The license—which Frosch fought for seven years to obtain—gives her the sole permission to produce replicas of the collection, tour them in exhibitions, and sell related products. In return, royalties will be paid to maintain the huge library, which is the size of six football fields.

According to The Post, the collection is mostly off-limits to the public. Some materials are on display in Vatican museums, but only 2,000 scholars a year are actually allowed into the library itself. None of the artifacts have ever left Rome. The library dates back formally to the mid-1400s, but many manuscripts were collected by Popes long before that. Library holdings include the original handwritten version of Dante’s Inferno, sculptures, and the two earliest maps of the New World.

The exhibition of the replicas is planned for a tour of North America, South America, and Europe, tentatively beginning in Toronto next summer. Frosch has several Vatican library products in mind including chocolates, pens, scarves, and ceramic floor tiles.

Check back in 2005 for Lutheran homosexuality decision The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) put off a fiery issue yesterday by voting to “study” the possibility of blessing same-sex unions and ordaining gay clergy.

The decision followed intense debates at this week’s Indianapolis biennial meeting. According to The Washington Post, gay activists in the denomination are expressing frustration with the 899-115 vote to “spend the next four years compiling biblical, theological, scientific and practical materials on homosexuality” instead of a quick approval. Further action will be considered in 2005.

According to the ECLA, “this document shall include study of the Lutheran understanding of the Word of God and biblical, theological, scientific, and practical material on homosexuality.”

North Carolina okays Ten Commandments Last week, North Carolina governor Mike Easley signed a bill allowing North Carolina’s public schools to display the Ten Commandments—but for historical perspective, not religious importance.

The law permits the use of the commandments and other religious documents “of historical significance that have formed and influenced the United States legal or governmental system and that exemplify the development of the rule of law.”

Matthew, Mark, Luke and Jed Clampett This week’s New York Times Magazine reported a growing trend in American churches: Using popular television shows to teach God’s message. The article noted that shows such as The Andy Griffith Show,The Beverly Hillbillies, and The Brady Bunch are such popular Bible study programs that they sometimes double group attendance week-by-week.

“I think what we’re seeing at the turn of the century is the culmination of 50 years of media saturation in our culture,” says Stephen Skelton of the Nashville-based Entertainment Ministry, which markets The Beverly Hillbillies Bible study (around $100 gets you four episodes and 10 study guides). “We have young people being born into that environment, then growing up and becoming leaders in the church. It makes sense to them. Jesus used parables to teach lessons. These are just prime-time parables, as I call them.”

The article’s lead focused on the upcoming release of The Gospel According to the Simpsons: The Spiritual Life of the World’s Most Animated Family. Although noting the recent Simpsons cover story in Christian Century, the article missed Christianity Today’s own cover piece, “Saint Flanders,” written by Mark I. Pinsky, the author of The Gospel According to the Simpsons.

Catholics split on need for nation’s largest cathedral With opening day set for Labor Day, 2002, the $195 million Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels (see Web cam) will be the largest Roman Catholic Cathedral in America. On over five acres, the grounds will include four gardens, three fountains, an expansive outdoor plaza, and an underground crypt.

According to the Chicago Tribune, this is quite a change from the “historic, earthquake-damaged cathedral on the edge of [Los Angeles’] Skid Row” that the Roman Catholic Church is moving from, and some critics feel the money should have gone to the poor. Protests from the Catholic Worker Movement (the organization founded by Dorothy Day) are a regular scene on the construction site.

The archdiocese does not think the accusations are valid. Its social service arm spends $32 million annually to aid the needy. Cardinal Roger Mahony recently defended the construction project in Catholic Agitator:

Contrary to what protesters say, ours is not an “either-or” situation. We do not face the false dichotomy of tending to the dispossessed or building a cathedral. Rather, our circumstances are “both-and,” in which the Catholic community ministers to the materially poor and addresses the spiritual needs of all.

There are various kinds of poverty, of which material poverty is but one. When the hunger for the spiritual and the aesthetic is unsatisfied, we can experience a poverty in our souls. Throughout the Christian era, believers have built churches and cathedrals as expressions of their love of God and as sacred oases where rich and poor can find refuge, beauty and inner peace.

Afghanistan:

• Shari’ah court to try aid workers | Eight foreigners headed for Islamic trial, sixteen Afghans likely to be executed (The Guardian)
• Diplomats arrive today in Kabul | German, American and Australian diplomats finally allowed into Afghanistan, again denied access to Shelter Germany workers (Reuters)

Church and Government:

• Attorneys for state seek green light for ‘Choose Life’ plates | A federal appeals court considers a challenge to Louisiana’s specialty license tags that display the motto “Choose Life” (Associated Press)
• Lebanese Christian’s confession forced | Christian militia leader shown on Lebanese television admitting to planning the destabilization of Lebanon. (BBC)

Church image:

• Roman Catholic church hires PR adviser | Morely aims to modernize the way the church communicates with the outside world. (The Guardian)
• Pastor is determined to use changing demographics to Gables church’s advantage | Rev. John Harrington is poised to take a two-pronged approach leading the largest Methodist church in the Miami-Dade-Monroe district. (Miami Herald)

Other stories of interest:

• Promise Keepers strive for comeback | Financial crisis results in charging admission fee to group’s rallies (Baltimore Sun)
• ‘Religious struggle’ could prove fatal | Elderly people wrestling with religious beliefs are more likely to die following illness, study says. (BBC)
• Mother Angelica adds castle to pilgrimage site in Alabama | Our Lady of the Angels Monastery draws eight to 10 bus tours and 2,000 visitors a week (Religion New Service).

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

August 13 |

August 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6

August 3 | 2 | 1 July 31 | 30

July 27 | 25 | 24 | 23

July 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16

July 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9

July 6 | 5 | 3 | 2

After an ultimatum from the Vatican to leave his wife and renounce Moon, Milingo met privately with the Pope last Monday. Since then, he has not been seen in public. The Vatican has not released information on Milingo’s whereabouts but said he is on a prayer retreat.

On Monday, the pope received Milingo’s letter, which read: “I now rededicate my life to the Catholic Church with all my heart, I renounce my life together with (wife) Maria Sung and my dealings with Rev. Moon and his Family Federation for World Peace.”

Milingo’s wife is certain the Vatican is holding Milingo against his will, and has begun fasting. She plans to starve herself to death unless the Vatican releases him. She told reporters Tuesday that she might be pregnant.

Bylaw could affect Lutheran-Episcopal pact The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Churchwide Assembly concluded yesterday in Indianapolis. In addition to the decision discussed in yesterday’s Weblog to study homosexuality, the chief legislative body of the church also passed a controversial bylaw on Saturday, which could disrupt relations with the Episcopal Church.

The amendment will, in “unusual circumstances,” allow pastors to be ordained without a bishop. The authority to preside at an ordination could be delegated to another pastor. This bylaw substantially changes the “Called to Common Mission” (CCM) agreement with the Episcopal Church. Under the pact, bishops are required at ordinations of new pastors.

The CCM went into effect in January. It allows the two churches to swap clergy and sacraments. Prior to the agreement, a bishop was not required at Lutheran ordinations, and some Lutherans were upset it was changed under CCM. To accommodate them, this bylaw was offered as a concession saying the ordination without a bishop was okay at certain times with approval.

The Episcopal Church isn’t pleased with the change. Frank T. Griswold, III, presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church, released this statement:

We are concerned that the ELCA has decided to adopt the bylaw entitled ‘Ordination in Unusual Circumstances.’ This appears to be a unilateral alteration of the mutual commitment that both our churches have solemnly made to enter into full communion based on CCM. Obviously, it is too early to tell how frequently the ‘ordination in unusual circumstances’ will occur, or what the Episcopal Church’s likely response will be. Only our General Convention can speak officially on that.

Catholicism:

• Pope urged to apologize for Vatican castrations | New Research alleges years of papal support of mutiliation for better singing voices (The Guardian)
• Ads on taxis urge women as priests | Massachusetts Women-Church has rented signs atop 20 Boston taxicabs demanding that the Vatican allow women to be ordained as priests (The Boston Globe)
• AIDS Prevention Prompts Soul-Searching by Clerics | Africa’s Roman Catholic bishops ponder Vatican ban on contraceptives and disease prevention. (International Herald-Tribune)

Afghanistan:

• Stymied Diplomats Wait as Taliban Discuss Detainees | American, Australian and German representatives arrived in Kabul Tuesday (Reuters)
• Under fire, Taliban hardens line | Afghanistan’s rulers rejected pardons yesterday for 24 aid workers accused of promoting Christianity (Christian Science Monitor)

Other stories of Interest:

• Gays Seek Adopt-a-Highway Sign and Get Cold Shoulder | South Dakota denies road marker to an “advocacy” body. Governor may scrap entire program. (Los Angeles Times)
• A Phenomenon of Biblical Proportions | How a minor Old Testament figure became a magnet for the faithful and a marketing miracle (Los Angeles Times)
• In W.Va., a Tiny Church That Touches the Heart | 24-by-12-foot church claims to be the smallest in 48 states (The Washington Post)
• God Beams in Mysterious Ways | Hand-held computers help spread holy words (The Fort Worth Star Telegram)

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

August 14 |13

August 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6

August 3 | 2 | 1 July 31 | 30

July 27 | 25 | 24 | 23

July 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16

July 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9

July 6 | 5 | 3 | 2

Hot from the Oven

They’re back with a sequel, American Pie 2, in which the same sexually reckless teenagers, now college age, continue to indulge in promiscuous and shameless adolescent antics. And there’s not isn’t a dignified grownup in sight. What is left of this tattered envelope to push? What boundaries haven’t been crossed? Most moviegoers don’t care: the movie set a box office record this week.

Phil Boatwright at The Dove Foundation is among the many dismayed (and apparently unheeded) critics: “When the cast is not indulging in sexual activity, they spend the rest of the screen time discussing how much they wish they were. Every single laugh is based on crudity, humiliation or shock value. Most of the characters are either high-school age or college freshmen, yet they drink and carouse with all the amoral fortitude of a buccaneer.”

The U.S. Catholic Conference‘s critic reports, “Director J.B. Rogers’ plodding, pathetic effort recycles plot points from the first film while again presenting sex as raunchy sport devoid of responsibility or consequences.” And Preview‘s Mary Draughon confirms, “Inedible filling such as 57 obscenities, disgusting bathroom humor, breast nudity, group sex, a teenager having sex with his friend’s mother, and teenage drinking complete this nasty mud pie.” Focus on the Family‘s Bob Smithouser shakes his head: “We may still see a more bankrupt film released this year, but it will be hard-pressed to undermine as many teens’ value systems as this second helping of American Pie.” Movie Parables‘ Michael Elliott adds: “Many of the returning actors are given relatively no reason for reappearing. They are as gratuitous as many of the sexual jokes and references.”

Elliott does, however, see these popular fools fumbling their way toward some unexpected shreds of wisdom. “The relationship which showed the most promise was the one developing between Jim and Michelle. As she helps him improve upon his obviously lousy sexual technique, we can see his growing awareness that the ‘girl of his dreams’ might not necessarily be the one with the largest breasts and lowest IQ. It is a lesson that more young men could stand to learn.”

* * *

While Pie‘s teenagers violate the rules of decency, the characters in The Others have crossed a very different boundary. They’ve stirred up some rather temperamental spirits. Spanish director Alejandro Amenábar gives Nicole Kidman the starring role as the protective governess of two children who have an allergy to sunlight, and as she “keeps them in the dark,” she gives them rigorous religious lessons to rid them of their notion that the house is haunted.

Religious media critics are, for the most part, critical of the supernatural world portrayed here, but some found wisdom in the shadows. The U.S. Catholic Conference calls The Others “a chilling tale of isolation … well-written, deftly building tension until its startling conclusion while prompting questions about faith and the mysteries of life after death.”

Focus on the Family‘s Lindy Beam denounces the basic message of the story: “The Others takes direct ideological aim at Christianity. Beginning with a naturalistic worldview, the film sets out to prove that this world is all that really exists and that religion is merely a man-made crutch. A more basic representation of the lies of this age is hard to find.” But she also suggests we might be able to contend with the film’s arguments by highlighting scriptural truths within the film that subvert its premise. “It’s crucial to remember that what’s being attacked is someone’s perception of Christianity, which is clearly not the same as the living faith described in the Bible. And, ironically, some of the images and techniques used in The Others underscore vital Christian precepts. Most notable are the played-up visual contrasts between light and dark and the repeated theme that abiding in the light, fully facing reality and accepting the truth, is the best way to live.”

Mainstream critics had some minor gripes, but seemed sufficiently spooked. Mr. Showbiz‘s Kevin Maynard recommends that you “bring a sweater to The Others—even though it’s the middle of summer, you’ll still feel the chill. Lifting a page from the Henry James classic The Turn of the Screw, Amenábar ‘s first English-language effort is a nifty nail-biter, all bumps in the night and Freudian female hysteria.” Entertainment Weekly‘s Owen Gleiberman reports that “the movie has a busy, throttling intensity that takes off from the elegant fury of Kidman, her hair styled into a chaste postwar curl that gives her the aura of a Grace Kelly suffering from repressed hysteria. The character’s name is, in fact, Grace.” Gleiberman is impressed, but complains of too many clichés: “The gimmicks, in the end, are too arbitrary to tie together in a memorably haunting fashion, though they do culminate in a Big Twist, a nifty one that almost—but not quite—makes you want to see the movie again.”

Roger Ebert of the The Chicago Sun-Times writes, “Amenábar has the patience to create a languorous, dreamy atmosphere. But in drawing out his effects, [he] is a little too confident that style can substitute for substance. As our suspense was supposed to be building, our impatience was outstripping it.” While David Denby of The New Yorker admits that the film becomes “monotonous” near the end, he praises the director’s distinct gifts: “Amenábar … works by suggestion much of the time; he favors ambiguity over outright horror. I have limited patience for movies in which beautiful women run around big houses in a state of terror, but The Others is extremely skillful. There’s nothing cheap in it, as there was in What Lies Beneath, where the real problem was what lay behind—the heroine kept backing into things.”

I have often heard Christians condemn ghost stories like The Others and The Sixth Sense due to their warped portrayals of the afterlife described in Scripture. This is a rash and unfortunate judgment. It’s true, some spooky movies exist merely to trouble us or even damage us. But there is a long tradition of ghost stories that make little or no claim to realism; they are metaphor-heavy fairy tales, in which the ghosts are clearly fictions invented to serve the story and provoke questions about true phenomena. They might warn us that the past can return to haunt us if we have not acted responsibly. They can exhort us to respect the memory of the departed. The Sixth Sense had something to say about facing your fears, and about how we tend to run from the very people we should be listening to and helping out. Surely you have a “ghost” or two, someone or something that you have lost or left behind who returns to your thoughts from time to time. What better way to explore the implications than with some playful and imaginative fiction?

And besides, why are so many Christians positive that there is no truth in stories about ghosts? Scripture does not clearly spell out the science of the spirit world and the afterlife. I am always bewildered by such scriptural stories as Saul mustering up the ghost of Samuel through the witch of Endor, or the reappearance of Elijah in the company of Jesus and his disciples. While unhealthy curiosity about such mysteries can lead to sin, so can rash assumptions that we know more than we do about the unseen worlds. We are, after all, assured by Scripture that there is a war going on all around us, and we partake in only party of it.

Michael Elliott thinks the portrayal of the stubbornly religious governess in The Others has something to say about “a delicate issue, but one which should be addressed. God has given us truth in the form of his written Word. Man, in his attempt to give himself a structure by which to learn and live God’s Word, has given himself religion. The fact that so many Christian denominations exist and are frequently contradicting one another on how to ‘interpret’ God’s truth should be an indication that there are flaws or errors which have been inserted into religious doctrine. Two contradictory positions on the same matter cannot both be true. The danger we face, and one which is evidenced in The Others, is that we erroneously equate the infallibility of God’s Word with the fallibility of man’s interpretation of that Word, and doubt both. God has handed down his Word as the standard of truth. What we must do, as ‘workmen of the Word,’ is to take all we see, hear, and learn of men and man’s teaching and hold it against the standard of truth. This includes what we learn at school, at work, and yes. … at church.”

* * *

“Although some of the humor is strongly questionable,” writes Paul Bicking at Preview, “Osmosis Jones can be a fun and educational outing for pre-teens and older viewers.” Fun and educational? A summer movie? From the makers of There’s Something About Mary?

Apparently it’s all true. Half-animated, half-real, Osmosis Jones follows the adventures of a white blood cell journeying throughout a man’s body to valiantly fight the evil forces of infection. In the live-action part of the movie, Bill Murray stars as Frank, whose body reacts in all manner of gross and disgusting ways while his immune system wages war within him. Inside, an animated world portrays the conflict in vivid Loony Toons style. Chris Rock provides the voice of the heroic Jones who voyages through various organs and arteries.

The Dove Foundation‘s Holly McClure raves, “The cast is excellent, the story’s creative and the combination of animation and live-action is certainly unique. [Osmosis Jones] educates its younger audience about the internal workings of the human body (in a creative way) while they are being entertained.” But she too concludes the movie is “too crude for kids and too juvenile for adults. Strangely enough, in this movie I found myself covering my eyes several times and resisting the urge to perform a bodily function I’d just learned about on the screen.”

Similarly, The U.S. Catholic Conference draws a distinction, praising “zany animated characterizations” but concluding that “the film’s live-action comedy is anemic.” And Michael Elliott has the same mixed reaction: “The animated sections of the film are lively, colorful, and entertaining. Even with all of its gleeful playfulness, the film nevertheless reminds us of the awesome intricacy of the human body which God designed. Osmosis Jones could have been a delightful, engaging, and relatively decent tale of microscopic derring-do but it is tainted by sight gags involving vomit, festering pimples, gas emissions, and infected ingrown toenails. Come to think of it, the kids will probably love it.”

Steven Issac at Focus on the Family agrees that the movie is “violent”, but then raises interesting questions about whether this violence should concern parents. “Should one classify as violent content scenes in which white blood cells attack viral agents? What about when a cold capsule douses germs with toxic chemicals? If so, Osmosis Jones fairly reeks with violence. All of it, though, is cartoonish and could never be defined by anyone as explicit.” He also testifies to clear but clever alterations of common vulgarities: “One cell blurts, ‘Son of a botulist.’ Another exclaims, ‘Holy Spit.’ Inside Frank’s body, the cells prefer taking Frank’s name in vain, rather than God’s.” While these good-humored twists on common human failings may raise some eyebrows, Issac gives it an enthusiastic recommendation. “Zits notwithstanding, Osmosis Jones is truly imaginative, innovative and fun.” Even Movieguide‘s critic tells us that “Jones is not as disgusting as one might expect.”

Mainstream critics reacted with a mix of laughter and nausea. Carrie Rickey of The Philadelphia Inquirer raves, “Osmosis Jones has more ambition and imagination than can be comfortably contained in its brief 83 minutes. Should you take the kids? Boys 8 to 11 are the target audience for this gross-out film. A better question might be, should they take the parents? Only if the adult possesses a cast-iron stomach.”

Mr. Showbiz‘s Kevin Maynard was more concerned about Bill Murray’s stomach than his own: “It really makes you get behind the movie’s message … Eat Right. Especially after watching oafish, often shirtless, pot-bellied Bill Murray stuff his face with snack chips and KFC.”

* * *

It’s a corpse, not a ghost or cartoon viruses, that causes trouble for the protagonist of The Deep End, a new film directed by Scott McGehee and David Siegel. Tilda Swinton (Orlando, The Beach) stars as Margaret, a worried mother who leaves home to confront a nightclub owner whom she believes has been sexually abusing her son, Beau. While she is away, the club owner comes hunting Beau and, in a scuffle, he is killed. When Margaret returns and discovers the body, she hides it, fearful of what will happen to her son if it is discovered. Soon, though, trouble comes anyway, in the form of people to whom the deceased owed money.

Movieguide found The Deep End discouraging because Margaret, in her efforts to escape the encroaching threats, breaks the law in the process. The writer states, “There’s much good in this premise, but the problem is that the movie resolves it in ways that don’t make sense and demand criminal behavior. In all, The Deep End is a mixed bag.”

On the other hand, mainstream critics point out that the movie goes against the current trend of subverting family values, portraying the family as a precious thing worth defending. They argue that Margaret acts out of a strong love for family, even though her methods are imperfect; this distinguishes her from the others in the conflict. Elvis Mitchell of The New York Times offers higher praise for The Deep End than he has for anything all year. “Plunge into The Deep End and be rewarded with one of the most invigorating experiences of the summer. This noir thriller is so thought-provoking, visually stunning and emotionally resonant that it could emerge as one of the best films of the year. Swinton’s … work is magnificent, an actress burrowing inside herself to play a woman doing the most horrible thing in the world to restore order to her life. The sadness is sealed by the recognition in her eyes that her life will never be orderly and clean again; her love for her family will have to be enough. It’s her best and most memorable performance.”

David Denby of The New Yorker is also impressed. “The Deep End is propelled by sex and violence, but family life is the source of the movie’s strength. [The filmmakers] are very smart fellows, and they trust the camera. They have put the movie together not in big Hollywood style as a series of sensations exploding everywhere and nowhere but as a moment-by-moment immersion in the physical life of the drama. We stay completely involved. The Deep End is heartfelt and beautifully made … the best American movie of 2001.”

I haven’t yet caught this film, but I’ll be interested to see if it actually glorifies Margaret’s lawbreaking, or if it merely portrays it. How many heroes would we have if we demand that they never make a well-intentioned mistake? How many Bible stories must we reject because of characters who occasionally make a wrong move?

Side Dishes

Sneak Preview: Might the summer be saving the best for last? Phil Boatwright seems to think so. The Zucker Brothers, who brought us such sight-gag comedies as Airplane!, Top Secret, and The Naked Gun, return with Rat Race, a loose retelling of the classic farce It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. And Phil Boatwright of The Dove Foundation calls it “the funniest movie I’ve seen since Mad World. How surprised and pleased I was that I finally found a comedy that made me laugh so hard, I nearly doubled over. I simply can’t remember the last time a comedy consisted of so much hilarity.”

We’ll offer a full critical overview of this, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, and American Outlaws next week.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

You have probably seen the episode of Friends in which Phoebe (Lisa Kudrow) bounces into the living room to find her pals watching the tragic conclusion of Old Yeller. She exclaims, "Why are you guys so upset? It's Old Yeller. It's a happy movie. Come on. Happy family gets a dog. Frontier fun!"

Then, suddenly, Phoebe panics. We realize she has never seen the end of the movie before. She explains that her parents always turned off the movie before Old Yeller gets rabies and is shot. We laugh with the laugh track as Phoebe's face reacts to the harsh reality of the story's conclusion.

It's a hilarious scene. And yet, there's something a little sad about seeing Phoebe's happy illusions erased by the sight of real-world brutality. I know many Christian parents who, like Phoebe's parents, "turn it off" to protect their kids from scary or the tragic episodes. Some reject television and movies entirely. Others even consider it a sin for a grownup to attend an R-rated film, and many blame violent movies for provoking acts of real-life violence.

We are creatures that learn by example, and as Christians, we are exhorted to keep our minds focused on what is honorable, excellent, and worthy of praise. But does that mean we should seek to remain ignorant of such real-world behaviors as sexuality, strong language, and violence? Should we teach our children to "see no evil"?

Film Forum invited critics and readers to respond to questions about violence in the media—just as we did previously on subjects of nudity and foul language—and we were buried in e-mail as a result. Here are a few of those responses, which we hope will provoke further conversations on the subject.

Should we turn off the violence?

Storytelling has been a part of human culture since long before television and movies. And so has violence. Clearly, the media are not the source of all the world's brutality though it maybe the catalyst for some. But the abuse and indulgence of violence in media today may cause us to be desensitized and influenced by it. Should we, then, withdraw and wear blinders? Or is censorship the answer?

Steve Lansingh, webmaster at www.thefilmforum.com, has heard many opinions on what "quantity and quality of violence to trim … The burden is always placed on the movie not to offend, not on us to dialogue with the art form. A more productive approach to violence is to ask why violence attracts people in the first place."

Lansingh believes audience enthusiasm for violent movies can come from an honorable desire: "Although we tend to assume it's our sin nature or American bloodlust, I believe a stronger attraction is the order these movies impose on a chaotic world. The real-life violence we read about in newspapers is so often senseless and unsolved, but in the movies, there's a reason why things happen. Movie violence is usually contained within a framework of justice, where the 'bad guy' is punished and law restored. These movies cry out for a righteous God to show his face."

Perhaps that is why as children we laughed to see "the wages of sin" when Wile E. Coyote's violent ploys to catch the Road Runner went off in his own face. So, should we then guiltlessly indulge in violence as a form of justice? "A steady diet of violent movies is hardly beneficial," says Lansingh, "since in real life justice comes rarely or slowly. The fantasy of a two-hour resolution does not equip us to live in the real world, where Christ calls us to administer social justice, and real change is hard-fought. Complete immersion into the film world can be just as lazy as skimming off the 'safe' end. The key for Christian moviegoers is to keep wrestling, questioning, and seeking God in all they see, rather than placing the burden of worthiness on any film in particular."

"We live in a violent world. Films naturally reflect that." That's the view of Michael Elliott, film critic at Movie Parables. "In a proper context, depicting violence can be used to send valuable messages to those mature enough to view it in its context. Saving Private Ryan's opening half hour provided a more honest look at the horrors of war than any of the televised/sanitized images which were shown of the actual Desert Storm/Gulf War conflict." (The example of Private Ryan was the film most often mentioned by those defending properly framed violence in film.) Portraying violence in a proper context, he argues, is the responsibility of the filmmaker. He faults "those who use their artistic freedom as an excuse to go to extremes. … the horror films and crime dramas which almost appear to be in competition with each other to find new and increasingly bizarre ways to depict acts of evil. Ideally, each filmmaker would … use only that which is appropriate for the story he is telling … without becoming titillating or exploitative. Alas, ideals are rarely realized."

Rich Kennedy of The Film Forum adds a caution:

I do believe that continued exposure to violent stimuli (or any negative stimuli) can lead to a certain 'desensitization' if the viewer fails to feed his/her mind with a countering influence. [But] if our filmmakers completely omit the depiction of violence from their works, they would be presenting an unbalanced, and thus false, view of the world in which we live. There is evil in this world and to pretend otherwise can be just as damaging as overexposure to it. It reminds me of the cartoons that showed ostriches who, expecting trouble, would stick their heads in the sand thinking they could avoid it altogether. Even as a kid I thought that taking such a position just makes it easier to get kicked in the rear. God tells us not to be ignorant of Satan's devices. Jesus warned Peter to be aware of the fact that Satan desires to 'sift (him) like wheat.' A key to life is one of achieving balance. … thus, we need to be aware of evil without engaging or embracing it.

Peter T. Chattaway, a film critic for Christianity Today and Books & Culture, and an associate editor at B.C. Christian News, agrees that onscreen violence has its place: "It's a question of how those things are portrayed." He points us to an interesting essay in The Journal of Religion and Film that focuses on the relationships between religion and violence. He was surprised to find the essay highlighting Pulp Fiction—one of the violent films most often criticized by conservative critics. The writer, Bryan P. Stone, argues that Pulp Fiction is one of those rare films which "features an explicit rejection of violence out of a clearly religious motivation."

Indeed, Pulp Fiction is an interesting case. Quentin Tarantino's Oscar-nominated crime caper has been widely condemned for "glorifying violence." But close attention to the story reveals that violence is the very thing the heroes are learning to reject. The hit man named Jules (Samuel Jackson) even encounters God and immediately decides to leave the violent life behind. His partner, Vincent Vega, chooses to keep his killing job, and meets an appropriate fate. Meanwhile, a murderous boxer named Butch (Bruce Willis), encounters his worst enemy in a state of severe suffering, and in a moment of moral decision he has compassion and ventures to save the man. In the end, Butch rides off into the sunset on a motorcycle that has the name Grace emblazoned on the side. Pulp Fiction is a story of moral growth in the hearts of wicked men who just might encounter God along the way.

The question that perhaps we should be asking about Pulp Fiction is this: Who is the appropriate audience for such stuff? Yes, the violence is shocking. Most people describe the movie as "hyperviolent," but really there are only a few brief moments of violence. What shocks and disgusts people is the honesty of the violence: gunshots are deafening and jarring, and there is quite a mess to clean up later. Audiences are more accustomed to seeing onscreen violence that is quick, easy, and incidental, and that might eventually be more deceptive, making violence an appealing problem-solver. The film is certainly not for everyone—there are a few graphic moments that could be argued as unnecessary or too extreme. Any discerning parent will see that the movie requires more discernment than young viewers have developed. But those condemning the movie should rethink what Pulp Fiction (and other films like Natural Born Killers) are suggesting about the violence they contain.

Kennedy argues that when used by serious artists, violence is not just thrown in—it has a purpose. "This reminds me of the Aesthetics class example of the guy looking at a Miro painting or Matisse cutouts saying 'My kid could do that!' The fact is that the kid didn't—Matisse and Miro did. Good directors choose what they choose for their reasons."

For Kennedy, violence in a film points to something that the violent character is "protecting." This highlights whether the character has integrity. "Vito Corleone (Robert DeNiro) in The Godfather Part II begins his descent into the underworld through his murder of The Black Hand after the Hand forces him out of an honest job and into petty crime as a means to provide for his family. Less rational is Tommy DeVito's (GoodFellas) bludgeon murder of a 'made' man after trading insults with him in a bar. Tommy was protecting a distorted sense of pride. If one is willing to see violence depicted in art and entertainment in this way, one can begin to sort out the defensible from the extreme."

By paying attention to the way violence is portrayed, rather than engaging in her blissful ignorance, we might learn something about the violent world we live in. Or we might determine that the violence was unnecessary, gratuitous, and that it weakened the work. Either way, these encounters can strengthen discernment. Now, as critics emphasized in their responses, each person's conscience must make the determination. Everyone comes with different strengths and weaknesses. We must always remember the apostle Paul's revelation that all things are "lawful" for us in Christ, but not all things are "profitable." As a storyteller and a writer, I have found some violent movies to be profitable and have learned much by studying them; other films have been indulgent or poorly made, and I've forgotten about them. But I certainly wouldn't presume that you would have the same experience.

And however profitable, they certainly shouldn't be accessible to kids.

Do violent videos make violent kids?

As children, we learn to laugh at cartoons. Cartoon violence is funny because it is so far removed from the real world around us. We recognize that those things could never happen, and perhaps should never happen. And yet, as stated before, something "rings true" metaphorically about Wile E. Coyote meeting the consequences of his actions. We are born crying at the world's harshness, and we crave resolution, justice, and (as Steve Lansingh said) order. But movies present many degrees of variation from reality. Some action movies—Raiders of the Lost Ark, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Star Wars, and The Matrix— are just sophisticated cartoons or myths for mature and sophisticated viewers. But some—Full Metal Jacket, The Godfather, Unforgiven, The Accused, Raging Bull—occur in a more realistic world that could truly disturb and damage the security and even the faith of children, and perhaps of some grownups.

My own experience watching Full Metal Jacket, Stanley Kubrick's graphic war film, was miserable. The man in front of me had brought his young child, who was crying and distressed. I was startled to read in Bill Romanowski's wonderful book Eyes Wide Open: Finding God in Popular Culture that he had the exact same experience. He writes: "It kept me from experiencing the film because I was so perpetually horrified that he would let such an untrained, vulnerable mind be exposed to such graphic violence, such chaos and noise. Like food, some films are suitable for young audiences to 'stomach' while others require more maturity, more discernment, more understanding of what a work is 'saying.'"

Parental responsibility is a serious problem today; otherwise, how could so many kids so regularly consume "violent meals"? How could so many get their hands on guns to act out what they see on television?

Peter Chattaway suggests that protecting children from all violence in entertainment and storytelling, cinematic or otherwise, is a tall order. "A lot of children's literature down through the ages has contained a fair bit of violence. The boys in C.S. Lewis's Narnia books actually go to war against enemy armies, and of course the Harry Potter books have been criticized for their violent elements, too. Violence of various sorts has always been part of children's literature, it seems to me."

He goes on: "Many Christians complain about copycat violence when a kid who may or may not have seen The Basketball Diaries shoots up a school—but what about the stories of violence in the Bible … David slaying Goliath, or of Israelites being punished by God because they failed to kill as many Canaanites as God ordered them to kill, and so on? And what do we do with the cross? In the play Equus, one of the characters complains that it's harmful to expose children to crucifixes and other violent religious symbols. If we are going to censor films because people use them for violent ends, would we not leave ourselves open to censorship, too?" (Chattaway mentions an essay published in Mother Jones arguing that some violent media can be good for children.)

Clearly, most movies being made today are heavier meals than a child is prepared to take in. Even if movie ratings are enforced, a determined youngster can get into an R-rated film, or else bring one home from the video store … if his or her parents aren't paying close attention. It is all too easy to blame a child's violent behaviors on television, movies, even literature. Frustrated children turned cruel long before the World Wrestling Federation came into being. Perhaps the wages of sin manifested in today's youth sometimes reflects the Bible's exhortation that the "sins of the father" will be visited upon the son. Sometimes the very thing that provokes a child to violence is a deep-rooted feeling of loneliness or abandonment. Parenting is a larger responsibility than many want to admit. A close-knit, caring, and loving family will do wonders to nurture loving, caring, thinking children, preparing them to face life's more difficult challenges.

Readers respond

Film Forum readers testified that they too have encountered meaning in the midst of violence. But they are also disturbed at the way young people are increasingly engaging such volatile media.

Mark Watkins writes, "Sadly, violence is a way of life in the real world and most mature, thought-provoking movies will have some level of violence in them in order to be realistic. Hopefully they will also include the more powerful aspects of God's grace and love."

Jay Phillippi concurs: "The violence of Saving Private Ryan … is clearly part of the central story. Pretending that war is some nice, clean, heroic endeavor creates more problems than it solves. Jurassic Park III … is about the conflict between the humans and the animals. Violence is an integral part of nature and the world that God created. Retreating into a kind of spiritual 'Amish-ness' on the subjects of violence, nudity, or profanity ensures that we are incapable of dealing with it in real life, and equally incapable of instructing our children."

On the other hand, Don Smith cautions us to watch closely how we respond when we witness violence. "Proverbs says not to rejoice if your enemy suffers, and cheering when the Death Star blows up [in Star Wars] might fall into that category. If the media inundate us with images of people using violence to solve problems, those are the models we will have available, the tools in our toolbox."

Russell F. Francis agrees that we must consider the appropriate audience, even for Spielberg's beloved war movie: "Saving Private Ryan helped me to empathize with the costly American experience and this gave me a more holistic appreciation of those doing the fighting and dying. This translated into real gratitude from me." But he adds that the film "should not be viewed by [young people] unless parents are worried about an overly enthusiastic teenage weekend warrior who thinks there's no bullet with his name and address written on it."

James White sees a threat to children in more than just movies: "I have seen some of my grandchildren's video games and they struck me as being more senselessly violent than Private Ryan." White sees parental irresponsibility as a tragic but not unexpected problem, "an evil that has grown with each succeeding generation. We have been told in the Scriptures that the world is not going to improve; rather we can expect rather more evil until the appointed time."

Christopher Tomkinson agrees that young children aren't ready for a grownup story like Ryan, but can benefit from stories intended for them—even the violent ones. "I cried when Bambi's mother was killed, but I don't think that was an inappropriate movie for me to see as a child. I think rather than harming children, many of these stories get them thinking about morality and ethics in a constructive way."

Nick Alexander says we should focus on "Context, context, context." He adds that Pulp Fiction, by portraying the nonchalant violence of the criminals as preposterous acts of ignorance, played a part in the film's theme of redemption and moral development. "Instead of desensitizing one's attitudes, it actually affirms the value of life."

Jason Cusick points out, "It's not always the thing being done, but the context and motivation behind it that makes it so violent. I have been untouched by big gunplay scenes but have jumped back in my seat after seeing a truly rage-filled punch in the face. I am trying to be extra careful about my son seeing violence until he can discern the morality of confrontation and the immorality of rage. He will learn enough about violence on the schoolyard and with friends."

William Holston invokes Romans 14. "I would not go to a movie with a couple from church that I suspect is easily offended. On the other hand I would not let the most conservative member of the church dictate to my family what movies I watch, books I read, or music I listen to." Scripture is not silent on these things. Putting on "the full armor of God," we can grow from encountering the world around us in all of its ugliness, even and perhaps especially through its stories. But not all things are profitable. The closer we draw to God the Father, the more Christ the Son's sensitive and yet courageous heart, and the more attuned we are to the Holy Spirit within us, the healthier our discernment will become.

Meanwhile, we might do better to focus on the proper time, place, and venue for controversial art, and cultivate intelligent after-movie conversations. Perhaps then the Phoebes of the world will not suffer shocking disillusionment when they encounter their own Old Yellers; instead they will be challenged to hang on to hope even in the midst of tragedy and chaos.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

One night recently, Moore and some helpers hauled a 5,280-pound, 4-foot-tall granite monument into the state Judicial Building’s lobby when no one else was around.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the monument was commissioned by Moore and financed with private donations. Its square base is carved with Founding Father quotations beneath two tablets inscribed with the 10 Commandments.

While Gov. Don Siegelman has given his support to Moore and the display, the monument is attracting controversy. Opponents and other justices worry about the message the monument may send to non-Christians about the court’s fairness.

Report-card day comes for Mother Teresa A Diocesan Commission set up in 1999 has completed the initial phase of the papal inquiry into Mother Teresa’s elevation to sainthood. The Nobel Prize laureate died in 1997 at the age of 87.

The two-year inquiry produced a report of Mother Teresa’s life and evidence of miracles. It weighed in at 35,000 pages long. Father Brian Kolediejchuk will now take the report in six sealed boxes from Calcutta to the Vatican.

This report is the beginning of the beatification process for Catholic saints. The Roman Congregation for Causes of Saints will review the report once it arrives at the Vatican. A comprehensive biography will be prepared and then examined by nine theologians.

Their findings will be passed on to the Assembly of Cardinals and Bishops and ultimately to the pope. He has the final decision on her beatification, but only if at least two-thirds of the theologians, Cardinals, and Bishops vote in favor of it. A process of canonization follows beatification.

For a detailed account of how the Catholic Church first beatifies and then canonizes saints, see Kenneth Woodward’s excellent Making Saints: How the Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes a Saint, Who Doesn’t, and Why.

A week later, the stem-cell debate remains hot in the media Discussion and media fallout continue a week after President Bush’s stem-cell decision, proving that, as The New York Times wrote in an editorial yesterday, “the controversy over stem cells was not ended by George W. Bush’s much-publicized address to the nation. Actually, we have only just begun to argue.”

The arguing so far hasn’t really been about Bush’s approval itself but about how far the decision went or should have gone. According to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, 60 percent of the American people are happy with the stem-cell plan but “a third would have preferred broader federal funding, a third favored Bush’s limited funding, and about a fourth would have preferred no federal funding.”

This week’s press has been busy assessing public reaction, forecasting future bioethics decisions, and determining the next steps by lawmakers. Meanwhile, Time magazine’s new edition steps back to look at the months of debate that led to Bush’s decision. A New York Times article yesterday looked at an old question being given new importance: When does life begin?

The anti-abortion movement “has tried to draw a clear and bright line at fertilization,” said Dr. Thomas Murray, director of the Hastings Institute in Garrison, N.Y. “Until now, they have been able to avoid having the question called. Embryonic stem cell research has called the question for them. And what we are seeing is that some politicians who have strongly supported the pro-life position now acknowledge they do not accept fertilization as the clear and bright line.”

Opinion pages have had ready-made fodder this week. A few of the editorials on Bush’s decision include those by: the Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Orlando Sentinel, The Christian Science Monitor, San Diego Union-Tribune, USA Today, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The Washington Post.

Other editorials are debating the prospect of Dr. Leon Kass as the leader of the president’s stem-cell ethics panel. While The Wall Street Journal says Kass brings “moral seriousness” to his craft, USA Today argues that “His written record … provides a more radical picture of a man at war with the accepted state of medicine and research.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reported yesterday that researchers have found some adult stem cells in the scalp are displaying “impressive versatility, highlighting the promise for therapeutic applications involving stem cells, aside from those harvested from live human embryos.”

Scientists examine the role of prayer in medical recovery Earlier this week, a study revealed that spiritual anguish could have negative side effects on the ill. At the same time, a global scientific experiment is testing whether prayer can heal. A cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center is leading the study that will be completed this year.

Over 191 studies have been already been done on “spirtual healing.” One prayer experiment was conducted at the Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., on heart patients. ABCNews reports:

For an entire year, about 1,000 heart patients admitted [in the] critical care unit were secretly divided into two groups. Half were prayed for by a group of volunteers and the hospital’s chaplain; the other half were not … The results: The patients who were prayed for had 11 percent fewer heart attacks, strokes and life-threatening complications.

“This study offers an interesting insight into the possibility that maybe God is influencing our lives on Earth,” says [cardiologist Dr. James] O’Keefe. “As a scientist, it’s very counterintuitive because I don’t have a way to explain it.”

Archbishop Milingo:

• Vatican Releases Archbishop’s Note | To rebut suggestions that Milingo is being held against his will, his handwritten letter goes public (Associated Press)
• Also: Archbishop Under Duress? | Sung is left seeking solace in what he left behind, convinced he is being kept prisoner by the Vatican (CBS)

Crime and litigation:

• Salvadoran priest abducted at church | He had worked for years in Florida (Miami Herald)
• Clergy at same risk of attack as police officers | Being a priest may be the most dangerous profession in Britain (The Guardian)
• Public must pay church liability, conference told| Anglican churches plead need of public funds to defend against mass litigation in Canada (The National Post)
• Judge Deliberates Molester’s Fate | Accused pleaded guilty to 75 counts and could face life in prison (Associated Press)
• Also: Victims, parents testify in sentencing of church worker accused of raping children | Alleged victims tell accused that he ruined their lives. (Associated Press)

Persecution:

• Taliban plays waiting game over aid staff | Diplomats sit around Kabul hoping for progress (The Times)
• Harvesting souls a sensitive business in Asia | Planting the cross in Asia will take more than prayer in a region where the missionary movement is viewed with deep suspicion (Reuters)

Homosexuality:

• Teachers vote to lobby for gay schoolbooks | Some worry kids of same-sex parents feel invisible (Canadian Press)
• Churches examine policies on gays | Mainline Protestant churches seem to be taking turns examining their stance on homosexuality (Associated Press)

Other stories of interest:

• Blacks, Jews found still to have rifts | Reparations for slavery said to be an issue (Boston Globe)
• Thomas Nelson may stop paying dividends on its stock | Since 1995, Thomas Nelson has paid a quarterly cash dividend of 4 cents a share on its common and Class B common shares outstanding (The Tennessean)
• Potter books: Wicked witchcraft? | New documentary claims tales lead kids to the occult (WorldNetDaily)
• This ‘G’ Rating Stands for God | Film critic to Tinsel Town: Less trash, more redemption (USA Today)
• Many athletes find the true soul of sports | Pastor/football coach teaches pass plays and the gospel (The Daily Telegram, Superior, Wisconsion.)

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

August 15 | 14 |13

August 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6

August 3 | 2 | 1 July 31 | 30

July 27 | 25 | 24 | 23

July 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16

July 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9

July 6 | 5 | 3 | 2

This study stands apart from most faith-health research in the past several years, which has suggested that religion affects health positively. Speculation on why this happens (better lifestyle choices? stronger support communities? prayer?) continues to spawn studies, but the concept is hardly earth-shattering. The physical benefits of Christianity have been attracting attention—and converts—since the days of the early church.

Rodney Stark, professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, explored this phenomenon in CH issue 57: Converting the Empire. The following excerpts from his article, “Live Longer, Healthier, & Better,” illustrate his conclusions:

* * *

Christians in the ancient world had longer life expectancies than did their pagan neighbors. Modern demographers regard life expectancy as the best indicator of quality of life, so in all likelihood, Christians simply lived better lives than just about everyone else.

In fact, many pagans were attracted to the Christian faith because the church produced tangible (not only “spiritual”) blessings for its adherents.

Social security

Similarly, in a letter to the bishop of Antioch in 251, the bishop of Rome mentioned that “more than 1,500 widows and distressed persons” were in the care of his congregation. These claims concerning Christian charity were confirmed by pagan observers.

“The impious Galileans support not only their poor,” complained pagan emperor Julian, “but ours as well.”

Girl power

Widespread female infanticide had reduced the number of women in society. “If you are delivered of a child,” wrote a man named Hilarion to his pregnant wife, “if it is a boy, keep it, if it is a girl discard it.” Frequent abortions “entailing great risk” (in the words of Celsus) killed many women and left even more barren.

The Christian community, however, practiced neither abortion nor infanticide and thus drew to itself women.

More importantly, within the Christian community women enjoyed higher status and security than they did among their pagan neighbors. Pagan women typically were married at a young age (often before puberty) to much older men. But Christian women were older when they married and had more choice in whom, and even if, they would marry.

Urban sanctuary

Greco-Roman cities were terribly overpopulated. Antioch, for example, had a population density of about 117 inhabitants per acre—more than three times that of New York City today.

Tenement cubicles were smoky, dark, often damp, and always dirty. The smell of sweat, urine, feces, and decay permeated everything. Outside on the street, mud, open sewers, and manure lay everywhere, and even human corpses were found in the gutters. Newcomers and strangers, divided into many ethnic groups, harbored bitter antagonism that often erupted into violent riots.

For these ills, Christianity offered a unifying subculture, bridging these divisions and providing a strong sense of common identity.

To cities filled with the homeless and impoverished, Christianity offered charity and hope. To cities filled with newcomers and strangers, Christianity offered an immediate fellowship. To cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and expanded sense of family.

In short, Christianity offered a longer, more secure, and happier life.

Elesha Coffman is managing editor of Christian History magazine.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

A BBC report examined the study that claimed ‘religious struggle’ could prove fatal

More Christian history, including a list of events that occurred this week in the church’s past, is available at ChristianHistory.net. Subscriptions to the quarterly print magazine are also available.

Christian History Corner appears every Friday at ChristianityToday.com. Previous editions include:

Thrills, Chills, Architecture? | The most exciting adventure at St. Paul’s Cathedral would be a time-traveling jaunt through its history. (August 3, 2001)

Deep and Wide| A dive into Reformation imagery yields striking new insights, while a drive-by church history overview largely disappoints. (July 27, 2001)

Shelling the Salvation Army | If William Booth’s church could handle sticks and stones in the 1880s, it should withstand the recent barrage of hateful words. (July 20, 2001)

Historical Hogwash | Two books—one new, one newly reissued—debunk false claims about the “real” Jesus. (July 13, 2001)

Ghosts of the Temple | Soon after Jerusalem fell, the Roman Colosseum went up. Coincidence? (July 6, 2001)

Endangered History | The National Trust’s list of imperiled places gives unnoticed gems a chance to shine. (June 29, 2001)

The Communion Test | How a “Humble Inquiry” into the nature of the church cost Jonathan Edwards his job. (June 22, 2001)

Visiting the Other Side | The Israelites spent time on both sides of the Jordan. Now tourists can, too. (June 8, 2001)

Beyond Pearl Harbor | How God caught up with the man who led Japan’s surprise attack. (June 1, 2001)

In the first month of his presidency, Bush created five Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within various federal departments—Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development—and charged each to conduct department-wide audits to identify barriers that prevent religious groups from taking part in government programs. This combined report, “Unlevel Playing Field” (Bush’s statement | pdf), was released yesterday.

According to the report, a there is a widespread bias against faith and community-based organizations which:

· Restricts some religious groups from applying for funding

· Restricts religious organizations that are not prohibited by the constitution

· Does not honor the rights given to religious organizations under federal law

· Burdens small organizations with cumbersome regulations and requirements

The survey presents Bush with another weapon in the fight for his faith-based plans. Until now, efforts to push faith-based initiative legislation through Congress have traveled a bumpy road. Last month, the House passed a limited bill allowing charities to receive federal money while maintaining their religious character.

The survey found that agency officials and their rules—and not the law—cause most of the cited problems. Thus, faith-based initiative officials suggest action could be taken by September to remove the unneeded administrative barriers that exist and they are currently studying ways to make it happen. The recommendations are due early next month.

Meanwhile, John J. DiIulio Jr., Director of the Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, announced yesterday that he’s stepping down from the position because he has accomplished the goals he set out to do seven months ago. He pointed out that he had agreed all along to take the job for six months.

Rebels with a cause, the Mount St. Benedict nuns A Pennsylvanian nun who broke silence on the ordination of women is still making headlines and still speaking out in Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, and elsewhere.

Time this week profiles Joan Chittister, the Mount St. Benedict nun, who earlier this spring attended the Dublin conference of Women’s Ordination Worldwide—in defiance of a standing order from the Vatican calling for silence on the issue.

According to The Irish Times, the renowned feminist and author told conference attendees:

The church that preaches the equality of women but does nothing to demonstrate it in its own structures, which proclaims a theology of equality but insists on an ecclesiology of superiority, is out of synch with its own best self and dangerously close to repeating the theological errors that underlay centuries of church-sanctioned slavery.

But getting there was half the battle for the 65-year-old nun. Once word got to Rome of Chittister’s plans, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life notified the St. Benedict prioress, Sister Christine Vladimiroff, that she was to forbid attendance at the conference and threaten punishment.

After traveling to Rome in May to meet with Vatican officials, Vladimiroff sought advice from religious leaders and the Mount St. Benedict sisters who call Erie, Pennsylvania, home. After hours of prayer, she decided to decline the request of the Vatican.

In a letter supporting Chittister, she wrote:

I do not see [Chittister’s] participation in this conference as a “source of scandal to the faithful” as the Vatican alleges. I think the faithful can be scandalized when honest attempts to discuss questions of import to the church are forbidden.

I am trying to remain faithful to the role of the 1500-year-old monastic tradition within the larger Church … Benedictine communities of men and women were never intended to be part of the hierarchical or clerical status of the Church, but to stand apart from this structure and offer a different voice. Only if we do this can we live the gift that we are for the Church. Only in this way can we be faithful to the gift that women have within the Church.

Time reports that 127 of Mount St. Benedict’s 128 nuns signed the letter, with 35 even pledging to share Chittister’s punishment. But there was no punishment.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Chittister, a nun for 50 years, feels her actions come from the Benedictine tradition of standing against blind obedience. “I was not trying to be defiant,” she said. “I was honestly, genuinely committed to the notion that silence and silencing is not good for the church.”

Diplomats, go home After arriving in Kabul on Tuesday to meet with Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders about the fate of detained aid workers, foreign diplomats have spent three frustrating days in Kabul only now to be told their work there is done.

While diplomats were only given short meetings, made to wait extended periods of time, and denied higher-level discussions, Afghan rulers made it clear yesterday that they will not allow access to the eight foreign workers and that the diplomats should return to Pakistan to monitor the situation. According to the BBC, the director of the Taliban consular department said, “Our meetings are finished. There is no need for them to stay any longer.”

The diplomats from Australia, Germany, and the United States were given meetings with Taliban authorities on Tuesday and Wednesday, but for little gain. All requests to see the eight Shelter Germany workers (four German, two Australian, and two American) arrested on August 5 have been unproductive. Taliban rulers did allow bags of food, letters, and other items to be passed on to the prisoners.

The diplomats aren’t turning tail though. They say they will stay in Kabul as long as they can. Their visas expire on August 21.

Smile, you’re on Abortioncams.com The creator of The Nuremberg Files is making fresh headlines—and enemies—with a new site along the same anti-abortion lines. Abortioncams.com allows Web users to view stills and video of anybody going in and out of abortion clinics in multiple states.

The site is another brainchild of Neal Horsley, founder of The Christian Gallery News Service, an anti-abortion rights group based in Georgia. In March, Horsley’s Nuremberg Files site had a $109 million lawsuit overturned thanks to First Amendment protection.

ABC News reports that Horsley believes his newest endeavor has journalistic merit. “If they make it illegal for me to report the abortion story then the idea of a free press will have been completely overturned by judicial tyranny,” he told ABC. “All I’m doing is reporting the news.”

Around the world:

• Christian journalist arrested in Lebanon | Many fear nation is becoming a police state (CNN)
• Pastor Guilty of Importing Laborers | Estonian teens hoped to be missionaries (Washington Post)

Catholicism:

• Pope John Paul II pays tribute to priest slain during World War II | Priest gave his life for a married man at Auschwitz (The Nando Times)
• Rev. Moon backs archbishop’s wife | Moon ‘retreated into a secluded place and prayed for Milingo as he returns to the Catholic church (Boston Globe)

Other stories of interest:

• Christ’s Music Shalt Stream First | Streamwaves of Dallas, Texas, launched Higherwaves — a program offering on-demand access for $14 per month (Wired)
• The New Rules for Keeping Secrets | Priests and lawyers changed course last week, making it a little easier to speak out (Time)

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

August 16 | 15 | 14 |13

August 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6

August 3 | 2 | 1 July 31 | 30

July 27 | 25 | 24 | 23

July 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16

July 13 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 9

July 6 | 5 | 3 | 2