Talking about the “Things That Matter Most” on December 10th, 2014
Today’s schedule will be posted soon.
Today’s schedule will be posted soon.
4:00 – A Quick Word: What do our Most Popular Searches Reveal about our Culture?
4:10 – Eric Garner’s Wife: “I don’t feel like it’s a black and white thing.”
Protests continue across the nation after a New York police officer was not indicted for the chokehold death of Eric Garner. Many professional athletes, including Lebron James, printed the words “I Can’t Breathe” on their warmup jackets and sneakers during this weekend’s games. It has been suggested that Garner would still be alive today if he were white. His wife Esaw has a different opinion. She said in an interview that she doesn’t think her husband’s death was racially influenced. Al has his reaction to Esaw’s comments.
4:20 – What Are the Girls on The Sisterhood Discerning?
Last month we interviewed the Mother Superior of a Kentucky convent that is being featured on the new Lifetime show The Sisterhood. The show follows five young women to three different convents as they try to discern whether they are being called to religious life. How did the show find the five girls? Were they seriously discerning the religious life before going on the show? We talk to Francesca DiPaola, one of the five girls, about her experiences.
4:40 – Rescued from Prison: An Innocent Man Accused of Murder Fights to Protect Others
When Jeffrey Deskovic was 16, he was accused of raping and murdering a classmate. He was questioned without a lawyer present and threatened until he made a confession. Despite DNA evidence at his trial that should have exonerated him, Mr. Deskovic was convicted and spent the next 17 years in prison. The case was eventually reopened and he was freed in 2007 after DNA evidence was linked to another prisoner who later confessed to the murder. After he was released, he founded the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice, which fights to free wrongfully convicted prisoners and help them integrate back into society. Jeffrey joins us.
5:00 – A Quick Word: What do our Most Popular Searches Reveal about our Culture?
5:10 – Eric Garner’s Wife: “I don’t feel like it’s a black and white thing.”
5:20 – Delivering Food, Shelter and Hope to the Poorest of the Poor
Cross-Catholic International Outreach is a charity that provides food, medical services, education and other forms of aid to poverty-stricken people around the world. A donation of $30 provides a family with two goats for food and income, and a donation of $15 can feed a child for 30 days. Jim Cavnar, the president of Cross Catholic International, joins us.
5:40 – Living Advent: The Infancy Narratives
The four Gospels each include different details on the story of Christ’s birth. How are they connected? How are they different? What unique revelations does each Gospel account contain? Dr. Ed Sri, professor of theology and Scripture at the Augustine Institute’s Master’s in Catechetics and Evangelization program, is here to talk about the birth of Christ as it is told in the Gospels.
President Obama has threatened for months to issue an Executive Order on immigration if Congress was unable to reach a satisfactory decision. Recent reports have indicated the Order will be announced on Friday, leading to intention speculation as to what the Order may contain. We ask Kevin Appleby, director of the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services office, about the potential details of Obama’s Order and what they mean for Catholics.
Americans awoke yesterday to news that has become tragically familiar: another innocent man has been brutally executed by ISIS. The victim this time is Abdul-Rahman Kassig, formerly known as Peter. Kassig’s death is unique because he claims to have converted to Islam more than a year before his death. ISIS announced his death in a video that also featured the murders of a dozen Syrian soldiers. The terrorist group has also announced it will begin minting its own currency, which it calls the Islamic Dinar. This is yet another sign that the leaders of ISIS consider the so-called Islamic State to be a legitimate independent nation. Robert Spencer joins us to discuss the latest developments in the war against ISIS.
Last week marked the anniversary of the birth of former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. To phrase that under Blackmun’s own logic, it was the day on which a clump of parasitic cells survived its mother’s rights to privacy and to choose what to do with her body, and became its own “person” with the rights bound to those lucky enough to be born. Blackmun is best known for authoring the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and his execrable and intellectually dishonest decision doomed millions of his fellow human beings to death. Clarke Forsythe joins us with his thoughts on this deeply flawed decision that changed America so drastically.
A team of European scientists has successfully completed the first landing of a space probe on a comet. The Rosetta spacecraft continues to conduct experiments and analysis on the comet, which is located between Mars and Jupiter. Fr Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center for Reason and Faith tells us about the significance of this achievement.
Even the most faithful followers of Christ lead lives of hardship. Their loved ones die. They lose their jobs. They cope with fires, tornadoes and other disasters. They struggle to support their families. They face increasing persecution for their beliefs. Why does this happen? If Christ really is the Son of God, why is it so hard to follow Him? Al sits down with Dan Burke, the executive director of the National Catholic Register, to discuss the reasons for Christian suffering and the methods for coping with it.
Biblical and Theological Foundations of the Family argues that the family has a constitutive nature and a specific theological purpose, which God reveals in the church. Joseph Atkinson investigates the principles of the doctrine of Creation which inform the family “from the beginning”; the vital way the family functions as “carrier of the covenant” in the Old Testament; and the critical aspects of Hebraic anthropology, especially corporate personality, upon which the family is based. Joseph joins us.
Today on “Kresta in the Afternoon,” we review the midterm elections. What do the Republican victories in the House, Senate and at the state level mean for America? What do they suggest Americans feel about President Obama and his policies? What happens now in Washington? Will Obama be willing to work with a Republican-controlled Congress? What can we expect from the final two years of his presidency? Most importantly, what does all this mean for Catholics? We answer these questions and more on a special midterm elections edition of “Kresta in the Afternoon.” And if you need a break from the political talk, we’ll also be talking to Steven Greydanus about two of the latest Hollywood blockbusters.
Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review online is our first guest as we review the midterm elections.
Ave Maria Radio’s own Deal Hudson is our next guest in the midterm discussion. Deal is the host of Church and Culture radio show and the president of the Morley Institute for Church and Culture.
Al answers the most important question from the midterms: what do the midterm results mean for Catholics? What can we expect in the areas of the sanctity of life, definition of marriage and religious freedom?
The final guest in our midterm discussion is Gary Bauer, a leading voice in the pro-life and pro-family movement and the president of American Values.
Interstellar, directed by Christopher Nolan, is a sci-fi adventure film that has received very positive reviews. Disney’s latest animated feature, Big Hero Six, is due out this weekend and has received rave initial reviews. Steven Greydanus joins us to review these films.
Today we’re talking to Steven Greydanus of DecentFilms.com and Patrick Coffin of Catholic Answers Live about exorcism, ESP and Occult movies. Read this article from Steven before the show and don’t forget to tune in!
by Steven Greydanus
Not that exorcism was unknown in movies prior to The Exorcist. But The Exorcist spotlighted the phenomenon of possession and deliverance in an unprecedented way.
In a way, The Exorcist is a pivotal film — the indispensable link between the Catholic-inflected piety of Golden Age Hollywood and the demonic world of latter-day horror. More than this, it is the source or channel of much of our culture’s awareness of and ideas about possession and exorcism. Real-world exorcisms in both Catholic and Protestant milieus proliferated in the film’s wake, and its impact continues to be felt in recent films.
The form of exorcism familiar from The Exorcist is that of the Roman Ritual of 1614, which remained unchanged until it was updated in 1999 and again in 2004. The film’s depiction both of the rite and of the phenomenon of possession, though sensationalized and exaggerated, is fairly authentic. Notable elements include the demon’s resistance to being exorcised and other ambiguities. For example, the young victim writhes in pain when a priest sprinkles her with water — though it is not blessed holy water. Placebo effect? Or is the demon deliberately casting doubt on the reality of the possession, the effectiveness of the Church’s arsenal, or both?
Exorcism, of course, didn’t begin with the 1614 ritual — and movie exorcism didn’t begin with The Exorcist. Casting out demons goes back to the ministry of Jesus, and in the movies it goes back to the Jesus films of cinema’s silent origins. The 1912 film From The Manger to the Cross depicts Jesus healing a demoniac. Cecil B. DeMille’s 1927 silent The King of Kings opens with Jesus dramatically delivering Mary Magdalene of her seven demons, here representing the seven deadly sins.
Although the Devil and satanic cults surfaced in films prior to The Exorcist, possession and efforts to cast out demons were rare. Edward Dmytryk’s 1962 biopic The Reluctant Saint climaxes with a dramatic extended exorcism scene featuring Ricardo Montalban as a Franciscan friar — an exorcism that fails because the exorcee, St. Joseph of Cupertino, isn’t possessed!
By the late 1960s, the pious certainties of Golden Age Hollywood had crumbled, and a jaded, sophisticated ennui prevailed. Mia Farrow, carrying the devil’s child in Rosemary’s Baby, flips through the Easter 1966 issue of Time magazine with the cover question “Is God Dead?” … and by the end neither God nor his agents has intervened, and the Devil is victorious. The Omen, made after The Exorcist, likewise ends with heaven essentially defaulting while hell triumphs.
Even when the slews of Exorcist imitators embraced the war of good and evil, they seldom approached their inspiration for authenticity or quality. A 1972 Italian horror film, Lisa and the Devil, was liberally reworked for its 1975 US release with added scenes of pea-soup vomiting and clerical chanting (and retitled House of Exorcism). The 1974 blaxsploitation flick Abby brought a syncretistic bent, blending Christian and West African Yoruban religious elements. Amityville II: The Possession added a possession/exorcism twist to its predecessor’s tale of demonic terrorism — directly ripping off the climactic twist of Friedkin’s film.
Like these knockoffs, the Exorcist sequels failed theologically as well as artistically to match the original. Exorcist II: The Hereticfloated a number of bizarre ideas: The Catholic Church’s leadership distances itself from belief in the existence of Satan, while the late Fr. Merrin seems to have been posthumously transformed into a New Age disciple of the censured Jesuit mystic Teilhard de Chardin. In The Exorcist III, the demon of the first two films takes further revenge against Fr. Merrin by reanimating his body with the soul of a murderer!
Even when these post-Exorcist possession films retained the Catholic trappings of Friedkin’s film, the religious vision of the original was largely lost. Rather than spiritual warfare, exorcism was depicted in essentially magical terms.
Only Dominion: Prequel To the Exorcist even attempts to match the spirit of the original. Directed by Paul Schrader (a Calvin College alum who wrote the screenplay for The Last Temptation of Christ), it recounts Fr. Merrin’s first encounter with the demon in Kenya, where archaeologists unearth a fifth-century Byzantine church built as a prison for the demon. Schrader’s pensive, theological approach didn’t match studio expectations, though, and the film was reworked by Renny Harlin as a more typical horror show calledExorcist: The Beginning. Both versions were eventually released, Reny’s in 2005; Shrader’s in 2006.
In those same two years, two films were released based on one real-life case (that of a young Bavarian woman named Anneliese Michel): Scott Derrickson’s The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) and Hans-Christian Schmid’s Requiem (2006). What distinguishes both of these sober, restrained films is their ambiguity: Is it demonic possession or mental illness? Derrickson takes a forensic approach, while Schmid uses a quasi-documentary style.
Taking the documentary angle further still, the 2010 mockumentary The Last Exorcism offered a Blair Witch / Paranormal Activitystyle spin on the material, with a disillusioned non-denominational pastor who no longer believes in God and agrees to participate in a documentary in order to expose exorcism as a sham. Unusual only for its non-Catholic milieu, it’s no more religiously curious than most films in the genre.
The 2011 film The Rite, starring Anthony Hopkins, and The Conjuring are among The Exorcist’s few heirs to take spiritual themes and a Catholic milieu as seriously as The Exorcist. It’s a testament to the power of the original, and perhaps a lingering awareness of spiritual hunger in our society, that the genre remains vital 40 years later.
Talking about the “things that matter most” on September 24
4:00 – 6:00 – Direct to My Desk
Married to a Non-Catholic: How Can it Work?
What happens when Catholic marries a non-Catholic? What happens when a spouse leaves the Church? Does a drastic difference in belief necessarily spell doom or can these marriages work well? What is the role of respectful disagreement in building mutually enriching relationships? We talk about these questions and want you to share your stories, struggles, and advice for marriages which are “unequally yoked.”
by Fr. Henry Vargas Holguín
Noemí F.Q. posed this question on Facebook: Why do we Catholics have images of what we worship, that is, of God? Where did the idea come from?
The use of images and religious pictures, principally in churches and homes, has been widespread from time immemorial. The topic of sacred images, however, can be fairly polemical. In the Church’s relationship with non-Catholic Christians, it can complicate things, because among other misunderstandings of the Catholic faith, many believe that Catholics worship or adore images. This, of course, is absolutely false.
It may help clarify this issue by taking a look at sacred history. In the Old Testament the worship of any kind of image or visual representation of the divinity was strongly prohibited.
The first commandment of the Decalogue states unequivocally:
“You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:3-5).
Any kind of image that is presented as a divinity is therefore prohibited. The commandment begins by saying, “You shall have no other gods before me,” or in other words, “You shall not make any idols.” But despite this clear prohibition, immediately after having promised to fulfill the Law, the people made a golden calf and worshipped it as God: “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!” (Exodus 32:8).
This is exactly what God was warning them about. This sin of idolatry is the reason that God decided to destroy the people. Only Moses’ intercession was able to convince God to have mercy and forgive them (Exodus 32:1-14).
God also warned the Israelites about the images that they would find among the pagan nations: “The images of their gods you shall burn with fire. Do not covet the silver or the gold that is on them” (Deuteronomy 7:25).
Naturally, this prohibition still stands in the New Testament with the same intention and objective. The Bible shows that Christians, too, avoided the use of images that could be the object of adoration. Saint Paul says, for example, in his discourse in Athens: “Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals” (Acts 17: 29).
And Saint John the Apostle warns: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). The early Church also clearly understood that adoration is given only to God. In fact, this is why, in the Roman Empire, many Christians were martyred for refusing to adore idols.
Let us also keep in mind that idols aren’t necessarily sculptures or images. Especially today, the idols to which many of us are devoted—and in which we seek refuge and place our trust—are immaterial. These are idols that we try to keep hidden, for example, ambition, the taste of success, the tendency to place ourselves above others, the misuse of sexuality, the desire to be the only masters of our lives, any sin to which we are attached, and many others. These idols also distance us from God, and distract us from the true purpose of our lives: salvation.
What is the reason behind the prohibition in the Old Testament?
The true reason is that God is the only God. He doesn’t resign himself to be, for example, the first among the gods. Rather, He is the only God. Consequently, other gods and idols are nothing. Isaiah mocks the creation of idols and those who worship them (Isaiah 44: 9-20).
Representing God through images was forbidden so that people would not begin to think that God had the form of a creature or that He was an object. The commandment was for the people’s own good, so that they not condemn themselves by mistakenly adoring a thing instead of God. In other words, what is unacceptable is to turn to material objects and put in them the full confidence that we owe to the one, living and true God. He is not a material being, but a spiritual reality. This is why the people must not adore material representations of the true God either: because there is the risk of confusing the true God with the image that represents Him and come to believe that He is a material God.
And why is it that Catholic images have existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future?
What many people don’t realize is that, in addition to the prohibition against making images (and now we know why), there is also an Old Testament permission to make images.
We should keep in mind that the prohibition refers directly to adoring images, not to the simple fact of making them, as long as they function only as a sign of God’s presence. In this sense, God commands things, objects and images to be made. Such is the case of the Ark of the Covenant, with its golden cherubim and with a mercy seat also of pure gold (Exodus 25:10-22). These elements are not worthy of divine honors, and they cannot be worshipped as if they were God.
But the people needed and still need these outward signs that reach us through our senses. God commanded this to be built as a sign of his presence among his people. People went to the Ark of the Covenant to pray because it was the symbol of God’s presence (Joshua 7:6). Further proof of all of this is that the very meeting tent was built by divine command and was full of images, just as the Temple of Jerusalem was. It is clear that they were not violating the prohibition issued by God.
Another example? God ordered Moses to make a bronze serpent: “Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole [Jesus himself considers this bronze serpent as a symbol of himself]; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live” (Numbers 21:6-9). Naturally, it’s not the case that this bronze serpent had any special power that could raise it to the rank of divinity. Turning to it was an act of faith and confidence in the Word that God had spoken to them. Later on, when the people strayed from this intention and started to worship it, Hezekiah ordered it destroyed (2 Kings 18:4).
The Bible texts that prohibit making images are for the people of the Old Testament, due to the risk they ran of falling into idolatry like the neighboring nations who adored idols as if they were gods. The texts of the New Testament that speak of idols refer to authentic idols adored by pagans, not to simple images. This is why the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787 “justified … the veneration of icons” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2131).
The God of the Old Testament had no body, and was invisible. He could not be represented by images. But from the moment that God revealed himself in human form, Christ became “the image of the invisible God,” as Saint Paul said (Colossians 1:15); and yes, they saw him and touched him. This means that, in the New Testament, the permission for images representing the Godhead took on a new character because of the Incarnation of the Son of God.
God continues to be purely spiritual, but he has become intimately united to a human nature, which is material. Therefore, it is logical that we represent him visually to worship him (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1159 and following, 2129 and following). The representation of Christ in images is completely licit, since they are the representation of someone who really is God. Hence, when we worship Jesus, looking at an image of him, we do not adore the materiality of the image, but rather the Divine Person who is represented therein. And by looking, for example, at an image of Christ Crucified, we remember how much he suffered for us and we feel moved to love him more and trust in him more.
via Crisis Magazine
by William Kilpatrick
In reaction to the depredations of the Islamic State in Iraq, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue issued a statement last week strongly condemning the militants. The statement also called on religious leaders, “especially Muslims,” to condemn the crimes and denounce “the use of religion to justify them.” “If not,” it asks, “what credibility will religions, their followers, and their leaders have? What credibility can the interreligious dialogue that we have patiently pursued over recent years have?”
On the one hand, the statement is a positive sign. The veil of illusion about Islam, it appears, may at last be lifting. Since the Council for Interreligious Dialogue has probably done more than any other Catholic organization to keep alive the illusion that the Islamic faith is just like ours, it’s significant that they are calling on their Muslim counterparts to take a stand against Islamist aggression. Up until now, the Pontifical Council has been excessively concerned with the sensibilities of Islamic religious leaders. The new tone suggests a recognition that they also have a responsibility for the lives of Christians who are threatened by Islamists. With its detailed list of unacceptable Islamist practices, the statement indicates a willingness to take a more realistic view of Islam.
On the other hand, there are a few indications that illusions die hard. The statement is hedged with language which suggests that the bishops still don’t get it—“it” being a clear understanding of Islamic faith, tradition, and history. The main thing to grasp is that Islam is a political religion. It’s as much about power as about piety. Indeed, exercising your power over others is considered to be a valid expression of piety—as in the music videos on Al-Aqsa TV, which proclaim that “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.”
In several places, the statement calls on Islamic leaders to “condemn the use of religion as a false justification for terrorism.” “No cause, and certainly no religion, can justify such barbarity,” says the document. That’s true if you equate “religion” with Christianity, but the religion of Islam can and does justify barbarity—although, from the Islamic point of view, what Allah commands is not barbarity, but simple justice.
The statement calls on “followers of all religions” to condemn a list of outrages committed by the Islamic State. It’s not clear, however, if the authors of the statement fully realize what they are asking. A devoted follower of the prophet can’t very well condemn these practices because most of them belong to the warp and woof of Islam. A Muslim who rejects them tears at the very fabric of the faith.
Take the first item on the list: “the massacre of people on the sole basis of their religious affiliation.” It seems that all reasonable people could unite in condemning that one, but, as it turns out, the Koran contains numerous passages justifying the slaying of unbelievers simply because they are non-Muslims (e.g. 9:5, 9:29, 8:39, 9:123). Next on the list is “the despicable practice of beheading, crucifying, and hanging bodies in public places.” Yet verse 47:4 of the Koran says, “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads,” and Muhammad himself ordered the beheading of between 700 and 900 members of a Jewish tribe of Medina that had surrendered to his forces. Crucifixion? According to verse 5:33, “Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land.”
The third item of condemnation is “the choice imposed on Christians and Yezidis between conversion to Islam, payment of a tax (jizya), or forced exile.” In July, the Islamic State offered an ultimatum to Northern Iraq’s dwindling Christian population: “We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract—involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.” Once again, this is no idiosyncratic interpretation invented by ISIS, but a well-established Islamic practice. Verse 9:29 of the Koran exhorts Muslims to fight Christians until they pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued, and the triple choice is spelled out in detail in one of the Hadith (the words and sayings of Muhammad):
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [which includes Christians], invite them to three courses of action … [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them.… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 19:4294)
Talking about the “things that matter most” on Mar. 11
4:00 – It Didn’t Have to Be This Way: Why Boom and Bust Is Unnecessary-and How the Austrian School of Economics Breaks the Cycle
Why is the boom-and-bust cycle so persistent? Why did economists fail to predict the economic meltdown that began in 2007—or to pull us out of the crisis more quickly? And how can we prevent future calamities? Economist Harry Veryser tells the fascinating (but frightening) story of how our modern economic condition developed. The most recent recession, far from being an isolated incident, was part of a larger cycle that has been the scourge of the West for a century—a cycle rooted in government manipulation of markets and currency. The lesson is clear: the devastation of the recent economic crisis—and of stagflation in the 1970s, and of the Great Depression in the 1930s—could have been avoided. It didn’t have to be this way. He makes his case.
5:00 – The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society
Beloved for his Narnian tales and books of Christian apologetics, bestselling British writer C. S. Lewis also was a perceptive critic of the growing power of scientism, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds. In a wide-ranging book of essays, contemporary writers probe Lewis’s prophetic warnings about the dehumanizing impact of scientism on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself. Issues explored include Lewis’s views on bioethics, eugenics, evolution, intelligent design, and what he called “scientocracy.” Contributor Jay Richards joins us.