Got HBO’s movie on John Adams in the mail today. It’s excellent, and highly recommended.

Seriously? “In the story, convent-raised Patience discovers that she’s a part of the Madgalena - a lineage of female warriors descended from Mary Magdalene who fight supernatural evil for the Church. A secret council of cardinals called The Inquisition guards the lineage and supervises the Magdalena’s activities.”

Dude, seriously?

More background at Wikipedia.

Uh-huh. Sounds like a rip-off of The DaVinci Code,, Hellboy, and Ghost Rider. Me thinks I shall pass.

(h/t)

Well, no, I didn’t, but some reporter did. She gives us the scoop, noting the important fact that Obama didn’t even sweat!

I hear he poops solid gold, too.

Kidding aside, you can think he and his policies are exactly what this country needs, but you have to admit that this kind of fawning, teeny-bopper meeting heartthrob coverage is irritating, and not a little creepy.

Seriously, at Blogging Religiously.

You don’t believe me, do you? OK, here’s the BBC report:

Wished they showed him playing some more, though.

On the occasion of his mother receiving last rites before she goes for an operation, Tom Utley muses: “The paradox is that if you think of life as a series of duties as she always has - and of happiness as an undeserved blessing, rather than a right - you are likely to be much happier than if you think happiness is yours by right.” Why is this? Well, because if you expect to be happy always, you are going to be disappointed.

I don’t think he is arguing that society would be better with a theistic/Christian world-view, but he has hit upon something I’ve been thinking about for a little while. Why is it that everything and anything that stands in my way of being “happy” needs to be cut down and destroyed? To take the example Mr. Utley cites, let’s look at divorce. Is it a good thing that once a marriage hits a bumpy patch, the people involved can just dissolve it? I understand that there might be cases where divorce is the only way for two people to survive, but surely that’s not the case with a vast majority of divorces. But, if somehow you aren’t “happy” or “fulfilled” by the current state of your marriage, you can just leave.

That seems to be bad thing: whenever there is any kind of difficulty, are we just supposed to give up? I guess in a “happiness”-driven society, if whatever you are doing isn’t making you “happy,” then the only reasonable thing to do is to leave it/get rid of it. But answer me this: whoever said that you have a right to be “happy?” To take an extreme example, what if murder makes me happy? Why can’t I murder?

“But Denis,” you might say, “murder is totally different! Then you are hurting someone else. So, you can be happy and do whatever you want, you just can’t hurt anyone.”

OK, sure, that is true, probably. But let me offer another example. Ask any normal child if he would like to eat ice cream all day, I’m sure he would jump up and down and scream “YES!” No doubt, the child thinks that eating ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner would make him so very “happy.” But, it would not in fact be in the child’s best interest to eat ice cream constantly. So, do you deny the child’s happiness? Any parent with half a brain will say yes. So, you can see now that perhaps there are situations when you want to deny someone what he thinks would make him happy.

“But Denis,” you might say, “we all know that eating ice cream doesn’t actually make one happy. Happiness is about more than food. It’s about… well, it’s about other things!”

Yes, it is. Happiness is much more than the satisfaction of our basic desires (for food, drink, etc.). I’m glad you can see that. Happiness does not equate with pleasure; and I think one of the main problems with society today is that it thinks happiness = pleasure.

(Note: I put happy and happiness in quotes because, as everyone knows, true happiness is the live of virtue in accord with right reason; see here for more.)

Gerard Baker: “The anointed one’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers.”

Some brilliant satire right there.

Just a quick update on this whole priest thing. I had an interview today with the rector of St. John’s Seminary and some of the teachers. It’s official: that’s where I’ll be formed for the next 6 years. More details as they become available.

Perhaps everyone knows that writer Christopher Hitchens is a hard-core atheist who thinks religion is not only not-good, it’s downright evil. But not many know that his brother Peter is also an excellent writer and a practicing Christian. What would happen if you put them in the same room and asked them to debate? Listen or download the MP3 here.

Christopher Hitchens: “Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.”

I’ve gone through all my pictures of Rome and labeled them, so now you can tell what they are (to the extent I could remember what it was I took a picture of). You can see the album here.

Is Batman George W. Bush? Was The Dark Knight “the most conservative film since 300? My favorite movie-blogger Dirty Harry thinks so. He also thinks the movies was awesome. On that last part, we can agree.

This is not a superhero movie. Heck, it might not even qualify as an action movie. This is a THRILLER, and it is downright Hitchcock-ian at times. This movie is intense. And scary: looking into The Joker’s eyes, you see NOTHING; he truly is a man who thrives on chaos and destruction.

From top to bottom, this movie is excellent. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger (RIP), Michael Caine, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman … all just excellent. The script is nice and tight, and even at 150 minutes, the movie never drags. I really couldn’t believe people left the theater to go to the bathroom; that’s how mesmerized I was.

The story is pretty straightforward: the mob is tired of not being in charge of Gotham anymore, so they hire the Joker to take out the Batman, the hero who was needed to save Gotham. The Joker starts killing people, claiming he will stop only when Batman reveals himself and turns himself in to the police. Public opinion begins to turn against the Batman, and even the “knight in shining armor” Harvy Dent (recently elected DA), can’t hold the people off for much longer. Batman fights to not stoop to the Joker’s level while trying to save a public that no longer likes him. Incredible mind-games ensue, with Batman inching closer to loosing his soul while defeating evil.

So, is Batman George W. Bush, doing that which is necessary to protect, but not always doing what is right? Is GWB the hero we need, not the one we deserve, just like the Dark Knight? The argument is an interesting one, especially when the Joker is so clearly a terrorist; I also think it has some weight. Without getting into spoiler territory, the movie makes it clear that fighting evil is a dirty business and sometimes your hands have to get dirty. But (and the movie makes this very clear), there is always the danger of becoming what you swore to destroy, as happens to one of the characters.

So, while this movie might be an allegory on the War on Terror, it is perhaps better to understand it as an allegory of man fighting against evil: beware that you do not become what it is you hate. And that’s a much bigger, and more important, lesson to learn. How do we find that balance between doing what is necessary only and doing what is right only? That’s the fundamental question of the movie; that’s what we are supposed to ask ourselves.

(Also, I saw the trailer for Watchmen: looks awesome!)

Well, partial wrap-up anyways. I’ve returned from Rome, and it was awesome! I’ve got all my pictures uploaded on my Picasa site. I still have to go through them and label what they are, but you’ll be able to tell what a lot of them are. I also kept a journal during the trip, which I will somehow translate to blog entries for the world to see.

Anyways, take a look at the pictures.

This is pretty funny, not going to lie:

C’mon, you laughed. Admit it!

Been busy with my vacation. Went to the Cape this week with Mom and Dad and had a grand old time. Here’s me sitting in an original Ford Model T:

My Picasa Web Album has some new pictures, which you may be interested in checking out.

Tomorrow, I head to ROME!! Very exciting. I’ll see if I can’t post some things sometimes while there, but don’t expect anything until July 16th at the least.

Papists only: Have a litany.

This gets a “LOL” from me:

In a rush? Just jump to 3:14, and make sure you aren’t drinking any beverages.

(h/t)

VDH:

The triumph of the therapeutic and the eclipse of the tragic ensured that students’ expectations soared even as their intellectual and mental abilities to handle inevitable setbacks eroded. The result was a weird marriage in both today’s student and professor of arrogance and ignorance—assurance that bad things either won’t happen or can be easily addressed by identifying the right -ism or -ology, but utter confusion when that never seems quite to be the case.

Interesting article. I could see some aspects of VDH’s view in the high school where I used to teach, but it was usually the students challenging me why Aristotle is preferable to whatever pop fiction novel is selling this week. As far as I am concerned, and I think Dr. Hanson would agree, teachers and professors need to be the ones who step up and explain why it is vitally important that we learn the liberal arts and the history of the West; students cannot, and will not, do it on their own.

UPDATE: Because of this post, I’m on the front page of City Journal right now:

I’m famous! Sort of.

Small update on the vocations front: the Bishop of Worcester, the Most Rev. Robert McManus, sent me a brief letter informing me that he has (officially) accepted my application to become a seminarian. He intends to send me to St. John’s Seminary in Brighton (next to BC). Very exciting (though not nearly as exciting as some of the news coming out of China these days…)!

I’m impressed; Mayor Menino seems to be doing something right in Boston. Impressive.