Purgatory Thoughts

Thursday night I went to the first of six classes at our church on our faith. The topic of last night's class was salvation... an overview of heaven, hell, purgatory and the tenets of our faith from which our beliefs on those areas were devised.

Simply speaking, heaven is eternity in the presence of God. Very few people, saints mainly, would die and have a soul worthy and purified enough to enter the presence of God immediately.

Hell is a place, the only place in the universe, where God is not present. It is for people who, even to their last breath, refuse to believe and glorify God. Therefore, they are sent to Hell, where they will spend eternity outside the presence of God. The sad part about that is, even if, once arriving in Hell, they were to plead for God's mercy, he would not be able to hear them.

Purgatory was discussed briefly as well and what was interesting to me was that it is there so that we may be purified to the point where we are able to move into the presence of God. More importantly, it is not only where our sins are cleansed from us, but our attraction to those sins as well. I had never thought about that before... our attraction to sins being a separate thing than the sin itself. But, obviously, in some way we are attracted to some sins more than others because we often repeat some sins throughout our life. Even though we go to Reconciliation, we are still attracted, for some reason, to those sins. And, in our weakness, we sin the same sins again.

So, the idea of not only removing our sins, but our roots of our attraction toward those sins was a new concept for me.

I'm looking forward to the rest of the classes. The Catholic faith is an immense subject to comprehend and incorporate into your life. I'm sure it will take more than six classes... more like a lifetime, to understand it all.

Watch On The Rhine (1943)

Watch on the Rhine came out in 1943 is an example of Hollywood promoting the pro-American, anti-fascist agenda to combat the war against the Nazis. The film, based on the play by Lillian Hellman, stars Bette Davis as Sara Muller, the daughter of a wealthy Washington, DC family. Sara is married to Kurt Muller, played by Paul Lukas, and that marriage brought Sara to Kurt's home nation of Germany in the late 1920's. Over the years, they saw the spread of fascism and, along with their three children, had become leaders of an underground resistance in Europe against fascist forces.

After many years in hiding and on the run, Sara decides to return home so that Kurt can recover from injuries he suffered and for which have not completely healed. Their entrance into the high-society world of Sara's home is a shock to the family, especially her patriarchal mother. Soon, things get even more hectic when a friend of the family is actually working with the Nazis and threatens to expose Muller.

The screenplay is overly talky, which is understandable considering it was based on a play and for era in which the film was made. It is often overly melodramatic and almost schizophrenic in structure... the first half of the film is the high society family awaiting the arrival of their daughter while the second half quickly becomes an anti-fascism film once Bette Davis' character, family in tow, enter the house and brings their burdens, history and passions with them.

Despite all of this, the film is quite satisfying in many ways. Especially in today's climate... and probably any decade since Vietnam, it is refreshing to see a pro-American film that understands sacrifice and that America is good and based on wholesome ideals and that the U.S. is willing to do what is right over what is popular.

Today, where every opinion seems to be given equal weight, it is almost impossible for anyone to openly make a film that says "America Rocks and if you don't like it you can kiss our Patriotic booties." In Watch on the Rhine, you get a real sense of the differences and sheltered existence many American's had to the struggles of our European ancestors. The films own schizophrenic design illuminates these differences to great effect.

Now, instead of sheltering ourselves in excess and ignorance, we shelter ourselves with ideological or political viewpoints, so that the idea of "a truth" is almost impossible to define. Watch on the Rhine does not have such issues, it knows who is right and who is wrong, who are good and who are evil, and it attacks that evil with all of its creative force.

Double Indemnity (1944)

Being a child of the 1970s, I grew up watching re-runs of My Three Sons with Fred MacMurray and The Big Valley starring Barbara Stanwyck. Little did I know then that those two actors were in one of the quintessential film noir movies of the 1940's... Double Indemnity.

Double Indemnity, based on the novel by James Cain and written for the screen and directed by Billy Wilder, follows the standard film noir structure... a cold, calculating beauty manipulates an unsuspecting, lonely man to kill on her behalf, only to betray him at the end. This formula has been used numerous times since, including Body Heat with William Hurt and Kathleen Turner and The Last Seduction with Linda Fiorentino and Peter Berg.

In Double Indemnity, MacMurray plays 30's bachelor and insurance salesman Walter Neff and Stanwyck portrays the platinum blonde beauty Phyllis Dietrichson, who wants to take out an accidental death policy on her husband without his knowledge. She eventually convinces Neff to follow along as they slowly fall in love, to the point where Neff takes it one step further and devises a plan to execute the policy in a way that doubles the value of the payout... i.e. double indemnity.

Edward G. Robinson plays Neff's friend and insurance investigator, Barton Keyes. The more Keyes checks into the policy, the more the fingers point back toward Neff. The story does an excellent job of weaving the plot in one direction, then another. Once you think Neff has had it or Dietrichson will be found out, the story brings up another fact that twists it all around.

Double Indemnity is one of THE film noir classics and is one of the best examples of a genre that is all but lost on us today.

We Don't Know...

I've just finished a re-write of a 60 second pro-life commercial called We Don't Know What We're Missing. I hope to shoot it using local parish children. I'll keep you informed of our progress.

The Graduate (1967)

There are a lot of cinematically historic films that I’ve never seen… movies I know I should see, but just haven’t yet. You hear about these classic films so much, you’ve seen clips and scenes and hear quotes from them, but can never attach them to any actual moment in your life. It’s weird. Some of the movies I should have seen by now, but haven’t yet include Ben Hur (except the chariot race sequence), The Godfather trilogy and Raging Bull. There are plenty other classics I haven't seen yet... hec, it took me years to finally see Casablanca and today I finally got around to watching The Graduate.

The Graduate, of course, is a story about a college graduate, played by Dustin Hoffman, who is unsure of how to approach his future and ends up having an affair with his father’s partner’s wife, played by Anne Bancroft. Things get complicated when Hoffman falls in love with Bancroft’s daughter, played by Katharine Ross.

A couple of things came to mind as I watched this Mike Nichols’ directed classic…

First, the 1983 Tom Cruise film Risky Business has a lot in common with The Graduate. Cruise and Hoffman both play successful students of well-to-do families who are suddenly unsure of their future, questioning their given path for the first time in their lives.

In the 1967 The Graduate, it shows Hoffman obeying every one of the adults he comes in contact with, but not understanding any of the reasons behind their decisions. He reluctantly follows because he doesn’t have a direction of his own. It is a perfect reflection of the generation gap that most young people in the sixties were facing.

In the 1983 Risky Business, Cruise’s character responds to his suddenly rudderless existence by experimenting in excess, falling in love with a call girl, becoming a pimp and making a lot of money. This is a perfect reflection of the eighties, where the motto “greed is good,” as Michael Douglas said in Wall Street, was the culture at the time. When it doubt, indulge.

Cruise and Hoffman’s characters are basically the same people, they simply react to the unknown by the forces driving their culture at the time.

Second, this film, for the first time, made me understand, to some extent, where the children of the sixties were coming from. It seemed as if the heyday of post-World War II had created a level of abundance and a strong middle class. This middle class followed the societal rules of the 30’s and 40’s, with the old fashioned roles of men and women, of cocktails after work and of cookouts on the weekends.

By the sixties, it looks as if all of those buildings of the 40’s and 50’s were in need of repair and the people, who have lived in abundance, had lost the meaning behind their roles in society… as if they were shallow examples of what they once were. The middle classes shown in the film resembled people at dawn, at the end of an all night party… they’re still dressed nice, but look tired and hollow. So, these middle class children grow up following their parents’ examples, but don’t see the sacrifice that created it. They just see the abundance and the materialism and shallowness of their parents and wonder… if that’s the end result of following the rules, then maybe the rules need to be revisited.

At least, that’s what I got out of the film. Hoffman’s performance is wonderful as he is basically invisible, just another cog in the societal machinery, taken advantage of by Bancroft’s Mrs. Robinson and being pushed toward graduate school by his parents… it’s only when he finds love in Katharine Ross that his life finally gets direction, a purpose and he follows that drive at the risk of alienating everyone.

I can see why this film was such a touchstone for that generation. It’s a wonderful portrayal of the clashing of generations in a very effective way.

I know I should have seen The Graduate much sooner than this, but, in a way, I’m glad I didn’t. Otherwise, I don’t think I would have appreciated it as much.

Six Months, Six Days

In order to get the writing side of my brain working again, I started this blog and promised myself that I would write an entry everyday for one year.

Well, I'm just over the halfway point.

I don't know if I'll continue this after a year is up, but I am surprised at how quickly six months and six days has come and gone.

Friends For Life

I came across this wonderful 8 minute video about two friends. It is really touching. If you have a few minutes today, check it out.

You can reach the video at Media Storm by clicking HERE.

Dot Dot... Dot Dash Dot Dot...

I've known my parents my entire 40 years on this planet. I've heard most of the stories of their childhoods and pranks and falling in love and putting up with us.

But, while having dinner with my parents the other night I learned something new. My father was a radio operator in the Navy during World War II. He was excellent at morse code and had taught my mother how to morse code "I Love You."

On their wedding day, while kneeling at the altar during the ceremony, my father grabbed my mother's hand and squeezed it repeatedly, telling her I Love You in morse code.

What a sweet image. He's probably the reason I'm such a sap.

Great Patriotic Commercial

Came across this link to a GREAT commercial on the men and women in Iraq and the accomplishments they are achieving over there.

You can see the commericial HERE.

Used to be that Hollywood put out commercials like this during WW2. Now, it appears, the top Democratic leaders in Minnesota demanded television stations in the state stop airing the initial ad, calling it "un-American, untruthful and a lie,"

Watch the commercial and tell me if you think its un-American.

Loose Change (2006)

Loose Change is an interesting consipracy-theory documentary on some inconsistencies of the eye-witness reports and physical evidence that contradict the official government version of the tragic events on September 11, 2001.

I came across this film from the blog of another filmmaker, Amit Tripuraneni. The documentary, created by Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, contends that:

1) The planes flying into the Trade Center were potentially cargo planes fitted with missles.
2) That the Trade Centers fell due to other explosives, not due to the fires created by the plane crash.
3) That a missle, not a plane, created the destruction at the Pentagon.
4) Insinuates the Flight 93 was shot down.
5) That the phone calls from passengers and flight attendants on the planes were faked.
6) And that this was all orchestrated by the evil Bush administration.

Sounds pretty outrageous, but I'll give the filmmakers credit... they do make some compelling arguments on some fronts, yet throw darts blindly on others.

Here's the problem in a post-Michael Moore era... why should I believe any documentary anymore? Michael Moore is a self-loathing liar who manipulates the truth... not to represent reality, but to represent his version of reality. Granted, every documentary has a purpose, an angle to shed light on one possible explanation of an event or issue, but Michael Moore continues to re-write recorded history to fit his own pathetic vision of the U.S. He edits together non-linked speeches as if they were one speech, one thought process, to the same audience. Or, he simply stops showing a speech when it no longer represents his warped version of the speech itself. He bashes Haliburton when he, himself, owns stock in it. Okay, he'll say he doesn't, but his company does and of which he and his wife are the only share holders. For a man who feels he can link Bush to falsely waging a war on terror, I'm surprised that he publically denies this and can't make the link between his shares in Haliburton and his bank account.

The point is, Moore has pretty much screwed it up for everyone else. Including Loose Change. I'm not saying that Loose Change is wrong or lying, I'm simply saying "prove it." They quote sources, but why should I believe that one report on an internet site is accurate? They state it as such, but after Moore, you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical. They show pictures of the suspected hijackers, as proposed by the government, and state that nine of them are still alive. Okay, prove it? Show me a video of them alive and well after 9/11. Or, maybe the list of hijackers they showed had since been updated by the government. But, we don't know.

They also quote many eye witness accounts that refute certain government claims. Again, I kept asking myself, why should I believe them? Can't the government give me a thousand others that don't refute their version?

I hear people try to discredit the Gospels in the Bible because the facts don't match up. But, now I'm supposed to add credence to people's accounts because they don't match up? Pick your poison, I guess.

All that being said, Loose Change is worthy of viewing because it asks good questions. I recommend ignoring most of their answers, but some of their questions and analysis should require governmental clarification and/or explanation.

I personally find the idea of the U.S. Government behind the 9/11 attack ludicrous. Beyond the obvious leap of faith one has to make to believe such an assertion, it's difficult to believe that an administration that had been in office only a few months could have orchestrated such an event. And to what end? To bomb Afghanistan? To invade Iraq? To enter a state of war where the rules of government change? Please. The government can't run the public schools effectively. They can pull off this? Ahhh... right!

However, I found it very plausible that the inconsistencies in their documentary do not point to a Bush conspiracy, but could very well show that the terrorists used methods the government does not want us to know, for whatever reason. And that intrigues me.

I do find the questions about additional detonations in the tower, the analysis of the pentagon impact and the potential reason for Flight 93's crash all intruiging arguments. Especially the pentagon crash... something is fishy there. Even some of the cellphone conversations with passengers and flight attendants are very strange... but then again, you never know what you'd say or how you'd say it in situations such as those.

As I said, I think it is compelling in the sense that it may offer light into the different ways the terrorists actually implemented 9/11 attacks, but I don't buy the connection to the government.

In their true consipracy-theory approach, and where the film struggles most, is that the authors seem to expect every event in a very chaotic and unpredictable atmosphere to have a linear connection, when life just doesn't work that way. Sometimes things as vaguely connected as a butterfly flapping it's wings in Africa can effect weather patterns in the U.S. (this is actually true).

In the end, I don't think the authors' overall conclusions are accurate, but certainly some of their questions bear further investigation.

You can check out the documentary online for free at Google Video and judge for yourself.

My Future Is Waffles

My family and I had dinner with my parents the night before they headed back to their house in North Carolina. While eating dinner, I saw the future of my own life. The older I get the more I realize that I will become like my parents whether I like it or not. So, as I watched my 82 year old father converse with my almost-80 year old mother, I knew it was only a preview of coming atractions with my wife.

It's not word for word, but the conversation went something like this...

******************

DAD: What was that thing?

MOM: What thing?

DAD: You know.

MOM: No, I don't.

DAD: Yes you do.

MOM: What are you talking about?

DAD: What was that thing I like?

MOM: I don't know.

DAD: Yes you do!

MOM: I don't know what you're talking about.

DAD: When we... the thing... you know!

MOM: No, I don't.

DAD: You know, we get it whenever we stop.

MOM: Stop where?

DAD: When we're driving.

MOM: I don't know.

DAD: We had it the other day.

MOM: We had what?

DAD: The thing I like.

MOM: When?

DAD: When we stopped. We have it whenever we stop driving.

MOM: To eat?

DAD: Yes. What was it?

MOM: Waffles?

DAD: Yes! That's it! Waffles. But what was it?

MOM: Blueberry waffles.

DAD: Right!

MOM: With whipped cream around it.

DAD: It is so good.

MOM: We ate it at the Waffle House.

DAD: Right. Do they have that here?

MOM: No, we're at Ruby Tuesdays.

DAD: It was delicious. The kids would love it.

MOM: But whenever we stop at the Waffle House you ask for pancakes.

DAD: I know.

MOM: And I always have to tell you they don't serve pancakes at a Waffle House.

DAD: I know. (thinks for a moment) What did I like?

MOM: Their blueberry waffles.

DAD: Right.

MOM: With whipped cream.

DAD: Right, it sure was good. The kids would love it.

They pause for a moment. My Dad looks up to my Mom.

DAD: I sure hate it when you can't remember anything.

********************

And THAT is my future. Guaranteed. I'll have a five minute conversation about blueberry waffles. It's my destiny.

Shiavo Thoughts Revisited

In a previous post I noted how many of us who attend Espiritu Santo Catholic Church were upset that our Pastor married Michael Shiavo to his new wife. Many of us have since had discussions with fellow parishioners and our feelings of disapproval to the marriage are certainly not felt by many others.

So, I think there needs to be some clarification to my/our disapproval.

I have no issue with Michaell Shiavo wanting to get married, asking to get married and being allowed to be married, per se, because that is none of my business.

What I do have issue with, however, is the apparent way in which the church seemed to ignore it's own beliefs in order to facilitate his request.

If the church truly believes that life exists from conception to natural death, and that anything else, from abortion to euthanasia, would be considered murder, then under that scenario, Terry Shiavo, having been starved to death, was thereby murdered under the church's pro-life stance.

And since Michael Shiavo was the driving force behind her starvation and eventual death, he would have then murdered his wife.

Under Canon Law, without dispensation from the Pope, a man cannot marry in the church if he murdered his wife in order to marry another woman.

And that's the issue. And all Catholics should be upset about that.

Michael Shiavo, like the rest of us, can ask the church to do anything we want. The church, however, should only take action that are in line with it's core beliefs. If not, then what's the point? Doesn't that make Catholicism a theological buffet that we can pick and choose what we want to follow?

I'm pretty sure the Pope would not agree with that outcome. And that's why we are at a loss as to how such a marriage could be allowed by our Pastor and our Bishop.

And that's the issue in a nutshell. So, get your wills in order, make sure your feelings about whether or not you want feeding tubes or extra effort to keep you alive is written down and notarized.

Because this is a real tragedy on both sides. And we should make sure our spouses and our parents are not faced with making such gut-wrenching decisions because we did not take the time to clarify our own preferences in a living will.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to pull up my new Will program on my computer and get to typing...