Movies about Saints my way

Temptation

Salvador Dali’s Temptation of St Anthony

With the Golden Globes finished, and the Academy Awards around the corner, I wanted to publish this long overdue. I often find Catholic Saints film a bore. For fifth grade catechesis, maybe, but not much for inspiration in my faith. For Greater Glory & There Be Dragons pushed the Action and Intrigue. They attempted to make Saint stories suitable for Big Budget / Big Screen Cinema. In 2014, we had Biblical epics picked up by Directors who may have been atheists. The Gospel According to St Matthew, directed by atheist, marxist, homosexual Pasolini, is on the Vatican’s list of top faith films.

While many Catholics dream of big budget, suround sound, 3-D, nationally screened Saint films, I wonder what could be lost. Some saints might get their action sequences. Most saints are dealing with interior dilemmas that just cannot be communicated in the same manner as Big Budget / Big Screen Cinema. You might have to talk to directors who have dealt with smaller scale, intimate portrayals, accompanied by character development. On the one hand, you might limit the audience. On the other hand you might reach an audience (that wouldn’t waste their time on a cheesy sentimental saint film) for an intelligent, thoughtful, artfully crafted film experience around a particular saint.

Classic Film Biopics often portray the subject’s life through a series of episodes. Contemporary Film Biopics typically center around a crystallizing event in the subject’s life. Unfortunately, most Saint films tend to rely exclusively on the classic biopic style. For example, Lincoln dealt with the passing of legislation, rather than entire series of episodes of his life. While the Song of Bernadette (1943) attempts her entire life, Bernadette (1988) captures the apparition event. Most Saint or Pope movies employ the Classic Episodic style Biopic.

Finally, they are portrayed as spiritually unconflicted and morally uncomplicated. That is not always a bad thing, but that would not work for many of the subjects that I haveselected. When I speak of character development, there has to be a mountain in the heart that is moved by faith. There has to be some sort of challenge that they are to face, and that is more meaningful and inspiring than watching a subject never flinch in the face of adversity. I am sure that some people would like to see movies about miracles, stigmata, or zapping fireballs at pagans (see Patrick below), but were we to be approaching stories of human persons becoming saints, it might be the most effective and powerful method. Besides, when you are focusing on covering 60 years in 100 minutes, you miss a the emotion, or you miss the passion

For my proposed ideas, some I have thought about for the past several years. A few have suggestions for a director. I have no interest in suggesting actors, so that it is clear that this list is meant to emphasize how having a skilled director could do a lot more for a film than having some attractive faces.

Augustine
One of my saint film disappointments in recent times was Restless Heart about Augustine. As an Augustinian, I certainly had high hopes. The central theme of Augustinian Friendship as a communal discovery of Truth was absent. The sort of personal conversations among confidants was missing. Sometimes I wonder if you had a director like Richard Linklater, you might be able to capture some of the banter which is essential for a film portraying Augustine. It wouldn’t hurt to also have an Augustinian scholar brought on board to consult, as they do in many other historical pieces. We are, after all, entrusted by the Church with the Spiritual and Theological Legacy of Saint Augustine.

Martyrs
Almost any group of martyrs in the history of the Church could be portrayed as a compelling drama for the big screen. Unfortunately, most Catholics filmmakers are more interested in making something that is okay for children. Films have been made portraying violence while minimizing gore, this would not be that hard. I do think of Cecilia, Felicitas, or Perpetua as possible protagonists if we are dealing with early Rome. Alfonso Cuaron, of Gravity and Children of Men has taken on complicated nuanced dramas, and I could see something like this being taken on by him.

Antony of Egypt
Lets face it, the early desert monks don’t look good on a vintage kitsch prayer card. They are not pasty-skinned enough, dainty blonde enough. Think, weathered face, squinty eyed (Clint Eastwood). The Temptation of Antony is one of the oft-repeated paintings throughout art history, and I wonder what an intelligent film director would do with it, and add his twiest. Because, let’s face it, a film like this could subvert the modern cultural paradigm which sees temptation as either insurmountable or as pleasurable. Out of the other ideas mentioned, this one wouldn’t lend itself easily to lighthearted humor. David Fincher and Tim Burton are two completely different director’s, who would take this in very different directions, but could do something awesome with it.

Francesco d’Asis
Many people’s visions of Francis are as a gleeful sprite gracefully prancing around Assisi singing like Snow White to the little birdies. They completely miss the fact that he left behind his urban dandy of a cloth-merchant old man for the callous hands of a wild and rugged stone chapel. Francis was a short man, kind of like X-Men’s Wolverine. I do believe that a Francis movie can find a good way of mixing playfulness with manliness. After seeing Prince Avalanche, something I would like to find in a Francis movie, David Gordon Greene might be able to pull something similar.

Thomas the Apostle
Christianity has existed in Southern India within a century of Christ’s crucifixion. All of the Eastern Christian Churches often appear different than what we expect Christianity to be. Having a film portraying early Malabar or Malankara Christians would, in many ways, be earth-shattering for our stereotypes of Christianity as a Western Religion. This could even be an enthralling story with Thomas as a supporting character or catalyst, rather than a protagonist. Slumdog Millionaire was a joint operation in England and India, and this would be what I would hope for with something like this, however, I wouldn’t want to see Danny Boyle (who did a work about Saints in Millions), as much as a local director.

Patrick
A few years ago, I saw a Saint Patrick movie, where he was going around zapping pagans with fire. There is a desperate yearning to make a Catholic movie into a big screen spectacle. I find my heart moved by his story, and would prefer to have something more dramatic. Years ago, there was a little Irish animated feature The Secret of Kells (2009). It portrayed a group of Christian Monks creating the Book of Kells. It had its share of fairies and folklore, and was meant to be for children. I have wondered what it were like to have short stories of some of the important Irish Saints: Cuthbert, Brendan, Brigid, and of course Patrick.

Mother Theresa
Here is someone that is still in the popular imagination among Catholics, as well as some secular humanist types. Younger Catholics don’t know who she is. I admit, that I am not a card carrying member of her fan club, and there could be a moment or two in her life that is worth capturing. I am impressed that she caused a ceasefire, she got a Nobel Peace Prize. These could be instances. It is also known that she did not feel internal spiritual consolations for the last part of her life. This is the sort of thing that works good on film. I don’t know that I have an idea of a director for this one (as I am not as familiar with her), but one person suggested Parish Hilton should be cast to play her.

Bonus: Hipster Pope Benedict
Ratzinger was forced to join the Nazi youth. He deserted, broke the law by going to the seminary, and became a priest. It could be a sort of wartime star crossed romance, except falling in love with God, and perhaps enjoying beer and having a friend cat. This wouldn’t go through the rest of his life, in fact becoming the pope would be irrelevant to this story that could be wrapped up in the climactic event of him being accepted into the seminary.

8 Reasons Why Augustine & The Confessions still Matter

20140826_152853I believe that plenty of people who call themselves atheists, agnostics, or renounced their Catholic faith are not irreedemably damned. I believe that not so much because God doesn’t damn people, but more, because many of them just think that they are atheists, agnostics or not-Catholic anymore. Augustine, as he describes in his Confessions, makes it clear that God drew close to him, in spite of Augustine’s sinful life, and drew him back.
Augustine was taught about Jesus as a child, by his Mother, Saint Monica. He was not necessarily raised pagan, he was just never baptized. He even would search for the name of Jesus in pagan literature. He drifted, joined a cult, became a skeptic, and eventually found his home in communion with the Church.

  1. God is not some bearded man in the sky who created the world in six 24 hour days, so many people leave the Church, and declare that they are agnostic or atheist. Augustine was deeply troubled by a literal interpretation of Genesis, probably just as troubled as many intelligent adults are by Modern Evangelical Fundamentalists. Augustine describes this in his Confessions.
  2. Young People swear that they had religion “crammed down their throat.” Augustine took a Sea Voyage at Night, from Africa to Rome, to get away from his Mom who wanted him to be Catholic.
  3. Temptations are tempting because they seem to feel good. Augustine makes no qualms about covering up the internal conflicts we face, about the gruesome delight of sin. He also does not justify himself by evading the fact that these same sins leave you incredibly bereft. Augustine’s candid discussion of Sin, Grace & Redemption would resonate with many young people.
  4. We both know what it is to have a Broken Heart. Many young people are putting off marriage, many of them are just as cynical about finding someone worth marrying as they are about finding a religion worth committing too. Augustine describes the heartbreak he experienced when it didn’t work out with a woman he loved.
  5. As Augustine matures, so does his perspective on God, Faith & the Church. I believe that many young people claim agnosticism without realizing this is part of maturation. I think they are turned away by Catholics who have had an easier time at their faith, not realizing that this Negative Way is part of Spiritual Maturation.
  6. People wonder if religions is useless. Augustine became disillusioned with a narrow perspective of Catholicism before returning. He also became disillusioned with many other Religious cults of his time, including Philosophy & Manicheanism. Conversely he also credits non-Christian pagans with being stepping stones on his way to the fullness of Truth in the Church. I think many people who leave the Church because they think that we teach that being non-Catholic instantly damns one to hell.
  7. Augustine does not always have easy answers, in fact his Confessions often presents unanswered questions. Some Catholics find genuine comfort in Church Teachings which are stated clearly. Many people, including myself, find quick, easy, and clear answers constricting. Augustine’s Confessions reminds us of the importance of Mystery.
  8. Ultimately, Augustine’s Confessions are not so much about himself, but about God’s work in his life. You can always read plenty about Augustine if you want to know him, including a biography from his long time friend Saint Possidius. Since his Confessions are about giving Glory to God, they will provoke readers to see God working in their own life.

UPDATE (8.30.14) Be sure to look up Reading & Studying Augustine to find the preferred translation of the Confessions, and some other easier to read works by Augustine.

I am convinced that a revival of the via negativa will be invaluable tool for the New Evangelization in the postmodern west. I am also convinced that many people labeled ‘bones’ and ‘fallen away Catholics’ were never presented the opportunity to journey through the via negativa to a free and committed discipleship.

Aleteia: What is the via negativa?

Jennifer Fulwiler asks whether it is possible or not to raise one kids to be open-minded about religion. For some parents, open-minded means never committing to anything specific. Jennifer challenges that:

If being in a state of open-mindedness means that you’re asking questions, seeking knowledge, and attempting to evaluate data without bias, it seems that that should be a transitory state: At some point, you either find answers, or determine that the answers are not findable. In either case you now have a defined belief system, even if it’s agnosticism. At this point, while you may be open to hearing new perspectives, you are no longer “open-minded” in the sense of not having any opinions about matters of spirituality — you’ve found your belief system.

The tipping point, the commitment point. That’s what truth does to us. If we ever want to grow, we can’t just hover from one religious symbol or prayer or meditation to the next, it will never penetrate us enough. We have to commit after a certain time, after measuring it, and ourselves.

That is the problem I have with many spiritual seekers, who are more like wanderers. They completely lack any depth in anything specific. Instead it is just hazy feelings that don’t mean anything at all, except for them to pat themselves on the back and feel good and tolerant and open minded.

Don’t get me wrong, there are, I bet, several sincere spiritual seekers out there, I haven’t met any. But I am glad that they reverence truth enough to not just blindly follow. My challenge to you, again, agnostics, is to have the courage to commit to something, and let it penetrate your heart enough that you can have real convictions.

Jennifer Fulwiler: Open-Minded about Religion

The Trinity for Agnostics Part 2

Read Part 1

Many of the Church Fathers termed a process “Apophatic” Theology. Apophatic is a negated speech of God. It was seen in the process of coming to a deeper understanding of God, principally by denying all of your comfortable certitudes about God.

As children, we have very concrete images of God. We let go of them with age. That is normal. If we are serious in our endeavor to understand God in faith, we have to let go of our childhood faith in order to have an adult faith. We can move past the milk to the solid food as Saint Paul says.

It appears to be a dangerous endeavor, and I think many people would rather not have instant answers. Some people want to have the comfort of not having to struggle in the darkness to find God.

Moses encountered the Lord in the wilderness, after having singularly fled Egypt. It was in this darkness that God manifest. Elijah as well, imagining that he pinpointed God in the storms, whirlwinds and thunders, and God manifest in the quiet. The entire Hebrew tradition is wrought with this wonder at divine majesty, that even today, out of reverence, Jews dare not utter the sacred name G-d.

Christians had inherited this. Christians had appropriated it. In many of the instances the Bishops articulated something concise in order to draw a boundary when somebody preached a heresy that took the tradition out of balance, or out of the inherited tradition entirely.

It is not as if most of the heretics woke up one day and decided to wreak havoc on the doctrine of the Church. They probably believed that they had God down in a laboratory. What made it so problematic was that many heretics persisted in their heresy.

But so it is when we encounter someone agnostic whose wandered off with only their speculations. We presume that they have some kind of mal-intent to ruin the tradition. Maybe they are doing apophatic theology and don’t know it. Maybe that is the pilgrimage that God is guiding them on. Maybe you were there too, and God had to take you through it to get you there.

Of course, the Church Fathers do not believe that  Agnosticism is the finality or the climax. While we say that God is love, soon we get confused. We hear the word love thrown around like an old dirty tennisball. We wonder if God really loves us in all our messiness. We wonder if God really even cares, like he hasn’t sent a birthday card in a while. So we can definitely and accurately say that God is not love. The way love is defined, understood, and practiced in our day and age, tainted by lust and jealousy and greed, its really hard to understand what love is, or what we mean by God is love.

Our pilgrimage takes us to something even more spectacular, when we have some kind of solid faith that God is love in such an excellent and magnificent way that words fail. It is like an ascent. We make a positive statement of God, then a negative statement about God, then another positive statement enriched by our awe-inspired reverence for God’s glory, because our love moves us to at least say something.

Of course, some agnostics I have met are just more comfortable not committing to anything, floating along from one experience to another, afraid that should they delve too deeply and sincerely into one thing, their discovery will radically overturn their comfort, and compel them into a dangerous and lovely adventure. It could be that many agnostics are on a sincere pilgrimage, and haven’t gotten to the point where they can again confidently make assertions on God.

Obviously, as faith is a gift from God, so this leap from Apophatic or negative theology requires some sort of divine intervention. God indeed would have to speak. I believe that God did speak quite precisely and definitively in the Word, who is God, who is Incarnate in flesh, Jesus the Christ. Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation to humankind. Jesus invites us on a dangerous and lovely adventure.

It always evokes in me, a sense that sometimes I need to be hushed in reverent silence before the Glorious Majesty of the Almighty Lord of Heaven and Earth.

Read Part 3

Read Part 4

Reblog… John Allen on All Things Catholic at the National Catholic Reporter writes on 3 Myths to ditch for Lent:

1. Purple ecclesiology

“Purple ecclesiology” refers to the notion that the lead actors in the Catholic drama are the clergy, and in fact, the only activity that really counts as “Catholic” at all is that carried out by the church’s clerical caste, especially its bishops. You can always spot purple ecclesiology at work when you hear someone say “the church” when what they really mean is “the hierarchy.”

The truth is that the number of ordained clergy in the Catholic church comes to roughly .04 percent of the total Catholic population of 1.2 billion. If they’re the main act, then all one can say is that the Catholic show is wildly top-heavy with supporting cast.

Seeing the church through a purple filter is misleading, even if all we take into view is the visible, institutional dimension of Catholic life. Most Catholic schools, hospitals, social service centers, movements and associations, even chanceries and parish headquarters, are staffed overwhelmingly by laywomen and men. More deeply, however, the church doesn’t exist for itself, but to change the world, which means that if its message is to penetrate the various realms of culture — medicine, law, the academy, politics, the economy and so on — it’s either going to be carried there by laity, or not at all…

2. A church in decline

Seen from global perspective, however, that’s just wildly wrong. The last half-century witnessed the greatest period of missionary expansion in the 2,000-year history of Catholicism, fueled by explosive growth in the southern hemisphere. Take sub-Saharan Africa as a case in point: The Catholic population at the dawn of the 20th century was 1.9 million, while by the end of the century it was more than 130 million, representing a staggering growth rate of 6,708 percent. Overall, the global Catholic footprint shot up from 266 million in 1900 to 1.1 billion in 2000, ahead of the overall rate of increase in world population, and is still rising today.

The dominant Catholic narrative of our time, in other words, is not decline but astronomic growth. (That’s not true everywhere, as there are significant losses in Europe, parts of North America and in some pockets of Latin America, but it is the global big picture.)

Even in the United States, the Catholic church is actually holding its own. Yes, it’s lost a third of Americans born into the faith, but its retention rate of two-thirds is actually fairly healthy by the competitive standards of America’s wide-open religious marketplace. (It’s much higher than, say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who retain only one-third of their members.) Further, the Catholic church is holding steady at roughly a quarter of the national population, thanks largely to Hispanic immigration and higher-than-average birth rates among Hispanic Catholics. In the words of Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum, American Catholicism is “browning,” but it’s not contracting…

3. Christianity is the oppressor, not the oppressed

Of all the popular misconceptions about Catholicism, and about Christianity in general, this is arguably the most pernicious.

Here’s the stark reality of our times: In the early 21st century, we are witnessing the rise of a whole new generation of Christian martyrs.

Christians are today, statistically speaking, by far the most persecuted religious group on the planet. According to the Frankfurt-based Society for Human Rights, fully 80 percent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed against Christians. The Pew Forum estimates that Christians experience persecution in a staggering total of 133 nations, fully two-thirds of all the countries on earth.

As part of that picture, the Catholic relief agency “Aid to the Church in Need” estimates that 150,000 Christians die for their faith every year, in locales ranging from the Middle East to Southeast Asia to sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America. This means that every hour of every day, roughly 17 Christians are killed somewhere in the world, either out of hatred for the faith or hatred for the works of charity and justice their faith compels them to perform.

Perhaps the emblematic example is Iraq, where a strong Christian community that took two millennia to build has been gutted in the arc of a little more than two decades. Prior to 1991, the year of the First Gulf War, there were more than 2 million Christians in Iraq, while today the high-end estimate is that somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 may be left.

3 Myths about the Church to ditch for Lent

5 Reasons I Love Religion!

It may be that the “I Hate Religion, I love Jesus” video has officially passed out as a cultural phenomenon like many other pop culture trends that this very video is indebted to, while Religion still stands. It may be that another critical response is so late in the game, that it is somehow irrelevant.

I, however, still did wish to share some affirmative critical responses in favor of Religion. My Catholic Church still stands despite my ability or incapacity to defend it. My defense of it does not validate it any the more. After some time on reflecting, as well as much time postponing for various reasons, I offer my thoughts. I only hope to add a few of these affirmative responses, if only that they are not merely responses but affirmations that are relevant beyond the moment.

Many of the responses to the video that I have read act merely as ad hoc phrase by phrase responses. Having had a few days to gather some of my thoughts and emotions together I decided to piece together five significant reasons why I am proud to be a Religious follower of Jesus Christ.

Reason 1 Children

I had the awesome experience of helping a 2nd grade class prepare for their 1st Holy Communion.

1st Holy Communion Masses are inundated with plenty of Catholics who have not attended Mass in years, and are notorious for becoming spectacles. They are running around Church taking photos of their precious pristine children taking a rite of passage. And the irony is, that despite it being special to them, they themselves may not even be receiving communion. Despite what may be some overt hypocrisy… Well it does not even take away from the amazing nature of the sacrament if believers fail to grasp the magnitude of the event. Even if they inherently know this day to be set apart from others, they carry a sense of pride for their children. Even if the children themselves fail to see the riches of the Sacrament. Hey, that is the wonder of being a child, joyful discovery.

Unlike the jaded fallen away Catholic, or anyone who insists on Jesus and no religion, who dismisses this joyful discovery. The Jesus without religion insists that this faith experience of the child has literally no value, while the religious person carries the joy that they have an entire life to joyfully discover and grow into the understanding of this very event.

I cannot merely dismiss the faith of a child, given they do not understand the magnitude of the event, it is just uncharitable. In fact, I think their own humble willing acceptance is seriously valid. It is something we share, and I am proud to share the faith, and inspired by the faith of children. In fact, in some way, my own religion insists that the faith experience of these children is somehow more valid then my own. This is so radical and counter intuitive in the same way that Jesus proclamation of the Kingdom of God was so radical and counter intuitive, and not as radical and counter intuitive to insist that understanding people only apply to the alter call. To insist that the only valid encounter of faith is an adult who “accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior,” fails to grasp the magnitude of childlike faith, and submits itself to the sinful yoke of cynicism.

I cannot help but think that I am a better man when we have a religion where children are full and valid participants.

Reason 2 Art, Music, and Architecture

A few years ago I studied medieval and renaissance art in a university setting. I was inspired by the course, and impressed by how far the professor managed to cover the spiritual and religious genius of artists that we covered.

Although on one hand I am sure many people would flock into magnificent churches over the centuries with the same human inclination for the spectacular that they flock to in laser show mega churches and special effect extravaganza blockbuster movies… There is still something more at work. The impulse in the human spirit to craft magnificent beauty in the cause of a greater purpose is one of the most amazing things about humanity. To dismiss this aspect of the human spirit as idolatry or as uncharitable is more ironic idolatry than anything. In fact, the impulse itself only verifies the existence of our Creator and the creative achievement. To have one’s heart dramatically arrested in silent reverence, seems to ennoble the soul to greater virtue, more then the cold and nearly inhuman insistence on dismissing the entire western repertoire of artistic achievement.

Because some people fail to appreciate the divine beauty manifest in art does not itself invalidate the art, or more significantly, the glorious realities that the art manifests. However, to fail to acknowledge the total human person, sensuous and emotional, traps the human person in their own ideological madness. When you kill the poetic imagination in the human spirit you are left with nothing then legalism or fanciful speculative superstition. Perhaps that is whey our society is so fragmented on ideologies, is because our culture has been so iconoclastic when it comes to religious art. Perhaps this is why “Jesus and No Religion” is so legalistic with all its “No religion, no art, no this, no that.” Perhaps that is why there is this rampant obsession with speculative superstitious interpretations of the Apocalypse with non-contextualized passages of Scripture.

In order for their to be a great artistic tradition, it requires a shared pedagogy of symbols. Religion does that. Where there is no shared pedagogy, you see as modern art is reduced to intangible reckless subjective nonsense.

I cannot deny that somehow I have become a better man by a religion that drives women and men to manifesting beautiful art music and architecture.

Reason 3 Culture and Communal Christian Identity

I grew up in Southern California, going to a parish established by Spanish Franciscan Missionary Junipero Serra in 1771 before the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Catholic story of the American Southwest is a different one than the Catholic story out in the East Coast. The Catholic story of the Irish, Italian, and German immigrants differs from the Hispanic Catholics who became part of this country without ever immigrating. You see the results, and the Mission Church to which I grew up in is markedly different then the Churches I see out here, is different from the Churches in Europe.

A philosophy professor when I started College made the comment that Protestant Churches throughout the world make very little admission for cultural differences then Catholic churches, and that says something significant. Perhaps old Protestant Churches only permitted Gothic styles, and modern Evangelical churches only permit theatrical auditorium settings, while Catholic Church admit to a diverse inclusiveness when it comes to cultural settings. This is not to say that certain aspects of Catholic worship are incredibly essential, and this theory overlooks the sad state of Catholic architecture in the past thirty years (which itself is not the point, it is more a failure to relate and live up to something essentially Catholic).

The same could be said about the devotional life of Catholics of differing settings. Unfortunately, when you have a dogmatically narrow self-righteous insistence of Jesus and no religion, you hypocritically fail to allow a communal relationship with Jesus to grow in a particular character, and you fail to allow the Spirit itself to work. At some point years ago, I was instinctively opposed to some sort of “Religion of the Masses.” That instinct was itself a self-righteous disdain to set myself over and above others who failed to live up to my own narrow idea of purity.

What you end up getting is a bunch of Evangelical, Pentacostal, Non-Denominational churches sprouting up targeting Hispanic Catholics condescendingly as biblically ignorant while training them to disdain their own Religious Cultural Patrimony. Believe me, I have seen it happen my entire life growing up in Southern California. I am sure the same could be said as Evangelicals likely do the same elsewhere.

Reason 4 I am liberated from the tyranny of self

Although on the one hand I become most fully myself in my relationship with the Divine Trinity, there is still something about myself that has to die. Perhaps it is a result of a sinful impulse within me, that we often refer to as Original Sin, that causes me to desire to protect myself from God’s work in my life.

It is like I want, at all cost, to accumulate more things. There is this survival instinct that fears that I will not have enough, and that I will wear out and die. There is this tendency to put my short term desires and needs ahead of my own long term destiny, and the destiny of humanity in general.

Jesus comes around preaching the Beatitudes, and giving himself up to die on the cross, and it turns this whole human dynamic on its head. It turns Communism, Capitalism, Consumerism, and every other self-protecting ideology on its head. In fact, it turns this same sinful self enclosing instinct to have Jesus and no religion on its very head as well.

Even to hold the bible in my own, like an app on my personal smart phone device only closes up God in a box even more, if I cannot allow the bible to be interpreted by a community more competent then myself. Perhaps this is why I see the value itself in Patristics, as well as a legitimate authority that is not me, because of my own instinct to protect myself.

The tradition of the Church has always been helpful for liberating myself, and others from their own selfish instincts, while Jesus and No Religion only helps one to give power to their own selfish instincts. What an incredible hypocrisy then, to talk all this stuff about what Jesus insists that you do, while pretending that there is no religion at all behind it. To be accountable to a 2000 year tradition and a standing authority that is not me, only refuses to allow myself to become the tyrant of my own interpretation of what Jesus meant.

When the Church comes up with a legal code, Canon Law, has been a way of verifying the rights and responsibilities of the members and the institution beyond stringent lists of forbidden things. That is not to say that there are some limits that are forbidden, if only that the Church will insist that I will be losing my total human spiritual identity by crossing those limits.

There really is no way around it, but I cannot be a better more liberated person if I am not accountable to those things.

Reason 5 Sanctified Rhythm of Life

The logical conclusion of Protestant failure to carry a sense of Sacred with things has resulted in a failure to worship with a beautiful liturgy. There is no Sacred Sunday of the Resurrection, there is just a day to hear Pastor Preach. There is no entering into the Divine Drama in Human History in the Rhythms of Feasts and Seasons each year, as there is only another day to listen to Pastor Preach. There is no participation that takes us beyond the daily mundane of our lives, as there is only the incessant demand that Pastor Preach, or to incessantly demand that God deal with all the daily mundane of our lives. This is the whole market with Evangelical Self Help books, bible daily devotionals, and the like.

Not only does an authoritative tradition act as a balance to my own instinctual fight for survival, a living tradition imparts life insofar as I participate in it.

Think about it. We have Advent, leading to Christmas, and Lent leading to Easter. We behave in a different way in Advent then in Lent, and a markedly distinct manner in Lent compared to Easter. We hope in one and relish in the other. We cry in one and solemnly rejoice in the other. We are losers in one, and we participate in God’s victory in the other.

The very act of praying in such a seasonal manner sanctifies our sorrows and consecrates our ecstasy. It places each tear and each smile of our lives in a greater story. It relates our pain and pleasure to something beyond our everyday mundane, and even goes so far as to identify it with all of humanity and with God’s story.

People tell me that I am always so joyful and always so happy. I tend to laugh with irony during the month of November when I listen to melancholy music thinking of the Holy Dead, and meditating on my own mortality. When Christmas arrives, with its cakes, candies, and drinks, I go to Mass over and over again, and then go party over and over again. I laugh and dance with pride and gusto. This is what religion does to me. It does not dismiss my sorrow as morbid, nor does it dismiss my celebration as excessive.

Of course, the “Jesus and No Religion” do not even know how to celebrate and drink like Jesus, with their puritanical insistence on no alcohol. They are more like the Pharisees who will criticize the disciples of John the Baptist who mourn and fast (as they will dismiss anybody who does not always and everywhere remain happy for Jesus Resurrection) while simultaneously, like the Pharisees criticize Jesus disciples who drink and feast (as they dismiss “worldly” people with their excesses).