Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
It's my birthday today.
Dear followers of this blog,
Thanks for being with me these past several years, over 5 now I think. Today is my birthday and I turn 29!
If you're really tempted to send me a birthday gift, hehe, then you can do so by making a donation to this blog. I know, I know, this is a shameless plug for donations. But don't feel obligated! It would just help out a lot!
To make a donation, click below:
Thanks for being with me these past several years, over 5 now I think. Today is my birthday and I turn 29!
If you're really tempted to send me a birthday gift, hehe, then you can do so by making a donation to this blog. I know, I know, this is a shameless plug for donations. But don't feel obligated! It would just help out a lot!
To make a donation, click below:
Monday, June 27, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
This Film is Not Yet Rated
So I watched (most) of a documentary called This Film is Not Yet Rated. To sum it up, it is interviews with a bunch of filmmakers who are complaining about the MPAA rating system, which rates a movie in the US as G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17.
Most of the doc revolves around the upset caused to filmmakers when they receive an NC-17 rating as opposed to R.
After seeing this documentary, I am very glad such a system exists. In fact, it seems many of the directors of films are bent on exposing more and more people at younger ages to greater levels of depravity all the time. If it wasn't for this ratings board, films would be a total wild west of filth.
The arguments presented against the NC-17 rating were completely nonsensical. They said stuff like why can't we show pubic hair in R movies, when violence is allowed there! One guy, John Waters, basically said that since kids nowadays look at pornography, why not just let them watch anything in films!
Keep in mind, this film was against the rating system and these directors were there to show why its such a stupid system. Well, this documentary had the opposite effect on me. The directors just seemed so full of themselves. They mocked any traditional notion of morality, and considered anyone with a moral fiber in their being to be outdated. They spoke about concerned parents in the most condescending way.
One director, who did American Psycho, laughed at the idea that sexual representations on film can have any impact on people whatsoever, and she ridiculed the idea that violence is sometimes accepted but on-screen sexuality is often not accepted. She then pushed her theory further by ridiculing the idea that depictions of gay sex could possibly be negative.
I'm not sure where any of these people live, but they are not normal folks. The MPAA however rates its movies with the help of real parents, mostly mothers. These concerned parents look at films and give them ratings based on certain criteria.
Some said this was a form of censorship. But the movies are not being censored, only rated.
I, for one, am glad such a system exists. I like to know the level of violence and nudity present in a film before I rent it. I would not like to rent a movie thinking it's a family classic, only to later realize it's full of violence and explicit sexuality.
I believe the system works, and the vast majority of people polled feels it is a good system to have. I believe the directors and producers who have a problem with the system need to come back to Earth. Real people have morals, often informed by their religious faith. This needs to be respected, rather than ridiculed.
P.S. I am adding in later. But I forgot to mention, one of the parts of the documentary that emerged later was that two members of the clergy, one Catholic and one Episcopalian, participate in some capacity in the review process of films. One person interviewed said they have no part in the voting process and that they just observe, nothing more, but another anonymous person who was involved says they cast a vote. Anyway, the documentary seemed particularly concerned with this development. One guy says the relationship between churches and censorship is "palpable".
The movie concludes by revealing the names of Appeal Board Members which was supposed to be kept secret.
Most of the doc revolves around the upset caused to filmmakers when they receive an NC-17 rating as opposed to R.
After seeing this documentary, I am very glad such a system exists. In fact, it seems many of the directors of films are bent on exposing more and more people at younger ages to greater levels of depravity all the time. If it wasn't for this ratings board, films would be a total wild west of filth.
The arguments presented against the NC-17 rating were completely nonsensical. They said stuff like why can't we show pubic hair in R movies, when violence is allowed there! One guy, John Waters, basically said that since kids nowadays look at pornography, why not just let them watch anything in films!
Keep in mind, this film was against the rating system and these directors were there to show why its such a stupid system. Well, this documentary had the opposite effect on me. The directors just seemed so full of themselves. They mocked any traditional notion of morality, and considered anyone with a moral fiber in their being to be outdated. They spoke about concerned parents in the most condescending way.
One director, who did American Psycho, laughed at the idea that sexual representations on film can have any impact on people whatsoever, and she ridiculed the idea that violence is sometimes accepted but on-screen sexuality is often not accepted. She then pushed her theory further by ridiculing the idea that depictions of gay sex could possibly be negative.
I'm not sure where any of these people live, but they are not normal folks. The MPAA however rates its movies with the help of real parents, mostly mothers. These concerned parents look at films and give them ratings based on certain criteria.
Some said this was a form of censorship. But the movies are not being censored, only rated.
I, for one, am glad such a system exists. I like to know the level of violence and nudity present in a film before I rent it. I would not like to rent a movie thinking it's a family classic, only to later realize it's full of violence and explicit sexuality.
I believe the system works, and the vast majority of people polled feels it is a good system to have. I believe the directors and producers who have a problem with the system need to come back to Earth. Real people have morals, often informed by their religious faith. This needs to be respected, rather than ridiculed.
P.S. I am adding in later. But I forgot to mention, one of the parts of the documentary that emerged later was that two members of the clergy, one Catholic and one Episcopalian, participate in some capacity in the review process of films. One person interviewed said they have no part in the voting process and that they just observe, nothing more, but another anonymous person who was involved says they cast a vote. Anyway, the documentary seemed particularly concerned with this development. One guy says the relationship between churches and censorship is "palpable".
The movie concludes by revealing the names of Appeal Board Members which was supposed to be kept secret.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
June 22, 1955 CATHEDRAL RAISED TO THE RANK OF MINOR BASILICA BY POPE.
This is the mother church for my area in St. John's. It happened about 100 years after the church was consecrated.
June 22, 1955 CATHEDRAL RAISED TO THE RANK OF MINOR BASILICA BY POPE. | The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. John's
June 22, 1955 CATHEDRAL RAISED TO THE RANK OF MINOR BASILICA BY POPE. | The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. John's
A Voice Crying In The Wilderness
Not sure how I neglected to mention or notice this for so long, but the Archbishop of my diocese of St. John's has a blog, which he seems to update fairly frequently with great quality content. Please check it out:
A Voice Crying In The Wilderness
A Voice Crying In The Wilderness
Ask Me Anything, I Am A Roman Catholic Archbishop - Connect with Mark Kelley
This is something I just came across and it is very interesting. It's called Ask Me Anything, and this time Archbishop Currie of St. John's got in front of the camera for CBC to answer any questions people ask him as they walk by.
As expected, nearly everyone just asked the same old questions about the sex abuse cases in the Church. Not only that, most of them asked as if Archbishop Currie himself was responsible. Others asked if it's even safe to be around a priest. It seems society at large is completely fixated on this whole issue. The Catholic Church is only seen in the public eye as a place where sex abuse of minors occurred, even though sex abuse happens everywhere and in many places at higher rates.
People spoke as if they had personally been a victim, even though they did not say they were.
In my opinion, it was kind of sad. I think it's rude and uncalled for for every single person to ask this bishop about the sex abuse case and imply that he and nearly every priest was and is involved. Respect took a back seat for these people.
But no wonder, the media bends over backwards to use every opportunity to talk about the sex abuse crisis in the Church. Even on unrelated matters, it will come up. Basically, if a news story involves the Church in any way, shape, or form, the sex abuse situation will also be talked about.
Of course, I do believe people have a right to information and so on. Plus, I ackowledge that what acutally did happen was very terrible and every precaution should be taken so that it never happens again. To see the video, please click below:
Ask Me Anything, I Am A Roman Catholic Archbishop - Connect with Mark Kelley
As a point of comparison, the CBC also ran an "Ask Me Anything" segment featuring a Muslim woman wearing a niqab, i.e. black clothing which covers her entire body and face. In comparison to the archbishop's interview, the people who approached this Muslim lady were very respectful and only asked inquisitive questions, never accusatory ones. No one was mean or harsh.
No one accused her of being a pawn for terrorists, or asked her what she is doing to stop extremism in her religion. No one asked if her husband is a terrorist or if she is related to one. No one lambasted her for all the people who have died because of terrorist attacks.
Yet, the archbishop, as far as anyone knows, is no more guilty or innocent that this lady. However, the reaction to each is completely different. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe anyone should have asked the above questions to this lady, and I think being respectful is a good thing. I'm just pointing out the double standard.
When it comes to Catholic priests or bishops, guilt is presumed, and proper manners and etiquette are seen as unnecessary. Yet, the utmost respect must be shown to anyone else, such as this Muslim lady. The people are so very cautious not to cause any form of offense to the lady, yet feel free to bash the good bishop.
If you look at the other interviews as well, none come in any way close to the level of anger displayed during the interviews with the archbishop. The seal hunter was treated pretty decently by most of the guests, with the possible exception of the vegetarian at the end.
Oh well, I guess that's the world we live in and why many commentators have pointed out that Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. It seems everyone is afforded basic civility, except a man wearing a Roman collar.
Here is the segment with the Muslim woman.
As expected, nearly everyone just asked the same old questions about the sex abuse cases in the Church. Not only that, most of them asked as if Archbishop Currie himself was responsible. Others asked if it's even safe to be around a priest. It seems society at large is completely fixated on this whole issue. The Catholic Church is only seen in the public eye as a place where sex abuse of minors occurred, even though sex abuse happens everywhere and in many places at higher rates.
People spoke as if they had personally been a victim, even though they did not say they were.
In my opinion, it was kind of sad. I think it's rude and uncalled for for every single person to ask this bishop about the sex abuse case and imply that he and nearly every priest was and is involved. Respect took a back seat for these people.
But no wonder, the media bends over backwards to use every opportunity to talk about the sex abuse crisis in the Church. Even on unrelated matters, it will come up. Basically, if a news story involves the Church in any way, shape, or form, the sex abuse situation will also be talked about.
Of course, I do believe people have a right to information and so on. Plus, I ackowledge that what acutally did happen was very terrible and every precaution should be taken so that it never happens again. To see the video, please click below:
Ask Me Anything, I Am A Roman Catholic Archbishop - Connect with Mark Kelley
As a point of comparison, the CBC also ran an "Ask Me Anything" segment featuring a Muslim woman wearing a niqab, i.e. black clothing which covers her entire body and face. In comparison to the archbishop's interview, the people who approached this Muslim lady were very respectful and only asked inquisitive questions, never accusatory ones. No one was mean or harsh.
No one accused her of being a pawn for terrorists, or asked her what she is doing to stop extremism in her religion. No one asked if her husband is a terrorist or if she is related to one. No one lambasted her for all the people who have died because of terrorist attacks.
Yet, the archbishop, as far as anyone knows, is no more guilty or innocent that this lady. However, the reaction to each is completely different. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe anyone should have asked the above questions to this lady, and I think being respectful is a good thing. I'm just pointing out the double standard.
When it comes to Catholic priests or bishops, guilt is presumed, and proper manners and etiquette are seen as unnecessary. Yet, the utmost respect must be shown to anyone else, such as this Muslim lady. The people are so very cautious not to cause any form of offense to the lady, yet feel free to bash the good bishop.
If you look at the other interviews as well, none come in any way close to the level of anger displayed during the interviews with the archbishop. The seal hunter was treated pretty decently by most of the guests, with the possible exception of the vegetarian at the end.
Oh well, I guess that's the world we live in and why many commentators have pointed out that Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. It seems everyone is afforded basic civility, except a man wearing a Roman collar.
Here is the segment with the Muslim woman.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
No Comment from Archdiocese on Fraud Allegations
This is from my home archdiocese. It's a sad story because the man being charged with defrauding the Church of $500,000 also saved the archbishop's life. Sad and ironic.
VOCM.COM|No Comment from Archdiocese on Fraud Allegations | Article
VOCM.COM|No Comment from Archdiocese on Fraud Allegations | Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)