well if she says yes, they're going to be angry. If she says no, they'll say she's lying and still be angry. She'd just as soon not hog the spotlight they so desperately desire by saying anything herself. At any rate, to answer the question we would have to know what precisely the phrase "being gay" really means. If it means that someone has a tendency to be attracted to members of the same sex, then the answer is no. No one is guilty of sin for being a certain way. One might however act on impulses in a way that is sinful. And typically, the term "gay" has the connotation not just of having an inclination but of acting thereupon. If "being gay" thus means actually living out a gay lifestyle then yes, of course, the Church teaches that "being gay" is a sin. And that's all these reporters had to do was pick up a Catechism and look for themselves.

Of course, they didn't want to know what the Church teaches. Apparently they wanted to know whether equality minister Ruth Kelly believed it to be a sin. This of course is something she has no obligation to tell a bunch of snoopy reporters because it has nothing to do with her job.

Oh but according to Peter Stanford at the Guardian Unlimited they are when you're a member of Opus Dei, as Kelly is. Stanford gives his spin on Kelly's troubles with the press.

the beleaguered Blairite contralto is in difficulties as Secretary of State for Communities, as she was at Education, because she is said to be a supernumerary (or associate member) of the secretive and ultra-conservative Catholic group Opus Dei. According to The Da Vinci Code, Opus Dei is a bunch of sinister monks willing to murder to keep the church going. The truth is different but still disturbing.

Whoa! Now I have to wonder, if it weren't for all the Catholics and other Christians out there campaigning night and day to expose the DaVinci Code as the fraudulent anti-Catholic hack-job that it is, do you think he would have bothered to point out that DVC was wrong about Opus Dei? The campaigns must be doing something. It forces even those who are determined to malign Opus Dei to footnote their slander. "We still think they're sinister and hiding something, even though one of our fellows has obviously gone and damaged our collective credibility by writing some second-rate flop supposing this order is composed of psychotic albinoes."

So what's the "different but still disturbing" truth about Opus Dei?

Opus Dei may not murder - claims that it had a hand in the premature death of Pope John Paul I in 1978 after just 33 days have been disproved - but its core belief is that in your everyday work (Opus Dei means 'work of God') your prime duty is to convert the people you come into contact with to the traditional beliefs of the Catholic Church. They call it fishing and are quite open about doing it.

So again, since we don't have any evidence to really support our claim that Opus Dei wants to subjugate the world, we'll just engage in the spin in which we've specialized for so many years. Even when Mr Stanford gets into the part that is supposedly the truth he distorts it. The prime duty of a member of a member of Opus Dei is to lift up every activity of his life on a daily basis to the glory of God, and to witness to the grace of Christ through prayer and good works. What others in his life do with that witness is up to them. Human beings don't convert. It's the Holy Spirit that speaks to people. It's just the Christian's job to be a witness, not to twist arms, and Opus Dei is clear about that in a way that Stanford is not, which makes him not much better than Dan Brown.

There was at least one person who made pretty good sense in the media uproar, as recorded in the Independent:

Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP, defended the Cardinal. "I don't think that the Cardinal had any choice. The Church's teaching is very clear. It would be difficult if you had a press secretary explaining the teaching, while at the same time violating it."

Posted by Lavergne at 12:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

So today USA Today ran a praise piece on Oprah. She is, of course, the media darling of the modern world. A few things about this article that struck my eye, or maybe, poked it like a cattle prod.

First off, Kathryn Lofton, a professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon who has written two papers analyzing the religious aspects of Oprah, said this about her: "She's a really hip and materialistic Mother Teresa."

Um, what? First of all, the words "materialistic" and "Mother Teresa" do not belong in the same sentence. And certainly not the latter right after the former. The last thing Mother Teresa was was materialistic. And according to an expert on Oprah, it's the second thing she is. "Materialistic Mother Teresa" is a contradiction in terms, a stringing together of words that causes said words to lose their meaning and become superficial and bereft of substance. Now, if that's what we mean when we describe Oprah as a "materialistic Mother Teresa," superficial and bereft of substance, then I can accept that as a possibility.

Perhaps by "Mother Teresa" Professor Lofton just meant to refer to Oprah's participation in good causes like Darfur and Hurricane Katrina. The distinct difference here of course is that every day of Mother Teresa's life was about the good cause--specifically in Calcutta. Anything less was not enough for her or for her good name. For Oprah, the natural disasters are on Monday and Tuesday, and what not to wear is on Wednesday. That's not a jab at Oprah, it's just what is. There's also the distinct difference that everything Mother Teresa did was aimed at the glorification of Jesus Christ. She pointed to Him. Who does Oprah point to?

Later on the article reads:

One of Winfrey's most appealing subtexts is that she's anti-institutional, says Chris Altrock, minister of Highland Street Church of Christ in Memphis. He says Winfrey believes there are many paths to God, not just one. After doing his doctoral research three years ago on postmodernism religion, a religious era that began in the 1970s as Christians became deeply interested in spirituality and less interested in any established church, he came up with what he calls "The Church of Oprah," referring to the culture that has created her.

"Our culture is changing," he says, "as churches are in decline and the bulk of a new generation is growing up outside of religion." Instead, they're turning to the Church of Oprah.

"People who have no religion relate to her," Nelson says.

Well of course. This is no big riddle here. What makes the Church of Oprah so appealing to so many people particularly in America is the same thing that ever made every other craze in history so appealing: the veritable absence of challenging moral requirements. That's what's at work in the DaVinci Code, it's what's at work in alternative spiritualities and yes even in the spirituality of Oprah. Does she say some good things? I guess maybe: frankly I don't watch her show that often. What I do know is that in the Gospel according to Oprah most of the notion of moral obligation has to do not with your neighbor but with precisely "you". The article makes it clear: "purchase self-indulgent gifts, take time for you — because you deserve it. The notes rang true to millions of viewers."

True or false doesn't enter into it. It rings comfortable. And that's the pop cultural view of religion right there. Religion is a sort of therapy. It's all about comfort and happy feelings and the moment that it makes an uncomfortable demand on a person or a culture it ceases to be valuable. That's the popular religious outlook of many in America today and Oprah is glad to preach it. Catholicism is a profound rejection of that idea.

One pointy-headed Oprah follower actually goes so far as to invite readers to ponder the question: "Why do we all need her so much?"

"We all"? Excuse me? Forty-nine million viewers a week--okay, it's impressive. But it does not in any way shape or form constitute "we all," especially for those of us two-hundred-some-odd million Americans who actually don't watch it every single day.

I have to say, my favorite parts of the article were the quotations of Debbie Schlussel, a blogger who, aside from resenting the ridiculous comparisons of Oprah to bona fide saints, seems to just plain not like her. She describes Oprah's fans as "incredibly gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves." Winfrey, according to Schlussel, "acts as if her show has 'evolved,' but in fact, she still has the salacious sex and deviance stories, with a psychologist in the audience to make it seem highbrow and give it the kosher seal of approval. If this is the person whose morals we are putting on a pedestal, then America's moral compass is in much need of retuning."

Well, yes Debbie, I'm afraid it in fact is. Trying to look on the bright side though, I wonder if all 49 million of Oprah's viewers really are "fans," in the sense of being the gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves that Schlussel describes. Is it too much to hope that people can watch Oprah with a critical mind? I don't think so. Still, it is rather unsettling when "Oprah said" becomes an authoritative prefix culturally rivalling "Jesus said." But that's from the point of view of the present time. In terms of history, I think it's safe to say which person's words will last longer.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

I heard it asserted yesterday that the Catholic Church denies women the opportunity to make use of their spiritual gifts. At the risk of making myself appear chauvinist, I cannot endorse such a proposition, in fact, I'm inclined to think it absurd.

What other philosophies of woman exist in the world aside from the Catholic one? Well there's the Hefner and Flynt philosophy: A woman is a bunny, whose worth depends upon her ability to sexually excite men. One aspect of this philosophy includes limiting the value of the sexual act with the woman to the unitive aspect, that is, to saying there is no value to the woman's ability to actually bring new life into the world.

Then there's the chauvinist philosophy, which basically says woman is supposed to shut her mouth and do as she's told. This is where we get the "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" image. It is widely believed that the Catholic Church is to thank for this image, even though this image limits the value of a woman more or less to her ability to bear children.

Then there's the modern feminist view of woman, which is that a woman's value is ultimately predicated on her ability to climb the corporate ladder. There's the reproductive-rights view of women, which says that a woman's worth is predicated upon her ability to exercise power over her own reproductive system. I could go on and on.

The thing that all these philosophies share in common is that they all focus on one dimension of female existence and elevates it to the exclusion of all the other dimensions of the female identity. The word for this is "objectification," limiting the anthropology of women to one particular aspect. We see this everywhere in the world today--in magazines, in corporations, in schools. On the other hand, there is today one institution that is the definitive authority on all these dimensions of the female person and reveres them all equally. That institution is the Mystical Body of Christ that, some in the popular media and even some of our church leaders, would have us believe denies the spiritual gifts of women.

Does the Mystical Body in fact think that women are supposed to be quiet and clean the dishes? Is the woman's only place within the confines of the physical household? Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on women, written in 1912, such a philosophy is at best "imperfect."

the social position of woman is, from the Christian point of view, only imperfectly set forth in the expression "Woman belongs at home". On the contrary, her peculiar influence is to extend from the home over State and Church.

This was written in 1912, long before the modern notions of female "liberation" ever took hold of the West. The fact of the matter is that the Church, by recognizing the divine authorship of women, and applying the universal call to holiness to them as well, actually expects more of women than do any of these other incomplete ideologies, because the Church gives women more credit than anyone else does. The Church wants women to be on the frontlines, on the cutting edge of societal evolution. But because of long-standing and unalterable liturgical norms that offend modern culture, the Church is maligned as woman-suppressing.

Show me, I would implore these critics, one institution in the world that can claim as a daughter a woman like Mother Theresa. Or Catherine of Siena. Or Therese of Lisieux. Joan of Arc. To say nothing of a certain Blessed Virgin. We are talking about women who did enormous amounts of good in and for the world, and no it didn't advance an ideological agenda. All it advanced was the Kingdom of God. Which is greater?

Has the Church always been free of male chauvinist pigs? Of course not. But if that is the case then it is only because these men did not accept the authentic Catholic teaching on women. At any rate, I would implore critics to explain how a woman-suppressing Church could produce such a paragon of chivalry and gentlemanliness as John Paul II, whose works and writings constantly witnessed to nothing less than a Christ-like reverance and awe of women.

Ultimately, the objectification of women in all the aforementioned incomplete ideologies is tantamount to the historical suppression of women. Historical suppression and modern objectification both accomplish the same thing: the limitation and degradation of the female identity to something less than the full objective reality that is Woman. Have leaders in the Church participated sinfully in that limitation and degradation? Sure. But to point to those within the Mystical Body exclusively, mentioning neither any of the litany of other culprits nor the far greater scale on which they limit and degrade the daughters of God, rather misses the big picture.

Posted by Lavergne at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Here's a good article published in the Pittsburgh Catholic last week that draws parallels between Thomas Jefferson and Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code. There's really not a whole lot new about Dan Brown, particularly in his approach to the question of who Jesus was (is). It's the old art of fence-straddling.

Jesus was just a nice guy you see. He wasn't really the LORD. He was just a really good teacher who made everybody feel good, went around raising everybody's self-esteem. It was that big bad evil Church that hijacked the image of Jesus and turned him into a deity and told people that they better not misbehave or Jesus would send em to aich-ee-double-hockey-sticks.

In the "Total Agony Love" entry, I mentioned that a romantic attraction proves untenable for an enamored man for one of three reasons:

Either a) she does not know we exist; b) she knows we exist but has no clue how we feel about her; or c) she knows how we feel but would rather maintain a level of comfortable distance (i.e. she "just wants to be friends").

I think what's going on with DVC is situation "c." The Da Vinci Code is Dan Brown's bend-over-backwards attempt to keep his distance from the God who loves him, as well as make it easy for other Christians who are unsettled by the message of Christ to do similarly.

And in the meantime it unsettles even committed but uninformed Christians, claiming that maybe our lover is not everything we thought he was. So we then are tempted to distance ourselves, at the fear of being let down. It's a psychological operation.

This comfortable distance allows for a beloved to enjoy the superficial qualities of the lover's affections without having to commit to the uncomfortable ordeal of really reciprocating. So the beloved benefits in all the ways that they would wish to, in the ways that would make them feel better about themselves. But the lover is undeniably short-changed. The more admirable thing to do in this situation would be to simply cut off the relationship, rather than attempt to straddle the fence.

Similarly, DVC attempts to reframe the relationship of humanity with Christ, inviting followers to predicate their previously unqualified belief on whether or not it offends our modern sensibilities. Again, there's nothing new here, except the package. As characters in the book are quick to point out, they mean no disrespect to Jesus himself. They just have it in for the big evil Church. In other words, they don't want to completely sever their relationship with Jesus. They like him and all. They just don't want to date exclusively.

But as Jesus said, "Whoever is not with me is against me." In other words, it's time to fish or cut bait.

Posted by Lavergne at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

One of my readers replied to "Benedict Year One" saying that the DaVinci Code is a good novel so long as one understands that it is fiction and none of the “facts” presented such as the nature of Opus Dei or the secret of Mary Magdalene are actually true. I can respect that. I’m sure the novel is very suspenseful and well-composed; otherwise it wouldn’t be all the rage today.

But my sisters and brothers, if you’re looking for some more well-composed, edge-of-your-seat mythology, check out the May issue of Glamour Magazine. Tell ya what, folks, this is great storytelling! For example, check out the article entitled “The new lies about women’s health.” (WARNING: This link contains a startling and borderline pornographic image of a woman's backside.) It’s a harrowing tale about how evil Christian pro-lifers seek to impose their morality on the rest of humanity by twisting the arms of politicians and distorting scientific research. So to the rescue come the noble “free spirits” at Glamour and Planned Parenthood etc to expose the lies. Will the Pro-Choice Freedom Fighters beat back the pathological Bible-thumping liars? You’ll just have to read and find out.

Continue reading "Glamour Magazine competes with DVC for enthralling fiction" »

Posted by Lavergne at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The Catholic religious group Opus Dei is suing the makers of the upcoming DaVinci Code movie to have a disclaimer included in the film saying that it is a work of fiction. Great idea, although it won't make me any more inclined to see the film. Now, if this was a two-hour film about how Opus Dei is a paragon of righteousness and the Church is the Pillar of Truth and Christ actually did die and rise and Mary Magdalene was a celibate saint, that movie I'd go see opening night.

And how about this: at the end of the above-described film we could have our own little disclaimer, maybe saying the following--

Everything you have just seen in this film is true. However some years ago, an anti-Catholic, self-important pseudo-historian wrote a catalogue of irrelevant binge seeking to malign everything just now shown here. It was recently made into a film which will soon be available in the drama section of your local video store, even though it would probably be better suited to the comedy section.

Posted by Lavergne at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The Holy Easter Triduum is upon us, the holiest of the holy days. It's a time for us to do as we will hear in the readings at the Good Friday service, "They will look upon him whom they have pierced."

That is what all the Catholic faithful do on Good Friday. We look on him whom “they” have pierced. Who is “they”? The difficult reality of which I am reminded each year at this time is that it was not Judas, or Peter, or the Pharisees, or the Roman soldiers who pierced Jesus Christ. It is me. It is all of us who are called to be his followers. The sheep have not merely wandered outside the shepherd's care: they have attacked him.

It is a mystery, at least to me, what force is at work here, when the sheep pierce their shepherd. Ultimately we know from revelation that it is a thing called “original sin.” It's the mutation of our human desires into something less than human, less than holy. It is that we have lost the ability to discern what will truly bring us happiness, and thus become convinced that in order to truly be happy, we must flee from the One who created and loves and sustains us in existence. Not only that we must flee from him, but that we must erase him from our lives altogether.

We live in a society that for some time has tried this approach. It is what John Paul II called the “culture of death” and Benedict XVI the “dictatorship of relativism.” A culture which indulges its passions and whims in pursuit of whatever scraps of happiness can be found before tomorrow brings death to all.

But what we find is that all the material joys in the world in the end leave only a bitter taste in the mouth without a deeper contentment, and believing as these cultures do that no deeper contentment exists, a drab despair sets in--a sort of malaise that is the antithesis of hope, and with which is conjoined the greatest virtue love's antithesis: not hate, but indifference.

Indeed the source of so many social ills of our day I would suggest is not hate, but indifference. Many are those who are pierced today by this indifference, by this apathy. It is indifference to the Mary Magdalenes of our day that makes it possible for us to objectify women. It is indifference to the unwed mothers of our day that makes it possible to walk away from them. It is indifference to the pre-born infants that makes it possible for us to turn a blind eye as they are annihilated in droves.

It is indifference that makes us walk down a city street and never notice the poorest of the poor. And who are they? It is not just the guitar-playing, cig-smoking transients perched in the crevices of the city. They are hungry for food and shelter and justice to be sure. But there is a greater hunger--a veritable emaciation--shared with them by the well-to-do educated elites that pass them by each day (and I am no exception to this). It is the need for that deeper contentment, the God-shaped vacuum in every human heart. It is the thirst for the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It is a hunger for “him whom they have pierced.” But to really take on the life of the One Pierced there first must be conquered the very vice that pierces him, namely, indifference.

If we are to be filled with the joy and peace of God for which we hunger, we must choose to never be again indifferent. We must choose to heal the wounds of others, who are Christ in disguise. We must choose to protect the weakest and most defenseless among us, the baby Jesus' of this world. We must choose to care, and to serve, and to love, as Christ did.

But something is holding us back. We are hesitant. Why? What stops us on a daily basis from breaking down the walls of apathy?

Just as Christ is the example of the one who refuses indifference, he is also the example of the consequences we may expect if we so refuse. Because everyone mattered to Jesus. The gentiles, the pagans, the lepers, the sinners, they all received the unflinching love of Christ. It was precisely that refusal on the part of Christ to ignore these outcasts and underclasses that so upset the leaders of his religious tradition. It was that very refusal to be indifferent, that very commitment to really love the poor, that caused him to be pierced in the first place.

And so we are confronted with the great conundrum of the Christian life: that the greatest joy in the world, the joy of loving God and loving neighbor without hesitation, without fear, requires that we, like Christ, allow ourselves to be pierced. In a world marked by sin, there can be no love for God that does not entail suffering. How many of us hold back from speaking out on behalf of the defenseless, hesitate to serve the poor for fear of being persecuted or taken advantage of?

We fear not only those sufferings but even the slightest discomforts. As I went through the application process for seminary, I had to have blood drawn for tests. My veins were difficult to find and I was poked several times in both arms. And how impressed I was with myself! “I must really want to go to seminary,” I told my friends. As if a poke in the arm was some great sacrifice on my part. As a society we are afraid of needles. The Christian life radically invites us to brave the nails.

Conversely, as a society we are content with the measliest pleasures. We sip from the teacup of materialism and greed. The Christian life radically invites us to drink from the river of resurrection and new life.

This Easter, let's accept that invitation. Let us embrace the whole gambit of downs and ups and sufferings and joys of the Christian life. For what we discover when we choose to no longer be indifferent, to love without hesitation, is that the nails of the Christian life become as needles, and the teacup of measly pleasures overflows into the river of resurrection. Amen.

Posted by Lavergne at 3:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

In anticipation of the release of the upcoming film adaptation of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, the Catholic Church in America has begun a campaign designed to address the myths and misrepresentations that apparently (I've never read it) abound in the novel. The website for the campaign is entitled "Jesus Decoded," and I haven't had much chance to surf through the whole thing, but it looks really good.

The Jesus Decoded campaign is part of the Catholic Communication Campaign. This is precisely the kind of thing I've been thinking the US Bishops have been needing to do for a long time, namely, to address all the hogwash that's spouted in the media and popular culture about the Church on a daily basis. This is certainly a step in the right direction. I'm excited to see what they come out with the future.

Posted by Lavergne at 9:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Interesting story to come out in the last few days: A couple of senators--Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana--have proposed to revive legislation from last year to create new domain suffixes for websites. The new suffix would be ".xxx." The suffix would of course be appended to websites that peddle pornography. Last year the legislation made the suffixes optional, but the legislation faced heavy opposition and ultimately was rejected.

Well these two Congressmen have brought it back and they've upped the ante. Now not only would the dot-xxx be made able to porn-peddlers, it will be made mandatory. So playboy.com would have to trade in its current URL for a "playboy.xxx."

However, there's apparently a sizable contingent of people from both sides of the pornography issue who are all working towards the same goal: killing this legislation like the last one. The movement to protect the pornography industry, spearheaded by the Free Speech Coalition, is actually working towards the same goal as conservative pro-family lobby organizations who would like to see the pornography industry in shambles both on and off the internet. These organizations include Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. The reason the two sides are working towards the same goal however is because they have radically different ideas of how the legislation will affect online pornography.

The Free Speech Coalition complains that the "dot-xxx" would lead to the "ghetto-ization" of online porn. Well ... yeah. On the other hand, pro-family coalitions like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are concerned that this might create a "virtual red-light district" that would actually consolidate the online pornography industry and may thereby make it stronger. Who's right?

As best as I can read this, whether or not the legislation proves beneficial or counterproductive ... depends. It depends for one thing on whether the peddlers will comply with it. Many of them may not, but that’s true of any law that regulates anything. It also depends on whether one has a moral compass. Those who have rightly formed consciences will see a dot-xxx and they will know to avoid it. Those who do not have rightly-formed consciences will see one and be enticed to consume it. It gives parents the opportunity to protect their kids, but it doesn't actually constrain the ability of vice-peddlers to distribute their materials, or perverts and addicts to consume it.

I have to say from a Catholic standpoint on this issue I can see both sides. On the one hand, creating dot-xxx domains would seem to legitimize the practice and stop short of what should be our ultimate goal of eradicating pornography completely. I can see how it would be somewhat like allowing contraception into the curricula of junior high and high school sex ed classes in the hope that it would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. It appears to put a band-aid on the problem, but might it only make the problem worse?

On the other hand, I can't get over the fact that these online pornography-peddlers actually target youngsters. They use innocent or familiar domain names--Disney, Barbie, ESPN etc--to lure people in so that they will stumble upon the material accidentally (for the consumers, but not for the peddlers). A dot-xxx would make such insidious ploys all but impossible. “Barbie.xxx” is clearly distinguishable from “Barbie.com.” The way it is now, the cyber-porn industry is more or less able to just blend into the crowd, getting new accidental users hooked every single day.

Consider it this way. There are many pornographic films that stylistically resemble legitimate genres of film. There are sci-fi porns, romantic comedy porns, medieval fantasy porns, western porns, etc. Right now all those movies are in the same section at the video store. Granted, those video stores are public places whereas the internet is at least ostensibly private. But it does create the effect of marking the material, placing all of it under the same umbrella according to similar content.

Imagine if there was no such section. Suppose all the sci-fi porn was in the sci-fi section, romantic comedy porn in the romantic comedy section, and so forth. It would be much more difficult to navigate a video store without bumping into that kind of filth. That’s how it is right now on the internet. Granted, we should work to eradicate such material from video stores anyway. But in the meantime it helps to know which part of the store merits boycotting.

Dot-xxx is the closest idea anyone has had to creating that kind of effect in cyberspace. It would be simple as pie for parents to cordon off all the dot-xxx’s if cyber-pornography peddlers were mandated to switch over. Would all the vice-peddlers on the internet comply with this legislation? Maybe not, but it might be a start. If there’s a better way to hamper this business then somebody needs to come out with it.

I welcome people’s opinions on this as I am still trying to form my own. All I know for certain is that this is an industry that makes $2.5 billion on the internet and $12 billion overall in the United States each year, with 72 million online consumers, the largest portion of that being children ages 12 to 17. (These numbers and others are rather eye-opening.) It is an industry that violates the dignity of the human person, male and female, in a most egregious and violent way, and it is time we took the fight to them. I don’t know if dot-xxx is the best way to do it, but it’s something that needs to be seriously discerned by those interested in promoting the common good.

Posted by Lavergne at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Last night I finally had an opportunity to see the romantic comedy Love Actually, which is a really good film that would have been even better were it not for all the lewdness. The US Bishops' review gave it an "L" for "limited adult audience," just a notch below "O" for "morally offensive."

The moral shortcomings of the film notwithstanding, there are a couple of scenes in the film that resonate with me. I'll only focus on one here. Early in the film, a stepfather named Daniel (played by Liam Neeson) is sitting on a park bench with his eightish-year-old stepson named Sam (played by Thomas Sangster). The woman whom they both loved, Sam's mother and Daniel's wife, has just been laid to rest, and Sam has been closed-lipped ever since.

Concerned, Daniel tries to get Sam to open up. For all Daniel knows, Sam could be having suicidal thoughts at the loss of his mother, or encountering drugs, or something equally awful. Sam finally decides to tell his stepfather what's going on. It turns out, Sam is not fraught with grief at the passing of his mum. Rather, he says to his stepfather, "I'm in love."

Daniel, of course, is relieved. When Sam catches on to this, he asks Daniel why. Daniel says, "I thought it was something worse."

To which Sam replies in an impossibly cute way, "Worse? Than the total agony of being in love?"

So struck was I by this exchange that I pulled out my pen and wrote down "total agony of being in love" on my left arm so I wouldn't forget it. I've been told that I have something of a one-track theological mind. I'll hear a brief exchange like the one above and my mind will race away on a theological tangent. That essentially is what happened for the remaining ninety minutes of Love Actually, which too often forewent later opportunities at great profundity in favor of slapstick bedroom antics.

"The total agony of being in love." It resonates personally with me because I know what the kid is talking about, as most men do I imagine. That principle of attraction that is so crucial to love, the desire to be with someone, with our beloved. The belief that our happiness will be realized if we can be united with this person.

But if Sam is at all like me, and I think he is, it is not only that. It is not merely the desire to obtain happiness for ourselves. It is the desire to supply happiness for our beloved. We see a person and become convinced either through fantasy or (preferably) actual experience that this is a person who deserves to be affirmed in a most altruistic and selfless way by someone who loves her. The desire then takes hold to be that person, the man who affirms the value of this woman. Then the total agony sets in, specifically, the agony of feeling powerless to do so for essentially one of three reasons. Either a) she does not know we exist; b) she knows we exist but has no clue how we feel about her; or c) she knows how we feel but would rather maintain a level of comfortable distance (i.e. she "just wants to be friends"). Can you tell I've been through all these before?

That's where the real pain comes in for guys when it comes to these prospective love relationships. It's not that I want to be affirmed myself and I'm not getting that (although that's certainly part of it). It's that I really believe I could love this woman and really make her happy and feel good about herself, but I can't because she's not letting me! She is choosing to miss out on me. (Trust me, ladies, this is what we guys say to ourselves whenever we are rejected.) And what I wouldn't give to just reach into her heart and make her love me and make her let me love her. But that wouldn't be real, because she's not a puppet, she's a person. I can't pull her strings.

All of this, you see, is a parable. This universal experience of unrequited love is one imminently known and understood by no less than the Son of God Himself.

Recall the phrase that started this theological tangent of mine. "The total agony of being in love." This has religious as well as romantic overtones. What do you think was the first thing to pop into my one-track mind when I heard this phrase? Why of course, the First Sorrowful Mystery of the Rosary. The Agony in the Garden. What is going through his head at this point? While we may not be able to know the whole of it, we might approach it just by considering this so called "total agony of being in love." Because again, I think many of us can relate.

Jesus is in love with us. He wants to be with us, near us, inside of us even. And the most potent ingredient of that desire is not so much that we would make him happy, but that he desires to make us happy. Forget the shining-armor fantasies of mortal men: Christ knows for a fact that the only shot his beloved--that is, his bride, his Church, his sons and daughters on earth--has at happiness is complete and total union with him. Yet there he is in the garden, confronted with a world chock-full of people who don't even know he exists, or who know he exists but don't know how much he loves them, or who know how much loves them but want to keep their distance.

He wanted to find some other way to do this. What he would not have given to just reach into our hearts and make us love him and make us let him love us. But we're not puppets. We're persons, and he can't pull our strings. And what's more, he had no guarantee that any of that would change after he did what he was about to do. In fact he was fully aware that there would always be a sizable contingent of people who would insist on living as if he never existed, as if he never did what he did.

And it's not just the heathens. It's not just the Planned Parenthoods and Playboy peddlers of this world. All of us are at least in that third class of people, who knows how much he loves us but would rather keep our distance. We choose to keep our distance every time we sin. We choose to miss out on him. There's no person on this planet who has not at one time or another from one day to the next refused to requite his love. He knew this when he was on his knees sweating blood. And yet, he did it, anyway.

So then we are called, to love actually, as he did, anyway. I am reminded of the poem by that title from Mother Theresa. It's really quite a freeing attitude--and one that I saw a few times in the better parts of the movie. The best moments of mankind are the ones when we forget about what we might gain from our actions, whether our affections will be requited, and we simply love anyway. That is the "total agony of being in love." What indeed could be worse? And yet, what could possibly be better?

Posted by Lavergne at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

So the Academy Awards aired Sunday, featuring Jon Stewart as host. I've never been a huge fan of Jon Stewart, the host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central. But I have to say that I have one regret from not watching the Oscars, and it is that I missed him saying this to the celebrities:

"I’m from New York and I’ve been here a week and a half. A lot of people say this town is too liberal. Out of touch with mainstream America. A modern day beachfront Sodom and Gomorrah. A black hole where innocence is obliterated. An endless orgy of sexual gratification and greed.

“I don’t really have a joke here…and I just thought you should know a lot of people are saying that.”

In my book, his stock just went up a couple of points.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Michael Medved has written a piece in USA Today discussing how disappointed the folks who brought us Brokeback Mountain are that the supposedly fanatical bloodthirsty Christian conservatives haven't reacted more violently to Hollywood's latest manifesto.

I had debated for some time writing a piece about Brokeback, the main hesitation being that I haven't seen the film, but have only been confronted with its advertising campaign, of which Medved makes mention. After reading Medved's piece, I am content to have said nothing, since it is apparently a sign of greater power and maturity on the part of orthodox and orthoprax Christians, that confronted with poisonous products like Brokeback, we can shrug it off rather than add to its publicity by voicing public outrage.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Blog Reaction