'In the World, But Not of the World'

I'm a Christian, so I'm supposed to be 'in the world, but not of the world:'

"If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you."
(John 15:19)

---

"Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect."
(Romans 12:2)

I've opined about the sort of 'spirituality' that involves looking vaguely happy, Gnosticism, and other stuff, before.

Cloistered monastic orders are one way of being a Christian. But, like many other folks, I'm taking another approach.

For the last 10 days, 'the world' has been happening quite a bit, so this is all I have time for today.

Related? posts:

• "Talents, 'the Outer Darkness,' and Interest-Bearing Bank Accounts"
  (November 23, 2011)
• "Trade Show Preparation: Is Work Important?"
  (August 1, 2011)
• "Trade Show in Pennsylvania, Ecclesiastes, Software, and Schedules"
  (July 26, 2011)
• "Information Technology, Blogging, and Practicing Patience"
  (May 13, 2011)
• " 'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)

Asceticism: Seeing Past Some Skinny Guy Screaming on a Pillar

A long time ago a number of folks decided that it would be a good idea to go into a desert — one particular area in Egypt was a quite popular destination — and come close to starving themselves to death.

Considering what they had to look forward to in Third Century Rome: the decision isn't as daft as it may look.

Besides, they prayed. A lot.

The Desert Fathers got so famous for not eating and for praying a lot that I was running into accounts of them in my high school and college years. The word-image was often one of some lunatic screaming pious phrases while being very skinny at the top of a pillar.

I've gotten the impression that now, over a dozen centuries later, quite a few folks in America have the idea that religious people want to be saints; and that saints are half-starved psychiatric cases residing on top of a pillar.

There's something to that idea: but it's missing some important pieces.

I've written about saints before. It's true: Catholics are expected to try to live "a life of exemplary fidelity to the Lord." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2156)

That doesn't necessarily mean stripping down to a loin cloth and starving yourself in the Egyptian desert, though.

Asceticism has Its Place: But Get a Grip

One of the problems with contemporary American — and, I think, Western — culture is that we indulge in physical pleasures too much, and without restraint. That isn't a particularly good idea.

There are, whether we 'believe in it' or not, consequences to indulging in 'pleasures of the flesh.' Take a look at recent headlines on obesity in America, for example.

On the other hand, we're called to holiness: not starvation.

Still, asceticism is a good idea. The Catholic Church encourages us to follow the practice:

"...The season of Lent has traditionally been a time of prolonged penance for the Christian community. Together we prepare for the great Easter mysteries by committing ourselves to fulfill our baptismal call to maturity, holiness, service, and community. Our response to each call will demand sacrifice, mortification, asceticism, and denial of our own self-will. Mortification helps to 'put to death' the cancer cells of sin; asceticism brings a discipline that makes us increasingly free and responsible. Again, this action and grace of the Holy Spirit are what enlighten, enkindle, and empower us to live more fully the way of discipleship...."
(Penitential Practices for Today's Catholics, Doctrine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

It's not just Lent. A fair number of Catholics in America have restarted the practice of meatless Fridays — including my household. The way my wife prepares fish, though, rather defeats the purpose of the exercise. And that's another topic.

One of those 'secret Vatican documents' you hear about deals with fasting and abstinence:

"...The necessity of the mortification of the flesh also stands clearly revealed if we consider the fragility of our nature, in which, since Adam's sin, flesh and spirit have contrasting desires.(47) This exercise of bodily mortification-far removed from any form of stoicism does not imply a condemnation of the flesh which sons of God deign to assume.(48) On the contrary, mortification aims at the 'liberation'(49) of man, who often finds himself, because of concupiscence, almost chained(50) by his own senses. Through "corporal fasting"(51) man regains strength and the 'wound inflicted on the dignity of our nature by intemperance is cured by the medicine of a salutary abstinence.'(52)..."
(Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini of the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI of Fast and Abstinence, Chapter II)

Asceticism is even mentioned — rather positively — in the Catechism:

"Many religious have consecrated their whole lives to prayer. Hermits, monks, and nuns since the time of the desert fathers have devoted their time to praising God and interceding for his people. The consecrated life cannot be sustained or spread without prayer; it is one of the living sources of contemplation and the spiritual life of the Church."
(2687)

That bit from the Catechism is an excerpt from a section about prayer, by the way.

So, the Catholic Church is For Spiritual Stuff and Against Material Stuff, Right?

Wrong!

The idea that spirit is good and matter is bad is a heresy. Satan is a spirit, God made the material world, and God doesn't make junk.

God made Satan, too: but that gets me into a discussion of free will. And yet another topic.

The Catholic Church does not teach that the material world is wrong, bad, and icky. Repeating from Pope Paul VI's document:

"...This exercise of bodily mortification-far removed from any form of stoicism does not imply a condemnation of the flesh which sons of God deign to assume...."
(Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini, Paul VI, Chapter II [emphasis mine])

There's more about the (wrong) idea that the material world is evil in the Catechism. (285)

I don't think there's too much danger of many Americans deciding that the material world is bad: if anything, we've had a problem with thinking too much about the material world, and enough about spiritual concerns.

On the other hand, I think there is a problem in American culture of assuming that religious people are crazy about rejecting food, drink, and other physical pleasures.

For Catholics, anyway: we're not expected to starve ourselves. The idea, as I see it, is to worship God, not our favorite restaurant.

Related (sort of) posts:

• "Meatless Fridays and All That"
  (May 7, 2010)
• "Saints: That's so Medieval"
  (February 14, 2010)
• " 'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)

The Church, Money, and Paying the Bills

Money is so - well, crass, worldly. Wouldn't it be more spiritual to simply not think about money?

Maybe. But don't expect to pay your bills that way.

Some cultures get by without currency. But every time you've got more than one human being around, there's going to be some process for determining who gets how much of what. Western civilization has been using money for that purpose for the last several centuries - and parts of the Orient have been using money for millennia. (See Genesis 17:12, for starters)

Oh, the Wickedly Wealthy Church

I read a comic today, with an all-too-familiar sort of gag. The scene was a bar, with a bartender listening to a customer. The customer was hunched over, with his elbows on the bar - wearing a getup that's just enough not like papal vestments and one of the Pope's fancy hats to provide deniability. Here's the dialog:

Customer: " - and suddenly I realized that all we did was bilk money out of the stupid and credulous. I - - - I couldn't do it anymore. I felt so unclean."
Bartender: "Jeez, dat's too bad, yer holiness."

In context, it's moderately funny. I can understand the humor, even though that gag depends on a drearily familiar view of 'those religious people over there.' That particular strip was published in 2003, well after the televangelist meltdown here in America confirmed the worst opinion held by 'sophisticated,' 'intelligent' Americans, regarding those deceitful religious leaders and their "stupid and credulous" followers.

There's an assumption, running through several American subcultures, that money is somehow dirty. Or at least that nice, decent, upright people disdain it. I've written about wealth and Catholic teaching before. Bottom line? It's okay to be poor, it's okay to be wealthy: what matters is how you play your cards. (February 4, 2010)

But, just as I don't expect to convince folks who feel that poverty is virtue that it's okay to be rich: I don't expect to change the views of those who sincerely believe that religious people are fools, that the Holy See hasn't been running a sort of con game for almost 2,000 years.

Money Matters: When You Don't Have Enough

The parish priest at Our Lady of the Angles Church doesn't like to talk about financial matters - but that's part of his job.

This morning, we learned - again - that the parish is seriously behind on meeting its financial obligations for this fiscal year. We need to raise at least $40,000 over the next five weeks to pay the bills for June and July. Nobody's going to repossess the church if we don't come up with the money - but if that much doesn't come it, the parish will have to borrow from the general account.

We go through something like this every summer, when attendance at Mass goes down (another topic): but the situation is getting worse.

How Much Money does a Parish Use?

It takes around $365,000 a year to run Our Lady of the Angels parish in Sauk Centre. Before someone has a stroke: that doesn't go to solid gold swizzle sticks for the priest. Here's where the money goes:

• 50% to education (there's a Catholic school down the street)
• 10% goes to St. Cloud Diocese for
  • Assessments
  • Priests' retirement fund
  • Fathers' Health Insurance
• 40% stays in the parish for
  • Heat
  • Electricity
  • Candles
  • Clergy salaries
  • Office expenses
  • Missals
  • Insurance
    • Property
    • Liability
    • Workman's comp
  • There's more - but that's the list I picked up this afternoon

Put another way, it takes about as much money to run Our Lady of the Angels parish, as it does to maintain about 10 modest households in town.

Parish Finances, Parishioners, and Giving

So, who helps pay parish expenses? Theoretically, every Catholic household in the parish.

Our Lady of the Angels Church, in Sauk Centre, Minnesota, has 452 "envelope holders." Think of that as 452 households. Like I said, in theory all 452 support the parish. In practice, here's what happened:

96		Gave nothing to the Church this past year	22%
61		Gave $100.00 or less for the year	13%
110		Gave $100.01 to $500.00 for the year	24%
82		Gave $500.01 to $1000.00 for the year	18%
103		Gave $1,000.01 or more for the year	23%

Who Can Give $1,000 a year?

First, a little background about Sauk Centre, Minnesota, and the United States. Last December, I found out that a couple of economists think "lower middle class" in America is folks who earn $35,000 to $75,000. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (December 14, 2009)) They may be right: but that's almost certainly an average. Minnesota is far from the most urbanized, upscale state in the union, and Sauk Centre is out in the 'you mean people live there?!' part of the state - from some points of view, anyway.

I love it here, by the way.

City-Data.com says that in 2008, Sauk Centre's estimated median household income was $46,087. (Compare $57,288 for Minnesota as a whole.) We're nowhere near being in the Martha's Vinyard class - but most years we do okay.

This hasn't been "most years." The good news is that Sauk Centre didn't have most households depending on a Big 3 automaker. The bad news is that we're in pretty much the same mess that the rest of America is in, economically. We'll manage, but this isn't the best year for most of us.

$84 a Month: What's That, in Chickens?

That said, I have a hard time believing that only 23% of my neighbors are able to kick in more than $1,000 a year. That's about $84 dollars a month. In some parts of the world, that's big money. Here, it's what you'd pay for 12 movie tickets - or 27 whole chickens. (Assuming $0.88/pound and around 3.5 pounds each.) It's not 'small change,' but it's not a terribly huge sum of money, either, by our standards.

What bothers me is the 22% who didn't give anything, and the 13% who have $100 or less for the year. I understand that some folks simply don't have the money to give - my household's been through some rough patches. It happens.

But over 1/3 of the households in this parish?! Bad economy or no: I don't think we're that hard-up as a group. But, I've been wrong before.

What About Tithing? Aren't Catholics Forced to Pay?

Uh, no.

Tithing is a sort of ideal. ("Tithe," Catholic Q&A, EWTN (December 7, 2000)) The custom my household has followed has been to give 5% of our income to the parish, another 5% to non-parish charitable causes. What helps is that, since it's a percentage - as our income goes down, so does what we give. It's worked pretty well for us, so far.

What's tricky is to remember to give more, as the income rises. But that's yet another topic.

Sort-of-related posts:

• "Money isn't Everything: But it Helps"
  (April 10, 2010)
• "Is the Church For Capitalism? Yes: and No"
  (March 13, 2010)
• "Charity Begins at Home: Where it Ends is Up to You"
  (February 10, 2010)
• "Wealth, the Vatican, the White House, Corporate Headquarters, and Cultural Values"
  (February 4, 2010)
• " 'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)

Posts about tolerance, real and imagined, and Catholicism in America:

• "Assumptions About Religion, and American Rules of Etiquette"
  (April 14, 2010)
• "Cultural Chaos, Divisiveness, and CNN"
  (April 1, 2010)
• " 'Death Cookie' Comic: Seemed Like a Good Idea At the Time?"
  (March 5, 2010)
• "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea"
  (August 3, 2009)
• " 'Self-Satisfied Ignorance?' Eucharist, Quran, and Atheist Book Trashed"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 5, 2008)

Visits From Dead People, Cultural Assumptions, and Twitter

There's a point to this post, and I'll get to it:

Hallucinations, Dead Relatives, and Assumptions

My father died last year, so I had quite a few conversations with folks who worked with him, in a hospice program. Nice people, by the way, all of them.

My father reported seeing folks from his family: people he'd grown up with. He reported seeing members of my household, too, when we came to visit. The difference is that the folks from my household who visited are still alive. The folks he grew up with: most of them have been dead for a while.

Folks from hospice discussed this sort of thing with me, and I noticed two approaches to the data.

One was to call what my father reported "hallucinations," and explain to me that this sort of thing is fairly common among people who have lived a long life, and are now in the process of dying. I'm sure the intent was to inform and reassure me: and I was touched by the effort.

The other was to call what my father reported as - visits. From people he knew. Along with an explanation that folks who are dying often report visits like that.

Both people were discussing the same sort of phenomenon with me. Each had her own set of assumptions about how the data - my father's reports - should be interpreted.

Do I believe in ghosts? If by that you mean, am I a 19th-century spiritualist? No. I don't pay mediums to connect me to one of my pet cats, either.

But, do I believe that I can't die, and that I've never met a "mortal" human being: because there isn't any such thing? Yes. I could be wrong about this, but I really don't think so.

Why Did I Not Confront The Unbeliever With The Error Of Her Ways?

I suppose I could have tried to "convict" the hospice worker who regarded my father's reports as hallucinations. But I didn't.

For what I hope are good reasons.

I've been preached at by some well-meaning (I trust) folks. I don't react well to slogans hurled at me - no matter how impassioned the delivery. I am not likely to embrace assertions that reject almost everything I've been taught: certainly not if aggressively raised in a conversation about something else.

My guess is that quite a few people in America have similar reactions to 'Bible thumpers.'

I did, as I recall, drop a suggestion that nearly-universal experiences may have many possible explanations. And left it at that. There was no clear opportunity for 'witness,' beyond what I did. Besides, the hospice worker has at least as much data as I do about end-of-life experiences: and I think that facts, in the long run, often speak for themselves.

Do I Believe in Ghosts?

Like I said, I'm not a 19th century Spiritualist.

On the other hand, I've lived too long and experienced too much to assume that being "rational" in a good old-fashioned Victorian-Materialist sort of way is particularly sensible. I'm dubious - putting it mildly - about people who excitedly talk about how some fellow who died a long time ago and comes to see them regularly.

But I accept the idea that people have a soul (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1703) - and that the very common reports by people who will soon die, of seeing 'dead people' they knew might be something other than "hallucinations."

Finally, the Point of This Post

A couple days ago, PatriceEgging and I were discussing something on Twitter. The subject of posting about personal 'spiritual' experiences was raise, and she said something like 'I will, if you will.'

So, I wrote "Really Spiritual Experiences: Those are Okay" and posted it Thursday.

Now, she's posted "Why I believe in Heaven," Patrice Egging: Music and Ministry (April 24, 2010).

And that's what this post is about: linking to that post.

Related posts:

• "Really Spiritual Experiences: Those are Okay"
  (April 22, 2010)
• "The Catholic Church: Universal. Really"
  (April 19, 2010)
• "Accommodating Indigenous Cultures: Including Ours"
  (January 10, 2010)
• "'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)

"If you must see ghosts ..." Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly

A Muppet Show episode - I think it was the one that introduced Uncle Deadly - had the back-stage Muppets telling Kermit that the theater was haunted. Kermit assured them that there was a 'rational' explanation for what they'd seen. Then, as I recall, Uncle Deadly did a horror-house 'bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha' laugh. Kermit's reaction was something along the lines of 'or, not.'

I know: that's pretty vague. It's been years (decades?) since I saw that episode, and I wasn't taking notes.

The (very entertaining) Muppet Show episode's gag relied on a notion that's deeply embedded in American culture - western culture, in general, I think.

• "Supernatural" means "irrational" or "illogical"
• "Logical" and "reasonable" people 'know' that "supernatural" things aren't
  • Real
  • Logical or reasonable

For folks who put their brains in 'sleep' mode inside church; or whose religious leaders focus on emotional highs, rather than deep thought, that may be true.

There are even Catholics who are convinced that faith and reason are utterly, completely, totally incompatible.

Well, that's what they believe.

Me? I looked up what the Church teaches: and came up with a different answer. (March 20, 2009) I think being a convert helps. That, plus having a mind that won't treat facts and assumptions the same way, and a habit of:

• Testing assumptions
• Verifying facts

I've written about faith and reason before: check out "More-or-less-related posts", below.

Materialism, the Sixties, and All That

I spent my teens in the sixties - a colorful decade, even if you weren't following Timothy Leary's "turn on, tune in, drop out" advice. Various sorts of "materialism" weren't really popular then. Quite a few of America's youth - myself included - were taking a long, hard look at "success" and "the American Dream," and deciding that they didn't like the trade-offs.

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against people making money, even making lots of money. Provided they do so ethically, and use their wealth responsibly. (More, December 14, 2009, in another blog)

Which is another topic.

A lot of kids in the sixties looked at what their parents said they believed, and how their parents lived. Quite a number decided to bail out of their parents' value systems. Can't say that I blame them. You heard "hypocrite" a lot in those days.

I didn't think my parents were hypocrites, then, and I don't now. I think I understand what they believed, and why they believed it. But I also learned too much about the Catholic Church, and had to join.

Which is yet another topic. ("Firebase Earth" (April 5, 2009) is a brief, if unconventional, account of my conversion)

An 'up' side of the sixties was the way that people - young people in particular - recognized a spiritual void in their lives, and were trying to fill it.

A (big) 'down' side was the array of weird ideas that dropped into the culture then - or, to use another metaphor, rose to the surface like a drowned muskrat.

Let's Remember: "Spiritual" Doesn't Mean "Good"

A science fiction story I read, a few decades back, discussed an imaginative idea - and a theological howler. In the story, our heroes met intelligent creatures that weren't like us. These aliens weren't made of wet organic stuff: their bodies were electrical fields and currents. Sort of like ball lightning.¹

So far, so good. I'm not convinced that highly-evolved static cling could be alive, let alone intelligent - but the idea was good enough for a story.

Then the author made a remarkable statement. Two of them.

1. These creatures, because they had no physical bodies were 'pure spirits'
2. And therefore incapable of sin!

Let's look at those ideas:

1. These (fictional) energy beings had been specifically described as being made of electrical fields and charges
   • Which are very much a part of the physical world
2. 'Pure spirits' can sin
   • Case in point: Satan²

I'm pretty sure how the author came up with the idea of those sinless energy beings. 19th and 20th century western culture, some of the Christian subcultures, anyway, got the idea that sin was something you do with your body. So far, so good: but they got bogged down in the old notion that physical things are bad, spiritual things are good. That doesn't wash.

Sin is:

"An offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience. Sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the eternal law of God...." ("Catechism of the Catholic Church", Glossary, S)

And, no, the physical world isn't inherently bad. We've had that issue crop up, from early on (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 465, 285 - Gnosticism and all that) My take on it is that God made the physical world (but no, I'm not a creationist), God said that it was good - several times. I'm convinced that God isn't too stupid to tell the difference between 'bad' and 'good', and that God doesn't make junk.

Some of the early heresies, in addition to having all-too-familiar notions about who - and what - God is, held that "...the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism)...." (Catechism, 285)

Just like disco balls, the old heresies keep coming back - with shiny new covers and new names, but the same wack ideas.

Back to that story: Those energy beings were no more "pure spirit" than I am. They weren't wet and sticky inside, like plants and animals are, but energy of any sort is very much a part of the physical universe. If you've ever completed an electrical circuit with part of your body, you should know that. (I have - and don't intend to repeat the experience.)

There are sins that involve the body - like purposely getting drunk or cheating on your spouse. But sin is something you do mostly with your mind - and you don't need a body to defy God.

Bottom Line: The Matter is Real; So is Spirit; We're Both

Here's a pretty good definition of what a human person is:

"PERSON, HUMAN: The human individual, made in the image of God; not some thing but some one, a unity of spirit and matter, soul and body, capable of knowledge, self-possession, and freedom, who can enter into communion with other persons--and with God...."
(Catechism, Glossary, P)

Exorcists: They're Real

The Catholic Church in America seems to be remembering that the spiritual world exists, that some of the free-willed spirits aren't all that nice, and that there's a reason for having exorcists. (Conclusion 22, "A Report of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Subcommittee on Lay Ministry Committee on the Laity" USCCB, and definition of exorcism in "E", Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church) Whew! That was a long title.

In fairness, dealing with unpleasant realities by ignoring them doesn't seem limited to America:

"...Far from mere literal interpretation of the text and far from eisexegesis or mutilated hermeneutical approach to an apocalyptic writing such as the Book of Revelations I have just cited, the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, bears witness to the existence of the devil.

"The Church recognized these and offered courses on 'de Demonio'. Besides, she not only provided the rite of exorcism but made room for the exorcists. This seems to have fallen into disuse over the last few decades...."
("II ORDINARY SPECIAL ASSEMBLY FOR AFRICA OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS" (October, 2009))

The good news is that the role of exorcist is being reviewed.

And no, the movies aren't the best place to learn about exorcism.

Exorcism, Divination, and Magic

Exorcism is:

"The public and authoritative act of the Church to protect or liberate a person or object from the power of the devil (e.g., demonic possession) in the name of Christ...."
(Catechism, Glossary, E)

It can be a "simple exorcism prayer in preparation for Baptism" - or an application of divine authority delivered by an official exorcist.

On a related topic, the Church has a word to say about divination and magic: Don't. (Catechism, 2115 and following)

"All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others—even if this were for the sake of restoring their health—are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion...."
(Catechism, 2117)

In other words, it's okay to be a stage magician and pull hats out of rabbits. (Now that would be a trick.)

Trying to "tame occult powers"? Thank you, no. I do not want to go one-on-one against a fallen archangel, or any of Satan's lot. Taking on a main battle tank in my skivvies, armed with sharp stick, would give me better chances of success. And survival.

What Got Me Started On This?

I ran across this quote today:

"...Materialism is in fact no protection. Those who seek it in that hope (they are not a negligible class) will be disappointed. The thing you fear is impossible. Well and good. Can you therefore cease to fear it? Not here and now. And what then? If you must see ghosts, it is better not to disbelieve in them...."
(Chapter 10.1, "That Hideous Strength" C. S. Lewis (1946))

That started me thinking - and writing - and here I am.

One More Thing!

Having been out of touch with informed spiritual awareness for so long, it's no wonder that westerners get it wrong so often. A case in point:

"Ghost Rider"
Office for Film and Broadcasting, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

"Lightweight supernatural action adventure based on the Marvel Comics' character about a motorcycle daredevil, Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage), who makes a deal with the devil (Peter Fonda) and is cursed with having to serve as his 'bounty-hunter' - transforming into a flaming skeletal biker astride a fiery chopper by night - to escape damnation by stopping a renegade fallen angel (Wes Bentley) from unleashing hell on earth. Despite a dumb script and risible theology, the film never takes itself too seriously, and Cage-s campy but committed performance is laced with enough humor to make the hokey ride sufficiently diverting B-movie fare. Some parents may find the demonic elements problematic, but it's little more than a comic book retelling of 'Faust,' and, while, of greater concern, vengeance, not justice is meted out by Blaze, love is ultimately shown to be stronger than evil, with a recurring theme of redemption and second chances. Stylized violence, some horror images, a vulgar gesture, scattered crude language and couple of instances of profanity. A-III -- adults. (PG-13) 2007..."

A few comments, and I'll sign off for the night.

That A-III rating? Here's how the USCCB film reviews explain it:

"...The classifications are as follows:

• "A-I -- general patronage;
• "A-II -- adults and adolescents;
• "A-III -- adults;
• "A-IV**
• "L -- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. L replaces the previous classification, A-IV.
• "O -- morally offensive.

"** Discontinued classification. All archived movies that were originally in the A-IV category are now classified as L."

That's right: "Ghost Rider" Got an A-III rating. the USCCB film reviewers thought - rightly, I think - that the film was suitable for adult audiences, but not so much for adolescents or children.

But, O - morally offensive? No. L - a film with "problematic content many adults would find troubling"? Again, no.

What's "risible theology"? Risible means "arousing or provoking laughter". (Princeton's WordNet) I haven't seen "Ghost Rider", but Hollywood is pretty good at mangling theological concepts.

As my father told me, "don't attribute to malice, what can be explained by stupidity." Or, I think, ignorance.

More-or-less-related posts:

• "A Science Fiction Ghost Story?! Why Not?"
  Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (December 18, 2009)
• "Lemming Tracks: Lower Middle Class and Loving It"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (December 14, 2009)
• " 'My Flesh is Afraid, But I am Not' "
  (December 4, 2009)
• "Feeling Forgiven: My Faith and Emotional Perks"
  (November 24, 2009)
• "Global Warming, End Times - 'We're All Gonna Die' Over the Last 45 Years Or So"
  (October 3, 2009)
• "I'm Not Awed by Authority, I Don't Conform Easily: So I Became a Catholic?!"
  (September 19, 2009)
• "American Nuns, Fitting In, and Being Catholic in America"
  (August 18, 2009)
• "Dinosaurs, Mutant Chickens, Evolution, and Faith in God"
  (June 29, 2009)
• "Firebase Earth"
  (April 5, 2009)
• "Faith and Reason, Religion and Science"
  (March 20, 2009)
• "The Bells of St. Mary's and the Movies: The 'Good Old Days' had Problems, Too"
  (March 19, 2009)
• "Being Counter-Cultural in 21st Century America"
  (March 17, 2009)
• "Catholic Church, Creationism, Evolution, Facts and Faith"
  (March 5, 2009)

---

¹ (I know: there are scientists who say it doesn't exist - mostly, I think, because they can't explain just how it works.

Sort of like thunderstorm sprites, which were 'well known' to be hallucinations seen by simple, credulous people like soldiers in Vietnam and airline pilots. Until an astronaut's video camera recorded the phenomena. The astronaut's report could be written off as another "hallucination." The video camera? Even scientists who only read their own books weren't quite willing to say that a video camera had experienced hallucinations.

Posts relating to thunderstorm sprites and other "hallucinations:"

• "Thunderstorm Sprites' Light Source Sought"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 20, 2009)
• "Set PHASERs on Stun: Koloc's Kugelblitz Research is For Real"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 20, 2009)
  Particularly
  • An Aside About Sprites, Hallucinations, and Video Cameras

More, about ball lightning:

• "Ball Lightning: A Shocking Scientific Mystery"
  National Geographic News (May 31, 2006)

² There are some pretty good discussions of Satan online:

• "The Fall of the Rebellious Angels"
  General Audience - August 13, 1986
  Vatican.va
  Particularly
  • Satan - cosmic liar and murderer
• "Paragraph 7 - The Fall"
  Catechism of the Catholic Church
  Particularly 391 through 395