I predicted that blogging would be light, and so it is. I took the older kids to Iron Man last night, and it was pretty long.
I didn't care for it, incidentally. It moved too slow. I'd give it a 5 out of 10. While watching it, I was really surprised that I didn't like it more. Yahoo users give it an A- and the critics a B+. Those are normally good indicators (especially the Yahoo users average) that I'll like a movie, especially a superhero one (I've liked 'em all: Batman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, even the Fantastic Four . . . I'm sitting tight for Aquaman, Green Lantern, and The Flash). For some reason, this one didn't entertain me much.
It's the third straight time that an acclaimed movie has fallen short for me: No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, and now Iron Man. Maybe I'm losing my pop culture tastes.
__________
Russell Shaw takes on the problem of clericalism. I've been a victim of it. I also strongly suspect the secrecy that clericalism instills contributed to the administrative incompetence that accelerated the demise of our parochial school. Very timely for my fresh wounds. Excerpts:
A pastor lords it over his people, consulting no one and habitually making unilateral decisions. His people are a passive, dispirited lot, quick to complain and slow to cooperate. . . .
Clericalism, however, is not an affirmation of these sacred realities but a caricature. It fosters an ecclesiastical caste system in which clerics comprise the dominant elite, with lay people serving as a passive, inert mass of spear-carriers tasked with receiving clerical tutelage and doing what they're told. This upstairs-downstairs way of understanding relationships and roles in the Church extends even to the spiritual life: priests are called to be saints, lay people are called to satisfy the legalistic minimum of Christian life and scrape by into purgatory. . .
Disregard for the welfare of outsiders and excessive concern for insiders go far to explain the cover-up of clergy sex abuse by Church authorities.
Shaw's article does a lot to confirm a suspicion. I don't like the suspicion, but the evidence tells me it's right: Priests tend to be duplicitous. I fear the duplicity is endemic to the profession. Clerics have one set of truths they provide to lay people, they have another set of truths that reflect reality. I'm sure there are many good and honest clerics out there who stay quiet when asked to divulge information that should not be provided to lay people. Too many clerics, though, simply spout off a different set of facts or otherwise mislead. It's one reason I won't volunteer for any "intellectual" roles in my church. I can't provide effective advice if I'm not provided all information or if I'm given information that is inaccurate or misleading. I've lost all confidence that I'll ever receive accurate and complete information when dealing with an important issue at church. Even if my priest is forthcoming, I'm not convinced the diocesan officials are.
My apologies to the good (and thoroughly honest) priests who read this blog. I don't intend to paint with a broad brush. I know there are exceptions. Heck, the exceptions might be the majority. I do, however, think I'm caught in a bad regional situation, which I don't fully understand (I've asked, but received inconsistent feedback), that sends waves of duplicity throughout the parishes.
__________
You'd think you'd be able to notice the difference before it got to your lips: A New Zealand café could be slapped with fines after two women were hospitalized when they were mistakenly served dish soap instead of mulled wine.
I thought maybe "mulled wine" was different than ordinary wine, but doesn't seem much different: "Mulled wine, variations of which are popular around the world, is wine, usually red, combined with spices and typically served warm."
