Bright Lights, Big Questions

The aliens are back. And this time they're pissed off!

Once again, the city of Phoenix has made news with it's story of "strange lights" in the sky. The Air Force denies any involvement. The airports have no records of planes being in that part of the sky at that time. They did not behave like flares. No one knows...

The question no one seems to be interested in asking is... could it have been hot air balloons? There are several companies that offer hot air balloon rides in the northern-Phoenix area. Some of them offer sunset rides. It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility that some avid balloonists took to the skies late at night to get an aerial view of the cityscape at night. I would imagine the photographic possibilities would be quite worth the trip. I'm not even a journalist, and I thought to ask that question. I guess a good UFO story is hard to come by, and why ruin the ratings and the national attention it's bound to garner with a far more likely explanation than aliens from another planet?

[**UPDATE** The day after I wrote this, the man behind the lights confessed to a news channel that he tied flares to helium balloons. So I was wrong... but I was more right than the Area 51 crowd, wasn't I??]

All of this calls to mind the broader question of why the fascination with UFOs in the first place? To me the simple answer is because it's mysterious, and people are naturally attracted to mystery. I guess that's what makes the cheerleader walk into the dark cellar in all those horror movies.

But from a religious point of view, that would make sense. We all seem to know deep-down that we are made for something far greater than what this life has to offer. We all have a strong desire to explore that which eludes us in our quest to find that ultimate Mystery for which we were all created. For those who are squeamish about the ideas of divinity, demons or angels, we offer little green men.

I once put the question to Dr. Scott Hahn whether there was a Catholic viewpoint regarding the question of life on other planets. I wondered if the idea of life on other planets contradicts salvation history. His response was that we shouldn't put it beyond God's abilities to put life elsewhere in the universe. After all, we already know that he's created other sentient non-human beings in the form of angels. So there is a precedent. And he's right - to a point.

Angels are not unknown to us. They have been revealed to us by God. They play a role in salvation history. They are part of the story. Alien beings from another planet are completely different. I never have found a really concrete answer from a really concrete theologian like Dr. Hahn so what follows are my own musings, uninformed by any higher learning or theological training. So, if there are more profound thoughts out there by brighter minds, I'd really like to hear them.

First of all, let's be clear. Angels aren't the same as aliens. They're pure spirit. They can't be seen or heard by modern recording technology. Aliens supposedly can be heard by giant SETI radio dishes. Their spaceships can be observed and captured on video. They have bodies with large heads and strange eyes and advanced intelligence. So they are like humans in that they are embodied creatures, presumably with a soul, and therefore also presumably with free will. One would have to also presume that God created them "in his image and likeness" just as he has created humans. So the only difference is that they live outside of our atmosphere, and therefore also our history - including salvation history.

But does that still not contradict the whole point of salvation history? In brief, God created man to be God's image in the world. Okay so maybe he made aliens to be God's image(s) on other worlds. But he also made man so that God could enter into communion with man as a bridegroom takes his bride. So all of humanity is made to be in union with God as a wife is to her husband. All of salvation history shows the gathering of God's people into greater and greater communion with him until all of the world is finally brought into full communion with him through the Catholic (i.e. "universal") Church. By partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, we become one flesh with our God and share in a foretaste of the heavenly banquet feast where man and God will be united forever. Are we to presume that God will have a bride for each alien race he created as well? Is God a polygamist?

Or are the aliens also supposed to share in the one-flesh union for which mankind is destined? Do they somehow also share in the Body of Christ as we do this side of heaven? If so, how do they share in the Eucharist? Is it possible that Jesus had to "visit" each of these alien planets in a sort of Galactic Mormonism in order to redeem those races that may have made the same choice as Adam? For that matter, is it possible that there are some races who did not make the same mistake as Adam, and have continued to live for millennia in a perfect state of grace? If so, how did their share of the material order not fracture as the rest did when sin entered the world through Adam?

Has Jesus died a redemptive death more than once? Did he have to take on the nature of each alien species as he did when he took on human nature? The Church has always taught that Jesus is one Divine person with two natures - human and divine. Do we amend that number for each alien race that Christ has had to redeem? If Christ indeed took on the nature of another alien race, did he do so by becoming the child of an alien "Mary"? And did he later give his alien mother(s) all the same title of "Queen of Heaven"? Are there potentially millions of Queen Mothers enthroned in heaven (if Carl Sagan's figures are close)?

To me, this series of questions seems to be absurd enough that no serious theologian can continue to give credence to the notion that life exists on other planets. While it certainly makes sense to the Darwinian Evolutionists out there, it doesn't fit into a Catholic view of creation and salvation history.

In the movie "Contact", when contemplating an "alien-less universe" both the lead protagonist Ellenor Arroway and later the lead religious figure of the film Palmer Joss quip, "it's an awful waste of space". But isn't that selling God short? Isn't that a bit like saying the ocean is an awful waste of water, or that deserts are an awful waste of land? Just because it's big and seemingly empty is it truly a waste if it's meant to be there for some reason?

Could it be that the whole point of the universe being so immense and empty is specifically so that man could know both how infinite God is, and how precious we are? Can we not glean from that the greatness of his humility in becoming human and redeeming us? Don't the heavens declare the glory of God? Is that not enough?

[1/26/10 Update: I came across this excellent (but lengthy) article by Benjamin Wiker who makes the point far better than I can.]

De-Emphasizing Mary

Back in July, I said that I was hopeful that "The Nativity Story" would be as great a work of art as "The Passion of the Christ". But I also said that I was a little paranoid. Later in August, I put "The Nativity Story" in the "jury is still out" category saying that the film, being made by Protestants, may not present a fully Catholic vision of Mary and Joseph. Now that the film has been released, I think my paranoia is proving to be true in some respects.

The reviews are coming in, and most have been quite positive of the film. One reviewer I look to frequently for a Catholic perspective on movies is Steven Greydanus. His website DecentFilms.com does not cover as many titles as I would wish, but he usually hits the big ones - especially those like "The Nativity Story" that touch on themes of faith or religion.

Overall, Greydanus liked "Nativity", giving it 3 out of 4 stars. He finishes his review calling it a "most welcome addition" to the list of traditional family films watched at Christmas time, grouping it with "It's A Wonderful Life" and Easter season's "The Miracle Maker". That's fairly high praise. So, why not a 4-star rating? Greydanus doesn't say specifically why, but if a four-star film is one without faults, he is willing to admit that this film is not without a few:

The film's faults, such as they are, tend to be of omission rather than commission. At the Annunciation, we have Mary's words "“Let it be done to me according to your word"”,— but not "“I am the Lord's handmaid."” (Alas, Gabriel (Alexander Siddig) greets Mary with the rather limp "“Favored one" rather than the traditional "Full of grace.")
Likewise at the appearance to Zechariah, Zechariah raises the issue of Elizabeth'’s advanced years, but doesn'’t ask the doubting question "“How shall I know this?"” (the counterpoint to Mary'’s believing but wondering question "How shall this be?"). Nor does he receive the stern angelic reply, "“I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of the Lord."”
These omissions are all the more curious precisely because the whole challenge with these scenes is the paucity of source material. One can understand the filmmakers'’ reluctance to add dialogue to the immortal words of the Annunciation,— but why not at least use all the words that are there? And why underplay Zechariah'’s doubts, or the sternness of the angel'’s reply? It would only make his muteness more intelligible.
Mary's Magnificat, at one point omitted altogether, is treated only briefly and in part, in a voiceover at the end of the film. The shift itself actually makes sense,— yet why omit the magnificent opening line from which the prayer takes its name ("“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit exults in God my savior"”)? Why include "“The Lord has done great things"” but omit "“for me"”?

Greydanus doesn't offer an answer to these questions, but I'll take a stab at it. The reason why the movie omits these things is because the filmmakers wanted to avoid being too Catholic. I think the filmmakers omit Zechariah's question to Gabriel because of the sharp contrast between Gabriel's responses to Mary's and Zechariah's questions. There is a justifiable difference, but the filmmakers didn't want to go there.

To Protestants, Mary is just plain-old-Mary who happened to win the heavenly lottery and got the chance of a lifetime to bear the Messiah. She is merely "favored", not "full of grace". In a telling moment Mary asks Elizabeth, "why is it me God has asked? I am nothing." In a June article for Catholic News Service, one of the filmmakers made a very revealing comment:

Co-producer Marty Bowen, a Catholic raised in Texas, said that growing up he always put Mary "up on a pedestal."

"The Nativity Story" is trying to make Mary real, Bowen said, adding that he hoped that the movie would help people see "Mary was a girl before she became a woman and a woman before she became the mother of God."

Protestants (and some Catholics apparently) are squeamish about Mary because in their view only Christ should be on a pedestal (as long as that pedestal isn't shaped like a cross.) However, an authentic Catholic view of Mary includes the understanding that she was blessed from her immaculate conception to be full of grace (i.e. without sin), whose soul would magnify the Lord specifically because God has done great things for her in making her this way. You see, God himself put Mary on the pedestal.

To live one's entire life without sin is nearly impossible for us to imagine. To live without sin is to live a life of perfect holiness without selfishness or vice. To write a script for such a person, to understand how she would view the world, her personal experiences and hardships, to comprend the depth of her prayer life and her degree of trust and dependence on God would be an extremely difficult thing for any sinful screenwriter to do. The lack of sufficient source material doesn't help. Especially if you throw out all the other things Mary has said at Lourdes, Fatima and other recognized apparitions.

It would be difficult to imagine how Mary would have responded to a perilous situation such as those she experiences in this film. Would she have been frightened and panicked, or would she have had an inner peace fueled by her absolute trust and faith in God to deliver her from evil? Would she have been troubled to marry Joseph complaining that she did not love him, or would she have accepted it humbly as God's will? Would she have lived with the knowledge that she was blessed among women (albeit with a humility far surpassing our own), or would she have thought herself to be "nothing"?

Maybe this is why there have been virtually no films before now that attempt to put so many words in Mary's mouth. Zeffirelli and Gibson both give Mary non-scriptural dialog, but do so very sparingly and in a way that I think honors the Catholic vision of Mary's unique status of the new Eve.

As an aside, I think Jim Caviezel worked very hard and with much prayer to portray Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ". During the film's release I think he worked hard to maintain a demeanor that preserved the dignity of his role. We did not, for example, read any headlines of the actor publicly behaving in a way that would have been a direct contradiction of the character he had portrayed. Sure he's a sinner same as me, but I think Caviezel deserves some credit for being as good a man in the public eye as he could while publicizing the film.

Conversely, the lead actress in "The Nativity Story" Keisha Castle-Hughes is doing the exact opposite. The girl who played the Virgin Mother in the film was not herself a virgin but indeed a mother (at the young age of 16) by the time of the film's release. It is paradoxical that she is simultaneously showing the world how young Mary may have been when she conceived Christ in her womb while demonstrating the moral depravity that is gripping our young and leading them to fornication and childbirth out of wedlock. She has become an anti-Mary in the public eye. While this should have no bearing on the success of the film, it makes it more difficult for me to watch her on the big screen bear the likeness of the Perpetual Virgin.

At a time when movies with religious themes (especially Christian ones) are so rare, I should be grateful for "The Nativity Story", and so I am. It's good that the studios are able to recognize that there is a very strong market for religious movies and movies with religious content. It's good to be reminded that there are more important things to think about during Christmas (and Advent). But the Mary I saw in "The Passion" who stared out at me with such intensity in the moment of her Pieta is so much greater than the Mary I hear described in this new film. I think our Mother deserves more than to have the pedestal kicked out from under her the way this movie does. For these reasons rather than being compelled to see the movie on the big screen I am instead satisfied to wait for the DVD and maybe watch it next Christmas.

Ripples

The full effect of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" has still not been fully measured. There have been reactions to the film itself, but what hasn't been seen yet is the new wave of films that were bound to be inspired by Gibson's epic.

Until now. We may soon be seeing the first of the films that were put in motion when "The Passion" first hit theaters. Like a rock thrown into a lake, "The Passion" made a big splash, but it has most likely had a ripple effect on other filmmakers. Their films may not be as big as the inital rock, but they could be seen as a good sign of a fresh breath being blown into Hollywood allowing them to release more Christian-themed films.

The only question that remains is: what influence will Hollywood have on the substance of these movies? With the Christian message get through with minimal editing? Well, New Line Cinema will give us a first glimpse this Christmas with the release of "The Nativity Story".

I could be just reading a bit much into it, but even the title evokes "The Passion" a little bit, which could be taken as an indicator (albeit small) that the film follows in the same vein. The trailer gives more hints of this from the slow motion footage to the soundtrack.

Or it could all be a bait-and-switch operation. "We look just like 'The Passion'!... but with a DaVinci Code twist!" Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but I'll try to remain hopeful.

Stay tuned.