The Pope’s new book comes out tomorrow. You can win a copy today. Go to Facebook for the competition.

John Allen has a good articleabout the upcoming Roland Joffe film, There Be Dragons. TBD is a fictional story which includes the real character of St. Josemaría Escrivá, the founder of Opus Dei.

Fun quote:

Six years ago I published a book on Opus Dei, attempting to sort myth from reality about the controversial Catholic group. One question I hoped to answer was this: What was it about St. Josemaría Escrivá, the founder of Opus Dei, which inspired hundreds of thousands of people around the world, far beyond the group’s relatively meager membership of roughly 90,000?

I presumed that all those people weren’t drawn to Opus Dei’s reputation for being a fanatical right-wing cabal seeking to hijack financial markets, topple governments, and restore the church militant. So beyond that black legend, what was it about Escrivá that people found compelling?

Even though I’m not a member of Opus Dei, I was interviewed for Allen’s book on Opus Dei. It makes for good background to TBD or even The DaVinci Code.

But Allen’s point here in particular should prompt a great discussion:

Joffé has now made films lionizing members of two groups historically regarded as sort of the matter and anti-matter of the Catholic universe: The Jesuits and Opus Dei. It’s ironic – and, perhaps, not a little bit revealing – that it has taken a “wobbly agnostic,” rather than a Catholic, to make movies with something positive to say about both.

See for yourselves on May 6 in the U.S. or March 24 if you happen to be in Spain!

Last week in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Snyder v. Phelps in favor of Westboro Baptist Church. These are the crazies at who protest the funerals of soldiers KIA because they believe that God is punishing the U.S. for its leniency towards gays* and, thus, God is allowing soldiers to be killed until the U.S. changes its policies. In fact, they believe that the more soldiers are killed, the better. Utter lunacy.

But this lunacy is protected as free speech. The very soldier whose funeral they are disrupting served and gave his life so that they would have this right.

I get it.

What I don’t get is why SCOTUS even chose to hear this case. Many cases are presented to SCOTUS and decisions are made whether to hear a particular case. Granted, I’m not a legal expert; but why select this case? This seems to fall into the category of hard cases that make bad law.

My second question is why do we keep looking at free speech in cases where people are doing really offensive things, e.g. pornography and disrupting a military funeral? We have no shortage of protesters and most of them are screaming about something. Yet, we live in a democratic society which, despite its faults, has a lot of processes for expressing discontent and disagreement. More importantly, we have the means to address these concerns not just to express them.

When I see protesters like the Westboro group (and many others), all I see and hear is their anger. I don’t hear speech or see a reasonable conversation taking place. In this age of the Internet, it’s not as if people don’t have the means to write and say what they believe.

It’s difficult to think that the speeches of someone like Martin Luther King fall into the same category as protesters like those from the Westboro Church.

Let’s face it, the Westboro types want one thing: attention. They don’t care who they hurt or offend. And these types of protests are utterly useless except for hurting innocent people, getting headlines, and generating a lot of legal revenue. If Westboro wants to change the policies towards gays, then become part of the democratic process. Explain the position. Convince others. Get involved in drafting legislation and electing politicians who would be favorable to the positions. Heck, they can even run for office themselves.

Instead, we’ve just given them a constitutional right to stand just about wherever they want and have a tantrum. Oh, and they get a police escort, too.

On a personal note, my brother was KIA in Afghanistan. Our family was very blessed to have our entire community supporting us. At the funeral, we also had the Patriot Guard Riders whose purpose is to protect families from protesters. They get that funerals are not the time and place for protests. When we met with our excellent military liaison, he warned us about the possibility of protests and hate mail. That was painful enough, just salt poured on the gaping wound of having lost Bruno. But I can’t even begin to imagine how hurtful it must have been for the Snyder family to know about the protest that actually happened at the funeral.

We have many freedoms, more than most people in the world. But it seems that we, as a society, do not value those freedoms when we use them as cover for malicious activities.

Again, I get that we have to protect everyone’s freedom of speech. What I don’t get is why we set up some of the worst examples as the cases which deserve protection.

And I don’t get why we don’t promote examples of rational discourse. As children some of us are taught that throwing a fit will get you nothing. Clearly, many people missed out on that lesson and they even get constitutional coverage for it.

Here’s Justice Alito’s dissent.

[*I’m really hesitant to use the term “gay” as I find it problematic in a lot of ways, not least of which is that I generally don’t think someone’s sexual orientation should define them as a person.]

When I was growing up, my mom would recount her answer to someone she knew who was anti-Semitic. In a Los Angeles Jewish accent: “When you get to Heaven, this beautiful young Jewish girl is going to welcome you and say, ‘I want you should meet my son Jesus. He’s a good Jewish boy.” (!!!)

Unfortunately, anti-Semitism continues around the world which is precisely why Pope Benedict’s new book, Jesus of Nazareth,Vol. 2, is making headlines. While the Catholic Church has explicitly denounced anti-Semitism before and was in fact responsible for rescuing thousands of Jews during WWII, people continue to misrepresent the events of the Gospel so as to fuel their own hatred.

More here in my latest column.

NY Daily News also has a good op-ed.

While you’re at it, buy a copy of the book. It’s a great Lenten read and by buying it you’ll show that there’s a market for quality media.

So I just learned that one of the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a former actress who became cloistered Benedictine nun: Mother Dolores Hart. Entertainment Weeklyhas a great article describing her film career, her decision to become a nun, and her involvement in the academy.

I really enjoyed some of her quotes.

Why she doesn’t share or recommend all of the films to the sisters in her community –

I don’t think that they would be shocked by the gore and the sex and the violence in the movies as much as they would just feel that their time had been wasted.

Why a nun is watching an R-rated film –

Movies reflect the time. It’s not so much that movies are ugly, it’s the ugliness of the time that is reflected. To me that indicates what we have to pray for and pray about.

And what’s lacking in some of these movies –

When I see Natalie Portman masturbating [in Black Swan], I hear the kids come in and talk about their problems with masturbating. What offends me is, Is the movie itself going to leave people without hope? You have to help them know that there is a way through their grief and their pain.

On her previous acting career and her religious vocation-

If you’re an actor, you have to have that freedom of being able to give yourself over to the experience of another being. You’ve got to get that truth and you’ve got to find it within yourself.

The article closes with a great line.

At the Abbey of Regina Laudis, Mother Dolores believes she has found the role of a lifetime, performing daily for an audience of One.

Many social conservatives won’t even admit that they watch the Academy Awards. I understand that people may not want to support some of the values that are flaunted in these venues. Totally get that. But I still think movies have an amazing power to influence and we ought to use them for that. In fact, I know of a priest who teaches a high school morality class using mainstream movies. I can’t think of a better/more relevant way to start some of these conversations.

In the Gospels, we see that Jesus led a very ordinary life. He socialized, went to parties, and “even” spent time with “questionable” people. I’m not suggesting anyone compromise themselves, but I am suggesting that it’s not a bad idea to engage the culture surrounding us, as well as the people who participate in that culture. That’s the work of evangelization, no?

See you at the Oscars…at least virtually!

It’s not every day that I’m sympathetic to an abortion article in Mother Jones. Actually, today I’m not either; but I’m sure that how some will read my critique of the proposed South Dakota legislation that would make it legitimate to kill someone who is threatening the life of a fetus/unborn child. I’m all for pro-life legislation, but I think we pro-lifers have to be certain that it’s good legislation and strategically sound. In the case of South Dakota, I’m not convinced.

Mother Jones, incidentally, seems to be concerned that there’s not enough abortion in South Dakota. So much for “rare” in “safe, legal, and rare.”

You can read my entire piece here. By all means, leave comments on this blog and/or the column website. Feel free to disagree!