The Seven Last Words

By Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I guess I sort of knew what I was getting when I picked this up, because as with "victory over vice" and "the life of Christ," I've seen other books by Bishop Sheen that cover this topic, and do it well.  However, although the words in this book/booklet may offer a few things to think about on the subject, it's nothing I haven't seen before.

I suppose I could comment on how I take some issue with the phrase "co-redemptrix," which Bishop Sheen uses in reference to Mary.  That's not a true doctrine of the church, and was eventually discarded by Pope Benedict, who said that it departed too far from the traditional language of the church, and gave rise to misunderstandings, and I agree with him.  Still, it's a minor point by comparison to my central reason for not really feeling like this book is needed.

I just don't see what this book has to offer that previous books haven't offered.  Bishop Sheen's wisdom is wonderful, of course, but he's written so much; so many other books, covering the same topics, that you can really make do without this one.

Is it a good book overall?  Sure.  Is it a better way to spend your time than watching some Hollywood trash?  You betcha.  Is it important or needed in any way?  Not as far as I can see.  If you've read "the life of Christ," you've basically read this book.

The Hobbit (Novel)

By J. R. R. Tolkien

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Quite a number of five-star ratings have been heaped on this book, and I don't think it's terribly shocking to add mine to the pile.  However, those familiar with my somewhat critical reviews of the Lord of the Rings series may ask why, exactly, I rate the Hobbit higher.  After all, most people in the modern age tend to almost ignore the Hobbit in favor of Tolkien's later trilogy on the war of the ring.  Part of this, of course, can be attributed to the movie version, but what is it about the Hobbit that makes it so special?

I honestly think that the way people ignore the Hobbit may have something to do with its difference in tone from the Lord of the Rings.  The Hobbit contains stronger fantasy elements, such as being attacked by a horde of giant spiders, burned almost to death by a dragon, or having boulders thrown at you by the giants in the mountains, and yet, it treats them all perfectly casually, whereas later books would have felt the need to explain these strange happenings.  The Hobbit only explains things like this when they're unique, even for Middle Earth.  It doesn't take itself as seriously as LOTR did, which actually added to my appreciation of it.

It's a story about a small, peace-loving fellow named Bilbo Baggins, and how he goes on an exciting adventure with the old wizard Gandalf and thirteen dwarves; refugees from the Lonely Mountain, which is now inhabited by the ferocious dragon Smaug.  They have many adventures before, after and during their incursion into the mountain, and Bilbo gets to show his mettle as a burglar, a fighter and a treasure-hunter.  There are tragedies and battles over the course of the book, and eventually, Bilbo becomes more of a man, and receives honor, riches and the suspicion of his friends and neighbors for doing something so "unexpected."

The goblins, the spiders, the elves, the dragon, giants, Beorn, the dwarves and so on and so forth.  It was good, clean fun, and I loved it all.  Men factor into this book, but not nearly as much as in the Lord of the Rings, so by and large, this book is about fantasy in its purest form; fantasy people going on an exciting adventure, learning lessons about themselves and their world, doing incredible things, meeting interesting people, and finding themselves well-rewarded for all their hard work.  It's the essence of the fantasy story.

Even Bilbo's job as a burglar rarely leads him into doing anything questionable.  Yes, he sort of stole the Ring, but Gollum wanted to kill him, so it was his only means of survival.  Defending one's survival is enough of a reason to justify this.  The same can be said of the meals he stole in the elf prison.  The treasure they took from Smaug was really theirs anyway, so it wasn't stealing, as much as taking what was rightfully theirs, and as for the Arkenstone...

The Arkenstone.  That's an aspect of the story I found puzzling.  Bilbo does eventually justify this by ransoming his share of the treasure in exchange for it, so I guess it's just fine morally.  Still, I did find it something of an interesting moral dilemma when I first read this book, which, I guess, just makes the story even better, when you think about it.

I also found the battles exceptionally-good and well-written.  They were described about as well as in later works, but I found them more interesting, on the whole, because of the way the movements and actions of the enemy forces were described.  They're the sort of battles that one can actually picture in their mind.  Not myth-making battles, like the Shelob fight from the Two Towers, perhaps, but certainly very believable ones once the fantasy elements are taken for granted.

It's really hard to write a story about a hired thief who never really does anything morally wrong, and yet, under analysis, the Hobbit seems to be just such a book.  A rare and special type of book indeed.

The Way

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

I had no real expectations going into this film.  I'd heard it was about a father who'd lost his son and went on a journey after that, but those vague descriptions were about all I knew about this movie.  I guess I was afraid it would turn out like "the Father's Tale."  It didn't, but I didn't really enjoy it all that much either.

It's a story where a father loses his son in a freak accident while his son is on a pilgrimage, so the father takes his son's ashes on said pilgrimage, as a way to honor his wishes, I guess.  It's not an enormously-exciting concept, but I have to admit that it could have been done much worse.  However, it could also have been done much better.

On his journey, the father; Tom, runs into a few other pilgrims.  One wants to quit smoking, one wants to lose weight, one is looking for an end to his writer's block... they eventually form a group of merry men, if you will, who continue on the road together, each with their own goals and aims, none of them particularly religious, yet all of them with the gall to go on a religious pilgrimage.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying you need to be a saint to go on a pilgrimage.  What I am saying is that when none of the main characters of your pilgrimage movie have any desire to better their souls in any way, you're asking for trouble.  The group of them complete the pilgrimage, and then just kind of go back to their own lives.  There's a lot of religious imagery in this film, but to me, that counts for precisely jack squat when the meaning and purpose of said imagery is so well-concealed.

If you were very charitable towards this film, you might say that the characters seemed to have a sort of religious experience at the end, and their spiritual lives will probably improve from what they've seen and witnessed, but there's no real proof of that.  If you were really bitter with this movie, you could say that it's just trying to use tried-and-true religious imagery, symbols, names and locations to try to elevate secular humanism to a religious level that it doesn't deserve, but there's no proof of that either.

In the end, though, there's no denying that a lot of religious terms and images were used, and nothing of any real consequence came of it.  That by itself is something of an insult to those of us who actually know what these things mean and cherish them for the truths that they assist us in acquiring and benefitting from.  Am I personally insulted by this movie?  Not really.  Films with no message are too bland to insult me, but they also don't impress me in any way.

I guess you could say that there's one scene where a woman discusses her history with a child that she almost had, and her abortion, and how she dealt with the grief of the awful crime she committed, which could be a pretty awsome scene if it was handled well, but the discussion is over in a minute and a half, and it's never brought up again.  Even when it is brought up, there's no questioning the morality of what was done, just a couple people talking about how they feel.

If you like this film, good for you.  If you don't like it, good for you too.  Me personally, I can't say I particularly belong to either camp, and I think I could sum up my experience with this film with the simple word "meh."

Still, at least it manages itself better than certain books I've read recently.

The Secret World of Arrietty

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I don't review secular movies often, simply because I don't watch them often.  I do have a special place in my heart, however, for Pixar films, and for Studio Ghibli.  The only problem I've really had with most Ghibli films in the past has been their tendency to have plots driven mainly by the occult.

This movie, fortunately, lacks that element of the Miyazaki legacy, though I probably would have enjoyed it anyway.  In fact, in some ways, I think I enjoyed this movie more than any other production ever released by Studio Ghibli, which is high praise indeed.

It's a story about a boy named Shawn, who goes to a small house in the countryside, where he discovers a family of very small people, who survive by taking what they need from the humans they live with; little things that people won't miss.  The tiny people call themselves borrowers, and often refer to the humans as "beans."  The family consists of an old married couple and their teenage daughter Arrietty.

The plot picks up when Arrietty is seen by Shawn, and the two begin a sort of strange friendship, which, unfortunately, can never be, since all borrowers know that to be seen by one human invites the curiosity and greed of the others, a fact which is proven jarringly true for the poor borrower family.

The father of the family is somber, softspoken and savvy.  He's something of an action hero, because he needs to be to take care of his family, getting in and out of kitchens and bedrooms quickly and without anyone seeing him.  He also seems to be a master craftsman in many fields.  His wife is herself very creative and skilled, demonstrating skill in knitting and cooking, though the primary impression that she's likely to leave on viewers is her tendency to worry.

Both Arrietty and Shawn are curious souls seeking to understand and bear life as best they can; figuring out how to get by, one step at a time, like all of us.

Ghibli films have a long history of taking their time and showing the viewers absolutely stunning sights.  Every single Ghibli film is gorgeous to look at, and yet, they tend to be patient affairs as well.  They allow a world of wonder to unfold before the eyes of the viewer; a world with its own problems and trials, like ours, and they take their time in doing it, instead of rushing around in big, flashy musical numbers and telling joke after ridiculous joke.

This film is certainly no exception to that.  None of the characters sing, nor do they tell jokes.  Many of them are introspective and quiet, and yet, the subject matter is such that it's hard to grow impatient with the movie.  I would say that this film is probably slower-paced and less intense than any other Ghibli film, but I actually thought the movie benefitted from its quiet atmosphere, as very tiny people trying hard not to be seen would, naturally, make very little noise.

In the end, though, as I said, the thing I liked most about it was that its premise was something nobody could take issue with.  Witches, magic potions, evil wizards and superpowered crystals could all be troublesome subjects for young children to absorb, but little people in an old house is the kind of fantasy that anyone can get into.  There's even one scene of Arrietty's mother briefly praying for her daughter and husband.  They do technically live by stealing things from humans, but because of their size, nothing they take is really that big of a deal, even according to the catechism of the Catholic Church.  It's a distinction that may need to be made by parents after the film is over, but certainly not a problem with the movie itself.

There are also quite a few good moral messages to be derived from this kind of story.  "A person's a person, no matter how small," "sometimes, even the smallest person can make the biggest difference," and even a message about how the power of goodness (in this case, courage,) can be made most perfect in weakness.  However, the film isn't perfect, and most of that, I suspect, has to do with the dubbing.  A few of the lines feel overly-familiar and almost cookie-cuttered in, and Shawn's voice could have stood to gain a few octaves.  He sounded like he was in his late 20s.

Still, I recommend this movie heartily to anyone who has a child or is still a child at heart; still willing to dream of other worlds beyond our own, which is really the point of most Ghibli features when you get down to it.  They do just what I want a film to do, elevating our minds to other possibilities and other worlds.  This one manages to make even a normal world look alien and strange, and thus maintain its strong level of interest for the child in all of us.  Most especially, I recommend this movie to those who, like myself, are religious and seeking a quieter, calmer alternative to the American "entertainment" of today.

The Adventures of Tintin

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

Let me start this off by leveling with you.  I don't come at this movie from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the franchise.  You see, I've read virtually all of the Tintin comics, though I never saw the animated series.  I know these characters and what they're all about.

Fortunately, fans of the comics won't need to suffer the disappointment of character derailment in this movie.  Every last character is spot-on.  Tintin, Snowy, Captain Haddock, Thompson & Thompson...  It's all there.  If you read and enjoyed the comics, you'll find much of what you enjoyed in this film as well.

I say "much," because while a certain amount of excitement was also common in the comics, they were largely mystery-based, rather than action, and this film has very strong and almost-constant action and suspense elements to it, though its penchant for mystery, treasure-hunting and adventure remain as strong as in the comics it was based on.

However, now it's time for the fanboy in me to take a back seat and explain some of what this film is actually about for those not familiar with the character of Tintin (who, it must be admitted, is something of a niche character outside of Europe.)

Tintin, a young reporter and seeker of secrets and stories, buys a model ship in the marketplace one day, while he's out for a walk.  Immediately, two men try to buy it off him, but he doesn't sell, because he realizes something must be up with it.  A series of accidents, investigations and crimes lead him to uncover an old poem which seems to promise a great treasure to those who can unlock the secret of "the three unicorns sailing in company."

However, Tintin and his friends will need to fight for their lives, because another man; Saccharine is looking for the same treasure, and that's not all he's looking for.  He's willing to stop at nothing to get what he wants, even if it involves kidnapping, torture, thievery and murder.  Tintin is fast action, high adventure and a thrilling mystery all rolled into one.

Now, specifically to those who've tried to claim that Tintin rips off Indiana Jones.  It would be more likely that the reverse was true, since Tintin comics were published from 1929 to 1976, and Raiders of the Lost Ark wasn't released until 1981.  However, it's almost universally recognized that what Indy really rips off is Allan Quatermain, so I won't make that claim.  Needless to say, if you think this film is a ripoff of Indy, you're simply wrong, and that's all there is to it.

What this film is, is simply fun.  Good, clean fun with some nice action sequences and several very good chase scenes.  It's a well-done ride, and as icing on the cake, a bit of Catholic history comes up at one point during the movie.

Herge himself (the comic's author) was Catholic, and writing for a Catholic publication, which only elevates my respect for the series, as you might imagine.  It's a great series, and a very good movie as well, and I think the main reason is that Stephen Speilburg and Peter Jackson seem to have realized that they just shouldn't mess with what obviously works.  Kudos to them for understanding this, and for their faithfulness to the source material.

I recommend this movie to anyone looking for good, clean fun, or anyone who likes a nice, hair-raising adventure.  There's guns and alcohol in it, but it's all treated appropriately, I think.  I don't even think kids would have too many problems with this movie, to be honest.  I know I didn't, and I hope many other Tintin fans will get as much out of it as I did.

Victory Over Vice

by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I'm a tremendous fan of Bishop Sheen's work, and I love the way he spoke and wrote.  I knew I was going to like this book from the get-go.  However, to be perfectly honest, out of all the books by Fulton J. Sheen that I've read, this is probably the weakest.  By no means, however, does that make it bad.

He outlines, in this book, the various vices of Catholic tradition, and how each corresponds to the different "words from the cross;" an interesting subject of discussion, a good talking-point, and a subject on which to reflect.  However, to be honest, I actually thought that his words on the subject of each vice had more to do with the words from the cross than they did with the vices, and I've already seen him treat of that subject (better, I think) in "the Life of Christ."

That's not enough for a star down, exactly, or even a half-star down, but I needed to take points off somewhere, because I found Bishop Sheen overgeneralizing on some of the topics he brings up in this book.  For example, he says in his chapter on Gluttony, "reason demands that food and drink be taken for the necessities and conveniences of nature."  This, I think, is much too broad a statement, and it can simply be misinterpreted much too easily.

I think Bishop Sheen assumes that if you're picking up this book, then that means you're already well-formed in your conscience, and are looking for a little bit of encouragement, but it's certainly possible for people to misinterpret and misunderstand what's said herein.  In fact, I could probably write a whole book myself on how to correct such misinterpretations.

Still, for the most part, the book accomplishes its objective; not outlining specific theological truths or ethical doctrines, but drawing our attention back to our own sins and imperfections, to give us the chance to correct them.  I personally prefer to dwell on the virtues, rather than the sins, but I can understand how some people would have an easier time focusing on their sins than on their virtues.

On the whole, I enjoyed this book, and was pleased with many of its insights, and many of its quotable sayings.  For example "one thief was saved.  Let no one despair.  One theif was lost.  Let no one presume."

I reccomend this book to the audience that Sheen probably intended; those who are already fairly strong in their faith, and just need a little push to remind them of how far they still have to go to achieve perfect holiness.

Absolute Relativism

by Chris Stefanick

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

Relativism is the bain of rational thought.  Every time; in the modern western world, that rational thought is suppressed, you can be sure some form of relativism was behind it, and this sixty-page, very short book explains why from several angles.  Here is the reason why Christianity is a better environment for clear thinking that relativism.  Here is why relativism crushes more freedoms and belief systems than any other method of thinking.  Chris Stefanick's explanations of these difficult truths are well-researched, and for the most part, right on target.  He doesn't mince words or mess around, nor ask readers to bear with him until he's already said enough on topic to earn their trust, which is a plus.  Mastery of the topic at hand is key when writing a nonfiction book like this one.

However, I can't give it a perfect grade, because at about the book's midpoint, Mr. Stefanick begins using questionable phrases to describe certain things.  For example, on page 31, he says that in addition to challenging people, Jesus also "accepted people as they were."

This alone would earn a half-star down in my book.  "Accept you as you are" is an -exceedingly- loaded phrase in the modern world.  It means essentially "being perfectly satisfied with person X, to the point of believing they're perfect, or at least, wanting nothing further out of them, and certainly never asking them to change anything about themselves or their actions."  None of this applies to Jesus in the least.  He was very clear and direct about all human beings being sinners and needing repentance and humility to get back into any kind of decent relationship with God.  He also says that Jesus welcomed all sorts of people back, regardless of their sin, but the thing is; the sin wasn't the point.  Jesus welcomed people back, not on the basis of their sin, but on the basis of their penitence.  In other words, in order to be "accepted" by Jesus, we need to be sincerely sorry for our sins.

There are a few other historical and theological missteps, but the only other serious one is this; making light of the importance of being Catholic, and implying that other religions, in their way, can "lead others to God."

Sure, people sincerely trying to follow the tenets of a religion turn their thoughts to God, and maybe, if they knew that the Catholic Church was right, they'd join in a heartbeat, but that doesn't mean that the religion itself (the Baptist religion, for example) lead them to God.  It encouraged them to go a certain distance, perhaps, but...

I don't know.  I'd have been a bit clearer about what it means to "lead" or at least mentioned once in this book that only Catholicism is completely right and can lead you all the way, but maybe I'm just nitpicking.

There were bumps in this particular road sign, but on the whole, I enjoyed it, and I thought it covered the subject very well.  If you don't have much time or cash, and want to understand the subject a little better, you might do well to pick up a copy.  I was pleased with it, and I'll readily admit to being a very tough audience.