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.
Dear Catholic Exchange:
I just wanted to comment on Michael Medved's article on the recent slew of escapist epics. I think Mr. Medved is correct in saying that people prefer escapist movies to relevant ones in this time of terrorism & violence. This is not a new phenomenom, nor a particularly surprising one in view of the slew of escapist entertainment (big budget musicals, etc.) that was produced during World War II.
Mr. Medved seems to imply a criticism of the lack of moral relevance within the current films to the real-life situation that the films are being released into. I would disagree with him, in his implication, on two counts:
1. The films are entertainment. Even God rested on the seventh day. Rest implies relaxation and sleep. To rest from something is to not do it, to refrain from it. That is precisely what “escapism” is. It is a rest from a burdensome reality. If we were to live our entire lives in the movie theater, trying to totally ignore reality, then this would be problematic, as the center of our lives would be based on a lie. For most people, this is not the case, however. We spend our entire lives in the “real world” with all of its moral ambiguity, discomfort and challenge. When we seek our entertainment, we want to rest, to escape, to “re-create” ourselves, and we need time away from our burdensome reality to do that.
This is no great sin, nor a moral condemnation on the part of the entertainment business. It is simply a recognition that “escapism” is a NECESSARY part of our lives, much like dreaming, in that it allows us to rest so that we can prepare ourselves to go confront the greater and more difficult conflicts in the “real world.”
Movie critics who speak louder than the rest of the public by virtue of their status as part of the press, are the exception to this rule, however. Their profession, their “reality,” is watching movies. It is understandable, therefore, that they would criticize escapism in entertainment, since being entertained is their full-time job. Too much entertainment is, obviously, bad for us in that it is a total escape from reality.
I would argue, therefore, that Mr. Medved's article is only relevant to other movie critics. The real problem is not with escapist entertainment, but with evaluating escapist entertainment when “entertainment” is the focus of much of your reality. The movie critic, therefore, is not actually a good representative — or a qualified speaker — for the rest of society which goes to movies only occasinally, not as part of a full-time job.
2. You really can not criticize a film for not doing something that it never intended to do. Some people, for example, have tried to criticize Mother Teresa for not being more politically active. They do not understand, however, that she knew what she was supposed to do (care for the poorest of the poor — who will always be there, no matter what your politics) and she did it. While it is certainly an admirable thing to incorporate a meaningful message into a good yarn, there is not, nor has there ever been, an obligation to do so.
Blessings,
John Beezley
***
Dear Catholic Exchange:
The diocese I live in has a problem with homosexuality among the priests, unfortunately. When a friend of mine who was a CCD director told me it existed, and that it was widespread, I did not believe it. Since then, I have been told by several young men that it is a problem, and this led them to forego their desire to become priests for this diocese.
There have been no priestly ordinations for several years — a disgrace when one considers the size of this diocese and the percentage of the population that is nominally Catholic.
What I find particularly deplorable is that our the bishop has not been doing anything to root out the problem, but rather is only dealing with the results.
Instead of receiving sound teaching on sexual morality, anyone who has a church-related job (not just the priests), is required to sign a paper saying that he/she has been informed that certain conduct is wrong; this is a simple case of CYA so the diocese will not be liable for the sexual misconduct of persons receiving a paycheck from the Church.
There is at least one case I personally know of where a pastor is guilty of GRAVE liturgical abuse; the matter has been repeatedly brought to the bishop's attention, and he has done nothing. After seven years as bishop of this diocese, we laity have determined to our great sorrow that he does not have what is necessary to be a true shepherd.
How on earth can we have allegiance to one who, if not a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a very cowardly lion?
Beatriz Imelda M. Lozano
Beatriz:
You have every right to be angry. You have every right to want better. You have every right to speak your mind and work for the healing and renewal of the Church if your bishop fails to teach and uphold the Catholic faith. Indeed, it is not just your right, it is your duty.
However, you need to think clearly too and remember what's what. You do not owe your bishop obedience because he's a good guy. You owe him obedience because he is a successor of the apostles. That does not mean you are bound to obey him if he commands you to do something evil. But is he in fact asking you to do anything evil? Chances of that are extremely remote. So if you are really faced with a bad bishop who does not uphold the faith, your duty is clear: You pray for him. You do him honor as you would your own father. You remain faithful to the teaching of the Church. And you avoid imitating your shepherd's faults. But do not leave the Church over it or ignore your bishop when he teaches. For he speaks not out of his own questionable personal holiness, but out of the Tradition.
If a bishop recites the Creed, he is not speaking out of his personal authority. He is speaking out of the truth the apostles handed down. The problem the Church faces right now is that many laypeople, confronted with clergy who have betrayed the Apostolic Faith, come to the mysterious conclusion that things will get better if they reject the apostolic faith too. That's like trying to heal a sick man by removing more vital organs. Instead, what we laity must do is be faithful, stay with the Church, remain close to the sacraments, speak the truth in love, and refuse to let anything, including our bad members of the clergy, deflect us from the Faith and the unity of the Church.
One excellent book I can recommend is The Courage to be Catholic by George Weigel.
Courage!
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
***
