Written on 8:11 PM by Jack B.
I went to an 11am showing today - the theater was 3/4 packed on a Friday Morning (and it was the second show of the day) so that says something about how big this is going to be. All those glowing reviews for this movie are right on, this is one movie that's actually much BETTER than the trailers for it. So here's my review, complete with spoilers (complete with one big twist at the end that I didn't see coming but in retrospect was completely obvious). If you hate that kind of thing turn away when you come to that part...
First of all let me begin by saying that in my opinion
Batman Begins is now the
best movie adaption of a comic book
EVER (and I'm counting
Spiderman I and
Superman I). Warner Brothers should sign Chris Nolan and David Goyer to an eight picture deal because they more perfectly get Batman than any "Hollywood" type I've ever seen. The script was tight and fluid with no unnecessary exposition and no glaring plotholes.
I loved how things fans nitpicked like the cowl (which turned out to be too stiff and defective) and the Batmobile (which needed to be Tank-like to get out of those jams) were directly addressed. Now on the that big twist, turn away if you don't want to be spoiled...Okay, everybody else still there?....Well then let's just say that even those fans who thought Liam Neeson would have made a better Ra's than Ken Watanabe got their noses tweaked (and that's all I'm going to say about that). The killing of the DA opens the way for Harvey Dent in the second film (and Two-Face in a third). The Joe Chill reference automatically places the film out of the Burton/Schumacher universe (and it makes even Burton's films look like cartoons by comparison). Its as if Nolan and Goyer knew exactly what complaints people would have and got them out of the way.
The absolute best thing about this movie though is that its about Bruce Wayne and not "Batman". In the first 4 films we had 3 different actors play Batman and didn't matter because all that mattered was if he had a square chin. Bruce Wayne the man didn't matter. Here the opposite is true, we see Bruce more than Batman. We understand what drives him and the script's focus on the twin forces of "fear" and "justice" drove it home, as does Bruce's discovered love for being a Wayne and what that represents (in the end he decides to rebuild the burnt down Wayne Manor exactly the way it was after spending most of the movie not caring about his Wayne legacy) and as what Falcone jeeringly called "the Prince of Gotham" - we see this is
his city and what he'll do to protect it. Also, the stressing of Bruce's parents especially Thomas Wayne, of their example and the imprint on Bruce and on Gotham was better done then even in the comics. We can see why he spends every waking minute trying to prevent other people from losing what he had.
Now on to the acting - Bale was great. All those who wanted him for Batman were exactly right. The brown hair threw me off at first but it was easy to see him as Bruce Wayne, playboy (and even the younger Bruce since he still has a boyish face) but I knew,
I KNEW, he was Batman in the scene when the crooked cop (Gordon's partner) is bunjeed up to the rooftop and the angry sinister voice that Batman makes wanting answers (so unlike Bale's Bruce) is
EXACTLY what I think Batman would sound like if he was speaking to the criminals of Gotham. Gary Oldman has once again proven why he is one of the best movie actors in the world today - the man who has made a career out of playing nuts, criminals and homicidal maniacs was pitch perfect as the most honest cop in Gotham, the world-weary blue collar middle-aged family man Jim Gordon. Michael Caine's perfomance was also proof of what is great this about this film. Caine is a big name legendary actor - in the old Batman films he would have been cast as a colorful villain (like Chris Walken) or supporting character (like Jack Palance) that would have allowed him to chew the scenery. But no, despite not looking at all like comic book Alfred, he perfectly captured the character's twin roles of both servant and surrogate father, reminding Bruce of his duty to his family and his duty to himself (and Alfred got the best lines too). Morgan Freeman and Rutger Hauer are always good in my book and Cillian Murphy, despite not looking like my idea of Dr. Crane, was suitably creepy. Tom Wilkinson tries a little too hard to disguise his Britishness by playing Falcone as Gotham's version of the stereotypical Italian crime boss and doesn't totally succeed. Katie Holmes was a kind of weak link, not because her acting was that bad (although it wasn't great either, she was just
BLAH), but because the role was so dull that any talented starlet her age could have pulled it off.It didn't help that although Holmes is in her mid-20s, she still looks like a teenager and thus hard to buy as an experienced assistant DA.
Art design was wonderful. No more faux-art deco New York version of Gotham but a totally realized modern city with its own look and feel (with Wayne Tower and the Wayne family at its center) A city with both its rich and poor areas, a perfectly done urban jungle. The score by Hans Zimmer was not as melodic or rhythmic or super-heroish than Danny Elfman's Batman theme but I think it suited perfectly to the darkness and oppressiveness of Gotham before Batman brings a little light to the city.
Biggest pops from the audience I was sitting with - the double slap out of nowhere by Rachel to Bruce in the car, first appearance by Batman in Falcone's warehouse, Lucius's line to Earle at the end "What, you didn't get the memo?" and of course the Joker card which had people going "Wo!". Almost everyone applauded when the end credits started. My favorite line though had to be exchange between Gordon and Batman "There's only one of you" and Batman replies "Now there are two of us". That perfectly exemplified what these two men, so different and yet so similar, have in the comics but which is left out in the earlier Batman films as unimportant.
The only cons are the character of Rachel which seemed like just another excuse to have a love interest (which I don't think a Batman movie neccessarily needs) and shoe-horning her into both Bruce's childhood, the DA's office prosecuting Falcone, needing protection from Crane etc. just smacked out damsel-in-distress syndrome. Bruce revealing who he was (although never actually saying it) was a tad unbelievable to me as well. I also noticed the same (
shiny) green car she drove Bruce off in the beginning is the same (
STILL shiny) green car she's driving seven whole years later. That must be some car!10. All in all I dearly hope WB had Nolan, Goyer, Bale, Oldman and Caine tied down to more than just 3 picture deals. Given Bale's young age, they can keep this particular Batman franchise going for more just 4 pictures and I would look forward to one of these coming out every 2-3 years or so. Nolan's a smart cookie too, unlike the mistakes in the past with killing the villains, the Scarecrow is alive at the end, Arkham is emptied (thus explaining why Gotham is home to the crazy villains) and Ra's probably survived. I would love to see Talia (Ra's devoted daughter and, besides Catwoman, the only woman in the comics to have Bruce's heart - as opposed to Batman's - for more than just a couple of issues) in one of the next 2 films.
The film has it all, action, drama and a good one-liner every now and then. The directing is fluid and the script is tight. The supporting cast actually
support instead of focusing the attention on themselves and Bale is definitely now a top-tier star who has more than shown himself capable of not only being a fine actor (which he's been since he was a child) but one capable of carrying a blockbuster film by himself. Chris Nolan has grown from the relatively small-budget of Memento to now doing justice to a hundred-million dollar budget and creating a work of art. A comic book film that stands on its own as an action drama even if you've never heard of Batman before (if such people exist). Nolan has just catapulted himself to A-List director with this film, just as Peter Jackson did with the
Lord of the Rings films.
Its a terrific film that more than meets the hype. If I was into rating films by stars (which I absolutely refuse to do) I would give it four stars of out four.
Posted in
Batman,
movies,
reviews
|
Written on 10:01 AM by Jack B.
Having lost his mind
Tom-Tom, L. Ron's son, has spun
Out of cruise control
Written on 9:07 AM by Jack B.
With Batman Begins opening tomorrow, I though I'd reflect on the death of Frank Gorshin a few weeks ago. Gorshin was a talented actor, comic and impersonator who was on Broadway just a little while ago in a one-man show as George Burns (and portrayed himself in a cameo in the season finale of C.S.I. that aired just after his death). But he will no doubt be associated forever with a role he played just a handful of times - that of "The Riddler" in the Batman TV show starring Adam West (and the movie of the same name).
Unlike almost every villain on the show such as Caesar Romero's "Joker" or Burgess Meredith's "penguin", Gorshin didn't over-play the role to make what was literally a comic book villain into even more of a caricature. Gorshin's Riddler had a hidden steel and menace not found among other enemies of TV's Caped Crusader. Unlike the others, Gorshin didn't look like he was playing dress-up in a costume ball but actually looked and sounded like a real criminal - and a dangerous one at that.
Today, even people who don't read comics know that the Riddler is one of Batman's arch-foes, but that wasn't always the case. It was the TV show's producers who rought him back after an absence of many years in the comics - he had become too ridiculous for even the comic books to take seriously and so what better place to use such an absurd character than a show that made its name (and ratings) based on how over-the-top camp it was.
Yet Gorshin made the Riddler such a believable and (better yet) interesting foe for Batman that he became a viable member of Batman's Rogues Gallery and remains there to this day (almost 40 years later) . As a matter of fact, the comic-Riddler of today is largely Gorshin-esque in mannerisms rather than Jim Carrey's more recent cartoon-ish turn as the character (the fact that so many comic writers and artists of today probably grew up with Gorshin's interpretation probably had a lot to do with it too).
It wasn't an accident that of all the big name guest stars during Batman's two-year run, Gorshin was the only one to receive an Emmy nomination. And still all these years later Gorshin's acting still holds him in a show that has been mocked and abused and parodied into the ground. Of all the actors who have played Batman's villains on live-action TV or film (well I haven't seen Batman Returns yet so the jury is still out on that) including Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito and Governor Arnie, it is Frank Gorshin who set the standard. Frank Gorshin WAS The Riddler. You were one of a kind, Frank. . All Batman fans will miss you. But at least you leave us Edward Ngma (aka The Riddler) behind as a legacy.
Written on 10:11 PM by Jack B.
Ron Howard's Cinderella Man is getting rave reviews all over the place and I suppose thats to be expected. In my opinion despite the fact Russell Crowe is like off-screen, on-screen he's one of the greatest movie actors in the world today. And when he want to be Ron Howard can be both a moving, emotional and excellent director - I'm a big fan of Willow, Parenthood, and Apollo 13. Howard can also, however, be a king of popular big-budget schlock like How the Grinch Stole Christmas and overblown glorified TV-Movies like A Beautiful Mind (which somehow won the Best Picture Oscar). Its too soon to tell what the movie version of the Da Vince Code will be like (besides the virulent anti-Catholicism basic to the book) but Howard's past twisting of history to suit him does not bode well. In Beautiful Mind, he and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman side-stepped and ignored facts about protagonist John Nash's like the fact he was married several times in the past (and not just to his movie wife), he had several hetero and homosexual affairs, while married, and also he fathered a child out-of-wedlock in his twenties. Putting things like that in would have made Nash a more complicated character (just like in real life) but it also didn't go with the "image" Howard wanted to show about his film's "hero" so they were cut.
Now in Cinderella Man, Howard has again changed history to suit his needs and in the process has ruined the name of a good man and former Heavyweight Champion of the World ( and the man "Cinderella's" hero, James Braddock beat for the title), Max Baer Sr, who's dead so he can't respond.
From the San Jose Mercury News: `Cinderella Man' does Baer an injustice, some say
Excerpt:
Everyone agrees that James J. Braddock, the hero of ``Cinderella Man,'' was a good guy. But was Max Baer, the man Braddock defeated for the heavyweight title, a villain?
The movie paints Baer as a one-dimensional bad character. But Bert Sugar and Larry Merchant, two longtime observers of the fight trade, say the film does Baer an injustice.
Baer did kill one opponent in the ring. Another later died from boxing injuries, perhaps incurred in part during a fight with Baer. Both Merchant and Sugar also agree the film accurately captures how Baer could be a clown in the ring.
``But he wasn't a bad guy at all,'' said Merchant, an HBO boxing commentator. ``He was one of the predecessors to Muhammad Ali as a guy who loved the media. He was a big, handsome guy who loved the ladies.''
Sugar believes filmmaker Ron Howard needed to make Baer look like a thug so Braddock could be perceived as more gallant.
``The truth didn't work to their end, so they Hollywood-ized the story,'' Sugar said.
Something else doesn't ring true, he added. He called the real Braddock-Baer bout ``the worst heavyweight championship fight in history.'' He said Baer threw the only punch of consequence - and it was by accident. Braddock, a huge underdog, won the close decision by outjabbing Baer.
``But Ron Howard isn't going to make a movie where two guys stand there like Madame Tussaud's wax works types,'' Sugar said.
From
The Lima News (of Ohio):
Some Baer facts on ‘Cinderella Man’s’ MaxExcerpt:Forty-six years after his death, Max Baer is getting the worst reviews of his life.
Baer was a high, wide and handsome character who, in the 1930s, won and lost boxing’s biggest prize in the space of 364 days, laughing all the while.
Now he’s back, bigger — and meaner — than life in “Cinderella Man,” director Ron Howard’s heart-tugging story of Jim Braddock, who fought to feed his family in the depths of the Depression and ended up taking the heavyweight championship from Baer 70 years ago next week.
“Cinderella Man” has been called everything from a true-life “Rocky” to “Seabiscuit” on two legs to perhaps the best movie of the year, and it might be all of the above. “Cinderella Man” is the feel-good hit of the season — except to the family, fans and friends of Max Baer.
Baer was an impressive figure of a man with a devastating right hand. In the movie, he’s portrayed by Craig Bierko as an arrogant, trash-talking bully. In reviews, Philip Wuntch of the Dallas Morning News referred to “the infamous Baer” and Chris Hewitt of the St. Paul Pioneer Press to “brutal Max Baer.” Christy Lemire of The Associated Press called Bierko’s performance “convincingly slimy” and Robert W. Butler of the Kansas City Star described Baer as “a testosterone-fueled brute.”
Following the script, reviewers have accepted the idea that Baer killed two men in the ring. As for the first, there is ample evidence that Baer, though cleared of any wrongdoing, was deeply remorseful. His second “victim” fought four more times after meeting Baer, dying months later after being knocked out by Primo Carnera.
The movie stretches the tenuous notion of Baer the killer until it loses touch with reality. In a nightclub scene before the climactic fight, a leering, sneering Baer suggests he might kill Braddock, too, and then “comfort” his widow. Jer-emy Schaap’s recent book on Braddock and Baer, which coincidentally shares a title with the movie, gives no indica-tion that such an encounter ever took place. Baer’s son, actor Max Baer Jr., labeled the scene “a lie.”
Nobody who knew Baer would recognize the thug in the movie. To sportswriters, he was Madcap Maxie, the good-time champ. Schaap describes him as a charmer, a wisecracker, a guy who “more than anything else, … liked to make people laugh.”
The only reason anybody ever got mad at Max was that they thought he should be the greatest heavyweight ever, and he wasn’t. He preferred chasing women and living the high life to sweating away in a smelly gym. If that makes Max Baer a bad guy, I guess I’m a bad guy too.
Trouble is, just as a movie needs a hero, it needs a heavy. In this case, the real villain is the Depression. But cine-matically, that’s pretty abstract. As Braddock (Russell Crowe) observes in the film, “There’s no point punching things you can’t see.”
So that leaves Baer.
Another article from Slate:
How Cinderella Man sucker punches the Jewish boxer Max Baer. By David Fellerath about Baer's Jewish heritage of which he was proud.
And of course, there's the reaction of former Jethro from
The Beverly Hillbillies, Max Baer Jr., who is justifably upset -
Son raises dukes over Baer 'facts'TV's Jethro is fightin' mad about his father's portrayal in Russell Crowe's
Cinderella Man.Max Baer Jr., who starred in The Beverly Hillbillies and was
named after his prizefighter pop, says Cinderella director Ron Howard unfairly
pounded his dad in the biopic of Depression-era boxer James J. Braddock, the New
York Daily News reports.Baer Jr. bristles at how the movie portrays his father
as a thug who glories in killing two opponents in the ring.
advertisement
"That's a lie," Baer Jr. tells the Daily News. "My
father cried about what happened to (Baer ring victim) Frankie Campbell. He had
nightmares. He helped put Frankie's children through college." But Howard
spokeswoman Leslee Dart defends the characterization, saying the elder Baer
needed to be vilified, you know, for artistic purposes:"The script was written
from the point of view of the Braddock family. To them, Max Baer was a real
threat."
Here's a good review that points out the wrong done Baer even while acknowledging the film's better points:
“Cinderella Man” Winner by a Split DecisionExcerpt:
However, in turning up the anticipation volume as Jimmy Braddock begins his quest out of the slums and into heavyweight title contention, the filmmakers thought it advantageous to make the reigning champ a villain.
Therefore Max Baer, generally credited with killing two opponents in the ring, is portrayed as a monster on several levels: Not only will he kill you, but also insult your wife, and with a lascivious tone yet. Adding insult to injury, a marvelous Craig Bierko is entirely convincing as the baddy.
But go home after the film, pull out the old boxing encyclopedia, and you'll find neither the words killer nor lout next to Mr. Baer's name. In fact, most pundits of pugilism agree that the guy was pretty likeable, that he actually didn't take anything too seriously…that if he did, he might have had a more memorable championship.
In other words, the fix is in.
It isn't as much a moral question as it is one of form and protocol. We want our screenwriters to mine the real drama, not apply some expedient. What if the film were about Mr. Baer instead of Mr. Braddock? Could we then rely on the depiction of Mr. Braddock
The point I'm trying to make in all this is that if Ron Howard is willing to blacken an actual historical (and innocent) man to make his story points, imagine what he'd do with Dan Brown's pseudo-history (which is basically
fiction with a few dashes of facts thrown in to make it seem believable)in
The Da Vinci Code movie in which the Catholic Church in particular and historical orthodox Christians in general are seen as liar, murderers, and just plain evil. Uh oh. Something tells me that even with Tom Hanks starring this is not something I'm going to want to watch.
Written on 5:56 PM by Jack B.
Following up on this post and this one, there have been many recent posts and articles elsewhere refuting the "accepted wisdom" the Catholic Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa (and elsewhere).
Fighting AIDS in Mozambique - Making a difference. By Adam Graham-Silverman in of all places Slate deals with the success of the Franciscans and the Sant'Egdio community, against at times the goverment of Mozambique itself, to reduce AIDS and help sufferers.
At Tech Central Station is the article, Was Karol Wojtyla the Greatest Mass Murderer of the 20th Century? by Michael Cook tackles that question head on and totally demolishes the accusations of the late Pope's critics.
Excerpt:
But there is something absurdly medieval about making the Pope a scapegoat, as if the clouds would break and the sun shine if we thrust enough pins through a JP2 voodoo doll. Pinning such blame for the tragedy of African AIDS on one man is one of those ideas that is, in the words of George Orwell, "so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them."
Two doubtful ideas run through all these criticisms. The first is basically this: African Catholics are so devout that if they have sex outside of marriage, dally with prostitutes or take a third wife, they will piously refrain from using condoms because the Great White Father told them not to. Ms. Toynbee darkly invokes "the Vatican's deeper power... its personal authority over 1.3 billion worshippers, which is strongest over the poorest, most helpless devotees."
But she can't have it both ways: these benighted dark-skinned Catholics can't be both too goody-two-shoes to use condoms and too wicked to resist temptation. Journalist Brendan O'Neill -- who describes himself as an ex-Catholic who has jettisoned Catholic teaching on sexual morality -- sums up this patronising argument in the on-line journal Spiked: "The only reason you could believe the fantastically simplistic idea that Vatican edict = AIDS in Africa is if you consider Africans to be little more than automatons... who do as they are told".
Superimposing maps of prevalence of AIDS on prevalence of Catholicism is enough to sink the link between the Catholic Church and AIDS. In the hospice which is Swaziland nowadays, only about 5 per cent of the population is Catholic. In Botswana, where 37 per cent of the adult population is HIV infected, only 4 per cent of the population is Catholic. In South Africa, 22 per cent of the population is HIV infected, and only 6 per cent is Catholic. But in Uganda, with 43 per cent of the population Catholic, the proportion of HIV infected adults is 4 per cent.
In fact, without the Catholic Church the situation might be much worse. The AIDS disaster in Africa weighed heavily on the Pope. Ten years ago he appealed to "the world's scientists and political leaders, moved by the love and respect due to every human person, to use every means available in order to put an end to this scourge". And Catholics have responded.
About 27 per cent of health care for HIV/AIDS victims is provided by Church organisations and Catholic NGOs, as even The Lancet has acknowledged. They form a vast network of clinics which reach the poorest, most remote and most neglected people in Africa.
From Australia's
Herald Sun is this column by Andrew Bolt:
Pope spoke the truth -
Excerpt:Spooky, how fast our intellectual class agreed on a way to damn this much-mourned Pope without actually seeming to prance on his grave.In Australia, this new slur, this fashionable falsehood, was best put by the Women's Electoral Lobby's Sarah Maddison."There is little doubt that under this Pope's leadership the Vatican's line, particularly on the use of condoms in Africa, has caused the death of thousands of people," she smirked.
The Pope. A murderer.How delicious.
So delicious, that SBS and Fairfax journalists just had to repeat it, insisting the Pope killed thousands -- wait, millions -- of Africans by banning condoms in the fight against AIDS.It's as if they read from the same manual, Chants for Leftists, now in its international truth-free edition. In Britain, same false story. The cover story of the prestigious New Statesman magazine slavered how the dead Pope "did more to spread AIDS in Africa than prostitution and the trucking industry combined".
Gay activist PeterTatchell, of Outrage, snapped: "Millions of people in developing countries areorphans, having lost their parents to AIDS because of the Pope's anti-condom dogma." Ditto The Independent: "It should not be forgotten that millions
have died in Africa as a result of this theological rigidity."
In France, the Liberation newspaper declared: "Blindness in the face of AIDS." And so on and on.
I've listed so many examples to show how common it is for the Left,particularly the Leftist press, to believe the convenient lie -- the foul smear-- even when that lie defies good sense and easy-to-find facts. Once again, the Truth is more vital than the truth to Leftists, which is why their own dogmas are so deadly.
It is a fact that Pope John Paul II opposed condoms, telling
African bishops again not long before his death that "fidelity within marriage and abstinence outside are the only sure ways to limit the further spread of AIDS infection".
So is this the advice that killed millions? First, to believe that we must believe Africans are so obedient to the Pope that they won't wear a condom, but also so disobedient that they'll still have casual sex. We'd also have to believe that more were killed by having unprotected sex outside marriage than were saved by doing as the Pope said and zipping up. We must further believe that most or very many Africans are Catholic, and are hit hardest by AIDS.
Naturally, the truth is the very opposite.The countries with the worst HIV infection rates in the world turn out to be Swaziland and Botswana, where more than a third of adults have the virus -- but only 5 per cent are Catholic. Botswana, incidentally, is pro-condoms, not that it seems to have helped much. In contrast, Uganda, where half the people are Catholic, is the one African country that has slashed its rate of infection -- from a devastating 15 per cent of all adults to "just" 5 per cent. And, heavens, it worked this miracle by doing much as the Pope had preached.
and I think Mr. Bolt also hit on the head what really drives these accusations:
And why their anger? Because Christianity, or any philosophy that preaches restraint, responsibility and a respect for facts, threatens their freedoms, such as their freedom to have sex with whomever they choose.
So, yes, the Pope was indeed the killer they fear -- not of the poor and faithful in Africa, but of the cheaper pleasures of the faithless right here. And for those now slandering this holy man, that is by far the greater sin.
Finally,
The Anchoress has a deeply moving personal post about the relationship between the Church and AIDS that must be read in full to be properly appreciated.
Written on 5:38 PM by Jack B.
From CWN, Italian paper slammed for promoting Inquisition "black legend" :
Excerpt:
Italian journalist Vittorio Messori responded this week to an article inthe Communist daily Il Manifesto that portrays as truthful the "black legend" about the Inquisition that hundreds of thousands or even millions were killed by
the Church.
In a column translated from Italian by the Spanish daily La Razon , Messori maintains that "the imprudence-- or shamelessness-- of these ideologies never ceases to amaze me. A publicist named Adriano Petta published an article called 'The Skeletons of the Holy Inquisition.' Deja vu, of course. We're talking about two and half centuries ago."
According to Messori, the article "would not be worth reading were it not for the fact that it was published in Il Manifesto , one of the two or three newspapers in the entire Western world that still carries the title 'Communist daily' on the front page."Messori noted that many other historical publications have been more precisein their accounts. "Just one year of the French Revolution, the reign of terror of 1793, left more victims than all of the centuries of all the inquisitions combined (the Protestants, in fact, did not fool around: the Geneva of Calvin was lit up by the bonfires, Lutheran Germany engaged in witch hunts as if they were a national sport; the last massacre encouraged by the Puritan pastors of Salem, Massachusetts, came at the threshold of 1800.)"
Messori noted as well that the number of victims of the Communist regimes of the last century reached the hundreds of millions, all in the name of stamping out "deviations" from political "orthodoxy." "It's difficult, therefore, to take seriously the preaching that issues forth from certain pulpits," Messori said.
The noted Italian journalist pointed out that an analysis of the modern historical data on the Inquisition, including information from the Vatican archives opened underthen-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, would be of very much benefit to the Church."Many pillars of the Black Legend would fall," revealing a process characterizedby an accuracy and a fairness "unheard of in the civil courts of that time.""Death sentences and torture were the exception," Messori explains, noting
that the typical images people have of the Inquisition were based on Protestant propaganda aimed at undermining Spain's dominance in the Atlantic.
For the Communists, the largest group of mass murderers in the
last century, with the blood of millions on their hands
wherever they assumed power to dig up the largely refuted by
Henry Kamen
and
Edward Peters (among other), "Black Legend" of the Inquisition of
centuries ago is hypocrisy at its highest. If more people read
The Black Book of Communism, detailing all the murders of the Communist regimes of the 20th Century, the Communists wouldn't dare to spread untruths about others.
Written on 5:05 PM by Jack B.
Zenit has a story about a new books thats says the U.N. and European Union are using double standards when it comes to Christianity: Christianity Out in the Cold
Excerpt:
The authors, Eugenia Roccella and Lucetta Scaraffia, contend that the changes described in the human rights field are notable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948 made no mention of "reproductive rights." A key reason why this changed, argues the book, lies in the cultural upheaval of the 1960s. Those years witnessed a sort of "cultural revolution" not only in the area of sexuality, but also in the very concept of rights.
In the wake of the upheaval, the book states, sexual activity became divorced from its link with procreation, the idea of individual autonomy was exalted, human life was reduced to mere biological material to be manipulated in the laboratory, and humanity tried to construct a new utopia based on the satisfaction of sexual desires. In turn, this utopian vision was increasingly imposed on Third World countries by international organizations, often forcibly, by linking the reproductive rights program to financial aid.
International institutions see the Catholic Church, along with some other religious groups, as a threat to this way of conceiving rights. As well, the Church's position on some women's issues, such as the refusal to admit them to the priesthood, has made it a target of strong criticism. This culminated, the book observes, in the European Union's refusal to even acknowledge the Christian heritage in Europe in the preface of the new Constitution
From the
National Catholic Register:
Is the Faith Dead in France? Not Quite... by Sabrina Arena Ferrisi
Excerpt:French men and women who call themselves “Catholic” constitute about 70% of the population. Only 8% to 10% of the Catholic population goes to Sunday Mass, compared to 40% to 45% in the 1960s.
But the situation is far from hopeless, given that the 10% of French Catholics that do practice numbers 6 million persons.
“They represent the practicing Catholics who are truly faithful, who transmit their faith to their children. This is a reason for hope which is very important,” said Caroline Bouan, a journalist with Famille Chrétienne (The Christian Family) magazine. “These Catholics are very attached to their faith. They know why they are practicing their faith. They try to fill their shortcomings through catechism, prayer, etc. These lay people are more involved in their parishes and in Catholic movements throughout the Church.”
This new “minority” lives in a difficult environment. This year marks the centenary of the formal separation of Church and state in France — a separation often referred to as “laicism,” whereby religion is something strictly personal. The state avoids anything to do with religion.
To put things in perspective, when Pope John Paul II died, the U.S. government ordered flags to be flown at half-mast for seven days. In France, flags were flown at half- mast for only one day.
And even that one day sparked protests. “This created a big scandal,” said Miriam Bellecca, an American living in Paris. ”Left-wing politicians went on the news saying that there was no excuse for such an action.”
“It was a huge controversy,” confirmed Antoine-Marie Izoard, Vatican correspondent for I. Media, a Catholic French press agency. “If you look at the condolence letter which President [Jacques] Chirac sent, he wrote that ‘for those who believe in God’ the loss of Pope John Paul II was great. Chirac’s personal position, as one who doesn’t believe, was very clear. It reflects this way of seeing the Church as something bad.”
Bellecca recalled an incident where her brother-in-law wore a wooden cross in school. His teacher lifted him up by his shirt collar and warned him to never wear it again.
“I’m not sure this is anti-Catholicism per se,” Bellecca said, “or just an absurd attachment to the fact that France is ‘laicist.’ The French just want to keep religion out of the public sphere and would go equally crazy to see a boy wearing a [yarmulke] or a girl with a headscarf.
“In France, the emphasis is on being equal and not different. They say diversity only leads to ghettos and discrimination,” added Bellecca.
The brave Archbishop of Denver speaks out in Denver:
Denver's Chaput flogs Europe, saying it is forsaking Christianity
Excerpt:Chaput was among nine members of a State Department delegation led by New York Gov. George Pataki. The two-day conference, "Anti-Semitism and Other Forms of Intolerance," in Cordoba, Spain, was sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
In his address, Chaput traced Europe's Christian roots and decried abandonment of that heritage by the continent's prevailing culture.
Secularism has been a growing influence in Europe. The European Union's constitution makes no mention of the continent's Christian heritage. There also is momentum to extend euthanasia laws and marriage rights to gay couples.
Chaput cited legal restrictions of religious expression and open contempt of religious symbols.
"Programs like How To Cook a Crucifix (a show aired on Spanish TV last December), and sacramental confessions recorded without the confessor's knowledge are deeply contemptuous of Catholic believers," Chaput said.
"This is unworthy of Europe's moral dignity and religious heritage. Furthermore, it stands in stark contrast to OSCE commitments to promote religious freedom."
Chaput said "an equally dangerous trend" was state-encouraged ridicule and intolerance of public expressions of faith, often derided as fundamentalism.
And of course the final vote is in and the Italian fertility referendum
has failed in a big way, thanks to Church efforts.
Written on 4:27 PM by Jack B.
My favorite cardinal, George Pell of Sydney, has been honored in the Queen's Birthday Honours List giving him the Aussie equivalent of a knighthood.
Story:
Cardinal Pell, one of seven people to receive the highest Australian award in the Queens birthday honours list, is among the most controversial churchmen of modern times.
"Yes, there has been some controversy," said Cardinal Pell, who stood aside as Archbishop of Sydney three years ago when he was accused - and later cleared - of sexually abusing an altar boy at a church camp in 1961.
"But a little bit of controversy is better than being ignored.
"I am deeply honoured by this recognition, both personally and for the Catholic Church," he said on being appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC).
"It is a recognition of the Catholic contribution to Australian life, and I am also grateful for this," said the archbishop, who since the dark days of 2002 has been appointed Australia's seventh cardinal, has gone to Rome to help elect a new Pope and now has been awarded a Queen's Birthday honour.
Cardinal Pell, once described as having a "hide several rhinoceroses thick" has angered many progressives with his insistence that basic church teachings are non-negotiable.
The Ballarat-born archbishop, who chose the priesthood over a football career with AFL club Richmond, consistently refused communion to openly gay parishioners and once called homosexuality "a greater health hazard than smoking".
He angered feminists by opposing female priests, and opposed access to in-vitro fertilisation for single women.
Gay rights and pro-choice activists demonstrated against his appointment as Sydney archbishop by bearing placards reading: "George Pell, Go To Hell".
The archbishop entered the education debate in the last federal election, saying Labor's planned redistribution of funds between non-government schools was "potentially divisive" and "regrettable".
He offered to appeal for clemency if any of the "Bali nine" Australians arrested for drug smuggling are convicted and given the death penalty, and to take their case to new Pope Benedict XVI.
And he criticised the federal government's immigration policies as "too tough" when commenting on the case of Vivian Alvarez, wrongly deported four years ago and later found in a Catholic hospice in the Philippines.
The thing I think I like most about him is that he doesn't hide away from media descriptions of him as "controversial" or "uncompromising" but glories in them and makes no bones about the fact that some things are "non-negotiable" no matter how much pressure is put on him or the Church. Just take a look at how he deals with the description in
an interview done in light of his honor.
PETER CAVE: Personally you have sometimes been criticised for your uncompromising view, particularly on moral issues, do you think this award is a vindication of that uncompromising attitude?
GEORGE PELL: Not necessarily. I think it's a vindication that the Christian point of view is one of the legitimate points of view in Australian society. I don't think the award is anything more than that, but I think it is that.
PETER CAVE: Your own biographer has described you as a controversial churchman, perhaps the most controversial churchman in Australia. Do you shrink away from that?
GEORGE PELL: Um, I think I'd have quite a bit of competition for that title, perhaps even from the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, but no, I don't shrink from the title. I hope I present Christ's teachings in the Catholic tradition. I try to do that as effectively as I can.
Of course not every one is happy about it. The website 365Gay.com plays the story this way:
Queen's List Honors Cardinal Who Refused Gays Communion
Written on 1:43 AM by Jack B.
The Catholic Church has taken a beating in recent years (some of it well deserved). I remember that either Newsweek or Time had a headline in the midst of the worst of the Boston Scandal that went, "Can the Catholic Church Survive?". Well, obviously it has. But it doesn't have the moral authority or the power it once had. Just look at all the Canadian and American politicos who routinely not only disagree with the Church but seem to go out of their way to say so (i.e. Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, John Kerry, Mario Cuomo, etc.). So it was with surprise that I saw this AFP article, via The Curt Jester, that says: Low turnout in Italian fertility referendum after Church urges boycott. The line that caught my attention was the very first -
With less than one out of five Italians casting their ballot, Italy appeared set
to keep its tough assisted procreation law after the powerful Roman Catholic
Church called for a boycott to scuttle the two-day referendum.
Which leads me to ask - since when is the Catholic Church "powerful" in Italy or any other European country outside of Poland? Haven't we been told over and over that the Church is basically meaningless and marginalized in secular Europe, even in Italy, where it couldn't overturn the abortion and divorce laws via similar referendums? Aren't we always told the Church is basically ignored by Catholics (especially in the West) when it comes to anything to do remotely to sex and sexual reproduction? Haven't we been told the Church is out of touch and must change its tune if it wants to influence society? Doesn't sound very "powerful" to me. Yet, now that the refrendum shows signs it is failing and that Italians (against everything we've been told in the past) are actually heeding Church calls to abstain from voting - it is "powerful". Ironic, no?
Of course if the refrendum passes and the law is changed to the media's satisfaction then the Church will have "blown its capital" and shown further signs of its irrelevance and we will be reading on how much of a political "loss" it is to Pope Benedict and the Church. Don't think so? Take a look at this via another wire service, UPI:
Analysis: Italy birth referendum stirs debate -
Italians go to the polls this weekend to vote in a national referendum. No, it's not another vote on the European Union constitution, but it has created a political storm both in the conservative coalition of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and in the left-of-center opposition. It is also a test of the residual influence of the Catholic Church and its new pope in a country where it was once all powerful.
Go that? In one article it says the Catholic Church is "powerful" and thats why the vote is turning out the way it has so far. But in another it was
"once" powerful. I really wish they would make up their minds. But I think the real truth is that the wire services (from which most US Vatican news sources comes from) are setting up for an either/or case with the Italian refrendum. I don't think they actually thought a few months ago that the Church's abstention policy would work. But now that it has a chance, if the vote fails they can blame the "powerful" Church and its mindless followers and if it succeeds its a triumph of progress over a "once all-powerful" Church. Either way the script is already written out ahead of time.
Another interesting thing is in the UPI article is the final passages with one laugh out-loud quote:
The Italian left is worried that the referendum has become a fight over the
church's influence in Italy. Piero Fassino, secretary of the Left Democrats said
Thursday, "There is maximum respect for the position of the Catholic Church, but
the duty of the state is not to abide by religious, philosophical, or ethical
beliefs. Its duty is to provide citizens with laws granting freedom of choice."
A positive vote "can make more children be born, and be born better, making it
safer for them and for the mother," Fassino said. "Thus from this point of view,
it is pro-life."
So let me get this straight. This guy, Signor Fassino, says the Left has "maximum respect for the Church" but at the same time says it should shut up and not speak out to its members. Thats not respect in my eyes. If Signor Fassino doesn't have the votes, that's his problem, not the Church. And wasn't the Italian Left behind most of the anti-clerical (i.e. anti-Catholic) laws in Italy from 1870 to the present? This "respect" must be a new thing. I also love how they claim to be "pro-life" when it suits them. It reminds me a little of some politicians (we all know who they are) who claim to be "pro-life" but who never met an aborted fetus, a death row inmate, or a disabled Terri Shiavo that they didn't think would be better off dead. One of the things I like about the Catholic Church as opposed to its critics is that when it says it's "pro-life" it
actually is - in ALL cases. No picking and choosing what you like and discarding what you don't (something that sadly applies across the political divide in the US).
There's also a historical inaccuracy in the article. Can't the reporter be bothered to do homework in his expert "analysis"? -
But the political fireworks have overshadowed what many regard as the larger issue of the church's campaign. The Italian bishops have lost two previous major battles. They failed to block the introduction of divorce in the 1970s; and a decade later they were equally unsuccessful in halting the legalization of abortion. Their battle plan gives them two chances of success -- rejection of the four amendments, or cancellation of the referendum. But to get there the church will have encouraged Italians to fail to do their civic duty -- and that's a dangerous precedent.
It would set a "dangerous"(not very objective, is he?) precendent by encouraging Catholic not to vote? Whatever happened to Pius IX's
Non Expedit, forbidding Italian Catholics to vote in Italian elections AT ALL and which lasted (with some modifications) from 1870 to World War I -
a total of over 40 years! But all of a sudden NOW a "dangerous precedent" would be set? I can do more accurate "analysis" than that!
Written on 1:39 AM by Jack B.
Your Geek Profile:
|
| Academic Geekiness: Moderate |
| Fashion Geekiness: Moderate |
| Internet Geekiness: Moderate |
| Movie Geekiness: Moderate |
| Gamer Geekiness: Low |
| Geekiness in Love: Low |
General Geekiness: Low |
| Music Geekiness:Low |
| SciFi Geekiness: Low |
Written on 5:55 PM by Jack B.
IQ Test via The Anchoress. Not as I high as I'd like though. I guess that makes me smarter than Boo-Boo, but not as smart as Yogi.
| Your IQ Is 115 |
Your Logical Intelligence is Average
Your Verbal Intelligence is Genius
Your Mathematical Intelligence is Exceptional
Your General Knowledge is Exceptional |
Written on 11:37 AM by Jack B.
A long, long time ago...
I can still remember
How that music used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And, maybe, they’d be happy for a while.
But February made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep;
I couldn’t take one more step.
I can’t remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride,
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.
- from the song "American Pie" by Don Mclean
A few days ago, the only Oldies station in New York, 101.1 WCBS-FM, went off the air and became something called JACK-FM. Those of you who not from New York may not recognize the significance of this but for several generations of listeners it was a crushing blow. I grew up on WCBS-FM, it was the station my parents listened to when I was a child and it was the station I listened to as an adult. My alarm clock was set on WCBS-FM to wake me up in the morning, it was usually the music I listened to as I studied and it was the first pre-programmed station in every car radio, in every car, my family has owned. Now that is gone. No more Elvis or the Platters. No more Bobby Darin or Connie Francis. No more classic MoTown. No more Beatles. No more Sam Cooke. No more Three Dog Night. No more “Love Potion No.9”.No more “In the Still of the Night”. No more “House of the Rising Sun”. Just no more.
My father came of age in the 1950s and 60s. My mother in the 60s and 70s. CBS-FM aired the music that spanned those generations. They were the only station left in New York who did. It was through listening to my parent’s musical experience that I was able to pick through the muck of my own. The raw talent of Elvis makes one go Eminem who? The energy of Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis (not to mention the fact that both actually played a musical instrument) puts lie to the hype that is Justin Timberlake and Usher. Maroon 5 or Oasis vs. the Beatles or the Stones? Fifty Cent vs. Chuck Berry? Destiny’s Child vs. The Supremes (with or without Diana Ross)? Michael Bolton vs. Otis Redding? Brittney Spears vs. Brenda Lee? The list goes on and on. Compared to those so called “oldies, the music of my generation just plain sucks. Is it any wonder I listened to CBS-FM instead of the current Top 40 or hip-hop stations that glut the market?
Something else that made CBS-FM stand out is that it had actual deejays. Not “shock jocks” of the likes of Howard Stern, Don Imus or Opie & Anthony, but actual DJs who spin records (now CDs) in a specific order, sometimes taking fan requests or dedications to a loved one, sometimes bringing having life performances or interviews on the air, sometimes telling you a little story or history or anecdote about the song/performer you’re listening to. Making you feel a connection to the song. Soothing you with voices that seem made for radio, making the listener feel as if they know them personally. DJs that became an important and well-known part of the city’s cultural mosaic. Cousin Brucie, Dan Ingram, Don K. Reed, Harry Harrison. The names slip off the tongue of any even casual listener of the old 101.1 FM. Now that too is gone.
Here's basically what happened - Rock shock: Nation's No. 1 oldies station changes formats:
It's the day the music died again.
WCBS-FM, the top oldies station in the nation for more than three decades, stunned its legion of listeners by abruptly switching formats this weekend. Goodbye, Buddy Holly and the Beach Boys.
Hello, Duran Duran and Jet.
"I'm sure this move angered and bewildered its listeners," said Tom Taylor, editor of the trade publication Inside Radio. "A lot of people punched in WCBS-FM, heard Pink's `Get The Party Started,' and said, `Something's wrong with my radio."'
The station switched to an oldies format in 1972, initially as a bastion for the doo-wop sounds of the '50s. Although the playlist changed over the years, WCBS-FM always remained the outpost for classic Top 40 radio in the nation's largest radio market.
It was also the home to many of New York's legendary Top 40 DJs, including "Cousin Brucie" Morrow, Harry Harrison, Dan Ingram and Norm N. Nite. Radio formats came and went _ disco, punk, hip-hop, talk, sports talk _ but WCBS-FM remained unchanged, a warm and welcoming presence at 101.1 on the FM dial.
The station's new format is called "Jack," an eclectic mix of hit music from the '70s through the present. The station's owner, Infinity Broadcasting, made the same format shift Friday at its Chicago oldies station, WJMK-FM, where classic Top 40 had aired for the last 21 years.
There are currently about a dozen stations nationally using the Jack format.
"Youth must be served," Taylor said about the changes. "If you look at a lot of media, older Americans aren't important unless you're selling Craftmatic beds."
At 5 p.m. Friday, just as Frank Sinatra's "Summer Wind" faded out, WCBS listeners heard a voice announce, "Why don't we play what we want? There's a whole world of songs out there." The first song played on the new 'CBS-FM: "Fight for Your Right" by the Beastie Boys.
Prior to that moment, there were no indications of any imminent change at the station. Earlier in the day, morning show host Mickey Dolenz _ yes, the former Monkees drummer _ celebrated his 100th show with the station by hosting a live broadcast from B.B. King's Blues Club on 42nd Street.
In the winter 2005 Arbitron ratings, WCBS-FM was ranked eighth among the city's stations _ a strong showing, but apparently not strong enough.
"We did a lot of market research and found a hole in the market that wasn't being served by any other station," said Chad Brown, WCBS-FM vice president and general manager.
Got that? In one minute it goes from Frank Sinatra to the Beastie Boys without warning. Even the on-air personalities had no idea this was coming (not to mention how tasteless it was for management to let Mickey Dolenz celebrate his 100th broadcast without telling him it would also be his last) but who cares what they think anyway? "JACK-FM" doesn't have any DJs or on-air personalities, it's all canned and syndicated, with random songs playing non-stop. Which is basically the same thing as many other FM stations these days (this "hole in the market" business is malarkey). They say its like a radio version of the i-Pod with thousands of songs in its catalog except they forget the fact that people can pick what to put on their i-Pod. With "JACK-FM" there is no choice for the listener, unlike in the WCBS days, listeners can't even call up with requests.
Everything is computerized, impersonal. Is this really the way to the youth market?
Is the all mighty demographics the only reason why this was done despite the fact the station was still holding its hold its own? Yep.
Take a look -WCBS-FM making a play for youth:
As one radio analyst jokingly put it, WCBS-FM listeners have no one to blame but themselves for the demise of the city's last oldies-format station."Boomers are doing the unforgivable thing of getting older," said Tom Taylor, editor of InsideRadio.com.
That, analysts said, is essentially what drove WCBS owner Infinity Broadcasting on Friday to abruptly switch from playing oldies -- which it had done for 33 years -- to the trendy "Jack" format, a mix of rock and pop from the 1970s to today. Advertisers want to reach younger audiences, they said, and oldies don't deliver youngsters.So while the change may have surprised WCBS listeners, it wasn't a shock to industry watchers, who said the drive to find programming that skews to younger audiences isn't unique to radio. In fact, broadcast network CBS -- which, like Infinity, is owned by Viacom -- dropped from its fall schedule four of its top five oldest-skewing shows. And it's the top-rated network.
Such format changes come at a time when radio owners like Infinity and Clear Channel Communications are battling for the ears of listeners who increasingly have turned to more niche-oriented satellite radio and podcasting, a radio-like format designed for digital music players. Moreover, while WCBS may not have earned as much as in past years, it still was the 10th-rated station in the competitive New York market. The thinking is simple, said Brad Adgate, senior vice president and corporate research director for media-buying firm Horizon Research in Manhattan: "The younger the audience profile, the more money you'll make."
Needless to say, the change hasn't been taken lightly. Allan Sniffen, an industry watcher who runs the New York Radio Message Board Web site, said he can't remember another format change that has created as much backlash as WCBS' has. The site is full of posts from angry listeners, "and not all of them are old," said Sniffen, who questioned why Infinity wouldn't instead change the format of one of its lower-rated New York stations."If they don't care about selling to people over the age of 40 or 45, they could care less if they're mad at them," Sniffen said of Infinity. Still, he said, "If they've got faith" in the "Jack" format, "you wouldn't have thought they would want it on a frequency where you have thousands of people angry at it before it even gets started."
Here are some more articles on the fall out:
Oldies suddenly a thing of past in WCBS shift
'CBS fans think they got Jack-ed
David Hinckley: Thanks for the memory & melodies
'The doo-wop is gone'
A few years back, WNEW-AM, the last station that aired popular standards like Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Ella Fitzgerald also stopped broadcasting. Once again because the listening demographic was too "old". Since then no other station has taken its place. Want to listen to Miss Peggy Lee now? Go and buy her CD. Haven't heard any Cole Porter or Irving Berlin lately? Go rent an old musical. This too will happen with the music that created Rock 'n' Roll. Does anyone really think there's any chance that listening to JACK-FM or any of its "demographic friendly" clones that the upcoming generation will be exposed to the likes of Fats Domino's "Blueberry Hill" or Roy Orbison's "In Dreams". I'm just glad to experience this music on free broadcast radio when I had the chance because in all probability the next generation never will.
On behalf of all the Jacks in the world (and I don't mean the pseudo-Jacks who are really Johns or Jacobs adopting the name of Jack because they think it's a cool nickname) I resent that Infinity Broadcasting has taken to using my name for their crappy "format". I hope it fails and they look like fools. Still, I realize that may not happen. But whatever happens, "JACK-FM" (oh, that name!) will never be WCBS-FM and that is not Infinity's loss but all of radio's itself.
Les Moonves, Viacom's co-president, (who once now-famously said when he cancelled Joan of Arcadia: "I think talking to ghosts may skew younger than talking to God") showed again why he could care less about the majority (i.e. older than 24) of his consumers when he seemed surprised at the outrage the dumping of WCBS's Oldies format, saying "It would seem like we shot somebody when we changed the WCBS format."
Really, Les? You think? And this supposed-genius, ladies and gentleman, runs one of the largest entertainment conglomerates in the world. Believe it, as Ripley would say, or not.
Written on 8:49 PM by Jack B.
In light of the Pope's statements against gay marriage (and divorce and birth control but apparently that's not sexy enough to be a headline), see: Pope condemns gay marriages as "anarchy" (notice Reuters uses the negative word "condemns" - a word the Pope doesn't - instead of just saying " Pope states" or "Pope says" - but there's no bias right?).
Excerpt:
Pope Benedict, in his first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election, on Monday condemned same-sex unions as fake and expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threatened the future of the family.
The Pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of these practices were dangerous for the family.
"Today's various forms of dissolution of marriage, free unions, trial marriages as well as the pseudo-matrimonies between people of the same sex are instead expressions of anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man," he said.
Anyway as could be expected the some are up in arms about it.
Activists criticise Pope for anti-gay remarksExcerpt:In Berlin, the German Association of Gay and Lesbians said the pontiff had shown a lack of respect bordering on "hatred" towards homosexuals.
In Rome, Franco Grillini, a left-wing lawmaker and leading gay activist, said he had been "strongly disappointed" by the pope's "violent lecturing".
"The Catholic Church should preach universal love. Instead, we see it entrenched in a fortress intent on defending an idea of family, sexuality and relationships
between people that is made up of sadness and prohibition," Grillini said in a statement.
Germans Criticize Pope's Views on Gays Germany Excerpt:The Green Party and Lesbian and Gay Federation have broken the silence in
Germany among groups that disagree with the Pope’s stance on social issues.
Green parliamentarian Volker Beck said that Pope Benedict XVI’s attitude toward
homosexuality was “marked by theological mercilessness and the haughtiness of
the Pharisees.”
Manfred Burns, spokesperson for the Lesbian and
Gay Federation, called Benedict’s remarks on Monday an “insulting sermon of
hate.”
This article also has one of the most mind-boggling passages I've seen
since the election of B16:
Since he took office almost two months ago, Benedict has not focused his speeches on sexuality, but rather on encouraging peace between nations and reaching out toward Protestantism and non-Christian religions. Those ideas are not controversial among many Western European Catholics; but in issues of sexuality, their attitudes tend statistically, world-wide, to be more libertarian.
Many Catholic voices in the German media had expressed hope that Benedict would deviate from his predecessor’s line on gay marriage, contraception, abortion, and other sexual issues. But Monday’s speech, and the reaction to it, appear to signal no change in the frustration among gay advocacy groups with the Pope’s conservative views on sexuality and social issues.
Really, I mean did anyone really expect Ratzinger to change his views on anything? Would you have any respect for a 78 year old man who turns his back on everything he has ever believed and taught and everything the Church has taught just because the "German media" hopes for it? Why is okay to talk about peace between religions but not personal morality - isn't peace itself and religious tolerance personal morality? But I guess since it doesn't have anything to do with the pelvic area that makes it okay?
But
the most outrageous statement to me was the president of the Gay Rights group, Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese who said:
“It is unfortunate that the pope would choose so early in his pontificate to sweepingly condemn so many faithful Catholics. There is a long biblical tradition of showing love and compassion for all. It is from that tradition that so many fair-minded Catholics want to see their pope speaking. It’s sad that he’s choosing to ignore that tradition and to divide his followers.
“No one in the fight for marriage equality is asking any church to perform or recognize these marriages. What we’re asking for are equal rights and responsibilities under the law. There are millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics who should feel welcomed by their church. Today they do not.”
This coming off of Act-Up's
invasion of Notre Dame Cathredral in France for a "mock gay wedding (which I posted about
previously) and this:
Unchain Us From The Vatican, Say Marchers on Milan Gay ParadeExcerpt: Italy was depicted as a country chained to Vatican dogma at the Milan Gay Pride Parade this evening. Over 100,000 attended the parade.
At the very front of the parade were two men dressed as Vatican ‘Swiss Guards’ escorting a chained woman carrying the slogan “Secular Republic”. Then came someone carrying a placard that suggested Pope Benedict XVI should cease his attacks on gays.
But this did not faze local and regional government officials who took part in the parade as a symbol of solidarity with the gay community. In fact, it was the opposite.
“I am not here to make Milan look bad,” insisted the President of the province of Milan, Filippo Penati immediately prior to the parade. “We have given our support because the institutions need to guarantee the people their freedom of thought.”
And Stefano Apuzzo, a representative from the city of Milan, who was also at the parade along with two other council representative, declared that they were also present to support gay rights.
“We are here to recognize – to recognize a part of our population that has a right to exist and to be recognized,” he said. “(Gays) are not illegals, everyone has the right to make their own choices.”
Also taking part was Nichi Vendola, the President of the Apulia region of Italy. “I believe that the biblical curse of homosexuality is a heritage to be discussed”, he commented. “In the area of Roman Catholic thought, there is a problem of interpretation of scripture.
“I believe that the State needs to legislate for all citizens,” he emphasized. “We are waiting for the separation of the Church and State.” He added that Italy can not stand still on the matter of human rights, while the rest of Europe goes forward.
Isn't it nice that these politicians are telling the Church they're reading the Bible wrong? What exactly makes someone like Signor Vendola an expert on "Roman Catholic thought" I don't know. If he was a theologian I'm sure the article would have mentioned it. But these events, especially coming so close together, don't exactly make Mr. Solomonese's line that
"No one in the fight for marriage equality is asking any church to perform or recognize these marriages" ring true. For some groups (and some politicians too I'd wager) anything less than official "recognition" by the Church itself of gay marriage is an attack on "human rights".
Written on 11:39 AM by Jack B.
From Pennsylvania comes news that Prince Gallitzin attains first rung to sainthood
The canonization cause of Prince Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin, the "Apostle of the Alleghenies" brining Catholicism to South-Central Pennsylvania has begun and he has been given the title of "Servant of God" while his cause progresses. To me this is long overdue - Prince Gallitzin was a Russian nobleman who gave up literally everything a person could desire (18th century wise) to minister in mission territory in what was then an untamed part of America. His sister who was a nun and Mother Superior also was a pioneer missionary.
For more info on this great man check out the following links:
Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin
The 1913 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA's article on Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin
Prince Gallitzin
The pastoral courage of Demetrius Gallitzin from the former Bishop of Youngstown, Penn.
Ghost Story By Mark Gauvreau Judge via Crisis Magazine
Written on 11:35 AM by Jack B.
More good articles on Terri Shiavo:
How Liberalism Failed Terri Schiavo by Eric Cohen
and
The Case of Theresa Schiavo by Joan Didion
Written on 1:22 AM by Jack B.
Apparently both ABC and CBS are doing projects based on the life of Pope John Paul II. The CBS one is going to be done by the same people who did the recent Jesus movie BUT the ABC version is being scripted by Michael Hirst who is responsible for the 1998 film Elizabeth starring Cate Blanchett (who I love but not in this), a film that is one of the most anti-catholic movies in modern memory in which all the Catholics are evil and traitorous and the mass killing of them by Elizabeth I's agents Godfather-style is something to audience is supposed to be cheering. Here's a link to what I mean: Elizabeth: Where's The Soul - Christianity - 11/09/98...and now this Hirst guy is going to be now writing a film on the life of John Paul II? Who's he going to use as a reference? John Cornwell? Garry Wills? Something tells me the CBS one is going to be much better.
Written on 12:42 AM by Jack B.
MovieBlog has posted the rumor going that current "It" girl and Tom Cruise mid-life crisis girlfriend Katie Holmes (already about to appear in the new
Batman film) has been approached to be Wonder Woman in Joss Whedon's (of Buffy fame) movie adaption of the DC Heroine.
To which I respond: Joss are you crazy? Joey Potter as the most famous, most well-known female super hero of all time?
It will not work. 
THIS WILL NEVER BE THIS
HECK,
THIS WILL NEVER EVEN BE THIS
Written on 8:40 PM by Jack B.
From Canada and the London Free Press, Pupils send message - The black wristbands worn at a track meet yesterday protest UWO's decision to honour Henry Morgentaler.
Here's the article:
With a small piece of black ribbon around his wrist, Grade 7 pupil Henry
Peters wanted to send a big message yesterday.
Like dozens of classmates from Parkhill's Sacred Heart school, Peters, 12, wore a black wristband at a London District Catholic school board track meet to protest the University of Western Ontario's decision to honour Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a leading abortion-rights activist, this month.
"It sort of stands for all the (unborn) babies that have been killed in the moms' stomach," said Peters, a long-distance runner.
The wristband idea -- encouraged in a letter by Sacred
Heart parents, principal Andre Lisowyk and Rev. Michael Ryan -- was
applauded by Joe Rapai, the board's education director, during yesterday's
opening ceremonies at Western's TD Waterhouse Stadium.
"I read that (story) and I said, 'All the power to the grassroots,' " Rapai said in an
interview. "They're going to be saying something about who we are. We don't make any apologies about who we are as a Catholic school system. "We're
not in the debate about pro-life or pro-choice. It's a statement about how
there was a poor decision made (by UWO)."
Not everyone, however, was as impressed by the Parkhill protest. "It's inappropriate for children to be drawn into such a complex issue", said Henry Svec, a local psychologist. Rapai's remarks came as a shock, he said. "I'm not sure how this fits in with the provincial curriculum," Svec said, noting he is a Catholic. The meet is the wrong place for the protest, he said. "Sport is to be pure. Sport is about sport. You shouldn't be bringing in other political issues," Svec said. "Nine-, 10-, 11-, 12-year-olds are wondering, 'How am I going to do at the track meet and how are the hotdogs?' "I don't think they understand -- nor do many of us -- the complexities of this problem. It's not appropriate."
Morgentaler is scheduled to receive an honorary law
degree at a June 16 convocation.
The Catholic board is paying Western
$250 a day to use the stadium during the three-day track and field meet,
which will draw about 8,000 students this week.
Rapai said the track meet's
location is "not an issue" -- and one Parkhill parent agreed.
"We thought this was an opportunity . . . to let our light shine," said Michelle Peters, who has five children at Sacred Heart. "We're just here to
express our disapproval with Paul Davenport's decision.
"We're here in a peaceful and respectful manner."
One Grade 6 pupil made it clear the decision to wear the
wristband was his own. Nathan Vandersanden, who was
running in the 1,500 metres
yesterday, said he's eager to support the right
to life. "This is just to
say that abortions are wrong," he said of the
wristbands. "All the parents
decided to do this and I thought it was a
pretty good idea."
Notice how the "psychologist" Henry Svec (who just happens to volunteer the information he's Catholic - which has nothing to do with anything and which could also mean anything, there are a lot of people who call themselves that but aren't just think of Frances Kissling or her ilk) says kids 9-12 years old can't understand the "complexities of the situation". How much you want to bet he would also say 9-12 year olds should be able to get abortions without their parent's knowledge? How "appropriate" is that?
It seems to me that young Nathan Vandersanden "understands" exactly what he's talking about. Good for him.
Written on 8:21 PM by Jack B.
Michael Yon : Online Magazine has an interesting look at two Iraqi cities, within a short drive of each, and how the American-led invasion and occupation has brought peace and prosperity to one and war and bloodshed to the other. Of course that is a generalization on my part, but after reading the posts (and other Iraqi blogs) it seems true.
There's hope in Dohuk, Northern Iraq while
The battle goes on in Mosul here, here,here, and here
And if you want to see what/who we're fighting for take a look at these faces.
Written on 7:11 PM by Jack B.
An outstanding article in Commentary Magazine by Paul McHugh, a Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University entitled Annihilating Terri Schiavo. I think he points out the real danger of what was done to Terri for the greater society that let her be starved and dehydrated to death. Soon "life unworthy of life" will become part of our regular vocabularly and those that get to decide who live and who dies will NOT be the ones who are sick, disabled or old but rather those that healthy and/or powerful. Thats something we all have to worry about.
Excerpt:
As soon as Terri Schiavo’s case moved into the law courts of Florida, the concept of “life under altered circumstances” went by the boards—and so, necessarily, did any consideration of how to serve such life. Both had been trumped by the concept of “life unworthy of life,” and how to end it.
I use the term “life unworthy of life” advisedly. The phrase first appeared a long time ago—as the title of a book published in Germany in 1920, co-authored by a lawyer and a psychiatrist. Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwertes Leben translates as “Lifting Constraint from the Annihilation of Life Unworthy of Life.” Terri Schiavo’s husband and his clinical and legal advisers, believing that hers was now a life unworthy of life, sought, and achieved, its annihilation. Claiming to respect her undocumented wish not to live dependently, they were willing to have her suffer pain and, by specific force of law, to block her caregivers from offering her oral feedings of the kind provided to all terminal patients in a hospice—even to the point of prohibiting mouth-soothing ice chips. Everything else flowed from there.
The last paragraph sums it up perfectly in my opinion:
Contemporary bioethics has become a natural ally of the culture of death, but the culture of death itself is a perennial human temptation; for onlookers in particular, it offers a reassuring answer (“this is how X would have wanted it”) to otherwise excruciating dilemmas, and it can be rationalized every which way till Sunday. In Terri Schiavo’s case, it is what won out over the hospice’s culture of life, overwhelming by legal means, and by the force of advanced social opinion, the moral and medical command to choose life, to comfort the afflicted, and to teach others how to do the same. The more this culture continues to influence our thinking, the deeper are likely to become the divisions within our society and within our families, the more hardened our hatreds, and the more manifold our fears. More of us will die prematurely; some of us will even be persuaded that we want to.
Written on 11:31 PM by Jack B.
Some guy named John Bowker, a religion professor in England has written this piece, Will Religion Become Irrelevant?, which argues that if religion - particularly conservative religion and particularly Catholicism and Islam - doesn't change its views when it comes to (what else?) sexual morality and reproduction it is doomed.
Excepts:
The pervasive control of religions in the fundamental domain of sex and food may have worked well for millennia – indeed, it has worked well, since otherwise none of us would be here. But it is no longer needed from the point of view of natural selection, with the clear caveat that the new styles of sexuality and reproduction have themselves to be tested from that point of view: it is far too early to know what the impact of AIDS on styles of sexuality is going to be. However, at the moment, religions are no longer necessary to secure the goal of gene replication.
What do religions do in this new circumstance? They adopt, of course, many different strategies, of which one is obvious: they do nothing – or rather, they carry on as usual. That is the crisis facing religions. Because religions have become through time such highly organized and effective systems, in which sex and reproduction are integrated into a coherent system, it seems immensely threatening if sex is pulled out of the system.
This can be seen most obviously in the Roman Catholic, or more accurately Vatican Catholic, insistence that the unitive and the procreative functions of sex cannot be divorced. Humanae Vitae insists that ‘each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life,’ and that ‘every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil.
This is based on an appeal to natural law and to the right of the Church to pronounce on such matters. Natural law is not of course to be confused with that which happens naturally: ‘The natural law,’ says the Catholic Catechism, ‘expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie.’ But then it is simply a matter of rhetoric to claim that the unitive and procreative functions, sex and reproduction, cannot be separated. In most religions they are separated, so it is simply not true that there is a natural moral discernment that they cannot be separated. In nature, in any case, they certainly can be separated, even in the most obvious sense that the words ‘sex’ and ‘reproduction’ are not synonymous.
Certainly all organisms have to reproduce if genetic survival is to be ensured, but they can do this by asexual as well as sexual means. Asexual reproduction of single-cell species, such as protests or blue-green algae, is comparatively simple: it involves duplication of chromosomes followed by a division. Sexual reproduction is vastly more complicated, and far more costly, as a behaviour.
So what are the evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction? Part of the answer lies in the way it increases genetic diversity. But part of the answer lies in the fact that sexual activity serves more purposes naturally than reproduction alone.
In fact, one of the major rewards of unitive sex being divorced from reproductive sex, and not just in the infertile periods, lies in the bonding and continued commitment of each to other, above all of male to female, though it could equally be male to male or female to female. The protective advantages are obvious, especially for women: men do not simply seek to replicate their genes with the maximum number of partners. They remain committed to the investment in a single partner.
To put it as simply as possible (and this is almost exactly the opposite of what Humanae Vitae maintains), there is, in the human case, far more to sex than reproduction. It is essential and natural, in the human case, that not all sexual acts should be open to the transmission of life. Most people, as they grow older, come to realize that there is more to life than sex. What human and religious experience teaches us is that there is more to sex than life.
The Vatican claims can of course be justified within its own closed circle of coherence. That is not the issue, or the new crisis. The real issue is whether it is necessary for religions to defend without change systems, which have worked so well for so long, when circumstances have changed in a radically disjunctive way. That is the issue of the closed circle. To what extent, if at all, can knowledge or insight be allowed from the outside into a circle of internal coherence if it challenges a proposition which is justified within the circle? If one part goes, is not the whole threatened, particularly in a system in which matters of faith and morals can be defined infallibly?
Not that Vatican Catholicism is alone in this. Any religion that relies on inerrant revelation will be comparable. Thus in Islam, whatever is allowed or forbidden in the Quran is absolute. There is much in human life and behaviour that is, by the mercy of God, left open, but the Quran is not open to change or negotiation. From the Quran and from the example of the Prophet and his Companions, it is clear what the purpose and practice of marriage must be; the primary purpose of marriage is the service and worship (‘ibadah) of God, and that is achieved by living together as God wills. Only then is the second purpose, the birth of children, brought into context. What does God will? Doi, summarizing Islamic law, makes this clear: The man, with his aggression, is charged with what is called the ‘instrumental’ functions: maintenance, protection, dealings with the outworldy matters and leadership within the family. The woman is entrusted with caring for and rearing the children, organizing the home, and creating the loving atmosphere inside her matrimonial home. Work or trade are not prohibited to woman in Shari’ah provided they do it within the framework of modesty and with the permission of the husband; they are not recommended to undertake such activities unless there is a justification for them to go to work and should be without prejudice to their husband’s rights.
This is an example of religions as a protective system, of the kind so well rewarded by natural selection. Can this change without calling the Quran into question? The crisis is the same. Of course the Vatican and Sunni Islam do not agree on all matters. In fact, in Islam contraception is permitted for valid reasons, and those reasons are often listed: the most important are those that have to do with the health and well being of the mother or of existing children. Where the Vatican and Islam are agreed is in defending the status of religion as the protective system in which alone sexual activity and gene replication should occur, and must occur, in the ways they say....
...blah, blah, blah....
...Religions have acquired so much truth and so much wisdom through the course of time that they should be way out in front showing how to live in this new world in ways that seek what Hooker called ‘the common good.’ That must include in our time accepting and affirming with gratitude the emancipation of women, not from religion, but from the now unnecessary restrictions and protection which religions used to exist to provide.
Will they give the lead in this way? One kind of answer is given by the ways in which people live their lives. An authoritative answer can be given only by those who write the catechisms and the handbooks of sharia, the responsa and the applications of dharma. At the moment it looks as though it will not happen, and the human loss will be great
Notice the "Vatican Catholicism" dig, as if the "real" Catholicism exists outside the Vatican. Is this obnoxious or what? Doesn't this guy know any demographics or surveys or is he just pulling this stuff from out of his behind? Religions that have gone in the direction he sights (such as the Established Church of his own England) are dying rapidly and have no real influence whatsoever. They are, to use Bowker's phrase, already irrelevant.
Meanwhile Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, Catholicism is also still growing as is Pentacostal Evangelicalism which in some ways is more conservative that the "Vatican Catholicism" this guy so derides.
Written on 11:06 PM by Jack B.
Priest hurt in mock gay marriage
The full story:
A priest was slightly hurt at Paris's famed Notre-Dame Cathedral when clashes broke out between church security personnel and gay rights activists who performed a mock marriage of two lesbians.
About 20 members of the group Act Up entered the cathedral and proceeded to perform the mock marriage in front of baffled tourists and worshippers, according to an AFP correspondent at the scene.
One activist - dressed as a priest - pronounded the two women married, while other Act Up members chanted: "Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice."
With security officials in pursit, they then fled the cathedral, but clashes broke out outside the Paris landmark, during which Monsignor Patrick Jacquin suffered a minor neck injury. He was treated at the scene.
The demonstration marked the first anniversary of France's first gay wedding, performed last year in the Bordeaux suburb of Begles.
The union of two men has since been declared null and void by the French courts.
Monsignor Jacquin said: "They are savages. I was pushed to the ground and trampled, kicked in the neck.
"It's a scandal for these people to lash out at me and the Pope."
He said he was considering filing charges against what he called "barbaric, odious and scandalous acts".
The president of Act Up Paris, Jerome Martin - who participated in today's demonstration - said he had also been hit in the melee, but claimed the priest had exaggerated the actual events.
"We did not want to be aggressive with respect to the worshippers... the aggressive security detail wanted to rip up our banner," he said.
Earlier, the Act Up activists demonstrated outside Paris city hall, denouncing homophobia and calling for equal rights for gays and lesbians.
This is the same group (ACT-UP) who invaded St. Patrick's Cathredral here in NY during Sunday Mass during the 1980s and purposefully desecrated the Eucharist (which to Catholics, is LITERALLY the flesh of their GOD).
It seems to me that many who plead for "tolerance" can be awfully intolerant and not ALL those who promise religions wouldn't have to change their beliefs or perform weddings are telling the truth.
Written on 10:40 PM by Jack B.
It's very doubtful that you are evil... of course,
there are some questions that might make you
seem slightly evil... but, it's doubtful. Don't
count on being able to take over the world.
What Level of Evilness Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Written on 12:04 AM by Jack B.
A German Mini-Me Pope to Cuddle
Now you can have that feeling of being part of the flock everywhere you go thanks to a new portable Benedict XVI pope doll which makes penance possible wherever you may be.
While his boss is omnipotent, the pope himself cannot be in two places at once and can therefore not be expected to be there for every one of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world in their hour of need.
While Pope Benedict XVI's beliefs prevent him from cloning himself, a German company has achieved the next best thing by creating a lifelike representation of the cardinal formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger which can be with the devoted wherever they may be -- if they are among the lucky 999 to get the new pope doll while stocks last...
The doll, created by the Schildkröt dollmaker firm with the assistance of the Offermann dolls hospital, comes clad in white papal robes with a cross hanging round its neck, just in case anyone is confused as to whom it is supposed to represent.
Such signifiers will be welcomed as the face of the doll itself may throw some people as the 78-year-old pontiff's effigy looks a good few decades younger even though its makers point out that it's the first time one of their dolls comes with gray hair and gray eyebrows.
Written on 1:22 PM by Jack B.
First they stink, then they're good and now they stink again. This is going to be a long, agonizing season to be a Yankee fan. And the worst part is they seem to enjoy their own self-humiliation - how else to explain following up being embarassed by their arch-enemy, the Blosox, to being swept by the worst team in the league, the Royals. The Angels or the Twins I could understand (since they're actually good) but the Royals? And if this is how I feel, just imagine what George Steinbrenner is going through right now.
Written on 9:19 PM by Jack B.
If you look carefully
This is where I'll be
Head against wood
Leaning against the tree
Reading or
Resting my eyes
Feeling
Hands through damp grass
Leaves floating above my head
Scattered by the breeze
Through the shade
Spots of light shine
I put hands over head
So not to be blinded by its rays
Or its heat
Give me the cool wind
That now and again flows by
Or sometimes I'm just
Watching
With almost shuddered eyes
Fading Images
Of birds
Chirping in the trees
Of people
Lounging on the green
The Sun beating down
Walking on the path
Back and forth, to and fro
And that's where I'll be
Till it's my time to go
