UPDATE ON BLESSED FR. JAMES ALBERIONE DOCUMENTARY!

TRAILER:  www.MediaApostle.com

MOVIES: "THE GREAT GATSBY"

A FEW MILD SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW!
(And please see comments so you will know I'm not condoning adultery in any way.)

The latest film rendering of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” is done by the great Baz Luhrmann (Strictly Ballroom, Moulin Rouge!, Australia), master of the spectacle. (I will never understand why more filmmakers don’t make the cameras, lights, colors and sound hum like Luhrmann.) I had never read the novel and didn’t even know the plot, so the whole thing hit me for the first time with full impact.

Luhrmann’s highly stylized, always-in-smooth-motion, CGI settings are perfect for the world of Jay Gatsby, (Leonardo DiCaprio) the man with the “perfect imagination.” If you don’t know the plot, the way the story is going to shape up is not evident from the beginning. The film gets off to a slow, almost uninteresting, hokey start with lots of voice-over from Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), who is actually narrating from the story he wrote about Gatsby’s life. So the film is really all a flashback, returning occasionally to Nick’s writing of the story. At first I thought, “Oh-oh, somebody was lazy adapting the novel to the screen and is doing sloppy blah blah blah while concentrating only on visuals,” but after a bit, the film hits its stride and all is well.

There is a huge build-up to Gatsby before we ever see him, something like “Hud,” only much longer, but not too long. We hear early on that he is a man of tremendous hope, and so we are hooked, because we like hope, we need hope.

“Gatsby” is not a frothy, roaring 20’s, “bright young things” romp. And the aspects of it that are are only there for a contrast to deeper issues, deeper matters, matter of the hearts, matters of character and goodness. You cannot even begin to imagine how characters will develop, how things will change at the end. Every time you think you know how things will turn out (masterful secrets, suspenses, tensions, reveals, twists, lies, drama, events) you don’t, so it’s best to just give up and watch.

Gatsby seems to be a bit of a God figure, actually. He gives lavishly, he is always watching, he loves extravagantly, he is infinitely mysterious, “but he seemed to understand me.” After talking to Gatsby, a woman declares: “It ALL makes sense!” “If there is NO GATSBY, what is all this FOR?” Gatsby’s CLOSENESS to everyone. “Son of God.” But he is also a deeply flawed figure with shady business dealings, and not beyond adultery. Can a flawed figure be a God-figure in a film? I think so—in their unflawed parts. Man is always greater than his sin. Gatsby IS a man of hope, and love, too. Great hope and great love. The way he loves Daisy (Carey Mulligan—does any other actress have more expressive eyes?) is a bracing statement about the total way a man completely in love with a woman loves her—from the moment he stops and makes a decision to fall in love with her (knowing that his mind would no longer be free to “roam like the mind of God”). This is the real Theology of the Body piece here. He loves her, does everything for her, wants to protect her and take care of her, but he does not force her. He does not want her to be his prisoner.

At a certain point I was wondering if this film adaptation and the narration were just too semi-philosophical for Americans in parts. (I love this stuff, but I’m a weirdo.) Nobody stirred in my theater. Yay. I think they WELCOMED the differentness of “Gatsby.”

This film is terribly transcendent. At the end, my packed cinema full of very diverse moviegoers was utterly lost in a contemplative silence. Fitzgerald’s literary poetry kind of towers above any screenplay we hear today. I think it mesmerized them.

So much of Gatsby’s life was dreams and illusion, but much of it was realized, also. Like every life. And love? Well, we are all heading toward endless Love.

“Gatsby” is totally a man’s story. A man’s love story. Also a sort of buddy story. Fitzgerald plays peek-a-boo with God in this story. God is here and there. Is He benign? It’s hard to tell exactly, but man is definitely His image, and males in a particular way in this film make things happen, are in charge, know their own greatness, steer their own courses. Gatsby has a sense of unlimitedness within him that he explicitly recognizes as being like God. And a woman—in the end—is the most worthy object of all his affections, desires, time, planning and attention. Everything is for her. He has “prepared a place for her.” Nothing else matters but her. One can’t help thinking of God wooing us. God’s extravagant gestures towards us. How do we respond?

OTHER STUFF:

--Hard review to write without spoilers!

--God saves all OUR letters and mementos. And He keeps ALL the crayon drawings of our lives on His big refrigerator in heaven.

--I love how Gatsby was nervous like a little boy waiting to see Daisy again.

--This is SO Luhrmann’s movie. He owns it.

--The vibe feels 20’s. Good job.

--Fitzgerald is in love with words. Me too.

--Nick writes because his doctor told him to.

--Great high AND intimate drama.

--“He looked at her like every woman wants to be looked at.”

--“He knew that falling in love would change him forever.”

--“I felt married to her.”

--“She just needs more time.”

--“Gatsby knew that he could climb, but only alone.”

--I don’t know that I understand what Fitzgerald is trying to say about “the past.”

--There is so much depth and symbolism everywhere in this story: NYC, the house, the water, the invitation, the elusiveness of Gatsby, the separation of classes and races, the big eye-doctor eyeglasses, Gatsby’s mansion itself, the parties, who was TRULY corrupted by money?

--Blessed John Paul II. THE GREAT.

--Nick begins the story with a quote from his father. This deferring to the father is rather rare today. For me, it situates the whole story in the presence of God the Father, a kind of fatherly God.

--The flashing green light through the fog. What a beautiful symbol.

--Luhrmann always expertly mixes his period pieces with modern music, and scenes always threaten to bust out into a music video. Hip-hop in the 20’s? Word. Totally works.

--I lost the significance of the tooth.

--The DiCaprio problem. I am not a big fan of his acting. And he will still look like a little boy when he’s 80, I’m sure. But he has the right handsomeness for this era, and he puts in a good performance. Sometimes I can see him thinking. Sometimes he seemed to stumble on his lines. But this might be perfect for the hopeful, ever-youthful Gatsby. Might.

--Carey Mulligan is great, but (Aussie!!) Joel Edgerton (who plays Daisy’s hubby, Tom) is the best actor in this film. Outstanding. Tobey Maguire, is his usual, lackluster, mumbly self. Sorry, I just don’t think he’s an actor. But he plays a good beige narrator/observer, which is needed for “Gatsby,” methinks.

--“Old sport.”

--Marvelous soundtrack.

--Do men like this film? If so, why/why not?

--I know nothing about Fitzgerald, but I’m thinking of his Irishness: mindful of the poor and social injustice. Wrestling with God.

--Shades of “Citizen Kane”? Yes.

--Will WE wait for God?

--A good man is hard to find. But when found, he is the most beautiful thing in Creation. Men think it’s us women, but I think it’s them, and I think I’m right because of Jesus.

--BIG, FAT SPOILER COMING UP! CLOSE YOUR EYES! Daisy was not worthy of Gatsby's love. (This was an incredibly delayed reveal, because at first we thought she was! Great storytelling.) Just like us. We are not worthy of God's excessive, heat-seeking-missile-locked-on-us love. We are callous and shallow. We prefer trinkets.

--"Rolling Stone's" Peter Travers REALLY did not like this film! http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/videos/baz-luhrmanns-great-gatsby-is-artificial-and-boring-20130509

HOCKEY NUN

TSN is Canada's ESPN.

http://storify.com/TSNKate/sister-helena

DR. JOHN FRAUNCES ON "LIVING TOGETHER" 4 MIN

"It's easy to fall in love with sex. You have to fall in love with a person."

MOVIES: "TO THE WONDER"

Terrence Malick's ("Tree of Life") new film, "To the Wonder," is, at best, a bit of a disappointment, and, at worst, looks like one long perfume commercial.

Malick employs his now trademark elegant, open, airy, spacious camerawork  (although many shots/scenes are far too reminiscent of “Tree of Life” itself) to tell the story of Marina (Olga Kurylenko)—a waifish French single mother with a pre-teen daughter, Tatiana. Marina falls for American, Neil (Ben Affleck), in her native Paris, and he takes her and her daughter back to the flatlands of Oklahoma. But Marina can’t marry Neil because “in the eyes of the Church” she is still married to her husband who abandoned her and her daughter. She does not state this bitterly, because she is a woman of faith, prays and goes to Mass.

The profound, dedicated but troubled priest at the parish is Fr. Quintana (Javier Bardem). He seems to be going through a dark night of the soul where he feels he has lost God, can no longer perceive Him, and yet he still carries on and prays intimate, Psalm-like prayers. As in many Malick films, characters constantly whisper prayers and converse with the Divine as easily as they do with the human.

“What is this love that loves us--
that comes from nowhere. From all around.”
“Love that loves us—thank you. Merci.”

Neil and Marina and her daughter share joys, tears and fights. Much of TTW is about the male-female romantic relationship. Most of the dialogue is either snatches of people’s thoughts or snatches of conversations that are purposely not in sync with the visuals. People’s mouths move and the words come out before or after (sometimes it’s easy to lip-read). I found TTW even more “impressionistic” than “Tree of Life.” Malick’s impressionism is decidedly not everyone’s cup of tea. Malick makes what I call “meditation films” that require your full, undivided attention. TTW also has lots of subtitles because French is spoken and even a little Italian. I, personally, like his films, but you have to be in the right mood and feeling very patient.

SPOILER ALERT! I’m doing spoilers because people are asking me what I think especially of Malick’s handling of Church stuff. Malick’s films are intensely Catholic, in every sense of that word.

Marina’s visa runs out and she returns to France. Neil temporarily takes up with Jane (Rachel McAdams),  an acquaintance from his youth, with whom he also fornicates. But Marina eventually returns, and she and Neil marry, first in front of a justice of the peace, and later in the Catholic Church (it’s not explained if she got an annulment).

Neil barely says a word throughout the entire film. He seems like an OK guy, only very indecisive and afraid of commitment. We never get to know him at all. Only the women speak. What do they speak of? Love. Desperately wanting Neil.

As always, Malick can’t get enough of the beauty of nature, and his camera lens/eye seems to just keep wandering off to it in the midst of human travails. It reminds me of a saying from Rumi:

"But listen to me. For one moment quit being sad.
Hear blessings dropping their blossoms around you."

Malick finds God in nature, and, I believe, uses “nature interruptions”—shot at all times of day (he’s particularly fond of dusk as I am) to keep hammering home the delicious and consoling fact that we are  truly “surrounded” (a huge theme in this film) at all moments by God-Love. Magnificent, hoary bison even “surround” Neil and Jane at one point. “God in Malick’s Films” would be an excellent filmic study.

Malick must be beside himself with delight at what today’s film technology enables him to do. Since he uses an abundance of natural light (even indoors), his movies can look like they were shot on film.

TTW is not a “mature” film.  It is almost childish and seems to lack the forethought and careful planning of “Tree of Life.” TTW feels like an unnecessary film. I almost fear it will mar his “Tree of Life” legacy. Malick could have just ceased filmmaking after “Tree.” It cannot be topped—not that the esoteric director is even trying. He’s often like a photag-enthusiast, a kid or film student with his first camera, let loose upon the world.  As Michael Phillips of the “Chicago Tribune” asks: For Terrence Malick,  there can ever be too many fields of waving grain in a film? Phillips answers his own question with a “no.”

As much as Malick’s camera loves human beings, it loves nature more, and would be content to silently, wordlessly make us stop and contemplate it forever.

OTHER STUFF:

--Nobody has anything to do. Oh, Neil LOOKS like he’s doing a job once in a while. They go shopping once, and toward the end some dishes get washed. That’s about it. But maybe that’s the whole point? We are busy about nothing, when we should be busy about each other? The important things in life? Love? Remember, in the Garden were only Adam and Eve.* And the Garden. I think this is Malick’s great nostalgia.

--Malick’s women are fragile, luminous, wide-eyed, girlish ingénues. Almost like D. W. Griffith, who preferred his starlets barely of age.

--Marina, Tatiana and Jane’s dancing around and jumping on beds gets very tiresome. I realize that, at least on Marina’s part, it could very well be French whimsy, but—in the immortal words of “Monk” (via Randy Newman): “I could be wrong now, but I don’t think so.” I think it is rather Malick’s idealized vision of woman: the woman-child.

--The house in Oklahoma is never fully furnished. Doors to the outside are left open, and messy boxes are always in a state of being packed/unpacked. Horrible impermanence.

--The old Black guy at church (and old lady who says—offscreen!—she will pray for him) trying to help their priest FEEL God again!

--Lots of great quotes: “Jesus does not let us avoid choice. We MUST choose.” –Fr. Quintana
“Why do we come back down?” –Marina
“I thirst for You.” –Fr. Quintana

--Even though made by a man, and with a very strong central male presence, TTW, I think, is meant to be a woman’s film. A woman’s perspective on love. From a man’s perspective. :)

--Like “Tree of Life,” TTW is very reassuring: “All things work together for those who love God.”

--I have nothing against good-looking people, but the cast is far from ordinary in the looks department, and therefore a bit unrelatable, at least the women.

--Maybe I’m a cold-blooded fish, but I didn’t really feel sorry for anyone in this film, except Tatiana, and maybe the priest.

--*SPOILER ALERT: I almost feel that when Tatiana goes to live with her father, she was finally “out of the way.” It’s as though Malick only wants Marina and Neil together, forever young (even though there are hints of children throughout the film), forever sharing a new, young love.

--Sad little scene about Marina’s IUD. IUD’s are sad little things, anyway.

--A little fleeting nudity: Marina and Jane’s breasts.

--The love-language between humans easily slips into prayer. Sometimes hard to distinguish whether a human or God is being addressed/talked about.

--TTW feels even more European than “Tree of Life.” I imagine the direction given to the actors: “Just do anything here. Twirl. See how many ways you can twirl.”

--Some scenes (especially the fights and lovemaking in the front windows) beggar belief and border on the ridiculous.

--Definite theme of: “We don’t need anything. Only ourselves, God, nature, love.

--For all the lovey-dovey stuff, there’s very little chemistry. Like a perfume commercial. We hardly ever see Ben Affleck’s face, and if we do, it’s a side view.

--Marina’s Italian friend is the voice of unbridled, false freedom. “Life is a dream! You can’t make mistakes in a dream. Just go! You’re young—do what you want.”

--LOVE AND FREEDOM:

“Love consists of a commitment which limits one’s freedom—it is a giving of the self, and to give oneself means to limit one’s freedom on behalf of the other. This might seem to be something negative or unpleasant, but love makes it a positive, joyful and creative thing.

                             ---BJP2G, “Love and Responsibility”

NON-VIOLENT ACTION WORKS!

During the bloodless EDSA, "People Power," "Rosary Revolution" in the Philippines in the 80's, which ousted the dictator Marcos, this picture of two DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL became famous, as they knelt in front of the tanks and prayed.

Sister Ping is on the left in the black and white picture, and the tall one with the dark belt buckle on the far right in the color picture!

TEEN RAPE CULTURE IS BLOWING UP. NOW.

Here's the news story video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2296946954001/15-year-old-kills-herself-after-rape-photos-go-viral/

P.S. Teen girls: you don't even need to be drunk yourself. Just hang out with drunk boys. Or boys who use porn (oh wait, that would be a lot of boys). I mean, where are they even getting the idea to rape you and how to do it? And thinking it's cool?

 

How can we help prevent sexual assault in the future? --- Teach every child not to rape. http://ht.ly/kgiBy 

NEW TRANSLATION OF BJP2G'S "LOVE & RESPONSIBILITY"!

FUNDAMENTAL TO THE THEOLOGY OF THE BODY!

"WHAT IS THE NATURE OF HUMAN LOVE?" "WHAT DOES TRUE LOVE LOOK LIKE?"

(OFTEN CALLED BJP2G'S "PHILOSOPHY OF THE BODY")

PAULINE BOOKS & MEDIA RELEASES NEW TRANSLATION OF THE CLASSIC WORK,

LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY

April 3, 2013 (Boston) — Pauline Books & Media is excited to announce the release of a new translation of Love and Responsibility, masterfully completed by native Polish speaker Grzegorz Ignatik. Grzegorz, who holds a Sacred Theology Licentiate from the International Theological Institute in Austria, teaches at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio and is a PhD candidate in Theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington, DC.

Originally published in Polish in 1960, Love and Responsibility is Karol Wojtyla’s (now Blessed John Paul II) groundbreaking book on human love that explores relationships between persons, especially concerning sexual ethics. This new translation contains extensive, helpful notes on language nuances, major concepts, and key terms that open Karol Wojtyla’s thought to an even wider audience in a time of continued relevance. The text used is the 2001 version published in Polish, which includes revisions of the original 1960 edition made by Blessed John Paul II himself. The first English publication of then-Cardinal Wojtyla’s article On the Meaning of Spousal Love is also included.

Mary Shivanandan, STD, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America, acclaims: “...it is impossible to do justice to the richness of this new translation...his [Ignatik’s] philosophical and theological background gives him a depth of interpretation and elucidation of the text.” Its release will be celebrated at a book launch held at the Institute on April 22, 2013. For more information on the event, please visit: http://www.johnpaulii.edu/events/view/love-and-responsibility.

For additional information on this new translation, please visit our Love and Responsibility webpage:

www.pauline.org/love. Review copies can be requested by contacting Ariana Tantillo, Marketing Assistant & Copy-writer, at (617) 676-4490 ext. 4179 or atantillo@paulinemedia.com.

Pauline Books & Media is the publishing house of the Daughters of St. Paul, an international Congregation of women religious whose mission is evangelization through the means of social communication. They operate thirteen retail book centers in North America and a publishing and distribution facility in Boston, Massachusetts.  

EGGSPLOITATION

"MEDIA NUNS HELP OTHERS FIND THE HUMANITY IN TECHNOLOGY"

Thanks to Chicago's NPR (WBEZ) for a story on Daughters of St. Paul: "Nuns Help Others Find the Humanity in Technology"!

http://www.wbez.org/news/culture/media-nuns-assist-catholics-staying-connected-digital-age-106328

DADDYHOOD

MOVIES: "42" (THE JACKIE ROBINSON STORY)

This review is dedicated to memory of Roger Ebert,
one of the movie reviewer greats (he made movie reviewing virile
 and something to be reckoned with!) who died on
Blessed Fr. James Alberione’s 129^th birthday, April 4, 2013.
After over 100 years of cinema, film has no patron saint.
Many have been proposed, but the Church has rejected them all.
We are hoping it will be James Alberione who was a filmmaker himself
and wrote much about the power of film.

A new film on the sports career of major league baseball color-barrier-breaker, Jackie Robinson, is a must-see! The film is simply called “42,” for Robinson’s Brooklyn Dodgers’ number. Forty-two is the only number in baseball that has been retired, and is now worn by all MVP players in commemoration of Robinson’s achievements.

This film should be seen—if possible—on the big screen. It is a lush, grand period piece with an Aaron Copland-style Americana orchestral and muted brass soundtrack. BUT this is not a trite, simplistic “let’s project 2013 on 1948” message-film with feel-good, righteous messages about equality. The concepts and the dialogue are fresh and original. It’s the story of a reluctant hero (Robinson is played by lookalike Chadwick Boseman*) who just wanted to play baseball, and a major league baseball executive who just wanted to win (Branch Rickey is played by Harrison Ford). Writer-director Brian Helgeland is a genius filmmaker-artist. Check out his eclectic, prolific résumé on www.imdb.com. Oh, and he graduated from Jesuit Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles (considered one of the country’s top 10 film schools), and he’s a New Englander. You know him from the uber-brilliant “L.A. Confidential,” “Mystic River” and much more.

The cinematography (Don Burgess of “Flight,” “Spiderman,” “Forrest Gump,” “Enchanted”), color-palette, lighting, etc., is impeccable. If you like Technicolor and the expansive feel of Hollywood films from the 50’s and 60’s, then “42” is for you. “42” is baseball’s “Sound of Music.” Without the music. Even most of the mammoth crowd scenes (in the bleachers) appear to be real people and not blow-up extras (like “Seabiscuit” used). This film manages to be grandiose and intimate at the exact same time.

The well-cast ensemble of characters are interesting, and the whole story is consistent and cohesive. A gracefully-aged Harrison Ford carries a big part of the drama as the risk-taking Rickey who hires Robinson. The dialogue is rich and ordinary, surprising and funny, really has something to say, utterly quotable while avoiding clichés. The dialogue feels like, well, LITERATURE. Must be because Helgeland is a well-read, well-spoken New Englander. The time is post-war 40’s, but Helgeland doesn’t indulge in quippy, overly-stylized, of-the-times banter.  Instead, he employs plain talk, and never falls into anachronistic blunders of using modern-day lingo like so many screenwriters.

Nothing drags in “42.” Just when things seem most peaceful, discord erupts. Just when things are most heated, they are resolved, or simmer down.

A ton of expository information is thrown at us in the very beginning (this seems to be a trend these days—exactly what “Argo” did), with voice-over and montages. I would rather have jumped into and gotten invested in the story, the characters, baseball (yuck), and then done some backing up to explain the state of the Union and the sport.

There are so many organic moments of tension, and the myriad forms of prejudice, bigotry and downright cruelty manifest exactly what Robinson was up against from the get-go. There is a slow build of the levels of conflict and the obstacles he faced. And yet, the overriding tone of the film is one of joy and success peeking and peering through the lives of determined people who stuck their necks out and went against the grain. As Rickey muses: Laws can be broken and people may even think you’re clever if you get away with it, but break a code, an unwritten law and you’ll never be forgiven. We need to keep reminding ourselves that the civil rights movement of the 60’s was still a long way off. Ingrained racist customs (especially, but not exclusively, in the South), segregation and other discriminatory laws were firmly in place and enforced.

One of the film’s many sources of humor is the fact that Rickey is a devout Methodist (like Robinson) and has no problem beating people up with religion.

Everything about this film feels like it’s coming from a truly noble and good place.

_______________
*Boseman has managed to keep his birth date off of www.imdb.com, something many actors have been trying to do. Somehow he has managed to commandeer his own page on imdb—it looks like his own promotional set-up. Smart guy. And a really cute smile. His current residence is Brooklyn. J Studied at the British American Dramatic Academy at Oxford. It shows.

OTHER STUFF:

--Best film of 2013.

--Even the typeface choice for the subtitles is perfect.

--Does the trailer look all Hallmark-y? It ain’t. NOT SAPPY. I repeat: NOT SAPPY.

--Robinson has a great character flaw in the film: his temper. But so does his perhaps even more feisty wife.

--I really, really dislike baseball, but this film made me care about it intensely, at least for the duration of the film. J

--This makes me wanna make my hockey movie now more than ever.

--How did Helgeland light this so well (even the indoor scenes)? Seems like he used lots of natural light streaming through windows....

--All the actors are superb, but Christopher Meloni ("Law & Order: SVU") is a total scene-stealer as Leo Durocher, the Dodgers' manager, who barks out one of the best short tirades against racism ever. :)

--Everything is so well-dramatized. Lots of “showing not telling,” and nothing is “on the nose.”

--Bring the kids! Especially the boys—so they can see what real men are made of (and not made of). It’s PG-13 because of language (but no F-bombs). The Dad in my screening just kept leaning over to his 7-year-old son each time saying: “That’s a bad word.”

--There are a few false notes, but very few. Like when Robinson is talking to his newborn son. For our sake.

--In some ways, this film is a study in non-violence. Creative non-violence. Very creative non-violence. Or rather: “non-violent action.”

--I’ve always wondered how people of color can STAND being so maltreated to their faces, especially Black men. I really think it would make me perpetually angry, bitter, and probably violent. This film will make you feel that. You will feel all the silent outrage that Robinson feels. AND also how he chooses to overcome.

--Lots of mini-Oscar moments. Every actor shines. But is it too early for the Academy to be thinking of 2014?

--I went to Robinson’s alma mater, UCLA!

--The excessive use of the “n” word is really hard to take.

--Things do not just happen “magically” in this film. Things don’t just work out all hunky-dory.

--Grown-ups made this film.

--Well-crafted. Mature but accessible. Satisfying. Enriching. Entertaining. We get to spy on how good, quality people think and act and react behind closed doors. Not facile.

--OMGosh. The CYO! But this is EXACTLY the moralistic clout the Catholic Church had over sports, films and all kinds of stuff in the public arena/public life at the time. One of our elderly Sisters talks about letter-writing campaigns Catholic schools all across the country would have students do to protest stuff.

--Such unfair PRESSURE Robinson was under as a trailblazer….

--Good for EVERYONE to remember, and kids to learn, the dismal depths of racism in this country not long ago.

--It’s amazing how far filmmaking has come. “Brian’s Song” can’t even begin to hold a candle to “42.”

--Interesting article on why not as many Blacks in baseball today: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2139711,00.html
(A negative side-effect of the dissolving of the “Negro leagues” meant less community investing/viewing/enthusiasm. Also mentions that initiation into baseball tends to be a father-son thing, and the African-American community is sorely lacking in fathers that are present. Also, with the professionalization/travel in children’s sports, baseball has become expensive. There are also fewer safe outdoor spaces for kids to play/learn to play.)

--Chicago Tribune's Kass wants u to take your kids/teens to "42" (Jackie Robinson): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0414-20130414,0,4808186.column …

--Jackie Robinson's Widow, Rachel, Says "42" Gets It Right http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-42-jackie-robinson-20130407,0,2311900.story

VOCATION WEEKEND WITH DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL!

WHY DOES CHURCH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY PEOPLE?

"Fulfillment in life isn't having sex, it's leading a life of love."

I would just correct Chris by saying most of the CANONIZED saints were celibates.
Hopefully, that gonna change. :)

ROMAN SOLDIERS AT JESUS' TOMB IN FRONT OF LUTHERAN CHURCH

ONLINE THEOLOGY OF THE BODY COURSE! THREE SATURDAYS IN MAY!

(Video will be archived and accessible with registration fee.)

REGISTER: www.visit.pauline.org/CHICAGO

Live in Chicago? Join us in person!

Fr. Robert Sprott, OFM, holds an M.A. in anthropology and theology, and a Ph.D. in linguistics. 

THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE HAVE SPOKEN.

With signs including the slogan: "I need a Mom and a Dad," and pink and blue balloons, 1.8 million French marched on March 24 (second march this year) on the L'Arch de Triomphe to protect marriage between one man and one woman. Crowds (including elderly and children) were tear-gassed by police. Crowds are demanding a referendum.

Gay activists and celebrities are marching also (they are for gay lifestyle, but agree it's not marriage).

Socialist President Hollande is determined to push through the law without the approval of the people.

Even the "Mariannes" showed up at the March 24 march (young women who dress up in white and red like the mother/symbol of the French Revolution). You can get a brief glimpse of them at :58 and 1:58.



Here's more info: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/1.4-million-march-against-gay-marriage-in-france-police-tear-gas-crowd-chil

See this blogpost from the first march: "WHAT DO THE FRENCH KNOW THAT WE DON'T?"
 http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2013/01/what-do-french-know-that-we-dont.html#.UU_hcBdwr0c

Oooops! Wrong march (below)...um...but it kinda fits...

NEW DVD: "PURGATORY: THE FORGOTTEN CHURCH"

A new DVD on the horizon is about an oft-forgotten topic and oft-forgotten souls: “Purgatory: The Forgotten Church.” We’re used to thinking of the Church on earth as “the Church Militant” or “the Pilgrim Church,” and the Church in heaven as “the Church Triumphant” or “the Church Glorious,” but there’s a “third” Church--that of the suffering souls in purgatory. It can be too easy to dissociate ourselves from “souls,” but these souls are actually people we know, our loved ones, relatives, friends, acquaintances who are being purified and readied to be with God forever in heaven’s unending, ever-increasing bliss.

The Church has a custom of praying for those we don’t know, also, just generally praying for “the souls in purgatory,” “the poor souls,” and “the most forgotten souls in purgatory” who may have no one praying specifically for them. Why do we call them “suffering” souls? Because they are in intense spiritual agony, longing to be with God. At death they met Him, everything has been clarified for them (what is truly of value, where their desires should be directed), and the “suffering” is simply an overwhelming desire to be with Him.

Why do the souls in purgatory need our prayers? While we’re on earth we have free will, right up till the moment of death. After death, the souls in purgatory can no longer “help themselves,” so our prayers can avail them. In turn, their prayers and sufferings are precious to God and are able to help us. Such is the “communion of saints” and the interconnectedness of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

Chicago-based filmmaker, Friar John Clote, an investigative journalist before he entered the Conventual Franciscans, has delved extensively into this subject to produce a comprehensive 75-minute film filled with authoritative information and inspiration. Cardinal George is interviewed along with great “friend of the holy souls,” Susan Tassone, and others.

I recently interviewed Friar John for Chicago’s Archdiocesan Catholic newspaper, “The Catholic New World.” (Twitter: @CathNewWorld)

CNW: What inspired you to make this film?

John: I’ve been interested in this subject for years. My Mom passed away in 2008, and that experience of being a grieving Catholic, and having Masses said for her, that made me think about how I would approach this in a film.

I began praying in a Eucharistic chapel in Arizona, praying for my Mom and Dad and all the people I knew who had passed away, friends of my family and my friends. I began thinking of people who weren’t like my Mom who had many people praying for her. She had lots of friends who were devoted, prayerful Catholics. I kept thinking of deceased people I knew who didn’t have these people in their lives.

CNW: What did you learn in the process of making this film?

John: There’s a spiritual connection that exists between the living and deceased: Earth, purgatory and heaven. The theological definition is “the communion of saints,” but there can also be a tangible component sometimes when the veil between this world and the next thins in varied ways, in beautiful ways that can lead one to believe or reconsider unbelief that there really is something beyond this world.

In the film, we talk about near-death experiences and the development of the Church’s doctrine on purgatory. The idea of purification after death is not unique to Catholicism. The ancient Greeks had an idea of it, too.

CNW:  How has making this film changed you?

John: It has reinforced for me the specific notion that our relationships don’t end here. The love and appreciation—even though we are missing the sense of people’s physical presence—doesn’t end, but translates into a higher form of communication through prayer. I believe the deceased in purgatory can hear us more clearly, understand us more profoundly, and pray for us.

CNW: What are some misconceptions about purgatory?

John: First, that it doesn’t exist, and second, that it’s some kind of antechamber of hell, that it’s “down there” with some kind of trap door to get out. The four misunderstandings that we deal with in the film are: 1) time and space 2) indulgences 3) suicide 4) the motif of fire as the chief form of purgation. Much of the Church’s art, especially from the Middle Ages, depicts purgatory as fire. The focus really is on God’s love, God’s love as consuming fire coming from His Sacred Heart. That kind of fire. Nothing impure will enter heaven. We will be with an all-holy God, so His love needs to purify us so that we can become  a reflection of who God the Father really is.

CNW: What do you want people to take away from the film?

John:  Jesus Christ has unfathomable mercy and love for His Creation and all of us, and we need only ask to be enveloped in that Love. Purgatory is just another expression of God’s profound, unfathomable, incomprehensible mercy.

To pre-order your DVD and watch previews: www.PurgatoryForgottenChurch.com. (Due in early May.)

John B. Clote is a Conventual Franciscan friar, broadcast journalist and filmmaker. He is currently studying to be ordained to the Catholic priesthood. After several years as a producer and writer at NBC News in St. Louis he began working in catholic media producing more than a dozen films and documentaries for The Mercy Foundation. John was one of the last journalists in the world to conduct a televised interview with Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Saint Faustina Kowalska’s last surviving sibling. His films and work have appeared on NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and EWTN.

NOTE FROM SR. HELENA: I have seen several of John’s documentary films (you probably have, too—they’re in constant rotation on EWTN). Amazing! His masterpiece really is the life of St. Maria Goretti: “Fourteen Flowers of Pardon.”

IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN: PALM SUNDAY

BRAND NEW! MY VIDEO REVIEW OF "WARM BODIES"!