Lourdes: A Story of Faith, Science and Miracles

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I'd nearly been soured to this film early on by the opinions of some of my relatives, but the movie itself eventually won me over.  The acting is fantastic, the story is endearing, and the special effects are surprisingly believable.

This movie is about a lot of things; the apparitions at Lourdes, the spiritual journey of Henri Giullaumet at the time of the apparitions and healings, and the modern-day study of the whole affair by his descendant; Bernard.  Because of this, the film flits constantly between two different time periods, which can be a bit distracting if you walked in late, but if not, you should pick up on what the movie is doing fairly quickly.

Both Henri and Bernard seem to start out the movie as adamant atheists, who must gradually learn that there's more to life than 1s and 0s; a harder lesson for Henri, it would seem, since he's staked so much on his atheism and rationalism.

The film moves a bit slowly at times, which can actually be a benefit, and some of the minor characters are a bit irritating at first, but the major characters are the real focus, and they do manage to go through some interesting development over the course of the movie, in spite of Henri's stubbornness.  The movie's not over-the-top in its depictions of the characters, but it is entirely faithful to what really happened there, which is something we can all be thankful for.

On top of this, I also feel I should mention the sets and costume-design.  They were very well-done as well.  I'd have given it five stars in enjoyment as well, except that the ending was a bit abrupt.  On the whole, I'd say that there's no good reason for Catholics not to watch this.  It's a good, inspirational film with a strong storytelling talent, and what's not to love about that?

The God Who Loves You

By Peter Kreeft

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5

This book was a bit of a puzzle, and even now, it's difficult to grade, because I can't guage the intentions of the writer.  I've heard good things about him, of course, but actually reading this book felt, if you'll forgive this, like running through a busy intersection at rush hour.

There are times when Mister Kreeft strikes me as being a very strong Catholic and thinker; analyzing terms brilliantly, clearing a path to the truths of the faith, and even pointing out things that I'd never heard said before in Catholic theology (though I have no doubt they were true.)

Then there are times when it seems like he's jumped back off the train tracks onto protestantism again, or overgeneralizes about the faith.

In the end, I gave this book a fair score on the Catholic-ometer, because these slip-ups are relatively rare.  So rare, in fact, that I can count the book's mistakes on my fingers, and for the sake of helping to keep new readers from being accidentally mislead, I'll deal with three right now, which really jumped out at me.

Midway down page 23, Mister Kreeft quotes Pope John Paul II, claiming that Martin Luther was "profoundly right" about his beliefs regarding justification.  This is not true.  Martin Luther's beliefs, early on in life, were as Catholic as anybody's, but when he broke off from the church, it was his heretical views on justification that did the most damage.

In "the Smalcald Articles," Luther wrote the following...

"All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits... ...Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us"
-Martin Luther-

The bible says...

"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
James 2:24

This latter is, and has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Yes; God's grace does much more to save us than our works, but that doesn't mean that works are not needed.

"Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works."
James 2:18

To say that the grace of God comes first in attaining salvation is the truth, but this does not mean that Martin Luther was "profoundly right" in his beliefs regarding justification.

The second point that needs clarification is that he speaks at least twice of being "possessed by God," and this imagery is not theologically honest, to say nothing of being needlessly terrifying.

God does not "possess" people.  Possessing someone means taking away their ability to make decisions, and if God was going to tamper with our free will, he would have done it already.

"So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God."
Galatians 4:7

God doesn't want to enslave people.  He wants to free them, by giving them perfect things, so that they can be happy.  Therefore, no matter how closely your will may conform to his, he will not possess you.  I really don't know why some modern evangelists seem charmed by this idea.  I find it revolting and blasphemous.

However, unquestionably the worst mistake made over the course of this book is found by reading the whole last chapter; "God's Love in Political Theology."  Mister Kreeft goes out of his way to avoid saying anything specific or useful about politics in this last chapter, and even makes several false assumptions, which show a lapse of understanding in several key areas.

First, he says that neither "the right" nor "the left" is sufficiently upright for God, which, while true, sounds more like a cop-out than anything else, since he doesn't define what he means by "right" and "left."  People?  Ideologies?  Political affiliations?  He also claims that the secret to finding Christian truth in politics is to question our own uprightness; a useful piece of advice in any context, but a big time-waster if you're trying to make a point about politics.  Then he makes the ridiculous claim that "the left" is less truthful and "the right" less loving, and ends the chapter by saying that he doesn't know the answers to several moral conundrums; implying that no such answers are clear or available.  I was furious when I read that.

Supposing that he's referring to "the right" and "the left" in terms of people, then he's wrong about that, since most of those among "the left" shun the very concept of the truth, and fall victim to an onslaught of lies, even when they don't.  And without the truth, there is no love.  I'd now like to quote a very great man of the 20th century on this topic.

"In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness."
Pope John Paul II, "Veritatis Splendor"

In short, love without truth is impossible, because love is honest by its nature.  You can be sentimental without any access or desire for the truth, but you can't be loving.

If he's referring to the political structures, that's even worse.  In that respect, the left is certainly not more loving, just because many left-leaning politicians use compassion as an excuse to cover their rampant lies, propaganda, mass-murder, sexual perversions and utter loathing towards the church and all she teaches, nor do I suspect that anyone who buys into all that leftist tripe about "freedom" and "non-judgmentalism" will pick up your book or leaf through it.  Are you seriously proposing, Mister Kreeft, that the murdering of over fifty million americans is more loving than letting them live?  Are you suggesting that it's not loving to want to save all of those innocent victims, too small to even stand up and speak for themselves?  I dearly hope you're not, especially after having defined "Christian love" so well otherwise.

He goes on to compare "the right" to rock and "the left" to sand, but seems more interested in claiming that one side is too hard, and the other too soft, (in short, that we're all wrong,) to remember what Jesus said about these two types of terrain.

"Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
Matthew 7:24-27

For the record, Mister Kreeft, "the right" and "the left" are not people.  They're political ideologies, and ideologies are just incomplete and poorly-founded philosophies.  Because they're not people, we're not obligated to protect them, defend them or disprove them, and we're certainly under no obligation to give them the benefit of the doubt.  I wonder if you'd make the same claims about Communism; that it has some much-needed softness than decent people lack.  Frankly, I think that all such ideologies, being man-made as they are, deserve no credence from anyone who professes the Catholic faith.

Bishop Sheen referred to this form of "love" as "false compassion;" showing pity to criminals and attackers, more than to victims, and I agree with him.  The new testament tells us repeatedly that we must admonish sinners, and Jesus even gave us a blueprint for it (Matthew 18;15-17,) so in the words of Nike; "Just Do It."

I'd say that "Just Do It" covers a lot of ground with respect to our relations with other religions as well.  Mister Kreeft meanders a bit near the end of the book's last chapter, as if thinking that we need clearer teachings on things like "the death penalty," "war," and other such things.  Perhaps we do need something a little more specific than what we have, but we know that what we do have is the truth.  We don't need to go to Buddhism or eastern mysticism to find out how to deal with these situations.  The Catholic Church has very well-established teachings on all these subjects, and many more, and it's not our job to suggest that they should change them, in the hopes of convincing a few more people to join our worthy cause.

In the words of Mother Theresa; "Faithfulness, not success."  We just have to do what God tells us to, through his one, holy, Catholic, apostolic church; the only church he ever personally founded for the salvation of souls; to which all men are called, and let the chips fall where God wishes.

As you might be able to tell, that final chapter got me really worked up, but I just don't like it when Catholic authors write in such a way that both faithful Catholics and baby-killers can hold it up in their own defense.  It's not constructive, nor really, all that faithful.

However, most of the book is faithful, which is why I gave it such a good overall grade on the Catholic-ometer.  There are slip-ups; bad ones, but don't let them bug you too much.  Just keep the light of truth before your eyes, and your faith will survive the night.

Would I reccomend this book to a budding Catholic who's trying to start off learning the faith.  No.  Would I reccomend it to an experienced Catholic, who knows how to pan truth out from falsehoods, and is looking for a fresh perspective on God's love?  Sure.  I know it did that for me, even if it did tick me off a lot in the process.

The Chronicles of Narnia; the Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I think I've seen every single movie adaptation of C. S. Lewis's Narnia books, with the exception of the one before this; Prince Caspian, since I didn't have much money at the time, and someone had told me it was awful.  I've read the books a number of times, however, so I knew, more or less, what the story was.

Here, I'm afraid that I must make a confession, because I've gotten into some arguments over this with friends and relatives.  As Narnia books go, I didn't really like the Voyage of the Dawn Treader all that much.  Oh, I did LIKE it, but to me, it felt like the most underwhelming of all the books, if only because of its lack of any strong, central villain.  The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, and the Magician's Nephew both had the White Witch; possibly the series most menacing villain, the creature called Tash cast a shadow over both The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle, Miraz was a fair opponent in Prince Caspian, and even the Lady of the Green Kirtle (the series' weakest main villain,) has at least a menacing presence in The Silver Chair.  However, Dawn Treader didn't seem to have a real threat of any sort behind it, and that always sort of bugged me.  Even a meager, or poorly-considered threat might have made it exciting.

Well, the movie, at the very least, props up this weak element from the book, by introducing a major threat; a form of enchanted mist cloud that consumes righteousness, or some such thing.  It is certainly meager and poorly-considered, but it also somewhat evokes "the nothing" from the Neverending Story, though perhaps not on quite the same level.

Most of the other major plot elements from the book are also kept in the movie; the contents of the various islands, the finding of the lords, the rivalry between Reepicheep and Eustace, etc, and they are interesting elements, becoming all the more interesting with a genuine threat hanging over them.  At least, I think they are.

On this one point, I'm in disagreement with someone I care about very much.  As pathetic and ill-considered a particle-effect bad guy as they got for this movie, it's at least a bad guy, and I feel it improved the movie quite a bit, over the somewhat-boring versions of the story that we've seen so far.

In terms of whether this film will help the faith of Catholics, it's difficult to say yes, but it doesn't hurt, attack, or belittle the Catholic faith either.  Narnia has always been a bit more protestant than Catholic, but for me, it's most enjoyable when the distinctions between the two don't even crop up, and I couldn't spot a single one in this movie.

My conclusion is that this is a faith-friendly (though not specifically Catholic) movie, which was astonishing, exciting, and thrilling, and that's what I call a fun little diversion.

Defenders of the Faith in Word and Deed

By Fr. Charles P. Connor

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

History books, for the most part, can be a chore to get through, because they tend to either under-emphasize pivotal aspects of what happened, or over-emphasize minutae, or just outright lie.  Sometimes, they just make the mistake of leaving out key information that would have been helpful in understanding what happened.

Firstly, this book does not make any of those mistakes, which would earn it high marks from me already (anything over a three is high marks in my book.)  It's a book about the lives of many of history's greatest saints, as well as some relatively-recent, and less-known people who did their best to defend the faith, most of whom have not been canonized.

While I read this book, I admit that I found many of its decisions for who to focus on baffling.  It seems to skip right over a tremendous period of history, simply because divisions in the faith were less frequent then.  I could not comprehend how Hilaire Belloc could merit a whole chapter, while Francis of Assisi gets no significant mention (except once, when talking about the franciscans, and even then, only in passing.)  In hindsight, though, this book was clearly meant to cover a broad spectrum of different kinds of service, which people have rendered to the Catholic Church; not to be an exhaustive tome of the history of hagiography.

The book itself is really rather short.  A book this size could be written about any of the people mentioned herein, or what they taught, so explanations and descriptions are, of course, kept brief.  However, Father Conner seems to touch on the most important points of their lives, even if the brevity he uses prevents us from really getting attached to any of them.  Still, I've seen worse approaches in much thicker history tomes.

No, the reason for the half point down on the Catholic-ometer is because I don't feel that Father Conner goes out of his way to express a strictly Catholic perspective on some of the events surrounding the lives of these great people.  A good example is his frequent use of the phrase "the Reformation."  The term, though in wide use in modern, historical circles, was coined by protestants to attempt to legitimize their break from the church.  Calling it "the Reformation" implies that some "reform" took place, which is completely and utterly false.

My reason for not enjoying it as much as, for example, the Life of Christ has something to do with this sort of thing as well, but also with an overall failure to properly outline certain terms relating to doctrine.  In one particular instance, he refers to "change" as being acceptible, without establishing precisely what kind of change he means (a very dangerous mistake to make in these dark times,) and in another, he quotes an evangelist expressing the difficulties in dealing with a modern crowd, but fails to mention how, or even whether he overcame those difficulties.  This could be discouraging to new Christians, who are looking for an effective means of evangelization.  It certainly isn't constructive.

On the whole, though, my main reason for not enjoying this book more is that it really only gives you half the picture.  Births, lifetimes, sufferings and deaths are all well and good.  Our Blessed Lord talked about those a lot as well, but never without also mentioning the glory that awaited at the end of that long, hard road.  The one thing that might just make all such unfulfilling, torturous, spiritually-debilitating suffering worth it.

Now more than ever, we need to keep reminding ourselves of the prize that God offers, because we don't lack examples of suffering in this world.  No matter what, people will always suffer.  The issue is that we're easily-distracted by the things of this life.  More now than ever, since those distractions are so much louder, shinier and more numerous in the 20th and 21st centuries than they ever have been before.  Keeping God's promises in front of our noses, like a carrot before a horse, is absolutely essential to our continued faith and sanity, to say nothing of our souls, and it's a pity that this book takes that tack so infrequently.

Still, when you get right down to it, it's a very strong Catholic book, and a decent introduction to many saints, and other inspiring figures of the distant past (as well as a few recent champions.)  I didn't get much out of it, but I'm a tough audience.  For any other Catholic who wants to learn about the saints, it'd be a good idea to check it out.

Unearthing Your Ten Talents

By Kevin Vost

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I really like this book, because the person writing it is Kevin Vost; a Catholic, an intellectual, a Thomist, and a good writer with a decent (if sometimes hit-or-miss) sense of humor.  He does seem to think that physical fitness has something to do with eternal salvation (I strongly disagree with him on that, and I suspect Saint Thomas Aquinas and Blessed Pope John XXIII would as well,) but in virtually everything else, he's totally on target, and this book actually made it easier for me to understand the parts of the human mind as defined by Thomistic theology, so it assisted me in my own spiritual journey.

Using the parable of the talents that the master gave to his servants in the gospel, Vost compares them to gifts of the spirit and intellect; the gifts of Understanding, Science, Wisdom, Fortitude, Temperance, Justice, Prudence, Faith, Hope and Love.  Of course, when you've read the Summa Theologica, a lot of these descriptions serve mainly to help clarify what Thomas Aquinas meant in the light of our modern circumstances, rather than to really add anything new, and Vost seems to realize this, and accept it, which is just as it should be.  He has my compliments for taking this tack.

Furthermore, Vost chooses not to use the word "love," when "charity" will do; something which I like, since "love" has so many definitions, that it's almost meaningless these days.  I appreciate his consideration of this, and applaud his choice of words.

If there is a problem with this text, it's that it's arranged mainly as a series of lectures, rather than logical discourses and concluses, the way Saint Thomas himself did it, but this approach does give Vost the chance to exercise his sense of humor, which was much more rarely seen in the writings of the Angelic Doctor.

Though there were slight obstructions to my enjoyment of this book, it is generally enjoyable, and very faithful to the teachings of the church, so I say thumbs up.

Why Are You Afraid of Heaven; Part 3; Yourself.

The process of being elevated to paradise involves a radical self-transformation, and many people are afraid that, during that transformation, they might lose some pivotal element of themselves.  This post is intended to address these remaining concerns.


Fear: I'm Afraid that I Wouldn't Be Free to Make Decisions in Heaven.

Answer: Once again, as stated in post 2, Heaven does not effect one's ability to make choices or take actions.  Your nature remains the same, and you know, at all times, what the right thing to do is, but you can still make decisions from time to time.


Fear: I'm Afraid that I Wouldn't Be Powerful, Wise or Rich Enough to be Happy in Heaven.

Answer: Again, since Heaven contains all good things, and perfects everyone, you would be powerful, wise and rich enough in Heaven to be happy.


Fear: I'm Afraid that There Won't Be Adversaries in Heaven, Which Would Make it Boring, Right?

Answer: Heaven contains everything which is good, including all appropriate challenges to bring pleasure and contentment.  These challenges just don't endanger, or cause harm anymore.  Again, a good example is a video game, or simulation, in which one can test their skills, but they have extra lives in case they mess up.


Fear: I'm Afraid that I'd Lose My Identity in Heaven; Becoming Just One Part of Some Cosmic Collective, Without Self-Identity.

Answer: As stated before, God does everything for a purpose.  Therefore, he made human beings for a purpose as well, and he is quite capable of being a perfect collective, without our help.  However, if he were to "assimilate" us; just turning us into tiny little clones of himself, there would be no purpose to that, since it would neither add to nor take away from his perfect union.  Therefore, we will remain distinct and unique individuals, even if we go to Heaven.


Fear: I'm Afraid of Losing My Feelings in Heaven.

Answer: Again, we need to keep in mind these two principles; God does everything for a purpose, and Heaven brings everything to perfection.  This includes our feelings.  We wouldn't lose them, but they would be improved upon, so that instead of being utterly subjective, they would add to our appreciation of the truth, rather than taking away from it.


Fear: I'm Afraid of Losing My Will in Heaven.

Answer: The saints don't eradicate their own will, as some suppose.  Rather, they make decisions, by their will, which conform with God's decisions, and since God's decisions are to work for the best, they also decide to work for the best.  In short, your will would be perfected; not lost.


Fear: I'm Afraid of Losing My Intellect in Heaven.

Answer: The intellect would not be lost, but brought to perfection, just like everything else.


Fear: I'm Afraid of Losing My Physical Appearance or Physical Quirks in Heaven.

Answer: Appearance and physical quirks are another utterly subjective element, which we may identify with in passing on Earth, but like everything else, the appearance of people would be brought to perfection in Heaven.  However, again, since appearance is subjective, its perfection is merely in its conformity to our will.  Therefore, the saints in Heaven look just the way they wish to.


Fear: I'm Afraid of Losing My Memories in Heaven.

Answer: Like everything else, memories would be brought to perfection in Heaven.  This means that the saints see what happened to them in this life with a greater clarity, and an understanding of God's purpose through it all.  However, they don't lose their memories, as such.


Fear: I'm Afraid of Losing My Friends/Relatives in Heaven.

Answer: With the perfection of our intellects, losing track of the people we cared about in life would be impossible, and with perfected emotions, our relationships with them would be far superior to the ones we had on Earth.


Fear: I'm Afraid of Being in Heaven, and Losing My Friends/Relatives in Hell.

Answer: As previously stated, our wills, feelings and intellects would be perfected in Heaven, and we'd have a depth of judgement not possible in this life.  Because of this, if anyone didn't make it to Heaven, we would understand why, and we would see God's condemnation of them as an act of respect for their freedom of choice.  Furthermore, it would be an exercise of God's perfect justice, which we would love more than any human attachment.


Fear: I'm afraid of losing my selfishness/irritability/anger/some other negative character trait.

Answer: Insofar as these traits are capable of bringing about good, or being used in good ways, we would retain perfected versions of them in Heaven.  Our personal distinctiveness, as stated before, would remain; but not the dangerous opportunity of sin.


Fear: I'm afraid I might not make it to Heaven.

Answer: Now you're on the right track.

Why Are You Afraid of Heaven; Part 2; Others.

There are many other people, things and states of being in Heaven, which cause people fear.  This post will deal with those; first angels, then sources of our own happiness, then other human beings.


Fear: I'm Afraid that I Can't Trust the Angels in Heaven.

Answer: Heaven is a state of closeness to God so complete, that everyone and everything exposed to it must become perfect.
"but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."
Revelation 21:27
Therefore, the angels in Heaven are perfect, and can be completely trusted, just as God can be.  The same is true for the saints in Heaven.


Fear: I'm Afraid that Eternity Would Seem Like Being Frozen in Time.

Answer: Being frozen in time means being unable to take any action, but this is not the case with eternal beings, like God and the angels, who can take action.  To learn the nature of eternity, it helps to study the state of God's being.  Although God can act wherever and whenever he pleases, his essential nature does not change.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Hebrews 13:8
Many people neglect the fact that eternity is BIGGER than time, not smaller.  Being in eternity makes it impossible to change the nature of who you are, but it does not forbid you from taking any action.


Fear: I'm Afraid that the Nature of Eternity Would Make Missions, Accomplishments, Adventures, Etc, Impossible, Because Things Need to Progress Forward Through Time if you Want to Experience Any of That.

Answer: Since eternity makes actions possible, but not changes to your fundamental nature, missions, accomplishments and adventures are the very sorts of things that it does not make impossible.  Furthermore, being eternal also means being able to experience every adventure in the world simultaneously, without ever sacrificing your own genuine safety.  A bit like playing a hundred thousand video games at once, without any risk of being overwhelmed.


Fear: I'm Afraid that Heaven Won't Have Animals, Plants, Mountains, Etc...

Answer: Heaven will contain the perfections of everything that was good here on Earth.  Therefore, it will contain not only animals, plants, mountains, etc, but perfect animals, plants and mountains, all perfected by God.


Fear: I'm Afraid that Heaven Will Consist Only of a Bunch of People, Running Around Serving Each Other, and Never Enjoying Anything.

Answer: When one is exposed to absolute perfection, enjoyment of it is guaranteed, no matter what else you happen to be doing.  Therefore, even if we did spend time serving one another in Heaven, it wouldn't lessen our enjoyment, as it does on Earth.


Fear: I'm Afraid that Everyone in Heaven Will Be Boring.

Answer: To be boring means to fall short of perfection in some area, and God's presence in Heaven perfects everyone, as stated above.  Therefore, no on in Heaven will be boring.


Fear: I'm Afraid that Somebody in Heaven Will Have it Out For Me.

Answer: As stated above with the angels, the saints in Heaven are trustworthy.  Therefore, no one in Heaven has it out for you.