Saint Philip Neri: I Prefer Heaven

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

It's strange.  When I finished watching this movie for the first time, I remember really enjoying it, but having had some time to think it over, I realize that this movie really has nothing that Bakhita didn't have, and, in fact, is just a tad bit worse in some areas.

This movie is made by the same director who did Bakhita and St. Giuseppe Moscatti, and I can't say I'm surprised.  Those films, like this one, were largely sensational pieces intended to amuse, but contained little or nothing that resembled the lives of the real people they were named after.  This film claims to be about Saint Philip Neri, and as usual, it has nothing to do with him.

St. Philip Neri was a very holy man who, at first, wanted to go to India as a missionary, but eventually decided to stay in Rome, where he started a secular club of sorts for educated Catholics who wanted to learn about God.  It had fairly lenient regulations, and he himself was a joyful man who believed that everyone else should strive for joy as well; particularly in prayer and worship.

Regrettably, he's not the star of this movie.

What we have, instead, is a very holy man who, at first, wanted to go to India as a missionary, but no positions were open, so he had to stay in Rome.  There, he runs into a gang of kids and spends some time caring for them and trying to raise them right.  Hijinks and misadventures ensue with the children, before and after reaching adulthood, and most of the story centers around them.  What little has to do with the film's title character is either wrapped up in his relationships with the kids, or in charity work with the poor and destitute, as though he were Mother Theresa, or in warding off a militant cardinal of the church who manages to sick two popes on him.  He then needs to satisfy both of them somehow to keep everything running.

Neri has something of a catchphrase throughout this movie "be good, if you can."  As far as I can tell, this disgusting catchphrase was never attributed to him, and shouldn't have been allowed to pass through the dark depths of the pen used by whoever wrote this movie.  It's one of the worst things about this film.

Another of the worst things about the movie is, as I've said, the repeated use of the church hierarchy as the villains.  It'd be one thing if it actually happened that way, but I've never read anything that would indicate that.  I won't say that higher-ups within the church never abuse their power.  Living in a place like the US, where organized protests against rampant evil on the part of the nation's cardinals and bishops are so rare, I wouldn't even think of making a claim like that, but it's a lack of devotion to church teaching, not an overabundance of it, that's the problem here.

Thirdly, the children dominate far too much of the movie.  This movie shouldn't be about them; particularly since Neri hardly ever worked with people under 30 in real life.  One of them (the girl Ippolita) also has a questionable neckline as an adult, which, in that time period, would have gotten her mistaken for a prostitute, and, in fact, does get her mistaken for one at least once in the film, if I remember correctly.

Now for the film's strengths.  Like previous movies by this director, it's a strongly-written story with a heartwarming conclusion and endearing characters.  If the real Saint Philip Neri had never existed, I'd have given it an A-.

The music of the movie centers largely around the main piece; "I prefer Heaven," which, while simple, is easy to remember and catchy, and I'm been humming it off and on since I finished watching the film.  Most of the other pieces of music in the film are built around the same basic tune as the main theme, which is a bold move to make, but is used to great effect.  Some of the costumes were impressive, while others, in my mind, were less impressive.  It's not as strong as Bakhita in that respect.

Still, I honestly found that it made more enjoyable viewing than Bakhita, for a number of reasons, really, mainly to do with the quality of the characters invented for the piece, and the hard work of the actors involved; depicting their roles so well.

However, there's one last thing that I just can't get past with this movie.  It was less evident in Bakhita, and more in this production, but really, visible in both.  There's an unhealthy notion in the modern world that the role of those in the church is largely to help the sick and needy with their bodily needs, and then mostly get out of the way when big wrongs need to be righted, or when anything needs to be said about morality.  While Bakhita was shown caring for the sick, and rarely said a proactive word about morality, this movie goes out of its way to paint its main character as just as much of a hospice-runner as Mother Theresa, but without all those "offensive" viewpoints that condemn the popular views of the world as "evil," "reprehensible" and "sinful."  I find that kind of bias on the part of a filmmaker to be the really offensive thing.

The fact that I had a good time in spite of all that is a strong testimony in favor of this film.  However, whether you want to watch it or not is really up to you.  There was a movie based on the life of Saint John Bosco, which did basically everything this film did, except that it was about a person who really did do some of these things, and it didn't try to paint him as weak-willed or morally-silent.

At the end of the day, I simply have to say that this is a very good movie, but not very good for Catholics.  Judging it just based on the strength of its characters and story, it was excellent.  Judging it on its faithfulness to the church produces a less-favorable result.  Let's just hope this director can get his act together for whatever he decides to do next.  I did have fun watching it, but I don't want to see any more good, decent people misrepresented or lied about.  That always puts a damper on my mood.

Blessed Duns Scotus

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

For those who don't know, Duns Scotus was a Franciscan theologian, who argued for the immaculate conception of Mary; eventually overcoming the intellectual difficulties which had once prevented even Saint Thomas Aquinas from acknowledging the notion.  This eventually became a doctrine of the Catholic Church; an everlasting testament to the success of this great man.

However, historically, Scotus is know primarily for his accomplishments in theology.  Little is known about his friends, his feelings, his motives (apart from holiness,) and so forth.  Because of this, I was expecting a rather dry movie about theological truths, but at the very least, something different from the norm.

However, what I got instead was a sort of midway point between what I was expecting (and hoping) to get, and your average, run-of-the-mill studio flick.  There are things this movie does, which it shouldn't.  Regardless, I think I should talk about the good parts first, before moving on to the bad.

The costumes in this movie are excellent, for what they're intended to depict, and much of the acting is very good as well, though I thought the main lead was a bit too melodramatic; particularly when the situation didn't call for it.  It's a minor gripe at best, though.

The scenery is a little lackluster.  It seems that they had an abbey and a countryside to film in, and that's just what they did.  Still, the story doesn't call for much else, and I was never expecting the film to dazzle me with its visual panoramas.

Much of Scotus' theology is faithfully depicted in this movie, just as I was hoping it would be.  However, there's one scene where, rather than discussing things like formal distinction or haecceity, he talks about "the eucharist being for the purpose of uniting everything."  I'm not convinced that he would ever say it as imprecisely as this.  The Eucharist is for the purpose of uniting people to God, not to one another, and certainly not to the world.  Still, again, a minor gripe.

The one thing that I don't consider minor, and the one thing that I refuse to let pass is the truly awful subplot about a seminarian who learns theology under Scotus, leaves the seminary to get married to a flower girl, and is encouraged in this by Scotus using, it must be admitted, no coherent reasoning at all.  Stupid, empty-headed romances pop up like daffodils in the modern moviescape, it seems, and no film featuring such will ever get a perfect score from me.

This movie tries to stuff a romance into a story about a great theologian, but it's a very badly-written romance, so it won't really appeal to the romantic.  It tries to depict a debate on theology, but you have to get to that debate by skipping over a horrible romance subplot, so theology students would be better served by just reading a book.

I want to give this movie a good grade, because at least 75% of it is spent discussing theology and holiness, and that's a rare thing these days.  Still, I need to acknowledge its failings as well.  This movie wasn't terrible, but it could and should have been better than it was.

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.