A Halloween Though: Sir John Talbot and the benefit of being rigid

So we watched our obligatory annual viewing of the Wolf Man this year.  As we have for years, though not all of the boys are around when we do these things now.  A couple times a month get together is a big win, and that's understandable. 

Claude Rains as John Talbot

But this year something jumped out at those of us watching.   If you've not seen the movie - and what's wrong with you if you haven't - here's the gist.  Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) goes back to his ancestral home in Wales after a hunting accident claims his older brother.  Shortly thereafter, he tries to save a young woman being attacked by a wolf, but is unable to do so and is bitten himself.  Well, we all know what happens next.  As everyone, including Larry, tries to make sense of things, the inevitable happens. And, as with most gothic horror, it concludes tragically, since it ends up being Sir John Talbot, his father, who must slay the beast, who turns out to be his last son. 

Now, one of the story threads is the relationship between Larry and his father Sir John Talbot (played by the always wonderful Claude Rains).  Basically Sir John is old school.  A man of science, a man of faith, lord over the region. He admits he is a stiff-necked person as are all the Talbots.  And he stands firm on success and flaw alike. He's none too happy with the local doctor's suggestion that Larry needs committed.  No Talbot in his house is going to the funny farm.  Instead he takes it upon himself to cure his son's apparent mental collapse that has happened in the wake of the girl's death.  After the death of a local gravedigger, John straps Larry to a chair the next night, and turns him to look out the window and watch the hunt for whatever or whoever it is that is now killing people in the region.  This will prove all of his crazy notions about wolves and werewolves is nonsense.  

But he leaves Larry to himself, going out to take his rightful place among the people in his charge.  Nonetheless, while the hunt takes off and there is rumor that something has been seen in the fog draped woods, he runs back to the house.  While on his way, he encounters the old gypsy woman who pretty much knows everything that is happening and why.  It's a great scene with two strong actors showing what happens when power personalities with deep rooted beliefs clash.    

As guns begin ringing out, Sir John, carrying Larry's walking stick with the silver wolf's head handle, rushes back in the direction of the noise, as the gypsy simply bids him to 'run Sir John, run.'  Elsewhere in the woods, the werewolf appears, ready to kill Gwen Conliffe, the woman Larry loves, as all werewolves must apparently do.  She screams, which alerts John to the direction he needs to go.  She tries feebly to resist, but the terror of the encounter causes her to pass out and be at the wolfman's mercies - when in rushes Larry's father.  

The climatic death duel at movie's end

Here John Talbot  pauses, understandably taken aback by what he sees.  And this is the part that got us this time.  As the wolfman stops and drops Gwen to the ground then rushes toward Sir John, what does he do?  He charges forth!  He's just carrying a walking stick for crying out loud, he sees that creature of supernatural horror that sends men screaming into the night - yet he barrels straight into him for a one on one fight to the death.

I hadn't ever thought of that before.  I was always stuck on whether or not he knew now that it was Larry, and that he is the one who will have to kill his son.  But one of my sons noted it this time.  Wow.  Freaking bat crazy courage of the umph degree.  He sees an actual werewolf in all its horrifying appearance, having never believed until two seconds earlier that such a thing could even exist, and instead of running for his life, he rushes straight into the fight with a stick.  Not a gun.  A walking stick.  

Can we say bravery, courage, stones of steel? And yet, when you think on it, that is his character.  The movie tells you throughout that he's a man of strong principles, rock rooted beliefs, a man of faith and science with strong convictions in both.  He's not afraid to say it straight and out loud.  He doesn't cower, he doesn't tell it like it ain't, or talk out of three sides of his mouth.  He admits his faults and defends his principles with the same staunch convictions.  And when he sees a young woman in distress at the hands of an unbelievable creature born of living nightmares, what does he do?  Runs headlong into the fray without hesitation. 

I thought of that after my son noted it.  He is what Pope Francis would have said is rigid.  Which Pope Francis was, when it came to issues near and dear to his heart. As are most people. I realize the dangers of people who hunker down and decide it's their way or the highway.  We know what happens sometimes when that approach is taken.  But I've come to realize that almost all people have that tendency about things they care deeply about.  The difference isn't if they are more tolerant or not, or dare I say, more rigid or not, but if they are honest about it.  I believe that is a major cause of our problems today.  A lack of honesty.  And beyond the obvious problem of lies and mendacity that we see, people who lack the conviction and courage to speak plainly regarding what they are rigid about.  Just say it straight.  Even in the face of opposition or worse.  

Considering so many from various Christian traditions today pretty much giving up and going along, it's worth pondering.  I remember how, decades ago, a big kerfuffle was 'stop saying Jesus' in public.  You remember how this went along with 'out with Christmas trees, in with Holiday trees'.  In my ministry days that was a thing. If asked to give some invocation at a public event, we would increasingly be asked to not pray in the J-Name.  Some resisted.  I recall a colleague who said there's no sense sending an letter if he can't address it.  But most went along.

Same with sin.  Same with Hell or eternal consequences.  Same with salvation through Christ. Same with basic morality.  How often when the world pushed, did so many in the Faith buckle and accommodate?  How often did we see people increasingly change the message, or water down how the message was delivered, to avoid giving offense?  How often did they seem to speak in ways not in line with what they said they actually believed?  Of course at the time, the demand that Christians do so was farmed under the 'we simply must be tolerant, must not be judgmental, must embrace all views, and must never impose our values or religious beliefs on others.'  I suppose those who so acquiesced believed the World meant it.  Not  that they didn't continue teaching their various doctrines, at least on Sundays.  But increasingly on the World stage, you saw a sort of distilled 'let's not offend' version of that old Gospel message.

So when things began to reveal themselves, and that old message of diversity, tolerance and inclusion became 'convert and conform or watch your derriere', what have we seen?  Religious leaders charging against the monsters of this emerging movement even if they only have a cane?  Nope.  We've seen so many turn tail and run like scared rabbits, or throw down the cane and concede it's time to be bitten. 

All of this came to mind as I saw a story about the thing that used to live up to the name Christianity Today.  You know, the late Billy Graham's contribution to an Evangelical spin on the world of the day. Well, it's now the post-Western spins on the Left's mounting agendas.  Recently it published a story about how one of its contributors concluded a well known missionary, Elisabeth Elliot, might have been bi-sexual because pro-gay activists suggest it about an event form fifty years ago.  But nothing in her own writings appear to suggest it (a very modern progressive scholarship approach to history).  But that's what CT now calls careful research.  

Nonetheless, what people noted isn't the slipshod research, but that CT took an almost Entertainment Tonight approach.  Almost a 'gee, that's cool' vibe, rather than anything close to a traditional Christian understanding of the topic.  Just think on it.  Billy Graham's publication.  Now musing on the bisexuality of a beloved missionary because someone said so. Yet when I consider those who are contributors to the rag now, it makes perfect sense.  At least when applying the Talbot principle of strong convictions lead to stalwart courage.  Or, in the case of so many within the Faith over the years, as well as so many leaders today as a whole, quite the opposite. 

The high mountain Ohio's GOP must climb

Yes, it's election time, where I where I state my prediction of the election outcome that will probably be wrong.  So here it is - the GOP, in Ohio at least, is probably going to get a shellacking.  It might be for the GOP in America as a whole.  After all, midterms are, by nature, usually not kind to the party holding the White House. It's not a constant, but it isn't unusual for them to lose overall.  But there are other issues going against the GOP, no matter how 'death to America and hurray for Islamic Communism!' the other side is becoming. 

First, there has been a general anti-Status quo, anti-establishment sentiment since the Obama era.  The press, which helped move America farther than ever into a post-Western world under Obama while everyone was looking, was nonetheless unable to get Hillary elected on Obama's coattails.  The strategy of moving against the West and the inheritance of America, and ignore any problems while attacking all critics as racist, didn't work.  Nor did it work in 2024.  Fact is, more and more people feel they are being left behind as things get worse, not better, and often it's whoever has a name in the 'incumbent box' who has a tall ladder to climb.  

This is especially true for the GOP in Ohio.  Like it or no, Republicans have been the dominant party in Ohio for most of the last several decades.  And things are far less than great in Ohio.  I know, the GOP recently boasted of the huge job creation and metropolitan growth in central Ohio, largely around Columbus. But here is the problem.  Many, if not most, of those jobs are service, or those white collar corporate jobs in non-unionized industries like healthcare and insurance and finance.  And while this might have looked like the ultimate reason for defending the safety and security of the status quo generations ago, it doesn't today. 

Because corporations often no longer pretend to care about customer or employee alike.  As my oldest noted, it isn't as if corporations were ever fonts of Gospel virtue, but they at least had to put on a positive spin.  Today they can wipe out thousands of employee's jobs just because and not only fail to put a positive spin on it, but gloat about doing so. Often in conjunction with reports on the latest record breaking quarterly profits. And all of this while producing less quality in smaller quantities at higher and higher prices because, on a global stage, what's a few thousand ticked off customers?  Besides, many of the street level companies are owned by the same corporations anyway.  

I hear a lot from adults about young Gen-Z types not being loyal to their places of employment.  But that street goes two ways.  Or, you might say, it goes no ways today.  The end result being that when Republicans are trying to tout increased jobs or higher employment, consider the jobs and the stability - or lack thereof - and why it might not be the selling point it once was. 

Then you have the Data Center debacle.  The GOP was supposed to have gotten the ultimate deal with Intel that was going to make Ohio the 'Silicon Valley of the Midwest'.  And boy did the current Ohio Republican Party boast about that.  It was going to be the gold medal Republican selling point for 2026 and beyond.  Well, it has definitely hit the skids, and who knows if and when it will ever go through.  This has left the GOP as merely the promoters of data centers and nothing more. 

Which speaks to a problem the Republicans always have. A big part of the problems the Republicans face is the ability of the press to still control the narrative, even if the press can't always contain it.  This is especially true when the Republicans seem to do their level best to live up to the narrative.  

Now, I usually don't comment about things like Data Centers since that is a topic lightyears outside of my understanding.  But clearly the Republicans are the ones trying to say Data Centers - hurray!  Which right now is like saying 'smallpox, hurray!'.  Thanks in large part to the media.  I personally don't get the details of the kerfuffle.  But if the rest of the country is like here in the Buckeye State, I can understand the outrage.  

A year ago, utility prices spiked in our area, and then months later, spiked again.  Everyone was asking what the heck is happening.  Then one morning, my wife and I were watching the local news.  They interviewed someone who explained what was happening.  Mind you, this fellow was defending what he said occurred to cause this spike.  Basically, to sweeten the deal for the data centers, the necessary explosion of utility usage would need to be paid for by someone else other than the data centers.  So they passed the cost on to the the average schmuck resident instead. Again, he was saying this unironically as he defended the deal.  My wife and I just looked at each other.  Gee.  We didn't want to turn away vast billion dollar corporate interests, so we shafted the little guy.  For some odd reason, that didn't fly among the residents.  

Another problem?  Trump's success.  What? How can this be a problem?  Well, I wrote last year that the big rebound was not happening fast enough for people.  Many Trump supporters said just wait, things will improve.  Unfortunately for the GOP, they did.  By the end of last year, I could see noticeable improvements and things appeared to be getting better.  Not overnight, but it was on the right trajectory.  But then we went to war with Iran, and things have unraveled. I know we can talk of price gouging and exploiting the situation (evil corporate conspiracy talk).  The press will blame the war and blame tariffs and anything under the sun and avoid things such as price gouging like the plague.  After all, bad economy makes Trump look bad and if millions are suffering, so be it.  But the fact is, the economy is worse now than it was at the beginning of the year, so it's not easy to point past last year and go straight back to Biden.  Such tactics usually don't work anyway.  Blaming the previous administration usually works for a minority group - the most partisan of the party - but not the general population.  As Democrats learned in 2016 and 2024.  It's especially tough if between the last administration and now, things were improving but now they are going south.  

And finally, there is that classic Republican dumb.  Demonstrated in this election gubernatorial style.  Ramaswamy's whole campaign has been a dumpster fire. From the beginning, what should have been the number one attack on Amy Acton - that she had to quit her post during Covid because she couldn't take it - was barely mentioned.  I said Acton doing that was like a middle school football coach quitting due to the pressure and then wanting to be head coach for Ohio State.  She should be so easy to beat my neighbor could run against her and have a chance. 

But no.  Instead, for the longest time the Ramaswamy camp ran almost no ads at all, leaving it to different PACs.  And those were almost laughable, running with unsubstantiated rumors that someone saw her crying, or that police showed up one evening and she was mixing alcohol with medications (details never given), or that she tripped on a dog gate and missed a meeting.  I mean, what?  She tripped on a dog gate so don't elect her as governor?  What about the lockdowns, which finally have been mentioned but weren't for the longest time.  Or her aligning with BLM and similar radicalism, which has only been briefly touched on at best. Or the fact that she clearly doesn't have clue one about what to do if she's elected, and if elected it's anyone's guess as to who will be the actual governor in practice?  Only in the last week or so has this been brought up.    

Yet while this brilliant strategy continued to unfold as Acton pulled ahead in the polls, what did the Ramaswamy camp do?  Run an ad featuring Acton's estranged mother, found guilty of neglect while her husband was found guilty of sexual abuse of 12 year old Acton, and use her to attack Acton's honesty.  

I know.  Republicans have already come out with past cases of the Left using estranged or morally compromised family members to attack GOP candidates. I get the obvious hypocrisy. We live with it every day  It's as American in our modern age as apple pie used to be.  

But let's think this through.  At best your hope is that the court records and actual case were all false and Acton's accusations lies.  But that's saying a person who claims to have been abused as a child is lying about it.  You better darn well have proof that she lied and that the parents were innocent and pure as the wind driven snow.  At worst, Acton was sexually abused by her stepfather, her estranged mother stood by her husband while it happened, and therefore Acton was justly removed because of the obvious harm done by her parents.  And it's that same mother who endangered her abused daughter who you want as a character witness? 

The whole decision to run such an ad reminded me of this:

Then to add plutonium to the DeLorean, Vice President Vance comes in and basically tells Republicans who see the problem here to suck on it and stop whining about the ad.  Because apparently we're saying Acton was a 12 year old liar, or are we saying we don't care if our political opponents were abused as children, as long as the abusers help us win?  So for Halloween the GOP has decided to dress as their favorite Bond villains?  Geesh.  

Of course, I concede I could be wrong. The extreme anti-Western and anti-American radicalism of the emerging DSA, though swept under the carpet by the "news media", is still out there.  And memories can sometimes not be as short as we think.  The biggest problem with the economy is that we're going on six years of it, even if some of the indicators aren't technically as bad now as in 2022 or 2023.  But that's a long time for a lot of people, and I'm hearing whispers that more and more people are beginning to break under the financial strain.  Perhaps they will remember the source of it and vote accordingly.  That, with the extreme fanaticism of the emerging Ultra-Left, might be enough.  In any event, at the end of the day, we'll know in a week or so. 

The First Haunted House

This, The House of the Devil, produced by that early wizard of the new technology of moving pictures, Georges Melies in 1896. 

They say this is the first actual Haunted House on film, and the first true horror movie.  Now, film buffs and historians might debate that second part.  Some argue that the horror 'genre', in terms of what a genre actually is, didn't emerge until Universal's famous monopolizing of the 1930s horror movies beginning with the original Universal Frankenstein and Dracula.  

I've seen some argue that the reason for this distinction is that, even into the early 20th century when movies were just beginning and evolving, much of the social structure of the West was still somewhat religious based.  That is, while from the top down Europe and America were clearly secularizing, on the street level - and for those products pandering to the street level - religion was still very much the default world view for the masses. 

By the 1930s, however, apart from that 'last Great Awakening' that occurred as people flocked back to churches due to the Depression and growing problems in Europe and later Asia, society was already starting to secularize more and lower toward the ground.  So as the Universal (and yes, other studio) monster films emerge, it's no longer simply falling into line with the default worldview, but rather standing in stark contrast to the emerging secularized, science and scholarship based society we see developing.

This is clear in some of those movies that emphasize the 'this can't be, science says so' theme.  Perhaps.  An interesting observation.  And one, even if a bit simplified, I think hits somewhat close to the mark.  After all, the utter collapse in a religious worldview and a Christian platform upon which we understand our reality that happened after WW2 was so quick, it's roots had to precede the war.  

A question about those French riots

By now I'll assume the French riots were not fueled by radical rightwing Nazi sympathizing Trump supporters.  Because most media outlets, while covering them and mentioning them, haven't made them a 24/7 front page storm of endless hysteria. 

But as I watch, one thing I've noticed.  Among everyone - the press, Catholics, conservatives, liberals (who have mentioned them at all), or anyone - not a single person has pointed out that the riots almost immediately followed on the footsteps of Pope Leo's visit to France. 

I wonder why.  Maybe it's just me and it doesn't mean a thing.  Cosmic coincidence.  But as a fan of history I notice that few things happen in history just out of cosmic coincidence.  I know there was much talk during Pope Leo's visit of the massive crowds and upswing in people entering the Church, and a turn around in general Christian church attendance after eons of decline.  

Of course for all I know, those people are the ones rioting.  But I don't think so.  Again, I looked and haven't found anyone who has talked about the riots drawing that line.  Am I nutty?  Or is it possible that that the two are connected in some way? 

What the Frankie Heck?

A shoutout to Patricia Heaton's wonderfully bumbling character from The Middle.  But did I see this right:

Here is the story. 

This is how bad things are for those who yearn for a time of freedom, democracy, and equality.  Having never fully achieved perfect equality, I guess it's time to scrap it.  So said the DEI training I saw in 2020.  The same mentality is being used with other ideals, like liberty and even our approach to democracy.  So apparently, a political party using the threat of legal prosecution to intimidate youth from joining the opposite party is now fair game?

Am I off base, or am I getting whiffs of the old pollical machines back in the day?  You know, ones that make you think of this:

But more than that, note the story. Should democrats threaten prosecution to deter people from joining the Trump administration?  Should political opponents of the Left be sent to Gulags or not? A vote.  Should the government send Jews to concentration camps?  A poll.  

A long standing media trick has been to make molehills out of mountains and mountains out of molehills.  To act like the killing of a black man by a police officer is the worst thing since the Holocaust or that sin entered the world, and therefore all of Western Civilization should burn.  While at the same time looking away from black Muslims in Africa slaughtering black Christians in Africa by the thousands because, let's face it, does that help leftwing talking points or activism? 

We're at that stage where standing against the institutionally driven storm of post-Western globalism is a bit like standing up in America two days after Pearl Harbor and saying I think we should surrender to Japan.  You will be manhandled in about the same way.  Because like the war effort in 1941, the powers of our society are mostly behind where it is going.  

So much so that a media outlet can ask for a vote on something that would have been presented as fascist authoritarianism 101 as recently as when my sons were in public school.  Yet now?  When those individuals and institutions that are supposed to protect you instead are able to come out and celebrate that they are, in fact, your greatest threat, you've officially crossed a historical line.  

BTW, this is why some people have such a hard time taking the hysterics about Trump's threat to democracy seriously.  

Guilty as charged

Here's a fun link on verbal ticks associated with life and conversations in the Buckeye State.  

Yes, we know it's Kroger, Meijer, and JC Penney.   But 99% of the time it's given an 'S' at the end.  Kroger's, Meijer's, Penney's.  Perhaps ownership acknowledgement?  Another fun one: Warsh.  As in 'It's in the wash.'  But more than anywhere else I've ever been, I'll hear it pronounced 'Warsh' in these parts.  Why?  I don't know.  The only one I didn't know and, to be honest, have never heard, is calling the trunk of a car The Boot.  In everywhere I've been, including Ohio, it's the trunk of the car.  But the others are fair.  

One that wasn't mentioned: Saying 'Yeah-no' before a sentence. This might be done elsewhere, but I hear it in Ohio more than anywhere else I have lived.  That is, you actually begin a sentence or a thought in this manner: 'Yeah-no, Ohio State will definitely go to the championship this year.'   'Yeah-no, congress is obviously dropping the ball on this.'  'Yeah-no, the Rolling Stones were simply not on the same level as the Beatles.'  Whether the speaker is agreeing or disagreeing with the subsequent statement is anyone's guess. 

Bonus:

My mom had an endless supply sayings.  She was the queen of quips, though never with more than a high school education.  Many were old saws of course.  She didn't invent them, but she had an endless store from which I learned my way around this old world.  Sayings like 'Lazy people work the hardest', or 'Worry about the person in the mirror before you worry about others', or 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.'  Of course some of it was probably from her family.  My uncle, who served in the Pacific in WW2, used to be fond of saying 'Wish in one hand and crap* in the other and see which one gets filled the fastest.'  So some of that inheritance I received was no doubt from where she received it.  Given the reputation her dad had of being rather blunt and opinionated, it's not hard to believe where they came from.  

But my all time favorite, because I have no clue what it means, was this gem she would say before wading into my sister or me to drive home a point: 'I'll tell you one thing, and that ain't two things!'  Often proceeded by 'Buster.' If you can crack that code, beyond the obvious fact of the statement, you're smarter than I am.  To this day my sister and I have been unable to figure it out.  

*He didn't say 'crap', but you get the point. 

Prayers for Pope Leo

By now everyone has heard that Pope Leo is going in for surgery.  I think it's appropriate that we pause and pray that all goes well and the news is good.  I have no doubt he's well taken care of.  Nonetheless, he's human, and we all know what it is to face something like this.

As an aside, I have been heartened to see not a single person who has been critical of Pope Leo do anything but post prayers and hopes that he is well.  Oh, I'm sure if I deep delved it into the cesspool of darkest digital world, I'd find some.  

But on the surface and among those who come by my pages over the days, it's been prayers and prayers alone.  Be them conservative, MAGA, MAGA Catholic, radtrad or whatever.  The only thing I've seen is that we should gather with our thoughts and prayers and lift up Pope Leo, those medical pros tending to him, and ask that when the dust settles, he'll be OK.  So shines a good deed in a dark world. 

UPDATE:  By now many have heard the news that Pope Leo does have lung cancer.  Ugh.  I think if there is one thing that would unite all people it's that we are sick and tired of hearing that word.  So double down on prayers for Pope Leo, his loved ones and all who are impacted, and those within the medical world who will be using their gifts and talents to navigate this challenge of challenges.  

Mystery solved

I no longer follow Deacon Greydanus.  For the same reason I no longer bother with Mark Shea and many other of their ilk.  But on my own page, different posts will sometimes show up on a particular section from people I have followed to people I don't even know.  Well, this came by the other day:

Yep.  The Rocca Maggiore fortress is in Italy, in Assisi.  As in St. Francis of.  Meaning they're in Italy.  Why is this a thing?  Because I've long maintained that ever since John Lennon beckoned us to imagine no possessions from within his sprawling multi-million dollar English estate, the idea of Proxy Martyrdom has become a capstone of modern activism.

That is, words speak louder than actions.  And as long as it's other schmucks who take one for my righteousness, it's the price I'm willing to pay.  Why should I give up for the cause?  So as I watched the rise of the BLM/DEI driven group identity based treatment of people, it puzzled me why so many white Americans were happy with movements that basically say the only good white person is  a crushed in the mud white person.

Until I noticed a trend.  That is, on the street level this is often championed by younger white liberals who have been born and raised in this godless, pointless, meaningless society we've bequeathed them.  It's their way of finding purpose and meaning.  But they're not the only ones.  On the other end, I see a whole lot of ancient, gray haired hippies with their own vocations and professions happily in the rearview mirror and likely not impacted by the cheers of fewer white people and white men getting anywhere in society.

But it isn't always those two groups.  There are your average family types, like the good deacon.  Which puzzled me.  Until I also noticed something.  I came to realize that if you show me a working age family man or woman who is white and embraces this madness, I'll show you someone who is a globetrotter who sends his kids to private schools and universities.  That is, someone who has the money to make sure his kids have as many chances as possible not to be the ones whose opportunities are compromised due to skin color and other group identities.

Now I know virtually nothing about Greydanus.  I know he is a nationally known film critic.  I know that he is an ordained deacon with formal theological training who teaches at a Catholic school.  He reminded his readers of that a lot.  I also know his wife is in the medical field, but I don't know in what capacity.  And I know they homeschooled their own kids, and also sent them to private colleges.  But now I know they also take vacations to Italy.  

Meaning that they can't guarantee their own kids won't get it in the neck by the very demographic driven activism that he now supports in his full backing of the Left.  But they at least have the means to give them a chance others with less means can in no way ensure.  

Remember, Jesus didn't say if someone takes your cloak, then get someone else to give their tunic as well. Yet so many modern causes of righteousness seem founded on not having to give a brass farthing of personal investment or sacrifice for the cause while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground for embracing the same cause.  Like saying I'm anti-racist.  Big deal.  That cost me what?  Eleven keystrokes.  But doesn't it make me feel righteous!  Holy. Saintly.  The World says so, it must be true.  

But that's not how we should determine our priorities and causes.  Not that everything I agree with should force me to storm the beaches and take a bullet for the team.  But when virtually nothing I do costs me anything, but often costs my neighbor everything, it's time to rethink such offers of assurance for my moral superiority and righteousness.  Since by now, we should see what happens to a society where people can ascend the mountain of moral superiority through nothing other than posturing and words.  It doesn't take them long to find other causes to feed that sense of superiority, especially if everyone else has to pay the piper.  

It's a boy

Part II!  Turns out our second son and daughter-in-law are expecting yet again.  And if medical science is right on the nose, we once more have Griffey boy two, of the next generation.  That will be two, count them two, grandsons.  Meanwhile, the current gaggle of Griffey gremlins: 

They have no idea!

Yep, they don't know what's coming their way.  This, for those keeping score, will be three under three.  Woof.  As if two under two just wasn't challenging enough.  Our oldest son was almost three when our next son was born.  He was too young to do much, but he was old enough to do a little.  Truth be told, for only three, he did a good job trying to be that good big brother.  I can still see him trying to push his new brother in one of those baby swings at the park.   

But it was still enough to help.  Our granddaughter is not quite three yet, and won't be until well after our latest edition is due to be born.  So that's going to be a newborn, a toddler barely a year old, and the oldest a little over two and a half.  

That, folks, is why you have kids young.  It takes that much energy and stamina.  At my age, just thinking about it wears me out.  But so far they're doing something right.  Their first two are beautiful kids, even in those terrible twos, and I don't know that I've seen many children in my life more perpetually happy than their daughter.  So right there makes me glad for our latest edition to the Griffey dynasty. Congrats to them.  

I do not hate science

Nor do I think STEM is a vast communist conspiracy.  Nor do I pine for the good old days of Medieval medical treatments and outhouses.  As I've said plenty of times, I'll forever be grateful that I was born on the leeward side of the invention of toilet paper.

I also don't hate scientists.  My late father-in-law, a wonderful man, was a chemist.  Several of my friends over the years have been in the field of science or medicine.  Two teach or have PhDs in science - physics and chemistry.  And I'm personally fascinated by science, from geography and geology to astronomy (though on a very amateurish level to be sure). 

I say all that because a comment that was made on this post some years ago.  I sort of hope it was a comment meant for a good laugh or perhaps a bit of facetiousness.  Because the suggestion that I hate science, scientists and regard STEM as a vast Commie Pinko plot is simply bone headed wrong.  I obviously don't.

Do I think it's time to rethink our modern approach to science in light of religion?  Sure.  And I'm not talking about the laughable 'follow the science' or 'settled science' buzz phrases in modern political discourse.  Nor do I mean science as it is often misused in the atheist community as some trump card that once and for all proves there is no God.

I do mean that even when we reject such things as political or atheistic misuse of science, we can sometimes still be dragged into a rather material, secular vision of the world nonetheless. Oh we still speak of demons and angels and miracles, especially on Sundays.  But through the week, we can often seem as beholden to the secular spin on science and scholarship as the alpha and omega of reality as any devotee at a Richard Dawkins seminar.

That's also not to say we need to swing to the other extreme and assume I can't find the TV remote because a devil (or perhaps, on a better day, an angel) hid it form me.  Or think the best thing to do when my wife is having a heart attack is to break out the incense and pray that an angel appear to heal her..  Throughout most of history, believe it or not, people may have attributed more to the spiritual than was warranted, but people understood there was a natural part of the world as well.

It isn't as if you could go to a farmer in the darkest of ages and see him sitting next to a field, waiting for God to send angels to grow the crops.  Farmers worked on ways to plant and harvest, to fertilize and increase yields since the beginning of farming.  They understood that there were things you had to do within the world because that's life.  They may not have gotten molecules and DNA or genetics, but they understood that the best way to avoid getting trampled by a horse wasn't to stand in its way and pray that an angel appear and stop the horse, but rather to step aside and get out of the way.

I merely think that we've learned so much about how the universe works, we sometimes forget that the omnipresent 'Invisible' part of creation is still there.  I saw a scientist teaching science for my son's coursework a couple years ago.  Lab coat and everything.  It was part of a Christian curriculum. When teaching about the definition of science that begins every science class in the history of science classes, he used the example of people once upon a time believing you got sick because of demon possession, but now we know it's because of viruses or other infections.

My point is, perhaps saying 'she's sick because of demon possession' misses a few natural marks.  But maybe saying we found the virus means it obviously has nothing to do with anything but the virus misses another mark as well.

As we realize we're at a sort of flatlands right now in terms of leaps forward STEM-wise, and as it becomes clear that there are some problems associated with our 'tech in the morning, tech in the evening, tech at suppertime' culture, maybe it's time to rethink things.  Maybe try to find ways to rethink many elements of our faith that some today have jettisoned because 'Science.'  Perhaps focus on the spiritual senses of the Invisible creation a little more often than just those famous Five physical senses. 

And in the process, perhaps stop following the world around and waiting for the latest theory that we then assume demands we rethink the Church's worldview because Science!. Take, for example, one of the things I got while sojourning with the Orthodox that I will forever hold dear. 

During a Q&A, an Orthodox bishop was asked what the official Orthodox approach to Evolution is.  He said there isn't one.  The POV of the Orthodox is that if, by God's grace, the world is around in 2000 years, then people at that point will look back on our time and barely recognized 90% of everything we've come up with over the last couple centuries.  Either the theories will long before have been debunked, or new scientific revolutions will have completely upended our understanding of things in such a way that in 2000 years they'll barely be recognizable. Oh, there will be some that will still be accepted in 2000 years.  But it's the height of hubris to think it all will, or even most will.  Especially as we watch things only recently floated as obviously true that are now being thrown out the window. 

That's all I think.  As I sit on my computer and type for the Internet, the trick is to remember that the Visible is the small part of the small universe in a big, wide Creation.  The big part - the "Invisible" part we say in the Creed - is the big part of Creation. And the important part.  Understanding how a computer or nervous system or nuclear fusion works doesn't change that.  Any more than developing better irrigation methods did so thousands of years ago. 

Training ourselves to remember that the two - Religion and Science - are not exclusive, and that perhaps we've become a bit too secular in our approach to science  in light of revelation (or revelation in light of science), might be something worth thinking on.  Especially as we see more and more Christians abandoning the Faith because, in the end, they believe that God stuff went out with the coffee makers because obviously it did.  No hating science about it. 

The birth of the Victorian haunted house

I'm usually skeptical about this sort of history.  The old 'How hemorrhoids changed history', in terms of the supposed impact that particular condition had on Napoleon during the Battle of Waterloo.  The real origins of Halloween.  That sort of thing.  Trying to make simplistic sweeps about some historical development or event and explain it all in a bottle.

Nonetheless, it isn't to say such approaches are always wrong or bring nothing to the table. I simply figure there is more to it than what the article shows; other explanations, and other answers.  This might be one small idea in a bucket of ideas worth considering.

And it was fun.  As I wrote here, there are reasons haunted houses exist and we are drawn to them.  And no, the article here doesn't suggest Victorian houses were the basis for the idea.  That idea of haunted locations goes well beyond the emergence of Victorianism.  

My patron saint

Today is my saint day. As a Protestant minister, I had several references to St. Francis displayed prominently in my office.  And before I was a minister I admired St. Francis just the same.  Heck, before I was Christian I did.  

By the time I was in high school and college, the societal emphasis was increasingly on the sins of the West and its bastard child America.  Nonetheless, even with the negative focus, overall the final verdict was that, despite its manifold sins and evils, the West was still a net boon for the World. 

Likewise Christianity.  Naturally, by my time in college we were a functionally atheistic society.  And those secularists were not idle.  In multiple classes we were met with the various canards about religion being invented by ancient man in lieu of science, or the bible being riddled with errors and falsehoods, or simply treating various religious figures - including Jesus - as merely ancient religious rebels, often looking like John Lennon, and usually adhering to our  modern day's latest social activism.   

In all of that, however, was St. Francis.  In dealing with a figure who puzzled secular scholars, the parlor game - as with all academic parlor games - was to find a way of explaining him and his impact without the whole God stuff paradigm since, again, God and religion had long ago been debunked by science.  Sort of the way they did with Joan of Arc.  You know, her motivation was really a secret lesbian desire, or perhaps she had troubles with menstruating.  Anything other than the simplistic 'because God does exist' excuse. 

Despite attempts to downplay the supernatural or spiritual aspects, as one scholar noted, St. Francis was nonetheless still met with overwhelming choruses of praise and adoration even from the most secular of sources.  In many ways, because he lived it literally. 

Let's be honest, often times we appeal to some pretty strict and narrow interpretations of various biblical admonitions when it comes to everything from sex to greed to oppressing of the least of these.  But when it comes to the charge that we should sell everything and give it to the poor, we're fortunately reminded that Jesus clearly wasn't making a sweeping, general commandment.  Which for those of us in the wealthier parts of the world is always comforting to know.  And, yes, those outside the Faith do take note of such things, however they might be explained away.   

When it came to St. Francis, however, he clearly didn't get the memo.  And as one medieval historian I remember reading said, he decided to embrace his Lady Poverty, and it was a beautiful marriage.  He took things at face value and lived them.  And that, let me tell you, is always a powerful witness.

So powerful that even to this somewhat haphazard liberal agnostic, I couldn't help but conclude he really, really believed it.  We may sometimes mock those who say the Bible says it, I believe it, and then I live it. Yet there can be some good witnessing there.  And with St. Francis, it certainly was.  Including among so many historians and scholars of the time that I read.  And, quite frankly, including for me as well.  

It's not a surprise, therefore, that when I became a Christian, I still held onto St. Francis as I had already begun to do so as a non-believer.  And when we entered the Church and RCIA told me to pick my Patron Saint?  It took me about a half second.  So on this day when I'm reminded of a saint that has been near my shoulder since my college days, here is the always reliable and informative Fish Eaters breaking down all things St. Francis.  

This is interesting

And seasonal.  I wrote ages ago on the original spooky movies we watched as part of our annual Fall and Halloween viewing.  Most of the movies were not an every year occurrence, but a few became annual traditions right along with The Great Pumpkin and Halloween Haunts.  And one of those is often the 'kick-off' movie of the season, Universal's 1931 production of Dracula.  It was a favorite of my mom (released the year she was born), and I suppose that's one reason I have a fondness for it. Plus, it's just an excellent production, with sets and atmosphere that shame most modern attempts to capture the same feel.  And, as my sons like to point out, it helped teach the world that at least part of the classic ballet Swan Lake really belongs in the realm of horror. 

Well, it turns out that there was an epilogue for the movie that hasn't been shown in decades.  And it isn't part of any version of the movie I know.  Prologues weren't uncommon back then, having them from the original Frankenstein to DeMille's Ten Commandments in 1956.  But an epilogue? I wonder how common those were.  

Anyway, here it is.  A fitting post for the first day of that Month of spooky.  If the epilogue ran with the original release or was added later, I also don't know.  Again, this has only recently come to my attention because I think it was only recently unearthed.  It's Edward Van Sloan, who played Dr. Van Helsing in the movie, giving a final warning to the audience about, well, you know: