The Lazarus Incident — or — A Tale of Two Tombs

(From Léon Bonnat, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Léon Bonnat's "The Resurrection of Lazarus.")

The Lazarus incident takes up most of John, chapter 11: but the account doesn't lend itself to paintings or movies. My opinion.

Picking up the narrative after Martha warned Jesus that there'd be a stench when they opened the tomb —

"So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, 'Father, ⁸ I thank you for hearing me.

"I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me.'

"And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice, ⁹ 'Lazarus, come out!'

"The dead man came out, tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth. So Jesus said to them, 'Untie him and let him go.' "
(John 11:41-42)

At the time, some folks didn't believe what they'd seen. Some still don't.

Lazarus, Bible Epics, and All That

I don't remember seeing the raising of Lazarus in those Bible epics. That's understandable.

Given the choice of presenting "a cast of thousands," famous actors, and eye-popping special effects — or Lazarus hopping out of his tomb, with his face still covered — scenes like Moses flinging the Decalogue win, hands down.

Come to think of it, maybe he rolled out of his tomb when Jesus shouted "Lazarus, come out!"

When the boss shouts "come," dawdling isn't prudent.

The Other Empty Tomb

In a way, restoring life to Lazarus was 'more of the same.'

An official's daughter, and a widow's son in Naim, hadn't been buried: but Jesus brought them to back to life, too. (Matthew 9:18-26; Mark 5:22-43; Luke 7:11-17; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 640, 646)

The big surprise came after the following Passover, when three women went to another tomb with spices. Reports of what happened next aren't entirely consistent. (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-11; John 20:1-18)

Again, that's understandable.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously imprecise under normal circumstances. Followers of Jesus had seen my Lord executed, and had reasonable fears that the authorities would be after them next. They'd be anything but calm observers.

Then there's what the Catechism calls "the condition of Christ's Risen Humanity."

The official's, daughter, the young man of Naim, and Lazarus, simply returned to an ordinary life. When Jesus left a borrowed tomb, my Lord no longer observed the limits of space and time. (Mark 16:12-14; Luke 24:15-51; John 20:19-23; Catechism, 645-646)

It took a series of meetings and a working lunch to convince the apostles that Jesus had stopped being dead, and that's another topic.

More:

• John 11:1-45
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 638-646

Related posts:

• "Fasting, Penance: and Infinite Depths of Joy"
  (June 3, 2012)
  Particularly
  • God, Rain, and Me
  • Jesus, Joy, and Standing Orders
  • "Infinite Joy"
• "Death, Decisions, and a Working Lunch"
  (April 8, 2012)
• "Marching Through Time"
  (April 1, 2012)
• "A Divine Mercy Homily: 'Peace be With You;' Jesus is Alive"
  (April 10, 2012)
• "The Man Who Wouldn't Stay Dead"
  (March 11, 2012)
• "We Won: Quite a While Ago"
  (January 13, 2011)

Singing Nuns, Catholic Ghoulgirls, Stereotypes, and Me

Movies often use stereotypes. I don't have a problem with that. "Stereotype" means:

• Noun
  • A conventional or formulaic conception or image
• Verb
  • Treat or classify according to a mental stereotype

Movies, the sort I'm thinking of, are entertainment. They've got maybe an hour and a half to two hours to set up characters, a setting, and enough of a plot to keep the audience interested.

It's possible to do deep, insightful, characterization and trenchant probing of humanity's core in a movie: but I think most folks would rather see a few song-and-dance numbers, a helicopter chase, or whatever is in vogue today.

Using stereotypes like 'spunky girl reporter' or 'crusading environmentalist' can save a lot of time and get the story to the exciting bits. Like I said, I don't have a problem with that.

Problems can start when folks forget that stereotypes are "conventional or formulaic conceptions:" a sort of mental shorthand that boils a complex reality down to something short, simple, and sometimes not much like the original.

A Typical Catholic?!

Here's a short list of Catholics in the movies, from the 'good old days:'

• Irish cop
• Musical
  • Nun
    
  • Priest
• Missionary in China
• English Chancellor
• Angsty artist

Granted, the 'angsty artist' movie focused more on the "artist" part than the "Catholic" aspects of Michelangelo's job as a sort of interior decorator.

These days, Catholicism in the movies seems more likely to show up in something like "Catholic Ghoulgirls" or "Tales from the Catholic Church of Elvis!" On the other hand, "The Passion of the Christ" was produced in the 21st century. Unlike so many 'Biblical' movies, that one got it right. And that's another topic.

Where was I? Catholic ghoulgirls, an angsty artist, and a singing nun. Right.

Some of the world's 1,100,000,000 or so living Catholics probably fit some of the stereotypes for Catholics. It would be odd if a few didn't. But we're not all ignorant louts, talented nuns, or dedicated reformers.

My Irish ancestry lets me be sort of close to one of America's stereotypes for 'being Catholic.' But I'm also half Norwegian, and was raised across the river from Fargo, North Dakota. I've got a decent singing voice, but I wouldn't make a good 'Irish Catholic' of the Father O'Malley variety.

And that's okay. I figure that God makes each of us a bit different for a reason: and I've posted about 1 Corinthians 12:7-10, 14-17, 28; 14:9, 23 before. (June 1, 2011)

Slightly-related posts:

• "The Threat of People Who Aren't Just Like Us?"
  (July 23, 2011)
• "Horses, Gothic Cathedrals, and a Faith That Matters"
  (July 9, 2011)
• "Speaking in Tongues and Getting a Grip"
  (June 1, 2011)
• "Tartans, Scotland, the Pope, and a Universal Church"
  (September 12, 2010)
• "Unity, Diversity, and Being Catholic"
  (August 26, 2010)

Demons: The Other Angels

I wrote about angels earlier today. (February 20, 2011) Basically, they're spiritual creatures with intelligence and free will: people; but not human.

Since they've got free will, angels could decide to obey God - or not. I've discussed free will before. (November 20, 2010, June 24, 2010) More to the point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses the idea. (Catechism, 1730, for starters)

We call the angels who decided to reject God fallen angels, demons, or devils. The #1 fallen angel is often called Satan.

Satan: Real, and Just a Creature

I think a person can make at least two major mistakes, when thinking about Satan. One is to assume that this fallen angel isn't real. The other is to assume that Satan is real, and a sort of counterpart to God.

Then there's what we see in the movies: from The House of the Devil (1896), to The Devil's Revenge (2010). Most of them are, under the blood and thunder, silly. Some, like Heaven Can Wait (1943), show us a friendly gentleman-devil. At least Ghost Rider (2007) portrayed demons as not entirely reliable people. And that's almost another topic.

Satan: He's No God

Definition time:

"DEVIL/DEMON: A fallen angel, who sinned against God by refusing to accept his reign. Satan or the devil, the Evil One, and the other demons were at first good angels, created naturally good, who became evil by their own doing (391, 1707; cf. 2851)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)

Disclaimer time: I've got the full teaching authority of "some guy with a blog." I do not speak for the Catholic Church. Which is why I use all these excerpts and links to what the Catholic Church does have to say.

Back to the fallen angels.

Satan and company were created by God, like us. Treating Satan as if he's like God makes about as much sense as saying that a movie star is God. Which is yet another topic.

The Catechism has a few things to say about Satan, including this backgrounder:

"Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.²⁶⁶ Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called 'Satan' or the 'devil.'²⁶⁷ The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: 'The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.'²⁶⁸

"Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.²⁶⁹ This 'fall' consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: 'You will be like God.'²⁷⁰ The devil 'has sinned from the beginning'; he is 'a liar and the father of lies.'²⁷¹

"It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. 'There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.'²⁷²"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 391-393)

That last paragraph is important - partly, I think, because it's hard to imagine a "loving" God throwing someone into Hell. It's more a matter of God not dragging anybody, kicking and screaming, into Heaven - and I've written about that before, too. (November 20, 2010)

Like I said, I think it's a mistake to assume that Satan doesn't exist. Or that Satan is like God. Bad, powerful, yes: All-powerful? Definitely not.

"Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls 'a murderer from the beginning,' who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.²⁷³ 'The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.'²⁷⁴ In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

"The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries—of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature—to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but 'we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.'²⁷⁵"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 394-395)

Two things to remember: Satan can't win. God can't lose.

Actually, my Lord won - quite a while ago - and that's something else I've written about before. (January 13, 2011)

Somewhat-related posts:

• "Angels: Wings, Violins, and Swords"
  (February 20, 2011)
• "Demons aren't Dull"
  (November 30, 2010)
• "Demonic Deception? Or What You Get When We Play God?"
  (May 5, 2010)
• "Laughing at Lucifer: Link"
  (February 17, 2010)
• "'If you must see ghosts ...' Materialism, Being Spiritual, and Uncle Deadly"
  (December 18, 2009)

"Going My Way," and Why Anti-Catholicism is a Good Sign

Sometimes a person has to ask, 'do I really want their approval?' Back in my youth, that was the sort of thing parents were expected to say, discussing peer pressure with their kids.

The desire to be accepted by whoever has power and prestige, to 'fit in,' can be very strong. But going along with the in crowd isn't always a good idea.

These are the "Good Old Days,' Eventually

Whatever happened to the 'good old days' when everything was nice and we had movies like "Going My Way" (1944) and "The Bells of Saint Mary" (1945)?

In a way, they're still here. "Sister Act" (1992) wasn't a remake of "Going My Way," but I think the movie 'got it' when it comes to Catholicism and the Catholic Church. (January 24, 2009)

Forty years from now, I think it's quite possible that a 20-something Catholic priest will be writing about the 'good old days' his parents told him about: the late 20th century, when heartwarming movies were made - like Sister Act.

I think we tend to remember what we want to recall. That's a very human thing to do. I also think it's a good idea to remember what really happened: good, bad, weird, and otherwise.

Which brings me to a post in CatholicCulture.org. The author, Dr. Jeff Mirus, did a pretty good job of outlining what's been happening in American culture over the last century - and gives a very plausible explanation for why the Catholic Church isn't well-liked by the establishment.

He starts out by recalling the literally-murderous hatred of priests and Catholics up to about 1930:

"...This led to more than one unpunished cold-blooded murder. See again my review of Sharon Davies extraordinary book Rising Road (The Murder of a Priest)...."
("No Longer an Ally: The New Anti-Catholicism"
Dr. Jeff Mirus, On the Culture, CatholicCulture.org (November 11, 2010))

Never heard of that? I'm not surprised. America's education system doesn't think that sort of thing is important. And that's another topic. Almost.

Generic Niceness in the Movies, Catholic Values, and America's Elite

Dr. Mirus discussed nice movies that came out after the thirties, and then shows how - and why - things have changed. Essentially, the Catholic Church isn't as useful to the American establishment now. Picking up with Hollywood of the forties and fifties:

"...At this time, the Church and her clergy were generally perceived as allies of American culture, interested in education, helping people deal with ordinary human problems, and generally expressing well the natural but rather generic American respect for God, faith and family. This would change as the culture shifted in the 1960's and beyond, and especially as it became sex obsessed. In the 1970's and 1980's the lives of priests were much more likely to be explored from the point of view of passion or sexual deviance, as celibacy became increasingly difficult for the popular culture to understand.

"At the same time, however, the treason of the Catholic intellectuals beginning in the 1960s made it appear that the Catholic Church was deeply supportive of many causes held dear by the American cultural elite. The Church had always been a strong force against racial prejudice and in favor of civil rights for racial minorities, of course, but now many of her professors, priests, and nuns became leaders in the movement to rethink morality to justify sexual 'liberation', to sacrifice doctrine for more 'relevant' social action, and in general to justify rather than confront the new secularism that was sweeping America.

"Here again the Church was generally seen as an ally by our cultural elite. The media was pleased to highlight stories which showed the Church in the vanguard of movements for what 'everybody' believes or what 'everybody' wants. The 1970's and 1980's were boom times for Catholic socio-political acceptance and encouragement. And when some bishops and priests attempted to make the real Catholic position known, nobody worried too much about it, because it was instinctively understood that this 'old fashioned' vision of Catholicism posed no threat whatsoever...."
(Dr. Jeff Mirus, On the Culture, CatholicCulture.org (November 11, 2010))

I don't know what it was like to be a Catholic during the seventies. I hadn't converted yet. I do know that there were Catholic clergy in this country who were - alternatively-correct I suppose you could say - in their stated beliefs.

That's one reason that I'm very, very slightly sympathetic for Catholics who apparently decided that they were holier than the Pope, and set up their own little 'genuine original Catholic Church' down at the end of some dirt track. The last half-century has not been one of America's better periods, in many ways.

Please note: I said I'm "very, very slightly sympathetic" with folks who liked the good old-fashioned routine they'd gotten used to at Mass. That doesn't mean that I think they were right to jump ship. Wacky priests who vandalized churches 'in the spirit of Vatican II?' That's yet another topic.

Still, as we say here in Minnesota: it could be worse.

"Decide Today Whom You will Serve"

More from Dr. Mirus:

"...But since then, the long pontificate of John Paul II slowly and inexorably changed everything. While John Paul II was enormously popular and inspirational among committed Catholics (and his travels proved to innumerable weak local Catholic communities how many of these there still are), he created enormous problems for opinion makers in both the Church and the world, who could not stop talking about his provincial Polish myopia, so out of step with contemporary reality. But what had happened by the 1990's, or at least by the 2000's, is that Pope John Paul II had managed to strengthen the episcopate and inspire a fresh generation of priests who know the difference between the mind of the culture and the mind of Christ.

"This was a critical change. American (and I think European) elites realize once again that they can no longer count on the Church to endorse what 'everybody' knows and to favor what 'everybody' wants. The Church has ceased to be a reliable ally, and it is instinctively understood that this can only get worse—that the Catholic Church is slowly gearing up for a fight to take back its own...."
(Dr. Jeff Mirus, On the Culture, CatholicCulture.org (November 11, 2010))

Personally, I rather liked seeing a tough-minded Pole in Peter's robes. Metaphorically speaking. Catholic uniforms tend to be old - but they're not quite that old. Yet again another topic.

I'm also on the same page with Dr. Mirus, when he looks at the Church's position in today's America:

"...You can see the results. Everywhere she is misreported, mocked, dismissed and condemned. Once again, Catholics need not apply. But given what it signifies, this shift back to blatant anti-Catholicism is really a very good thing. It is enormously reassuring, and it inspires hope."
(Dr. Jeff Mirus, On the Culture, CatholicCulture.org (November 11, 2010))

It's not that I'm a masochist. There's part of me that would like to be considered 'intelligent' and 'open-minded' for marching in mental lockstep with whatever intellectual fashion is current.

But I agree with Dr. Mirus. Being "misreported, mocked, dismissed and condemned" is "a very good thing." The way I see it, it means that we're doing our job:

"Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, ⁹ for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. ¹⁰ Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
(Matthew 5:10-12)

Choosing whether to follow cultural norms, or God, isn't something new. Check out Joshua 24. Me? It's like the man said: "...'...As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.' " (Joshua 24:15)

Related posts:

• "Diapers and the End of Civilization"
  (November 10, 2010)
• "Catholic Leaders in America: Getting Uppity"
  (October 26, 2010)
• "From Father Dowling to The Simpsons: Somebody Finally Got it Right"
  (October 21, 2010)
• "St. Mary MacKillop and Another News SNAFU"
  (October 19, 2010)
• "Whoopi Goldberg's 'Sister Act' - A Spiritually Uplifting Movie"
  (January 24, 2009)

Views:

• "No Longer an Ally: The New Anti-Catholicism"
  Dr. Jeff Mirus, On the Culture, CatholicCulture.org (November 11, 2010)

---

A tip of the hat to crsmith89, on Twitter, for the heads-up on Dr. Mirus' post.

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)

"A Nun's Story", Religion, and Reality

I noted in my personal blog that the family watched "A Nun's Story" (1959) tonight. I hadn't seen it before, and thought they did a good job (apart from a few really minor goofs).

A user review on the IMDB page about "A Nun's Story" caught my eye:

"...To think that I only viewed this movie out of desperation is embarrassing! The inner-struggle that Sr. Luke (Audrey Hepburn)undergoes from postulant to nun is incredibly human, not strictly religious. I thought, given the movie's topic, that I would be bored and lost, yet found myself completely in touch with the reality of her life...."

I don't know what the cultural background and beliefs of the person who wrote that are: and I'm very glad that this individual was so positively impressed with the movie.

The reason I'm bringing it up is the opportunity that these words give me: "...incredibly human, not strictly religious. I thought, given the movie's topic, that I would be bored and lost...."

I think there's a tendency, in America at least, to assume that "real life" is the vibrant, interesting, occasionally exciting sort of thing we do every day: and that our "religious life" is something static, dull, and interesting to at most a few really odd people.

Some of the conventional representations of spirituality sure give that impression - although I can't say that it's a fault of, say, groups like the southern Baptists.

I'm getting off-topic.

What "A Nun's Story" does is show - quite dramatically - what it's like to be a nun. Specifically, it would seem, a nun in an order that's geared mostly for a contemplative life. Audrey Hepburn's character would, I think, have been better suited to an order which operated more along the lines of Mother Teresa of Calcutta's outfit.

They weren't around in the 1930s, of course.

I suppose it can be a surprise, even a shock, to learn that nuns are real people: with the pretty much same basic physical and psychological equipment as everyone else. Or that a movie about people with solid religious beliefs - who don't ditch them at the first opportunity - can be interesting.

If I'm being unfair to the person who wrote that excellent review, I'm sorry. Like I said, I have no idea what that individual's beliefs are: and used the review only as a starting point for an observation about a not-uncommon assumption.

Saints are real people, too, by the way. But I've written about that before. Recently, too.

Related post:

• "Saints: That's so Medieval"
  (February 14, 2010)

"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

"My Flesh is Afraid, But I am Not"

I've seen parts of the Ingmar Bergman film, "The Seventh Seal" several times, but I've yet to see the whole thing from start to finish. One of the bits that I have seen is a scene where the knight, Antonius Block, and Death are having a discussion.

Actually, in one sense, I've never seen Ingmar Bergman's film. I don't understand more than a few words of Swedish, the language in which Bergman made "Det sjunde inseglet" (1957). What I've seen is more-or-less-well-dubbed English-language versions of the movie.

Still, this one scene impressed me. The Internet Movie Database (IMDB) has a pretty good set of information about the movie, including this dialog. It's listed under - I am not making this up - "Fun Stuff."

Antonius Block: I want knowledge! Not faith, not assumptions, but knowledge. I want God to stretch out His hand, uncover His face and speak to me.
Death: But He remains silent.
Antonius Block: I call out to Him in the darkness. But it's as if no one was there.
Death: Perhaps there isn't anyone.
Antonius Block: Then life is a preposterous horror. No man can live faced with Death, knowing everything's nothingness.
Death: Most people think neither of death nor nothingness.
Antonius Block: But one day you stand at the edge of life and face darkness.
Death: That day.
Antonius Block: I understand what you mean.

That didn't strike me as particularly "fun" - but then, I'm not a brilliant Swedish movie maker, or someone who has made a detailed study of Bergman's films. IMDB quotes more dialog from the movie, including this exchange:

Antonius Block:Antonius Block: Who are you?
Death: I am Death.
Antonius Block: Have you come for me?
Death: I have long walked by your side.
Antonius Block: So I have noticed.
Death: Are you ready?
Antonius Block: My body is ready, but I am not.

That last line - "My body is ready, but I am not." - is the reverse of what I remembered from the version I watched. My guess is that this, the scene where the old knight, Antonius Block, meets Death, is followed by another: which contains the more familiar dialog.

I found this at another website, The Internet Movie Transcriptions Database. That website has several bits of dialog from The Seventh Seal. An English translation, of course. (Their format isn't the same as IMDB's. I've changed the following, to follow the IMDB format.)

Antonius Block: You have come for me?
Death: I have been at your side for a long time.
Antonius Block: I know.
Death: Are you prepared?
Antonius Block: My flesh is afraid, but I am not.

Now that's what I remember.

I was particularly impressed by the knight's drawing a distinction between himself and 'his flesh' - which I took to mean the physical, and to an extent emotional, part of him that would quite naturally fear death.

Warning: Personal Reflections Ahead

I've been thinking a bit more than usual about death lately. My father's death in late September probably accounts for most of that. That, and my awareness that I'm already eligible for "senior citizen discounts" in some places.

Quite a long time ago, I ran across the assertion that none of us has ever met a mortal person. The author wasn't crazy. He was making the point that our immortal souls are just that: immortal. In one sense, we quite literally can't die. Dante made that point, in the passage about the wood of the suicides, and got into trouble over it when serious churchmen for whom poetry was a closed book - but that's another topic. Sort of.

Now, don't get the idea that I think of myself as an immortal soul driving around in a material body. Catholic teaching is pretty specific on that point. Like this excerpt:

"...The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic LANGUAGE when it affirms that 'then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.'²²⁹ Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

"In Sacred Scripture the term 'soul' often refers to human life or the entire human person.²³⁰ But 'soul' also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,²³¹ that by which he is most especially in God's image: 'soul' signifies the spiritual principle in man....
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 362, 363)

"...The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the 'form' of the body:²³⁴ i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature...."
(Catechism, 365)

There's more written on the subject, of course: but that's a pretty good place to start.

The point is, I'm not a soul driving a body around. I'm a human person: body and soul. And, not all that long form now, I'll be dead. My body will no longer be in working order. At all.

Depending on how you look at it, this is either good news or bad news: We don't stay dead.

"...The term 'flesh' refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.⁵³⁶ The 'resurrection of the flesh' (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our 'mortal body' will come to life again.⁵³⁷...
(Catechism, 990)

Again, there's more. A lot more. The section of the Catechism that last quote is from, "Article 11, I Believe in the Resurrection of the Body," would be a pretty good place to start.

Well, what could possibly be wrong with living forever?

That depends on how you see God.

If you would rather believe that he doesn't exist, and have been keeping up with physics and cosmology, you might want to consider whether you want to be around when the universe goes cold, or tears itself apart at the sub-atomic level: depending on whose models reflect reality more accurately.

If you think God exists, living forever could seem like one long party: If you assume that God is some sort of senile grandfather, who just wants the kids to have a good time and is absolutely clueless about what they've been doing to each other.

On the other hand, if you think God is somewhat on the ball, and wasn't kidding about there being a sort of final exam for life: living forever after spending the first several decades thumbing your nose at His guidelines might not be all that much fun.

Me? I've always assumed that God was smarter than I was - and was far from clueless. There have been times when I've wondered what He's up to, and why things happen - but that's another topic.

If I keep going, this post is going to get into a discussion of the "last things:" death, judgment, Heaven and Hell. I trust I'll have other opportunities to get back to that.

Getting back to that quote from "The Seventh Seal:" "My flesh is afraid, but I am not." I am really, sincerely, not particularly looking forward to death. Any more than I looked forward to final exams.

But I hope and trust that, when I see death coming, I will be able to say that I am not afraid.

The Bells of St. Mary's and the Movies: The 'Good Old Days' had Problems, Too

It's been a long time since Going My Way and Bells of St. Mary's represented a common perception of Catholicism. These days, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Our Lady of the Assassins are more what I've come to expect. And, of course, that blast from the past, "The Last Temptation of Christ."

Those two Bing Crosby films were, I think, well done. But I don't think there ever was a 'good old days' when the film industry could be counted on to produce nice movies with religious themes.

They Just Don't Make Movies Like That Any More - And Never Did

I think we tend to remember "Bible movies" that weren't too bad, like David and Bathsheba (1951), ones where the director didn't 'improve' the story too much, like The Bible: In The Beginning, and forget films like Salome, where "the contrived proceedings are colorful but have little to do with the Gospel account and Hayworth's performance is lovely to look at but is unconvincing as a dramatic character...." (USCCB)

That was Rita Hayworth as Salome, by the way: and she was emphatically not hard on the eyes.

Wonderfully Awful Movies

Then, there were those wonderful movies whose writers and directors might have learned their theology and history by watching Ghosts on the Loose (1943) and Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955), respectively.

Some of the howlers I watched in my teens could have been made before that Abbott and Costello film, though.

Satan: A Really Nice Guy?!

I watched quite a few movies on late-afternoon television, in my teens. Sadly, I can't remember their titles. Most were unremarkable, but some touched on serious theological concepts.

With mixed results.

Several presented Satan as an urbane gentleman who was dressed as if he were about to watch an opera. So far, no problems. Theological plausibility hit the fan when it turned out that, once you got to know him, he was a really nice guy.

One of these fantastically optimistic films had Mr. Mephistopheles' office done in a sort of deco-modern style, with lots of open space - and a trap door right in front of the desk.

Warning! Middle-Age Guy Reminiscing!

The only scene of that movie I remember was where a worried-looking new arrival from Earth had been introduced. A fussy, overweight, middle-aged woman marched in and began giving the devil a piece of her mind. The devil's initial look of gentlemanly concern turned to annoyance, he pushed a button, and she dropped through the trap door.

Funny, in a way. The new arrival was then assured that unpleasantness in Hell was reserved for fusspots like that: not for nice people who just happened to be there.

Irwin Allen's The Story of Mankind (1957), if it's the one I think it is, did a better job of approximating Judeo-Christian ideas of how the big picture works. Wouldn't take that much.

Don't get me wrong: I think some of those 'he's not so bad' movies are funny. Amusing, anyway. As long as I don't think too much about what I'm watching.

The attitude behind Mark Twain's "heaven for climate, and hell for society" quote, and his reaction to late-Victorian era self-righteousness, may behind some of the mid-20th-century movie nuttiness.

Which opens a can of worms I don't have time to deal with right now.

Hollywood, Bible Epics, and Nostalgia

A few decades ago, a reviewer said that a film's dialog had been written in 'Biblese.' I'm pretty sure what he meant was that thees thys and thous strewn across a bad imitation of King James' English.

That sort of film, by and large, I'm not nostalgic about.

And, I'm just as glad that the American film industry isn't cranking out movies like Samson and Delilah. It was one of those films that proved Victor (Samson) Mature's claim: "I'm no actor, and I've got 64 pictures to prove it."

I actually enjoy watching Bible Epics: There's a sort of over-the-top feel to many of them that the movie industry didn't recapture until Star Wars hit the screen. My opinion. Their close-but-not-quite take on theology, on the other hand, is something else.

On the whole, I don't think the movie industry is doing that badly. It's not doing that well, either: but I don't think it ever was.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB): They Review Movies, Too

The USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcasting" has about 8,000 movie reviews online - and an indexing system that leaves something to be desired. I often use Google to get at specific reviews: mostly because I don't always know the right title.

I put together a set of links to USCCB reviews of the movies I mentioned, at the start of this post:

• "Going My Way -- Bing Crosby ambles amiably through the role of Father O'Malley, the crooning curate sent to assist the aging, crotchety pastor (Barry Fitzgerald) of a poor parish in need of change...." 1944
• "Bells of St. Mary's-- Director Leo McCarey's sequel to "Going My Way" (1944) pulls out all the emotional stops in a sugary confection that takes happy-go-lucky Father O'Malley (Bing Crosby) to a poor parish with a crumbling school run by overworked Sister Benedict (Ingrid Bergman)...." 1945
• The Exorcism of Emily Rose "Sober, theologically oriented thriller based, in part, on true events surrounding a Catholic priest (Tom Wilkinson) on trial for negligent homicide in connection with an exorcism he performed on a young woman (Jennifer Carpenter)..." 2005
  • "Requiem, 2006, is a German film based on the same incident as The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
• La Virgen de los sicarios, 2000 /
  "Our Lady of the Assassins-- Depressing drama shot in the violence-drenched drug capital of Medellin, Colombia where an older gay man (German Jaramillo) has returned to die but falls in lust with a volatile teen (Anderson Ballesteros)...." 2001, Paramount Classics
• "The Last Temptation of Christ -- Deeply flawed screen adaptation of the Nikos Kazantzakis novel probing the mystery of the human nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, fails because of artistic inadequacy rather than anti-religious bias...."

whatever