Dear Catholic Exchange,
I was just reading Mark Shea’s article Remember the Flying Monkeys, which apparently attempts to imply some sort of connection between the violence of the Raptors in “Jurassic Park” with the flying monkeys in “The Wizard of Oz.”
While I have nothing but the utmost respect for Mr. Shea as a theologian, as a movie critic, I think this may be going just a bit too far. For example, I remember being very scared as a child by the villain (her name escapes me) in Walt Disney’s Sleeping Beauty. She was cruel, dark and hateful. However, I think it would be an exaggeration to say that because a children’s movie has a villain in it that it is unsuitable for children. Indeed, if it has no villain, it probably has no story.
For example, “Chicken Run” (which Mr. Shea praises) has a scene where the hero and heroine are almost ground up into chicken pot pie, and yet this movie is praised as appropriate for children? (Frankly, I think the movie is harmless. But the “appropriate”ness argument works here, too if you choose to make it.)
The difference, of course, is that Mr. Shea saw “Chicken Run” as an adult and viewing it with adult eyes, it appears to be harmless. But who knows how a child might see it. Even if your child is not bothered by it, someone else’s child might be. Whereas, when Mr. Shea watches “The Wizard of Oz,” he sees it through the lens of his own childhood memories and tries to impose his reaction on all children everywhere.
L. Frank Baum’s story is one that is loved worldwide. He was a gentleman with a light heart and a fanciful mind whose images are not nearly so dark as Tolkein’s (an author widely praised by Mr. Shea—largely because he is Catholic). As a lover of Oz since childhood, I was grossly offended by the implication that the movie was somehow inappropriate for children.
Thanks,
John Beezley
Dear John:
I’m genuinely mystified by your complaint. The point of my article was not that “The Wizard of Oz” is inappropriate for children. It was to give adults some sense of the disconnect between how we experience the illusions of film and how children do. “The Wizard of Oz” is fine for most kids. “Jurassic Park” and, I might add, “The Lord of the Rings” films, are not, because children have no capacity to distinguish the horrors therein from reality. Taking a small child to “The Lord of the Rings” is, in my opinion, a form of child abuse. I have children of my own. The reason I know “Chicken Run” is fine and “The Wizard of Oz” still might be pushing the limits is not because I saw “Chicken Run” as an adult and “Wizard of Oz” as a child. It’s because my children were just as scared of the flying monkeys as I was and they thought “Chicken Run” was hilarious. Field tested. Kid approved.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
Creation Vs. Evolution
Dear Mark Shea:
My name is David McDonough. I have been an admirer of you work and enthusiastic reader of your books for some time. I also enjoy the daily “Words of Encouragement” I receive from CatholicExchange.com. I know you are busy, but I wanted to comment briefly on your message from December 5th.
In this particular message you stated, “To be sure, God took a rather roundabout and elaborate way of getting from the Big Bang to the paper clip or the belly button lint. . . .” To clarify, I am neither a Creationist nor Evolutionist. However, I do have some education in the sciences and I know enough to realize that no one is quite ‘sure’ of how the earth became the earth. Now, I did notice later in the article you said, “But the fact remains that whatever route God took. . .”— which certainly shows an openness of mind on your part. I know this seems like a minor issue, and believe me when I say that I have no desire to enter a debate in this arena, but it does bother me when people propagate evolutionary, or creationist, theories and hypothesis as determined fact. These matters are very uncertain. It seems to me when one goes out on a limb to declare a theory a fact that one weakens the ultimate message one is attempting to transmit.
I understand I may be concentrating a bit too much on an insignificant point, but I was curious as to your perspective. Also, as a hopeful writer myself, I am interested in a professional author’s opinion.
Thank you, and keep writing for His glory!
Peace,
David McDonough
Hi David:
I’m very definitely a Creationist. So is every orthodox Catholic. That is, I believe God created the heavens and the earth, all that is seen and unseen. I am also, very loosely, an evolutionist. That is, I think there is strong evidence that the universe is extremely old (12-15 billion years) and that there has been quite a bit of change (evolution) in that time. Beyond that, I hold nothing as set in stone and see no particular conflict between the Faith and the evidence that science is slowly and tentatively piecing together. I reject dogmatic materialism and six-day creationism as false to the Faith. I don’t think we have enough scientific data to have any real clue about human origins, and certainly not enough to remotely endanger the truth of the account of human origins given by the Faith (i.e., that humans are made in the image of God and fallen).
Hope that helps!
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
