Recently in popular culture Category

This morning on my way in to work I was listening to one of my favorite radio shows, the Bobby Bones Show on 96.7 KISS FM. Bobby read an email from a young woman who had hooked up a year ago with ... some guy.

As a result, she got pregnant, and got an abortion, without informing the man of either. Her question: Should she inform the man she hooked up with?

Bobby solicited opinions from listeners, and he offered his own along with his colleagues on the show, Lunchbox, Carlos, and Amy, who is known among the group for being more religious.

All of the men agreed that the young woman should not tell the man about the pregnancy or the abortion, because it is too late to do anything about it, it wouldn't do the man any good, and he probably wouldn't want to know anyway. Amy wondered what pregnancy counselors would say.

Below is a comment I emailed to Bobby, Lunchbox, and Carlos (known as "Los").

Hey Bobby, Lunch and 'Los:

I'm a regular listener to your show and I thoroughly enjoy it -- even though when you all are talking about what to do in relationship situations I disagree with you guys fairly often.

But today I feel compelled to share my thoughts on what you guys discussed -- specifically the young lady who got an abortion without telling the father (or father-to-be, depending on one's beliefs regarding prenatal life), and whether she should.

Just to let you know, I'm a Catholic in my 20s, engaged to be married in September to a beautiful, awesome woman -- and suffice to say, in the words of Kelly Clarkson, "I do not hook up." So yeah, I'm usually on Amy's side. And I don't suspect anything I say will surprise you.

The young woman should absolutely tell the man that she became pregnant and got an abortion. As soon as possible.

My concern is not whether the guy has a right to know. My concern is not whether he would want to know. My concern is not whether it would do him any good to know. My concern is whether someone else -- particularly, some future potential one night stand -- might benefit from him knowing.

I would argue, she clearly would.

As long as Captain Hookup is blissfully ignorant that he caused a pregnancy that ended in an abortion, his behavior will not change.

I understand that maybe one or more of you gentlemen on the show may not have a problem with his behavior -- at least with the hookup, per se. I don't judge you guys for that. We have a difference of opinion.

But that may be because, to your knowledge, you've never been in a situation like his. If you were informed that one of your hookups aborted a pregnancy you caused, would that make you think differently about hooking up? Might it change the way you live your life? The decisions you make? Is that, at least in part, why you wouldn't want to know?

You may also question whether informing Captain Hookup would actually cause him to change his behavior. Maybe he knows he has already caused four pregnancies that ended in abortions, and doesn't care. Perhaps. But I would argue he is at least more likely to change his behavior if he knows.

Because he may very well be going about his life with no idea that the way he is living it creates situations like the young woman's whose email you read today. That would be a valuable lesson for him to learn, and it may save another young woman down the road similar misfortune and potential heartache. If it creates heartache for him, well, he earned it.

Thanks for reading, fellas. Have a great day.

M

Last night Terri and I went to the movies. It was there that I realized ...

If you're on a date, the best place to sit in a movie theater is directly behind two short people. Because nothing is more irritating than a giant cranium rising like a black hole sun into the horizon of the screen. But if you can find two short people to sit behind, there is a one hundred percent chance that that will not happen.

***

Before the movie started, there was a commercial for 3D televisions. During it, Terri remarked to me: "It would make me nauseous to watch stuff in 3D all the time."

I replied: "But dear, we see stuff in 3D all the time."

She remained silent for a few seconds, before replying: "Shut up."

It's nice to win one every now and then.

***

The film Terri and I watched, by the way, was Toy Story 3. Terri and Mark give it two thumbs way up. I say it is the funniest and most suspenseful of the three, with a truly Mission Impossible-esque storyline. Great fun.

None among the gods can equal you, O Lord; nor can their deeds compare to yours. -- Psalm 86:8

But instead of taking the form of religious deities, the new gods are simply taking the form of ... stuff. Entertainment, materialism, basically a whole bunch of white noise. We may not live in a time or a society at least in the Western world where there are many other "gods," but we sure have a lot of stuff.

That's not a bad thing, at least not always. The more I personally see of all the absurd stuff out there competing for my attention, the more confident I become that I'm living for the greatest gift in the world, which is the Gospel of Christ, and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not because of my own genius or insight of course, but because it was given to me. It's my heritage.

My favorite Catholic writer, Peter Kreeft, once wrote, "We become like the goals we pursue." So if we pursue absurdity, if we pursue white noise, we become the absurd, we become the white noise of celebrity and greed and sodomy, and all that. We know what the white noise is. If we pursue pointless, we become pointless. And I don't want to be pointless.

The question is what is the goal of your life. I know that at least generally for me, I want to make people happy. I want to make people smile. I don't want to just write a blog about stuff that upsets me, which I have done in the past and which would be very easy for me to continue doing. But I don't want to because in many cases that would just upset more people. Not that I want to ignore the problems of the world. But if all I do is talk about what's wrong with the world and I can't inspire people with something better then I miss the forest for the trees.

The world needs good news. The world needs a reason to smile. And I want my life to be that. I want my life to be a life that blesses other people's lives.

And if that sounds at all like what you want to do too, then you and I have one option. We have to pursue God, who "bestows on us every spiritual blessing in the heavens" (Ephesians 1:3).

This is Satan's big lie: that we can become like God by storing up power and knowledge and wealth for ourselves in this world. No, we become like God by pursuing Him. And when we pursue Him, other blessings follow from that.

When we pursue God, we become blessing for others, because we show them the face of God, the face of Jesus.

When we pursue Him, we become like His love: unconditional.

When we pursue Him, we become like His truth: undeniable.

When we pursue Him, we become like His goodness: unshakable.

When we pursue Him, we become like His beauty: inviolable.

Let's pray to Him that we can remember to always pursue Him first, so that we may become more like Him, so we may go out to our neighbors who are living in a world that is drowning in stuff, and give them a reason to smile.

Came across Psalm 125 yesterday:

Those who put their trust in the Lord
are like Mt. Zion, that cannot be shaken,
that stands forever.

Trust is difficult for someone like me. Someone who is very cerebral and likes to have all the answers all the time.

It is good to know God and know HIs word and His ways as much as we possibly can. But we can never know even our closest earthly friends so well as to completely understand everything they want and exactly what they are up to all the time. There will always be moments where they have to say to us, "Trust me."

How much more often, then, will God say to us, "Trust me," and how foolish would we be not to oblige.

In a relationship with an earthly friend, provided the friend is reliable and trustworthy, clarity as to what he is up to often comes only after our trust is placed in him.

Like in the movie Aladdin when the title character asks Princess Jasmine:

Do you trust me?

She doesn't know what he's up to until after she says, "Yyyeeeesss?"

Now again it is true: "Trust me" moments are easier the better we know someone. The better we know a person, the more confident we can be that he will not use our trust to take advantage of or hurt us. The second time Aladdin asks Jasmine if she trusts him, she says "Yes" with much greater ease and confidence that everything will be all right. So with God*.

But as with a regular person, we are limited by our singular vantage point. We can't know anyone completely. To demand to know a person completely before trusting is to trust no one ever.

So with God, when we stop trying to completely understand Him and His motives and simply trust Him, and let Him do His work in our hearts, the answers we wanted so badly before we trusted Him will naturally come to us. But trust has to come first.

Every morning when we wake up, God asks us: "Do you trust me?" And we have to answer Yes or No. If you answer yes, don't be surprised if He grabs your hand and tells you to jump.






*who similarly is trying to win our hearts, though dissimilarly not by disguising who He really is.

How cliche is my life?

I'm sitting here watching the NBA Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics, two of the most storied franchises in the history of basketball -- for reasons of which my fiance is completely, and offensively, ignorant. She could care less about the game. I am hoping the Celtics win because I can't stand Kobe Bryant.

Speaking of my future wife, she is sitting next to me on the couch, reading ... Twilight, one of the most popular works of modern fiction in the country -- for reasons I will never understand. I could care less about the progression of the story, although unlike the game, I know what's going to happen in the book -- because I have seen the movie. So has she, and yet she continues reading, completely engrossed.

I know, I know. It's not supposed to make sense.

And I can't complain. Why do I get so much joy out of watching Kobe blow a play, then whine and moan and wave his arms around claiming the ref blew a call? One of those imponderables.

Been thinking a lot about the Holy Spirit lately. Fr. J said in his homily last Sunday said that the Holy Spirit "makes the difference." It makes the difference between a loving church community and a cold and distant one. It makes the difference in a generous and giving person and a miser. It makes the difference between a person who is ready to change and a person who is stuck in his old ways.

David Mills of "First Things" magazine wrote this week about "Spirituality without Spirits," or the modern popular concept and lifestyle of "spirituality" as opposed to supposedly cold hard "religion."

He writes about Lady Gaga -- who may not be so celibate after all -- telling a newspaper that although she was raised Catholic, she now prefers a more "spiritual" type of God.

"There's really no religion that doesn't hate or condemn a certain kind of people, and I totally believe in all love and forgiveness, and excluding no one," she says.

Mills debunks the whole "spirituality" myth -- which is that one can be spiritual without the actual relationship with the kind of Spirit that one encounters only in religious practice. To be religious is to be spiritual -- to engage with and encounter a true spirit that is beyond us, that challenges us, and that can change us.

I'm presently reading a book by John Paul II on the Holy Spirit: Dominum et Vivificantem: The Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church and the World. That first Latin part means "Lord and Giver of Life," which is what we Catholics call the Holy Spirit every Sunday at Mass.

Because every human heart desires God, I think it can certainly be said that persons who subscribe to these sorts of popular, ephemeral, non-substantive types of "spirituality" are looking, objectively, for the Holy Spirit. In other words, everyone wants life, and the Holy Spirit stands ready to give it to them to the full. But their perception, often received from popular media, is that the Holy Spirit, and the Church to which He gives life, will not give them the kind of happiness that they seek from living spiritually.

Why? Because of the moral claims that they make. It's that "Holy" with a capital "H" that some of us find so unnerving. That's what, I suspect, Lady Gaga is talking about. She thinks that religion is about hating and condemning people. That's her concept of morality. If it was my concept of morality, I would agree with her. A lot of people would, and that I suspect is why the concept of "spirituality" is so appealing, why so many characterize themselves as "spiritual but not religious."

But religion, at least the Christian religion, is about loving and accepting and including people. But therefore it must be about hating and condemning certain lifestyles and practices, both in our own lives and in the world writ large, that are fundamentally incompatible with loving our neighbor the way Christ loves us. If certain sexual practices -- and let's be frank, the vast majority of objections people have to the moral claims of the Church come down to sexual practices -- are condemned and excluded by the Church, that is the reason.

The reason why certain practices must be excluded may not always be clear to us, but many things regarding God are not always clear, and nonethless true. My purpose here is not to make the case for these teachings. That would take many more blog posts. I simply say the basis of these teachings is not hate and exclusion, but love and inclusion -- of all people.

The concept is rooted in scripture, as John Paul II notes in his book. In John Chapter 16, Jesus tells his disciples that when the Holy Spirit comes, He will "convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment."

Well there's the rub. All you have to do is watch a few episodes of "Intervention" to know that we human beings do not like to be convinced of our own sin -- of our imperfections and our need to change. Religion -- Holy Spirituality -- does that. Spirituality does not.

Last night, T, her maid of honor, and I watched the Disney film The Princess and the Frog.

I've only been to New Orleans once in my life, which is weird for a Cajun boy from Lafayette. But based on my limited experience, it's pretty spot on. Spot on in a cliché way of course, but as my fiancé observed, they were respectful of the Cajun people. The writers could have been a ot more ridiculous and poked a lot more fun at Cajun culture. But then, if they had, the last thing you would see is a group of politically correct Cajuns protesting the movie. There's no Association Against the Defamation of Cajuns or anything like that.

Some parts of Cajun culture are omitted from the film -- including its deep religious elements. I found it interesting that the clearest depiction of religion or the supernatural was the voodoo villain Dr. Facilier. There is a good-guy voodoo lady in the film as well, but of course, she fights voodoo with more voodoo. Other than them the closest thing to religion in the film is wishing on a star. The central character recognizes at one point in the film the utter futility of doing so, while the voodoo powers are clearly very real from beginning to end.

This is not a big surprise, of course. It's a Diseny movie, and Disney has never been about the kind of religion one finds in the real world. Disney is about "magic." Disney characters don't pray. They "wish upon a star," because that is supposedly more appealing to a mass audience.

None of this is a deal-breaker, mind you. The movie is fun and laugh-out-loud funny at times. The characters are all endearing in their own way. The coolest one is Ray, an adorable firefly who helps guide the central characters through the swamp. Ray's Cajun accent is uncanny. He is voiced by Jim Cummings, who among other things has provided the voice for WInnie the Pooh (and Tigger too) going back to the 1980s.

I give it three stars out of four, which in the world of Ebert and Roeper is a thumbs up. I liked it.

... Ha! I just looked up Roger Ebert's review and he gave it three stars too! He actually makes the good point that the film reverts back to classic Disney animation. No CGI, no 3-D chicanery. Just great and simply drawn characters living in a world of painted backdrops. Awesome.

And the film got 84 percent at Rotten Tomatoes. If you haven't seen this movie yet, and you're looking for some funny, classically animated Disney adventure, this won't knock your socks off but it is a safe bet.

Came across an interesting article at the website for Crisis Magazine, a lay Catholic publication, by a guy named John Zmirak, whom I've never heard of but seems pretty insightful.

His argument: the theological virtue of love (or more clearly charity) cannot be properly understood or properly practiced without a proper understanding and practice of the "merely natural" virtues of justice (moral righteousness), temperance (moderation, avoidance of excess), fortitude (courage), and prudence (smart thinking).

Without the clear understanding and proper practice of those virtues, we cannot fulfill Christ's commandment, that we love one another as He loved us. For Jesus Himself was a model not only of the theological virtues (faith, hope and love), but of those four natural virtues as well.

The Christian message of Love, Zmirak writes, is not that only our conception of "love" by itself is sufficient without anything else to place it in context.

The example upon which he draws is indeed Benedict's comments regarding the abuse scandals, when he said:

"Forgiveness is not a substitute for justice. In one word we have to re-learn these essentials: conversion, prayer, penance, and the theological virtues."

Love without respect for justice is not really love, but a corruption of it. In modern popular culture, there are many conceptions and practices of "love" that do not include justice, or temperance, or courage, or prudence. They may involve strong emotional attachments and warm-fuzzies, but a strong emotional attachment and warm-fuzzies are not a foundation for a loving relationship in the Christian sense.

Some may argue that this makes it appear that God's Love is not enough, that we devalue God's Love by saying that it needs other virtues to make it work.

But I would say it is precisely by practicing these simple, ordinary human virtues that we place the value in Love that it truly deserves. Without these ordinary virtues, we strip Love of its identity. Love becomes merely an undiscerning affirmation of everyone, even those who need to be called to conversion, and everything, even the most heinous crimes. Love is challenging. As Zmirak put it:

Grace builds on nature, but it cannot simply replace it. If we're unjust, rash, intemperate or irresponsible, it won't simply cripple our attempts to practice faith, hope, and charity -- it might actually render them evil.

The pope had a few words for, well, me, a couple days ago. He asked bloggers to basically make the internet less machine and more human being. Less Matrix, more Neo.

From Vatican Radio:

The need to give the Internet a soul and humanize the dynamics of the digital world was at the heart of Pope Benedict XVI's message Saturday to participants in a conference on modern means of mass communication.

Promoted by the Italian Bishops Conference, "Digital Witness" draws together experts in information technology, social networking, web journalism and blogging to focus on the language we use and the way we communicate as Christians in the online society.

Pope Benedict told participants that the task of every believer who works in media, is to ensure the "quality of human contact, guaranteeing attention to people and their spiritual needs". "This is increasingly urgent in today's world", he said, at a time when Internet appears to have a "basically egalitarian" vocation, but at the same time, "marks a new divide", the "digital divide" that "separates the included from the excluded"

And this is my favorite:

"The dangers of homologation and control, of intellectual and moral relativism are also increasing, as already recognizable in the decline of critical spirit, in truth reduced to a game of opinions, in the many forms of degradation and humiliation of the intimacy of the person"

This continues his theme of actual truth, not just cleverer opinions. He also addresses the viral nature of the internet. Which reminds me of this movie I watched the other day with my fiance called "Untraceable." It's about a psychopath who creates an elaborate system whereby his victims are killed live via the internet -- and more quickly the faster the hit count rises (in other words, more quickly the more people log in to watch).

The film comes to a pretty cynical conclusion: that tens of millions of people would log on to watch a live homicide, driving the victim that much more quickly closer to death, if given the chance.

I don't know if that's true, but it speaks to the voyeuristic nature of some of the stuff you can find on the internet. Not just porn, but hardcore wipeout stuff. And I don't mean stuff like Fail Blog, which sometimes is pretty funny and to my knowledge has never shown anyone getting fatally wounded. There is, aside from the sex trash, some pretty violent stuff out there that can just further desensitize the population. The pope is wise to address this.

But basically, he's inviting bloggers to bring a little more God into the blogosphere. Hope I can help a bit.

How refreshing:

Nashville, Tennessee (CNN) -- Almost every weekend, there is a tradition called raging at Vanderbilt University.

It's a recurring, drunken activity that isn't the proudest moment for student Frannie Boyle. After consuming large quantities of alcohol before a party, her night would sometimes end in making out with a stranger or acquaintance.

Casual hook ups fueled by alcohol may be the norm across college campuses, but Boyle, now a 21-year-old junior at the school, chose to stop. Her reasons to quit hooking up echo the emotional devastation of many college students, particularly girls whose hearts are broken by the hook-up scene.

"I saw it [hooking up] as a way to be recognized and get satisfaction," said Boyle, shaking her blond ponytail. "I felt so empty then."

The hook-up culture on campuses may seem more pervasive than ever, especially as media outlets, books and documentaries rush to dissect the subject, but some college women and men are saying no.

Now don't get me wrong, this is great news. But the news of it is that the news is finally acknowledging that people like this exist. People who choose not to hook up. Not because they couldn't if they wanted to. Not because they're weird or obnoxious or incompetent. Just because they don't want to disrespect themselves and they know it won't make them happy. I've always known people like this exist because I've always known people like this. They're not that difficult to find.

I mean the headline itself says it all: "No hooking up, no sex for some coeds." Do the folks at CNN really believe that in the past leading up to now all coeds hooked up and had sex? That may not be what they mean to say, but that's how it reads.

Either CNN believes this is a surprising development, or CNN believes it will be a surprising development to some if not most of its readers, which is equally tragic. But hey, kudos to them for breaking the cycle of ignorance.

One particularly interesting fact from the story: I definitely did not know before reading it that Lady Gaga came out celibate recently. If you haven't heard this either, not kidding. MTV reported April 12:

"I can't believe I'm saying this -- don't have sex. I'm single right now and I've chosen to be single because I don't have the time to get to know anybody," she said while visiting England to help promote MAC's Viva Glam campaign, which supports global HIV and AIDS projects. "So it's OK not to have sex, it's OK to get to know people. I'm celibate, celibacy's fine."

So weird, in a good way.

On last excerpt from the CNN story:

Some, like Boyle, experimented with hooking up and quit. Though she is Catholic, she says her reason for disengaging herself from the hook-up culture had more to do with the unhappiness she experienced afterward. Others influenced by religion have abstained from casual physical activity from the moment they set foot on campus.

So when the story says that other people have abstained since they arrived on campus because they are "influenced by religion," I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I appreciate CNN giving religion that much credit.

On the other, I would venture to say that it is not arbitrary religious rules that these young people just follow blindly and gullibly. They're not waiting because they lack critical thinking skills. It is reason and truth that influences them. But again, I can't fault CNN for the way they describe it -- it is probably the least disputable way to do so. And how about that. The best way to avoid years of regret and heartbreak from the moment you set foot on a college campus is to get religion.