The New Amsterdam's Lack of Catholic Understanding in Croaklahoma [S01:E15]

In something that seems all too common, TV shows seem unable to find a single expert on Catholicism. That is no different when it comes to a new Netflix program called "New Amsterdam". The show is pretty good as far as shows go, but there is of course many moral problems with it.

[Spoiler Alert!]

In one episode titled "Croaklahoma" (Season 1, Episode 15), there is a married couple whose child received a transplanted organ and is now having adverse side effects. The situation is that the medical insurance of the parents covered the necessary transplant but not the subsequent anti-rejection medication. The parents cannot afford the excessive cost of the drugs and therefore decided to give their child half the number of dosages so they would last longer. This caused the negative side effects.

Not sure what to do, the main character Dr. Max Goodwin brings up a controversial suggestion. Medicaid can be used to pay for drugs if a person's income is low enough. The bold suggestion of Max is for the couple to divorce, thus bringing at least one of them below the threshold for free medication.

This present the couple with a quandary. They declare they cannot divorce because they are Catholic and for them it would be a sin. After tearfully considering all their alternatives, the couple decides they would rather commit a sin to save their son's life than to avoid sin but put him at risk. A monkey wrench is thrown into the situation when the son runs off in the hospital and can't be found. He leaves a note saying "No Divorce".

Eventually the son is found and he tells his parents that he doesn't want them to go to Hell, which is what will happen if they divorce, as he doesn't want to go to Heaven without them. They look at each other as if they agree with him and think well that's okay we are willing to do whatever it takes to save his life.

This is a ridiculous premise to being with, but it gets worse. Stay tuned for that. But for now, I will explain what is wrong with this line of thinking. The Catholic Church does not say its members are not allowed to divorce. Rather, it says if a couple of validly married, then divorce is not an option, it's simply impossible. Christ established marriage as a permanent bond between two people which cannot be broken save by the death of one of the spouses.

The key is that the Church regards legal marriage by the state as a separate affair altogether. In other words, the Sacrament of Marriage is altogether distinct from the civil procedure known as marriage. When a couple of married in a Church wedding witnessed by a priest, the priest must also have the couple sign a state form separately. The priest is granted permission by the state to perform a wedding just like they permit other civil servants. I must stress that the Catholic Church sacrament called Marriage is completely separate from the state version of marriage, even though they occur concurrently.

What this means is that the Church actually allows couples to legally divorce in various contexts if it is for a greater good. For example, if a woman must be separated from her husband for her own safety and can only do so with a legal divorce, she would be permitted to do this. Of course, she would not be allowed to remarry as she would still be bonded to this man in marriage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states this:

The separation of the spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. – CCC 2383

Clearly in the case above, this civil divorce would be permitted for the care of children. It's very straightforward. Yet somehow, NBC couldn't get anyone who knew this? Maybe some people say perhaps they were just creating a plot and this is simply artistic license. Well I find that implausible. In every other instance, it seems they use real laws, possible scenarios, etc. The producers of the show do their research when it comes to various groups and facts. Yet, it seems they are unable to verify even straightforward information on Catholics. It only took me a few seconds to find the Catechism quote above.

So, how does the situation get even worse in the show? Well, as chance would have it, the pope's right-hand-man happened to be in the hospital as the pope was in town at the time and they had to maintain a presence in the hospital "just in case". After being helped by Dr. Max Goodwin, the Cardinal asks if there is anything he can do for him. So Max thinks for a second and then says to the Cardinal, actually there is.

The next scene shows the couple and their son speaking to the cardinal. Max introduces him as the pope's right-hand-man. The cardinal then says he spoke to the Holy Father about their situation he says ...pause.... "it's cool!"

Seriously? That's the best they could come up with? First of all, it's clear the cardinal never did speak to the pope about this situation at all. So he's lying right off the bat to the family. Then he tells them the pope says "it's cool", like it just some little do-dad, no biggie, whatevs! It's all good!

The Catholic Church doesn't work like that. Moral laws aren't just applied willy-nilly. Things aren't done on a case-by-case basis. Our entire moral code is based on the teachings of Christ. Christ said once two people are joined they become one flesh and that divorce is unlawful. The Church is simply upholding that. For the cardinal to simply brush off the situation like it was nothing would be like him disregarding the laws laid down by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Another problem with this whole scenario is that it gives the impression the clergy, including cardinals and the pope, have some kind of absolute authority. As if they can just change any rule they want and that we as Catholics just do whatever they say because they said it. It's presented as though the Vatican and the clergy are some kind of absolute monarchs who make and change rules at their whim and we are just servants who dutifully do what they tell us.

In reality these laws do not change. The Church is our teacher which is why she is called Holy Mother Church. Not only we, but also the pope and cardinals must abide by and follow the teachings of the Church. Sometimes the magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church) will issue a clarification or address a particular issue. These represent developments in doctrines but never breaks from it. No moral law, doctrine or dogma can contradict another.

If there were an episode featuring basketball, they would probably have someone with knowledge of the game to inform the episode so that it made sense. Yet somehow, when it comes to Catholicism, no such care is taken. It's a pity and should be corrected.

NBC's Superstore Sitcom Review: Where anti-Christian attacks are "comedy".

I started watching the NBC sitcom "Superstore" with my wife a couple of weeks ago. It's about employees who work in a supermarket called Cloud 9. There isn't any major plot, it's your standard sitcom format. There is obviously plenty of good potential in a show based in a store similar to Walmart. Unfortunately instead of taking advantage of hundreds of possible comedic situations which could arise, the show has become more and more anti-Christian, devolving into unfunny but vicious attacks on Christians. Of course, there is absolutely no balance whatsoever. Christians and Christianity in the show are always made to look bad. I guess this is why it was picked up by Netflix. I will stop watching the show. It has no value to me anymore. Let me get into some detail.

[Warning: contains spoilers up to Season 2: Episode 2. I haven't watched beyond that.]

So I was watching the show and from the start I noticed that the overtly Christian store manager Glenn Phillip Sturgis (played by Mark McKinney) comes across as very stupid. He has a high-pitched ridiculous voice and he just seems extremely naïve about the world. I wasn't surprised to see this though. Many sitcoms now feature an extremely naïve Christian character such as Shirley Bennett in Community (played by Yvette Nicole Brown) or the assistant on 30 Rock Kenneth Ellen Parcell played by Jack McBrayer.

It has become a tired and pathetic trope. "Haha, look at the stupid, naïve Christian. No need to take that person seriously." These characters seem to know nothing of the "real world". They have been sheltered their entire lives from the reality and grittiness of the world. They are essentially portrayed as adult children with no street knowledge. Yet, the other "woke" characters have such a nuanced and compassionate, non-judgmental view of people. That's because they've seen things and know the world is a complicated place, unlike Christians who think it's just all black and white.

So enough talking in general. How exactly does the show Superstore push its left-wing secular agenda while vilifying people of faith?

First of all, in general, there is really only one overt Christian. Not a single other person on the show ever mentions their faith or that they are Christian. Plus from their opinions and words it would certainly seem they are not Christian.

The show seems to take issues one and a time and show why the conservative opinion on that topic is outdated, immoral, and offensive. It's no longer subtly worked into the plot, it's shoved in your face and rammed down your throat. They have completely sacrificed all comedic value in order to simply bash Christians. It's like shock humor. The audience laughs simply because of sheer surprise.

In one episode, Glenn, the Christian manager, finds out that they sell the morning-after pill in the pharmacy. To be clear, the morning-after pill is an abortifacient - it causes an abortion. Of course, as a Christian, he opposes these pills. Is his view that abortion is wrong because you are killing an innocent human being ever shown? Nope! He's just this outdated dinosaur who believes things for no particular reason but because that's just what his religion told him. Of course, the others are so much more relatable and down-to-earth. They get that life is messy and that they don't let arbitrary morals get in their way of helping people.

I'm actually not doing a good job of describing it, because they make him look even worse. In fact, the show was not satisfied to show Glenn as being opposed to these pills, they went further and portrayed him as a hypocrite. After he attempts to stop others from buying the pills by buying them all himself, he realizes how much it costs. He tries to immediately return them but the pharmacist stubbornly refuses to let him (they never leave the sight of the pharmacist who actually brags about getting women pregnant then giving them these pills). When Glenn is not allowed to return the pills, he goes from person to person trying to sell them. When a couple tries to tell him why they want them (they had "unprotected" sex), he stops them from speaking and makes up the dumbest other "reasons" why they might want these pills (plates for a dollhouse, etc.).

In another straight-from-the-headlines "joke", there is a woman campaigning against allowing men into women's bathrooms. What opinion should we have about this NBC? Well, apparently people who think this are backward bigots, irredeemably evil people, so much so, that the character who is interested in her in a sexual way, can hardly bring himself to pursue her, even though he has absolutely no qualms about doing so in any other situation. No, her evil thought that men should stick to men's washrooms is beyond the pale, it makes her irredeemable.

Other non-specifically moral issues arise as well such as gun control. One of the workers is assigned to work at the firearms counter against his will. He continually indicates why he thinks selling firearms is evil and wrong. The people buying the firearms are portrayed as unreasonable crazy people. Because one of them could not buy a gun on the spot despite implying he would do something violent, the store is besieged by dozens of rifle-totting men and women fighting for their rights. They are portrayed as over-the-top and completely unreasonable, while the voice of reason emanates from the anti-gunners.

Glenn, the manager, will often bring up Bible verses or sing hymns. He tries to read the Bible in a break room one day. But he's always mocked, derided or otherwise portrayed in a negative light for doing so or attempting to do so.

Other issues also arise in the show which highlight various left-wing causes and points of view: white people are racist, free universal healthcare is a human right, capitalism is bad, etc, etc.

It's just become pathetic and boring at this point. There is no more subtlety left at all. So I will be not watching any more. Unfortunately this isn't just something that's happening in this show. Pushing a left-wing agenda has become a mainstay of shows on Netflix. They have a clear agenda. I may cancel the service but my wife still watches it so I have to consult with her on it.

To any Christian who has considered watching Superstore. My advice quite simply is to not bother.

Should we be Advertising Evil?

A thought that I've had over the past while is whether or not we should advertise evil things on purpose or inadvertently. It's a question without an easy answer.

At first, it seems obvious that we shouldn't advertise evil. Open and shut case. It becomes complicated in my opinion as we should condemn evil in our world and maybe alert people to evil, but how do we do so without making things worse?

I think there is definitely a balance, but how does one achieve this balance? Often I see Catholic news agencies or commentators bringing up evils that are happening in the world. These can include a general direction in which the country is headed or it could be a particular news story which features evil themes. Even this blog has delved into many of these topics. Is this wrong?

Another issue is giving voice to heretical and blasphemous religious figures including priests, and bishops. What should be done here. Again it's about balance.

I think all too often we err on the side of providing too much information as opposed to too little. I think when it comes to discussing issues of morality that are presented in the news, we should strive to the greatest degree we can to minimize the unnecessary specifics of what is occurring. Often things may not even really need to be reported at all. The question needs to be asked: who is this information helping?

Will the information being presented increase or decrease evil? It's a legitimate question. As Catholics, we should not spend a great deal of time thinking about and understanding evil. There is in fact a sin associated with this desire to know things which we ought not pursue. Thomas Aquinas simply calls it curiosity. It's the idea of delving too deeply into topics of evil.

I am speaking about this because it is such a prevalent issue. Evil is continually reported on many Catholic media outfits. I get it. Evil things and events get headlines. I'm not saying they shouldn't be reported. If the government is doing something evil, we should know about it. But often, the information isn't of value to the public and will help almost no one who finds out about it.

A similar idea is promoting heretical, blasphemous or otherwise dangerous clergy. Why give them a platform at all? That's what they crave. They don't care about the bad publicity, they just want publicity. Anything a conservative Catholic may say against them just gets chalked up to "hate" and they dismiss it. You aren't changing their minds. I think in these cases it's best to just ignore them. If no one knows about them, they cannot do damage.

Conservative media are often complicit, in my opinion, in promoting evil in the guise of exposing it. Someone does something immoral or blasphemous which probably would have never been known, but the conservative media uses it to condemn the way things are or are going. The intention is probably good, but I think overall it has a bad impact. Most of the "shocking" things reported by conservative media would probably be ignored by the rest of the media. I mean they don't themselves to look bad either. So if the conservative media doesn't report it, no one will, which will be much better.

The same goes for public figures who do and say evil things. Instead of promoting them by writing articles and publishing news stories, we should just ignore them. If they are ignored by faithful Catholics, probably no one will pay attention to them. They get pumped up because we spend so much time reporting on them.

Again, it's about balance. If we are reporting that Joe Biden has increased access to abortion, that isn't exactly a secret. That should be reported. The same goes for many things. I guess overall I would just ask people to consider the impact what they are writing has - is it good or bad?

Fireproof movie has good message, but poor delivery

Fireproof is a movie starring Kirk Cameron (who plays Caleb) and Erin Bathea (who plays his wife Catherine) about a couple who encounter discord in their marriage relatively early on and are headed for divorce. Caleb visits his dad to tell him the situation. The father then gives Kirk a book with 40 days worth of activities in it which will save his marriage.

Although this is a Christian film, religious overtones do not come into play until well past the first half of the film. Caleb starts out as a non-religious person who is sceptical about religion. His father though has become quite devout.

The movie offers a great message and practical advice to improve any marriage, even those which seem destined to end. I believe if these techniques were employed, marriages would be saved. This movie is somewhat more realistic than a lot of what Hollywood has to offer. It showcases real people with real problems and good advice.

My main issue with the movie is how deliberate it seems. There is no guesswork or subtlety. If the producer wants you to know something, the character will come out and explicitly say it. Therefore, it's a little too straightforward. Also, some of the scenes could be much tighter. For example, Caleb might receive some bad news, and we will watch him react for several minutes. This could have been cut and his state of mind could be implied.

On top of that, many of the characters seem a little too perfect. Caleb's dad, for example, always knows exactly the right words to say. It's as though he has had time to prepare an answer. When Caleb calls him, his dad always seems to be waiting right next to the phone with no distractions, as if psychic. These "perfect" characters take away some of the realism.

This movie was a runaway success at the box office. Produced with only $500,000, the movie made over $33 million in theatres. This is quite a return on investment.

If you're looking for a movie that has a good message but is not infiltrated by Hollywood cynicism, this is a great one. Some of the themes would probably seem foreign to younger children, but by late teens, this movie would be valuable to watch.

I give this movie 3.9 stars out of 5.

Catholic thoughts on Nadya Suleman (aka Octomom)

Nadya Suleman is the lady who received fertility treatment and gave birth to 8 children. She was not married at the time, didn't have much money and already had 6 children. She now has 14 children. She has been called Octomom (perhaps it is sometimes spelled Octamom). This name makes her sound like some alien species, mutant, or X-Men character. She has become the object of ridicule of many people who say she did the wrong thing. But how would her actions square with Catholic teaching? We know that the world and especially the media are rarely aligned with the Church in their thinking. So what would the church say concerning the Nadya Suleman case? I believe her story has good and bad elements.

First of all the bad. The Catholic Church is firmly against in vitro fertilization, or the creation of embryos outside the womb of the mother. That's because it contradicts the natural design established by God for how babies ought to be conceived and born. Babies are designed by God to come into existence within the marital embrace in the marital act. He did not design babies to be products of a science laboratory with a scientist fusing together sperm and egg. Therefore the use of embryos in this fashion is gravely wrong. Also, this procedure often destroys embryos. More are created than are needed and because of this, the embryos are often left frozen indefinitely or they are disposed of (usually without a funeral or without the destroyer being charged with murder). So we know that Nadya used fertility treatment that may have destroyed embryos. Society at large has no problem using in vitro fertilization. They view it as a means to an end and in a Machiavelian world like our own, any means is acceptable as long as the end seems desirable. Now, what about the rest of her situation?

Once the embryos were implanted in her uterine, eight clung to the uterine lining and survived. Nadya decided to keep them all. In other words, she did not selectively reduce or murder any of the eight. Strangely, this is where a lot of the world seemed upset. They called Nadya irresponsible, not for having fertility treatment or even for having eight or more embryos conceived, but rather they were upset that she wanted to keep them all. Society said it was irresponsible not to murder some of her children. The Church would disagree strongly, of course. She, the Church, would urge Nadya to keep caring and loving the eight babies in her womb, regardless of how they were conceived. The Church views every child equally and as a gift from God, even those born by in vitro fertilization.

Therefore, the Church and society have disagreed on two points. One point the Church may agree with society is whether she should have had more children in the first place. Since she already had 6 children, it was probably not a great idea for a jobless, husbandless woman of little means to seek out more children than the 6 she already had to support. The Church first of all says people ought to be married before they involve themselves in the act of procreation. But even when they're married, they should practice planning when it comes to children. People should not have more children than they can properly afford. This does not mean every child must have a car when they're 16, and go to the top university and have the best life imaginable. It just means that every child must receive basic care and attention. If someone is unable to supply this, they should probably wait a little while to attempt having another child.
It's a really great thing that Nadya decided to keep all eight of her children. Imagine having to tell, for example, the 6 she decided to keep that they were the lucky ones to have survived and that two of their brothers and sisters didn't make it because they were selectively reduced. That would be very sad and would leave the others asking where their other siblings are and why they themselves are alive but their brothers or sisters are not.

Let us pray that the world heads the words of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, "Of Human Life", where he says in the opening statement:

"The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships."

360 Vision on Vision TV in Canada

This is an appeal to all Catholics out there to boycott Vision TV, which has, over the years become more and more anti-Catholic. I obviously find this trend very disturbing. I was watching a review show they had for their 100th episode which shows some of the programs they had on there. One was on a gay priest, another was on 2 women who were sexually assaulted by a priest like 30 years ago, another was on evangelicals going to the Dominican Republic or something spreading the Gospel even though most of them are Catholic already. Another show was about Islamic terrorism and a threat issued by the Canadian government warning of this threat. Basically, the show was about how this was false or something or not totally true, and that it was very negative towards Muslims. Oh no, you wouldn't want to offend anyone now would you.

It seems like Vision television supports every religion except Catholicism, while at the same time making the Catholic Church look as bad as it possibly can. Any issue, be it gay "marriage", or priestly sexual abuse, that makes the Church look bad to some people is shown all the time.

Customarily Vision runs shows which condemn the Church from every angle. Care is taken to avoid offending any group, but when it comes to Catholics, they take information from the seediest sources, just to make their contrarian viewpoints. I would suggest that any Catholic does not watch Vision Television. The Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and it IS THE TRUTH, that's why it's so viciously attacked by the likes of Vision.