Courageous

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

This review is a bit delayed, since I actually saw this movie when it was first out in theaters.  However, I'm writing the review on same night I saw the film, so I still remember it perfectly well.  I just didn't want to post it until I could provide a link to it.

It's a film about four deputies, working to bring the hammer down on a drug ring, while simultaneously struggling with their family issues, and their incomplete commitment to God and those they care about.

Of course, this comes from the same group who brought us "Fireproof," so we know two things about it from the get-go.  One good news, and one bad.  The good news is that the movie is beautiful and has a very strong story about its characters.  The bad news?  It's essentially a protestant movie.

I'm not going to hide this; there are three scenes with a "pastor," who doesn't wear a collar, and one in a "church" that just lets anybody get up and speak to the "congregation;" a church that looks, for the most part, like an auditorium.

This fact is solely responsible for the one cross down.  When a film is strongly and overtly protestant, as this one is, it gets four out of five crosses from me.  As much as we might want to be virtuous and good, and to face our responsibilities with courage and boldness, without the rock of God's inerrant will to ground ourselves to, we'll never succeed, and that rock can be found only in the Catholic Church.  Everything else is man-made.

Like the other films made by this group, this film is very real about its characters, and very grounded in reality.  It's very strong in its integrity, but it doesn't stroke the imagination, so I'm afraid that there's only so much enjoyment I could get out of it.  I'd much prefer to watch a substantive piece that also has some supernatural or imaginative dimension to it, because I feel it holds the attention much more strongly.  However, I understand and respect those who want to see a movie taking place in a world identical to their own; those who think it's easier to relate.  As a man, I don't think like that.  This is the reason for the 1 star down in enjoyability.

Now, with all that dealt with, I really liked this film, in spite of its somewhat mundane premise and under-the-top delivery.  It had a good heart and a strong message with a lot of characters (perhaps too many, but perhaps not,) who all get the chance to show who they are.  The main character seems to be Adam; one of the deputies, who suffers a horrible tragedy and must gradually cope with it.  His integrity shines through the strongest, and he and his team go through a lot of soul searching (as well as a brief adventure or two,) on their route to a lifelong commitment that they have to make; to live with integrity and courage.

Adam's partner Shane struggles with his own issues, and Nathan; another deputy, needs to face the fact that he's been focusing too much on being better than his father, and not enough on being the best father he can be.  The rookie, David, has an old shame to confront as well.

Over the course of the film, Adam also makes the acquaintence of an out-of-work, but hardworking family man named Javier.  I would say that he has some of the strongest faith in the film, as well as being one of the most welcome additions to the cast.  He adds some much-needed comedy to the proceedings, but not by being foolish, or a stereotype, the way less-complicated movies probably would.  Javier adds many laughs to the movie, while facing his own difficult situations with honor and integrity, and I honestly found him one of the movie's most likable characters.

This was a really good film.  It doesn't look like much, but it's got the right things in the right places.  Is it perfect?  No, but it's easily one of the best films released all year.  It's involving, substantive and severe.  Most of the movie is spent getting serious and doing what needs to be done; an attitude that we really need to bring back.  This is certainly not my favorite of the films made by this particular group (that honor still goes to Fireproof,) but it stands head and shoulders over its competitors.  Watch the film.  Take your teenagers.  Parental discretion is encouraged, but I'm sure you'll get something out of the experience.

The Mass of the Early Christians

By Mike Aquilina

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I'm really learning to enjoy Mike Aquilina's writings, and I've yet to read anything of his that I don't like.  He's very faithful, very thorough, and very consistent.  His strong suit seems to be research and the faithful study of Catholic History, and that's just what this book is as well.

This time, the topic of study is the mass.  What did the mass look like to christians of the first few centuries after Christ, and what was its structure like?  What did those Christians believe about the mass?  How was it perceived by the rest of the world?

These are all topics of this book, and it covers them quite fairly, including exerpts from some of the best historical sources on this topic.  What surprised me, though, was that the book contains exerpts, not only from Catholic sources, revealing what the mass was really like, but also from pagan, heretical and secular sources, each attempting to paint the mass as what they wanted it to be.  Heretics wanted the mass to be something they had thought up and designed, and the secular authorities wanted it to be an atrocity, so they'd have an excuse to arrest its adherents, who refused to pay worship to caesar.  It's easy to see why these writings were condemned as incorrect by the church when they were written.  Their motives are like glass.

At first, in fact, I was a bit taken aback by Mike's choice to include quotes from those sources; not really sure what he was planning or why, but he puts the quotes in their appropriate context, and that's enough for me.  Far from being unfaithful to the church, the re-presenting of these quotes helps us to get into the minds of those roman empire folks and see just how they saw Christianity from the start.

Though I scratched my head once or twice, I really liked this book, and I would definitely read Mike's work again.  He's a fine, faithful and competent author in his field, and I feel he's really helped my understanding of liturgical history.

The Fathers of the Church

By Mike Aquilina

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Of course, over the centuries, many people have made fine contributions to the church, but some of the finest were those of the early church fathers; Augustine, Ambrose, Leo, Gregory, Origen, Tertulian, Polycarp, and so forth.  That's what this book is about.

It's a fine and well-researched book, presented well with good exerpts from their writings, quotes and summaries of their lives, all of which makes it even easier to read.  It even goes somewhat into their personalities.  I found myself even more drawn to Ambrose and Jerome, and even to Augustine, even though he's already my favorite of the church fathers.

This book is all about the lives, works, and in some cases, about the deaths of many of these great men.  In fact, it's something of an overview of the subject, since it's a relatively short book, and huge volumes could have been written about most of these men.  It has information on the start of the benedictine monastic orders, the early development of theology, of scripture canons, of the persecutions suffered by the church, and so on.  It's all fascinating, and a little humbling, because it's a firm reminder of just how much our own culture has lost.

So many people think their generation is superior to all previous ones; that they're somehow more intelligent, or more "evolved," but a cursory glance at the writings of someone like Aristotle, Augustine or Thomas Aquinas proves that to be a ludicrous claim.  I found I got the same kind of impression from reading about the lives of these great Catholics from the early days of the church, and of course, I don't even need to say that it was faithful and orthodox to a T.

If you have any interest in the early development of the Catholic Church, but don't want to spend years studying, then this book will be a very good starting point.  It's a simple introduction to the fathers of the Church, and what they did, said and accomplished, and it's done well.  I suppose that's really all there is to say.

150 Bible Verses Every Catholic Should Know

By Patrick Madrid

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I've really read very little of Patrick Madrid's work in the past.  I think the only thing of his that I'd read from cover to cover was "the Godless Delusion," which, if I recall correctly, was the work of two authors.  It wasn't perfect, but it was faithful enough, so I was eager to see what else he had to offer.  This book of spiritual reflections on a number of scripture passages (guess how many...) seemed like just the thing.

Boy, was it ever.  Covering a wide range of church teachings like the sacraments, divine revelation, the communion of saints, the sanctity of life, the escaton and so forth, the verses chosen in this book are spot on, and, I have to admit, some of the ones I've found most useful for reinforcement in my own faith journey.

In reflecting on these verses, Madrid shows a strong understanding of the culture of Jesus' time, of the doctrines of the church, sacred tradition, and especially theology.  I tend to latch on to any imperfections I find in a book (as readers of some of my other reviews can attest,) and the fact that I have little to say in that respect about this text says something by itself.

To give you some idea of just how I pleased I was with this book, however, I'm going to tell you my biggest problem with it.  On page 148, Patrick Madrid claims that Matthew 7:3-5 implies that we should mind our own business unless we're somebody's parent/teacher/coach, etc...  I don't agree.  Prohibitions against gossip, slander and condemnation are not alien to the bible, but I don't feel this particular verse is such.

As I said, this is the biggest issue I had with this book, and I hestitate to even call it an issue, because it fits so well into the "we can agree to disagree" category.

I think what impressed me most was his solid, scriptural support for all seven sacraments, as well as for the conclusion that faith and reason are entirely compatible, and in fact, totally connected, but it was all good.  Check it out.  As a scriptural reference text, and a modern one at that, I've seen very few books that can top it in terms of faithfulness -or- insight.

Word on Fire

By Robert Barron

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I once again find myself forced to make a hard choice.  Whenever I see a problem with faithfulness to the church, or with inadequately explaining the church's teachings, I have a tendency to explain it to death; a practice that I intend to continue, because these things need to be clarified by someone.  The question really winds up being "is this serious enough to merit a whole star down?"

In this case, the answer is "probably not; no."  Father Barron has put together a most impressive series of homily transcripts, which actually amazed me by the depth of their understanding, and their clarity of teaching.  That, by itself, becomes slightly less surprising when you learn that, like myself, Father Barron is something of a Thomist, and treasures the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

I was very impressed by several points in this book.  In particular, he amazed me with the clear messages that he drew from Nehemiah, his defense of the real presence, and his descriptions of the theological dilemmas of the recent past and how they were solved; particularly the ones relating to glory; who gets it and why.  I can also say with absolute confidence that I have never in my life heard anyone sufficiently describe the notion of catholic "worship" in the normal work of a lawyer, a doctor, etc, until Father Barron did it.  In nearly every objective sense, this book is truly excellent.

I have only one issue to bring against it.  More than once, as an example of the good work done by holy men and women, Father Barron mentions Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, and the organization which they founded; the Catholic Worker Movement.

I don't know nearly as much about Dorothy Day as I would like to, but Peter Maurin held a radical belief, which he implemented into the Worker Movement; he believed that evildoing or immorality on the part of a government official removed their God-given authority to govern their citizens, and that therefore, it was perfectly acceptable for people to ignore the rules of a corrupt government and form their own communes, making up their own rules for social collaboration as they went along.  Today, we call this by the popularized name of "liberation theology," but perhaps it would be easier to understand if I just sum it up by saying that it's basically Marxism with a cross on top.

The Worker Movement has a number of other problems as well, but I target its involvement in liberation theology because that's a belief that has been specifically condemned by at least the last two popes.

Father Barron's understanding of Catholic theology is truly amazing, and for the most part, I was astonished by the quality of his book; almost to the point of refusing to believe any ill of him.  For the moment, therefore, I will simply assume that this one aspect of the book was probably just imperfectly-researched, and I'll give it the best score I can.

Understanding the church's position on social teaching isn't really so difficult.  It's all about loving God first, then our neighbor second.  We love them by doing what's best for them; putting them first and ourselves afterwards.  However, let's not deny that many agencies claiming to be Catholic subsist only by lying about church teaching; claiming that the vatican never specifically condemned communism, socialism, marxism, liberation theology and so forth.  This is a technical tidbit of the faith that anyone could be forgiven for overlooking, since it's not out there in the culture like it once was, but that doesn't negate church teaching.  Until further evidence comes up, this is all I'll say for now.

Who Needs God?

By Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn and Barbara Stockl

Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5

Enjoyability: 2 of 5

This book makes me sad, because I don't like having to choose between supporting a Cardinal of the Church, and supporting the truths of Jesus Christ.  That said, I can and will make such a decision in the only way possible.

However, before I begin, I feel I should point out that this book is essentially a long interview in book form.  Because of this, the Cardinal probably didn't have the time he needed to think through his responses well enough, and this may have lead to some of the problems I'm about to mention.  I can't prove it, but it's a viable explanation, I think.

This book is full of mistakes; more than I have time to describe in detail, so instead, I feel I should mention its overarching problems.

Firstly, the interviewer is either very opposed to Catholic morality, or very sympathetic to those who are.  At every turn, she seems to take the tack of "the church should be questioning itself," "we should be able to oust the pope," "the church's stance on x needs to change," etc, etc, etc, and the Cardinal gives her altogether too much legroom with his responses, which in general, come across as weak, flimsy and pseudo-subjective.  Numerous times, he suggests that she be careful what she means when she says "church," but doesn't clarify the point, only making the Q&A even more confusing.

However, this over-permissiveness seems to be a two-way street, since Barbara also comes across as too forgiving whenever she asks the Cardinal a yes-or-no question, and his answer contains neither of those words, and generally lasts several paragraphs.  He uses terminology which is not nearly specific or direct enough, and often makes claims that are simply untrue.  A list of these claims is as follows.

1. Job's friends were like theologians.
2. We shouldn't judge other religions.
3. The Vatican is just a symbolic nation.
4. Religion isn't for intensifying conflict.
5. The Holy Trinity is not logically-verifiable.
6. The Church is part of this world.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it should do to start.  All of these are false.

1. Job's friends were not using logic to try to understand God, meaning they're not like theologians.
2. It's part of Catholic doctrine that all religions except the Catholic Church involve some element of falsehood.  This is a judgment that we're obligated to make about other religions.
3. The Vatican is definitely a real nation.  That's why the pope is considered a head of state.
4. Jesus himself said that he had come not to bring peace, but a sword, and that families would turn against one another on his account.  Doesn't sound like he wanted a worldly peace.
5. We can use logic to determine the oneness and the multipleness of God, thus proving the trinity,
6. and finally, the Church is Jesus Christ, existing both in this world, and in the two higher ones (Purgatory and Heaven.)  It's more like Earth is a part of the Church in that sense.  Oh, sure, you can say the church -militant- is a soujourner in this world, but that's not the claim he made.

He also says early on in the book that he thinks urbanization is largely responsible for the declining mass attendance, and later remarks that the loss of the church's holdings, and its role in global power are good things.  Admittedly, on these issues, we can simply agree to disagree.  As I see it, urbanization was around long before the 1970s, when the steep decline began, so it's unlikely that was the cause of the plummeting mass figures (other likely causes include; the first generation raised on television being old enough to make their own decisions, the rise of the hippie, widespread drug use and hedonism, or any of the other grave evils that washed over the world during the 70s.)  As for the rest, I just don't think it's quite as good for the church, or for Catholics, when the church becomes so weak and defenseless that she can't in any way influence the way the faithful are allowed to live.  As I said, though, these aren't mistakes; just disagreements.

Several times throughout this book, Barbara questions a teaching of the church, and the Cardinal sort of tiptoes around the issue, without really saying yes or no, or implying that the church has any sort of right to teach infallibly in these matters.  The weakness is so thick, at times, that I could cut it with a machete.

However, he also said something that hit much too close to home for me, in terms of reminding me just why I once lost the faith for so long as a teenager.  At the top of page 53, he said that Jesus' only answer to the question of why God allows evil is to suffer with us, and that if that image doesn't move us, there's not much he can do for us.

Well, that image does move me, but not in the way he hopes.  You see, as a teenager, I was convinced that anyone responsible for evil had to be punished somehow, and justice restored.  I saw God in this way; as being responsible for all evil, and for every second of suffering that I went through, I felt that the imbalance was growing worse.  Whenever others suffered with me, that only doubled or tripled the injustice of it all.  Using this line of reasoning, when God suffers with you, that makes the injustice infinite, and therefore, infinitely unacceptable.  This is the reasoning that I originally used to reject the faith.

What brought me back to the faith was just what the Cardinal so cavalierly dismisses; solid reasoning, used to properly explain the teachings of Catholicism; delivered by one of the greatest intellectuals of all time; Saint Thomas Aquinas.

He proved, using logic, that God does not create evil, because evil is merely an absense of good, and requires no creator.  He also established that God can have morally-sufficient reasons for allowing evil (namely, because he is capable of undoing the evil and bringing even greater good out of it in the end, without the evil needing to remain in order to support the good.)  This argument was thoroughly logical, and it convinced me to come back to the faith.

Let me end this review by saying the only thing that really matters, and appropriately, it's the one thing you won't read anywhere in this book.

Jesus Christ was the only Son of God.  God is eternal, which means that his nature is perfect and unchanging.  It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for one iota of the law of God to pass away.  Therefore, we cannot change God's law.  I can't, you can't, and certainly the Church and the Pope can't.  Even God won't do that.  I'm not even sure he could.

As for the Catholic Church, it is the one, true church of Jesus Christ, founded personally by the son of God upon blessed Peter, and protected forever from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit himself.  Because of its divine origins, it is inherently superior to all other religions, and therefore, all men are called to it.  Without it, there would be no salvation.

I would hope that the Cardinal still agrees with all of these basic teachings of the church, and I won't say a word more than that.

Arise From Darkness

By Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5

This is the first book by Benedict Groeschel that I've ever read, and it probably won't be the last.  I started reading without a whole lot of knowledge about him.  All I knew was that, like Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft, he was one of the "modern apologists" who've written and popularized the Catholic faith in the current age.  I mention Hahn and Kreeft for a specific reason.  One of them, in my mind, is magnificently knowledgable and faithful, and the other tries to be, but sometimes winds up making mistakes that don't get filtered out in the proofreading stage.  In short, I suspected that Father Groeschel would be similar to at least one of these two.  I just didn't know which one.

Regrettably, if this book is anything to go by, I'm afraid he'd closer to Kreeft than Hahn.  I get the impression that he's doing his best to be faithful, and yet, there are mistakes here or there; often merely as a result of not being clear enough in his wording on a particular subject, or tiptoeing around serious moral issues, as if trying to avoid hurting someone's feelings.  This approach will make you more popular, but it won't make you holier.

Case in point; the chapter on what to do when the church disappoints us.  He says (correctly,) that we need to understand what we mean by "church;" that "church" can mean a group of people, a group of bishops, a heirarchy, a specific diocese, or even a specific person who's a baptised Catholic.  He also says (again, correctly,) that it's our obligation to exercise loyalty to our church.  The problem is that while he advocates care in defining "church," he doesn't explain which definition is correct.

The correct definition of "church" to use is "the teachings and authority of the bishop of Rome and the magisterium, and the holy writings and decrees which they have approved."  It does not mean an independant conference of bishops set up in an individual nation, it does not mean your particular diocese, and it certainly doesn't mean a feminist nun who happens to run the religious education program at your local parish.  Even to these figures, we should prefer loyalty, but only on issues that don't go against the will of legitimate church teaching (Pope, Magisterium, traditions, scripture, etc...)  If there is a conflict between the pastor of your parish and the teachings or authority of the church of Rome (such as; he wants to support the CCHD, and you know for a fact that they defie church teaching,) then your obligation is to the Pope, and as such, to ignore the authority of your pastor in this matter.

That really doesn't take too long to explain, yet he doesn't explain it, leaving the doorway open to be misinterpreted.

He also says in at least one point that the Council of Trent forbade people from taking about Purgatory in terrifying terms.  This sounded false to me, so I looked it up.  I admit, I still haven't finished reading all of the council documents, but thusfar, the closest I've been able to find to this claim is the decree at the beginning of the 25th session of Trent, concerning Purgatory, which prohibits subtle, difficult discussions of Purgatory, which don't edify and don't increase piety, from being discussed with the less-educated public.  It also forbids silly superstitions about Purgatory, and uncertain guesses or theories about Purgatory also shouldn't be matters of general discussion, but there's nothing in there about not "making it seem terrifying."

Ultimately, though, what disturbed me most was Father Groeschel's claim, near the very beginning of the book, that "the human mind can't understand the reason for suffering," and "we just have to accept the existence of this mystery."

While I agree with him that there are mysteries which we have yet to unlock, and can't unlock by our own power, making the claim in these terms does nothing to help make him look educated, and even makes the church look clueless and helpless in the face of this "unsolvable puzzle."

In reality, of course, the "mystery" is not "why is there evil?" but rather "what are -all- the reasons why there is evil?"  This last question is the one that has an infinite answer, which we can't fully comprehend, because God is infinite, and so are the number of reasons he has for what he does and allows.  Still, if you're only looking to find out one of those reasons, then the answer is simple.

God allows evil because he is a God of love.  Love requires a loving response.  A loving response can only be made freely by a being that possesses free will.  Free will can only be exercised by the freedom to make choices.  Choices involve something to choose between.  Therefore, in order for God to be loved by us, we must have the opportunity to refuse his love.  This is one key reason for the existence of evil, and it's certainly not beyond the ability of human intelligence to grasp.

The book itself is about the variety of situations that can make us feel most lost and abandoned, and how we can emerge from them; undefeated, holy and stronger from the experience.  When seen in this light, it's still far from the best book on the subject, nor does it reference other great books of the past.  The impression I got was of a modern book, written for the modern audience, which, for the most part, refuses to read anything more than a century old.

Is this book good?  Sure.  Is it neccesary?  Probably.  Is it particularly outstanding in any area?  Yes; the motive to be virtuous drove this book's creation, and that is certainly outstanding.

However, if you were to ask me for my favorite books on the subject of enduring suffering, this (and for that matter, most modern books) would fail to make it into my top ten.  It's not a weak book, but it could stand to be a little stronger, a little wiser, and a little clearer on some of its points.