At some point in the not too distant future, Hollywood is going to release one of the most evil, anti-christian films ever made. It's based on the equally evil anti-christian book "DaVinci Code" which maintains that the person who reached out to the world in love and selflessly gave his life for its salvation couldn't have lived 33 years without having sex. It's amazing that this "impossibility" has never been a concern for the world in the first 2000 years since Jesus' death. Thank goodness that Dan Brown figured it all out. How foolish for Christians to have loved Christ for 2000 years without knowing that his kids are still on earth.
Yet, we Christians, and especially Catholics, shouldn't be surprised at Anti-Christian bias in the media. Dogma, the movie, made a mockery of the notion of good works. Stigmata, the movie, made a mockery of sainthood and personal holiness. Several televisions shows have jumped on the priesthood sexual abuse crisis such that, when a priest appears on a sitcom, you can guarantee that he sexually abused someone. They have found a way to make five percent of the priestly population the majority!
So, where is the mockery of Jews and Jewish belief?
And why is Hollywood not going to make a movie mocking Islam?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/leisure.brooks.reut/index.html
So, I think this is the last straw for me. I'm asking myself some key questions. When was the last time I learned something by watching TV? When was the the last time I watched an entertaining movie that wasn't morally reprehensible? When was the last time either of these media helped my relationship to God or other people? And, with my answers to these questions, I'm afraid that it's time that I start to refer to these devices as what they are...occaisions of sin.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Is Jesus Kind?
I have no problem admitting that Jesus death on the cross was the ultimate sign of love. There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for a friend, to paraphrase St. Paul. But, is being loving the same thing as being kind? I think this is one of the greatest sources of confusion in two areas.
The first is our understanding of God. God doesn't need to be nice to us. The fact that heaven is open to us is kindness enough.
The second is our understanding of religion. We need to show love to one another. We need to reach out to those who are suffering to bring some kind of goodness out of that evil. And I do think kindness is a virtue. But, is a lack of kindness really a sin? It's possible that, since so much of culture publicizes and repeats every negative thing about the church and puts us in the worst light possible, that we need to be beyond reproach. I think some would say that's a valid statement. But, I think we need to stand up for principles. I do think that we need to speak out for life. I think we need to stand up for the sanctity of marriage. I think we need to say that not all catholic priests are pedophiles and that we're tired of that depiction. We need to say that a country that is as rich as the United States needs to reach out to the poor. We need to ask if the war in Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror and ask if the policy on "pre-emptive war" hurts or helps the understanding of just war theory. We can't be afraid to speak out on things ask long as we are doing so in love. But, I think it weakens us to try and form every sentence so that they won't offend anyone.
The first is our understanding of God. God doesn't need to be nice to us. The fact that heaven is open to us is kindness enough.
The second is our understanding of religion. We need to show love to one another. We need to reach out to those who are suffering to bring some kind of goodness out of that evil. And I do think kindness is a virtue. But, is a lack of kindness really a sin? It's possible that, since so much of culture publicizes and repeats every negative thing about the church and puts us in the worst light possible, that we need to be beyond reproach. I think some would say that's a valid statement. But, I think we need to stand up for principles. I do think that we need to speak out for life. I think we need to stand up for the sanctity of marriage. I think we need to say that not all catholic priests are pedophiles and that we're tired of that depiction. We need to say that a country that is as rich as the United States needs to reach out to the poor. We need to ask if the war in Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror and ask if the policy on "pre-emptive war" hurts or helps the understanding of just war theory. We can't be afraid to speak out on things ask long as we are doing so in love. But, I think it weakens us to try and form every sentence so that they won't offend anyone.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Not in Kansas....
After a small break, I'm back.
No big problems. Just a lot of workin' with the Lord.
This weekend's reading was, basically, that some people hear the word of God, reject, and end up doing it while others hear it, agree to it, and then never do it.
I talked about how God's word comes to us through the bishops and are responsibility, as catholics, is to listen, trust, and do; not listen, criticize and make it up on our own. At least, I think that was my point.
In any case, I was approached after mass by someone who was upset by my point because the person thought the point of the reading is that religious leaders are stupid and we should just do it ourselves. I found myself becoming angry and then I realized something. This person has probably been schooled in (my term) seditionist theology. By that term, I just mean a kind of personalist view that says bishops and priests are more of a problem than an asset. I think this is an unintended consequence of the (post?) Vatican II realization that priests (and bishops) are fallible. The media bias that all priests are pedophiles has only reinforced this understanding.
And, since I coordinate a group of men who are discerning the possibility of becoming a priest, it's good to know that this bias is out there. I recognize that I need to educate people what priesthood is all about and, perhaps, what it is not.
No big problems. Just a lot of workin' with the Lord.
This weekend's reading was, basically, that some people hear the word of God, reject, and end up doing it while others hear it, agree to it, and then never do it.
I talked about how God's word comes to us through the bishops and are responsibility, as catholics, is to listen, trust, and do; not listen, criticize and make it up on our own. At least, I think that was my point.
In any case, I was approached after mass by someone who was upset by my point because the person thought the point of the reading is that religious leaders are stupid and we should just do it ourselves. I found myself becoming angry and then I realized something. This person has probably been schooled in (my term) seditionist theology. By that term, I just mean a kind of personalist view that says bishops and priests are more of a problem than an asset. I think this is an unintended consequence of the (post?) Vatican II realization that priests (and bishops) are fallible. The media bias that all priests are pedophiles has only reinforced this understanding.
And, since I coordinate a group of men who are discerning the possibility of becoming a priest, it's good to know that this bias is out there. I recognize that I need to educate people what priesthood is all about and, perhaps, what it is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)