Odds and Ends
Hi everyone! It’s been way too long, and it’s time to throw out some odds and ends. (Although I guess an alternate blog title could be, “Truth matters.”)
I usually repost my Crisis Magazine articles in their entirety here, but because you might be sick of hearing me talk about The Chosen (I know I am!), I thought I would simply link to the article I wrote in February, in case you missed it:
The False Christ of The Chosen
This is a completely different article from the one I wrote on this blog last August, and in this latest one, I respond to the three most common defenses of the show that are given by faithful Catholics:
“Sure, the show is not perfect! But despite the problems, The Chosen is bringing countless souls closer to Christ!” (Is it, though?)
“Well, Jesus could have done [x, y, z]!” (Perhaps, but…)
“If you don’t like it, just don’t watch it.” (Sadly, we are way past that…)
If you disagree with my responses in the article, please leave a well-reasoned comment and we can discuss it. I only ask that you be quite specific: use citations from the article, and address what I have actually said. It’s impossible to debate feelings, so let’s not do that.
Within that article, I cited and respectfully critiqued a 2021 Crisis article by Austin Ruse. A couple of weeks later, Ruse came out with a Crisis article entitled, “Does Jesus Have a Sense of Humor?” Now, I had fully expected Ruse to write a response/rebuttal to my challenges, but in his article there is no connection to the actual points I made. He doesn’t name me, so I suppose there is a chance that the timing of his article was purely coincidental. However, Ruse doesn’t name or link to any of the “few grumpy Catholics” whom he accuses of believing that Jesus did not laugh or have a sense of humor. Who are the Catholics of whom he speaks, and where are their arguments laid out? I have never heard of any serious Catholic (or even an unserious one) making the argument that the God-Man, Jesus Christ, never laughed or was devoid of humor. Without any references, it looks like the entire article is a straw man—which is frustrating, because I respect Ruse’s work otherwise. But that is the kind of hold this false, slapstick “Jesus” has on many really good Catholics who should know better—it has them arguing straw men.
Leila, you may be wondering, why do you continue to talk about this show? Shouldn’t you just let it lie? That would be a welcome option for all of us. But sadly, Dallas Jenkins’ soap opera is ongoing and will not end for years. So, warnings will continue periodically, I suppose. Interestingly, one of the newest warnings has come from a huge fan of the series, because—as was inevitable—the problems and heresies of this anti-Catholic show have only gotten worse as this thing goes along.
Here it is; a warning by a gentleman at Word on Fire who goes out of his way to laud and promote the show even as he has no choice but to call out (but gently!) a massive heresy—an egregious revision of Matthew 16:19 and the giving of the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter:
A Gentle But Firm Correction to “The Chosen”
Denying the primacy of Peter (and thus denying the office of the papacy) is grave matter, and perhaps “gentleness” to protect the feelings of Dallas Jenkins and the gang should not be the main concern—maybe the offense against Our Lord should be. But this latest heresy joins the other heresies and blasphemies already in play in the series: the rejection of the Marian doctrines, the disrespect and twisting of the saints, a Protestant (and modernist) misunderstanding of the nature of marriage, etc. (read my articles for specifics). We can predict that the Holy Eucharist will be the next target. We should know that anything specifically Catholic will be denied/degraded. But the strange thing is that the author of this piece, a theology professor, seems to believe that the Protestants writing the show were simply sloppy in rewriting this crucial line in Matthew’s gospel, and that we should (gently!) “encourage the show’s producers to be more careful” going forward.
Wait, what? Be more careful? Don’t we all understand that Protestants reject Catholic doctrine, and that a Protestant gospel and a Protestant Jesus is quite literally the aim of the show? This is the part I cannot comprehend, frankly. Why do Catholics (scholars, even!) fall all over themselves to defend—and use for catechesis—a heretical show that fictionalizes the gospels?
Again, why do I harp on this? Because of how easily we can be pulled off track and into disaster. It’s much easier than any of us realize, but the enemy knows just how to do it. He pulls us off by increments, by compromises, and by appeals to our emotions and comfort. We know this on some level, but we ignore it in our case because we don’t believe it will happen to us. But it happens to good Catholics every day, and the only way to protect ourselves is by securing ourselves to the ground of Truth.
Which brings me to this…
When I reverted back in the mid-1990s, I learned a lot about Catholic legends Frank Sheed and his wife Maisie Ward. Sheed and Ward were a powerhouse Catholic apologetics couple who founded a powerhouse publishing company in 1926. Frank Sheed wrote several classics, including A Map of Life, Theology for Beginners, and To Know Christ Jesus. But there is one book I’ve always heard about, but which has escaped my clutches until now:
Theology and Sanity
One of the first things Sheed clarifies is that SANCTITY is in the will, but SANITY is in the intellect (how many of us think and teach in such clear foundational terms?). This book deals only with the SANITY side of things, which you need and I need, because we are all trying to maintain sanity in a culture that has gone insane! Here is how Sheed introduces this classic work:
I played with the thought of dedicating this book TO ALL WHO KNOW LESS THEOLOGY THAN I. It would have sounded flippant. But it would have been exact. There are thousands who know more theology than I, and for them I have no message: they must teach me. But there are thousands who know less, and less is not enough: I must try to teach them. This book contains theology, not the great mass of it that theologians need, but the indispensable minimum that every man needs in order that he may be living mentally in the REAL WORLD—which is what the word SANITY means in my title.
I agree. It's the minimum we need. You will hang on every sentence, trust me. And it will change the way you see everything. You will become very grounded--and sane. (And the chapter on the humanity of Jesus will open a lot of eyes to the major Christological problems with The Chosen, by the way.)
Finally, many folks have asked for my thoughts about the movie Cabrini. I have not seen the movie, although I will, eventually (but I will not pay to see it). Because I have not seen the movie, I can’t review it here, although all Catholics may decry the simple fact that the name of Jesus was not used in a long film purportedly about a Catholic saint. (How on earth was that overlooked? It was likely intentional, which is worse.) There are countless glowing reviews from good Catholics all over social media and Catholic outlets, and those reviews can be found easily. Less easy to find are the negative reviews, and so what I hope to do is provide the balance—linking the rare criticisms of what the director himself calls a “great feminist screenplay.” So, if you are interested in something other than rave reviews, please go here, here, here, here, here, or here for that balance. That last link contains an eye-opening contrast between the “Cabrini” character on the screen and the real Mother Cabrini, the saint:
In one scene, Mother Cabrini (Cristiana Dell’Anna) prepares her sisters who are accompanying her to New York, saying: “Without men, we will be expected to fail. More than ever, we must trust in ourselves. And in the purpose of our mission.” Here’s what the real Mother Cabrini said to her sisters on September 13, 1894, when she set sail from Genoa, Italy, to New York: “Bear in mind that whoever distrusts herself and trusts in God has nothing to fear because, stripped of self, she has become strong with the strength of God. With humility and trust, she defies every hardship.” (emphases mine.)
Now that’s what I call an unholy inversion! Sheesh.
Am I just a grumpy old Catholic, always the buzzkill for no reason? Or, am I the friend who will tell you the truth no matter what, even when you don’t want to hear it? Eh, you be the judge.
Meanwhile, as wedding season gets into full swing, I want to reintroduce a piece that was read and shared many times last May (perhaps I’ll run it every year):
Nine Bad Arguments for Catholics Attending Invalid “Weddings”
Please remember that even a priest is not able to give permission for you to participate in (much less host or officially stand up for) mortally sinful acts. The phenomenon of priests green-lighting attendance at fake “weddings” is similar to the phenomenon of priests green-lighting contraception for Catholic couples as long as they “prayed about it,” etc. Please, let’s order our lives so that our first consideration is never to offend God, and let us also be concerned for our own souls. God will reward us for our faithfulness, even if it comes in the form of a heavy cross. (Doesn’t it always?)
Okay, that’s it for now. Please subscribe to this blog if you want to get notice of new posts, as my days on Facebook are scarce and getting scarcer.
