That the Tuohys were unconcerned about their portrayal struck me as an act of faith. Sean said that it really didn’t matter how they appeared, because everyone at church who really knew the Tuohys would recognize them if the portrayal was accurate, and dismiss it if Hollywood got them wrong. His only concession to the magic of the silver screen came in a lament. At his current stage of life, Sean is in the "cuddle weight" division. When country western star, and sometime actor, Tim McGraw (who is very fit) asked what Sean thought about being played by him, Sean, laughing, replied, "if you could take your shirt off in the film and walk around for about 20 seconds, you and I are good." But, to be honest, that image would have been an illusion, and the truth of what appears on screen is so much more appealing. The Tuohys trusted director John Lee Hancock to get it right.

The Tuohy’s faith in Hancock was well placed. Hancock pulled off something that has eluded just about every filmmaker other than Tyler Perry: he portrayed authentic Christians in a mainstream Hollywood film. Over the past few decades, Christianity has been essentially ignored as a part of a character’s profile in most Hollywood roles. Easily identifiable Christians (you can tell who they are by the clerical collars) are primarily relegated to performing weddings and funerals, or are remarkably unsuccessful exorcists. Otherwise they are ultimately the ones who turn into werewolves or are revealed as the sweaty serial killer. But Christianity, as part of the normal life of a character, was hard to find in mainstream Hollywood film. I mean, the world is coming to an end in 2012 and no one bothers to pray?

I do not know anything at all about Hancock’s personal faith commitments, or even if he has one, but what I can say after speaking with him and seeing the film he directed is that he strives for authenticity. It comes out in The Blind Side in just the way any fair-minded person of faith would hope: integrated rather than preachy, complex, and introspective. In other words, Hancock dared to portray these Christian folks as real people. And he did so while crafting a very entertaining story perfect for the holiday season.

Get a Life

Hancock argues that the main reasons most Hollywood filmmakers do not get Christians "right" in films is a combination of stereotypes and laziness. To them, "Christians" are a type — like "bank robber" or "town drunk." Once they come across a wild-eyed preacher on the late night cable access channel, they think they understand, and so they do not bother to dig deeper.

In The Blind Side , the Tuohys are decidedly Christian. They send their kids to Wingate Christian School. Leigh Anne identifies herself as attending a prayer group. When Michael’s mother declares Leigh Anne a "good Christian woman," Leigh Ann replies, "I try to be." But unlike most films that come out of strictly Christian production houses, where the final reel inevitably leads to an altar call, The Blind Side is content to tell the Tuohy’s story, and trusts the audience to draw the implications. Yes, the Tuohys are Christians, but they are also business people, Sean is the owner of chains of fast food restaurants, Leigh Anne is a designer and philanthropist, both are devoted (yet tough) parents. Their daughter, Collins, is a cheerleader who studies hard, and has to deal with the racist attitudes of some of her schoolmates. SJ, their son, takes a keen interest in Michael’s training, and is a wheeler-dealer when the recruiting coaches come to call. The family is well-rounded, integrated, and attractive. You can tell that faith informs their lives and, for once, it does not seem weird or out of place. Their circumstances — helping to raise Michael Oher — are extraordinary, but that is what makes for a great story: ordinary people doing an extraordinary thing.

It’s Complicated

The Christians in The Blind Side are not made out of cotton candy or cardboard. Christians are not a "type," they are people who struggle with living in the world, just like everybody else. In fact, trying to adhere to the standards of a Christian calling is a source of dramatic struggle. Shortly after Michael Oher is admitted to Wingate, a disagreement erupts between the faculty and staff over whether keeping him is a good idea. On one side are clear-eyed pragmatists who look at numeric scores and see failure — the right thing to do is to kick him out. Then there is Mrs. Beasley, Michael’s biology teacher, who sees a disadvantaged student who just needs a chance and someone to believe in him. But ultimately what gets everyone’s attention is the plaque on the wall that reminds them that Wingate is a Christian school. They exist to serve. And even though Michael Oher’s problems are substantial, as the Bible passage inscribed over the gates of the school reminds them, "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Coach Cotton is also conflicted. When he first sees Michael he has visions of a state championship. He looks on the outside and imagines that this mountainous teen is his ticket. But when Michael proves slow to learn on the gridiron, the coach’s dissatisfaction shows. He doesn’t do everything right. He is afflicted with aspirations that sometimes get in the way of treating others as God would treat them. And all that means is that he is a human being; he is real. Coach Cotton needs Leigh Anne Tuohy to come along and show him the importance of really knowing his players. Interrupting practice, she storms onto the field to have a conversation with Michael, using familiar metaphors about protection to increase his understanding of his role on the team. Needless to say, Michael exceeds expectations, and Coach Cotton learns a spiritual interpersonal lesson. As in all of life, there is growth.

Dealing with Doubts and Doing the Right Thing

The Tuohys are not saccharine saviors. There is never the sense that they wear permanent halos. Leigh Anne, in particular, can be tough, even threatening, when it is called for. When the Tuohys first bring Michael into their home they are fearful of theft. When their motives for intervening in Michael’s life are questioned by a representative from the NCAA, Leigh Anne expresses self-doubt. The Tuohys recognize the dangers of selfish ambition, and they are aware that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? " (Jeremiah 17:9). As a result, they are introspective, weighing their actions against an unyielding standard rather than on merely favorable outcomes. Living the Christian life is not a static condition, but a living drama that contains many anxious moments. The film does not shy away.

What does come across in The Blind Side — and in interviews with the real-life Tuohys — is their commitment to doing the right thing. They don’t spend a lot of time talking about it, they simply do it. Sandra Bullock, who plays Leigh Ann in the film, noticed. Skeptical of some Christians and leery of the hypocritical judgmentalism that some people who claim faith exhibit, Bullock was touched. "I’ve finally met someone who practices, but doesn’t preach…she [Leigh Anne] has no idea the path that she has begun in terms of adoption and fostering. It’s not been on the forefront of people’s minds. It is on the forefront of my mind every day now, when I get up, when I look around, I think ‘Is he? Is she? What is their situation?’ And it’s because of this family… I now have faith in those who say they represent a faith. I finally met people who walk the walk and it’s made me happy."

Faith and Works

Cinema works best when it "shows" rather than "tells." Faith, as the Apostle James notes, works the same way: "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’ (James 2:14-18). If you claim to have faith, show it.

The Blind Side gives an honest, real-world, fair shake to Christians, allowing their lives to speak for themselves. We care about these people because they care about each other in the same way that all of us would like to believe ourselves capable. What makes the film even better is that it is based on a true story, where real people can serve as living examples of a lived-out faith. I wish the cast and crew all the best this holiday season. I feel as if I have received an early gift.

According to The Morning Journal newspaper of Ohio, Bishop Lennon’s decree was issued Nov. 11, 2009:

"Having been directed by the Holy See (in Rome) to act definitively in the matter of the alleged apparitions … and having reviewed the theological content of the alleged apparitions to Maureen Sweeney-Kyle and having consulted an expert in this matter, I … declare that the alleged apparitions and locations … are not supernatural in origin.” Lennon’s decree states he "forbid members of the clergy of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction" to celebrate the sacraments on the site of Holy Love Ministries.

"I admonish the faithful of the Diocese of Cleveland to cease gathering for any religious, liturgical, spiritual or devotional purpose on the site of Holy Love Ministries and declare that the Confraternity of the United Hearts of Jesus and Mary is not an approved association of the Christian faithful in the Diocese of Cleveland and may not legitimately use the name "Catholic" or represent itself as a Catholic group," Lennon said in his decree.

Rogue Apparitions

People have been going to this shrine since the early 1990‘s, drawn by founder Sweeney-Kyle’s claim that Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary and a host of saints are appearing to her with messages. On the surface, everything about the site appears to be Catholic, but they are not Catholic. They say so themselves. Therefore, this official proclamation by the Bishop will be of little regard to Sweeny-Kyle, or her husband Don Kyle, the director of Holy Love Ministries.

The Journal reported that Kyle responded to Lennon’s decree by stating:

"We at Holy Love ministries are, and always have been, an ecumenical ministry. We have no affiliation with the Diocese of Cleveland. We are sorry that the bishop has taken this position. As it has always been, all people of all faiths are welcome to join us in prayer and the peace that Heaven offers at this site."

This, fellow Catholics, should have been the red flag that immediately exposed the apparitions long before an official proclamation. When in the history of the Catholic Church have approved apparitions consisted of a Blessed Mother going freestyle outside the Church? When has Jesus rejected His own authority — that of the Catholic Church? The final Church proclamation comes as no surprise.

In 2005 an article in The Plain Dealer newspaper of Cleveland, OH reported on this ministry and its many suspicious claims:

“The ministry was formed around 1986, meeting in homes of followers or a few welcoming churches. Then came a time of upheaval. Sweeney insisted that the Virgin Mary’s messages demanded that she be given a new title, one recognized by the Catholic Church, that of “Our Lady Protectress of the Faith.” The Cleveland Catholic Diocese turned down this request. And soon the lengthy messages that Sweeney dictated into a tape recorder began denouncing the Catholic Church; others commented on political details of the day. Several members of Sweeney’s small ministry became disillusioned and left.”

The ministry changed locations and names several times and Sweeney-Kyle even changed husbands, divorcing and then remarrying two years later. The organization has been at odds with the Catholic Church almost from the start. It sought approval through official channels for several years, but instead, in 1999, the Catholic diocese issued a statement urging extreme caution. At that point, Holy Love Ministries took an “ecumenical” approach. Yet, as an ecumenical ministry it found time and space in many of its printed materials to rail against the Church. Would Jesus and His Blessed Mother and the saints choose Sweeney-Kyle to give the Catholic Church a tongue-lashing? No way.

Obedience or Defection?

The question now is, will those that were enthralled with this Shrine, accept Church authority or continue to follow a ministry that has officially been condemned?

I myself have visited a couple apparition sites that proved to be false. I understand this sort of devotion although I’m much more cautious these days. Yet, if everyone had awaited an official pronouncement from the Church, the 60,000 people that witnessed the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, Portugal would have stayed home that day. Nor would there have been the initial miracles to report at Lourdes, France if people did not flock to the miraculous spring. (Oh, and by the way, Holy Love Ministries has one of those miraculous springs. They had them at a couple of their locations.)

It’s not wrong to go to a site where purported apparitions are occurring. Catholics must keep their heads on straight and not wander from Church teachings, but praying at an apparition site is not wrong.

However, once the Church has condemned a site and declared it off limits to clergy and laity, it’s a different ball game. Then, it becomes a matter of obeying Catholic authority or thinking you know better. “The one who listens to you listens to me and the one who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me,” Luke 10:16.

Either we accept the authority of the Church, or we reject it. Those at Holy Love Ministries have openly rejected it. The question now is how will the many followers respond to the Bishop’s decree? I fear that many, enthralled by what they believe to be a miraculous site, will disregard the Church.

The Snares of the Devil

I used to wonder why the devil would have a hand in false apparitions when they inspired so many faithful Catholics to increase their prayer life and devotion to God and the Blessed Mother. What would the devil get out of the deal? This, my friends, is what he gets out of it: There will be a number of people who believed they were healed or their faith brought to life through Holy Love Ministries that, like a rebellious adolescents, will respond, “We don’t have to listen to the Church .”

Consider the options the devil has available to trap faithful Catholics? Such people will not be attracted to obvious evil. So, instead, the devil uses a Catholic facade to lure them in. Then, when God’s authority on earth — the Church — speaks against the fraud, a number of otherwise good Catholics get caught in the trap.

In November of 2006, I wrote an article for Catholic exchange exposing the Holy Love site. (http://catholicexchange.com/2006/11/06/94475/ ) After an angry backlash of emails telling me how wrong I was, I promised never to write about alleged apparitions again. In addition, there are a number of followers in the area where I live who were irritated by my observations. My life is stressful enough without stirring up such pots, I reasoned. I am proving, however, that we should never say never . After the Bishop’s decree, I felt compelled to appeal to all Holy Love followers, to accept the fact that the Church has the authority to condemn this site. Jesus told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church and he promised to send the Paraclete to keep the Church free from error.

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18: 17-18).

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:12-13).

If Jesus were giving messages on “all truth” to individuals, the result would not be thousands of denominations going in different directions. He speaks through His Church. The Church has spoken on Holy Love Ministries.

What of the many miracles and increased devotion so many experienced at the site? I did not save all the impassioned emails I received three years ago, but I did find similar comments on a site discussing Holy Love. One woman credited her father’s conversion from a Sunday church grumbler to attending Mass and saying the rosary daily — even two years after his visit to the site. Another person said that her fallen-away Catholic friend that once ridiculed the site became a believer. Someone said that such compelling evidence of positive fruits proves this is from God. No, it does not. That is why we have the Church, so that we don’t get led astray by what looks good on the surface.

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, always looks below the surface because all that glitters isn’t gold and regardless of how many people visit or how many statues are erected or rosaries said, it does not constitute proof.

I once read that people bring their own holiness to these sites. They pray and love God. God answers prayers. All this is holy in nature but is not proof of authenticity of purported apparitions. Too often, after apparitions are condemned people feel betrayed and give up on God and the Church. Then, all their gains are lost. Or, disappointment leads them to reject Church authority thinking that they are right and the Church is wrong.

Rather than allow such disappointment to derail them, they can instead take a big step closer to God. By giving their disappointment to God and continuing to walk with him, they acknowledge that his Church is bigger than a single ministry or the claims of any purported visionary.

The past prayers and experiences of Holy Love followers were very real. If people were inspired or received what they believe to be miracles at this site, then praise be to God! God can use all things for good. But now the line has been drawn. People can follow Sweeny-Kyle or the Church, but not both.

A parent or critic would compliment what is good in one of these works — the cinematography, the writing style, art work etc. — and then point out the more objectionable plot lines or themes. This is a bit like telling a hiker that the path he is on will certainly take him over a cliff to his doom, but the scenery is nice on the way down. As noble an effort as this might have been, it must now be admitted that the reasoned approach has failed. Every season, every “new moon” brings us more necromancy, vampires, ghost hunters and the like. Just as a good military general would change the battle strategy if his armies kept losing, it might just be time to change our approach. It is time to be downright unreasonable!

Scripture provides us with numerous examples on how to speak to issues of the occult. Moses does not exactly beat around the burning bush when he instructs the Hebrews on how they are to live in the Promised Land. “There shall not be found among you anyone who…practices divination, a soothsayer …or a sorcerer…or a wizard…or a necromancer. Anyone whoever does these things in an abomination to the Lord” (Deut 18:9-12). St. Paul forcefully states that those who practice impurity, impiety, and sorcery will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21). St. John gives us a very clear picture of the Last Judgment when he writes, “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted…sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be…the second death” (Rev 21:8).

These quotes are taken from the beginning, middle and end of Holy Scripture. I think it is safe to say that Our Lord is not crazy about the whole preternatural package. He is not big on even the appearance of evil or entertaining evil thoughts. The same Lord who warned, “whoever looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart” is not going to give us a pass on pretending to cast spells in video games, or spending a good part of a day fantasizing about vampires. Like the good Father that He is, He hates those things that harm his children. When an entertainment venue touches upon possibly endangering a soul we need to risk looking unreasonable. We need to speak clearly and condemn it.

There are wonderful theologians and scholars who have looked into objectionable books and movies in great detail and have done an excellent job countering them. I am thankful that these men and women have used their brilliance and time for this work. It is a great act of charity to do so. But, for the rest of us, I wonder if the labored research is really necessary. Fr. Benedict Groeshel often says, “Life is too short to read stupid books.” Isn’t some of this stuff just awful enough that it is an obviously better choice to simply skip reading/watching it? When I clean out my refrigerator, one sniff of rotten food tells me that it is better thrown out than consumed; one whiff of some of the themes in these works should convince us that they are better thrown out than consumed. With that in mind, let’s administer the “sniff test” to some of the most popular and egregious entertainment in our culture. The release date of “New Moon” based on Stephanie Meyers’ second book in the Twilight series is upon us. Let’s start with her hugely popular series.

I have read Christian websites which search in vain for something to “baptize” in these books. Some have noted the positive portrayal of chastity. Ok, Edward and Bella are (kind of) chaste until marriage. Great! Well, um, except that Edward is a VAMPIRE! It is an accepted fact throughout the book that he is damned. At the end of the third book she also becomes a vampire knowing that it means her damnation as well. Does anyone really need more of a sniff test than this? I can understand why non-Christians and Mormons who don’t believe in Hell could find this acceptable, but Christians? There are other elements of the book that should alarm any parent, Christian and non-Christian alike, who is concerned about his/her daughter’s life right here on Earth.

Bella often returns home with bruises (Edward is supernaturally strong, you see.) Bella doesn’t tell her parents when she is going out with her vampire lover because if he can’t control his bloodsucking urges and kills her, she doesn’t want him to get in trouble. The fans definitely pick up on this theme too. One enthusiastic fan explained, “”It’s not so much forbidden love as the whole danger aspect. Any moment, he could kill her.” (Oct. 05, Chicago Tribune) Wow, that’s healthy. Not exactly the idea of love you want your daughter to have in mind when she is starting to date. Fans of the book will hasten to remind you that vampires aren’t real. They are right, vampires aren’t real. But abusive boyfriends are, and they can be pretty romantic and charming. Women die daily from domestic violence. Relationships which can endanger life or eternal life are not romantic. C.S. Lewis observed, “even if drinking arsenic should become fashionable, it would still kill us to do so.” Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series has sold 17 million copies thus far. The books and movies appear to be a fashionable arsenic beverage that it is best for women and girls to abstain from.

Another big occult star in the firmament of our culture is “World of Warcraft.” At last count there are over 11 million young people involved in this MMORPG (massively multiplayer online roll playing game.) Clinical psychologist Dr. Maressa Hecht Orzack estimates 40% of that number are addicted to the game! Marriages have ended over World of Warcraft. Teens have sacrificed high academic performance and young people their jobs to a computer game! This past month, the Chinese government presumably uneasy over the effect World of Warcraft was having on the population there, began strictly regulating playing it and other MMORPGs no more than three hours a day. It is worth noting, this is not censorship of the material itself, but of the time spent playing it. Obviously, the government has become aware of how powerful the hold of this game is. To be sure, I have heard many concerns over how addictive WoW is, but I am a bit amazed at the lack of controversy surrounding its content.

Recently, a Catholic blog spot hosted a heated discussion over this very topic. One brave soul faced down a number of others in his vehement condemnation of WoW. He named the hunting and sacrificing of human beings to monsters and demons, “stripper inspired” night elves, violent and bloody images, and the trivializing of evil, as being some of the reasons to never sign up with this online activity. Many answered him with the usual, “its only fantasy,” forgetting of course that demons are real. Others said that the game is harmless and to lighten up. Should a Catholic really be telling another Catholic to lighten up about the concept of summoning demons for power? Should Christian parents smile approvingly when their son or daughter controls another WoW character through magic spells? Do young men really need any more soft porn images dancing around in their heads?

The game seems to be an eerie replay of the Dungeons and Dragons phenomenon a couple of decades ago. It features the same fantasy characters, guilds and quests. D&D has been repeatedly linked to depression in teens, anti-social behavior, isolation, and even thoughts of suicide. Gallup polled teens on what caused young people to contemplate suicide, “17% of teens surveyed named “playing with Dungeons and Dragons” as a contributor (The Spiritual Life of Young Americans: Approaching the Year 2000, with commentary and Analysis by George H. Gallup, Jr. This quote was found on Dads.org) . I think the “unreasonable” choice here is to scratch playing World of Warcrat from the “to do” list. There is no shortage of video games out there. It shouldn’t be hard to find one less addictive and less dangerous to real life.

I could continue with the satanic music young people listen to, ghost hunting shows, online games even more horrendous than WoW, but that would fill up books and a reader’s patience. Besides, the point in being unreasonable and swiftly rejecting questionable art is that the quicker we diagnose the disease, the faster we can administer the cure. And the cure is so easy, so readily available. We need only to open another book, THE book and read, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, meditate upon these things”(Phil 4:8). I am not arguing here for men and women to read only overtly religious materials. Jesus used parables to convey eternal truths after all. I am arguing for a man or woman to invite only the best in literature, art and music into his or her heart. For that is indeed where art touches us.

This discriminating approach to the arts was tried and found wildly successful in recent history. In the seventies, Dr. John Senior, Dr. Dennis Quinn and Dr. Franklyn Nelick worked together at the University of Kansas to introduce students there to the very best in thought and writing that Western civilization has to offer. They worked as a team to create and teach the Integrated Humanities Program. The program lifted students’ eyes up from the horizontal to the vertical, and transformed countless lives. One student writes of the professors and the IHP, “through the reading of great literature, poetry and the classical liberal arts in general, the three professors introduced us to truth, goodness and beauty (for the first time for many of us) and our lives were never the same.” The man quoted enrolled at University of Kansas a nominal Christian. He graduated a zealous Catholic, the godson of Dr. Senior. His story does not end there. He was called and elevated by God to the priesthood. We are now greatly blessed to have him as our auxiliary Bishop in Denver, Bishop James Conley.

Art stirs up our emotions and we are very vulnerable to its power. Questionable art can excite lust, grasping for unnatural powers, isolation and despair. Good art can inspire courage, wisdom, compassion and a love of truth. The human heart is often compared to soil. What a man reads, listens to, views or spends time with all plant seeds in that soil. The seeds bloom into judgments, worldviews, and beliefs. Robert Frost reminds us, “way leads unto way.” One choice leads to another. A thought leads to philosophy, a philosophy to an action. We live in an era of doubt and superstition. If the first way we choose for ourselves and for our children is the way of truth, beauty and goodness; if we read and give time to only those things that build up our faith, and intellect; if we allow art to bring out best in us, we will not be transformed by this age, but we will transform it.

Here are some links for detailed information on the above topics.

Twilight:

John Granger has an article on the Twilight Series in the Nov/Dec Touchstone Magazine.

A Catholic woman’s response to Twilight

Great books reading list and background:

http://www.classical-homeschooling.org/celoop/1000.html

http://www.thegreatideas.org/

Discussion on discernment, art, and literature:

http://www.studiobrien.com/

The ancient Catholic truth about Hell should terrify us. But it should terrify us into our wits, not out of them. It should prompt us to ask “How do I avoid such a thing?” just as a grisly photograph of a car crash in driver’s ed should prompt us to pay attention. And that, in turn, should prompt us to ask “What exactly am I avoiding? What is Hell?”

The Church tells us that Hell is not something that simply happens to you by accident, like a car crash. People in Hell will not be there because they were minding their own business, being decent folk, when suddenly an arbitrary God just stuck them there upon their death. Rather, the Catechism tells us that hell is the “state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed” (CCC 1033).

We don’t live in a universe where we are all trying to do our best but God inexplicably yearns to send some people to everlasting damnation if he can only find a way to make the charges stick. Rather, we are a race trapped in a complex rebellion against a God who has done and is continuing to do everything possible to save us. The truth is, God is eternally exerting his divine power to the utmost, up to and including enduring the horrors of crucifixion, to rescue us from the horrors of Hell. Even now he is endlessly pouring his love and grace out on us to enable us to say “yes” to his offer of salvation in Christ. But he will not make us automatons, because the whole point of salvation is to have creatures who retain their freedom and remain themselves, even as they drink fully of the ecstatic life of the Blessed Trinity.

That means there must always remain the real possibility that a creature can say “No” to him; a real ability for that creature to perform a sort of anti-miracle of free will and turn himself into a thing, a sort of ex-human, who will not have God, who bars the doors of his soul from the inside and renders himself forever incapable of receiving God’s life and love in any way.

That is what Hell is: our rejection of the life of God, our choice to exile ourselves to eternal loneliness and unending pain rather than abandon our pride. It is our decision to experience the fire of God’s love as the flames of endless punishment, to sever ourselves forever from all love, goodness, joy, and beauty. It is appalling. It is terrifying. But to anybody with even a passing familiarity of human history, it certainly is not impossible. The story of our race is studded with examples of men and women whose pride warped them into living nightmares by the exercise of their own free will. Ultimately, Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, Mao, Ilse Koch, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and other monsters made real choices that left them as near to being ex-humans as is possible in this life. Such choices cannot simply be explained away purely as the result of heredity and environment. More to the point, our choices to love (or not), which are known only to us and God, will ultimately spell the difference between Heaven and Hell.

This not to say that we can or should suppose we know who is in Hell. Hell is murky, says Lady Macbeth. It is dark there and it is not for us to claim knowledge of God’s mind. Even with somebody as evil as Hitler, we are to hope and pray for the dead and leave them to God. Jesus addresses his warnings of Hell to you , not to that guy who cut you off on the freeway. If you take away the lesson, “I thank you, O Lord, that I am not bound for Hell like that jerk” you may, like the Pharisee in the parable, be in for an ugly surprise when you get to the Pearly Gates and your deepest self is at long last revealed.

The central thing to remember is that when asked “Will many be saved or few?” Jesus answered, not the question but the questioner with eminently practical advice: “Strive to enter by the narrow way.” Don’t waste time trying to peer into your neighbor’s destiny. Focus on the only soul you have power to damn—your own—and hand it over to Jesus’ daily for the help you need to avoid Hell and gain eternal happiness in Heaven. For though you can damn your soul, he is mighty to save it.

Understanding Doctrinal Methodology

Teaching Catholic doctrine to teenagers may appear like trying to find water in the Mojave Desert. However, it doesn’t have to be this way. This backdrop brings me back to my brothers’ original point, “They don’t know anything!” If a student is struggling to capture the essence of Church teaching at the freshmen level, what happened during their primary years of religious education formation? Was there any attempt toward some form of catechetical instruction? At the sake of sounding somewhat cynical to these questions, many will probably say no. Was there a faithful curriculum that was followed? Was the content and methodology sound? Do Catholic schools teach the faith effectively? The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a framework for doctrinal instruction. “Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people . . . which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life” (CCC 5).

The Art of Catechesis

Pope John Paul II reminded us in his Apostolic Exhortation, Catechesi Tradendae that the definitive aim of all catechetical instruction rests in forming an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ (CT 5). The term catechesis means to re-echo. In essence, Catholic schools are directed to form the heart and mind of the child to Christ. Many people will generally argue Catholic schools have failed in this regard over the past 40 years. While this position may have its limits, examples of a discontinuity of the faith are evident. For example, an emphasis on social justice themes at times provided a student with the only means of doctrinal formation and instruction. Thus, exclusion of key doctrinal teachings e.g. sin, contraception, the Resurrection, the true presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and so on rarely appeared in classroom instruction or religious education textbooks. Catechetical texts from the 1980’s, for example, reflected a theme of love without necessarily directing this love towards God. The word, “happy” was more evident than the term “sacrifice.” These themes reflected an experiential approach to catechetical formation that rested on emotion, obscure symbols in a non-sacramental form, liturgical experimentation involving dancing, secular music, misinterpretation of the Gospel within the liturgy and so on. Re-echoing God’s Word through sacred scripture evolved into a paraphrasing of the Gospel. This approach mined the authentic Word of God and its’ true hermeneutic.

Interesting Trends

Over the years I have seen the implementation of experiential based catechetical instruction where the emphasis is horizontal rather than vertical. In other words, instruction was based on the realization of man apart from God and not of God. Emphasis in most catechetical schools of thought rested on the love of God without identifying the truth or origin of that love. The most devastating development of this failure is the lack of doctrinal formation centered on Jesus Christ.

In 1997, a USCCB report was issued by Archbishop Daniel Buechlein OSB of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis who headed the USCCB Ad-Hoc Committee to oversee the use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in catechetical texts. His committee found several troubling symptoms at the time of the report of woeful catechetical instructional materials. The list systematically revealed an obscurity in teaching on the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ as the centrality of Salvation history and so on. Since the publication of this report, extensive work has been done in the implementation of the Catechism and the conformity of texts. The committee has issued an approved conformity lists of texts that reference the Catechism. However, the committee does not systematically gauge sound pedagogy or methodology i.e. measurement of effective doctrinal instruction of the texts that are presented to the committee.

The Catholic School Dilemma

My brothers’ experience as mentioned in the beginning is not to far off from many Catholic school institutions in the United States. The question(s) of fidelity and sound doctrinal formation has been the subject of debate for many in Catholic education. With the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the development of the Ad-Hoc Committee to over-see the use of the Catechism in Catechetical texts, doctrinal content has improved somewhat. However, there is still much work to be done in catechesis with respect to methodology, precise doctrinal instruction and the catechetical training of teachers in the faith. A wealth of resources has come to the forefront in the field of catechesis i.e. The General Director for Catechesis , National Adult Catechism , and most important, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And this leads to my underlying point. Do Catholic schools teach the faith? I should qualify this question by emphasizing “fidelity” in teaching the faith. Over the last decade I have encountered families tell me one of the main reasons they decide to send their children to a Catholic school is the faith. At the same time, families have told me the reason why they leave a Catholic school is because of the lack of faith and sound Church teaching throughout.

The erosion of sound catechesis had taken a heightened position in the last 30 years. The Baltimore Catechism became taboo. The mass exodus of religious and priests from our Catholic schools, the shedding of an authentic faith for an experiential exercise in something other than the blessed Trinity became all too commonplace. Gone was the understanding and memorization of scripture. The revelation of Christ as the Son of God was a mere historical note for all to read but not to be understood. As many parents saw this erosion, the question was naturally asked; is it worth sending my child to Catholic school?

Have Catholic school retained a faithful Catholic identity? In many respects, Catholic identity has been blurred in our schools. It has become a token only when needed for a special occasion i.e. monthly mass, Advent penance service, May Crowning, etc. Please, do not get me wrong. The examples I just provided are sound expositions of the faith aimed at fostering a conversion of the heart to Christ. The problem is that these events are too few, far, and between to adequately maintain a consistent Catholic formation process in our schools. The Catholic faith is more than just a subject to be taught and learned. It must be lived and witnessed by all. Because of the high percentages of laity in Catholic school across the country, emphasis on catechetical formation is a must. I firmly believe that the two-headed monster that has blurred our Catholic schools of a rich vibrant faith is the lack of catechetical formation of our teaching staffs and the breakdown of the family unit.

The Aim of Teaching Religion

Frank Sheed, in my opinion, one the great catechists, theologians, and apologists of the 20^th century properly emphasizes correct catechetical instruction in his book; “Are We Really Teaching Religion.” He states, “the aim of teaching religion in Catholic schools, that we are agreed on something like this: that the indispensable minimum is that Catholics coming out of our schools should emerge with a tremendous devotion to Christ, Our Lord, with an awareness of Him, a considerable knowledge of His life and Personality, and a desire to increase that knowledge; if they have got that, they are all right; even if they have got nothing else, they are still all right, they will come to very little harm” (pp. 2-3). His proclamation seems pretty straight forward and obvious. However, this is where assuming correct instruction of the faith is taking place, should be looked upon more carefully.

The Catechism teaches us that the “desire for God is written in the human heart” (CCC 27). Meaning, we are created to love God. Our desire is formed at the moment of conception. This desire will either deepen us towards God or turn us away by our own choice, influences, and actions. Sound religious education leads the student to establish a desire, a thirst for God’s love. A Catholic school is called to foster this desire in the hearts and minds of their students. It sounds simple and it should be. Fidelity fosters freedom to engage the heart and mind of a student into the saving realities of Jesus Christ. Taking the virtue of simplicity to a deeper understanding, St. Frances De Sales commented on the virtue of simplicity this way; “Simplicity is nothing but an act of charity pure and simple, which has but one sole end-that of gaining the love of God. Our soul is then truly simple, when we have no aim at all but this, in all we do. The office of simplicity is to make us go straight to God, without regard to human respect or our own interests. It leads us to tell things candidly and just as they exist in our hearts. It leads us to act simply, without admixture of hypocrisy and artifice-and, finally keeps us at a distance from every kind of deceit and double-dealing.”

Renewal and Hope

Why should families have hope in the renewal of catechesis in Catholic schools in light of what has already been discussed? I believe a conversion of heart is taking place by many in Catholic education circles. The necessity of sound doctrinal content is essential for the very identity of a Catholic School. The continued exposition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as evident through the approval of catechetical texts is a step in the right direction. Second, the use of the Catechism in the formation of teachers also fosters hope in the renewal. In the Diocese I work in, we have made great strides in the implementation of the Catechism through our religious education curriculum for elementary grades, formation of Catholic school teachers in sound doctrinal methodology, and approved religious education texts faithful to the mission of the Church.

In conclusion, I can honestly say we are on the road to simplicity with Christ. We are striving to teach our children and direct them to the love that never ends (CCC 25) . I see a horizon where parents, faculties, and staffs in our Catholic schools are realizing more than ever, the importance of an authentic love that is true and genuine for the salvation of these little souls.

One day St. Teresa of Avila heard someone say, "If only I had lived at the time of Jesus… If only I had seen Jesus… If only I had talked with Jesus…" She responded, "But do we not have in the Eucharist the living, true and real Jesus present before us? Why look for more?" Whether we know it or not, all of us who are Catholic have personally met Jesus. I am not speaking in a spiritual or figurative sense; we have actually met the one and only Savior of the world. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Jesus is present in the same way now as when He walked on the earth. If this is true, however, then why is it so difficult to comprehend? There is actually a simple explanation and it has to do with our senses and how they process information. We’re human and have been given senses to help us function in the world. We use our senses to differentiate one thing from another. If an object looks, smells, feels and tastes like an apple, we draw the conclusion that the object is indeed an apple. From an early age, we are trained to obey our senses. In the case of the Eucharist, we must learn to ignore our senses and rely instead on our faith. When we receive Holy Communion, our senses tell us that we are receiving ordinary bread and wine, but our faith reminds us that it is truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord. While this can be difficult, I have developed a simple method for helping us to remember the Lord’s Real Presence, based upon the commonly used acronym “RSVP”. In this case, I will change the standard meaning from “Répondez S’il Vous Plait” to “Remember, Speak, Venerate, Practice”.

REMEMBER – We must always remember that the consecrated host actually is Jesus. Even though it doesn’t look like a body, we see Him when we look at the host. We may not realize it, but we are looking at the same Jesus Christ who was born in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago. We are looking at the Son of God who became man, died on the cross and rose from the dead for our salvation. Despite the fact that our senses betray us, we need to recall that the small white host is really Him – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity! We must constantly remind ourselves and meditate on this great mystery; otherwise our human nature will cause us to forget this magnificent fact.

SPEAK – When speaking of the Eucharist, we should choose our words carefully. After the consecration, the bread and wine no longer exist. Through the miracle of transubstantiation, what was once bread and wine truly becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus and should be referred to as such. While it may not seem like a big deal, this careless use of words can gradually erode our respect for the Real Presence of Our Lord. Referring to “The Precious Blood” and “The Sacred Host” or “the Body and Blood” is not only an accurate description, but it reminds us that Jesus is fully present in what appears to be ordinary bread and wine.

VENERATE – The word “venerate” means to “regard with feelings of respect and reverence”. When we genuflect before the tabernacle, we should recall that we are paying homage to Our Lord and Savior and we should be respectful and reverent. In other words, our knee should touch the ground and we should think about what we are doing. We are bending our knee and humbling ourselves before the Lord and Savior of the world. It isn’t something that we should be doing in a casual manner. Of course, if a medical condition prevents proper genuflection than a bow of the head will suffice. Try thinking the words “I love you, Jesus” or “My Lord and My God” as you genuflect in order to remember to Whom you are paying respect. We also need to examine our actions and mindset when we receive the Lord in Holy Communion. If we were sick, came face to face with Jesus in His human form and were healed, how would we behave? Would we casually walk away and not acknowledge His presence or the gift of healing? I’m sure that very few people would do so. Instead we would probably throw ourselves at His feet or give Him a big hug! At the very least we would say “Thank you!” When we receive Jesus in the Eucharist, we are personally encountering Our Lord and Savior who gives us the grace to lead a good and holy life. Keeping this in mind will help us to avoid treating this as a casual event. When the priest or extraordinary minister raises Our Lord and proclaims, “The Body of Christ”, we should make a gesture of reverence (such as a bow of the head) in order to acknowledge His presence. Holy Communion is a foretaste of what awaits us in Heaven. At that moment, we are intimately united with Our Lord and Savior and all of our earthly problems and concerns should vanish.

PRACTICE - The Eucharist is Jesus, a real person, and we should speak to Him as such. As we practice this more frequently, it becomes easier and more comfortable. Eventually we begin to think of The Eucharist as a person and not a “thing”. Upon receiving Jesus in Holy Communion, we can imagine being reunited with a long lost relative or friend. Tell Him about your worries and concerns. He wants to hear that you are frustrated with your job or concerned about a family member. He wants you to tell Him that you love Him and that you are trying your best to lead a good life. Jesus wants you to ask for the grace that you need to become a better person. At that moment, you are “in Heaven” and united with Our Lord…speak to Him! In addition, be aware that the Lord also wants to speak to you. Unfortunately, many of us miss His “words” because we don’t stop to listen or don’t know how to listen. When Jesus speaks to us, He generally doesn’t use a loud, booming voice. Instead He speaks by placing thoughts or feelings in our hearts. After receiving Holy Communion, have you ever experienced a feeling of peace or thought of something that you should be doing in your life? There’s a good chance that this is Jesus speaking directly to you. Don’t ignore Him!

As Catholics, we have the opportunity to meet Jesus at least once a week. He is also waiting for us in numerous adoration chapels around the world, where we can visit Him on a regular basis. In order to more fully understand His Real Presence, however, we must do some work. By practicing the above techniques, we can learn to better appreciate this incredible gift. So, the next time that you personally meet Jesus in the Sacrament of the Eucharist…don’t forget to RSVP!

Dr. Paul Kengor: Dr. George Schroeder, welcome.

Dr. George Schroeder: Thank you, Dr. Kengor. I consider it an honor and privilege to share my views and opinions with your readers.

Kengor: First off, tell us a bit about your background.

Schroeder: I was born in a border town in West Germany, divided by the border of East and West, prior to German re-unification. Multilingual, I am versed in the socio-cultural norms, customs, and vast political differences across continents of Europe, South America, North America, and especially Canada.

Kengor: This past week, the world marked the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. What did that wall—and its fall—mean to you? How is this personal to you?

Schroeder: As eloquently expressed in a statesman-like, Thatcher-esque address to a joint session of Congress, German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered

an unwavering admonition: “Freedom is precious, and attained only through great, almost insurmountable challenges, and must be fought for and maintained every day .”

What makes it personal to me, particularly now as a grateful, newly naturalized American citizen, is that I mourn the deaths of those who desired freedom with such passion and intensity that they gave their lives in the relentless and perilous pursuit of freedom. In coming to America, I hope to bring honor to the memory of their dream, their fervent quest and desire, which had been foiled by a totalitarian oppressive regime—one whose guns were pointed only inward, toward the east.

Kengor: Where did you go to school? What kind of medicine do you practice, and where?

Schroeder: Grammar school in Europe, high school partly in South America, and Canada. College and medical school in Canada, and a masters’ degree in healthcare management at the University of Texas.

My areas of medical practice specialization are Urgent Care and Emergency Medicine. I’ve practiced in Canada and the United States. I also assisted my parents in building a rural-outreach, primary-care clinic and freestanding surgical suite, serving a native population in South America, which was equipped with instruments donated by philanthropic Americans.

Kengor: What can you tell us about medical-care delivery in those countries, especially compared to the American system? Most important, tell us what’s happening in Germany right now with government healthcare.

Schroeder: The finest quality of medical care is delivered to patients in the United States.

Government involvement in healthcare has eroded choice, access, efficiency, and, thereby, quality. It has done so in direct proportion to government control of healthcare. The recent center-right coalition in Germany, which is emblematic of a repudiation of Marxist policies since the fall of the Iron Curtain, has led the new pro-business FDP (“Freedom Party”) to announce as its first policy initiative to roll back “The Public Option,” known as the “Gesundheitsfonds.”

My aunt Gretchen in Germany, who would have been 77 years old on November 9, died of cancer last year. She died near Heidelberg, Germany—one of the finest medical centers in that country. Knowing her cancer cell type and staging of her tumor, I am convinced she would be alive today if she had been treated for her curable tumor in America. So, that makes November 9 even more personally significant for me. If, immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, Germany had a free-market medical system of innovative excellence, like we have in America, instead of a system devised by a red-green, left-wing, socialist coalition which bred mediocrity, my aunt would have received the doses and type of chemotherapy and radiation she needed.

Europe has painstakingly learned the folly and detrimental effects of socialized government control of healthcare.

Kengor: Now, today, you practice in America. What lessons have you gleaned from other systems that apply to the current debate in America over healthcare?

Schroeder: I have practiced medicine for over 25 years. Ten of those years, I have practiced in Canada, for which I was never sued, even once, because of a different paradigm (no contingency fees for attorneys) as well as a less litigious culture.

Over my 15 years in four states in America, I was named as a co-defendant in suits, and released along with other co-defendants in the uniquely American tort system, and never named into the dreaded physician National Data Bank listing egregious errors and mistakes by physicians and hospitals in America.

Defensive medicine in America causes significant and unnecessary cost escalation. Imposing a socialized government-run system without meaningful tort reform will lead to an irrefutable fiscal calamity. The U.S. system consists of what I descriptively term “Medico-legal disease-care.”

Kengor: How many people in America are genuinely uninsured or somehow not covered? Do those people get medical care?

Schroeder: The true number of uninsured citizens and legal residents of America is fewer than 10 million. The infamous, totally misleading and deliberately inflated number of 46 to 47 million uninsured “Americans”—widely disseminated by mainstream media—does not reflect the fact that approximately one third of those people are undocumented illegal immigrants. And those illegal immigrants are never denied actual medical care. They receive care based on the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act], which mandates hospital emergency departments to treat “everyone” regardless of coverage. In some cases, this has actually led to deaths of insured Americans diverted in ambulances from crowded emergency departments to other hospitals, and essentially denied timely care for their heart attack or acute coronary event. This has also led to bankruptcy and closure of entire hospitals, particularly along southern border states.

Kengor: Aside from what should be done to “fix” America’s healthcare system, tell us what, in your view, should not be done.

Schroeder: It would be a travesty to have government-funded abortions—abhorrent to even moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats.

Kengor: We hear the words “nationalization” and “socialization.” Are we facing a potential nationalization or socialization of our healthcare system? Could the so-called “public option,” which you call a “misnomer,” be the camel’s nose in the tent, or the slippery slope that takes the nation toward nationalization or socialization? And might that be the real intention of those pushing this benign-sounding “public option?”

Schroeder: This is clearly the case, and it is a rudimentary principle in business as well as any sport in the world, that the entity making the rules and regulations cannot also be competing fairly with competitors delivering a service. In a truly free market, the government cannot function as a team or a player in a game for which it is also the indisputable “referee.”

Consider our current economic situation, which adversely impacts small business in particular. Small business is an essential provider of life-sustaining employment and thereby healthcare coverage. If America implements the “public option,” many companies will drop their employees’ healthcare coverage, leaving them no choice, i.e., no “option,” but to ultimately accept the proposed government-run healthcare coverage—a public healthcare “coverage,” or as it is known in England, “The National Health Service” (N.H.S.)—available to all legal residents and citizens and funded by taxpayers.

Socialism, some Canadian and British expatriates have termed, is “more addictive than heroine.” It is very difficult to roll back once implemented.

Kengor: You say that you’re concerned about a “loss of freedom” in America today, and especially via this current push toward some form of unprecedented, heightened government management of healthcare. Explain that.

Schroeder: Well, consider this question as an illustration: If the government were to take over the privately competing, efficient, dependable, and predictably reliable mail-courier services, such as FedEx or UPS or DHL, and the American people were only allowed to send mail and important documents via the U.S. Postal Service, how would that affect the important and essential delivery of mail and important documents? Loss of individual choice equals loss of freedom .

By attempting to ensure what they refer to as “coverage” for all Americans, what is being concealed in media sound-bites is a basic fact: When you add millions of people to insurance rolls (particularly if they end up being government run), and without adding a significant number of additional providers (more doctors and nurses), rationing of care is inevitable. What good is the government-issued insurance card that all Canadians carry in their wallets if Canadians are placed on a waiting list for life-saving surgery? Then it is not really “coverage,” is it? It sounds good, but you’re not really “covered” if your access is delayed. Some 800,000 Canadians on long waiting lists have come to the United States for life-saving treatments, and almost one out of every five Canadians do not have and cannot find a family doctor in their government-run, socialized healthcare system.

Kengor: To borrow from the Berlin Wall metaphor, do you see the current changes advocated in Washington, by President Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress, as tantamount to the erection of a kind of barrier to healthcare access?

Schroeder: A government takeover of this system—which would inevitably ensue from crowding out decreasingly competitive private companies by preventing them from lowering costs—would lead to unavoidable rationing. Healthcare delayed equals healthcare denied, particularly if you die while on a waiting list.

I’m intrigued by self-declared “experts” in “healthcare” who denigrate the American system as “inferior to Costa Rica and Slovenia,” as arbitrarily measured by their cronies at the United Nations. I wonder, do those same “experts” want to send Americans dying on waiting lists to Costa Rica and Slovenia for their life-saving medical care?

Kengor: How do Americans halt that wall before it’s built?

Schroeder: By engaging their energies in electing term-limited citizen-legislators to all three branches of government, such as my hero, Dr. Tom Coburn. Coburn, a distinguished U.S. senator, over two years ago provided America with his detailed universal healthcare plan (S. 1019), and, most recently, produced another plan in a collaborative and generous fashion (Senate Bill S. 1099, The Patient Care Choice Act). I highly recommend reading Dr. Coburn’s Book, Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders .

Americans must make daily phone calls to Capitol Hill as well as local and regional district offices of their elected representatives to ensure that their “freedom to choose”—patient “choice,” the operative part of the title of Dr. Coburn’s bill—is preserved.

Kengor: When did you become an American citizen, George?

Schroeder: In July of this year.

Kengor: Well, you truly understand the essence of American freedom—better than many of the natives. Dr. George Schroeder, thank you.

Schroeder: Thank you for this honor and privilege, Dr. Kengor, and may God bless America!

In an age of Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything , it might be considered a minor miracle when an artist-observer-seeker in our day has the depth, courage and intellectual honesty to search in earnest for God in our world — and then admit to God’s reality if and when he finds it. In Peter Rodger’s new film OH MY GOD , opening November 13 in Los Angeles and New York and in select theaters nationwide thereafter, the faith-based viewer is steeled for yet another neo-atheist assault as Rodger embarks on a worldwide journey asking people, “What is God?” But Rodger confounds our expectations by allowing the warmth of his pilgrimage to emerge honestly and without the sarcasm or derision that we’ve come to expect in this age of aggressive skepticism. What results is a breathtaking documentary that affirms traditional faith despite the filmmaker’s lingering ambivalence, and offers the best Hollywood-driven opportunity for fruitful inter-religious dialogue in recent memory. Following is a conversation with the filmmaker.

Q. What was your inspiration for making your epic documentary film, OH MY GOD ?

I was frustrated with the childish schoolyard mentality that permeates this world — I call it the “My God Is Greater Than Your God” syndrome — where you have grown men flying airplanes into buildings shouting “God is Great” — where you have the leader of the free world telling the BBC in 2003 that he invaded Iraq because God told him to — where you have the constitution of a country (Iran) that dictates that its supreme leader is God’s representative on earth — where you have young men and women blowing themselves up (and innocent others) to buy a place into heaven. None of these concepts made any sense to me. Does it matter what I believe? Does it matter what you believe? And what is this entity that goes by the name of God, which seems to bring about so much friction, hurt and pain? I decided to go around the world and ask people what they think.

Q. Why did you ask, ‘What is God?’ versus ‘Who is God?,’ since most of us personalize God in some form or another?

I wanted to look at God as a concept and be as objective as possible. Referring to God as “who” is already putting the concept into the image of Man and therefore the objectivity becomes lost. I wanted to get as far away from preconceived ideas as possible to see what I would find. I felt that phrasing the question as “what is…” instead of “who is…” would make the interviewee immediately look at God from the outside-in rather than the inside-out, and thereby help quench preconceptions. I wanted the film to have a wide application and ultimately get to the question, “Did God create man, or did man create God?

Q. Did you set out with a goal in mind? Did you find a common theme in the answers you received?

My goal was to find out what “God” means to people, and to determine whether religion and religious people were causing all the world’s problems. There was such commonality in all the responses that at one point I didn’t even think I had a film. It was frustrating because all the answers seemed to be the same from all over the world. “God is everything…” “God is the creator…” “God is in the birds and the bees in the trees…” “God is the energy that binds us all together….” etc., etc. And then it occurred to me that if there are all these placid descriptions, why is there so much turmoil, upheaval and war in the name of God? I realized that the problem in the world may be what Man does with “God” — how he uses it to control other men, how he twists the preaching of its prophets to create politicized clubs that serve his narrow ends. When I realized that it was Man creating God in his own image, I knew I had a film.

Q. What criterion were set in place for which countries you visited and interviewees you sought? Did you try to interview leaders such as Cardinal George or the Dalai Lama?

I had to have representation from as many diverse places as possible in order to capture as wide a spectrum of faith expressions as possible. You can’t, of course, make a film about who or what people think God is without going to the Holy Land. Indigenous cultures are also important, so Australia, the United States and Tribal Africa were a must. I wanted celebrities in the film to help navigate us through, so their geographical locations and schedules became a factor. Then Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims had to be represented somewhere, so that dictated India, Bali, Rome, Mexico, Morocco, Turkey, the Palestinian Territories, UK. I wanted the Mayans in there too, so Guatemala… Put all of that in a melting pot and I passed the buck over to American Express Platinum Travel and that’s how we made the schedule!

Most religious leaders turned us down — and I am very thankful that they did, because they are all “professional God people,” so all I would have gotten was politicized rhetoric and theology. The film is not about religion and its leaders. The film is about who or what people think God is. If I had the Dalai Lama in the film, I would’ve had to have the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and then Ali Khamenei and other religious people and my film would be really, really boring.

Q Is it true you that encountered some difficulties when you first set out to make this film and almost gave it up?

My first trip in 2006 was to Morocco and I chose the same day to fly that the British terrorist plot to blow up planes with liquid explosives was foiled by Scotland Yard. I was flying out of LAX to Tangiers via Heathrow with all my camera equipment. Normally you take the important stuff as hand luggage — phone, camera, notes, lenses, computer, stock, etc., but this was the first day in aviation history that hand luggage was completely banned. We had to check everything into the hold and needless to say, I never saw my equipment, notes, or toothbrush again. Because of the delay, however, I hit on a succession of events in which I was in the right place at the right time, something that would never have happened if I had started shooting two months earlier. In over 227 shooting days, I didn’t have a single weather problem. So I’ve come to believe that out of every negative there is a positive of exactly the same magnitude — maybe not exactly at the same time, but there always is one.

Q. What moved or surprised you the most on your filmmaking journey?

How very small the world is. How similar all of us are and how blind most of us are to that fact. The similarities in belief-systems transcend time and geographical boundaries and this was the case long before the birth of the telephone, the airplane and the internet. I was also moved by the enormous desire for peace on the part of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. It is very clear to me that it is the politicians who are messing that situation up. It doesn’t seem to be a conflict of religion at all. It is a conflict of Land, politics and EMOTION.

Q. Did you meet anyone who made a powerful spiritual impact on you?

Kanju Tanaka, the Zen master in Kyoto, was my favorite for inspiration. As soon as I walked into his temple, I had an unbelievable feeling. That temple is one of most peaceful places in Kyoto, and when he sat us down for tea I choked up. There was such a vibe! I want to go back and spend three weeks scraping his gravel. He made so much sense in so few words. The other guy I really liked was Sonkyo Takito. He’s the 105^th superior priest of Shitennoji temple in Osaka. Those guys really did it for me. I was also moved by the generosity of the Indian people — the Hindus and the Sikhs especially — and also by the Maasai in Kenya, a wonderfully cultured group in their own simple way. Kind people with big skies.

Q. Any personal spiritual insights from your journey?

That the natural human instinct within each one of us from the day we are born seems to be what the prophets would call, “Godliness.” It became very clear that this beautiful humanity does exist across the world and it is very unfortunate that human beings twist it to their own way of thinking in the name of God. I acquired the sense that we are much more united on this earth than divided. You only have to look into children’s eyes to see the spark of this “thing” that is common to all of us. It is the glue that binds us all together.

Q . Speaking of children, the children in the cancer center you interviewed were extremely touching and profound. What made you decide to interview them?

Children seem to be vessels of what can be described as Godliness. I love the truth of children, the generosity of their spirits. I felt that the most accurate or inspired opinion on God could come from a child who is facing possible death. A young one who can’t be running around with friends today because he is lying in a hospital bed with a shaved head, in pain, vomiting, and thinking whether he’s going to climb out of this predicament or not. What would his views on God be? I learned so much from these children. Hanging out with them, I have to say, was one of the most harrowing and rewarding experiences of my life. The courage, the confidence, the wisdom and the grace that came out of those little people made me grow up a little more, made me learn a lot and made me thankful that my own children are healthy, that I am healthy, and that we really have no right to complain about our silly little things. When we bitch about someone else because they belong to a different “club” than we do, well, we’re just missing the point. And when I asked Christian, one of the children, what his biggest wish was, well, his answer — and I’m not going to give it away — let’s just say it blew me away.

Q. Your worldwide premiere of the film took place at the Jerusalem International Film Festival. What was it like debuting in the Holy Land and what sort of response did you receive from the audience?

The response was phenomenal. Q/A sessions that were meant to be only 20 minutes wouldn’t end. It is such a charged place, the Holy Land, as far as God is concerned, that the audience really lapped up the global objective questioning that goes on in the film. Of course, there is a whole section in the film on the Israeli-Palestinian issue (it’s very difficult to make a film about what people think God is without including such a subject) so of course that section was under a lot of scrutiny. I am happy to say that none of the Palestinians I have shown the film to have been offended and no Israelis I have shown the film to have been offended. PHEW! But the reaction was certainly charged. They embraced and loved the film there. It took us eight weeks to edit that section.

Q. Did you encounter any danger in certain areas? For example, how were you able to capture insights from Muslim extremists?

Finding Muslim extremists to talk on camera was extremely hard, as you might imagine. In the end the best and most radical English-speaking gentleman came to me — quite by chance. I was shooting in a mosque — somewhere in the world that I don’t wish to divulge, and as I exited, he aggressively approached me and asked in very good English, “Are you Muslim?” I said I was not. Then he said, “Then what [was I] doing in the mosque?” I said I was filming and why couldn’t I be in the mosque anyway? He said that non-Muslims were not allowed in the mosque, and that I should not be there. I said, “Really? Well you know what — I’d love to ask you some questions about this. Would it be possible to film you?” I told him what the film was about and surprisingly he agreed. I cancelled my afternoon shoot (I had a whole load of stuff lined up) and spent the rest of the day with him. He was very accommodating and spoke his mind.

Finding Muslim militant terrorists was tough indeed and took over a year. I had to go up into hidden areas of Kashmir and find them. I had help from powerful friends. Getting them to talk on camera with language barriers and the very charged nature of the questions was difficult. The point is, most of these extremists are just poor, ill-educated villagers that are promised better food, living conditions and support of their families - as well as salvation in the afterlife – if they join the Taliban or other extremist Jihadist groups. Underneath it all, they are just scared human beings who are being brainwashed into carrying out evil acts. Their evil leaders are not going to talk on my camera — especially as I was a one-man-show, without a CNN or BBC behind me. What you did not see was behind my camera: I had about 17 armed guards with machine guns — my “escort.” So this was one of those moments. We made it to the village and found the guys who were going to talk. I set up my camera and turned it on. NOTHING. It was dead. Something was wrong with the power going from the battery to the camera. I was thinking, “Oh no, not here, not at this place, not today, not after all this work finding these guys. This is really bad.” I had a back-up power supply that I could run off a car battery, but I needed a cigarette lighter to plug it into and none of our transport had cigarette lighters. I shared this problem with all the very armed people around me, and soon we were off in the trucks with the terrorists into the local town. We dug out a man who was sleeping under a sheet of plastic. He turned out to be the local electrician, and I kid you not, within 20 minutes he had soldered a car battery with a cigarette lighter. We all piled into the trucks, plugged in the camera, and it worked!

Was I under any kind of danger on this trip? Yeah, all the time. But I never felt it. I just felt humanity.

Q. What about the more day-to-day filmmaking problems such as transporting equipment, crowd control and such. How did you manage with a “skeleton” crew?

Very easily. There were two of us, but we had both shot many times around the world. We could sneak in and out of countries and no one would know we were making a theatrically releasable movie. Modern technology helped a lot. Furthermore, this was a documentary and there didn’t have to be continuity from scene to scene like in a drama, so that gave me enormous license to put people where the light was right, use the resources I had in front of my eyes rather than creating a scene to match the previous one. Our equipment fit into four bags. I still have a bad back from it.

Q. What did you personally take away from the making of OH MY GOD ?

I really warmed up to the immense humanity and humor I found in people. Get the most vehemently radical militant face-to-face and even he, who has killed and maimed and blown people up in the name of God, could crack a joke. One-on-one he was not the animal he had once been in my mind and maybe still was. I realized that we all have a responsibility to live our lives with tolerance and understanding for our fellow man. Don’t be barbaric and ignorant. Learn about different cultures and soon one realizes how very much the same we all are, that most barriers are of our own creation, that hostility is manufactured by power-seeking humans and has nothing to do with God. I learned that the world is way more united than divided, but most of us are conditioned to believe otherwise.

Q. Usually is it books that are turned into films, however you have decided to write a book about your filmmaking experience. Can you tell us about that?

It’s one helluva story. It’s quite a journey and I kept a journal throughout. The quest was very hard and very surprising and the story has many components that are relevant in these difficult, polarized times. I wrote the first chapter and sent it off to a publisher and they loved the concept. Without sounding pompous, it really will be compelling reading and there is so much more to add. There are some extremely funny moments too that have to be shared.

Q. This is your first feature documentary. How did your background in photography and commercials help you prepare for filmmaking?

I was blessed by having a great teacher — my father, George Rodger — who was a Life Magazine war photojournalist and went on to found Magnum Photos with Robert Capa, Henri Cartier Bresson, and Chim Seymour. He taught me how to see and about composition. Then I was blessed by working in advertising for many years directing TV commercials and doing print campaigns. OH MY GOD , is just an extension of that privileged education and experience.

Q. What do you hope the viewer will take away from your film?

I would like the viewers to be ambassadors to the discussion the film creates. I would like viewers to be educated in the fact that we share this world with many diverse groups who are very much like we are and that the way forward is to understand our similarities and not obsess about those with different beliefs. If a viewer is religious, I would love them to take away from this film the desire to study their religion themselves, to understand their holy book and not rely on other human beings who might be manipulating the meanings of their scriptures. I would like viewers to come away exhilarated, with a feeling of having had an amazing journey and adventure with me seeing places they would never see normally, hearing music that inspires and words that enlighten and fill them with love, understanding and tolerance toward the other individuals who share our planet. If we are to succeed in having a peaceful, fulfilling life we should listen to other cultures and learn from other people to enrich our existence on this wandering rock.

As details continue to emerge surrounding last week’s massacre at Fort Hood, which wounded nearly  three dozen people and left thirteen others dead, the consequences of a hyper-sensitive kid glove approach to Islam is being brought into increasingly sharper focus.

According to coworkers, the accused gunman, U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had plainly divulged his anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments over a period of years, but rather than confronting Hasan’s radical Islamic hostility head-on, his military superiors chose to tread lightly.

“They don’t want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody’s religious belief,” one of Hassan’s former classmates, Lt. Col. Val Finnell, told Fox News.

“The issue here is political correctness,” he concluded.

This tiptoe-through-the-minefield approach to addressing Muslims isn’t confined to the diversity mongers of the U.S. military I’m afraid, nor is it anything new.

Enter the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, which had this to say on the topic:

“The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.” (NA 3)

It’s not very difficult to understand, especially given the stark realities of life in the post 9-11 world, why so many Catholic eyebrows have been raised by this rather sanguine assessment. I will admit that I don’t much care for the approach taken here — not because it is necessarily incorrect, however, but because it strikes me as incomplete to the point of practically inviting confusion.

If I may play armchair quarterback for just a moment, the Council Fathers would have served all of us well to include some clarifying statements in order to preempt the false interpretations that are so commonly posited on the matter. Thankfully, Pope Benedict XVI provided some much needed clarity four decades after the fact, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves…

At the risk of offending the ecumenically squeamish, we need to be very clear about what the Council Fathers are saying, as well as what they are not saying, in Nostra Aetate. A careful review of the text reveals that the Council is simply acknowledging that to the extent that Muslim persons adore the “merciful, all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth,” they do indeed worship the God of Judeo-Christian tradition; a fact that is self-evident since there is only one Creator God “living and subsisting in Himself.”

It is crucial to realize that the Council Fathers are not saying that God as defined by the tenets of Islam — a faith tradition that is replete with many grave errors — is indeed the God of Judaism and Catholicism. Nor are they suggesting that the Allah of the Qur’an is also the God of the Old and New Testaments. One will notice in fact that the Council had very little to say about “the faith of Islam” itself beyond the notion that it “takes pleasure in linking itself” with Abraham while deliberately leaving the validity of the claim unaddressed.

So why was the Council’s approach so nuanced on these points? In spite of the title to the Declaration, the Council Fathers appear to be speaking not so much about the non-Christian religion known as Islam as they are about human beings who call themselves Muslim. Evidently the Council’s intent was to draw attention to the building blocks of shared convictions such as they may exist in individual Muslim persons.

While finding common ground might be a good conversation starter, on its own it can hardly suffice as the actual substance of authentic ecumenism. True ecumenical dialogue requires what my Jewish friends would call chutzpah, (something we Italian-Americans know by a slightly more colorful name, but we’ll just stick with chutzpah.) Whatever you happen to call it, it’s the conviction of faith and the intestinal fortitude to meet error and evil head-on — in spite of those worldly voices that are so quick to label such behavior “bad manners” — even when it’s difficult, and, yes, even when it appears to be dangerous.

When it comes to confronting the view of Allah as the impetuous God who commands the killing of innocent lives many people seem far more inclined to simply walk on eggshells and hope for the best, but not His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

During an address given at University of Regensburg in September of 2006, the Holy Father recounted a dialogue that took place between a 14^th century Byzantine Christian emperor and a Persian defender of Islam, and he quoted the emperor as saying to his Muslim counterpart, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Worldwide reaction to this one solitary quote ranged from self-righteous indignation in the politically correct media of the West, to outbursts of violent public protest in many segments of Islam. Read in context, however, one finds that the Holy Father never actually endorsed the emperor’s assessment; rather he used it to challenge those who embrace the strategy of evangelization-by-sword, ultimately suggesting that such an approach contradicts both human reason and the very nature of God Himself.

For Benedict’s Muslim listeners, it was an invitation to either join him in confronting the notion of an irrational God, or to dare an attempt of its defense through rational thought. You see, the fertile intellect of Pope Benedict XVI had determined that common ground was most usefully constructed, not upon flowery language, but upon the divinely given gift of human reason that can serve as the launching point for true interreligious dialogue — if only the parties are willing.

So, the Holy Father proposed to the Muslim world from the lectern in Regensburg, are you willing?

No small number of observers, Jews and Catholics included, entirely missed the point and condescendingly questioned the Holy Father’s religious and diplomatic acumen. Many claimed recourse to the mistaken notion that Vatican II had ordained the Allah of Islam as one and the same as the God of Judeo-Christian belief.

While the most widely publicized immediate result of the Regensburg address was condemnation and unrest, we can now see these knee-jerk reactions for what they largely were: the predictable recoiling of those who “hate the light lest their deeds should be exposed” (cf John 3:20).

Three years after Regensburg the Holy Father’s challenge to Islamic leaders is beginning to bear fruit as sincere Muslims are slowly emerging from the shadows while those bent on evil and destruction are paradoxically revealing their motives as they scurry further into the darkness. Therein lies a valuable lesson; boldly confronting error with truth not only serves to make Christ known, it also serves to make the heart of man known as each is compelled, with the gratuitous aid of God’s grace, to “choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15).

One can discern in these events nothing less than the natural progression of evangelization; when Christ is proclaimed, the Truth confronts, and a choice demands to be made: “one is either with Him or against Him” (cf Mt. 12:30).

So what do Fort Hood, Vatican II and Regensburg have in common? Each in its own way demonstrates the importance of straightforwardness, intrepidness and honesty in the matter of Judeo-Christian-Muslim relations.

So what now?

No, Nidal Hasan’s military superiors can’t turn the clock back and rethink the “political core-weakness” (a phrase newly coined right in this very space) that may have contributed to the Fort Hood tragedy. Nor can the Council Fathers go back and rewrite Nostra Aetate with an eye toward offering a greater degree of clarity. All of us, however, can learn a valuable lesson from the Holy Father’s example of what it means to answer the Lord’s call to carry the truth to all peoples, including the Muslims.

This article was previously published by Catholic News Agency and is used by permission of the author.

Judgment is about as popular a concept as root canals. And yet the desire for judgment never really goes away in the human soul. Every other episode of the still-popular-after-50-years Twilight Zone was a story about judgment. So are our eternally popular myths and fairy tales. Our ongoing need for such tales testifies to something in our souls that thirsts for judgment.

Of course, Judgment is often seen as the Irritable Old Gentleman on the cloud letting fly with a lot of arbitrary rage at a humanity that cringes before his power, not his justice or his love. Such picture-thinking has no small influence on New Atheist types who tell us we must grow up, stop fearing such a god and take our place as mature adults who decide for ourselves what is good and evil. Such sentiments are invariably popular with human beings just before they commit the next massacre or holocaust.

In fact, however, the astonishing thing the Catechism has to tell us is this:

Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, — or immediate and everlasting damnation.

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love. (CCC 1022)

This surprisingly quiet picture of the judgment that awaits us is basically the same thing Jesus says: “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me” (Matthew 25:35-36). All the stuff you did out of love for your neighbor—even the boring stuff and even the boring neighbor—is what makes the difference between eternal happiness and everlasting loss of the life of God.

If the news that God’s judgment is based on love and not servile terror isn’t news enough, newsier still is the news that judgment takes place in two movements.

The judgment we just considered above is what is called the “particular judgment”. It occurs in the moment of our death and can have only two possible outcomes: Heaven or Hell (of which more in my next two columns).

Popular religiosity more or less stops there and basically envisions the soul of the dearly departed floating up to Heaven in a white robe with wings and a harp or being escorted with a pitchfork at his back into a cave with flames. End of story.

Except that it’s not the end of the story. To be sure, the blessed dead will, sooner or later, enjoy the beatific vision, seeing God “face to face” in the ecstasy of heaven. To be sure the damned are damned everlastingly. But that ain’t all, and the proof of this is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Recall that the apostles were quite ready to believe in “life after death” in the conventional sense. Like us, they could buy the idea that a ghost of Jesus might be manifesting itself out of the ectoplasm. What they were no more ready for than we are was a Jesus who was raised in a glorified body that was at once both physical and yet beyond the physics of this world—a Jesus who could eat fish, break bread, and be touched and yet who could also appear and disappear, walk through walls and somehow not appear as he had in his earthly body. The New Testament strains at the limits of language to get this reality across—which is one of the marks that the apostles are telling the plain truth. And what it means for us is this: as with Jesus, so with us. We are promised not mere “life after death” but, in the words of New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, “life after life after death”.

That’s why the Particular Judgment is not the only judgment. Rather, we are promised a Last Judgment in "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (CCC 1038). The Last Judgment entails the fact that human beings are necessarily incarnate beings and not mere “souls” floating around in the ether. When That Day comes we will live, not as spooks on a cloud, but as fully alive human beings in a recreated and renewed creation of the New Heaven and the New Earth.