Friday, May 24, 2013
TTSNBSIM 9: "Jesus First Gave Women the Chance to Initiate Divorce"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#9: "Jesus First Gave Women the Chance to Initiate Divorce"
-----
This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
I'm sure this lie in uncommonly rare, but I've heard it said at Mass, so here goes. Basically, it's being said, by some, that Jesus' words to the pharisees on the subject of divorce were for for the purpose of refuting the entirely male-centric divorce practices of the day (only men could initiate divorce with a note of divorce,) and introduce this power to women as well.
-----
Nothing could be -less- supported by the scriptures.
"He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
Matthew 19:8
Notice the wording here. "Moses -permitted.-" When something is -permitted,- that means that without that permission, it would be -forbidden.- What Jesus is saying here is -not- that women should be allowed to divorce as well as men. Obviously, what he's saying is that God does not mean to allow -any form- of divorce. Ever.
The seeming exception that Jesus offers (which is often translated as "unchastity," or "adultery,") is actually neither of these things, but something else. It appears alongside the words for unchastity and adultery in lists in the new testament. Therefore, it must signify something other than these. Even in the case of adultery, divorce is still forbidden.
-----
Secondly, this should not be said in Mass, because it defies the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on divorce.
"The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2382, 1st sentence.
This means that if you express anything contrary to this in Mass, you are misleading the people, and probably committing a heresy as well.
-----
I can totally understand how hard it is for some priests to cope with just how horribly immoral our modern society is. Nevertheless, it won't become any -more- moral if you don't face the problem head-on. Divorce is -always- wrong, and to imply anything else, and worse, to misrepresent the teachings of Jesus, is an affront to the most holy sacrament, and a sign of extreme disrespect or disregard for the Holy Eucharist.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Wonder Woman (2009)
Rate PG-13
Catholic-ometer: 1 of 5
Enjoyability: 1.5 of 5
I admit that I haven't read many Wonder Woman comics (and especially not recent ones,) but I'm familiar with the character and her core supporting cast, and what made the concept work during its initial run. It's for these reasons that I have to point out just what a miserable failure this movie was, in virtually every respect. "Wonder Woman" is a load of pushy, overly-violent, trash-talking, modern American feminism, and nothing else. However, I feel it deserves a more thorough review than just that, so for the rest of the review, I'll be addressing the specific characters and other elements in the movie, to explain just why the film gets them wrong.
-----
Etta Candy
Etta Candy is a minor character in the film. So minor, in fact, that she gets, I think, less than a minute of screen-time. In fact, it makes me wonder why they even bothered to put her in, if they couldn't do a better job on her than this.
In this film, Etta is a tall, blond, skinny, seductive woman, who's briefly scolded by Wonder Woman for asking a man to move a desk for her.
In the comics, Etta Candy was a short, plump, brunette, who was the leader of a college sorority. Wonder Woman discovered her when she was sickly and weak while visiting a local hospital. In other words, Etta was unearthed on an errand of mercy; not a manhunt for an enemy, as in this film.
I'm just going to be up-front about this. Making Etta skinny is something which, by itself, would put this film on my butt-kick list, but the fact that they only used her to demonstrate one of Wonder Woman's character flaws puts it way over the top.
-----
Hades
In a way, my problem with the film's depiction of Hades is almost the precise reverse of my problem with Etta Candy in one sense, and precisely the same in another sense.
In this film, Hades is a black-haired, lazy, obese man who reclines on a couch and orders people around in the underworld. I have -never- seen him depicted this way before; not in the comics, and certainly not in any of the ancient Greek artwork that depicted him. This is the problem which, as I said, is like the opposite of my problem with Etta.
The problem which is the same for both characters is that in neither case do the characters have motives which are even remotely similar to their original counterparts. Hades was sentenced to rule the underworld by Zeus, to keep him busy, and it apparently worked, as Hades is generally depicted as fearsome, but always a very busy guy. Yet, in this film, he's apparently not busy, not working, not really fearsome at all, and not the least bit worried about all the extra work he'll have to do when Ares starts killing people. In fact, he seems to -want- more people to die.
This depiction just made no sense to me. My conclusion here is that it was just done to avoid having to go too deep into the character, and to prey on the already-miserable fat-person stereotypes, just as a faithful rendering of Etta would have threatened them.
-----
Steve Trevor
Up to now, we've been dealing mainly with bit players, but I don't think any character does quite as much damage to this movie as Steve Trevor. In the comics, he was a brave, WWII fighter pilot, who was rescued by Wonder Woman and returned home. She stayed on as a goodwill ambassador to "man's world," and the two eventually fell in love. Steve was a little awkward at times, in the comics, but he was a decent man nonetheless.
In the movie, Steve is -not- a decent man. He's a filthy, womanizing, lecherous, drunken buffoon. Yes, he can fight pretty well in his own way, but that's just about all he brings to the film, and given that he's playing alongside a superheroine, that means he's basically a worthless character, serving only to give Wonder Woman a reason to visit man's world, and get her into trouble.
But I think I know why they did him this way. You see, midway through the film, Steve delivers a long and perfectly-accurate speech about how Wonder Woman needs to back off suspecting men of being patronizing every time they do something nice for a woman (she has a nasty habit, in this movie, of taking it as an insult whenever this happens.) It's a good speech, and coming from, for example, a Sir Galahad or a Superman, it would have been one of the high points of the film, because it would have refuted, once and for all, the prejudices of the Wonder Woman character, and pointed out just what a jerk she was, and had always been, since the film began.
However, the speech loses all of its steam, because, of course, we know that it's coming from a filthy, womanizing, lecherous, drunken buffoon, and in the eyes of modern men, if you're "that kind of person," then any point you make must be a bad one. This, I think, is why they went to such lengths to keep Steve Trevor from being a decent human being, or a good representative of the male gender, as he was in the comics. It's because they want that message crushed.
-----
Ares
The villain of the piece is Ares; the Greek god of war, who's been imprisoned on Wonder Woman's home island of Themyscira for ages, and is seeking a way to restore his powers, so that he can challenge the powers that be. Ares comes across as being very much like Imhotep from the 1999 version of "the Mummy;" an immensely-powerful and threatening villain, who's seeking forbidden means to make himself even stronger through murder and general evil.
Sadly, of all the characters in this film, he's probably the closest to his depiction in the comics and legends, with one exception. Even once he "gets his powers back," he still seems to be mortal. The one constant thing about the legends of the Greek gods was that whether or not they could fight, they were immune to all forms of conventional attack. This is a -big- flaw in the film. However, I'll cover this more in a couple sections, when I get to Wonder Woman herself.
-----
The Amazons
In the past, I've seen two basic depictions of the amazons; Wonder Woman's people. First, there's the type that remains separate from "man's world" as a sort of religious devotion. Second, there's the type that genuinely thinks of humans as inferior, and men especially so. Needless to say, I favor the former over the latter, since an island full of intensely self-righteous and condescending jerks is hardly a proud heritage for a great superheroine.
However, the amazons in this movie take things even further than the worst comic writing I've seen about them. Not only are they totally convinced of their own superiority, but they practice active prejudice against men, and teach hatred of all men as though it were a religious doctrine. This is bad enough, but it's not the only problem the amazons have.
You see, it's revealed that this isolation from human beings is not by choice; that the amazons have adopted a life without families or children, with the exception of Diana, who was made from clay, and that they really have only two things in exchange; well-honed warrior disciplines, and the wisdom of ancient books.
I say that these are the only things they have because these amazons are war-hounds and little else. One of them is shown enjoying books, but even she turns into a battle-thrall near the end of the film, and at no point in the film are the amazons shown to be honest, good-hearted, or moral. In fact, as far as I can tell, these amazons have no form of moral teaching, though they're perfectly eager to criticize things that offend their emotional sensibilities. Needless to say, I was singularly unimpressed with the amazons in this movie, and everything about them, and it seems that...
-----
Wonder Woman Herself
...has learned from them well. Like them, she's a rabid man-hater and mindless battle-hound, and like them, she's constantly looking down her nose at things she finds emotionally-offensive, while demonstrating no clear, moral understanding at all.
In the original comics, Wonder Woman was a brave, strong woman who fought crime and evil with her special powers, but she was also a caring, gentle soul, more akin to Mother Theresa than Xena; Warrior Princess. She loved helping people out when they were in danger, or needed assistance, whether it involved fighting someone or not. It was by no means rare to see her carrying someone to a hospital, or transporting medicine to victims of a plague; all the time with a smile on her face, because she knew she was helping someone. No other reason was needed.
On top of all that, Wonder Woman was genuinely virtuous; -in the Christian sense- of virtues. She was humble, honest, charitable, joyful, loved peace, justice and righteousness, and she was as pure-hearted as a newborn.
Sadly, many writers simply don't or didn't understand this about her, and it's become something of a trend in comics to depict her as a sort of "perfect" character who's become imperfect because she -thinks of herself as- perfect, and superior to everyone else.
Still, as bad as this has gotten in the comics, it's even worse in this movie, which paints Wonder Woman as a genuine jerk with nothing even resembling gold in her heart. Worst of all, this Wonder Woman is capable of murder.
Yes, I realize that she killed someone in the comics as well, under pressure and during what essentially amounted to a hostage situation. I raise issue with that as well, but not nearly as much as with this film, because at least -that murder- was treated as a genuine, moral problem. In this film, Wonder Woman has no qualms whatsoever with slicing apart bad guys like cucumbers, -with the intent of ending their lives.- There is nothing in any way moral or purehearted about this character, and therefore, nothing heroic.
-----
The Whole World View of the Film
I've said my piece on feminism elsewhere (google "the problem of feminism" in quotes. It's the first one that pops up,) and I feel no need to repeat it. However, this movie has, I think, two specific problems with feminism.
1. First, Wonder Woman views the normal attitudes of a normal woman asking for help from a man as -entirely cultural.- She insists that women can do anything which men can do, and here's the problem with that view. It's -false.- It's -false- that women can do whatever men can do.
Women are built differently than men. Their upper bodies aren't designed for the same kind of strenuous, heavy lifting, their torsos aren't meant for dodging blows in combat, and they wear out faster under prolonged physical activity. Now, granted, a certain amount of training and practice can limit these disadvantages to a certain degree, but regardless, against a male opponent of comparable skill and practice, a woman would simply find herself outclassed in many areas; usually involving physical activity.
The only reason why anyone would deny this is because Wonder Woman has superpowers, so she -is- built for heavy lifting, swift dodging, etc... However, Wonder Woman is a fictional character, who is clearly the exception to the rule. This is why the ancient Greeks found the amazons so humorous to tell stories about. There was simply no way for women to overpower men in combat en masse in the real world.
This is one of the reasons why the film irks me so. It attempts to derive its philosophy from the abilities of fictional characters, who only represent a tiny minority, even in their own home universe.
2. There have always been feminist or pseudo-feminist undertones to Woman Woman, but believe it or not, there was a time when feminism was a -good- thing; just the desire to see woman get a just wage for doing the same jobs as men.
By contrast, much of modern feminism (at least in major, feminist organizations) has become just what Wonder Woman herself demonstrates in this movie, a disorganized, disagreeable group of angry, violent individuals, united by radical sexism.
As sad as it's been to see feminism, as a cause, gradually turn into something horrible, it's been even worse seeing Wonder Woman trying to turn into something just as bad. I guess that's all I really have to say.
Catholic-ometer: 1 of 5
Enjoyability: 1.5 of 5
I admit that I haven't read many Wonder Woman comics (and especially not recent ones,) but I'm familiar with the character and her core supporting cast, and what made the concept work during its initial run. It's for these reasons that I have to point out just what a miserable failure this movie was, in virtually every respect. "Wonder Woman" is a load of pushy, overly-violent, trash-talking, modern American feminism, and nothing else. However, I feel it deserves a more thorough review than just that, so for the rest of the review, I'll be addressing the specific characters and other elements in the movie, to explain just why the film gets them wrong.
-----
Etta Candy
Etta Candy is a minor character in the film. So minor, in fact, that she gets, I think, less than a minute of screen-time. In fact, it makes me wonder why they even bothered to put her in, if they couldn't do a better job on her than this.
In this film, Etta is a tall, blond, skinny, seductive woman, who's briefly scolded by Wonder Woman for asking a man to move a desk for her.
In the comics, Etta Candy was a short, plump, brunette, who was the leader of a college sorority. Wonder Woman discovered her when she was sickly and weak while visiting a local hospital. In other words, Etta was unearthed on an errand of mercy; not a manhunt for an enemy, as in this film.
I'm just going to be up-front about this. Making Etta skinny is something which, by itself, would put this film on my butt-kick list, but the fact that they only used her to demonstrate one of Wonder Woman's character flaws puts it way over the top.
-----
Hades
In a way, my problem with the film's depiction of Hades is almost the precise reverse of my problem with Etta Candy in one sense, and precisely the same in another sense.
In this film, Hades is a black-haired, lazy, obese man who reclines on a couch and orders people around in the underworld. I have -never- seen him depicted this way before; not in the comics, and certainly not in any of the ancient Greek artwork that depicted him. This is the problem which, as I said, is like the opposite of my problem with Etta.
The problem which is the same for both characters is that in neither case do the characters have motives which are even remotely similar to their original counterparts. Hades was sentenced to rule the underworld by Zeus, to keep him busy, and it apparently worked, as Hades is generally depicted as fearsome, but always a very busy guy. Yet, in this film, he's apparently not busy, not working, not really fearsome at all, and not the least bit worried about all the extra work he'll have to do when Ares starts killing people. In fact, he seems to -want- more people to die.
This depiction just made no sense to me. My conclusion here is that it was just done to avoid having to go too deep into the character, and to prey on the already-miserable fat-person stereotypes, just as a faithful rendering of Etta would have threatened them.
-----
Steve Trevor
Up to now, we've been dealing mainly with bit players, but I don't think any character does quite as much damage to this movie as Steve Trevor. In the comics, he was a brave, WWII fighter pilot, who was rescued by Wonder Woman and returned home. She stayed on as a goodwill ambassador to "man's world," and the two eventually fell in love. Steve was a little awkward at times, in the comics, but he was a decent man nonetheless.
In the movie, Steve is -not- a decent man. He's a filthy, womanizing, lecherous, drunken buffoon. Yes, he can fight pretty well in his own way, but that's just about all he brings to the film, and given that he's playing alongside a superheroine, that means he's basically a worthless character, serving only to give Wonder Woman a reason to visit man's world, and get her into trouble.
But I think I know why they did him this way. You see, midway through the film, Steve delivers a long and perfectly-accurate speech about how Wonder Woman needs to back off suspecting men of being patronizing every time they do something nice for a woman (she has a nasty habit, in this movie, of taking it as an insult whenever this happens.) It's a good speech, and coming from, for example, a Sir Galahad or a Superman, it would have been one of the high points of the film, because it would have refuted, once and for all, the prejudices of the Wonder Woman character, and pointed out just what a jerk she was, and had always been, since the film began.
However, the speech loses all of its steam, because, of course, we know that it's coming from a filthy, womanizing, lecherous, drunken buffoon, and in the eyes of modern men, if you're "that kind of person," then any point you make must be a bad one. This, I think, is why they went to such lengths to keep Steve Trevor from being a decent human being, or a good representative of the male gender, as he was in the comics. It's because they want that message crushed.
-----
Ares
The villain of the piece is Ares; the Greek god of war, who's been imprisoned on Wonder Woman's home island of Themyscira for ages, and is seeking a way to restore his powers, so that he can challenge the powers that be. Ares comes across as being very much like Imhotep from the 1999 version of "the Mummy;" an immensely-powerful and threatening villain, who's seeking forbidden means to make himself even stronger through murder and general evil.
Sadly, of all the characters in this film, he's probably the closest to his depiction in the comics and legends, with one exception. Even once he "gets his powers back," he still seems to be mortal. The one constant thing about the legends of the Greek gods was that whether or not they could fight, they were immune to all forms of conventional attack. This is a -big- flaw in the film. However, I'll cover this more in a couple sections, when I get to Wonder Woman herself.
-----
The Amazons
In the past, I've seen two basic depictions of the amazons; Wonder Woman's people. First, there's the type that remains separate from "man's world" as a sort of religious devotion. Second, there's the type that genuinely thinks of humans as inferior, and men especially so. Needless to say, I favor the former over the latter, since an island full of intensely self-righteous and condescending jerks is hardly a proud heritage for a great superheroine.
However, the amazons in this movie take things even further than the worst comic writing I've seen about them. Not only are they totally convinced of their own superiority, but they practice active prejudice against men, and teach hatred of all men as though it were a religious doctrine. This is bad enough, but it's not the only problem the amazons have.
You see, it's revealed that this isolation from human beings is not by choice; that the amazons have adopted a life without families or children, with the exception of Diana, who was made from clay, and that they really have only two things in exchange; well-honed warrior disciplines, and the wisdom of ancient books.
I say that these are the only things they have because these amazons are war-hounds and little else. One of them is shown enjoying books, but even she turns into a battle-thrall near the end of the film, and at no point in the film are the amazons shown to be honest, good-hearted, or moral. In fact, as far as I can tell, these amazons have no form of moral teaching, though they're perfectly eager to criticize things that offend their emotional sensibilities. Needless to say, I was singularly unimpressed with the amazons in this movie, and everything about them, and it seems that...
-----
Wonder Woman Herself
...has learned from them well. Like them, she's a rabid man-hater and mindless battle-hound, and like them, she's constantly looking down her nose at things she finds emotionally-offensive, while demonstrating no clear, moral understanding at all.
In the original comics, Wonder Woman was a brave, strong woman who fought crime and evil with her special powers, but she was also a caring, gentle soul, more akin to Mother Theresa than Xena; Warrior Princess. She loved helping people out when they were in danger, or needed assistance, whether it involved fighting someone or not. It was by no means rare to see her carrying someone to a hospital, or transporting medicine to victims of a plague; all the time with a smile on her face, because she knew she was helping someone. No other reason was needed.
On top of all that, Wonder Woman was genuinely virtuous; -in the Christian sense- of virtues. She was humble, honest, charitable, joyful, loved peace, justice and righteousness, and she was as pure-hearted as a newborn.
Sadly, many writers simply don't or didn't understand this about her, and it's become something of a trend in comics to depict her as a sort of "perfect" character who's become imperfect because she -thinks of herself as- perfect, and superior to everyone else.
Still, as bad as this has gotten in the comics, it's even worse in this movie, which paints Wonder Woman as a genuine jerk with nothing even resembling gold in her heart. Worst of all, this Wonder Woman is capable of murder.
Yes, I realize that she killed someone in the comics as well, under pressure and during what essentially amounted to a hostage situation. I raise issue with that as well, but not nearly as much as with this film, because at least -that murder- was treated as a genuine, moral problem. In this film, Wonder Woman has no qualms whatsoever with slicing apart bad guys like cucumbers, -with the intent of ending their lives.- There is nothing in any way moral or purehearted about this character, and therefore, nothing heroic.
-----
The Whole World View of the Film
I've said my piece on feminism elsewhere (google "the problem of feminism" in quotes. It's the first one that pops up,) and I feel no need to repeat it. However, this movie has, I think, two specific problems with feminism.
1. First, Wonder Woman views the normal attitudes of a normal woman asking for help from a man as -entirely cultural.- She insists that women can do anything which men can do, and here's the problem with that view. It's -false.- It's -false- that women can do whatever men can do.
Women are built differently than men. Their upper bodies aren't designed for the same kind of strenuous, heavy lifting, their torsos aren't meant for dodging blows in combat, and they wear out faster under prolonged physical activity. Now, granted, a certain amount of training and practice can limit these disadvantages to a certain degree, but regardless, against a male opponent of comparable skill and practice, a woman would simply find herself outclassed in many areas; usually involving physical activity.
The only reason why anyone would deny this is because Wonder Woman has superpowers, so she -is- built for heavy lifting, swift dodging, etc... However, Wonder Woman is a fictional character, who is clearly the exception to the rule. This is why the ancient Greeks found the amazons so humorous to tell stories about. There was simply no way for women to overpower men in combat en masse in the real world.
This is one of the reasons why the film irks me so. It attempts to derive its philosophy from the abilities of fictional characters, who only represent a tiny minority, even in their own home universe.
2. There have always been feminist or pseudo-feminist undertones to Woman Woman, but believe it or not, there was a time when feminism was a -good- thing; just the desire to see woman get a just wage for doing the same jobs as men.
By contrast, much of modern feminism (at least in major, feminist organizations) has become just what Wonder Woman herself demonstrates in this movie, a disorganized, disagreeable group of angry, violent individuals, united by radical sexism.
As sad as it's been to see feminism, as a cause, gradually turn into something horrible, it's been even worse seeing Wonder Woman trying to turn into something just as bad. I guess that's all I really have to say.
TTSNBSIM 8: "More Than Logic is Needed to Believe in God"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#8: "More Than Logic is Needed to Believe in God"
-----
This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
This is a bit of a tough one. It's not exactly -false,- but it can easily give the wrong message. In fact, the difficulty of explaining why this statement is true is the main reason why I don't feel it should be said at mass. The only exception, as far as I can see, would be if you planned to devote an entire sermon to explaining -this one statement- by itself. That said, if you -do- have such a sermon planned, read on.
-----
The principle problem with the statement is that it seems to imply that our faith is not logical, nor can logic lead one to belief. I know from personal experience that this is not the case.
There are other permutations of this statement such as "the faith goes beyond logic" or "in order to truly believe, you need to go beyond logic." All of these statements, far from demonstrating the superiority of the faith over mere rational thought, merely give the impression that the faith is irrational and unreasonable, which is far from the truth. There are many good proofs for the existence of God and the accuracy of Christianity/Catholicism.
This statement is true, only because belief is not a statement of truth. It's perfectly possible to believe something for which there's no proof, and it's perfectly possible to disbelieve something for which there are -mountains- of proof. Belief is not something which can be "proven" into existence.
Belief is an act of the will. Therefore, if you believe in God, this is because you have -decided- to believe in God, either based on the evidence/arguments (rational belief) or -not- based on the evidence/arguments (irrational belief.)
For this reason, and this reason only, it is not -technically- false to say that more than logic is needed to believe in God. You also need the will to make the decision to accept the conclusion that the evidence leads to.
-----
If you really want to spend a sermon explaining -all- of that, by all means, go for it. However, the statement, by itself, might as well be an open denial of the rational nature of the Christian faith, because that's certainly how many people will take it.
TTSNBSIM 7: "The Bible is Wrong About X"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#7: "The Bible is Wrong About X"
-----
This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
This is a big, red flag right here. It comes in many flavors; "the bible is wrong," "I think this scripture passage gets it wrong," "this is what the bible says, and it's wrong," etc... The one I heard was "It's ridiculous to say -insert bible verse.-"
In any case, what we have here is just a flat-out rejection of the truthfulness of the scriptures, and the moment you start to do -that,- you know your sermon is -way- off-track.
-----
Of course, if you're at the point of denying the reliability of Sacred Scripture, you're pretty far out in left field already, but you can't insist that any part of the scriptures are -just flat-out wrong,- and still claim to be a Roman Catholic.
As it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the document specifically written to outline what's acceptable for Catholics to believe and what isn't...)
"Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely"
-CCC; Paragraph 102-
Thus, confirmation that the scriptures are the word of God. Since they're the word of God, if we argue against them, we argue against God himself.
-----
If what you want to say is that a particular verse of the bible seems misleading when it's improperly-interpreted, go ahead and say that. However, it is not, by any means okay to say that the bible itself is -wrong.-
TTSNBSIM 6: "The Church Needs to Compromise"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#6: "The Church Needs to Compromise"
-----
This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
This is a pretty bad one, because I honestly can't think of any situation in which it would be true.
-----
You see, there are a few ways to think of "the Church."
1. "The Church" is the mystical body of Christ, in which case it -cannot- compromise, since it essentially is a part of almighty God, and God does not compromise. He rules.
2. "The Church" can mean the authoritative teachings, upheld by the Pope and the Magisterium. Again, any compromise on these would mean drifting away from the will of God, in order to fall into error, which according to Jesus, it's impossible for the Catholic Church to do.
3. "The Church" can mean the total, combined number of people and institutions that claim to be Catholic. However, there's a reason why Jesus gave his authority to the Catholic Church on this earth, and especially to the Bishop of Rome. If Catholics aren't in conformity with the teachings of the church, they don't need compromise. They need to get in conformity with them. If Catholics -are- in conformity with the teachings of the church, they don't need compromise. They need to -stay- in conformity with them.
-----
I suppose you could say that -in certain projects,- individual priests, bishops, or even whole parishes may compromise on getting what they want for the purposes of following the teachings more closely, but that's not the same thing as -the Church- compromising.
The Church's task is to teach the truth, and when you compromise the truth, it becomes falsehood, regardless of how small a compromise it may seem to be at first glance. That's why this should never be said in Mass.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
TTSNBSIM 5: "Unity is Always Better Than Division"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#5: "Unity is Always Better Than Division"
-----
This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
This statement has many variants, of varying degrees of truth. For example "We should never be the cause of division if we can help it," which is false, to "Division is bad," which is true, but requires further explaining.
-----
There are multiple ways for something to be "bad." It can be bad because of its nature, like murder, or it can be bad as a result of some non-essential property that it has (this is called an "accident" in philosophy.) For example, a broken leg is a "bad" leg because it's broken; not because it's a leg. These are two different types of "badness."
1. Badness of nature.
2. Badness of accidents.
Note that a thing can be "bad" in one of these ways, but not "bad" in any other ways.
Now, taken by itself, division is not a good thing. Division, in and of itself, is bad.
That having been said, does that mean that -all things- are worse when divided than they are when united?
No.
A mafia family, for example, is -much- worse when it's united under its leader and knows its mission. If it's divided, the different members may start betraying each other, and generally paralyzing the effectiveness of the mafia to hurt other people.
In other words, something which is evil when united, is often better when it's divided. In fact, evil is the primary reason for the existence of division in the universe. As it says in the book of Genesis...
"And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness."
-Genesis 1:4-
The very fact that -God himself- causes division here proves that division is not always evil, because God isn't capable of causing evil.
God's whole plan for salvation history involves separating Good from evil, and sending each to their proper place.
"And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left."
-Matthew 25:32-33-
So, dividing good from evil is different from causing division among -good- people, and should be treated as such. Jesus himself says...
"Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
-Luke 12:51-53-
Therefore, it is clearly not always bad for people to be divided, when some of those people believe the truth, and others insist on preaching falsehood. Good -must- be divided from evil. So says Our Blessed Lord.
TTSNBSIM 4: "God Never Wants You to be Afraid"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#4: "God Never Wants You to be Afraid"
-----
This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
This is a little straightforward, because it's simply false. God doesn't want you to have anything evil to -be afraid of,- but it's clear from the scriptures that as long as there is evil, God wants us to be afraid of it.
-----
"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."
-Matthew 10:28, spoken by Jesus to his disciples-
So, yes, God -does- want us to be afraid of Satan, and therefore, of sinning.
Fear is a natural and normal part of the human experience, because we -should- be afraid of offending God. For this reason, at Mass, we should never tell people not to fear -anything.-
-----
A viable alternative is the following.
"God wants to take you to a place where fear is no longer needed."
Monday, May 20, 2013
PS238 Volume 3; No Child Left Behind!
By Aaron Williams
Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I recently reviewed the first two volumes of PS238, and all of the general points that I made there apply to this third volume as well. It's an enjoyable comic, fun and positive; about superhero children who go to a school for superpowered beings. The concept has been done before, but unlike other comics that have approached this (most notably several "X-men" books,) this book embraces the old-school silliness of the Silver Age, without the poor writing quality that tended to come along with it. The stories are enchanting, entertaining and fun, and never depressing or angsty, like the aforementioned X-men books. Characters develop and change, and stories never become too dark to be enjoyable, even when bad things do sometimes happen. In short, it gets nearly everything right, avoids the major missteps that comic books have made over the course of comic book history, and produces quite possibly the finest series of superhero comics ever released in America. All that, plus you can read it with kids.
Again these comics are all in black and white, and they're supposed to be that way. Also, most of them can be found online as part of Aaron Williams' internet webcomic of the same name, though a few (such as explanation of Dr. Positron being more than one android,) are only found in trade form.
Five issues of PS238 are collected in this volume, beginning with issue 10, in which Tyler (the non-powered main character) is given the task of teaching a fellow student named Malphast how to be human. Malphast is the "son" of an angel and a demon, and comes off as a little like the comic book character Spawn in terms of his appearance and abilities, and in issue 6, he challenges a school bully to an extradimensional game of Four Square.
As a Christian, I take some offense at the depiction of angels and demons as being "part of the same whole" and "not really two opposing forces." Nevertheless, you could defend these theological claims on the grounds that angels and demons are essentially the same (it's just that one fell from Grace and the other didn't.) You could also point out, correctly, that it's impossible for any demon to oppose God directly. Still, the scenes with the demons and angels tend to sound a bit more new-agey than is good for them.
In issue 7, Tyler is accidentally brought to "the Castle Beyond Time and Space," where there are mirrors that show you alternate versions of yourself; other possible worlds, and books that contain the knowledge of the universe. Tyler is eventually sent back into the flow of time, to stop Zodon from building a working time machine. This leads to the next issue.
Issue 8 is a time travel story. Tyler is yanked back and forth through time in a seemingly chaotic way, and it's implied that there will be more time-traveling later. However, this story, I think, really shines. Williams writes time travel better than anyone else I've ever seen in my life. Characters show up suddenly out of a time vortex, refer to things we haven't seen yet, then disappear just as quickly. Then, later on, we see some of the things they were referring to, and we start to understand the sort of nonlinear cause-and-effect that brought this chain of events about. It's magnificent. Probably the best issue in the collection, which is saying a lot.
Issues 9 and 10 revolve around a metahuman called "the Rainmaker," who has the power to eliminate the powers of other metahumans, amplify them, or cause them to rage out of control. He assumes that the "Rainmaker Program" at PS238 is still the same government program that imprisoned him as a child, and that he has to "rescue" the Rainmaker kids (the kids with non-combat-oriented superpowers.) He storms through PS238, and takes the kids with him. Then it's up to Tyler, with some help from the Revenant, to rescue them.
This volume contains some of the best PS238 stories of all. As I said, I've never entirely approved of how Williams writes angels and demons, but the rest of the stories are that much better, and on the whole, I found it a very enjoyable read, and a fitting continuation of one of the best comic series of all time.
Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I recently reviewed the first two volumes of PS238, and all of the general points that I made there apply to this third volume as well. It's an enjoyable comic, fun and positive; about superhero children who go to a school for superpowered beings. The concept has been done before, but unlike other comics that have approached this (most notably several "X-men" books,) this book embraces the old-school silliness of the Silver Age, without the poor writing quality that tended to come along with it. The stories are enchanting, entertaining and fun, and never depressing or angsty, like the aforementioned X-men books. Characters develop and change, and stories never become too dark to be enjoyable, even when bad things do sometimes happen. In short, it gets nearly everything right, avoids the major missteps that comic books have made over the course of comic book history, and produces quite possibly the finest series of superhero comics ever released in America. All that, plus you can read it with kids.
Again these comics are all in black and white, and they're supposed to be that way. Also, most of them can be found online as part of Aaron Williams' internet webcomic of the same name, though a few (such as explanation of Dr. Positron being more than one android,) are only found in trade form.
Five issues of PS238 are collected in this volume, beginning with issue 10, in which Tyler (the non-powered main character) is given the task of teaching a fellow student named Malphast how to be human. Malphast is the "son" of an angel and a demon, and comes off as a little like the comic book character Spawn in terms of his appearance and abilities, and in issue 6, he challenges a school bully to an extradimensional game of Four Square.
As a Christian, I take some offense at the depiction of angels and demons as being "part of the same whole" and "not really two opposing forces." Nevertheless, you could defend these theological claims on the grounds that angels and demons are essentially the same (it's just that one fell from Grace and the other didn't.) You could also point out, correctly, that it's impossible for any demon to oppose God directly. Still, the scenes with the demons and angels tend to sound a bit more new-agey than is good for them.
In issue 7, Tyler is accidentally brought to "the Castle Beyond Time and Space," where there are mirrors that show you alternate versions of yourself; other possible worlds, and books that contain the knowledge of the universe. Tyler is eventually sent back into the flow of time, to stop Zodon from building a working time machine. This leads to the next issue.
Issue 8 is a time travel story. Tyler is yanked back and forth through time in a seemingly chaotic way, and it's implied that there will be more time-traveling later. However, this story, I think, really shines. Williams writes time travel better than anyone else I've ever seen in my life. Characters show up suddenly out of a time vortex, refer to things we haven't seen yet, then disappear just as quickly. Then, later on, we see some of the things they were referring to, and we start to understand the sort of nonlinear cause-and-effect that brought this chain of events about. It's magnificent. Probably the best issue in the collection, which is saying a lot.
Issues 9 and 10 revolve around a metahuman called "the Rainmaker," who has the power to eliminate the powers of other metahumans, amplify them, or cause them to rage out of control. He assumes that the "Rainmaker Program" at PS238 is still the same government program that imprisoned him as a child, and that he has to "rescue" the Rainmaker kids (the kids with non-combat-oriented superpowers.) He storms through PS238, and takes the kids with him. Then it's up to Tyler, with some help from the Revenant, to rescue them.
This volume contains some of the best PS238 stories of all. As I said, I've never entirely approved of how Williams writes angels and demons, but the rest of the stories are that much better, and on the whole, I found it a very enjoyable read, and a fitting continuation of one of the best comic series of all time.
Superman Vs the Elite
Rate PG-13
Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
First, a word of warning. This film is rated PG-13 for a reason. Do -not- show it to young children. Apart from the violence and sexual innuendos in the film, most children just wouldn't understand the message, and would probably find it too terrifying as well; especially near the end.
The history of the development of this story doesn't really take long to explain. Back at the end of the 90s, and the start of the new millennium, a comic book was published (oddly by DC, under the Wildstorm imprint,) called "the Authority." The series was essentially about a group of self-centered, gang-like, deeply amoral jerks with superpowers, who nonetheless fight crime and protect the Earth, but also take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and executioner, even over whole governments.
The series became rather popular when it was first published, and in response, in March 2001, a comic book was published (Action Comics 775,) called "What's so Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?" In this comic, Superman does battle with a group called "The Elite;" who are very much like the Authority in most respects. The comic's premise refuted (I think, quite successfully,) the ethical standpoint of the "Authority" books, and reaffirmed the reasons that Superman has always had for his devotion to truth and justice. The book sold wonderfully, though it wasn't -universally- liked, largely because there are people out there who just don't like Superman, and never will, regardless of how well he's written.
I hate to say it, but I think a fair number of people will claim to dislike the movie for this reason alone. Some people just don't like Superman, and they want him to lose, and suffer along the way. Needless to say, I'm not convinced by this viewpoint, and I don't think I ever will be, though I admit, some of the Superman films have made it awfully hard to like him at times.
The premise of this movie is that the Elite; (a lizard-like woman named Menagerie who can produce powerful, destructive slugs/snakes/bugs from her body, an electric-powered tough guy named Coldcast, a drunken magician named Hat, and their leader; a powerful psychic called Manchester Black,) appear and assist Superman in stopping a rampaging monster. However, Superman doesn't trust them, because they seem to enjoy hurting people, and soon, the elite set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner, claiming to act outside of, and above, any legal body. This, of course, leads to a conflict between them and Superman, when they begin to murder people for their crimes. However, he has a hard time fighting them, not just because of their power, but because the world at large seems to prefer the Elite, and enjoy watching them work.
Spoilers for the next paragraph.
Superman's solution is ultimately to pretend to adopt the philosophy of the Elite, and he defeats them, one by one, in a way that looks as if he were killing them ruthlessly. When people react to this in horror, he reminds them that they're reacting that way because murder shouldn't be used as a weapon of justice; that a better way needs to be found, and that, after all, the old Superman's philosophy was the correct one. He then reveals that it was all a trick, and that he didn't really kill anyone.
I certainly agree with Superman that murder is not a viable moral option in solving our problems. Even if we're under attack, if we have the chance to disable our enemies without killing them, we should take it. Killing is moral, only in instances where you are legitimately defending someone's life, and killing is the only way to do so. Murder, however, is never justified; even in legitimate defense.
Superman gets some good lines in this movie, about how we can't just toss morality in the garbage because it's inconvenient, and how we need to all be working, not just for the crushing of evil, but for good. These are all important moral lessons.
Sadly, such lessons often lose much of their force in the modern world, which has rejected all of the tried and true moral lists (such as the Ten Commandments,) and if you don't have a -list- of what's moral and what isn't, how can you tell when a person is being immoral?
It could also be said that there's something not quite kosher about Superman deceiving the people of the Earth about what he was really up to. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was -immoral,- but it's a little awkward, for someone who claims to represent truth first.
On the whole, though, I enjoyed this movie, and I thought it was much needed, in this age of amoral selfishness and moral relativism. It's just sad to see so many people treating it as just another chess piece in the hand of their opponent, rather than actually listening to what it says.
Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
First, a word of warning. This film is rated PG-13 for a reason. Do -not- show it to young children. Apart from the violence and sexual innuendos in the film, most children just wouldn't understand the message, and would probably find it too terrifying as well; especially near the end.
The history of the development of this story doesn't really take long to explain. Back at the end of the 90s, and the start of the new millennium, a comic book was published (oddly by DC, under the Wildstorm imprint,) called "the Authority." The series was essentially about a group of self-centered, gang-like, deeply amoral jerks with superpowers, who nonetheless fight crime and protect the Earth, but also take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and executioner, even over whole governments.
The series became rather popular when it was first published, and in response, in March 2001, a comic book was published (Action Comics 775,) called "What's so Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?" In this comic, Superman does battle with a group called "The Elite;" who are very much like the Authority in most respects. The comic's premise refuted (I think, quite successfully,) the ethical standpoint of the "Authority" books, and reaffirmed the reasons that Superman has always had for his devotion to truth and justice. The book sold wonderfully, though it wasn't -universally- liked, largely because there are people out there who just don't like Superman, and never will, regardless of how well he's written.
I hate to say it, but I think a fair number of people will claim to dislike the movie for this reason alone. Some people just don't like Superman, and they want him to lose, and suffer along the way. Needless to say, I'm not convinced by this viewpoint, and I don't think I ever will be, though I admit, some of the Superman films have made it awfully hard to like him at times.
The premise of this movie is that the Elite; (a lizard-like woman named Menagerie who can produce powerful, destructive slugs/snakes/bugs from her body, an electric-powered tough guy named Coldcast, a drunken magician named Hat, and their leader; a powerful psychic called Manchester Black,) appear and assist Superman in stopping a rampaging monster. However, Superman doesn't trust them, because they seem to enjoy hurting people, and soon, the elite set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner, claiming to act outside of, and above, any legal body. This, of course, leads to a conflict between them and Superman, when they begin to murder people for their crimes. However, he has a hard time fighting them, not just because of their power, but because the world at large seems to prefer the Elite, and enjoy watching them work.
Spoilers for the next paragraph.
Superman's solution is ultimately to pretend to adopt the philosophy of the Elite, and he defeats them, one by one, in a way that looks as if he were killing them ruthlessly. When people react to this in horror, he reminds them that they're reacting that way because murder shouldn't be used as a weapon of justice; that a better way needs to be found, and that, after all, the old Superman's philosophy was the correct one. He then reveals that it was all a trick, and that he didn't really kill anyone.
I certainly agree with Superman that murder is not a viable moral option in solving our problems. Even if we're under attack, if we have the chance to disable our enemies without killing them, we should take it. Killing is moral, only in instances where you are legitimately defending someone's life, and killing is the only way to do so. Murder, however, is never justified; even in legitimate defense.
Superman gets some good lines in this movie, about how we can't just toss morality in the garbage because it's inconvenient, and how we need to all be working, not just for the crushing of evil, but for good. These are all important moral lessons.
Sadly, such lessons often lose much of their force in the modern world, which has rejected all of the tried and true moral lists (such as the Ten Commandments,) and if you don't have a -list- of what's moral and what isn't, how can you tell when a person is being immoral?
It could also be said that there's something not quite kosher about Superman deceiving the people of the Earth about what he was really up to. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was -immoral,- but it's a little awkward, for someone who claims to represent truth first.
On the whole, though, I enjoyed this movie, and I thought it was much needed, in this age of amoral selfishness and moral relativism. It's just sad to see so many people treating it as just another chess piece in the hand of their opponent, rather than actually listening to what it says.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
The Adventures of Tintin, Volume 6
By Georges Prosper Remi (Hergé)
Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
Tintin is one of the finest comic series that I ever had the pleasure of reading as a boy, and not long ago, a seven-volume set was published, collecting the best and most memorable works about Tintin, though a few were left out (either because of overall poor quality art and controversy, such as the first two Tintin books,) or the last books, due to not being published in the lifetime of their author, and most likely not being entirely written by him either. If you've got the books in this collection, you've got the cream of the crop, and the best that Tintin has to offer.
The collection is hardcover, and faithfully reprints the various Tintin works in their original, full-color form, although the book itself is smaller that the original printings, meaning that at times, the text is a bit difficult to read, due to the reduction in size that everything took in the transition. It would, I think, be very hard for children to enjoy this collection, but as a budget choice for adults who want to re-experience their favorite childhood stories, it's good option overall.
Volume 6 contains three stories, and unfortunately, they're not the best of the lot, though none is horrible. The first; "the Calculus Affair," is easily the best. Professor Calculus is abducted by international agents after he makes a few breakthroughs in the use of sound as a weapon, and Tintin, Captain Haddock and Snowy go off in pursuit. Adventures and hijinks ensue, and a good time is had by all.
The second story; the Red Sea Sharks, is probably the worst story in the volume, for a couple of reasons. First is its treatment of the black passengers on the freighter "the Ramona." They speak very limited english, and sound very much like the Indians from Peter Pan, or like Bizarro Superman in terms of the way they talk. I suspect that this is just because Herge himself (or the translators, perhaps,) didn't know how real people would talk if they had a limited knowledge of the language that Tintin speaks (French in the original publications,) but it does come off as kind of corny. Because of this, they also fail to understand the Captain's initial warnings to them, and seem a bit dim, as a result. Still, this part could have been a great deal worse, since they -do- try to defend themselves when they feel they're being attacked, and one of them saves Captain Haddock from the knife of a slave-trader. Tintin, in turn, saves many of them from being sold as slaves, and eventually exposes the slavery ring responsible for the travesty. It's a bit uncomfortable to read, but not nearly as bad as it could be.
The second problem with this story is all the guest-stars from previous books. Alcazar, Abdullah, Castafiore, Allan, etc, etc... There's a point at which the fun of seeing a familiar face becomes more of a sales hook for the previous books than an integral part of the story. Allan's role in particular was unnecessary, and could have been played by any generic sea captain in the region. Too often, in this one, I just didn't feel that the guest stars added anything to the story.
The final story really only had one problem, that I can see; its continual reliance on dreams/visions to drive the plot. Tintin is alerted to the fact that his friend is alive, and in danger by a dream, and later on, a Tibetan monk experiences multiple visions that assist Tintin in his quest, complete with spontaneous levitation and everything. It got annoying to me.
In every other respect, the third story is positively magnificent; another tale of Tintin repeatedly putting his life on the line to save his friend, and really, isn't that where all the best stories come from? Tintin's friend Chang is a Chinese boy who crash-lands in a plane, and everyone is sure he's dead; except for Tintin himself, so off we go on more adventures!
Though I enjoyed these stories as a kid, I found myself enjoying them even more as an adult. Tintin's world is a refreshing one, in which American cultural imperialism hasn't yet crushed the individuality of independent national identities, and in which each nation has its own unique style and culture. I find this to be one of the most appealing aspects of the books; their appreciation for international distinctiveness. Though I think that there should only be one -religion- in the world, I find the idea of -cultural- diversity very appealing, and apparently, so did Herge. I just wish that people would realize the grave threat that America and its mass media poses to that cultural diversity on a global scale.
Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
Tintin is one of the finest comic series that I ever had the pleasure of reading as a boy, and not long ago, a seven-volume set was published, collecting the best and most memorable works about Tintin, though a few were left out (either because of overall poor quality art and controversy, such as the first two Tintin books,) or the last books, due to not being published in the lifetime of their author, and most likely not being entirely written by him either. If you've got the books in this collection, you've got the cream of the crop, and the best that Tintin has to offer.
The collection is hardcover, and faithfully reprints the various Tintin works in their original, full-color form, although the book itself is smaller that the original printings, meaning that at times, the text is a bit difficult to read, due to the reduction in size that everything took in the transition. It would, I think, be very hard for children to enjoy this collection, but as a budget choice for adults who want to re-experience their favorite childhood stories, it's good option overall.
Volume 6 contains three stories, and unfortunately, they're not the best of the lot, though none is horrible. The first; "the Calculus Affair," is easily the best. Professor Calculus is abducted by international agents after he makes a few breakthroughs in the use of sound as a weapon, and Tintin, Captain Haddock and Snowy go off in pursuit. Adventures and hijinks ensue, and a good time is had by all.
The second story; the Red Sea Sharks, is probably the worst story in the volume, for a couple of reasons. First is its treatment of the black passengers on the freighter "the Ramona." They speak very limited english, and sound very much like the Indians from Peter Pan, or like Bizarro Superman in terms of the way they talk. I suspect that this is just because Herge himself (or the translators, perhaps,) didn't know how real people would talk if they had a limited knowledge of the language that Tintin speaks (French in the original publications,) but it does come off as kind of corny. Because of this, they also fail to understand the Captain's initial warnings to them, and seem a bit dim, as a result. Still, this part could have been a great deal worse, since they -do- try to defend themselves when they feel they're being attacked, and one of them saves Captain Haddock from the knife of a slave-trader. Tintin, in turn, saves many of them from being sold as slaves, and eventually exposes the slavery ring responsible for the travesty. It's a bit uncomfortable to read, but not nearly as bad as it could be.
The second problem with this story is all the guest-stars from previous books. Alcazar, Abdullah, Castafiore, Allan, etc, etc... There's a point at which the fun of seeing a familiar face becomes more of a sales hook for the previous books than an integral part of the story. Allan's role in particular was unnecessary, and could have been played by any generic sea captain in the region. Too often, in this one, I just didn't feel that the guest stars added anything to the story.
The final story really only had one problem, that I can see; its continual reliance on dreams/visions to drive the plot. Tintin is alerted to the fact that his friend is alive, and in danger by a dream, and later on, a Tibetan monk experiences multiple visions that assist Tintin in his quest, complete with spontaneous levitation and everything. It got annoying to me.
In every other respect, the third story is positively magnificent; another tale of Tintin repeatedly putting his life on the line to save his friend, and really, isn't that where all the best stories come from? Tintin's friend Chang is a Chinese boy who crash-lands in a plane, and everyone is sure he's dead; except for Tintin himself, so off we go on more adventures!
Though I enjoyed these stories as a kid, I found myself enjoying them even more as an adult. Tintin's world is a refreshing one, in which American cultural imperialism hasn't yet crushed the individuality of independent national identities, and in which each nation has its own unique style and culture. I find this to be one of the most appealing aspects of the books; their appreciation for international distinctiveness. Though I think that there should only be one -religion- in the world, I find the idea of -cultural- diversity very appealing, and apparently, so did Herge. I just wish that people would realize the grave threat that America and its mass media poses to that cultural diversity on a global scale.
PS238 Volume 2; To the Cafeteria... For Justice!
By Aaron Williams
Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I recently reviewed the first volume of PS238, and all of the general points that I made there apply to this second volume as well. It's an enjoyable comic, fun and positive; about superhero children who go to a school for superpowered beings. The concept has been done before, but unlike other comics that have approached this (most notably several "X-men" books,) this book embraces the old-school silliness of the Silver Age, without the poor writing quality that tended to come along with it. The stories are enchanting, entertaining and fun, and never depressing or angsty, like the aforementioned X-men books. Characters develop and change, and stories never become too dark to be enjoyable, even when bad things do sometimes happen. In short, it gets nearly everything right, avoids the major missteps that comic books have made over the course of comic book history, and produces quite possibly the finest series of superhero comics ever released in America. All that, plus you can read it with kids.
Again these comics are all in black and white, and they're supposed to be that way. Also, most of them can be found online as part of Aaron Williams' internet webcomic of the same name, though a few (such as the introductions of Malphast, Angie and the Flea,) are only found in trade form.
Five issues of PS238 are collected in this volume, beginning with issue 6, which was the one that convinced me that I was in good hands reading this comic. In issue 6, two new characters are introduced; "American Eagle" and "USA Patriot Act." Each has basically the same kind of MO. They walk around in bright, flag-themed outfits, spout over-the-top, patriotic rhetoric at every chance they get, and constantly fight with one another. They're apparently being groomed by our nation's political parties, to replace another patriotic-themed superhero when he dies/retires.
This kind of premise sounds like a recipe for disaster, or might even threaten to turn PS238 into a politically-charged book, but to my amazement, Williams avoided doing this, showing both clever writing skills and greater maturity than most modern "entertainers." Politics shouldn't be about who's on whose side. It should be about the issues, and all of this so-called "comedy" that you see about politics in recent years has really done nothing but decrease the human ability to reason, while increasing faction-based devotion (which has no intellectual basis at all.) I don't know if this was Williams' reason for framing the book as he did, but even after reading it several times, I'm still not entirely sure which party was supporting which Jr. Patriotic hero. At one point, they say their favorite colors; blue and red, which might be a clue, but it's not overt enough to mean anything, and maybe it's better that way. The political reality that this comic points to is simply that America is incredibly divided right now, while still doing its best to keep up appearances. Any person of either party can look at this, and get some laughs, and by shifting the focus onto truly nonpartisan political humor, Williams showed that his interest was -entertainment,- not some ulterior motive of his own. I think that's the reason why I loved issue 6 so much, and why I felt so safe in the hands of PS238 after reading it.
Issue 7 tells the story of Mister Extraordinary; the world's first superhero in the PS238 universe, and the problems that he and his family faced as a result of his powers. In some ways, it's a tragic story, but Williams makes it work magnificently by focusing, not on the tragedy, but on the good that comes about in spite of the tragedy, and on the foiling of the plans of evildoers, which, in my view, is the best he could have done with a story like this one. You don't feel depressed when you put it down, and really, that already makes it superior to the tragic tales told by other comic companies.
Issue 8 talks about the history of Project Rainmaker; the branch of the school that teaches those with non-combat-oriented powers, though many of them, I'm convinced, could be truly devastating if they put their minds to it. Apparently, it was once a controversial government program, to try to learn the secrets of superpowers. This is another tragic tale, after a fashion, but again, it's exciting, and a lot of fun to read. I was very pleased with how it was handled.
In issue 9, "The Revenant" (a sort of Batman parody,) takes Tyler under his wing, and tries to teach him a little about how to fight crime without any special powers. This one is just pure fun, though we see that Tyler is looking for more information on his teachers.
Finally, issue 10, in which Tyler, Angie and the alien Prospero are given a science project involving silly putty; a project that takes them back into outer space, and into deadly peril. This issue is high-flying adventure at its finest.
Although no major story arcs are ended in Volume 2, a couple are started, and several new characters introduced. The overall result is a volume that, by itself, is part-introduction, part-setup, part self-contained storylines, and just good, clean fun all along the way. As fun, entertaining, secular comic books go, this is the measuring stick. I loved it, and I hope you will too.
Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I recently reviewed the first volume of PS238, and all of the general points that I made there apply to this second volume as well. It's an enjoyable comic, fun and positive; about superhero children who go to a school for superpowered beings. The concept has been done before, but unlike other comics that have approached this (most notably several "X-men" books,) this book embraces the old-school silliness of the Silver Age, without the poor writing quality that tended to come along with it. The stories are enchanting, entertaining and fun, and never depressing or angsty, like the aforementioned X-men books. Characters develop and change, and stories never become too dark to be enjoyable, even when bad things do sometimes happen. In short, it gets nearly everything right, avoids the major missteps that comic books have made over the course of comic book history, and produces quite possibly the finest series of superhero comics ever released in America. All that, plus you can read it with kids.
Again these comics are all in black and white, and they're supposed to be that way. Also, most of them can be found online as part of Aaron Williams' internet webcomic of the same name, though a few (such as the introductions of Malphast, Angie and the Flea,) are only found in trade form.
Five issues of PS238 are collected in this volume, beginning with issue 6, which was the one that convinced me that I was in good hands reading this comic. In issue 6, two new characters are introduced; "American Eagle" and "USA Patriot Act." Each has basically the same kind of MO. They walk around in bright, flag-themed outfits, spout over-the-top, patriotic rhetoric at every chance they get, and constantly fight with one another. They're apparently being groomed by our nation's political parties, to replace another patriotic-themed superhero when he dies/retires.
This kind of premise sounds like a recipe for disaster, or might even threaten to turn PS238 into a politically-charged book, but to my amazement, Williams avoided doing this, showing both clever writing skills and greater maturity than most modern "entertainers." Politics shouldn't be about who's on whose side. It should be about the issues, and all of this so-called "comedy" that you see about politics in recent years has really done nothing but decrease the human ability to reason, while increasing faction-based devotion (which has no intellectual basis at all.) I don't know if this was Williams' reason for framing the book as he did, but even after reading it several times, I'm still not entirely sure which party was supporting which Jr. Patriotic hero. At one point, they say their favorite colors; blue and red, which might be a clue, but it's not overt enough to mean anything, and maybe it's better that way. The political reality that this comic points to is simply that America is incredibly divided right now, while still doing its best to keep up appearances. Any person of either party can look at this, and get some laughs, and by shifting the focus onto truly nonpartisan political humor, Williams showed that his interest was -entertainment,- not some ulterior motive of his own. I think that's the reason why I loved issue 6 so much, and why I felt so safe in the hands of PS238 after reading it.
Issue 7 tells the story of Mister Extraordinary; the world's first superhero in the PS238 universe, and the problems that he and his family faced as a result of his powers. In some ways, it's a tragic story, but Williams makes it work magnificently by focusing, not on the tragedy, but on the good that comes about in spite of the tragedy, and on the foiling of the plans of evildoers, which, in my view, is the best he could have done with a story like this one. You don't feel depressed when you put it down, and really, that already makes it superior to the tragic tales told by other comic companies.
Issue 8 talks about the history of Project Rainmaker; the branch of the school that teaches those with non-combat-oriented powers, though many of them, I'm convinced, could be truly devastating if they put their minds to it. Apparently, it was once a controversial government program, to try to learn the secrets of superpowers. This is another tragic tale, after a fashion, but again, it's exciting, and a lot of fun to read. I was very pleased with how it was handled.
In issue 9, "The Revenant" (a sort of Batman parody,) takes Tyler under his wing, and tries to teach him a little about how to fight crime without any special powers. This one is just pure fun, though we see that Tyler is looking for more information on his teachers.
Finally, issue 10, in which Tyler, Angie and the alien Prospero are given a science project involving silly putty; a project that takes them back into outer space, and into deadly peril. This issue is high-flying adventure at its finest.
Although no major story arcs are ended in Volume 2, a couple are started, and several new characters introduced. The overall result is a volume that, by itself, is part-introduction, part-setup, part self-contained storylines, and just good, clean fun all along the way. As fun, entertaining, secular comic books go, this is the measuring stick. I loved it, and I hope you will too.
Friday, May 17, 2013
PS238 Volume 1; With Liberty and Recess For All
By Aaron Williams
Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
The history of comic books can be traced in terms of "ages." In the Golden Age, we saw the debuts of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and the Justice Society, as well as a number of others.
In the Silver Age, a lot of the old superheroes were revamped with sci-fi and fantasy origins and truly bizarre storylines, which would have been perfect fun, if not for the generally-poor writing quality of the time. When Spider-man's girlfriend; Gwen Stacy died, so did the Silver Age, unfortunately.
The Silver Age was followed by the Bronze Age, in which superhero comics did everything they could to address the key issues of the time. Darker and grimmer storylines also tended to pop up every now and then until "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Watchmen" were published, and became intensely popular. Unfortunately, rather than learning the lesson that well-written stories sell, publishers made the mistake of thinking that "dark storylines are popular now."
Thus was born the Dark Age of comics, in which all stories were either dark, grim and depressing, or a prelude to something that was. It could be argued that this age has never really ended, since even in the modern age of comic books, writers and editors aren't shy about killing off characters for no reason, and writing mega-crossover storylines in which tons of characters die.
Each age of comics really seemed to make some serious mistakes. The golden age had licensing problems, the silver age was badly-written, the bronze age more concerned with "relevance" than enjoyable storytelling, the dark age was -way- too dark, and certainly not something you can share with kids, and in the modern age, comic books are a mish-mash of all of these mistakes, plus the added problem that many writers and editors try to use them as a vehicle for their incorrect views of moral and political issues.
The reason why I bring all of this up is that in my time reading comics from various companies and various nations, only a few comic books ever managed to avoid making -any- of these mistakes, and only one of them was written and published in America; PS238.
PS238 began as a webcomic, and it can still be found online, if you need a sample to get you interested. Basically, a group of kids with superpowers go to a school for superpowered children, and have adventures. However, this is only the very basic premise. It excels in many other areas.
For one thing, the children in this book act like real children. They're not miniature adults, like Harry Potter, or parodies of children, like Bart Simpson. If real kids had superpowers, they'd act a lot like this.
Secondly, the comic is enjoyable and positive, not unlike the Silver Age comics published long ago, and contains many bizarre storylines as well. However, unlike those comics, it's also exceptionally well-written, and humorous.
The characters develop, not unlike manga characters. They don't always remain exactly the same. Tyler and Ron, for example, have been developing continually over the course of the comic, and Guardian Angel has also undergone plenty of growth since the comic began, though you may not see much of this in the early issues, where everyone is still being introduced.
What amazes me is how, even when the comic gets serious, and addresses tragic situations, which happened in the past, or are happening in the present, it never does so in a negative manner, and the reader is always left feeling that, in the end, things really didn't turn out so bad, even when they did. Williams never -dwells- on tragic occurrences, even when he does narrate them, and I think that may be what makes his work so much superior to the typical fare from Marvel, or even DC these days.
However, the thing that will, I think, draw readers to this comic most is the simple fact that it's something that kids can read. For the longest time, comic books have been struggling so hard to subvert the silver age, that they've become antisocial, mean-spirited, grim, and even immoral. They contain not-infrequent cursing, blood and over-the-top violence, and even overt sex! PS238 is none of these things. It revels in the crisp, clean world of those old, superhero comics, then just writes the stories better, and has fun with them.
That's the long and short of it, really. PS238 isn't just family-friendly. It's -fun.- It won't make you angst, like the X-men. It won't make you upset, like a big, company crossover. It won't make you feel hopeless, like so many comics nowadays do. It's fun, and after all, isn't that the reason why comics were created to begin with?
These comics are all in black and white. That's how they were drawn, and it's how they're being represented. Also, most of the comics in these collected volumes are also available online as part of the webcomic. I say -most,- because there are some special segments in these volumes, such as Miss Kyle's preparations for super-powered teachers, which are only present in collected form. You won't miss much by reading the webcomic, but if you want the whole thing, this is the way to get it. Besides, it's not so easy to read to your nieces off the internet.
This volume covers 6 issues of PS238; Issue 0 (a montage of character introductions and other preparations for the world of PS238,) Issue 1 (in which Ron, also known as Captain Clarinet, must do battle with his fear of flying,) Issue 2 (in which an alien child lands at PS238, and must find a way to integrate with the rest of the class,) Issue 3 (introducing Tyler; the main character of the comic, and the only student at PS238 who lacks any kind of special powers or technology,) Issue 4 (in which the students are stranded on the moon,) and Issue 5 (in which Tyler and some of the others decide to investigate the secret depths of their school, and find themselves pursued by what seems to be a ghost!) All of these stories are delightful and fun.
There are, of course, magical characters in this story, but that's to be expected from a comic about all kinds of superheroes. Because of this, I'm giving the first volume of PS238 the best grade that I ever give to anything that isn't overtly religious, and I fully expect to give its many follow-up volumes the same grade. It's been a long time since we got to see superheroes having fun and fighting evil at the same time, and believe me; it's refreshing to see it again.
Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
The history of comic books can be traced in terms of "ages." In the Golden Age, we saw the debuts of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and the Justice Society, as well as a number of others.
In the Silver Age, a lot of the old superheroes were revamped with sci-fi and fantasy origins and truly bizarre storylines, which would have been perfect fun, if not for the generally-poor writing quality of the time. When Spider-man's girlfriend; Gwen Stacy died, so did the Silver Age, unfortunately.
The Silver Age was followed by the Bronze Age, in which superhero comics did everything they could to address the key issues of the time. Darker and grimmer storylines also tended to pop up every now and then until "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Watchmen" were published, and became intensely popular. Unfortunately, rather than learning the lesson that well-written stories sell, publishers made the mistake of thinking that "dark storylines are popular now."
Thus was born the Dark Age of comics, in which all stories were either dark, grim and depressing, or a prelude to something that was. It could be argued that this age has never really ended, since even in the modern age of comic books, writers and editors aren't shy about killing off characters for no reason, and writing mega-crossover storylines in which tons of characters die.
Each age of comics really seemed to make some serious mistakes. The golden age had licensing problems, the silver age was badly-written, the bronze age more concerned with "relevance" than enjoyable storytelling, the dark age was -way- too dark, and certainly not something you can share with kids, and in the modern age, comic books are a mish-mash of all of these mistakes, plus the added problem that many writers and editors try to use them as a vehicle for their incorrect views of moral and political issues.
The reason why I bring all of this up is that in my time reading comics from various companies and various nations, only a few comic books ever managed to avoid making -any- of these mistakes, and only one of them was written and published in America; PS238.
PS238 began as a webcomic, and it can still be found online, if you need a sample to get you interested. Basically, a group of kids with superpowers go to a school for superpowered children, and have adventures. However, this is only the very basic premise. It excels in many other areas.
For one thing, the children in this book act like real children. They're not miniature adults, like Harry Potter, or parodies of children, like Bart Simpson. If real kids had superpowers, they'd act a lot like this.
Secondly, the comic is enjoyable and positive, not unlike the Silver Age comics published long ago, and contains many bizarre storylines as well. However, unlike those comics, it's also exceptionally well-written, and humorous.
The characters develop, not unlike manga characters. They don't always remain exactly the same. Tyler and Ron, for example, have been developing continually over the course of the comic, and Guardian Angel has also undergone plenty of growth since the comic began, though you may not see much of this in the early issues, where everyone is still being introduced.
What amazes me is how, even when the comic gets serious, and addresses tragic situations, which happened in the past, or are happening in the present, it never does so in a negative manner, and the reader is always left feeling that, in the end, things really didn't turn out so bad, even when they did. Williams never -dwells- on tragic occurrences, even when he does narrate them, and I think that may be what makes his work so much superior to the typical fare from Marvel, or even DC these days.
However, the thing that will, I think, draw readers to this comic most is the simple fact that it's something that kids can read. For the longest time, comic books have been struggling so hard to subvert the silver age, that they've become antisocial, mean-spirited, grim, and even immoral. They contain not-infrequent cursing, blood and over-the-top violence, and even overt sex! PS238 is none of these things. It revels in the crisp, clean world of those old, superhero comics, then just writes the stories better, and has fun with them.
That's the long and short of it, really. PS238 isn't just family-friendly. It's -fun.- It won't make you angst, like the X-men. It won't make you upset, like a big, company crossover. It won't make you feel hopeless, like so many comics nowadays do. It's fun, and after all, isn't that the reason why comics were created to begin with?
These comics are all in black and white. That's how they were drawn, and it's how they're being represented. Also, most of the comics in these collected volumes are also available online as part of the webcomic. I say -most,- because there are some special segments in these volumes, such as Miss Kyle's preparations for super-powered teachers, which are only present in collected form. You won't miss much by reading the webcomic, but if you want the whole thing, this is the way to get it. Besides, it's not so easy to read to your nieces off the internet.
This volume covers 6 issues of PS238; Issue 0 (a montage of character introductions and other preparations for the world of PS238,) Issue 1 (in which Ron, also known as Captain Clarinet, must do battle with his fear of flying,) Issue 2 (in which an alien child lands at PS238, and must find a way to integrate with the rest of the class,) Issue 3 (introducing Tyler; the main character of the comic, and the only student at PS238 who lacks any kind of special powers or technology,) Issue 4 (in which the students are stranded on the moon,) and Issue 5 (in which Tyler and some of the others decide to investigate the secret depths of their school, and find themselves pursued by what seems to be a ghost!) All of these stories are delightful and fun.
There are, of course, magical characters in this story, but that's to be expected from a comic about all kinds of superheroes. Because of this, I'm giving the first volume of PS238 the best grade that I ever give to anything that isn't overtly religious, and I fully expect to give its many follow-up volumes the same grade. It's been a long time since we got to see superheroes having fun and fighting evil at the same time, and believe me; it's refreshing to see it again.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
TTSNBSIM 3: "Let's Have a Round of Applause For Person X"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#3: "Let's Have a Round of Applause For Person X"
-----
This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's simply because the remark, as stated, is not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
This one, however, is a bit harder to categorize, because it's not a matter of it being true or false. It's just not appropriate. To understand why, it's important to know just what goes on at the Mass.
-----
You see, at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Saints and Angels are all around invisibly, worshiping God. The Holy Trinity and the Blessed Mother are present at each Mass, even though we can't see them, and perhaps most importantly, Jesus is made present there -physically- in the Holy Eucharist. Every living person in the church is moved back through time, to the specific time and place of the crucifixion of Jesus, and while the sacrifice is taking place, Jesus is right there, being crucified.
Now, suppose you were the priest in such a position. You're either looking directly at Jesus, or you're facing away from him (as many priests do in modern times.) Jesus is hanging there on the cross, being mocked by the pharisees, guards, criminals and other passers-by, crowned with thorns, hands and feet impaled with nails, and his whole body covered with wounds caused by jagged bone fragments that were driven across his skin over and over by a leather whip during the scourging.
Really? Is this really the best time and place to be applauding the performance of a human being, regardless of what they've done to deserve it?
-----
If you have an active parish life, and the laity is active in it, there will be times and places to announce congratulations to Marge for her work on the parish bake sale. Perhaps even before, or after Mass would be acceptable, but not during, and certainly not right in the middle. Some things are just more important than that.
TTSNBSIM 2: "Only Love Matters"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#2: "Only Love Matters"
-----
This series is on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's because the remark, as stated, is simply not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
-----
Here, we have a statement regarding love, and I just have to say, I think it's about time that Christians in general (and Catholics in particular) just gave up on the English word "love." Why? Because the word no longer means anything. This one word can be used to mean any of the following.
1. Sex, or even anonymous, uncommitted sex.
2. Sexual attraction, as in the phrase "he loved her from the moment he first saw her."
3. The various methods and behaviors classified as "romance."
4. A state of being predisposed to romantic feelings and inclinations towards someone, as in the phrase "you can tell he's in love, even when she's not around."
5. A strong liking for something. For example, when I say "I love popcorn," or "I love root beer."
6. Deep affection for a child or dependent.
7. Deep affection for a spouse or significant other.
Here's the problem. When Jesus used the word "agape," and when the Church uses the word "caritas," none of these definitions is implied, intended or necessary. The definition that we mean is...
8. A self-sacrificing behavior, done on behalf of someone else.
The "agape" of Jesus is not some selfish, romantic attraction, nor is it some petty, temporary affection for a person, rooted, most often, in a simple, good mood. It's the rock solid commitment to give of oneself for the sake of others, and this is the same "agape," which God showed in creating the universe, even though he didn't need to.
Any statement about love is going to be a dangerous and easily-misinterpreted statement, for this reason alone; the word means something different to each person, and therefore means nothing.
-----
However, even if you've been taught the true meaning of "agape," the statement "Only Love Matters," is still false. There is something else that matters; the truth.
A person may, for example, fully intend to sacrifice for someone else, and fully attempt to do so, but in his attempt, if he doesn't know the truth about how to help them, he may still do evil without realizing it.
For example; assisted suicide. Assisted suicide derives all of its force, in the current culture, from the desire to help someone else not suffer so much. If you sacrifice to get someone an assisted suicide, this might be considered agape; a self-sacrificing behavior, done on behalf of someone else. However, because you don't know the truth, that assisted suicide is not helping them, the resulting action is evil, regardless of what you happen to think of it.
-----
Because the statement "only love matters" is false, there simply is no proper way to say it at Mass. However, one might easily repeat the statement of Pope Benedict XVI on the subject.
"Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived."
Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate," Section 3, Sentence 2.
TTSNBSIM 1: "Jesus Wants to Remain With us in Spirit"
TTSNBSIM (Things That Should Never Be Said In Mass)
#1: "Jesus Wants to Remain With us in Spirit"
-----
This is a new series I'm planning on the subject of things that I've heard said at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which should, in reality, never be said there. Often, it's because these things are incorrect, but occasionally, it's because the remark, as stated, is just not explained well enough, and will inevitably be misinterpreted. In the latter case, the post will also contain an explanation of why this is, as well as proposed -alternatives,- which make the intended statement a bit more clear.
In this case, we have something which is not incorrect. Jesus -does- want to remain with us in Spirit. This language, however, is misleading in three ways.
-----
1. Without further explanation, it seems to imply that "remaining with us in spirit" is rather like "being remembered" or perhaps "watching from far off," or even "thinking about us fondly." This is the way the culture currently understands the term. Too often, I've heard a living, human being say to another, living human being "I'll be with you in spirit."
To be with someone in spirit means that your spirit is actually with them, and this can't be done while our spirits remain in our bodies. It's something the dead can do, and angels, and God, but it's not something that a living person can do, without some special grace or miracle.
-----
2. Even if you understand the term properly, to mean "Jesus wants his Spirit to be with us," most people would assume that this just means that Jesus is always spiritually nearby and watching. However, the Spirit of God is a separate person of the Holy Trinity; namely, the Holy Spirit. When we speak of the Spirit of Jesus, or the Spirit of God being with us, this means -exactly- the same thing as "the Holy Spirit was with us." So, why not just -say- "the Holy Spirit?"
-----
3. Perhaps most gravely, saying that Jesus wants to be with us "in spirit" seems to imply that he doesn't want to be with us in other ways. As Catholics, we know that this is not the case. Jesus wants to be with us; not just spiritually, but -physically,- in the Holy Eucharist. This is one of the worst implications that one could make at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, since it's there that the Eucharist Himself is consecrated.
-----
Therefore, instead of "Jesus wants to remain with us in spirit," it would be better, at Mass, to say one of the following things...
"Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit, so that he could always be with us."
"Jesus wants to be with us, both physically -and- spiritually."
"Jesus wants to be with us -fully.-"
All of these are correct as well, and each is harder to misinterpret.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Wreck-it Ralph
Rate PG
Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5
Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5
Wreck-it Ralph was a film that dared to dream big. The premise, according to all the commercials, was about video game characters coming to life when the arcade closes and meeting with one another in their off hours. In the midst of all this, a video game bad guy named Ralph decides that he's sick of being a villain and wants to become a hero and earn a medal, but where would a big, tough, giant of a man with enormous hands be able to earn a medal?
Showcasing Ralph's quest, and the many encounters with characters from -real- video games, the ads for the film promised the story of a strong, powerful protagonist who faces insurmountable odds and achieves his goal of truly getting the recognition that he deserves. There were also some brief clips of some little, candy brat doing a stupid and un-funny routine where she insults him for no reason, but at worst, we thought, she'll be like Timon and Puumba; a latecomer who's annoying at times, but doesn't disrupt the movie.
Big mistake.
As I saw it, there were four big factors in this movie; four things that it seemed to be trying to accomplish.
1. Ralph's impressiveness as a main character.
2. The fun of the journey and the search for the reward.
3. The reforming of Ralph into a hero, and the handling of heroism in general in the movie; its moral center.
4. The presence and relevance of the other video game characters from other video games.
I'm going to be judging the film on its handling of each of these areas, since, when you get down to it, these are the areas in which the movie had a chance to really shine.
1. There's no doubt that Ralph had a lot of potential as a hero, and it's been a while since we've seen a hero of his type. He's 9 feet tall, weighs over 600 lbs, and his fists are larger than his head. Not only that, but given the length of his arms, this is clearly the sort of bruiser who you don't want to tangle with in a straight-up fight. Ralph has the potential to be a terrifying enemy, or an incredible hero; a man's man, who gets the job done, and almost threatens to bring the notion back into the public eye, that men can be heroes too.
The only question is; how much of this potential was used? Sadly, the answer is "hardly any."
Ralph does get to use his great strength, speed and smashing powers on a semi-regular basis, but as for coming across as a bruiser, or a manly guy, who one might actually want to be like, there's almost none of that here.
Ralph is played up, from the very start, as a comedy fall guy. In his early attempts to acquire a medal, he blunders around, panics, trips, falls, gets yelled at, sets off traps and activates dozens of deadly enemy bug-eggs. Still, these things can happen, even to a very impressive hero.
Unfortunately, Ralph's personality is done little better. He's portrayed largely as an unthreatening, sitcom oaf, who has his desires and all that, but never needs to be taken too seriously, and sure enough, the other characters don't take him seriously at all. He complains about not getting cake, whines when he's stopped by the embodiment of a surge protector, and generally acts sad and mopey over his lot in life, and even when he decides to take action, it's done in more of a "ah-ha! I have a plan!" way, rather than demonstrating real, strong determination to change his life.
However, perhaps the worst thing about Ralph's presentation as the main character is that he's really -not- the main character. That honor is reserved for Vanilly... Vanelly... Sarah Silverman, who plays a bratty little girl from a candyland-inspired slot car racing game called "Sugar Rush," (which, like "Fix-it Felix Jr," Ralph's game, is not a real game at all.) About a third of the way into the movie, Ralph finds himself in Sugar Rush, and then that's pretty much it. The part of the movie that you wanted to see, about Ralph struggling to attain his goal and being a cool main character is pretty much over.
The Sarah Silverman character steals Ralph's medal and runs off, trouncing and outdoing him in climbing, running and pretty much everything else with embarrassing ease. Try to imagine your favorite baseball player getting up to bat, and being just -utterly humiliated- by a five-year-old girl with a squeaky voice, who thinks she's funny, and isn't. As spacious as Ralph's faults may be, he's still supposed to be the main character, and we don't want to see this done to him.
However, you'd better get used to it. Sarah Silverman continues humiliating Ralph. She's annoying and bratty, never learns a single lesson of any value, and yet, the director wants us to believe she's always right. Sarah Silverman is annoying, even when she's -not- saddled with this kind of role. Frankly, the whole thing from this point on made me wince, particularly since we're apparently supposed to start caring about her, and want her to succeed, even though she's already proven that she's a liar and a thief, and doesn't care about Ralph -at all.- No. Just no. This movie fails to make Ralph an impressive, manly main character, because he's not nearly as impressive as he should be, comes off as more oafish than manly, and isn't even the main character.
2. Is the journey any fun? Are we excited to see whether or not Ralph will get his reward? Well, no. Not really. Even at the start, Ralph's motives for wanting the medal are a little materialistic and unsatisfying. He seems less concerned with being appreciated than with medals, and cakes and penthouses; things that you can touch. His reasons for going on the quest just felt too physical to me. It's not like Aladdin, who wants to be treated as more than just street scum, or Belle, who wants some excitement and something transcendent; beyond her normal life. These are purely material desires, and frankly, I can't sympathize.
As I said, Ralph tends to panic and flee when he's confronted with difficult and dangerous circumstances, which puts a massive damper on the excitement and fun of the quest. You might as well just admit that Ralph; whatever his potential, isn't much of a hero at this point, and of course, a fun quest that does not make.
If it's not fun at -that- stage, it's certainly a great deal -less- fun when Sarah Silverman is introduced, and the movie takes a hard left turn away from the quest that it was supposed to be about. Eventually, it's completely forgotten.
Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In many movies, the initial motivation is for riches, or power, or recognition, and the character ultimately learns that these are not as important as family and happiness, and doing the right thing. All well and good.
The problem is that in -this- movie, what replaces the medal is -not- good, wholesome values, but just Ralph's desire to be "liked" by Sarah Silverman, and doing things that will make her feel better. This is a problem for two reasons. 1. Being liked is not a virtue. 2. Doing things that make people feel better is not a virtue. This movie replaces shallow materialism with the slightly-less-shallow motive of wanting to be liked by at least one person. A fun quest that does not make.
3. What is the moral center of the movie? Is Ralph a hero? Is he made into a hero, and does he reform? Is this a story of a person reforming from their evil ways?
Well, no. It's not. The premise of the film is that all characters in video games are essentially actors playing roles. Therefore, the heroes are often not terribly heroic, and the villains not terribly villainous, once you catch them off-duty. Therefore, no real reforming needs to be done. Ralph isn't a -real- villain. He just plays one on TV.
Of course, this raises several questions. Why do the hero and the NPCs treat Ralph like an outcast outside of work hours? Isn't that -actually- evil? I mean, he didn't do anything wrong. He just did what he was supposed to do; wreck the building, so Felix could fix it. Ralph was just doing what he was hired (essentially) to do. The reaction of the NPCs is essentially elitism on the basis of the pre-determined caste system that was programmed into them, and ultimately, that makes them the real bad guys for most of the movie.
Strangely, many of the other video game villains seem similar to Ralph in that sense; not horrible people; just actors doing their jobs.
Here's the problem. Throughout the entire movie, they continue using the word "bad" to mean "the role of villain in a game," and "good" to mean "the role of hero in a game," and that is -not- what those words mean. I almost got the impression that the movie was trying to imply that -real- good and evil were as insubstantial as the roles that one plays in the acting profession, which is just a total rejection of the most basic foundations of all true knowledge. It's a false as false can be.
This aspect of the film really comes to a head when Ralph performs a truly heroic act near the movie's end, while reciting the "bad guy affirmation," about how he'll never be "good," and the only thing he wants to be is himself. If there is one line that can utterly kill the substance of an act of heroic self-sacrifice on the part of a main character, this is it.
In the end, of course, people start to appreciate Ralph a little more, and treat him a little better, but through it all, the substance of -real- good and evil is lost in the dust. Heroism is demonstrated, but not addressed, and the movie's moral core seems to aim, rather, at a sort of Hollywood, rich-people, anti-moralism than any sort of actual moral message that a kid could understand or benefit from.
4. That brings us to the final area on which this movie should be judged; the video game characters who make appearances. I got the impression that this movie wanted to emulate "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," which had a lot of guest-appearances by other characters from other cartoons, from Bugs Bunny to Mickey Mouse. This is, in fact, the aspect of the film that's showcased most in the trailers; the video game guest stars, but I hope you enjoyed those trailers, because they covered -nearly all- of the guest appearances by real game characters in this movie.
The bad guy meeting has a bunch of guest characters, then there are the brief scenes in game central station, and a scene in the Tapper video game. Q-bert and his pals show up in a few more scenes, but aside from those, that's pretty much all the guest appearances you'll see, most of which, as I said, are in the film's first third, before the Sugar Rush debacle.
Yes, it's charming to see these characters rendered in 3D. Yes, it's fun to see them in a high-profile movie. However, they don't act like the characters in the games, because they're not. They're just actors playing roles. As for the rest, it's a minor thrill with little or no substance behind it. I got that thrill from the trailers, but the film had little to offer after that in this area.
The other aspect that I thought would be a mainstay of the plot was traversing one video game world after another in Ralph's quest. Guess how many he travels to. Go ahead. Guess.
Two.
Ralph goes to the bad guy meeting in the Pac-Man game, though it just looks like a blank room during the scene itself. He then spends two scenes in the video game "Tapper," where he drinks and talks to Tapper about his problems. Apart from this, none of the worlds that Ralph visits are based off real video games, except for Fix-it Felix Jr itself, which I'm not going to count, because it's just an online game that was made to promote the film. I'm not counting that.
The only other worlds that Ralph visits are Hero's Duty and Sugar Rush, and there are no games for those. You will never play Hero's Duty. You will never play Sugar Rush. They don't exist, and they never will.
Roger Rabbit was a multi, mega cartoon crossover masterpiece, and a darn good story in its own right, and that's what Wreck-it Ralph could have been. A multi, mega, video game crossover masterpiece, and a darn good story in its own right. However, it sank its own story when it decided to be about Sarah Silverman, rather than an awesome, heroic title character, and it's certainly not the massive video game crossover that the ads suggest.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, this movie fails or does poorly on nearly every level. It's not -that bad- compared to some recent animated films, allegedly for kids, but this says more about the state of modern children's entertainment than it does about Wreck-it Ralph. I give it a nearly halfway grade for this reason, but I have to be honest here; I consider this film to be a major disappointment. It seemed to have great promise, and whatever else you can say about it, you can't say it made good on that promise.
Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5
Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5
Wreck-it Ralph was a film that dared to dream big. The premise, according to all the commercials, was about video game characters coming to life when the arcade closes and meeting with one another in their off hours. In the midst of all this, a video game bad guy named Ralph decides that he's sick of being a villain and wants to become a hero and earn a medal, but where would a big, tough, giant of a man with enormous hands be able to earn a medal?
Showcasing Ralph's quest, and the many encounters with characters from -real- video games, the ads for the film promised the story of a strong, powerful protagonist who faces insurmountable odds and achieves his goal of truly getting the recognition that he deserves. There were also some brief clips of some little, candy brat doing a stupid and un-funny routine where she insults him for no reason, but at worst, we thought, she'll be like Timon and Puumba; a latecomer who's annoying at times, but doesn't disrupt the movie.
Big mistake.
As I saw it, there were four big factors in this movie; four things that it seemed to be trying to accomplish.
1. Ralph's impressiveness as a main character.
2. The fun of the journey and the search for the reward.
3. The reforming of Ralph into a hero, and the handling of heroism in general in the movie; its moral center.
4. The presence and relevance of the other video game characters from other video games.
I'm going to be judging the film on its handling of each of these areas, since, when you get down to it, these are the areas in which the movie had a chance to really shine.
1. There's no doubt that Ralph had a lot of potential as a hero, and it's been a while since we've seen a hero of his type. He's 9 feet tall, weighs over 600 lbs, and his fists are larger than his head. Not only that, but given the length of his arms, this is clearly the sort of bruiser who you don't want to tangle with in a straight-up fight. Ralph has the potential to be a terrifying enemy, or an incredible hero; a man's man, who gets the job done, and almost threatens to bring the notion back into the public eye, that men can be heroes too.
The only question is; how much of this potential was used? Sadly, the answer is "hardly any."
Ralph does get to use his great strength, speed and smashing powers on a semi-regular basis, but as for coming across as a bruiser, or a manly guy, who one might actually want to be like, there's almost none of that here.
Ralph is played up, from the very start, as a comedy fall guy. In his early attempts to acquire a medal, he blunders around, panics, trips, falls, gets yelled at, sets off traps and activates dozens of deadly enemy bug-eggs. Still, these things can happen, even to a very impressive hero.
Unfortunately, Ralph's personality is done little better. He's portrayed largely as an unthreatening, sitcom oaf, who has his desires and all that, but never needs to be taken too seriously, and sure enough, the other characters don't take him seriously at all. He complains about not getting cake, whines when he's stopped by the embodiment of a surge protector, and generally acts sad and mopey over his lot in life, and even when he decides to take action, it's done in more of a "ah-ha! I have a plan!" way, rather than demonstrating real, strong determination to change his life.
However, perhaps the worst thing about Ralph's presentation as the main character is that he's really -not- the main character. That honor is reserved for Vanilly... Vanelly... Sarah Silverman, who plays a bratty little girl from a candyland-inspired slot car racing game called "Sugar Rush," (which, like "Fix-it Felix Jr," Ralph's game, is not a real game at all.) About a third of the way into the movie, Ralph finds himself in Sugar Rush, and then that's pretty much it. The part of the movie that you wanted to see, about Ralph struggling to attain his goal and being a cool main character is pretty much over.
The Sarah Silverman character steals Ralph's medal and runs off, trouncing and outdoing him in climbing, running and pretty much everything else with embarrassing ease. Try to imagine your favorite baseball player getting up to bat, and being just -utterly humiliated- by a five-year-old girl with a squeaky voice, who thinks she's funny, and isn't. As spacious as Ralph's faults may be, he's still supposed to be the main character, and we don't want to see this done to him.
However, you'd better get used to it. Sarah Silverman continues humiliating Ralph. She's annoying and bratty, never learns a single lesson of any value, and yet, the director wants us to believe she's always right. Sarah Silverman is annoying, even when she's -not- saddled with this kind of role. Frankly, the whole thing from this point on made me wince, particularly since we're apparently supposed to start caring about her, and want her to succeed, even though she's already proven that she's a liar and a thief, and doesn't care about Ralph -at all.- No. Just no. This movie fails to make Ralph an impressive, manly main character, because he's not nearly as impressive as he should be, comes off as more oafish than manly, and isn't even the main character.
2. Is the journey any fun? Are we excited to see whether or not Ralph will get his reward? Well, no. Not really. Even at the start, Ralph's motives for wanting the medal are a little materialistic and unsatisfying. He seems less concerned with being appreciated than with medals, and cakes and penthouses; things that you can touch. His reasons for going on the quest just felt too physical to me. It's not like Aladdin, who wants to be treated as more than just street scum, or Belle, who wants some excitement and something transcendent; beyond her normal life. These are purely material desires, and frankly, I can't sympathize.
As I said, Ralph tends to panic and flee when he's confronted with difficult and dangerous circumstances, which puts a massive damper on the excitement and fun of the quest. You might as well just admit that Ralph; whatever his potential, isn't much of a hero at this point, and of course, a fun quest that does not make.
If it's not fun at -that- stage, it's certainly a great deal -less- fun when Sarah Silverman is introduced, and the movie takes a hard left turn away from the quest that it was supposed to be about. Eventually, it's completely forgotten.
Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In many movies, the initial motivation is for riches, or power, or recognition, and the character ultimately learns that these are not as important as family and happiness, and doing the right thing. All well and good.
The problem is that in -this- movie, what replaces the medal is -not- good, wholesome values, but just Ralph's desire to be "liked" by Sarah Silverman, and doing things that will make her feel better. This is a problem for two reasons. 1. Being liked is not a virtue. 2. Doing things that make people feel better is not a virtue. This movie replaces shallow materialism with the slightly-less-shallow motive of wanting to be liked by at least one person. A fun quest that does not make.
3. What is the moral center of the movie? Is Ralph a hero? Is he made into a hero, and does he reform? Is this a story of a person reforming from their evil ways?
Well, no. It's not. The premise of the film is that all characters in video games are essentially actors playing roles. Therefore, the heroes are often not terribly heroic, and the villains not terribly villainous, once you catch them off-duty. Therefore, no real reforming needs to be done. Ralph isn't a -real- villain. He just plays one on TV.
Of course, this raises several questions. Why do the hero and the NPCs treat Ralph like an outcast outside of work hours? Isn't that -actually- evil? I mean, he didn't do anything wrong. He just did what he was supposed to do; wreck the building, so Felix could fix it. Ralph was just doing what he was hired (essentially) to do. The reaction of the NPCs is essentially elitism on the basis of the pre-determined caste system that was programmed into them, and ultimately, that makes them the real bad guys for most of the movie.
Strangely, many of the other video game villains seem similar to Ralph in that sense; not horrible people; just actors doing their jobs.
Here's the problem. Throughout the entire movie, they continue using the word "bad" to mean "the role of villain in a game," and "good" to mean "the role of hero in a game," and that is -not- what those words mean. I almost got the impression that the movie was trying to imply that -real- good and evil were as insubstantial as the roles that one plays in the acting profession, which is just a total rejection of the most basic foundations of all true knowledge. It's a false as false can be.
This aspect of the film really comes to a head when Ralph performs a truly heroic act near the movie's end, while reciting the "bad guy affirmation," about how he'll never be "good," and the only thing he wants to be is himself. If there is one line that can utterly kill the substance of an act of heroic self-sacrifice on the part of a main character, this is it.
In the end, of course, people start to appreciate Ralph a little more, and treat him a little better, but through it all, the substance of -real- good and evil is lost in the dust. Heroism is demonstrated, but not addressed, and the movie's moral core seems to aim, rather, at a sort of Hollywood, rich-people, anti-moralism than any sort of actual moral message that a kid could understand or benefit from.
4. That brings us to the final area on which this movie should be judged; the video game characters who make appearances. I got the impression that this movie wanted to emulate "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," which had a lot of guest-appearances by other characters from other cartoons, from Bugs Bunny to Mickey Mouse. This is, in fact, the aspect of the film that's showcased most in the trailers; the video game guest stars, but I hope you enjoyed those trailers, because they covered -nearly all- of the guest appearances by real game characters in this movie.
The bad guy meeting has a bunch of guest characters, then there are the brief scenes in game central station, and a scene in the Tapper video game. Q-bert and his pals show up in a few more scenes, but aside from those, that's pretty much all the guest appearances you'll see, most of which, as I said, are in the film's first third, before the Sugar Rush debacle.
Yes, it's charming to see these characters rendered in 3D. Yes, it's fun to see them in a high-profile movie. However, they don't act like the characters in the games, because they're not. They're just actors playing roles. As for the rest, it's a minor thrill with little or no substance behind it. I got that thrill from the trailers, but the film had little to offer after that in this area.
The other aspect that I thought would be a mainstay of the plot was traversing one video game world after another in Ralph's quest. Guess how many he travels to. Go ahead. Guess.
Two.
Ralph goes to the bad guy meeting in the Pac-Man game, though it just looks like a blank room during the scene itself. He then spends two scenes in the video game "Tapper," where he drinks and talks to Tapper about his problems. Apart from this, none of the worlds that Ralph visits are based off real video games, except for Fix-it Felix Jr itself, which I'm not going to count, because it's just an online game that was made to promote the film. I'm not counting that.
The only other worlds that Ralph visits are Hero's Duty and Sugar Rush, and there are no games for those. You will never play Hero's Duty. You will never play Sugar Rush. They don't exist, and they never will.
Roger Rabbit was a multi, mega cartoon crossover masterpiece, and a darn good story in its own right, and that's what Wreck-it Ralph could have been. A multi, mega, video game crossover masterpiece, and a darn good story in its own right. However, it sank its own story when it decided to be about Sarah Silverman, rather than an awesome, heroic title character, and it's certainly not the massive video game crossover that the ads suggest.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, this movie fails or does poorly on nearly every level. It's not -that bad- compared to some recent animated films, allegedly for kids, but this says more about the state of modern children's entertainment than it does about Wreck-it Ralph. I give it a nearly halfway grade for this reason, but I have to be honest here; I consider this film to be a major disappointment. It seemed to have great promise, and whatever else you can say about it, you can't say it made good on that promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)