Contemplating Life. – Episode 13 “The Ascending View” (5th in the faith series)

This week we continue my journey back to the Catholic Church. I begin studying Scripture and learn how the Catholic approach seems much more common sense to me than the fundamentalist literalist approach we hear about so much. Next week, the last of our series on faith and then we returned to disability topics.

Links related to this episode:

YouTube Version

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

Shooting Script

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 13 of Contemplating Life.

Last week, I promised that we would be wrapping up this series on faith but the script came out too long (as it often does) so I decided to split it into two episodes.

As always, I offer my standard disclaimer when talking about religion. I’m not trying to evangelize anyone. I just want to tell my story. If it happens to mean something significant to your own faith journey then that’s great. But if not, I hope you find it entertaining and informative.

In the last episode, I had just attended an Easter vigil ceremony where a group of adults was choosing to join the Catholic Church. Seeing these reasonable people choose to join the church, the warm welcoming atmosphere I felt that had been missing previously, and the acceptance of my doubts by my mom’s Bible study group started me on a journey back to the church.

That was in the spring of 1984. For my birthday in July, I asked for a Bible. I wanted the New American Standard edition which had the official Catholic-approved translation and footnotes. It’s the translation used in all Catholic liturgy. Mom got me a really nice one with a brown leather cover. Somewhere along the way I also got a Bible concordance. That’s a complete cross reference for Scripture. You can look up any word and it will tell you every chapter and verse where that word appears. Of course these days there are websites where you can search for any passage from a variety of translations. But in 1984 with no Internet, such a large reference book was valuable.

I figured I would start at the beginning. I only got as far as Genesis 2 before I started seeing contradictions. That wasn’t very encouraging. There are two different creation stories in Scripture. One of them is the traditional seven days of creation where God says let there be… whatever and it came into being. The other one in Genesis 2 talks about the garden where he created Adam. Then he creates all of the animals and brings them to Adam to see what he calls them. The order in which things are created is completely different between these two stories.

The footnotes say that these different creation stories came from different sources. Wait a minute… I thought Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. Of course, Moses dies part way through the fourth book but my understanding was that one of his followers finished it up for him.

I decided to bypass the Old Testament and spent some time with the New Testament but I still wasn’t getting much out of it. I could see that reading the Bible was going to cause me more problems than it solved.

By now, lots of parishioners had been through the CRHP renewal program and were hungry for more adult religious education. Lifelong Catholics began attending the RCIA classes to update their understanding of the faith. I started attending the classes in September along with Judy, and her husband Paul. They had enjoyed the experience so much that they wanted to go through it again and pick up some things they might not have appreciated the first time through. It also gave them the opportunity to become sponsors for non-Catholics who were going through the program. The classes were held every Thursday night from 7-9 p.m. with a break in the middle for refreshments. They were presented by our two priests. Our pastor, Father Paul, and our associate pastor Father Conrad.

Among the programs I attended was a series of lectures by a man named Jim Welter from Saint Monica Parrish. He called his lectures “The Ascending View”.

Jim explained how the Catholic approach to Scripture was much different than the literal “it means exactly what it says” approach of the fundamentalist Protestant. The Catholic Church, along with other mainstream Catholic-like Protestant denominations such as Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopal use what is called the historical-critical method of Scripture analysis.

While we believe in the inspiration behind Scripture, we understand that it was written by human beings who are the product of their culture and times. The Bible is theology. It is not history or science. When we say that the Bible is inerrant and true, we don’t mean the details of exactly how many days it took exactly 6 days to create the entire universe and that the universe is only 6000 years old. It is the meaning behind the mythology that is true. What it says about us, God, our relationship with Him, and His plan for us is true.

Jim explained there are two ways to look at Scripture. The “descending view” is that Scripture is the result of divine dictation. The Word of God was handed down to the authors pretty much verbatim and they simply wrote down “what God intended.” This was that Book of Mormon model that we talked about a few episodes ago that seemed so ridiculous to me that it contributed to my leaving the Church. It is the same view that most fundamentalist or evangelical Christians believe even if it wasn’t found on some hidden metal plates dug up by some church leader.

In contrast, Jim describes the “ascending view”. People of faith experienced God in their lives. Some would see God in nature. Some had spiritual experiences that they could not explain otherwise. They saw events in history through a theological context.

Nearly all of Scripture began as oral traditions handed down by word-of-mouth for generations before anyone ever put quill to parchment. Realizing the importance of these stories, they were eventually collected and written to be handled on faithfully to future generations.

These writings were in effect a letter to God saying, “This is what you revealed to me and I offer it up to you in recognition of its importance. We are handing them down to future generations to preserve your Word that you have revealed to us.”

When we say that a particular person was the author of a book of the Bible, it means that they compiled the oral traditions that had been handed down for generations. The community is the actual author and the person that we call the author is simply the one who put it in writing. In modern terms, we would call them the editor or anthologist rather than the author.

In some cases, like Moses dying before the work was complete, one individual may not have been the actual author. For example, there appear to be at least two different authors of the Gospel of John. That can be seen most easily in that there are two different endings. One was probably written by John the Evangelist himself and another ending was written by one of his disciples. In ancient times, to say that a particular person was the “author” of a work meant it was written under their authority. It represented their teachings. And those teachings were a compilation of oral traditions.

By the way, there are several people named John in the New Testament that you need to distinguish between. John the Baptist was a preacher who sort of paved the way for Jesus’ public ministry and was beheaded by King Herod. John the Apostle was one of the 12 chosen apostles. He probably was not the author of the Gospel of John. That person is generally called John the Evangelist. He not only wrote the gospel but also wrote three New Testament letters and the Book of Revelation. The Gospel of John was probably written somewhere around the year 100 so it’s unlikely it was written by John the Apostle.

Jim told a joke about a minister who had decided he would start using a more modern translation of the Bible rather than the traditional King James version. That version was written by a committee who were more interested in flowery language and pretty prose than creating an accurate translation. A little old lady went up to him after services when he announced the change and said, “If the King James version was good enough for Peter and Paul, it’s good enough for me.” Naturally, we know it wasn’t published until the early 1600s. But what you might not realize is that they didn’t walk around with the four Gospels tucked under their arm either.

The official Canon that decided what holy writings should or should not be in the New Testament was not made until the year 400. And as we previously explained, John’s Gospel wasn’t written until about 100.

Let’s re-examine those contradictory versions of the creation myth in Genesis 1 and 2.

The reason for the differences between the two creation stories is they were originally oral traditions by two different communities. We can learn a lot about those communities by looking at what they wrote.

In Genesis 1, what do we have? Light and dark, stars, the sun and moon, water water everywhere. The water is collected so that dry land can appear and only then do we have the creatures of the land and the sea and plants to feed them. These people were obviously sailors. They lived by the sea. Their life was connected to the sea. They saw God in the sea and the land and the sun and the moon and the stars.

Genesis 2 is the story of a garden. Man was created from clay. The animals were brought to him and none were suitable companions so God created woman out of man. The land came first. The water came up out of the land in the form of a spring to irrigate everything. Obviously, these people were farmers. It’s all about the land. Plants. Animals. And human beings’ relationship to all of that.

It was Moses, allegedly, who wove these two different oral traditions into the marginally continuous almost self-consistent narratives of the book of Genesis. In order to really understand Scripture, you have to understand the communities that created the oral traditions that were eventually be written down.

Let’s take one more brief example of how understanding the culture and times in which scripture was written helps us to understand it properly.

A rather controversial passage is from Paul’s letter to Ephesians 5:22-33. Depending on the translation, it says either, “Wives be subject to your husbands…” or “Wives submit to your husbands…” This passage has been used to justify the dominance of men over women. It does go on to say, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.” On the surface, it hardly seems a fair trade.

Today, we understand it to be a partnership between equals. Marriage is not a 50-50 proposition. It is a 100-100 proposition in which both partners are totally committed to one another in the relationship. But consider the times in which Paul wrote. He was saying the same thing. He was talking about total commitment. But the culture expressed total commitment differently than we do today. In Paul’s era, wives showed their commitment by submitting to their husbands. And to say that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church, how did Christ show his commitment to the Church? He died for it. Men committed to their wives and children by working themselves to death and an early grave. The details of what Paul wrote are not pertinent to the world today. The message behind what he wrote is still true. It’s about total commitment. We simply express it differently in modern times.

Jim went on to explain various techniques that modern historical-critical scripture scholars use to get to the heart of the meaning behind the words. He also discussed ways that they try to reconcile various versions of the manuscripts that have been discovered. I won’t go into all of the details but it is a very common-sense approach.

In my studies, I also learned about another major difference between the Catholic and Protestant approaches to Scripture. Nearly all Protestant denominations, not just the fundamentalists, believe in a doctrine known as sola scriptura which means, “Scripture alone.” In a nutshell, if it’s not in the Bible, you don’t have to believe it. There are historical reasons why the Protestant Reformation adopted this stance that I won’t go into right now.

I heard the story of Presbyterian theologian Scott Hahn who was asked by one of his theology students, “Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the sole authority?” The professor cited various passages that talk about how Scripture is inspired by God and how important it is. But nowhere in Scripture does it actually say that Scripture is the sole authority. So if sola scriptura isn’t in the Bible… Then we don’t have to believe it!

I won’t go into all of the other logical inconsistencies of the doctrine but there are several. Long story short… Professor Hahn converted to Catholicism and has made it his life work to explain why sola scriptura doesn’t hold water.

The Catholic approach is that divine revelation is handed on in two forms. Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition. The explanation of this is in a Vatican II document called the “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.” While Catholics have often over-emphasized tradition and underemphasized Scripture, Vatican II calls for a balance. I linked the document in the description.

The Church also has published a monitoring document called the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” which is not a bunch of memorized questions for first-graders but rather a detailed explanation of the church’s teachings on a variety of topics. I’ve also linked to an online version of that book. It too is much more common sense even though I can’t say I agree 100% with everything in there.

All of this commonsense approach to Scripture and a precise explanation of church doctrine in the modern Catechism solved the major stumbling blocks for me. I could now contemplate Catholic theology from the point of view of an adult and begin to see some of the logic behind it.

There was just one more problem… Is there a God?

That is the topic we will tackle next week and then I promise we will go back to disability issues the following week. No more stretching it out.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode 12 “Deconstructing Thomas the Apostle” (4th in the faith series)

In this episode, we continue the story of my faith journey. I attended the Easter Vigil in 1984 which had a profound effect on me. It was the start of my journey back to the Catholic Church. We will wrap up this section of my faith journey next week and the following week will return to disability topics.

Links related to this episode:

YouTube version


Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

Shooting Script

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 12 of Contemplating Life.

This week we are going to continue the story of my faith journey. Usual disclaimer, I’m not trying to evangelize anyone. I’m just telling my story. I hope you find it interesting and if it does anything for your own faith journey then that’s okay too.

When we last left off, I had been away from the Catholic Church for about nine years. I had immersed myself in secular volunteer activities but occasionally would help out by using my computer skills to help out Saint Gabriel Church because my mother was still very active there. In recent months, she had been even more active than usual because of a new program called Christ Renews His Parish abbreviated as CRHP pronounced “chirp”.

It’s the night before Easter 1984 and our friend Judy Chapman has invited us to the Easter Vigil service where her husband Paul would be initiated into the Catholic Church. It was the final step in the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults or RCIA. Paul and a half-dozen others had been attending weekly classes in the Catholic faith since September and were now ready for the sacraments of initiation: Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation.

The ceremony begins outdoors around a fire known as “the new fire”. In our case, it’s an ordinary charcoal grill. Instead of charcoal, it is piled about a foot high with sticks and small branches. A parishioner who is an Eagle Scout leader prepares this mini campfire each year for the ceremony.

The priest has a large candle about 3 feet tall and perhaps 4 inches in diameter decorated with various religious symbols. This Easter candle, also known as the Paschal candle, is described in the prayers as representing the light of Christ. The congregation gathers around the fire and the ceremony begins. He offers prayers and places four wax nails into holes on a cross on the candle. Each parishioner carries a small candle that they light from the Easter candle.

Usually, the entire congregation gathers around this fire and enters the church in a procession. But I believe on this particular occasion it was raining. Most of the congregation, myself included, sat in the church which was totally dark. I was sitting in the aisle about the second row back from the front. The priest carried the candle in the door at the back of the church and as he slowly processed up the center aisle, he would repeatedly chant, “Light of Christ” to which the people would respond, “Thanks be to God”. As he entered, everyone would light their small candle off of the Easter candle. The person on the end of the row would pass the light down the pew.

I had my back to all of this as I was sitting in the front. All that I could see was that the church was gradually being illuminated brighter and brighter by these candles. It was a very effective symbol that the darkness was being swallowed by the light of God.

Then by candlelight, the priest, in this case, the associate pastor Father Conrad, chants a long prayer called the “Exsultet”. It recounts some of salvation history including how God saved the Chosen People from slavery in Egypt. How He led them by a pillar of fire to escape through the Red Sea. It talks about how Christ conquered death. Naturally, this being a celebration of the Resurrection, this was a major theme throughout the service.

For me, the most interesting part of the prayer was the idea that it was a good thing that Adam had sinned because if human beings had not sinned, we wouldn’t have needed redemption. It says, “O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ! O happy fault that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!” The phrase “happy fault” in Latin is “felix culpa” where felix could be translated not only as “happy” but as “lucky” or “blessed”. Happy fault. Lucky fault. A blessed fault that we had fallen from grace.

The idea that the human flaw of sin turned out to be a good thing because we were eventually redeemed seemed pretty bizarre to me. Then again, looking at my own life, I had discovered that there were positive things about having a lifelong disability. So maybe it isn’t that crazy after all. Perhaps my disability is a felix culpa. A happy, lucky, blessed fault.

After this lengthy prayer, we eventually turn on the lights and extinguish our candles. The ceremony then proceeds with the Liturgy of the Word. This is the first portion of the traditional rite of the Catholic mass. On a usual Sunday, it consists of an Old Testament reading (or sometimes reading from one of the New Testament letters), a psalm in which the congregation repeats the refrain, and then a gospel reading followed by the priest’s homily. A homily is a kind of sermon that is a reflection on the Scripture readings we have just heard. Because the Easter vigil is such a big deal, there can be as many as seven Old Testament readings, each followed by a responsorial Psalm. This is followed by a reading from the Letter to the Romans. Then the gospel which was followed by the homily.

Fortunately, St. Gabriel chooses to only do about five of the seven Old Testament readings. It begins with Genesis, “In the beginning…” and recounts the entire seven days of creation. It always includes the Exodus story of the parting of the Red Sea. There is a parallel to be made that in the same way that God rescued the Chosen People from the slavery of Egypt by passing through the waters of the Red Sea, we too are saved from the slavery of sin by passing through the waters of Baptism.

When it came time for the reading from Romans, a woman named Barbara Dean walked up to the pulpit. Barbara was one of the women who had attended the CRHP weekend retreat with my mother and Judy along with other women of the parish. Barbara was struggling with the effects of lupus and had spent the past few months in the hospital. Although people with lupus experience serious bouts with possibly long periods of remission in between, many people were very worried about her. She had been going through a very bad spell. She had been released so that she could attend the service. Her husband Leonard was among those to be baptized and initiated into the church. She read Romans 6:3-11 which reads in part…

Brothers and sisters:
Are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.

The reading goes on to talk more about death, resurrection, and new life in Christ.

I was totally weirded out by the experience. Here was this woman who had one foot in the grave and the other foot on a banana peel. Yet you would never know it by looking at her. She looked like a million bucks. She stood up there in front of everybody and talked about death as if it was no big deal.

What I haven’t told you is that during that point in my life, I was scared to death of death. I would frequently have panic attacks where I would think about nothing except my pending demise. Sometimes in the middle of the night, I would want to just scream. The only relief I could get was to keep my mind occupied with other thoughts so I wouldn’t be able to think about death. In previous episodes, I already told about losing a good friend to his disability. There are other stories about losing friends and an early age that I will tell later. I mentioned that my parents rushed me through the early sacraments of the church because they didn’t think I would live long enough to get through them. I was facing mortality at an age much younger than people typically worry about such things.

I couldn’t understand how she could stand up there and talk so calmly about something that would often freeze me in terror. The fact that she was there at all was amazing given her condition but then again, I imagine wild horses couldn’t have kept her from seeing her husband initiated into the church. But that still didn’t explain how she could read that reading without breaking down and crying.

There are other parts of the Easter vigil service that I grew to greatly enjoy in the many times I attended after that but I won’t bother to detail them here because they aren’t part of this particular story.

In addition to Paul Chapman and Leonard Dean, there were probably five other adults being initiated that night. One of them was a young man named Tom something who was about my age. While one might cynically suppose that Paul and Leonard were doing this at the encouragement or for the benefit of their wives, Tom was single. He had no excuse or reason to do this except that he wanted to. And after I got to know Paul, I was confident that he was there of his own choice, and presumably so was Leonard. But I had no way of knowing that at the time.

Here were reasonably intelligent, adult human beings, standing up in front of God and everybody saying, “I want to be part of this.” This was in contrast to my feelings that I’d been tricked into a life of faith when I was a little kid and didn’t know any better. All of this was a challenge to my assumptions that there was nothing here for me.

I’ve always enjoyed the pomp and circumstance, the smells and bells of Catholic liturgy. At the Easter vigil, they pull out all the stops. The ceremony was moving and inspiring. The example set by the catechumens and candidates joining the church challenged my beliefs. The music from the choir was awesome.

When the service was finally over, I began to realize the changes that had happened to the congregation since the introduction of the CRHP renewal program. It was a much warmer and friendlier place than it had been when I had last attended.

People hugged one another.

I’m not just talking about the people who were happy that their family members had joined the church. The whole place had changed.

Among the highlights was I also got to meet Judy’s stepdaughter Deborah who was in her early 20s and her daughter Anne about age 7-8 both of who would later become good friends to me.
This was a case where my natural curiosity actually drew me toward the church. There was a mystery to be solved. I had a lot to think about.

The next Sunday, I decided to tag along with mom not only to go to Mass but to attend her Sunday morning Bible study class. As we previously explained, Catholics are not known for their interest in or knowledge of Scripture the way the Protestants are. We were not raised memorizing Bible verses rather we were memorizing questions and answers from the Baltimore Catechism.
One of the reforms of Vatican II was a renewed emphasis on Scripture. Also, the CRHP program was designed to instill a deeper appreciation of Scripture.

There was a group of about a dozen people who would gather in the cafeteria Sunday morning before Mass to read the Scripture readings that would be used that day. They had a small booklet that would have discussion questions based on those readings. You would talk about what that particular passage meant to you or how you might apply it to your personal life.

The gospel reading on the first Sunday after Easter is always from the Gospel of John 20:19-31. It describes the post-resurrection encounter that the apostles had with Jesus when he appeared in their midst while they were locked in the upper room. Thomas was not with them at the time and when he was later told about the incident, he said that unless he saw Jesus with his own eyes and can probe the nail marks in his hands or the wound in his side he would not believe it. The next time Jesus appeared, Tom was on hand and having seen, professed his faith.

The Scripture says, “Jesus said to him, ‘Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.’”

The supplemental material provided an explanation I had heard before. The name Thomas means “twin” with the implication being that we are Thomas’ twin when we doubt. This is the origin of the phrase “a doubting Thomas.”

At an appropriate point in the discussion, I spoke up and said that this was true. I strongly identified with Thomas. My curious, scientific mind often demanded proof, and just because Jesus said it’s better to believe without proof that didn’t cut it for me. I said to them, “There’s a lot about the church that I admire and respect and could say that I believe in. But I got to be honest with you people. A lot of this stuff (I resisted the urge to say crap) I just don’t believe. And I don’t know that I ever will believe it.”

I fully expected them to say something like, “Then what the hell are you doing here? Get your heathen ass out the door.” or something more polite like, “Well maybe then the church isn’t for you.”, or some sort of argument about how wrong I was to reject the gospel message.

That’s not what I got.

Instead, they said, “That’s okay. We all have our doubts at times. You just can’t let those doubts drag you down. Focus on the things you do believe and don’t get bogged down in your doubts.”

Wow. Just wow.

Without being critical of me or trying to “change my mind” they had made a perfectly reasonable suggestion of how to proceed. The most powerful part of the argument was that it was a strategy that I had been employing my entire life in regard to my disability. I had seen too many people who sat around and felt sorry for themselves and became consumed by their disabilities. By focusing on the things that they could not do, they ended up being a basket case. I believed that it had contributed to the death of my friend Terry Johnson.

The way I was able to cope with my lifelong disability was to focus on the things that I could do and not get bogged down by the things I couldn’t do. Perhaps I could find some relevance in Christianity and the Catholic Church by applying the same strategy. Don’t let your disbelief stand in the way of expressing things you do believe, among people who believe in the same things.
That wasn’t sufficient to say, “Yes I’m fully back. Count me all in on this Catholic thing.” I still had a lot of issues to deal with but it was the first step back.

While my mother was naturally pleased to see me exploring the church, she didn’t overdo it by jumping for joy at least that I could see. She had realized somewhere along the way that this was something I had to do on my own. With the exception of occasionally asking some tough questions like the things she asked me about the Archbishop last episode, I never felt at all pressured by her. Or let me say any pressure was pretty subtle.

Prior to all this, one time I was pretty sick in bed. She asked our pastor, Father Paul Landwerlen to stop by and pray for me. He visited me at my sickbed at home. He invited me to pray with him and I politely declined but said he could pray if he wanted to. I eventually recovered and he took some gentle opportunities to evangelize me.

He brought me a cassette tape of a lecture he heard one time. The speech had the clever title, “What on earth is God doing for heaven’s sake?” He had it all queued up to a part of the speech he thought would be particularly useful or inspiring or whatever. I listened to it out of curiosity. It didn’t do anything for me. I rewound it to the beginning. No. Nothing here to see. Move on.

I don’t remember the exact sequence of events but somewhere along the way, sometime after the Easter vigil, went back to the tape that Father Paul had given me. I turned the tape over and listened to the other half. It blew me away.

Let me pause a minute to give you an explanation of a bit of theology known as the “Mystical Body of Christ”. It comes from Saint Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians chapter 12. Many of Paul’s letters were written to settle some dispute or misunderstanding. Apparently, in Corinth, they had been arguing over who was a better Christian based on which spiritual gifts they expressed. He begins by describing various spiritual gifts. He explains that all of the gifts come from the same spirit even though our spirituality is manifested in different ways.

Then he talks about the analogy of the human body. About how all the parts must work together. The foot cannot say because it is not a hand it does not belong to the body. The ear belongs even though it’s not an eye. “If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?” It reminded me of the old joke, “My dog has no nose.”

“Then how does it smell?”

“Terrible!”

[Sound FX: rimshot]

Anyway… all jokes aside. He concludes by saying in verse 27 “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.” Together we make Christ present here on earth. We are his mystical body doing his work It ties into the other Scripture that says, “Whenever two or three of you are gathered in my name, I’m there in your midst.”

On the other side of the tape, the lecturer told a story which I will now paraphrase.

He had been to a conference and the speaker was a paralyzed woman. Some accident had resulted in a spinal cord injury leaving her quadriplegic. He said she was rolled on the stage lying prone on a gurney. She said, “In my mind’s eye, I can imagine my body doing all sorts of wonderful things. Playing sports, hugging my children, and loving my husband. It’s not a lack of willpower. My will is plenty strong. But there is a disconnect between my mind and my body. I’m trapped in a body that is unresponsive to my will. And so it is the same for the Body of Christ. God has imagined wonderful things for us. It is his will that we enjoy these marvelous things. Yet when we fail to communicate with him and to act according to his will, we handicap the Body of Christ.”

Holy shit.

That freaked me out.

That made the connection between volunteerism and religion. We are all part of a body. We all have a job to do. We were put on this earth for a reason. And when we fail to do our part, we handicap the body that we are part of.

I could extend the analogy further to other types of disability. Look at my friend Christopher Lee who had such severe spasms from cerebral palsy that he would keep his wrists strapped down to the armrest of his wheelchair. Unlike the paralyzed woman, his body had no lack of movement. Yet his body was unresponsive to his will. Often we are out there flailing about thinking we are doing something but we are no more effective than the spastic limbs of someone with cerebral palsy. Or look at my own body. All of my parts work. But because my muscles are weak, like a person with weak faith, my muscles do not work effectively to achieve my will. I too am trapped in a body that is unresponsive to my will.

I survive my disability reasonably well. But I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone. But when I don’t work together with the members of the Body, I handicap that body. And I can’t do that.
Whether God exists or not, the Church was a body that I could connect to. I could play my part and not handicap the body by my absence.

I still had to decide if God even existed. The journey back had a long way to go. Next week we will tackle that problem which will wrap up this series on my faith journey. We will come back to the topic in future episodes but after next week we will return to disability issues as I recount the story of my journey through the special education system.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode #11 “Secular Humanism and Me” (Part 3 of the faith series)

In this week’s episode, we continue a multi-part series about my off-again, on-again relationship with God and the Catholic Church. This episode is about the 9 years I spent away from the Catholic Church and what led me back again. We will continue this series on faith for a few more weeks and then go back to disability-related topics as I review my history in special education.

Links related to this episode:

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://anchor.fm/contemplatinglife
A list of all episodes including this one on YouTube: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hello, this is Chris Young, and welcome to episode #11 of “Contemplating Life”.

This week we are going to continue our multi-part series on my off-again, on-again relationship with God and the Catholic Church.

Let me reiterate my usual disclaimer when I discuss religion here. I’m not specifically trying to evangelize or proselytize anyone. I’m just sharing my views and experiences about faith. I hope that it is entertaining and informative. If by chance, you find it sparks something in your own faith journey that’s fine also.

When we left off before the Oscar break, I was 19 years old and I had just decided to leave the Catholic Church. My passion for science, intense skepticism, and the failure of the church to engage me in meaningful ways led me to quit going to Mass.

I had no ill will toward the Church. I wasn’t mad at God, at least not now.

There was one occasion a few years earlier when I was mad at God. One of my best friends in high school, Terry Johnson who was two years older than me died of complications of his Muscular Dystrophy just six months after graduating from high school. He had earned eight consecutive semesters of straight A grades and was awarded an academic letter sweater. However, after graduation, he did nothing with his life. He never attempted to enter college or find employment. Like some people whose lives end when they retire from a lifetime of hard work, after high school he had no future and apparently gave up on life.

It seemed to me that all of the hard work he put into getting perfect grades was a total waste. After his death, I was determined not to let high school graduation be a death sentence for me. I already had college plans and plans for a career as a computer programmer. His senseless passing made me more determined to make it to college but less determined to achieve academic perfection. I would rather have a good time while I lived, goof off, and earn Bs and Cs than work my ass off getting As and end up dying young.

I wasn’t so much angry that he died. I lost lots of friends from complications of their disability at an early age. It was never easy to lose friends but somehow I took this one personally. I concluded somewhere along the way at the only purpose or meaning I could find from his death was that it might motivate me to be different. Somehow that made me feel responsible for his death as if God killed him just to teach me a lesson.

I can’t really say that that argument with God was part of why I left the church. You can’t be angry with someone whom you are not certain even exists.

While I seriously doubted the existence of God, I didn’t describe myself as an atheist. In my opinion, atheists are absolutely certain that there was no God. Good scientists are never absolutely certain about anything. You always have to be open to new evidence. I described myself as having an open mind about God and religion yet I didn’t do anything to try to fill that opening.

If you pinned me down I would probably identify with the label “agnostic”. Somehow that word felt like it described someone who couldn’t make up their mind.

So, if agnostics were considered wishy-washy and atheists radically anti-religion I needed a different rebel. In the early 1970s, they invented a label that seemed to fit my beliefs best– secular humanist. It seemed to me that the phrase was invented in response to the accusation of religious people that atheists were immoral because they didn’t have God in their lives. Calling yourself a secular humanist was a way of saying, “I have morality and values that are not significantly different from mainstream religion. I just don’t believe it’s necessary to connect that sense of morality to belief in a deity.”

One of the values that my mother instilled in me was a strong sense of volunteerism.

As I was growing up in the early 60s, it was not that common for housewives to work outside the home. That gave her lots of free time, especially during the school year. It began with her involvement in the PTA at the special education school I attended. She served as “room mother” which meant that she hosted Christmas and Valentine’s Day parties, as well as a thank-you party after our annual fundraising cookie sale. I recall she was elected treasurer and eventually the president.

This led to involvement in the PTA at the city and state-wide levels. From there she became involved in education and disability advocacy with a grassroots coalition known as the Council Of Volunteers and Organizations for the Handicapped or COVOH. That organization helped secure the passage of the Indiana Mandatory Special Education Act which required all Indiana school districts to develop special education programs a few years before a federal mandate required the same nationwide. For once, Indiana was ahead of the curve.

During the summer of my college years and then later after college and after I had to quit work because of my worsening disability, I accompanied her to the Indiana Statehouse to lobby the General Assembly for disability issues. We attended several monthly meetings of the Indiana State Building Commission as they were revising building codes which included accessibility requirements. In a future episode, I will tell some stories about those efforts.

She also served on the Indianapolis Mayor’s Advisory Council on the Handicapped and on the Indiana Special Education Advisory Council and I attended many of those meetings with her.
She also did significant volunteer work for a United Way agency called the Marion County Muscular Dystrophy Foundation which is now known as the Indiana Muscular Dystrophy Family Foundation. I will detail her work for them in another episode. She served their board of directors for several years.

I followed in her footsteps joining the board of MCMDF immediately after she left. I also was invited to serve on the Board of Directors of another United Way agency called Central Indiana Radio Reading. This organization used a subcarrier frequency of the Butler University radio station to broadcast people reading articles from the daily newspaper and some magazines for people who were described as “print handicapped”. This included blind and visually impaired people as well as physically handicapped people who could not easily handle a newspaper or magazine.

There will be future episodes about my involvement in all of these activities. I only mention them here because it describes what I was doing while I was away from the church and as you will see, my involvement in these activities gradually indirectly led me back to the church.

As I mentioned, I had no brief with the Catholic Church. I admired and respected my mother’s faith and her involvement in the Church. Somewhere along the way, mom transitioned her time from doing disability advocacy to becoming more involved in parish activities. She served on the Parish Council and was involved in a variety of activities in the church.

Along the way, she heard about a software package developed by a priest and one of his parishioners called Parish Data System. It was a database that would keep track of your membership. It not only kept track of names, addresses, and phone numbers. It also allowed you to record sacrament records such as if your kids had received First Communion or Confirmation. It would also allow you to tag members with keywords such as “maintenance committee”, “school family”, “Eucharistic minister”, or “usher/greeter”. It would also keep financial contribution records and print charitable tax donation records at the end of the year. Because she had become skilled at using my personal computers for her volunteer activities, she knew how important a computer could be for church administration. She worked to get us a personal computer for the parish. I was happy to volunteer to get the program up and running and to advise them on how to best use it.
Before we were able to obtain a computer for the parish, I allowed their volunteer bookkeeper to use my computer and spreadsheet software to prepare monthly financial statements and annual reports.

Although I didn’t attend Mass on a regular basis if someone in the family was having a Baptism or First Communion I had no problem attending to show my support for their own spiritual journey. I might have also tagged along on occasional Christmas or Easter or at least I wasn’t opposed to the idea of going to church for some special occasions.

Through my involvement with the Muscular Dystrophy Foundation, I was invited to attend a special volunteer recognition Mass at Saints Peter and Paul Cathedral the seat of the Archbishop of Indianapolis. The invitation went out to a variety of voluntary organizations which included United Way Agencies.

I had always admired Archbishop Edward T. O’Meara. Each year the Catholic Archbishop is invited to give the invocation at the Indianapolis 500. Rather than pray “in Jesus’ name” as your typical NASCAR chaplain might do, he always gave a very ecumenical prayer to “our common God” and would give a blessing to the drivers in their variety of native languages.

The Cathedral had just completed a major renovation and my dad had worked on part of it refinishing huge bronze doors at the front of the building. The opportunity to hear the Archbishop speak on a topic such as volunteerism and to see my dad’s handiwork seems like it was a reasonable excuse to go to Mass on a weekday afternoon. I got to visit the Blessed Sacrament Chapel attached to the Cathedral which was the location of my parents’ wedding. The renovations of the building did not do much in the way of accessibility. I had to go up and down a very steep ramp that definitely was not according to disability access standards.

The Archbishop had just returned from a meeting of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in which they ratified a document expressing the immorality of the nuclear arms race. While the church agrees that there are instances where going to war can be justified where all else fails, the document declared that nuclear war which indiscriminately kills innocent civilians and threatens the entire human race to possible extinction could not be justified under any circumstances.

In his homily, he was quite enthusiastic about this new teaching document and was looking forward to finding ways to have it proclaimed and understood at the parish level. The theme of the Mass however was volunteerism. As previously stated, that was a word with which I strongly identified so he was speaking to me and my kind. He talked about the nobility and the necessity to serve our fellow human beings.

Everything he was saying both about war and volunteerism resonated strongly with me. He was a very likable, intelligent, and charismatic speaker. Somehow, he tied it all to serving God. “Whatsoever you do to even the least of my brethren, you do unto me.” according to the parable in Matthew’s Gospel.

When we returned home, mom asked me what I thought of the experience. I told her how much I enjoyed it and how that Archbishop’s resonated with me. He seemed so enthusiastic about the Church’s statement against nuclear war and naturally I appreciated his recognition of volunteers like the two of us. I don’t particularly agree that that has anything to do with God but he is still a pretty cool guy.

“Do you think he’s stupid?”, she asked.

“Of course not. On the contrary, he seems like a very intelligent man.”

“Then if he is so right about the immorality of nuclear war and he is so right about the importance of volunteerism, what makes you think he is so wrong about everything he said about God?”
That was a good question. I didn’t have a good answer for it.

When I was attending Mass on a regular basis, Saint Gabriel Church was a bit cold and unfriendly. Naturally, there were cliques of people who volunteered for the church and were friendly with one another. Overall most people came to Mass, fulfilled their obligation, left, and that was it.

That began to change when the Parish Council decided they needed to do something to spark more involvement. They kickstarted a program called Christ Renews His Parish. It was abbreviated CRHP but often pronounced “chirp” as if the “H” and “R” were reversed. A group of parishioners consisting mostly of Parish Council members including my mother spent a weekend at a religious retreat presented by a parish in Fort Wayne Indiana. Men and women attended the retreat separately.

The program was presented not by professionals but by ordinary Catholic parishioners who had been through the process themselves. Over the two-day experience, the team presented a program in which they would tell personal stories or give what they called “witness talks” about their own faith journey and what God had done for them. While giving testimony is quite common in Protestant nominations, Catholics are not typically accustomed to telling their personal stories or talking about their relationship with God.

Once our parishioners had been through the process at the parish in Fort Wayne, they came home and spend six months in formation preparing to present the same program to a group of our people. The process would then repeat every six months. Each group of people who attended the program would then form a team to present it to the next group 6 months later.

My mother had been heavily involved in the parish prior to this process but after returning from the retreat, her involvement, dedication, and enjoyment of church activities multiplied significantly. Although our disability advocacy work had been waning for some time, now all of her volunteer efforts were dedicated to our parish.

Prior to attending CHRP, it seemed like she was friendly and collegial with the people she worked with at church. After CRHP she developed a strong bond of friendship with the people at church.

The most significant new relationship that came out of her involvement in the Parish Council and subsequent involvement in CRHP was her friendship with Judy Chapman. Judy also later became a significant person in my life as you will learn in future episodes.

Judy’s husband Paul was not Catholic but together they attended a year-long program at Saint Gabriel called RCIA. That acronym stands for Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. It involves attending weekly classes in the Catholic faith, participating in various preparatory rites and rituals, and culminating with an initiation ceremony at the Easter Vigil service the night before Easter.

According to Jewish tradition and subsequently Catholic Christian tradition, each day ends and a new day begins at sundown. Therefore, attending Mass on Saturday evening counts for Sunday. The initiation ceremony consists of the Sacrament of Baptism for those who have not already been baptized in another Christian tradition, the Sacrament of First Communion (also known as First Eucharist), and the Sacrament of Confirmation which we’ve previously discussed.

Judy didn’t have a large family to attend the ceremony for her husband so she invited my mother and me. I already mentioned that I had no objection to supporting people by attending sacraments and that Easter and Christmas were not off the table. This Easter Vigil service counted as Easter Mass and would involve the celebration of three sacraments at once. It was 4 for one! Despite the fact that it would last from about 8 PM until nearly midnight I agreed to tag along.

April 21, 1984, at the invitation of Judy Chapman, I attended the Easter Vigil Mass at Saint Gabriel the Archangel Catholic Church to support her and see her husband Paul initiated into the Catholic Church. What occurred that night was a challenge to my belief or rather unbelief that set me on a journey back to the Catholic Church – a relationship that continues to this day.
Next week I will talk about that evening and the events that followed as we continue to explore my faith journey. We will continue on this topic for another couple of weeks and then take a break and go back to talking about disability issues. I am planning a multi-part series chronicling my history in special education.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode #10 “Oscar Keeping It Real” (part 3 of 3)

This week we conclude our three-part series where I review all 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. We will talk about my favorite director Steven Spielberg who directed one of the final three movies we will cover. The Oscar ceremonies are tonight March 12 on ABC. Apologies for this long episode but we had lots to talk about. Next week will return to my faith journey stories and after that back to disability topics.

Links related to this episode

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://anchor.fm/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 10 of Contemplating Life.

This week we conclude our look at the Oscar-nominated films for this year with three of the best of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture.

In the first episode of the series, I expressed my bias in favor of Avatar which included its director James Cameron. I have an even stronger affection for Steven Spielberg and his work. With multiple Oscar nominations over the years and 2 Directing Oscars as well as the prestigious Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award–Oscar loves Spielberg as much as I do.

Before we get to one of Spielberg’s nominated films, please indulge me as I reflect on his work and share with you my thoughts as to why his films illustrate what I find most enjoyable about the movies. Specifically that although movies are an illusion, they allow us to explore feelings and themes that are very real to us.

As a young boy, Spielberg was taken to the movies to see the 1952 Oscar-winning Best Picture “The Greatest Show on Earth” directed by Cecil B DeMille. He mistakenly believed he was going to see a real circus instead of a movie about a circus. However, he was not disappointed by the experience. In fact, he was mesmerized by its ability to transport him to the world of that film. He was especially disturbed by a scene where a train collided with an automobile. To be able to cope with the image, he used his father’s home movie camera to recreate the scene using his toy train and a toy car. Thus began his career as a filmmaker. He followed that with other homemade films one of which earned him a photography badge in the Boy Scouts.

In my opinion, Spielberg is all about keeping it real. We see this theme of “reality” in a couple of my favorite films of his. In his 1977 “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” there is a scene in which UFO investigator Claude Lacombe played by François Truffaut asks Roy Neary played by Richard Dreyfus, “Monsieur Neary…what do you want?”

Neary replies, “I just wanna know that it’s really happening.”

He can’t believe that he is really watching aliens step out of a real UFO. He wants to know that it’s real.

However, my favorite scene in a Spielberg film and one of my favorite scenes of any film whatsoever is in his 1982 hit “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial”. Although you’ve probably seen the film maybe more than once, let me set the scene for you…

A young boy named Elliott discovers an extraterrestrial in his backyard. ET has accidentally been left behind by his people and Elliott and his brother and sister assist ET to phone home. ET and Elliott develop a kind of psychic empathic link in which they can feel what each other is feeling. When ET becomes ill just as the government investigators move in, Elliott becomes ill as well. Fortunately, the link is broken as ET apparently dies.

In a heart-wrenching scene, Elliott says his final goodbyes to ET. “You must be dead… because… I don’t know how to feel. I can’t feel anything anymore.”

Note that he doesn’t say “I can’t feel you.” He says, “I can’t feel anything anymore.”

When the mothership approaches, ET is miraculously resurrected and suddenly we… excuse me I mean Elliott… can feel again.

Elliott and his brother steal a government van containing ET. They paused briefly to say to their friends, “Get the bicycles and meet us in the park.” After a harrowing chase scene where they escape from the G-men, they meet up in the park.

Elliott and ET appear at the back door of the van and his friends see ET for the first time. Elliott calmly explains, “He’s a man from outer space and we’re taking him to his spaceship.”
His friend Greg sarcastically asks, “Well, can’t he just beam up?”

If you’re watching the film in a theater, you might have missed the next line because everyone is laughing. But to me, this is the most important line in the film. Perhaps the most important in any Spielberg film.

Elliott says in disgust, “This is reality, Greg.”

Think about that line and what it represents.

Elliott is saying, “Greg you fucking idiot! When an extraterrestrial lands in your backyard, you develop a psychic empathic link with him, you help him phone home to be reunited with his people, and when you suffer the pain of losing him and experience the joy of his resurrection, that is more real than what is arguably one of the most beloved sci-fi franchises in entertainment history namely Star Trek. This is reality you idiot imbecile moron Greg!”

And we as the audience agree completely. While the scenario is pure fantasy, the emotional roller coaster that Spielberg has taken us on is completely 100% real. We have developed a psychic empathic link with the characters in the film. We feel what they feel. We experience on a very personal level what they experience.

That is the true power of cinema when wielded by a master like Steven Spielberg. From the terror of “Jaws”, to the wonder of “Close Encounters”, to the heartfelt emotions in “ET”, to the horrors of World War II in “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List” Spielberg is all about creating that magic reality that he first experienced as a young boy the first time he went to the movies.

In the final three completely fictional films we discuss this week, one of which was directed and co-written by Spielberg, we are taken on a journey that feels completely real.

First of all, we have Spielberg’s own semi-autobiographical family drama “The Fabelmans”. In outline form, the film exactly parallels Spielberg’s own early life. Young Sammy Fabelman is taken to see his first film, “The Greatest Show on Earth” and he similarly begins his career as an amateur filmmaker.

In an online discussion, I heard someone explain, “I’m not going to see the film. I don’t want to sit through two hours of self-indulgent, sentimental schmaltz explaining how Spielberg got to be the master filmmaker he became.” While I had no reservations that the film would be such a thing, let me reassure you that that critic was 100% wrong.

Instead, we get a deeply personal and somewhat tragic family drama as teenage Sammy, played by Gabriel LaBelle, uncovers a terrible secret about his mother who struggles with mental illness. While on a camping trip, he films something he had never noticed before. Upon reviewing the footage he is shocked at what he uncovered. It nearly destroyed his relationship with his mother. When she finally pleads with him to explain why he has turned against her, he shows her the footage of what he discovered.

The incident also nearly destroyed his passion for filmmaking. His camera saw things he didn’t want to see. His camera revealed a hidden reality that was quite disturbing.

Along the way, the family is also torn apart by his father who uproots the family twice to move to a new city because he is offered better job opportunities as a computer engineer.
Sammy’s stress level peaks after the last move which gets him out of the comfort he has experienced in Hebrew school and thrusts him into a public high school where he is confronted with terrifying and dangerous anti-Semitism.

There is nothing heroic or self-aggrandizing about this intimate portrait of a family in turmoil.

By the way, I was expecting lots of little Easter eggs where some event in his life would go on to inspire his future films. While he did make a very dramatic war film and a sci-fi film, there aren’t any blatant references to his future work that I noticed.

In addition to its Best Picture nomination, it won the Golden Globe for Best Drama. Spielberg is nominated for original screenplay and director. He won the Globe for directing and was nominated for a Globe for the screenplay.

A total of 7 Oscar nominations include Michelle Williams as the lead actress playing the mother, Judd Hirsch as the supporting actor in a memorable yet brief role as an uncle, and John Williams for the musical score naturally.

SAG nominations were earned for the ensemble cast, Paul Dano for his portrayal of the father. Michelle Williams earned the Actress – Drama Golden Globe.

While it’s not action-packed like Spielberg’s blockbusters nor is it as poignant or tragic as “Private Ryan” or “Schindler” it is still a highly compelling, realistic, and moving film that I highly recommend.

With an estimated budget of $40 million and a worldwide gross so far of just over $31 million, it is far from a hit. It is still available to see in the theater and is available for purchase as a digital download from Amazon.

Our second film this week, “Tár” starring Cate Blanchett in what I believe it’s the best actress performance of the year. Unfortunately, the film has only earned $13.4 million on an estimated budget of $30 million. It is currently streaming on Peacock.

Blanchette plays Lydia Tár, the conductor and music director of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra – one of the most prestigious postings one can have in her field.

While a couple of the films we reviewed in this series wait until the end to bring out the memorable portions, near the beginning of the film we start off with a spellbinding sequence of scenes that paints a detailed portrait of the title character. She is interviewed for “The New Yorker” in front of a live audience in a sort of James Lipton style. Throughout that interview that runs nearly 12 minutes of screen time, you completely forget that you are watching an actress playing a role. You easily become convinced you’re watching a real interview with an accomplished classical conductor and composer. The effect is absolutely stunning.

The realism continues in the next extended scene in which she has lunch with another conductor who is desperately trying to pick her brain about an amazing performance of hers that he witnessed. She insists that rather than mimic her techniques he needs to find his own way but throws him a morsel of advice.

Then at the 25-minute mark of the film, we are treated to the most realistic and compelling performance I’ve seen in years… perhaps ever. She is guest teaching a class in conducting at Julliard. A young violinist and conducting student named Max explains to her “I’m not really into Bach.”

She’s stunned and asks, “Have you ever played or conducted Bach?”

He replies, “Honestly, as a BIPOC, pangender person, I would say Bach’s misogynistic life makes it kind of impossible for me to take his music seriously.”

“Come on, what do, what do, what do you mean by that?”

“Well, didn’t he sire, like, 20 kids?”

“Yes, that’s documented. Along with a considerable amount of music.”

Throughout the remainder of the scene, she passionately illustrates the magnificence of Bach while deconstructing his politically correct fueled argument. She explains to him, “ If Bach’s talent can be reduced to his gender, birth country, religion, sexuality, and so on, then so can yours.” She then reminds him that members of the orchestra rate their conductors and she asks, “Now, what kind of criteria would you hope that they use to do this? Your score reading and stick technique, or something else?”

It is a brilliant argument for separating the art from the artist. This discussion is timely considering the controversy currently raging online regarding JK Rowling, her toxic anti-trans views, and the attempts to boycott and cancel the entire Harry Potter franchise.

One of the amazing things about this scene is that it lasts a full 10 minutes and is one continuous steady cam shot that follows her around the room. There is no opportunity for the typical long-take tricks such as masking a cut as you walk through a doorway or a whip pan that blurs the transition between takes. It is 100% certain that what you are witnessing is a single continuous 10-minute take.

While many films have used such techniques to heighten the realism of a scene, and this one certainly does so, there is another reason the director ensures that we witness the scene exactly as it happens. I won’t spoil that reason.

While this hyperrealism only lasts the first 35 minutes of the 2 hours 37 minutes, the rest of the story still feels real and true.

The next section of the film covers her preparations to produce a live recording of Gustav Mahler’s iconic 5th Symphony. During those preparations, she learns that a former student who accused her of having a manipulative inappropriate sexual relationship committed suicide. This thrusts her into a rampant scandal.

From there onward, her career, and relationship with her wife and young daughter slips into a downward spiral that completely tears her life apart.

In my as-yet-unsuccessful attempts to publish my own fiction, I learned that one of the axioms of the trade is “show, don’t tell”– a skill I have in no way mastered. What that means is, don’t use exposition to tell us what a person is thinking or feeling or what events mean to them. Rather, write a scene that illustrates these things. The remainder of the film, especially near the ending, is a master class of showing rather than telling. So much so, that there are huge gaps in the plot. I’m not talking about plot holes in the traditional sense of the phrase which is that there are inconsistencies in the plot. Rather I mean that events of the story are completely skipped and we are only shown her reaction to these events and the consequences of them.

In many instances, we never learn “what really happened.” But it doesn’t matter. The story is not about the events. The story is about the huge cost that those events impose upon her.
The film earned six Oscar nominations including Best Actress for Blanchette and I will be disappointed if she doesn’t win. She has already won the Actress – Drama Golden Globe for her performance and is nominated for an individual SAG award. Todd Field is nominated for directing and for his original screenplay. It is also nominated for cinematography and film editing the latter of which I find ironic because the most memorable scene is an unedited 10-minute take.

If you are a Peacock TV subscriber, please watch at least the first 35 minutes of this film. You’re in for a real acting master class and will learn a little bit about classical music along the way. If you can tough it out through her chaotic downward spiral, you will be treated to an especially delicious ending. Just don’t let the holes in the narrative bother you. What happened, isn’t important in this film.

We conclude our journey of 10 Best Picture nominees with “Women Talking”. It is probably the least seen of the 10 films released only in the US and Canada with a gross of just $3.7 million. It is currently only available in theaters.

Based on the novel by Miriam Toews which is in turn inspired by actual events, women in a Mennonite religious farming colony were drugged and raped repeatedly by the men of their community.
The facts behind the true story are that over a period of four years 130 women and children aged 3 to 60 in the colony were drugged with cow tranquilizer and raped. Although many of them became pregnant, the men insisted that they had either imagined the assaults or they occurred by ghosts or demons. When two of the men were caught in the act, the men were punished internally by the community but were eventually turned over to the police and after two years 7 of the 8 accused were convicted, and a ninth evaded capture.

There is no claim that the events depicted in the novel or the film are anywhere close to what actually occurred. Just that the premise is inspired by the actual facts. At the beginning of the film, there is a pop-up message saying, “What follows is an act of female imagination.” While that parallels the excuse that the women were gaslighted into believing that they had imagined the attacks, what it says to me is that writer-director Sarah Polley is depicting what she wishes had happened. Whether the story is factually accurate or not, it realistically depicts the dilemma that the women in the situation faced.

In the film, while the men are away in a nearby town trying to bail out the eight men responsible for the rapes, the women gather to decide what to do. They vote on three options: stay and do nothing, stay and fight, or leave. An initial vote is a tie between stay and fight or leave. So a group of about 10 of them gather in the hayloft of a barn to debate their options.
They are assisted by a trusted sympathetic young man from the colony named Austin played by Ben Whishaw. His job is to take the minutes of the meeting because none of the women can read or write.

The ensemble cast is led by Rooney Mara, Claire Foy, Sheila McCarthy, and Judith Ivey, and a brief appearance by Francis McDormand. All of them give phenomenal performances but I was most impressed by the younger members of the cast Liv McNeil, Kate Hallett, and Michelle McLeod. While much of the time the children remain in the background as the adult women deliberate, there are moments where these youngsters hold their own against their more experienced cast members in very dramatic moments.

The problem these women face is that their faith dictates that their participation in the colony is the pathway to salvation. To leave the community to which they’re dedicated is to risk their soul. They also preach a message of pacifism and forgiveness. Any violence they commit even in their own defense as well as any lack of forgiveness is contrary to their core values.

Although the women have lived their entire lives isolated in the colony and are illiterate, they know Scripture and the tenets of their faith deeply. They argue eloquently over the deep theological and moral questions they are facing. At times I found myself hearing the voice of the modern author rather than these seemingly unsophisticated women. But again on further reflection, their arguments are not based on any modern feminist ideology but are rooted deeply in the theological tenets of their faith. It is completely credible that they are well-versed in those principles.

Had you not known the true story behind the events, you would not know the time or place of the film until about a third of the way through when a man driving a pickup truck drives through the community with a loudspeaker blaring music and asking residents to come out and be counted for the 2010 census. The actual events occurred from 2005 to 2009 in Bolivia.

I cannot begin to imagine how someone who had experienced domestic abuse or sexual assault would feel about the film. As a man who has never experienced such horrors personally, naturally, I entered the story through the eyes of Austin who takes the minutes of the meeting. Like Austin, I know what it’s like to feel powerless to be helpful to women who have experienced such horror. You can see his anguish as he wants to help the women yet he knows that ultimately it is their decision to make and he has no input. When he does on rare occasions venture to make a comment, some of the women harshly admonish him to stay out of it. Then on another occasion, when he is directly asked for input he defers saying, “I don’t matter in this discussion.”

One of the women replies, “Imagine your entire life was like that where nothing that you thought or felt matters anywhere anytime.”

That is just one of dozens of poignant and heart-wrenching moments in the film.

If I were to apply my typical plot critique the likes of which I like to impose upon a sci-fi or fantasy film, the story itself doesn’t hold up at all. It is too convenient that all of the men except one sympathetic one with the skills that they need would leave the colony for more than a day giving them the freedom to debate their own fate. Similarly, once the decision is made (and I won’t spoil what decision it was) we see nothing of what happens afterward and any speculation that we have about what happened leads to so many unanswered questions that it could spoil your experience.

Ultimately, the story is not about the facts of the situation, what led up to the meeting, and what happened afterward. As the title suggests, it’s only about women talking. Talking about taking control of their own lives, staying true to their values and beliefs, and protecting themselves and their children both physically and spiritually. So you can’t judge it for its plot holes.

While it can be difficult to watch at times, it succeeds in creating that ET-like connection between the audience and the characters. We feel what they feel. We struggle along with them. There are even a few lighthearted moments that break the tension and they come as much of a relief to us as they do to the women in the story. Although not my favorite, if it wins I will not be disappointed.

So, that concludes my look at the 10 Best Picture Nominees for this year. Although I had some problems with four of them, in the end, I think they all were probably worthy of their nominations. Even those that I found problematic had some extraordinary performances.

Each of these 10 films succeeds on some level in creating that ET-like empathic link between the characters and us as the audience. While the plot, premise, or setting of these films might be completely unrealistic, the way they make us feel is totally real. And that’s what movies are all about.

I’m sorry I haven’t had the time to see any of the other films that earned acting Oscar nominations but were not in the 10 best picture list. When I get a chance, I will try to watch those films and perhaps do a bonus episode after the Oscars.

Here is a brief recap counting down from the film I liked least to the one I liked best. That’s not necessarily me making odds on which films are most likely to win.

10. “All Quiet on the Western Front” – A brutally realistic depiction of the hopelessness and futility of war. Perhaps it was too real for my taste.

9. “Triangle of Sadness” – Even if we take the story as three distinct loosely related narratives rather than a continuous story, the first third seemed pointless, the middle third has some memorable gross, funny scenes, but only the last third made me feel the extent to which indulgent, arrogant, rich people abuse and demean everyday workers.

8. “The Banshees of Iniserin” – People I respect say this was their favorite film of the year and I don’t deny is a quality piece of filmmaking. The performances are top-notch and worthy of their nominations. We cannot help but feel connected to the characters’ emotions. However, the premise just doesn’t work for me. I never understood why these two people were friends in the first place or if they were, why everything changed so suddenly. I tried unsuccessfully to apply the same logic I applied to “Tár” and “Women Talking” by saying, “It’s not about why these former friends feuded… it’s just about the consequences of their feud.” I just couldn’t make that leap. The argument that it is a metaphor for the Irish Civil War doesn’t save it. Give the actors their Oscars and if you have to maybe the screenplay, cinematography, and directing but this is not the Best Picture.

7. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” – With Golden Globe wins, the most Oscar nominations of any film this year, and hundreds of other nominations I still feel this is much ado about nothing. It had a few funny memorable moments and the acting was notable although not up to the level of Banshees. I again feel that for this type of over-the-top, quirky action comedy I liked “Bullet Train” much better. I never did feel anything for the characters until the last few minutes of the film and by then I really didn’t care that much anyway.

6. “Tár” – the first 35 minutes of the film gave me the most memorable acting performance of the year and I will be severely disappointed if Cate Blanchett doesn’t win. This performance will stick with me for a long time but overall the film will not.

5. “Women Talking” – The screenplay and performances in this film as well as the topic inspire part of me to wish this would win Best Picture. If there is a dark horse in the bunch this is it. It is in no way an enjoyable experience but it is compelling and real despite the plot problems previously discussed. You should see this film but don’t plan on liking it.

4. “The Fabelmans” – Spielberg on Spielberg… Of course I loved it. It’s not ET, Jaws, or Schindler but it’s still quality filmmaking by the master.

3. “Top Gun: Maverick” – Objectively this should not have gotten a Best Picture nomination. It ranks here only because of how much fun I had watching it. If you are talking Oscar-worthy filmmaking it doesn’t make the top 10.

2. “Elvis” – A beautifully crafted biopic of a legendary performer. Memorable performances all around. If it’s not going to be Avatar on top, this was my favorite of the year. While I didn’t feel significantly emotionally attached to the characters, I feel like I was realistically a witness to history.

1. “Avatar: The Way of the Water” – Desperately trying to find some objectivity in this film that I love so much subjectively, you cannot deny it is a phenomenal achievement in filmmaking. It is three hours of eye candy, and action, and the story is better than the original Avatar. I not only felt totally immersed in this alien world, I cared about the characters. It checks all my boxes and remains my favorite.

That’s the order in which I liked the films. If I had to rank them as Oscar-worthiness I would still go with “Avatar” first followed by “Women Talking”, “Elvis”, “Fabelmans”, “Banshees”, and “Tár” and I won’t bother to rank the rest.

That’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

In our next episode, we will continue the story of my faith journey. When we last visited the topic, I was 19 years old and had just left the Catholic Church. After we explore that topic for a few episodes, we will return to the disability issue with the history of my experiences in special education. I’m also looking for some interview opportunities that we might throw in along the way.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode #9 “Oscar vs Western Union” (2nd in a series of 3)

This week we continue our three-part series where I review all 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. We will cover 3 films this week – “The Banshees of Iniserin”, “All Quiet on the Western Front”, and “Triangle of Sadness”. Apologies for butchering the pronunciation of names and places in this episode. Next week we will wrap up with the final three films. NOTE: Next week’s public episode will come out Sunday morning March 12 prior to the Oscar presentations that night.

Links related to this episode

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife

Where to listen to this podcast: https://anchor.fm/contemplatinglife

YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 9 of Contemplating Life.

This week we continue our look at the Oscar-nominated films for this year. Last week we looked at big-budget blockbusters and genre films that in times past had been overlooked until the Best Picture category was extended from 5 to 10 films.

Last week’s episode was pretty long because it covered 4 of the 10 nominated films–the last of which I didn’t care for even though I tried to. This week we will look at three more films that I found problematic. Next week we will talk about the remaining three films all of which I found to be absolutely amazing. So I apologize that this week will be a bit of a downer but we are going to finish strong next week I promise.

Minor spoilers are included in these reviews. I just can’t tell you what I didn’t like about the films without giving away some details.

There is an old Hollywood adage sometimes attributed to Samuel Goldwyn and also attributed to him many others that goes, “If you have a message, call Western Union.” It reflects the attitude of studio executives that they are there to make movies that entertain and not promote an agenda. That attitude however is old-school Hollywood. Today many films tackle important social justice issues and promote particular political and social agendas. For better or worse, Oscar seems to prefer films that have something to say even if the films are not popular.

This week we will discuss a character-driven film that attempts to be an allegory for a political conflict that tore apart a country that had just gained its independence, a brutal look at the pointless inhumanity of war, and a reflection on the arrogance of the ultrarich as they look down upon those serving them.

There are times when you see an advertisement for a film in October or November and you say to yourself, “It must be Oscar season.” When you see top-notch British or Irish actors, picturesque scenery, and dramatic cinematography, your expectations are automatically raised. Before it is even released, the trailer implies “For your consideration”. Such was the case with “The Banshees of Iniserin”.

This film reunites writer/director Martin McDonagh with Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleason who previously had success with their 2008 film “In Bruges”. Their new collaboration is a very dark dramedy set on the fictitious island of Iniserin off the west coast of Ireland in 1923 near the end of the Irish Civil War.

Farrell portrays Pádraic Súilleabháin who along with his sister Siobhán, played by Kerry Condon, runs a small dairy farm. When not attending to his animals, especially a beloved miniature donkey Jenny, he spends his time at the local pub hanging out with his longtime friend Colm Doherty played by Gleason. Colm, a folk musician who dreams of writing music that will be remembered after he is gone, inexplicably decides to push Pádraic out of his life. His only explanation is that he finds his former friend to be a boring, pointless, waste of his time.

He concludes that life is short and he needs to focus on composing music. Later in the film, he finishes his masterwork which he titles “The Banshees of Iniserin”. A banshee is a mythical female spirit in Irish folklore that heralds the death of a family member. Colm notes that there are no banshees on the island but he called it that anyway. There is an old woman on the island who predicts death is coming for one or more of the island’s inhabitants.

Pádraic spends the entire film trying to understand why his friend has turned against him and trying to reconcile their disagreement. Colm is so adamant that he be left alone that he threatens to cut off one of his own fingers if Pádraic doesn’t comply. He eventually makes good on the threat even though it severely restricts his ability to play his fiddle.

Both Pádraic and the audience speculate endlessly about why he would take such drastic action. One wonders perhaps if he is dying of some disease and wants to soften the loss of his friend.

I found mildly interesting Pádraic’s futile attempts to understand the feud and to deal with the blow to his self-esteem over being dubbed for boring. Also somewhat entertaining is his relationship with his sister with whom he constantly bickers over his need to have his pet donkey in the house as a comfort animal. She is in a never-ending struggle to keep him out of trouble especially when he goes on a drunken binge.

My favorite character is Dominic, played by Barry Keoghan. He is the somewhat dimwitted son of the local constable. Dominic attempts to befriend and comfort Pádraic while unsuccessfully trying to form a relationship with Siobhan who is much older than him.

Farrell is nominated as Lead Actor and has already won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical for this performance. Gleason, Condon, and Keoghan have all received Supporting Actor Oscar and Golden Globe nominations and individual SAG nominations as well as a SAG nomination for Ensemble Cast. Again it’s sad to see actors competing for the same award from the same film because fans of the film will split their votes. In my opinion, Keoghan gives a more memorable performance but Gleason probably has a better chance because he is a bigger name. We look forward to seeing Keoghan who is unofficially speculated to portray Joker opposite Robert Pattinson in the next Batman film. Also, Farrell is likely to reprise his role as Penguin in that film currently slated for October 2025.

“Banshees” won the Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical. Martin McDonagh is nominated as director and for his original screenplay. The screenplay earned him a Golden Globe win. It is also nominated for film editing but I’m no judge for a category like that.

With an estimated budget of $20 million and a worldwide gross of nearly $38 million, the film did okay for its type. It is currently showing on HBO and HBOMax.

Overall I thought the performances were all worthy of their nominations but the film itself fell flat for me. It takes place against the background of the Irish Civil War which was a war between various factions that had just won Irish independence from the UK. One supposes that the point of the film was that the pointless and self-destructive feud between the former friends is a metaphor for the Civil War which was being fought between people who had recently bonded together against a common enemy. Yet that metaphor does little or nothing to enlighten us about the real conflict it is supposed to represent except to highlight the futility of war and the ridiculousness of war between people who should have something in common to begin with. Not being very well versed in 1923 Irish history, I wouldn’t have understood the backdrop had I not done some research.

If you want an example of the pointlessness of war, a much more graphic example is “All Quiet on the Western Front”. In addition to its Best Picture Oscar nomination, this German film is also nominated for Best Foreign Film. It is a remake of the Oscar-winning Best Picture from 1930. There was also a made-for-TV Hallmark Hall of Fame version in 1979. Although I have not seen either of the earlier versions, I’m certain that the brutality of World War I is more graphically portrayed than either of the other two versions. I watched the current version on Netflix dubbed in English. All three versions are based on the 1929 novel of the same name by Erich Maria Remarque. One reviewer said that the current version deviated significantly and negatively from the original novel (especially the ending) however having not read it, I can’t comment on that.

It follows the story of a group of 17-year-old German kids who enthusiastically signed up to fight for the Fatherland in World War I. They expect to be marching into Paris triumphantly in a matter of months. Those fantasies are destroyed when they face the brutality of trench warfare. Throughout much of the war, both sides suffered horrendous losses taking and then losing the same pieces of ground over and over again with the battle lines never advancing very far in either direction.

At one point, the film skips forward in time two years to the point where Germany has effectively lost the war. They are trying to sue for peace and stop the carnage. The Kaiser has abdicated and a provisional government is attempting to end the war. The allies, led by France, will accept nothing less than total surrender. We see them refuse to agree to a cease-fire while the final negotiations are underway.

Throughout much of the film, my impression was that it was showing me nothing I hadn’t already seen in the Oscar-nominated 2019 film “1917”. I felt that “All Quiet” didn’t give me much opportunity to get to know the characters well. Then again, perhaps part of the point was that they were meaningless cogs in a heartless war machine.

Only as the war is drawing to a close and the prospect of peace is imminent did I begin to feel anything for the characters as they reunite and begin to reflect on what life will be like when they return home. I preferred 1917 and the difference between the films is this film is completely devoid of hope. Although 1917 was a brutal depiction of a terrible war, it depicts two heroes who are on a mission to deliver a message that will save 1600 lives from walking into an ambush. In this film, there is no sense of purpose. There is no heroism except the quest to keep you and the man next to you alive and to collect dog tags from the dead to bring some closure to their families. It is a totally heartless, meaningless quest for honor and glory that can never be achieved. The ending provides a brutal exclamation point to the entire story that leaves you drained. Your only relief is that the film is over, the real war was over a century ago, and you are left with the sad knowledge that the so-called “war to end all wars” did no such thing.

It has received 9 Oscar nominations including cinematography, makeup and hair, production design, visual effects, adapted screenplay, score, and sound as well as a Golden Globe nomination for foreign film. The special effects, stunts, and production values are amazing given its budget of about $1.2 million. Its estimated worldwide gross was just over $3 million. I think it would highlight the irony of the words “all quiet” in the title if it were to receive the Oscar for sound.

While it is probably worthy of all of those nominations, I cannot recommend the film on any basis. Go watch “1917” instead.

Finally this week, we come to the film “Triangle of Sadness”. It’s another film with a big statement to make. This is an exploration of the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Our main characters are Carl, a young attractive male model played by Harris Dickinson, and his girlfriend Yaya, a model and Instagram influencer played by Charlbi Dean. Tragically, in real life, Dean died of a lung infection shortly after filming. Her condition was reported to be complicated by the loss of her spleen in a previous auto accident.

During an early scene, Carl is at a modeling audition and the casting director tells him, “relax your triangle of sadness – the area above your nose and between your eyebrows.” We have to conclude, however, that there is a double meaning to the title. The film is divided into three distinct parts each of which could be described as constituting a triangle of sadness.

Part 1 is titled “Carl and Yaya” which focuses entirely on their relationship. They could be described as a “friends with benefits” situation although Carl tries to convince her that there is something more between them. At dinner, they engage in a ridiculous debate over who should pay for the meal. He ends up paying even though female models make three times as much as their male counterparts. While we get some wider insights into the fashion and Instagram influencer business, and we know that we are getting to know the major characters in a way that is presumably going to pay off down the road, in my opinion, the first third of the movie is completely pointless. Everything that we gain from this exercise could be learned in a five-minute scene. We get the impression that this is going to be all about the fashion industry. Yet by the end of their segment, that theme pretty much disappears. All we have done is establish that this is a couple of self-absorbed young people riding the benefits of their fame.

In discussing the film online with someone who liked it, I asked what they thought of this first third which I found pointless. They said I should view the film as three short stories loosely connected rather than a continuous piece. I suppose as a standalone vignette it isn’t that bad but it seems seriously disconnected from the rest of the film even though the characters appear in the other two segments.

Part 2 is titled “The Cruise”. We find the young couple on a small cruise ship with what appears to be perhaps 50 passengers at most. They were given free tickets as part of their role as influencers. Yaya is constantly posting photos on Instagram using Carl almost as a prop to promote her brand.

Along the way, we meet a cast of strange characters. There is a Russian businessman who made a fortune selling animal manure as fertilizer. He is accompanied by his wife. Another rich businessman and his wife made their fortune selling hand grenades. There is a lone businessman whose partner did not accompany him on the cruise and he tries to pick up various women who seem to give him attention only to make fun of him. There is a woman in a wheelchair who is unable to speak because of a stroke but who is fully aware of everything around her. She is accompanied by her husband.

The cruise director Ms. Paula is seen prepping the staff for the guests by admonishing them that no matter what the guests want, the answer is always yes. Throughout the cruise, there are several instances where we see that the staff is totally at the mercy of the whims of the rich passengers. A minor complaint by Carl costs one crew member his job. Another passenger has to be placated because she believes the sails are dirty even though this is not a sailboat.

Ms. Paula also has to contend with the captain played by Woody Harrelson who is content to remain in his cabin inebriated rather than fulfill any of his duties.

At one point, the Russian’s wife insists that the staff be given an hour off to go swimming even though it will disrupt everything aboard the ship. Her rich husband threatens to purchase the boat if his wife’s demands are not met.

That night, they manage to get the captain presentable in his uniform for the captain’s dinner with the most important guests. The ship encounters rough weather and is tossed violently. Combined with the delays in food preparation because of the mandatory swimming party, nearly all of the guests get violently seasick. The extremely graphic scene depicting seasickness looks like something out of a Monty Python sketch. The situation deteriorates further when toilets begin overflowing around the ship.

Meanwhile, the socialist captain who is embarrassed by his own wealth engages in a political debate with the Russian capitalist. They get drunk, lock themselves in the captain’s office, and begin spouting political propaganda and joke announcements that the ship is sinking causing panic among the frightened passengers and overwhelmed crew. In an attempt to shut down the PA system, Ms. Paula accidentally causes a shipwide blackout only further complicating the situation.

One reviewer said that this grotesque scene resulted in more people leaving the theater in the middle of a movie than they had ever seen before. Although I found the debates between the drunken Captain and a Russian businessman entertaining and I couldn’t help laughing at all of the grotesque projectile vomiting and people slipping and sliding in sewage from overflowed toilets, I found particularly disturbing the scene of the husband frantically trying to lift his disabled wife into a wheelchair and get her life vest onto her believing that the ship really was sinking. The genuine looks of panic and despair on them and the other passengers were in no way funny.

The next morning, the ship is attacked by pirates and although we don’t see the details, there is a long shot of an explosion on the ship. We then cut to Part 3 “The Island”.

Only seven passengers and crew wash up on the beach of an island in inflatable life rafts. They are Carl, Yaya, the Russian, the lonely businessman, the paralyzed woman, the cruise director, and a man who claims to be part of the engine room crew but is likely one of the pirate hijackers. The next morning a large enclosed lifeboat washes up on shore containing a fortysomething-year-old Asian woman named Abigail whose job aboard the yacht was to clean toilets.

She is now in charge of the enclosed lifeboat containing a cache of supplies. She is able to catch an octopus, clean it, start a fire, and prepare a meal. In the most memorable scene of the film, she divides food giving herself half of it and forcing the other seven castaways to split the other half. Ms. Paula tries to remind her they are both employees of a shipping company and responsible for the safety of the survivors. “You work for me. You clean toilets,” she tells Abigail. Abigail responds in broken English, “Where is yacht? We not on yacht. On yacht, I clean toilets. Here I am captain.” She then insists each of the survivors acknowledge her as captain and when they do, she tosses them a morsel of food in the way you would give a treat to an obedient dog.

From this point forward, we get a serious reflection on the way arrogant rich people treat underlings as their roles are now brutally reversed. Abigail establishes a dictatorial matriarchy in which she bends all of the survivors to her will.

Dolly De Leon who plays Abigail did not receive any Oscar nomination however she has received numerous other supporting actress nominations for the role including BAFTA and Golden Globe nominations. She is the first Filipino actor to be nominated for a Golden Globe and I believe it is much deserved. I would’ve rather seen her get a Supporting Actress Oscar nomination than Jamie Lee Curtis this year.

In addition to the Best Picture nomination, Ruben Östlund was also nominated for directing and his original screenplay. It was nominated for Golden Globe Best Comedy or Musical and was honored with the prestigious Palme d’Or at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival. I found it ironic that a film that mocks and ridicules the elite rich would win the top prize at Cannes which is attended by the upper crust of high society.

With an estimated budget of just over $10 million and a worldwide gross of over $23 million, it is a good success. It is still available in theaters or for purchase or rent as a digital download from Amazon.

With a run time of over 2 hours and 20 minutes, it is way too long. As previously stated, the first section seemed pointless and superfluous to me. The in-depth look at Caarl and Yaya seems to be a big waste of time and could cause one to lose interest completely before we get to the meat of the story. I liked it a little better than “Everything Everywhere All at Once” that I reviewed last week, but like that film, it seemed to me that we had to wait a long time for a payoff at the end of the movie. And speaking of the ending, it is decidedly ambiguous and I found it as unsatisfying as the end of “Banshees”.

I’m all in favor of there being a point to a film. Having an agenda or a message does not mean you cannot have an entertaining film. Unfortunately, like the metaphor of “Banshees” and the antiwar sentiments of “All Quiet” this film’s commentary on the social and economic divides between the filthy rich and ordinary people doesn’t offer much beyond its poorly executed message.

Despite memorable moments, overall I didn’t care for it. I recommend that you wait for streaming or cable and skip the first section completely and fast-forward through anything else that bores you. Meanwhile, if you want a film that is a commentary about the arrogant rich and has shocking surprises, I recommend “The Menu” currently available on HBO and HBOMax. Although it did not receive any Oscar nominations, it has earned many other nominations including Golden Globe nominations for lead actors Ralph Fiennes and Anya Taylor-Joy.

That’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

In our next episode, we will conclude our look at Oscar-nominated films with three amazing films that I believe are perhaps the most Oscar-worthy of the bunch this year. Note that new episodes of this podcast usually premier at midnight Monday mornings, however, the Oscars will be presented Sunday night before that. So the public release of this next episode will be moved up to Sunday morning March 12 prior to the Oscar ceremony.

If you want to get episodes early or if you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. In addition to early access to the podcast, you will be eligible for any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode #8 “Oscar Embraces Blockbusters” (1st of a 3-part series)

When I began the podcast, I mentioned that one of the topics I was going to cover was entertainment. This week we began a three-part series where I review all 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. We will cover 4 films this week and three films each of the next two weeks. We start with “Avatar: Way of the Water”, “Top Gun: Maverick”, “Elvis”, and “Everything Everywhere All at Once”.

Links related to this episode

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife

Where to listen to this podcast: https://anchor.fm/contemplatinglife

Playlist of previous episodes on YouTube: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hello, this is Chris Young, and welcome to a special episode of Contemplating Life – Oscar Edition.

When I started this podcast, I said I would cover various topics, including entertainment. I’m a huge movie fan and I am very much addicted to television. This is very much in line with the overall theme of the podcast. The silver screen not only reflects the image from the projector, but it is also a mirror that we hold up to ourselves as we reflect on the human condition, human emotions, and the issues that shape our lives. Entertainment media is another way of Contemplating Life.

Today I’m going to begin a three-part series where I give you my thoughts on all 10 of the films nominated for Best Picture Oscar which will be presented Sunday March 12, and shown on ABC. I will also throw in my comments about any acting or other awards for these films. I will probably not get into anything nominations for films that are not among these 10 Best Picture candidates. I will also mention Golden Globe nominations and winners which were already presented on January 10th and can be replayed on Peacock TV. I will also mention nominations for the upcoming Screen Actors Guild or SAG awards Which can be seen on February 26 on Netflix’s YouTube channel for free with no Netflix subscription required.

There will be minor spoilers, especially on the films I didn’t enjoy. I hate to spoil but I want to explain what I didn’t like about them.

In times past, Oscar seemed to focus on small independent prestigious films bypassing most highly popular films. But beginning in 2009, they expanded the Best Picture category from 5 to as many as 10 films giving the opportunity to recognize a broader range of films including big-budget blockbusters. We will start with 4 of those highly popular movies this week and in the following two weeks, we will cover 3 movies each. Apologies that this episode is going to be a bit long.

We begin with the long-awaited “Avatar: The Way of Water”. I’m going to be honest upfront that I will not be very objective about this film. I am a huge fan of CGI effects. Years ago I co-authored a book about computer graphics. And ever since I got one of those little toy View-Master 3D devices for Christmas when I was about 7 or 8 years old, I have been addicted to 3D.

I saw the original “Avatar” in theaters at least 6 times in IMAX 3D including when it was re-released a few months ago in anticipation of the sequel. I’ve also seen the original several times on Blu-ray including 3D Blu-ray on my 3D TV. I didn’t care that people dubbed it a remake of “Dances with Wolves” in outer space because I never saw that film. And so what if it wasn’t the most original plot? James Cameron has always been known for ripping off other people’s work. The original “Avatar” was clearly the most visually stunning film of my lifetime. Like most fans, I anxiously awaited for 13 years to revisit the alien moon, Pandora.

In one sentence… It was worth the wait.

Once again we become totally immersed in this alien world. Even someone like me who deeply appreciates the technical achievement found himself forgetting that these were CGI characters.
Initially, I was worried that the reviews I read of Avatar 2 talked about how spectacularly beautiful it was but they didn’t say much about the characters or the story. I was pleasantly surprised that from a storytelling point of view, this also exceeded the original.

In this film, set 16 years after the original, we confirm that Jake has successfully left behind his human body and full-time occupies the body of a native Na’vi without the need for technological assistance. He is now the chief of the Omatikaya tribe. He is married to Neytiri and they now have 4 children. Jamie Flatters plays Neteyam, their son age 16. Britain Dalton plays 14-year-old son Lo’ak who struggles to compete for his father’s approval in the shadow of his more accomplished older brother. Their youngest child an eight-year-old daughter named Tuktirey nicknamed “Tuk” is played by Trinity Jo-Li Bliss. She brings an infectious childhood enthusiasm to the story that has been absent previously. Her CGI image is quite adorable as are the renderings of various Na’vi infants we see in the film.

They also have a 14-year-old adopted Na’vi daughter Kiri who is the offspring of the avatar body of Dr. Grace Augustine, Sigourney Weaver’s character from the original film. Even though Dr. Grace’s human body dies at the end of the original movie, apparently her avatar body was pregnant. It’s a mystery who the father is. Teenager Kiri is also played by Sigourney Weaver through the magic of performance capture and CGI. The family is also accompanied by a teenage boy called Spider played by Jack Champion, a human child who was abandoned when humans were exiled from Pandora.

Their idyllic family life is interrupted when the humans return. Among the humans returning is their old nemesis the vicious hard-nosed Marine Colonel Miles Quartich who died in the first film. His consciousness and memories were downloaded into a backup prior to his death and then uploaded into an avatar body. Many of his squad of badass Marines who were also killed are similarly resurrected as Na’vi. Now that they have powerful alien bodies they are even more dangerous and are hell-bent on chasing down Jake and his family to get revenge.

Jake and his family are forced to flee to a different tribe of Na’vi called the Metkayina who live in and around the water. This refugee family has to try to assimilate into the new community and learn the way of the water. We get memorable performances from Sam Worthington as Jake, Zoe Saldana as Neytiri, and Stephen Lang as Quartich. The Metkayina are led by chief Tonowari played by Cliff Curtis and his wife Ronla played by Kate Winslet. Winslet is unrecognizable in CGI form and brings nothing interesting to the screen. Everyone who was anticipating the Titanic reunion between her and Director James Cameron will be disappointed. Reports are that her character will play a more significant part in promised sequels.

The film must be seen in 3D to be fully appreciated and IMAX 3D is worth the premium price. Don’t wait for this to come to Blu-ray or streaming. It needs to be seen in a theater on a big screen with full digital surround sound. As soon as an opportunity presents itself, I will be going back to see it again in IMAX 3D. If I was voting in the Academy it would get my vote but then again I admit my biases.

It is also nominated for Visual Effects which it had better when hands down, Sound which it should do well although it has competition, and Production Design which blows away the competition. It should be noted that none of the nominations were in acting categories and that’s probably proper. I might have nominated Stephen Lang for Supporting Actor however I doubt we will see any performance capture character get nominated for a major award anytime soon. Andy Serkis has earned nominations and wins of lesser awards for his performance capture performances in the “Lord of the Rings” and “Planet of the Apes” franchises but never an Oscar.

Avatar 2 also received Golden Globe nominations for Best Picture – Drama and director James Cameron but did not win.

As a fan of big-budget sci-fi films, it’s heartening to see the Academy recognize a blockbuster after decades of only recognizing small artsy films that only saw a limited audience. With the budget reported to be $350 million and a worldwide gross of $2.1 billion so far, the Academy is finally recognizing popular films of quality. While movies educate, inspire, and move us to think deeply beyond our own experiences, ultimately they have to work as entertainment as well. Films like Avatar 2 and Top Gun 2 give us popcorn-chewing action while telling compelling stories with memorable characters and they deserve recognition as well.

While we are discussing long-awaited sequels with big budgets and massive box office numbers, we should turn briefly to “Top Gun: Maverick”. It’s been 36 years since we took to the skies with Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell. With an estimated budget of $170 million and a worldwide gross of over $1.4 billion, the Academy is again demonstrating it is no longer afraid to nominate action blockbusters.

When we last left Maverick, he was planning to become an instructor at Top Gun however we learn that only lasted two months. At the start of the film, he is a test pilot of a Mach 10-rated hypersonic aircraft. Naturally, he pushes it to Mach 10.2 and destroys the aircraft.

He then is tapped to train a group of elite Top Gun graduates for a special mission to destroy a rogue nation’s uranium enrichment plant before it goes online. Among the candidates for this extremely dangerous mission is Lt. Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw played by Miles Teller. Rooster is the son of Maverick’s former partner “Goose” who was killed in an accident in the first film. Rooster doesn’t blame Maverick so much for the death of his father as for the way that Maverick has thwarted his career as he tried to follow in his father’s footsteps.

Jennifer Conway plays bar owner Penny Benjamin who serves as the new love interest in the story. While there is a minor amount of chemistry between her and Cruise, it is nowhere near the level of passion we saw between him and Kelly McGillis in the original film. McGillis is mostly retired from acting and although she has played distinguished characters late in life, she no longer has the sex appeal she had as a young woman.

The film is pretty much a wall-to-wall fan service for fans of the original. It delivers lots of action and machismo that we expect from a Top Gun film. We are not at all surprised when Maverick clashes with the brass and gets in deep trouble that costs him his assignment nor are we surprised when he regains the job, proves that the impossible is possible, and saves the day.

We get a memorable brief appearance by Val Kilmer who reprises his role as Tom “Iceman” Kazansky now risen to the rank of admiral. We learn that he has spent years fighting to keep Maverick flying in spite of his usual antics. In real life, Kilmer has been battling throat cancer for many years and can barely speak. His condition is written into the story as his character struggles with the same condition.

At age 60, Cruise can still flash his signature charismatic boyish grin and has no difficulty re-creating the bravado of the character he created over 30 years ago. Teller’s portrayal of Rooster’s animosity towards Maverick comes across as completely credible without being at all cliché. Speaking of Teller, you should also check out his performance in the recent miniseries “The Offer” where he portrays movie producer Albert S. Ruddy recounting his experiences producing “The Godfather”. The 10-episode miniseries on Paramount+ is well worth your time.

While it was nice to revisit this franchise after all these years and I found this experience completely enjoyable and satisfying as a fan of the original, there is nothing new here. I’m glad it was recognized but overall I’m not sure it really deserves its Best Picture nomination. It also earned nominations for Film Editing, Sound, and Visual Effects all of which are worthy of the nomination but none of which are likely to win. Speaking of visual effects, it should be noted that there is minimal use of CGI and green screen in this film. When we see the actors in the cockpit of their aircraft, we are seeing them really flying in the backseat of actual fighter jets. The cast had to undergo special training to endure the G-forces involved. The nominated closing song written by Lady Gaga and BloodPop is nothing special. The song also received a Golden Globe nomination but didn’t win. I may have more to say about Oscar-nominated songs in a later episode. I don’t believe the Adapted Screenplay deserved its nomination.

“Top Gun: Maverick” is still in theaters and available for streaming on Paramount+ and MGM+.

Moving on to “Elvis”. With an estimated budget of $85 million and a worldwide gross of $187 million, it’s not in the same category as Avatar or Top Gun but it still a big hit. I am a fan of director Baz Luhrmann and when I heard he was taking on a biopic about Elvis I was immediately intrigued. And what’s not to like about Tom Hanks who has only made 2 bad movies in his entire career? I heard Hanks interviewed before the movie was released and he described it as “The most Baz Luhrmanny movie Baz Luhrmann ever made.”

I have a strange affection for Luhrmann‘s 1996 “Romeo + Juliet” starring Leonardo DiCaprio and which caused me to fall in love with young Claire Danes. His 2001 “Moulin Rouge” is a guilty pleasure that I enjoy very much despite Ewan McGregor’s horrific singing voice. Finally, “The Great Gatsby” from 2013 had his signature surreal twists that gave me a new appreciation for the classic story.

I was pleasantly surprised that “Elvis”, while it had some surreal Baz Luhrmanny moments, was not as over-the-top as some of his other work. The film does a wonderful job of explaining the roots of Elvis’ musical influences in jazz and gospel having grown up in a black neighborhood. In a world where Elvis impersonators are a dime a dozen (if that much), Austin Butler does a phenomenal job embodying the character without ever becoming a cheesy imitation. He much deserves his nomination. He won the Golden Globe in the drama category and earned a SAG nomination for the performance. The film was nominated for a Globe but did not win.

Much of the story revolves around Elvis’ manager and promoter Colonel Tom Parker brilliantly portrayed by Tom Hanks. The self-proclaimed Colonel was a huckster and a con man who was responsible for much of Elvis’ success but who manipulated and exploited him mercilessly. Many have claimed that Hanks was snubbed by not getting nominated. However, despite heavy layers of makeup effects and a consistent foreign accent, one could not forget that they were watching Tom Hanks. Hanks delivers a memorable character that could have been nominated but I understand why it wasn’t.

Were it not facing stiff competition, this could easily be the Best Picture winner in a different year. With a total of 8 nominations including Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Makeup and Hair, Production Design, and Sound it could come away with multiple trophies deservedly. Let’s call it my third favorite in the Best Picture category.

Given my fandom of the sci-fi/fantasy genre, I was very excited to see all of the accolades for “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” The film received 11 Oscar nominations – the most of any film this year. It also has won 261 awards out of 392 nominations including a best actress Golden Globe for Michelle Yeoh. While not exactly a blockbuster, with an estimated budget of $25 million and a worldwide gross of over $105 million, it was a huge hit. With all of this high praise, I was really anxious to see it. The idea that a sci-fi/fantasy genre film was the odds-on favorite to win multiple major category Oscars really excited me. I was also excited to see a supporting actress nomination for Jamie Lee Curtis.

Although I’ve seen Michelle Yeoh in a number of films dating back to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” in 2000, I didn’t really become a fan until she appeared in the Paramount+ series “Star Trek: Discovery” where she played two different versions of the same character from different parallel universes. In “Everything Everywhere All at Once” she dives headlong into the multiverse portraying multiple versions of the same person.

When I finally was able to see the film I could not have been more disappointed. While I appreciate that it is intended to be a kind of slapstick comedy farce, I found it to be so ridiculous, so difficult to follow, and so pointless that I nearly gave up on watching it multiple times.

While Jamie Lee Curtis plays a mildly entertaining somewhat memorable quirky character, my initial reaction to her performance was that it was nowhere near as memorable as some of her other roles such as her Golden Globe-winning performance in “True Lies” or her nominated performances in the “Halloween” franchise as well as “A Fish Called Wanda”. I wonder if the nomination was simply recognizing her body of work and/or if she just got swept up in the mania over this film. She was nominated for a Golden Globe for this film.

While Michelle Yeoh’s handling of this mixed-up messy story is memorable and deserves the nomination, I never could get into the spirit of the film.

Yeoh plays Evelyn Wang, the owner of a laundromat that is deep in trouble with the IRS. Curtis plays the IRS agent auditing her. On the way to her tax audit, her husband and business partner Waymond suddenly changes his personality. We eventually discover that he is being possessed by an alternate version of himself from a parallel universe known as the Alpha universe. He reveals that an evil force is trying to destroy his universe and all parallel universes. He is convinced that Evelyn is the key to saving the multiverse. Waymond is played by Ke Huy Quan who you may recall from his childhood appearances as Short Round in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” and as Data in “The Goonies”. His performance is quite memorable and definitely worth the nomination.

Evelyn quickly begins to learn the method of jumping between parallel universes which allows her to pick up skills from different versions of herself in a way not unlike how characters in “The Matrix” are able to download new skills into their brain. As we jump between parallel universes, we get to see multiple versions of her character that are way more successful and apparently happier than the milquetoast mundane existence she is currently living.

We establish that in this universe her marriage is in trouble and we see how different choices she might have made lead to vastly different outcomes for the couple either together or apart. She also has a somewhat strained relationship with her lesbian daughter Joy who is played by Stephanie Hsu who also received a Supporting Actress nomination. With her and Jamie Lee Curtis both being nominated for the same category from the same film, fans of the film will split their vote probably ruining chances for either of them although my guess is Hsu has a better chance of winning.

While much of it is slapstick comedy mixed with kung-fu action that is not meant to be taken seriously (for example in one universe everyone has hot dogs for fingers) after a while the stunts become boring or unintelligible through sensory overload and the comedy just isn’t that funny.

If you really like comedic farce laced with phenomenal action sequences I would rather recommend Netflix’s “Bullet Train” starring Brad Pitt than this film. The plot is much more cleverly crafted, the comedy is better, and the action is just as enjoyable.

While I think Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan, and Stephanie Hsu probably deserve their nominations, I cannot recommend the film itself. With its massive momentum from all the other nominations and wins from other organizations, this film is probably the odds-on favorite to win but I for one will be disappointed if it does. Yeoh won Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical Golden Globe and Ke Huy Quan won the Supporting Actor Golden Globe. The ensemble cast has earned a SAG nomination as well as individual SAG nominations for Yeoh, Quan, Hsu, and Curtis.

It’s hard to describe what happens next without getting into spoilers so I apologize for doing so. In the upcoming spoiler, I will explain some of what redeems this mess of a film. If you don’t want to be spoiled, go ahead and stop this podcast and come back next week for reviews of more Oscar-nominated films.

Okay, you were warned. Here’s “what’s really going on” in this film. It turns out that the evil force she is battling is a parallel universe version of her daughter Joy.

Only in the final 15 minutes of the film do we get poignant moments between mother-daughter and husband-wife in which we come to realize that the entire battle that has been going on is really a battle to salvage their relationships. It seems to me like we went through a lot of crap just to get 15 minutes worth of quality acting, storytelling, and memorable moments. At the beginning of the film, we don’t really feel that the mother-daughter relationship was that broken. In the alternate universe, Joy turns evil because she is so disillusioned with her life. Yet we don’t see that same level of disillusionment in the Joy character from our universe. Only in the final scene when Evelyn asked her about her dissatisfaction with her life do we sense that dissatisfaction. It’s almost like Joy didn’t realize how miserable she was until her mother pointed it out to her at that moment. So the climax in which that relationship is finally healed doesn’t pay off. The healing of the husband-wife relationship is not emphasized even though it was set up better to begin with and we feel better about mending that relationship than we do the mother-daughter relationship.

Perhaps others saw something in the film that I did not or they gave more weight to the final 15 minutes of quality performances and poignant themes than did I. Perhaps the critics and Academy voters were willing to overlook the flaws in the payoff that I just described.

That’s just my opinion… I could be wrong. We will see what happens on Oscar night.

As always, I welcome your comments.

In our next episode, we will talk about 3 Oscar-nominated films that are more in line with what we traditionally expect from the Academy Awards. Although they contain quality performances, I had specific problems with all three of them. Don’t worry – in our third episode in the series I will cover the final three Best Picture nominees and films and I loved all of them. They are what quality filmmaking is all about.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode #7 “Another Brick in the Wall” (2nd in a series on faith)

In this week’s episode, we continue a multi-part series about my off-again, on-again relationship with God and the Catholic Church. I’m not trying to evangelize anyone or be a preacher. I’m just here to tell my story which I hope is entertaining and informative.

Links related to this episode:

For more episodes: https://contemplating-life.com/

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife

Where to listen to this podcast: https://anchor.fm/contemplatinglife

Playlist of other episodes on YouTube: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hello, this is Chris Young, and welcome to episode #7 of “Contemplating Life”.

This week we are going to continue our multi-part series on my off-again, on-again relationship with God and the Catholic Church.

Let me reiterate my usual disclaimer when I discuss religion here. When I discuss religion, I’m not specifically trying to evangelize or proselytize anyone. I’m just sharing my views and experiences about faith. I hope that it is entertaining and informative. If by chance, you find it sparks something in your own faith journey that’s fine also.

When we left off last week, my mother was expressing her concerns that I might have to eat meat on Friday because the public schools didn’t follow the Catholic practice of abstinence. However, my recollection is that at some point we did get lots of fish sandwiches and grilled cheese on Friday so it eventually became a nonissue.

The question of the Friday lunch menu was not the only challenge Catholic kids faced going to public school. In 1962, a Supreme Court decision banned mandatory prayer in public schools. As a response to that, well-intentioned Christians developed something called “Weekday Religious Education” to try to put God back in our schools. Of course, they were not allowed to do any religious education on public school property. So they would send some sort of trailer or RV around to different public schools. The kids could be dismissed for one hour per week to go attend Bible classes.

I don’t know how they got the wheelchair kids into the trailer when it came to the special education school but for a brief time, my school did participate in Weekday Religious Education. That is, the Protestant kids did. It was a serious rule that Catholics could not participate in any non-Catholic religious activity. You even had to have special permission to be in the wedding party of a non-Catholic wedding. None of the Catholic parents would allow their kids to attend the program. Even though they claimed it was nondenominational, that was just code for generic Protestant. The whole idea of Catholic kids studying the Bible directly was unacceptable. We had to study the little blue book instead.

The end result was, the Catholic kids faced harassment and criticism for not attending Weekday Religious Education. This sort of harassment was exactly the kind of thing that the Supreme Court was trying to prevent when they outlawed mandatory school prayer. We have the separation of church and state for a reason. The First Commandment forbids us from worshiping other gods. The First Amendment protects us from being forced to violate the First Commandment by providing for total separation of Church and State.

While much of Protestant theology is identical to Catholic theology, the approach to Scripture is extremely different between Bible Belt Fundamentalist Christian denominations and the Catholic approach to Scripture. Even ordinary children’s hymns could be controversial.

I always thought the Catholic version of “Yes, Jesus loves me.” would go, “Jesus loves me this I know. For the Holy Roman Catholic Church, The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and the Baltimore Catechism tells me so.”

Among the other Vatican II reforms, they also admitted that the stories of some of the saints were just legends and were highly unlikely to be based on any historical fact. Among those demoted from historical fact to fairytale legends was my namesake and parish patron St. Christopher.

After First Confession and First Communion, the next sacrament in line was Confirmation. It is an anointing given by the Bishop or Archbishop. I’m not sure at what age it was typical for children to receive this sacrament. Currently, it is generally around 13-16 years of age. I think at the time, it might have been slightly younger than that. Each parish only had Confirmation every two years because they had to wait their turn for the Bishop or Archbishop to come around and confer the sacrament.

My parents had been advised by the doctors that I might not live very long. The doctors were clueless as to the nature of my disability. We will probably devote an entire episode to the question of my diagnosis at some later date. For our purposes, they didn’t think I had long to live and so mom rushed me through all of these childhood sacraments at an early age. She didn’t want to risk waiting two years for the Archbishop to come back around again in case I didn’t last that long.

I’m not sure how well I would have understood the Sacrament of Confirmation had I been given the full round of instructions at the appropriate age. But because I was rushed through at an early age, I was quite clueless as to what it was all about. I was told I would receive the Holy Spirit through anointing on my forehead and that it would make me a “Soldier of Christ.”

Somehow the idea of being a Christian Soldier made me think that I was somehow going to be in opposition to Roman Soldiers as I’d seen in movies. I also noted that the Romans were known to throw Christians to the lions. They had to reassure me that kind of thing didn’t happen anymore. I don’t know at what age I was Confirmed but I think it must’ve been extremely young and may have even been before my First Communion which would have been highly against protocol.

Part of the process of Confirmation is that you take on a confirmation name. Typically kids are told to choose the name of a saint that is meaningful to them. I chose Paul for three reasons: my instructor was Fr. Paul, newly elected Pope Paul VI, and Paul McCartney.

You are supposed to have an adult sponsor to stand up with you at the ceremony during your anointing. I chose my Uncle John, my mother’s sister’s husband. He was my closest male Catholic relative.

I remember we had a party for me at my house after one or both of these sacraments of initiation. I got lots of religious presents such as rosaries, statues, crucifixes, prayer books, and I don’t recall what else. I recall I had two versions of a statue known as Infant Jesus of Prague. It’s a bizarre figure showing a child wearing a royal robe, and a crown, holding a golden globe in one hand and giving some sort of two-finger salute with the other hand. Google it. They sat on my dresser for many years and I had to try to explain to my friends what they were.

In my 30s, I became a catechist who taught the Catholic faith to adults who wanted to become Catholic. I would pick and choose which topics I felt comfortable teaching. I always told the priest, “Don’t make me teach the Sacrament of Confirmation. They messed me up when I had the sacrament too early and even though I’ve studied the bizarre theology behind it, I don’t trust myself to get it right.”

The names of the Sacraments changed during my early years. At first, your sins were forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession because the emphasis was on confessing your sins to God in the presence of the priest. Then they changed it to the Sacrament of Penance. After you confess your sins, the priest gives you a penance. It’s something to do to express your sorrow for your sins and to practice doing better. Traditionally you would get prayers such as a certain number of Our Fathers and a certain number of Hail Marys. Sometimes your penance was designed to make up for what you did. So if you are mean to your kid sister, you had to be nice to her for a whole week. “Really father? A whole week!?”

Calling it “Penance” was theologically questionable because it implied that the point of the exercise was to somehow make up for what we had done wrong. To pay for our sins. Through the sacrifice and death of Jesus, our sins are paid for. There is nothing you yourself can do to bridge the unbridgeable gap between you and God that is created by sin. Only God can do that.

They finally settled on calling it the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This name puts the emphasis on the proper part of the process. You are being reconciled to God. There is still penance given as part of the process. While it sometimes includes prayer, these days it’s usually not some sort of formula such as a certain number of Hail Marys. Perhaps you will be assigned to pray a Psalm or read a scripture passage about forgiveness. There is still the possibility that your penance is to make some sort of reparation if you have harmed someone. It’s not that you’re paying for your sin but you are righting the wrong you created.

The other sacrament which was renamed is a sacrament that the general public referred to as “Last Rites”. The technical name for that was Extreme Unction. With a bizarre name like that, no wonder people made up their own name Last Rites. An “unction” is an anointing for healing. The word “extreme” emphasized that it was only used when you are on the verge of death.

It had become common practice to avoid calling a priest for someone who was only mildly ill for fear they would believe it meant they were dying. The Church decided that this sacrament should not be reserved exclusively for extreme circumstances. To remedy this, it was renamed Anointing of the Sick. It is still used at the time of one’s death, but not always. Anytime someone is chronically ill or is perhaps facing a major surgery they can receive the Sacrament of the Sick. By the way, if the priest doesn’t get there in time, he can’t give the Sacrament to you after you are dead. The most he can do is pray for your soul.

The Anointing of the Sick is for spiritual healing as well as physical healing. It has the same effect on your soul as Reconciliation. Most people who receive the anointing when they are dying will also confess their sins. It’s your cliché deathbed confession. But technically, it’s not necessary. When I was in the hospital in December 2016 with severe pneumonia and on a ventilator, I typed out a message on my iPhone asking to have the priest anoint me. Even though I was aware of the theology behind the sacrament, I wanted to unburden myself of a thing or two and I typed out a confession on my iPhone notes app and showed it to the priest. He dismissed it saying, “Don’t worry about that. The Anointing takes care of all that.”

I have been anointed several times when I was hospitalized even though I wasn’t critically ill. My parish also routinely has one day a year where we have a group anointing after Mass. Anyone who is facing any ongoing illness is invited to come forward and be anointed. When my mom was in charge of the Liturgy Committee at Saint Gabriel’s, she would arrange special transportation for people who were homebound or in nursing homes so that they could attend the service.

By the way, if you recall the story from an earlier episode, I was hesitant to have people pray over me because of my disability but I have never had any qualms about being prayed for when I was ill. I never hesitate to pray for other people who are ill either physically, emotionally, or mentally.

I think I only took private instruction from Fr. Paul for about two years. Then St. Michael’s Parish, the second closest parish to me, started up a small CCD program for special education kids. This was because the only good Catholics who didn’t send their kids to Catholic school were those who had to send their kids to the public special education school. Despite being especially for special ed kids, it was located a half-flight of steps down in the basement. I had to be carried down in my wheelchair. I seem to recall there were perhaps four or five of us at the time. A couple of us were in wheelchairs, one with cerebral palsy who could walk with difficulty, and a girl with Down syndrome. We were all different ages and each of us had a layperson who had volunteered to teach us. Mom and I continued to attend Mass at St. Christopher’s.

By the way, Fr. Paul Rehart left parish ministry to become a chaplain in the Navy. Decades later when I told the story of how I used to ask Fr. Rehart all of those goofy questions, Fr. Larry Crawford laughed hysterically and said, “Now I understand why he left parish ministry. He would rather face war in Vietnam than deal with kids like you.”

Shortly thereafter, the archdiocese built a new church. St. Gabriel the Archangel Parish opened at 6000 W. 34th St. They had an elementary school that was originally just grades 1-6 but later expanded up to 8. The population of the area was exploding and churches began recognizing that parents were not sending their kids to Catholic schools. The schools were pretty full. St. Gabriel established Sunday morning CCD classes for public school kids.

The first year, they had to carry me up a half flight of stairs to get to the classroom. The next year, the school was expanded with a new wing that included downstairs classrooms.
Up until about seventh grade, my CCD experience at St. Gabriel was a positive one. It was the first time I was ever in a classroom with able students. That was quite significant for me.
My seventh-grade CCD class was held in the seventh-grade classroom which was also where they taught junior high science throughout the week.

The idea that the parochial grade school had nuns teaching science amazed and impressed me. I think it was in fourth grade that I first discovered science and I began reading science fiction in fifth grade. I learned that scientists were people with lots of tough questions as well but they sought their answers through experimentation instead of just taking someone’s word for it.

Eighth-grade CCD was a disaster. We had some 20-year-old college student teaching the class. He gave us a quiz and discovered that we didn’t know what he considered to be fundamental Catholic stuff. While it was unfortunate that some of the kids could not name all seven Sacraments, he expected us to know the 15 mysteries of the rosary and a bunch of more obscure Catholic prayers that most people never used. If I recall correctly, I convinced my mom that it was a waste of time and she allowed me to quit going.

At about that time, they started some sort of youth ministry program as part of the CYO. I was about 13 or 14. We would get together, play music, have guest speakers such as a guy who worked with homeless people, and talk about things that were relevant to teenagers such as drug abuse. Again, this was a positive experience for me because it allowed me to hang with able kids.

They later established a CCD class for high school age that was held in someone’s home. It also included discussions about relevant topics such as race and drugs and an especially interesting discussion of the newly released album Jesus Christ Superstar. I think that only lasted one year.

The combination of the priest’s inability to provide satisfactory answers to my trick questions, the massive reforms that the church underwent in the 1960s, the lack of relevance of some of my CCD experiences, my growing obsession with science, and ordinary teenage rebellion against established authority in the light of the early 70s political atmosphere, all combined to erode my confidence that the church had all the answers and was an oracle of truth. If I was as talented as Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, I could have written a song with the lyrics, “All in all they were just another brick in the wall between me and God.”

I found myself feeling hypocritical about going to Mass each Sunday. During Mass, we recite the Nicene Creed – a statement of fundamental Christian beliefs dating back to the fourth-century Council of Nicaea. I began leaving out certain phrases of the prayer because I couldn’t honestly say that I believed it.

Finally, at age 19, I realized the only reason I was going to church was to avoid family arguments and to set an example for my younger sisters. I anticipated stuff like, “Why do I have to go to church and Chris doesn’t?” I finally got the courage to discuss it with my mom, and much to my surprise she said, “If you don’t want to go to church, don’t go. You are an adult.”

So I quit.

In upcoming episodes, I will discuss my time away from the Church, my journey back, and where I am at today.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode #6 “The Little Boy That God Made” (1st in a series on faith)

In this week’s episode, we begin a multi-part series about my off-again, on-again relationship with God and the Catholic Church. I’m not trying to evangelize anyone or be a preacher. I’m just here to tell my story which I hope is entertaining and informative.

Links related to this episode:

Please consider supporting us at https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife

If you cannot support us financially, please, please post links on social media so we can grow our audience.

Where to listen to this podcast: https://anchor.fm/contemplatinglife

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hello, this is Chris Young, and welcome to episode #6 of “Contemplating Life”.

In my first episode, I promised that we would cover a variety of topics among them disability, religion, politics, entertainment, and whatever else I felt like talking about. In the first five episodes, we talked about my experiences living with a lifelong disability and some of the issues related to that disability. Today we are going to begin a multi-part series on my off-again, on-again relationship with God and the Catholic Church.

Let me reiterate my disclaimer from the first episode. When I discuss religion, I’m not specifically trying to evangelize or proselytize anyone. I’m just sharing my views and experiences and perhaps explaining a little Catholic theology along the way. I hope that it’s entertaining and informative. If by chance, you find it sparking something in your own faith journey that’s fine also.

My mother was raised Catholic and practiced the faith her entire life. She attended Cathedral Grade School and St. Agnes Academy which was the all-girls counterpart to the all-boys Cathedral High School.

My father came from a mostly nonpracticing Christian family. He rarely if ever attended church growing up although he had fond memories of attending a church-sponsored summer camp one summer.

When my parents were married in 1954, you had to jump through a lot of hoops to have a mixed-faith marriage in the Catholic Church. My dad had to attend a series of about a half-dozen instruction classes with the priest. He also had to formally agree that his children would be raised Catholic. He had no objection.

I was born eight months and two weeks after they were married. When I was old enough to do the math, Mom insisted that I was two weeks premature. After me, she had five premature babies that she only carried for about six months each. None of them survived more than 48 hours. She also had a number of other miscarriages. The explanation that I was two weeks early seems completely credible. And so what if the folks jumped the gun a little bit?

If you are watching the YouTube version of this podcast you can see the 8 mm color home movies that my dad took of me outside my grandmother’s house on the day of my baptism. I was dressed in a long white baptismal gown that made me look like a girl. Years later we transferred the film to VHS and later DVD and now YouTube. There is no footage of the actual baptism because home movie cameras require a great deal of light. I doubt that the priest would have allowed filming using an awkward, intensely bright, and annoying light bar.

Although it doesn’t have anything to do with my faith journey, I might as well recount the few early childhood memories that I have.

From the time they were married until I was nearly 4 years old, my parents and I lived in a small one-bedroom duplex on W. 34th St. on the near west side of Indianapolis, near the canal. I only have a couple of vague memories of living in that house. I remember going next door to the other half of the duplex and sitting on the floor playing with the neighbor’s daughter who was about my age. She had a small toy iron and an ironing board. I used it to smooth out a tiny doll’s tablecloth while the girl prepared a tea party. I don’t know why I was so fascinated with the process of ironing and why I retain that memory so vividly. Perhaps it was that it creates order out of chaos.

I remember sitting in my dad’s lap on a lounge chair on the front porch while my dad was cleaning his 22 caliber hunting rifle. His friend George Brake was sitting in the other chair and they were planning a hunting trip. He had a book called, “The Shooter’s Bible” which was a reference book with photos of hundreds of different kinds of firearms. My dad was in no way what you might describe as a gun enthusiast. He had that 22 rifle and a 22 pistol but only went on a couple of hunting trips when I was very young. The only other time I ever recall him using a gun years later was to dispose of a possum that had infiltrated our garage.

I recall a TV repair man coming to fix our TV at that house. I thought TVs were magic so he must’ve been the smartest person in the world if he could repair it.

I recall a deliveryman delivering a set of dresser drawers and my mom telling me that that was going to be furniture in my bedroom when we moved to the new house. I continued to use that dresser until I was about 30.

In May 1959, just before I turned four years old in July, we moved to a newly built home on Cossell Dr. in the Eagledale neighborhood on the northwest side of Indianapolis, just north of Speedway. I still live in that same home 63 years later.

At the time, we were in the geographic area of St. Christopher Parrish on Lyndhurst Dr. in Speedway about five minutes away. However, my earliest recollections of attending church were at St. Bridget’s Church on the corner of West St. and St. Clair Ave. I remember being carried into the side door of the church by my mother and/or my grandmother on a couple of occasions. Inside the door was a tiny vestibule featuring a rack of votive candles. There was a small wicker basket to drop in donations when you lit a candle. I distinctly remember asking what the candles were for and why there was a basket with small change in it.

I also recall one time attempts to carry me in my wheelchair up the steps of the side entrance. That meant I had to be at least five years old because that is when I got my first wheelchair. Why did we attend St. Bridget’s when St. Christopher was much closer? St. Bridget’s held the distinction of having the latest start time of any Catholic Mass anywhere in Indianapolis at 12:10 PM each Sunday. I never understood why 12:10 and not perhaps high noon. I’m not certain, but I think I was baptized at St.Bridget’s Church.

St. Bridget’s Church was closed by the archdiocese in 1994 citing financial difficulties, a decaying structure, and high crime in the neighborhood. The building was briefly used as a Newman Center for IUPUI but was torn down in 2000. A new apartment complex now sits on the site.

One of my earliest memories of being Catholic revolved around a conversation I had with a neighbor boy. I’m guessing I was about four years old and it was shortly after we had moved into the neighborhood. My parents and his parents had gotten together for some sort of gathering on a Saturday night and we were playing in his bedroom. I mentioned that I had to go to church the next day. He asked why.

“Because we are Catholic”, I explained.

“We go to church sometimes. What is Catholic?” he inquired.

“I don’t know exactly. I just know we have to go to church EVERY Sunday.”

He deduced, “Well, I guess I’m not Catholic then.”

As I reached school age and as it became too difficult to carry me up the steps in a wheelchair, my mother and I began attending our home parish, St. Christopher’s Church. They operate an elementary school and my mom attempted to enroll me there. Although she carried some emotional baggage from her 12 years of Catholic education, she remained committed to Catholic schools. She had been indoctrinated to believe that in order to be a “good Catholic” you had to send your kids to Catholic school no matter the financial burden.

When she approached the priest about enrolling me, he politely said that they were not in any way capable of dealing with my special needs. It wasn’t quite the confrontational scene we talked about last week from the movie Mask in which Cher portrayed the mother of a son with a disfiguring medical condition. In this particular case, the priest was correct that the school was not equipped to handle a student like me. It was just the sad truth.

When my mother inquired, “How is he going to learn religion in a public school?”

The priest replied, “Religion is taught in the home.”

She didn’t accept that answer even though he kept repeating it over and over again. Eventually, she persuaded him to give me private one-on-one instructions in what Catholics refer to as “CCD classes”. More on the phrase CCD later.

Years later, her commitment to Catholic schools evaporated. She grew to see the school as a drain on the parish’s resources and a financial burden on families who could not afford it. While she respected parents who chose to send their children to private Catholic schools if they could afford it, she often wondered if we were a church supporting a school or a school with a church attached.

I don’t know which of the three priests at St. Christopher’s Parish mom argued with over my education. But the task of giving me religious instruction fell to the youngest of the three, Father Paul Rehart. Once a week, mom would take me to the rectory (the house where the priests reside) and I would sit in his office and get religious education one-on-one.

First-graders curriculum for Catholic education was from a little blue book known as the Baltimore Catechism. A Catholic organization known as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine a.k.a. CCD based in Baltimore, MD was responsible for creating the book and educational materials in the form of worksheets that would go with the catechism.

A major part of the indoctrination was that you had to memorize the exact answers to a series of numbered questions. The teacher, in my case the priest, would ask the question and you had to recite the answer 100% verbatim. I still recall the first four questions. I promise you I did not need to refresh my recollection several years ago when I purchased a copy of the Baltimore Catechism on eBay. These questions were burned into my brain.

Question 1: Who made you?

Answer: God made me.

Question 2: Who is God?

Answer: God is the Supreme Being who made all things.

Question 3: Why did God make you?

Answer: God made me to show forth his goodness and to share with us His everlasting life.

Question 4: What must we do to share in His everlasting life?

Answer: To share in God’s everlasting life we must know him, love him, and serve him.

Those questions bring to mind one of my favorite Catholic jokes.

A young nun was teaching first-grade kids from the Baltimore Catechism. Each day she would ask questions in order. Unfortunately, she always started with the kid in the front row and went from child to child in the same order every day. The kids soon realized they only had to memorize one question each. One day, the boy in the front row was absent. She asked the next child, “Who made you?” The child couldn’t answer. She asks the next, and the next, and none of them could answer the first question. She became highly agitated. She thought they had been doing so well. Finally, a little boy in the back of the room raised his hand. With great enthusiasm, she called on him. He explained, “Sister…The little boy that God made isn’t here today.”

Years later, when I began teaching the Catholic faith to adult converts, I began to have a deeper appreciation of the brilliant wisdom and deep theology contained in those first four questions from the Baltimore Catechism. I was reminded of the book titled, “Everything I Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”. I concluded that everything I needed to know about Catholic theology was summarized in those first four questions of the Baltimore Catechism.

It gives us the essentials of who is God and what our relationship is with him. In some respects, it explains the meaning of life. The purpose of our creation was to spend eternity in paradise with God. And it gives us a complete outline of everything we need to fulfill that goal

It begins with knowledge. We must acquire a deep understanding of God, his message, his role in our lives, his plan for the building of the Kingdom, his unconditional love, and the forgiveness of our sins that is there for the asking.

Having a deep knowledge of God, the obvious result is that we will come to love God.

Knowing what we do about God and having a love for him as a response to his love for us, the natural consequence is that we will attempt to do His Will by serving him. For the most part that service is to our fellow human beings who are also Children of God as are we.

While our Protestant friends were memorizing Bible verses, we were cutting through all of the confusing symbolism in Scripture and getting straight to the heavy-duty theology without having to argue over whether or not God actually created the earth in 6 days of 24 hours each and what was so sinful about eating an apple. It didn’t matter how long it took God to create us and everything else. It didn’t matter how He did it. We are God’s children, part of his master plan, and our destiny was eternal life in heaven.

It’s brilliant in simplicity yet it is so deep, one can easily spend a lifetime coming to understand all of the ramifications of those first four questions.

Naturally, I like most Catholic children, thought the whole idea of memorizing answers to questions was a ridiculous waste of time. Yet I still remember those questions decades later. It took me a long time to appreciate what it all really meant.

As a student in those one-on-one sessions, I was probably a royal pain in the ass. I had lots of questions of my own. The church portrayed itself as the absolute authority with the answers to every question. So, often I would sling some pretty tough ones at the poor unsuspecting young priest.

I swear to God… These are things I really asked the priest at about age 6 or 7.

I was taught that we had a serious obligation to attend Mass every Sunday. To miss Mass without a good reason was a serious sin. So I posed the following hypothetical…

I’m on a cruise ship in the Pacific Ocean and it’s Sunday. There is a priest on board and he has scheduled Mass in the ship’s chapel. I’m on my way there ready and willing to fulfill my solemn Sunday obligation. Suddenly the captain comes on the PA and announces, “Congratulations everyone. We have just crossed the International Date Line. It is no longer Sunday. It’s suddenly Monday.” Before I can persuade the captain to turn the ship around and take us back to Sunday to save our mortal souls, the ship hit an iceberg as the Titanic did. The ship sinks and we all die with this horrible sin on our souls. Would we go to hell?

I was a real shit, wasn’t I?

But wait… there is more. Riddle me this Batman!

They said that when the priest says the words, “This is my body” the ordinary bread on the altar magically turns into the Body of Christ. Similarly, when the priest says “This is my blood” the wine in the cup magically becomes the Blood of Christ. Anyone who receives the Body and Blood unworthily or who is non-Catholic commits a terrible sin.

So, a priest walks into a bakery and is standing next to a huge case of freshly baked loaves of bread. Someone walks by not watching where they are going and bumps into him violently. Without thinking, the priest says, “Hey… watch where you’re going. This is my body.”

Or similarly, a priest walks into a liquor store to pick up a bottle of wine. As he takes it from the shelf, someone else bumps into him, he drops the bottle and it breaks. As he is picking up the pieces of broken glass, he cuts his finger and wipes it on his shirt. The store clerk comes with a bucket and a mop to clean up the mess. He notices a red stain on the priest’s clothing and asks, “Did you get wine on your shirt?” To which the priest answers, “No. This is my blood.”

Does every piece of baked good in the bakery become the Body of Christ including doughnuts or does the bread alone become the Body? And similarly, do all the alcoholic beverages in the liquor store become the Sacred Blood or only the wine? What is the radius of influence of the words of consecration?

Inquiring minds want to know. I wasn’t satisfied with the answers the priest gave me. I think in the case of the sinking ship he said it was just so unlikely to happen that God would understand. In the case of accidental consecration at the bakery and the liquor store, he just said, “Priests have to be careful what they say.”

It was now time to prepare me for the Sacraments. At about age 6, Catholic children receive their First Holy Communion. Boys dress up in suits and ties. Girls wear fancy white dresses and lace veils. All of your Catholic relatives turnout and a few of your non-Catholic relatives might show also. They make a pretty big deal out of it.

Prior to First Communion, you have to do First Confession. In the six years since your Baptism, you might have committed some sins that you need to confess so that you are worthy to receive Communion.

In the early 1960s, it was still the practice that confession took place in a confessional booth. Unfortunately, those facilities were not wheelchair accessible. So I had to do my confession in some private space face-to-face with the priest. We had a small enclosed area in the back corner of the church called “the cry room.” It had glass windows in the front and a small speaker from the PA system. Parents would take crying babies and unruly toddlers into that room. For me, it was the confessional. I would meet with the priest either before or after Mass and he would hear my confession there.

It wasn’t until the reforms of Vatican II that it became normal for everyone to use a Reconciliation Chapel and do Confession face-to-face. So, I was ahead of my time. Eventually, that cry room became the official Reconciliation Chapel for everyone to use although we still retained a slightly remodeled confessional booth as an option.

The Second Vatican Council, a.k.a. Vatican II was a meeting called by Pope John XXIII that lasted from 1961 through 1965. All of the bishops of the world were called together for a series of four sessions in which they produced documents intended to help make the church more relevant in the 20th century and beyond. Among the obvious reforms which came out of that Council was that the celebration of the Catholic Mass would no longer be in Latin. It would be the language of wherever you resided.

They also made changes to some of the rules of discipline. For example, it was a practice that Catholics were supposed to abstain from eating meat on Friday. The theory behind it, which nobody understood as it was never taught, was that you were supposed to take the money that you saved by not eating meat and give it to the poor. So, if rather than having a 15-cent hamburger, you went out and ate a big fancy expensive lobster dinner, you had fulfilled the letter of the law but had missed the point. As I said, that reasoning wasn’t taught. All we were taught was, “It’s a rule and if you don’t follow it, it’s a sin.” Another aspect of the practice was that it was practicing self-discipline.

Similarly stricter rules about fasting during the season of Lent were also about denying oneself little things so as to have the spiritual strength to deny temptation in more important things.

Throughout the 1960s as the Vatican II reforms were promulgated, the rules kept changing. I didn’t have to abstain from meat until I was seven because young children were exempt. Then about the time I was eight or nine, they changed it to 14 so I was able to eat meat on Friday again. By the time I turned 14, they got rid of the rule altogether except during Lent.

Before they changed the rules, the requirement to abstain from meat on Fridays was a source of great consternation for my mother. Because I attended public school, she couldn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t serve me meet for lunch on Fridays. She had a long conversation with the priest in which he convinced her it was okay. She and the other Catholic moms at the public special education school traded notes on how to have that conversation with their pastor.

My only memory of violating the rule was on my eighth birthday. Mom was in the hospital dealing with maternity issues. Grandma Young, from my non-Catholic side of the family, was taking care of me and fixed me a hot dog for lunch. Perhaps I will burn in hell.

Legend has it that during Vatican II when they decided to relax the rules regarding abstaining from meat on Friday someone asked, “What then of all of the souls burning in hell for eating meat on Friday?” The reply was, “Just because we sentenced them to eternal damnation doesn’t mean that God actually carried out the sentence.” So, maybe I’ve still got a chance. I’m pretty sure I brought it up at my next confession.

In our next episode, I will continue to discuss the reformer of Vatican II and the effect it had on me and my struggles to accept the teachings of the Church.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

My deepest appreciation to my Patreon supporters. Your affirmation of my work means more than I can describe.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please, post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I’ll see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode #5 “Abusing Disability Terminology” (2nd of a 2-part series)

In this week’s episode, we discuss how the general public can take disability language and abuse it in negative ways.

Links related to this episode

Please consider supporting us at https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife

If you cannot support us financially, please, please post links on social media so we can grow our audience.

Where to listen to this podcast: https://anchor.fm/contemplatinglife

YouTube version

Shooting Script

I had been calling this “Transcript” but I tend to ad-lib as I’m reading it so I changed it to a more accurate title “Shooting Script”

Hello, this is Chris Young, and welcome to another episode of “Contemplating Life”.

This week we will conclude our two-part series on the terminology used to describe disability. Last week we talked about how words are dependent upon consensus and context. Over the years most consensus and context about the use of various words related to disability has evolved. In some cases, the consensus has not caught up to the new context.

We focused mostly on the evolution of the words “handicapped” and “disabled”. While I understand many of the reasons for the change, I still think that the word “handicapped” should not be considered offensive and has a useful definition distinct from “disability”.

A brief aside, I’m making a serious attempt to keep these podcasts under 30 minutes. When I have a lot to say on a topic, it’s becoming difficult to find a good place to split the episode into two pieces. We have one more aspect of the word “disability” to discuss before moving on to this week’s primary topic – the way the general public has misused and abused disability terminology in offensive ways.

Having evolved from handicapped to disabled, another debate arose in the community. Should we use the phrase “disabled person” or “person with a disability”? Fortunately, the debate never got very furious. At one point many disabled people concluded the terms were interchangeable because there was no clear consensus. The “person with a disability” phrase is called “person first” terminology. Its advocates claimed that we should “put people first” and that disability was secondary. Okay… Maybe…

Ben Mattlin said in a recent interview that “disabled person” seems to be winning. The argument was that “person first” by its nature puts the disability last as if we are trying to hide it. If we are to have disability pride, then put that word up front and wear it proudly. He also points out the obvious awkwardness of the phrase “person with a disability” in contrast to the simplicity of the phrase “disabled person.”.

My argument is summed up in the words “We are speaking English”. In English, we put the adjective before the noun. The noun is “person”. It is the subject of the sentence or phrase. The word “disabled” is the adjective describing the subject. “Disabled person” is simply proper English.

Now let’s move on to our main topic – offensive words used to describe disability.

Before there were handicapped, the common word in use was “crippled”. Outside its use to describe a disabled person, crippled evokes the connotation of damaged into immobility or uselessness such as, “The damage in the engine room crippled the ship and left it adrift.” People with disabilities were seen as damaged goods who were incapable of functioning. Certain hospitals were described as Crippled Children’s Hospitals. Polio was described as a crippling disease because it would literally cause body parts to become deformed and useless. By its nature, the term is only applied to physical or orthopedic handicaps.

Today the word is simply disused as archaic and for good reason. It evokes such a negative pity-driven image. Note, however, the shortened form “crip” is often used within the disability community humorously as a way to reclaim a negative word and turn it positive. A case in point is the award-winning 2020 Netflix documentary Crip Camp about a summer camp for disabled teenagers. I have similarly heard the word “gimp” as a word disabled people might use to ironically or jokingly refer to themselves. These words fall into the category, “we can use them about ourselves but you can’t.” This is somewhat in the same vein as the way African-Americans use a form of the n-word ending with the letter “a”.

There are a number of cringe-worthy words and phrases that have been roundly rejected by the disability community. Awkward phrases such as “differently-abled”, or “handi-capable” are ridiculous ways to avoid the word “disability”. Also on the do not fly list is “handicapper” unless you are talking about someone who handicaps a horse race. These kinds of words are considered condescending, and ableist, and have been soundly rejected by the disabled community.

Many parents of disabled children describe their kids as “special needs” children or themselves as parents of a special needs child. The term “special needs” seems to be falling out of favor and I have to admit I’m not exactly sure what the issue is. My experience is that parents who use this terminology typically are in an ongoing struggle against the school system or other agencies to have the needs of their children met.

I’ve heard it argued that disabled children have the same needs as any other child. They need to get to and from school. They need an education. They need to eat lunch. They need to go to the bathroom. While the solutions to these needs are nonstandard, there is nothing inherently special about the needs themselves.

I’m reminded of the funny scene from the 1985 film Mask starring Cher as the mother of a teenager, played by Eric Stoltz, who had a disfiguring medical condition. She was arguing with a junior high school principal trying to get her son enrolled.

The principal says, “This is a public junior high school, Miss Dennis. There are special schools with wonderful facilities that might be more appropriate for his needs.”
Cher replies, “Do you teach algebra and biology and English here?”

“Of course.”

“Those are his needs.”

I can buy that argument to a certain extent. But in fairness, the boy in the story, unlike most children described as special needs children, didn’t require any extra services, adaptations, or accommodations.

Should we describe these kids as “children in need of special solutions to their ordinary needs?” Wow! And you thought “person with a disability” was awkward compared to “disabled person.”
I have no objection to the words “special needs” and I don’t believe that the people who use that phrase, again mostly parents, are in any way shape, or form perpetuating any kind of negative stereotype about their children. As I said earlier, they are mostly preoccupied with getting the services and accommodations that their children need.

Probably the best example of the way in which disability terminology has evolved over the years as both context and consensus has changed is the way in which we describe intellectual disabilities. If there ever was a moving target of political correctness, this is the worst and sadly we may be stuck in a never-ending cycle of evolving terminology.

You are probably unaware that the words “idiot”, “imbecile”, and “moron” were originally the medically correct terminology for people with various degrees of intellectual disability. Unfortunately, the words were co-opted by the general public as insults towards people who were behaving irrationally or in other ways were being just plain stupid not as a result of any disability.

In an attempt to come up with new terminology, the phrase “mental retardation” was coined. Outside of disability circles, the meaning of the verb “to retard” is to slow down or impair the progress of something. One often heard people with intellectual disabilities described as, “There is nothing wrong with them… They are just slow.” Depending on the tone or the context, that’s not altogether a bad characterization. People with intellectual disabilities can be highly functioning self-sufficient people. Mental tasks simply do not come as easily as they do to the average person. People who were described as “slow” in fact probably had some sort of learning disability.

The bottom line is that the words “mentally retarded” were a well-reasoned attempt to create terminology that was accurate, useful, and not offensive. In special education programs, there were three levels: “mildly mentally retarded”, “moderately mentally retarded”, and “‘severely/profoundly mentally retarded”. These categories were typically defined by a range of IQ levels and corresponded directly to the previous words “idiot”, “imbecile”, and “moron” although I’m not certain in what order.

Unfortunately, the insensitive general public once again turned the terminology into a derogatory insult. The word “retarded” and its shortened form “retard” became so derogatory and offensive that now they are often referred to as the “r-word”.

Initially, children with intellectual disabilities were institutionalized and warehoused with no opportunity for personal growth or fulfillment. Eventually, parents rejected medical recommendations of institutionalization and kept their children at home surrounded by a loving and supportive family. They began seeking specialized programs and support systems for the children. Organizations known as ARCs began appearing in the 1950s. The acronym initially stood for “Association for Retarded Children”. As their clients aged and continued to need a variety of services, they changed their name to “Association for Retarded Citizens”.

Like the NAACP, these organizations were now faced with a historical acronym based on archaic and offensive terminology. Local ARCs as well as the national organization still retain the name ARC but it is no longer an acronym. Their web pages explain the history of the term. They explain that they kept the ARC designation as a nostalgic respect to their history.

While researching this history I looked up the local Marion County ARC which served Indianapolis as I was growing up. The first page that came up was Marion County ARC in Osceola Florida. They cleverly say that the letters now stand for “Advocacy Resource Center”. They are affiliated with the National ARC yet the national organization hasn’t picked up on this clever renaming nor has the local Indianapolis ARC organization now known as “Noble ARC” named after the “Noble Center” sheltered workshop.

Today, many people use the designation “developmental disability”. But as I explained earlier, depending on what definition you use for DD, I qualify as developmentally disabled yet I am a college graduate who came just two IQ points short of qualifying for Mensa membership. It is inappropriate to assume that a developmental disability is an intellectual disability yet many fail to make that distinction.

There is a part of me that wishes that the ARCs and other disability advocates had drawn a line in the sand and stood up for the word retarded and insisted that the word in and of itself should not be considered offensive. I wish they had spoken out more emphatically against the misuse of the word rather than allowing the word itself to be canceled. The problem is, there is a serious risk that people will co-opt new terms the same way they have in the past. The insensitive public is very clever and they can turn any terminology into an insult.

Here is a fascinating example. Many years ago I was sitting in the parish office at St. Gabriel Catholic Church working on budgets with my friend Judy who was the parish secretary/bookkeeper. In those days, the parish also operated an elementary school. I overheard a conversation in the hallway as a teacher was yelling at a boy. Apparently, he had been tasked with the job of carrying classroom trash out to the dumpster in the parking lot. It was about 25° outside that day. He was confronted by a teacher as he reentered the building.

“Johnny”, the teacher screamed, “Why aren’t you wearing a coat? We don’t run a special education school here!”

It was one of those rare moments in my life where it was probably fortuitous that I have a disability. I probably would have gone out to the hall and punched the teacher square in the face. Well, perhaps not. I was so stunned by what she said I couldn’t move. To this day I regret not rolling out into the hallway and giving her a piece of my mind.

Essentially, she could not have been more insulting if she had simply called the boy a freaking retard. In fact, her euphemism was even more offensive because it not only disparaged people with intellectual disabilities, it disparaged anyone who was educated in a special education environment including myself. Furthermore, my experience with people with intellectual disabilities such as Down syndrome suggests they would be far less likely to go outside without a coat, once you had told them the rules, than would your average belligerent 10-year-old boy. I was especially disappointed not only that she had said such a thing but that she said it to an impressionable child. He was going to grow up thinking that special education was a euphemism for stupidity.

Here’s another brief example of how you can turn any disability language into an insult. I once heard a standup comedian talking about a guy she knew who wasn’t exactly the brightest person around. In questioning his intellect, she said she asked him “When you went to school, did you take a long ride on a short bus?” I nearly fell out of my wheelchair laughing. Although it was highly offensive, I thought it was phenomenally clever. Then again, I’m such a student of comedy that I can laugh at offensive things routinely. Sorry, it’s a character flaw.

Prior to hearing that joke, I had never heard the phrase “ride the short bus” used as an insult yet a Google search revealed a slang dictionary entry indicating that it was a widely used slang insult to one’s intelligence.

In case you don’t get the reference, undersized school buses are frequently used to transport disabled children to special education programs sometimes long distances between school districts. Each individual school district often can’t support a variety of special education programs so they enter into cooperatives in which special education programs are consolidated and shared between districts. Thus the stereotype of a long ride on a short bus.

Although the school bus I rode every day to a special education school was a full-size bus, it exclusively carried wheelchair passengers. There were only about seven or eight of us on the bus. Had we not been in wheelchairs, a short bus would have been sufficient to take us on a very long ride all over the west side of Indianapolis to collect us and transport us to the special education school on the near east side of the city.

Although I didn’t ride a short bus, I identify as a short bus rider.

The bottom line is that no matter what terminology we use to describe any kind of disability, there is an ongoing risk that the words will be misinterpreted, misused, and abused. This struggle to accurately and sensitively identify ourselves as disabled people is likely to continue for a long time. The problem isn’t with the words themselves. Words are just an abstraction. They are a way to allow us to communicate about disability and contemplate what it means to be disabled.

While I agree that words are powerful and should be used properly, it seems to me these days people have become too sensitive about words. I recall the days when we taught our children the adage, “Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.” I’d like to see that lesson resurrected.

The meaning of words depends on consensus and context. If we don’t work hard to ensure consensus and understand context, no matter what words we use, our ability to communicate concepts related to disability and to think about disability will be severely… uh… will be severely… Oh hell… Just say it Chris…it’s the right word in this context… Okay, let’s start that sentence over again.

If we don’t work hard to ensure consensus and understand context, no matter what words we use, our ability to communicate concepts related to disability and to think about disability will be severely handicapped.

Sorry, not sorry… I just couldn’t resist.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

As always, I welcome your comments.

In the opening episode of this podcast, I said I would be talking about a variety of topics that included disability, religion, politics, and entertainment. I have lots more to say about disability and my life living with a disability but I think it’s time we move on to a different area. Next week I will discuss my off-again, on-again relationship with God and my journey of faith.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Abundant thanks to my current Patreon supporters. Your affirmation means more to me than words can describe.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Episode #4. “Evolution of Disability Terminology” (First of a two-part series)

In this week’s episode, we talk about the evolution of disability terminology, especially the transition from the word handicapped to disabled.

Links related to this episode

Please consider supporting us at https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife

If you cannot support us financially, please, please post links on social media so we can grow our audience.

Where to listen to this podcast.

YouTube version

Transcript

Hello, this is Chris Young. Thank you for joining me for the fourth episode of “Contemplating Life”

Today we’re going to continue talking about disability issues. In our recent episodes, we discussed what it means to be inspiring and to talk about ableism. Today we begin a two-part series on the language used to describe disability.

I previously mentioned that I was tending to present the standard party-line views on a topic and then explaining how I disagreed with parts of that position. Today we are going to turn things around. Having lived with a disability for 67 years, I haven’t kept up with modern terminology and definitions. So, I’m going to begin by explaining the terminology I’ve used for more than half my life. I’ll explain my reluctance to abandon those old definitions. Then I’ll talk about how I’ve recently come to appreciate newer ways of approaching the definition of disability.

Using the proper language to talk about disability is not just a case of being politically correct. The language that we use to describe disability is a reflection of our attitude about disability and it affects the attitudes of others.

Words have power. Words have meaning. If we are going to wield that power responsibly and sensitively we need to understand the real meaning of the words we use.

Pardon me while I go off on a philosophical tangent and talk about words in general…

What is a word?

It’s an abstraction. It’s a way that allows us to talk about things that are not necessarily present or are themselves abstractions with no physical form.

I just said words are about communication but it goes much deeper than that. We think using words. When we think about something, we use words in an internal monologue. Sometimes, we have feelings or experiences that are beyond words. This not only illustrates the inadequacy of language to communicate these things, but it also limits our ability to reflect upon them, think about them, or analyze their meaning in our lives. We can remember such feelings and experiences and perhaps through such recollection relive them. But when it comes to thinking, we are limited by the inadequacy of words.

People who speak foreign languages find themselves thinking in those languages as well. The only foreign language I ever studied was French and I got terrible grades in it so I’m no expert. As poorly as I performed in French, on rare occasions I find myself recalling a French idiom or phrase that doesn’t have a good English equivalent and I have been able to “think in French”. I can only imagine what it’s like for someone who has a good mastery of more than one language. The ability to contemplate things differently and have a richer experience of understanding must be phenomenal.

Words require consensus. Words have context. When either consensus or context is absent, words become meaningless.

When I say that words are an abstraction subject to consensus and context let me give some examples. If I say to you the word “elephant”, I have imparted to you an image of a large gray animal with treetrunk legs, big floppy ears, and a long prehensile nose. Simply speaking the word “elephant”, doesn’t cause one to appear in front of you. There is nothing special about the sound of the word nor the sequence of letters of its written form that necessarily ties it to that particular creature. It is only by consensus that that sound and that sequence of letters have been assigned as the label for that particular creature.

This idea of consensus is illustrated by the fact that different geographical areas with different cultural traditions have different languages that assign different words to the same object. While the word elephant translated into other languages might sound roughly the same, the English word for a small hopping amphibian is “frog”, in German it’s “frosch”, in Spanish it’s “rana”, in French it’s “la grenouille”, and so on for countless other languages. . Different populations and cultures… different consensus… different words.

Context is also important. The word “frog” can be a hopping reptile or a derogatory term for French people. The elephant in the room can be physical or metaphorical. Context is important.
Again, without consensus and context – words are meaningless. Or at least they should be. Sometimes we apply our own consensus and context and misinterpret words.

The words we assign to animals or objects are highly unlikely to evolve over time. However, the meaning of other words has evolved throughout history as the consensus evolves and as the context of the times evolves.

The words that we use to describe race, gender, and disability are much more likely to evolve as our attitudes about these topics have evolved. For example, the technical name for dark-skinned Africans is the “negro race”. That evolved into the pejorative “n-word” and the attempt to be less offensive with the phrase “colored person”. That phrase however has so many roots in segregation such as “colored only” or “no colored allowed” that it also has a highly negative context. With a sense of pride, people began describing themselves as Black and/or African-American which today are both considered socially acceptable.

The consensus has evolved but context is important as well. It is only through consensus and context that when we say the phrase African-American that we don’t wonder if the person was Caucasian, born in South Africa, and living in Mexico, or perhaps of Middle Eastern Arab descent living in Canada, or a person born in Israel living in Argentina even though technically the label African-American would apply to each of these three.

Given the negative history of the phrase “colored people,” I’m not quite sure why “people of color” is acceptable and doesn’t carry the same stigma. But that’s probably a topic for a different episode. I’m just an old liberal white guy so what do I know?

The language used to describe gender and the use of a variety of pronouns also reflect our evolving views on gender.

The language we use to describe disability has evolved and that’s what we really want to discuss today. This discussion flows right out of last week’s topic of ableism.

Not only have the words that we use to describe disability evolved during my lifetime, but my own views about those words have also evolved significantly in recent months. Let’s explore some definitions of words and the way I learned them growing up.

Typically, I begin with either a disease or a medical condition. While there are technical differences between the two, it generally starts with one or the other of those.

I have a disease. It is a genetic neuromuscular disease called Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 2. There are probably a dozen or more types of neuromuscular diseases. Other examples of diseases that cause disability include polio, cancer, diabetes, hemophilia, AIDS, and diseases related to blindness/vision impairment or deafness/hearing impairment. Diseases can be genetic or acquired.

Somewhat distinct from diseases are other medical conditions caused by accident or injury. For example, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, or cerebral palsy which is usually caused by lack of oxygen at birth. Technically these would not be considered “diseases”.

The distinction between disease and medical condition is not a hard and fast line. I suppose technically you could say that some diseases cause medical conditions. For example, HIV causes AIDS.

My concept of “disability” is that it is a consequence of a disease or a medical condition. A disability is something that you are literally dis-able to do. In my case, it is primarily a mobility disability. I never had the necessary physical strength to walk or stand. As my disease has progressed, I’ve lost what limited use of my arms that I once had. I have only minimal use of a few fingers.

Other disabled people have paralysis and a lack of sensation or perhaps a lack of muscle control as in cerebral palsy. Some cannot see, hear, or speak.

As I was growing up and for most of my life, the most common word used to describe disabled people was “handicapped”. For various reasons, some of which I don’t understand nor do I agree with, the word “handicapped” has fallen out of favor. Let me define “handicapped” the way I felt it was used when I was younger and it was the commonly accepted terminology. Under these definitions, there was a difference between handicap and disability.

The disability was your basic limitation caused by your disease or medical condition as we described earlier. Your handicap was the interaction between that disability and your environment. When your disability prevents you from doing things that you reasonably want to do, or that society and your environment expect you to be able to do, then it becomes a handicap. The general meaning of handicap is it is some sort of disadvantage that you have.

One of the phrases to which disabled people often object is, “we all have disabilities.” That’s sort of the disability version of the statement, “all lives matter.” However, under the technical definition of disability as I defined it, this statement is true. Here are some examples of disabilities that everyone has:

You can’t fly through the air like Superman, nor do you have his strength, x-ray vision, heat vision, or other superpowers. You can’t stretch like Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four nor turn invisible like Susan Storm. You can’t read minds like Professor X of the X-Men. These are disabilities we all share. While it might be fun to possess the superpowers of our comic book heroes, no one reasonably expects to be able to do those things. Nobody else reasonably expects you to be able to do these things. You don’t live in an environment designed primarily for those who have such abilities. Therefore these “disabilities” don’t present us with a “handicap.”

Under these definitions, it is possible to have a disability that does not handicap you.

Let me give an example. We can call it hypothetical but it’s based on a real person I know who went to the same special education grade school that I went to. Our subject has osteogenesis imperfecta which is more commonly known as brittle bone disease. It is the same disability that advocate Stella Young had that we discussed in episode 1. Like most people with OI, his growth was stunted and he is a Little Person. He also uses a power wheelchair. After I knew him in grade school, he went on to earn a law degree and has a successful practice which includes being a consultant for companies regarding ADA and Section 504 compliance. At one time I’d considered becoming a lawyer and this guy has the career I would have liked to have if I had become a lawyer. He is married. Has a son. Drives his own specially equipped van. His law practice is thriving. While I can’t honestly say what his day-to-day life is like or what challenges he has faced, by my definition he is disabled but he has few if any handicaps.

Through technology, accommodations, and support systems, his disability does not significantly limit his capability to do the things that he wants to do, which society expects him to do, or his environment assumes he can do.

One of the phrases that is often objected to by disabled people is the idea that you can “overcome a disability”. I totally agree that short of a medical cure that removes the underlying cause of the disability, you can’t overcome it. In contrast, you can overcome a handicap.

It bothered me when the word handicap was phased out in favor of disability especially when it comes to government programs. It was my belief that programs should help people with handicaps because that’s something you can do something about. As we discussed last week, no amount of accommodation, support systems, technology, or other benefits short of a medical cure is going to eliminate a disability. But it can make a huge difference in mitigating or even eliminating one’s handicap.

My lawyer acquaintance might be eligible for a variety of government programs many of which he may not need. But because he is disabled he is eligible. In previous legal definitions, he would not be eligible because he is not handicapped.

All of the above is based on my definitions of the words handicapped and disabled and I believe they represent the views of most of the disability community as I was growing up and in my young adult years. But as we’ll see, these definitions have evolved over time and it’s taken me some time to comprehend how they have evolved. Some of my concerns about the transition from handicap to disability have been addressed as I’ve gotten deeper into the subject.

A little over a year ago, famous YouTuber Shane Burcaw who has the same type of SMA as I have, created a video called, “Things you should NEVER say to a disabled person.” The word “never” was in all caps. He and his able wife Hannah post videos several times a week talking about their life as an inter-abled couple. I highly recommend their YouTube channel and I’ll provide a link in the description. I really liked about 90% of what they had to say and I was inspired to create a reaction video of my own also linked here.

Shane spoke out against the use of the word handicap and ever since then, I’ve tried to do research on why the word has not only fallen out of favor but is considered objectionable to many disabled people. I listened carefully to what Shane had to say. I also read the book “Disability Pride” by Ben Mattlin which I referenced in previous episodes. And I researched other online sources. I still believe that there is nothing objectionable about the word handicap as I have defined it. I still insist that there is a distinct difference in meaning between disability and handicap. However, my disappointment or objection to it being phased out of use has somewhat diminished.

Here’s what I’ve learned from my research about the word handicap.

The origin of the word handicap comes from a medieval English game called “hand-in-cap” in which players trade items in the presence of an umpire. According to Wikipedia, the game goes as follows. The umpire decides whether the items are of the same value and if not, what is the difference in value. Both players and the umpire then place forfeit money in a cap. Both players then place a hand in the cap and withdraw it. An open hand means that you agree with the evaluation of the umpire and a closed hand means you disagree. If both players agree, then the assessed value difference is paid, the items are traded, and the umpire gets the forfeit money. If both players disagree, no trade occurs, and the umpire gets the forfeit money. If one player agrees and the other disagrees, there is no trade and the player who agreed gets the forfeit money.

The concept of a neutral third party trying to even things up was extended to handicapped horseracing. If a particular horse was thought to have an undue advantage, officials would determine that it had to carry a specific amount of extra weight to make the race more competitive. In the early 20th century, derived from the idea of handicapped races, the term handicap began to be applied to disabled people because they carried a greater burden.

Shane and others make the claim that the word handicap originates from disabled street beggars who would sit on the sidewalk with their cap in hand begging for money. While I can agree that if someone made the connection between someone with their “hat in hand” and a disabled person, the word handicap might somehow bring forth that image. I specifically used the phrase “hat in hand” because that is the more common way to describe beggars. I don’t believe I ever heard that described as “cap in hand” and if it did, how do you reverse the words to get the phrase “hand in cap” and thus handicap?

I was born in 1955. I went to a school that was described as a school for the handicapped. It was the common word in usage all throughout my school years and much of my adult life. I recently came across an old videotape that I had shot at the 1983 Indiana Governor’s Conference on the Handicapped so I know the word was being used not only in government but in the broader community in the mid-1980s and my guess is several years beyond. There is a link to the video in the description here.

In all of that time, among the extremely few people I encountered who were beginning to prefer disability over handicap, I never once heard the excuse that their objections were based on the idea that it portrays us stereotypically as beggars. Until recently, I never heard any discussion either positive or negative regarding the origin of the word. We were aware of the connection to handicap as it relates to sports but I never heard the origin of the word or why it was used in either sports or disability language.

Shane my man, I respect you and love what you do to bust stereotypes and educate people about disability issues. But I think you’re off the mark when you object to handicap based on its alleged origins regarding beggars. Handicap has other meanings not only in horseracing but in golf, chess, bowling, and possibly other sports. One can easily make the connection between the medieval game and the use of the word in these sports. Why would the word handicap have as its origin the idea of a beggar as it is used in sports?

Handicap does imply a burden or a disadvantage. I can understand why disabled people don’t want to perpetuate the view that they are burdened or that they are a burden. Go back to my rant last week and you’ll see I find nothing objectionable about the idea that a handicap or disability can be burdensome. It’s a burden I endure with as much grace as I can muster but it is a burden nevertheless.

In that video from the Governor’s Conference on the Handicapped from 1983, the word handicap was always used in a positive light but there was other language that today we would consider blatantly ablest. In the opening invocation and in the governor’s keynote address, there were tributes to Indiana State Senator Charles E. Bosma who had recently passed away. He was a fierce advocate for disabled people. However, at a couple of points, he was described as being an advocate for “those less fortunate than us” and “the downtrodden and oppressed.”

If the connection between the word handicap and the idea of bearing a burden perpetuates ablest attitudes, then I can understand why it has been phased out in favor of disability. Note, however, that the transition has not been smooth within the disability community. There have been, and may still be, people who see the word disabled as being synonymous with useless or incapable. They would say that handicapped is an acceptable term even if it does imply a disadvantage because realistically that’s accurate. It’s better to be accurately described as being at a disadvantage than for the implication that you are incapacitated (and by extension worthless).

Obviously, I have no negative feelings about either term.

As I mentioned earlier, part of the reason that I mourn the loss of the word handicap is its use in legal definitions, especially entitlement programs. However, my research has shown that the current legal definitions of disability are written in such a way that they are functional definitions. For example, at one time, the definition of developmental disability was a disability with onset before age 22 and included mental retardation, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other similar conditions. This is the same sort of medically based definition of disability that I grew up with.

The new definition of developmental disability also speaks of onset before age 22 but goes on to say that it is a disability that requires a variety of interdisciplinary services and that results in a substantial functional limitation in at least three of the following major life activities: self-care, understanding and use of language, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

Under the old definition, my medical condition of neuromuscular disease did not qualify as DD yet my friend Christopher Lee who had cerebral palsy did qualify. While our medical diagnoses were different, the types of services we needed were very similar. Under the new definition, I have a substantial functional limitation in four of the seven listed areas. They are self-care, mobility, capacity for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. Thus I qualify for programs for developmentally disabled people.

In other words, the legal definitions of disability are no longer medically based. They are functionally based. The new definition of disability is extremely close to my traditional definition of handicap. So in many ways, I feel better about the transition between the words than I have felt for many years.

Ben Mattlin reports that people have lost ADA accommodation lawsuits even though they appeared to have a disability. The loss was based on the idea that they already had sufficient technology or accommodations to meet their needs. Under my old definitions, the court might have ruled, “You are disabled but not handicapped.”

In my video response to Shane and in other blog posts and essays, I have argued that if handicap is not the correct word to describe the way in which your disability interacts with your environment then we need a different word. But in some ways, that was because I was stuck on a medical model of disability. So… if disability now refers to environmental and social interaction rather than a medical model, do we need a new word for the medically based concept of disability that I have used for years?

I need more research but I think that the common practice is to talk about a social definition of disability (sometimes also called a functional definition of disability) versus a medical definition. If you’re going to add those adjectives, then I’m satisfied that we are on the same page. But I think there are a lot of people, especially my age, and possibly in the general able population, who hear the word disability and think of the medical model. So if the default definition of disability is a social disability or functional disability then we have a lot of education to do to make sure that people really understand that we are talking about interaction with expectations and environment in the same sense that I defined handicapped and not the old medical model.

The consensus has not caught up to the new context.

I have much more to say about language related to disability but we need to wrap up this episode. In next week’s episode of “Contemplating Life”, we’ll talk about the ways in which the general public co-ops, misuses, and abuses disability language in a highly offensive manner.

As always, I welcome your comments.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

My deepest appreciation to my Patreon supporters. Your affirmation of my work means more than I can describe.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please, post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I’ll see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.