The Way (film)

A good friend (Martin) recently recommended watching a film made in 2010, "The Way."  I watched it on DVD with my wife, Lori.  We both really enjoyed it.  I highly recommend it to others.

It's a film written, directed, and co-produced by Emilio Estevez

Emilio Estevez

(once considered the leader of the Brat Pack).  It stars his father, Martin Sheen (whose name is actually Ramon Estevez).

The film centers around El Camino de Santiago (The Way of St. James).  For those unfamiliar with this, it is a 500 mile (800 km) pilgrimage route that begins in the French Pyrenees and ends

El Camino de Santiago (highlighted in red)

in Santiago De Compista in Northwestern Spain.  By tradition, St. James made it this far in his apostolic missionary journeys, and his bones are interred at the Cathedral there.  During the Middle Ages, this route became one of the major pilgrimage routes.  Though by the mid-80s, the pilgrimage attracted few pilgrims, since then it has attracted a growing number, so that by 2010 (the year of the film), over 270,000 undertook the full pilgrimage.  (Many who now undertake this journey are not Catholics, or even Christians, but those in search of spirituality, or an experience to give their life meaning, or other personal reasons.)

The story centers around a lapsed Catholic, Thomas Avery (Martin Sheen), an ophthalmologist completely engaged in his practice, and little else.  His son, Daniel (Emelio Estevez), rejects his father's lifestyle, seeks to see the world, wants to engage in the lives of others and help them when possible.  Daniel decides to undertake El Camino de Santiago, but dies on his first day on the journey in the Pyrenees alone in a storm.

Much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, Thomas is swept up to France, to deal with the death of his son.  Once he finds out all the details, he feels it his duty to accomplish the pilgrimage for his son by carrying his son's cremated ashes along the pilgrimage route.  Again, much like Dorothy, he encounters 3 companions, at intervals.  As with Dorothy, during the journey, he learns much about himself and others.

Though I wouldn't put this up in arena of an Academy Award picture, I still highly recommend this film, and think you will enjoy viewing it.

Commanding Heights (Video)

In my last post, I discussed a book, The Commanding Heights.  In 2002, PBS (WGBH) produced and aired a 6 hour documentary based on the book called, "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" (Available on DVD).

If you don't have the time for the book, the documentary is an excellent summary of the ideas and materials covered in the book.  Plus it covers some additional materials (since the book was completed in 1998, 4 years before the documentary).

In addition, PBS has a website devoted to the documentary, which contains a treasure trove of materials related to the documentary, a virtual small encyclopedia on economics in the 20th Century.

If you don't want to purchase the DVD, you can likely borrow it at your local library (though some have it in a VHS format).  You can also watch it online at the PBS website which has the entire documentary available for viewing online.  The website also has the entire transcript available.

The documentary is divided into 3 - 2 hour parts.

• Part 1: The Battle of Ideas
• Part 2: The Agony of Reform
• Part 3: The New Rules of the Game

I highly recommend viewing this documentary.  Much like the book, it gives a vast oversight to economics in the 20th Century on a global scale, and is fairly easy to follow and understand.

The Commanding Heights (Book)

I finished reading "The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, originally published in 1998, and then republished in 2002.  The authors present an outstanding review of economics in the 20th Century around the world in terms of the struggle between free markets and government control, as reflected in the original subtitle, "The Battle Between Government and the Marketplace That Is Remaking the Modern World."

Daniel Yergin

The book focuses on this battle through the ideas of the two leading economists of the 20th Century, Frederick Von Hayek and John Maynard Keynes.  Hayek, shaped by the Austrian School of Economics, argued for free markets since, he said, the price system provided an efficient mechanism for communicating vital and pertinent information to all market participants.  He argued against central planning since the planners can never gather enough information to have enough knowledge to base decisions upon.  Keynes, fearing a communist takeover, argued that market forces, left alone, always leads to disaster, and needs to be reigned in by government control in order to survive.

Joseph Stanilaw

Free markets largely reigned at the start of the 20th Century.  However, the world retreated from them with the shock of both World War I and then the economic upheavals that followed, especially in Germany, but then spreading in worldwide depression.  Leaders began imposing more government controls to reign in the free markets.  Keynes became more prominent and while Hayek became more ostracized.

However, well into the later half of the 20th Century, this trend reversed as government control seemed to cause more harm than good.  Leaders began undoing many government controls and relied more upon the free markets to solve economic problems.  Hayek became more prominent and Keynesian economics became more suspect.

The authors do not write in generalities.  They delve into how these ideas played out in country after country
and region after region over vast time periods, in England, India, the United States, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, the Third World, Asia, Africa, South America, during each decade of the 20th Century.  The sweep and vastness of the study is stunning.  They also tell the stories of the many leaders involved in leading and directing their economies.

Little wonder, Daniel Yergin is a Pulitzer Prize winning author for a previous book he wrote about the history of the oil industry, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, which I mentioned in the Introduction to this blog, and some observations from it on the Oil Crisis which I later posted.

I highly recommend reading The Commanding Heights.  I hope the authors come out with another book that updates it.  PBS made this book into a documentary series which I plan to later post about.

St. Valentine's Day

Why do we celebrate St. Valentine's Day with declarations of love?  Who was St. Valentine anyway?  (Does anyone care who he really was anymore?)

Apparently, we know very little factually about what may be among the most famous of the officially recognized saints.  Instead, we have several hagiographies (biographies of saints - sometimes considered unreliable) about him.

Almost all the hagiographies agree that he died because he refused to renounce his belief in the Christian faith - in other words, that he died as a martyr, around 273, on February 14th.

He is associated with lovers because according to at least one hagiographa, as a priest (or a bishop) he

married Christians (in secret), though that was illegal at that time (and he also otherwise helped Christians - also illegal at that time.)  This is somewhat unsure, since many others with the name of Valentinus are also considered saints, and their hagiographies differ.

Regardless, Pope Galius I - named Valentine a Saint in 496, though he impliedly admitted not much was actually known about him.  So in 1969, Valentine was removed from the official Roman Catholic liturgical calendar for veneration, though still venerated locally, as well as by the Anglicans and Lutherans (as well as by the Eastern Orthodox in June).

Many other legends about Saint Valentine abound.  While I doubt they will outdo the amount of chocolates, flowers, and other expressions of love - let us rejoice one day a year is dedicated to love between men and women (and even between boys and girls).

Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)? - Part 8

In my other post, I asked whether there are Evangelical Catholics, and affirmed, yes there are.  I proceeded to explore Protestants who call themselves Evangelical Catholics.  In this post, I want to explore Catholics who call themselves Evangelical (or evangelical) Catholics.

In general, in Catholicism, the term "evangelical Catholicism" refers to Catholics who identify with the four historical characteristics of evangelicalism, similar to some of the evangelical characteristics I mentioned in a previous post.

Four of these characteristics are:

1. A strong theological and devotional emphasis on Scripture (as understood through tradition).
2. A stress on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the both the cause and opportunity for salvation for all mankind.
3. A personal need for interior conversion.
4. A deep commitment to evangelization.

They tend to identify evangelicals within Catholic tradition such as Saint Dominic (founder of the Dominican order).  They also tend to emphasize the root meaning of the word, evangelical, which I described in an another previous post.

They also tend to emphasize some recent evangelical witness of some Popes, especially John Paul II in his Encyclical, The Mission of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Missio).

There is much more about all this at the website for the evangelical Catholic.  http://www.evangelicalcatholic.org/

George Weigel, a Catholic theologian, author of a best-selling biography on Pope John Paul II, The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II–The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy, wrote a book this year (2013), Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st Century (a book I have not read, so I am not endorsing in any way at this point).

The point is, that Catholics are more and more referring to themselves as Evangelicals (or evangelicals), without giving up their Catholic distinctiveness.  I view this as a positive development, and encourage my Catholic friends and brothers to embrace this development and stretch themselves to see how they can embrace an evangelicalism which seems to be deeply embraced in Catholic tradition in whatever way they feel God is leading them to do so in a manner that develops their personal growing faith in Jesus Christ.

Back to Part 7
Back to Intro
Over to Who (or What) is an Evangelical Part 1

Who (or What) is an Evangelical? - Part 10

Are there Evangelical Catholics?  Though many would deny such a meshing of terms, the short answer is yes, there are Evangelical Catholics.  What may surprise many is that Protestants choose to describe themselves as such.

Most prominent are some Lutherans who expressly describe themselves as Evangelical Catholics.  This has both historical roots, as well as more recent developments.

Historically, the Gnesio (from a Greek word meaning authentic) Lutherans defended Luther's early views, and emphasized the Catholic roots of Lutheranism.  They tended to emphasize the following statements from the Augsburg Confession (a central early document in the Lutheran tradition).

Presentation of the Augsburg Confession

This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers, . . .
And:
Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in not article of the faith from the Church Catholic, . . .

As well as:
Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic.

The Genesio-Lutherans took great pains to show that Lutheranism was a continuation of the Catholic Church.  They emphasized Evangelical as a continuation of the gospel tradition.

More recently, many Lutherans prefer the term Evangelical Catholic in preference to the term, High Church Lutheranism, especially since, as I mentioned in a previous post, Lutherans early on tended to describe themselves as Evangelicals.

However, not only Lutherans, but other Protestants describe themselves as Evangelical Catholics.  In recent years, this includes Methodists, Reformed (Presbyterians), as well as Episcopalians/Anglicans.  As far back as 1851, an Episcopal published a periodical called, "The Evangelical Catholic."  Others use the term to emphasize they are Evangelical, but maintain their Catholicity.

Yet, there are also Catholics who use the term, "Evangelical Catholics" - something I will explore in the next part of my parallel series, "Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)?"

Back to Part 9
Over to Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)? - Intro

How Green Was My Valley - Film

In 1939, Richard Llewllyn wrote How Green Was My Valley.  It soon became a best-seller, winning the National Book Award, awarded by the American Booksellers Association, for favorite novel of 1940.

Hollywood mogul, Darryl Zanuck, head of Fox Studios, bought the movie rights to make the novel into a movie for $300,000, more than any other to that time.  He dreamed of making an epic film as a response to David O. Selznick's making of Gone With The Wind (1939).  He wanted to film it in glorious color in Wales, where the novel was set.  He also wanted, and signed, William Wyler, considered the best Director, to direct the film.  However, World War II broke out in the United Kingdom (including Wales) in 1940, ruling out filming in Wales.  Delays meant William Wyler was free to pursue other films, which he did.

But Zanuck pressed on, deciding to film in the San Fernando Valley (in black and white since California's golden fields would not look like Wales in color), and settling for John Ford as the Director, famous for making many black and white films in the West.  The film went on to win 5 Academy Awards out of 10 nominations.  It won (in 1941) for:

• Best Picture (20th Century Fox)
• Best Director (John Ford)
• Best Actor in a Supporting Role (John Crisp - Mr. Morgan)
• Best Cinematography, Black & White (Arthur C. Miller)
• Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White (Richard Day, Nathan Juran Day, and Thomas Little)

The center gem of this film is the introduction of a very young Roddy McDowell.  He plays Huw, the central character who tells the story as an old man recalling his memories growing up.  So much of the story is told by simply watching the eyes and reactions of this very young character and actor, who carries the heart and plot of the film.

Another gem is the first of several appearances of Maureen O' Hara in a John Ford film, playing the part of Angharad.  She would go on to play many other parts in his films, perhaps most famously in the 1953 film, The Quiet Man.

However, many gems adorn this film with many stars such as Walter Pidgeon (Pastor Gruffydd), Donald Crisp (who, as I mentioned, won Best Supporting Actor), Sara Allgood (nominated for Best Actress in a Supporting Role), Ana Lee (Bronwyn), Barry Fitzgerald (Cyfartha), and many others.

The story revolves around a Welsh family - the Morgans - as related to us by Huw.  They are coal miners, and a central conflict in the family is unionization.  However, that turns out to be a backdrop to many other issues such as Huw confronting and overcoming a serious illness, whether the local pastor who lives on a poverty basis, will marry Huw's sister or whether she will marry the rich local mineowner's son, whether that pastor will overcome the hasty judgments of his Deacon's Board, and especially what will become of the green valley when the slag heaps from the mines overcomes the green vibrant valley?

Another gem of this film is the music, by Alfred Newman, also nominated for an Academy Award, which features Welsh singing, a beauty to behold.

I am surprised to find, when I bring up this film, many are unfamiliar with it.  So I urge you to watch it if you haven't (or to watch it again if you haven't for a while) - it will feed your soul.  (You can watch it on NetFlix, find it at your video store or public library, or order it on Amazon.)   I will have more to say when I finish reading the original novel, which I am well into.

Recently, Turner Classic Movies presented this film as one of its Essentials.

Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)? - Part 7

There is a common saying among Catholics, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic."  This means, under Canon Law (the Catholic Church's bylaws), once you have been baptized in a Roman Catholic Church, or have been received into it, you are recognized as a Catholic for life.

This recognition is never removed, whether or not you regularly attend Mass, whether or not you follow Catholic practices.  You may cease attending Mass altogether, but you are still recognized as a Catholic - though perhaps a lapsed Catholic.  You may even leave the Catholic Church and begin attending other churches.  Still, you are

Pew Forum survey - Faith in Flux - 2009

recognized as a Catholic by other Catholics.  You may even begin identifying yourself as a Lutheran, a Methodist, or even a Baptist.  Still, you are recognized by other Catholics as a Catholic.

Another way to look at this is once you have been raised as a Catholic, the values imprinted in you largely stay for life (or at least, according to some, the guilt they impose).  This may help explain why the Beatles, who were mostly raised Catholic or Anglican (close), reflected many Catholic values in their many of their songs, even while they, at times, refuted their religious backgrounds.

Some find this view (once a Catholic always a Catholic) offensive.  They say it violates your freedom, and tags you with a label that you may not want.  I suppose it can be used that way, and undoubtedly some Catholics have misused it that way.  That is not the purpose.

Others are surprised to find that though they have attended and identified with another church for most of their lives, Catholics still recognize them as Catholic.  They are not so much offended as simply amazed that Catholics still regard them as Catholic.

Under this view, even if you are excommunicated, you are still recognized as a Catholic.  You might be considered a bad Catholic, but you are still a Catholic.  (Does this mean Martin Luther was still considered a Catholic after he was excommunicated?)

Many Catholics do not like this saying.  They resent Catholics who disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church and yet say they are still Catholic - by citing this saying.  They also do not like it when Catholics who do not regularly practice their faith claim to be Catholic.  I will have more to say about this in a future post.

Some say if you publicly defected from the Catholic Church, you would no longer be considered Catholic.  They base this on a provision of the Canon Law.  However, that provision had to do with marrying outside of the Catholic Church.  In any event, that provision was removed from the Canon Law in 2010, and so no longer applies.

One positive way to look at this view of Once A Catholic Always A Catholic.  Once you are baptized in the Catholic Church (or received into it), you are part of the Catholic family.  You can never lose that as long as you live, just as you can never lose your family as long as you live.  You are always welcome back (sometimes called being welcomed home).

A good friend, who is also a Catholic theologian, suggested that after Vatican II, with its emphasis of the Church as the People of God, and following the 1983 revision to the Canon Law, especially as to Baptism, that it may be more appropriate to update this old saying to - "Once a Christian, Always a Christian."

I think the old saying is true enough, so that once you have been baptized or recognized as a Catholic, other Catholics will always recognize you as a Catholic, and welcome you back, no matter how far you drift away, or where you wander.  However, and especially in light of Vatican II, that saying should not be used in a manner to divide Catholics from other Christians or to otherwise not recognize all who are validly baptized in Christ as part of the People of God.

Back to Part 6
Back to Intro
Over to Who (or What) is an Evangelical - Part 1

Who (or What) is an Evangelical? - Part 9

The National Association of Evangelicals likely represents the broadest representations of Evangelicals in the United States.  (They form part of the Worldwide Evangelical Alliance.)  They have a specific webpage in their website where they describe What is an Evangelical?  This is what they say (similar to what I said in Part 6).

"What is an Evangelical?

Evangelicals take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

The term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning “the good news” or the “gospel.” Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the “good news” of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.

We are a vibrant and diverse group, including believers found in many churches, denominations and nations. Our community brings together Reformed, Holiness, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other traditions. Our core theological convictions provide unity in the midst of our diversity. The NAE Statement of Faith offers a standard for these evangelical convictions.

Historian David Bebbington also provides a helpful summary of evangelical distinctives, identifying four primary characteristics of evangelicalism:

• Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus.
• Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
• Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority

• Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

These distinctives and theological convictions define us, not political, social, or cultural trends. In fact, many evangelicals rarely use the term “evangelical” to describe themselves, focusing simply on the core convictions of the triune God, the Bible, faith, Jesus, salvation, evangelism, and discipleship."

On to Part 10

Back to Part 8
Back to Part 1
Over to Who (or What) is a Catholic (or catholic)? - Intro

Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)? - Part 6

Many tend to assume all Catholics (Roman Catholics) think more or less alike - as though they tend to all believe the same things.  The truth is, and what I have found, there is a great variety in what Catholics think and believe, especially because there are different types of Catholics, which you can easily discover if you ask different Catholics what they think and believe, since you will tend to get many different answers.  That doesn't mean Catholic teaching from the Magisterium - the Catholic teaching office - varies, and here I am not evaluating how the descriptions below line up or not with Magisterium teaching.  There are different ways to classify them (us) as well as different names to assign for the various types of Catholics for this purpose.  So here is one attempt at this type of description.  Let me know if you agree or not - or have a different way to describe this.  The following order does not suggest or imply one group is more important than the others.  Also, I recognize these are not strict categories - since there can be much overlap, and some Catholics may find themselves identifying with one or more of the descriptions below, or you may know some Catholics that fit one or more of the following descriptions.  These descriptions are not necessarily factions within Catholicism.  This is not an absolute list or categorization - there can be other ways to look at this - and I invite comments.

• First, there are Traditional Catholics (sometimes called Conservative Catholics).  This
  
  group tends to accept all (or most of) the creeds (dogmas) of the (Roman) Catholic Church and stress obedience to the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Catholic Church), including the Pope.  They tend to accept the changes brought about by Vatican II (though I have found they often do not understand - or might not have read - all of the Vatican II documents - or understand the full implications, scope and sweep of all the documents it generated).
• Second, there are Liberal Catholics (sometimes called Progressive Catholics).  This

  

  Hans Kung - 2009

  group tends to disagree with one or more of the creeds (dogmas or teachings) of the (Roman) Catholic Church, and thus tend to challenge, or at least question, the authority of the Magisterium (including the Pope).  They tend to relish in the Vatican II documents - though at times they loosely refer to the spirit of Vatican II - which can at times mean whatever they want to promote instead of what was written at Vatican II.  (A small minority within this classification go as far as to promote what they call Liberation Theology, which means they promote Marxist revolution as Catholic theology.)
• Third, there are Ultra-Traditionalist Catholics.
  
  They tend to be critical of Vatican II reforms and tend to defend what they consider "old-time Catholicism," or what they affirm as "classical Catholicism."  They may prefer the mass in Latin (though not always).  They tend to see Catholicism at war with other branches of Christianity - and tend to not like the term ecumenism (though emphasized in Vatican II)  or see it solely in terms of evangelization to bring other Christians into the Catholic Church (or to return home as they call it).
• Fourth, there are Charismatic or Evangelical Catholics.  They tend to emphasize the work of
  
  the Holy Spirit, identify with other Charismatic Christians or Evangelical Christians, personal salvation, a personal relationship with Jesus and salvation based on this.  Sometimes they emphasize the baptism in the Holy Spirit, or at least a renewal (or awakening) in faith.  (Cursillo is considered part of the renewal movement within Catholicism.)
• Fifth, there are New Age Catholics, or those who might identify with
  
  Eastern religions.  While some might want to lump these Catholics in with Liberal Catholics (and while there can be similarities), there is a fundamental difference.  Liberal Catholics tend to rely on reason - while New Age Catholics tend to distrust reason in favor of mysticism or intuition.
• Sixth, there are what might be called Cultural Catholics.  They tend to be Catholic because it is part of their culture and it's expected of them, but it may not have much meaning beyond that - though they tend to feel deeply loyal to the Catholic Church.  They may or may not have concerns about spiritual matters.  They may or may not understand Catholic teachings, or ethics.  If they attend Mass regularly, it is out of obligation to the family or culture.  They usually do not think in terms of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, though some do.
• Seventh, there are what might be called Folk (or Popular Folk) Catholics.  They tend to blend other religious beliefs with their Catholic beliefs (which tends to reflect a sort of Catholicism often found during the Middle Ages). So in some parts of the world, they might combine voodoo beliefs with Catholic beliefs.  They may tend to go against true Catholic teaching and may cross over into worshiping Mary as a type of goddess.  They may tend to consider the Saints to be a sort of ancient set of semi-gods & goddesses to pray and worship directly to for direct benefits instead of prayer partners to help them bring their prayers before the throne of God.

My point here is not to uphold or dismiss any of theses different types of Catholics (or Catholicism), but instead to point out they do exist, so that it is at times difficult to identify what Catholics actually believe, in contrast to what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches.

Back to Part 5
Back to Intro