The Best Man

Two days ago I lambasted The Ides of March for its empty-headed analysis of Presidential politics. Franklin J. Schaffner's The Best Man (1964) tells a similar story much, much better. Based on Gore Vidal's play, it's a very dark, very smart satire of politics just before America exploded into '60s radicalism.

Two Presidential candidates wage a fierce battle for their party's nomination. Secretary of State William Russell (Henry Fonda) has the smarts and liberal principles, but his extramartial affairs and shady personal history threaten to derail his campaign. Demagogic Senator Joe Cantwell (Cliff Robertson), the "voice of conservative America," has popular support and charisma, but his ruthless ambition qualify his electibility. Both men court the ailing ex-President (Lee Tracy), who can't swallow Russell's amorality but hates Cantwell's phoniness. Russell stumbles across an unspeakable bombshell about Cantwell, debating whether to release it.

The Best Man perfectly captures a nation on the political precipe. Old-fashioned liberal Russell has many skeletons in his closet and naive optimism out of step with the times. Cantwell embodies everything wrong with '60s politics: the charisma of Jack Kennedy, the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, the social climbing and class resentment of Richard Nixon. Cantwell is an unprincipled bastard but the film names him as the shrewdest judge of the people: smears and sound bites register more than logic. His opponents don't stand a chance; playing Cantwell's game only makes them look bad. The happy ending seems a cheat, a perhaps-naive hope that the worst man can be defeated.

In some ways, too, The Best Man seems eerily prescient. This year's GOP circus boils down to a contest of who can be nastiest, with Gingrich and Romney in particular pommelling each other with negative ads and accusations of "flip-flopping." The movie's frankness about sexual issues, from Russell's promiscuity to an accusation of homosexuality, certainly seems modern. Politics has never been a gentleman's game but the '60s saw it slide into the mud. We're still living with the consequences of that era, with media manipulation, mudslinging and demagoguery permeating our discourse.

Henry Fonda is obvious casting: who better to play the wise old-fashioned liberal than Tom Joad and Juror Number 8? More interesting is Cliff Robertson, giving an intense, chillingly credible portrait of a ruthless politico. Edie Adams got an Oscar nomination for a throwaway part: Margaret Leighton (7 Women) as Fonda's long-suffering wife makes a stronger impression. Lee Tracy is superb as the cantankerous elder statesman. Ann Sothern's wonderfully horrible party matriarch and John Henry Faulk's gladhanding Southern governor steal their scenes. Kevin McCarthy plays Russell's campaign manager and Shelley Berman has a secret from Cantwell's past.

The Best Man has aged better than most of its contemporaries. Like other films of the era (Seven Days in May), it reaffirms hope that liberalism and civic virtue will ultimately win out. But it's a near-run thing this time around, and future generations won't be so lucky.

The sin of simony - alive and well and living in *Ramsgate

Simony is one of those words that seldom makes an appearance in a conversation these days.
I guess it was used quite a lot in the time of Martin Luther as, of course, the selling of indulgences, was a good example of simony.

It applies not just to holy words or acts leading to indulgences but also to sacred objects, blessed rosaries, chalices, reliquaries, monstrances and the like.

But then, who in their right minds would wish to sell a monstrance?

It's laughable. How would you sell one?

On Ebay?.............nope.....in the small ads...nope again.....

Oh.....surely not by public auction?

'Fraid so....Fr Ray Blake has the story covered.

Impious is the word he uses.....good word that.

NB The good monks have now moved to *Chilworth, but Ramsgate sounds better!

Am I Being Hypercritical?

I know that Catholic Voices's brief is wide because the Church's mission and message affects every aspect of human life and that the project has become...

'...a school of a new Christian humanism; and a laboratory of a new kind of apologetics'...

But I can't help wondering whether the 'Academy' is a being a little complacent in the upcoming battle with the Government.

Don't get me wrong. The Church has plenty to tell the Government and society about Catholic social teaching and how it can be employed to make society more just in the work towards what has become known as the 'common good'. My personal opinion is that markets could possibly be made moral but that rich people who are more influential in the markets than poor people do not want them to be. It's one of the outcomes of Original Sin, as is homosexuality.

And last I heard, the Government wanted to redefine marriage over the next year or two and the 'common good' will, in this area, not be served. If I were leading the Catholic Voices (obviously I'm not trying to usurp anyone's job here - such a venture would never be successful anyway and besides, everyone can tell how shy I am) I would drop the beard-stroking session on whether 'capitalism can be made moral' and stick to your guns on making the Church's position on 'gay marriage' and, indeed, homosexuality in general, 100% crystal clear.

In fact, does anyone have a timeline of when marriage is going to be redefined by the State to contradict the very essense of what the word 'marriage' means? How long do we have until this demolition ball is in full swing? If you know drop me a comment because I'd like to know how much time we have before the Government resets the date of the United Kingdom to year zero.

I know that according to the web page that 'on Monday 5 March there will be a talk on same-sex marriage and the threat to (religious) freedom and that the details of the speaker will be confirmed shortly,' but I personally consider that the 'gay marriage' issue is the hottest issue (literally) of the day, week, month and year and I know I am not the only one.

Of course, the CV project doesn't want to be a 'single issue' organisation, but when it comes to the media, what they want to know is the Catholic Church's position on what is about to unfold in the United Kingdom. The media doesn't give two fig leaves for what the Church in England and Wales says about capitalism. You can tell that because when the Holy Father released 'Caritas in Veritate' you could see tumbleweed blowing past every newspaper's office doors. His Holiness only has to breathe a word about the threat to society from gay marriage and newspapers go wild with frenzied excitement. Let's face it, sex sells, even when the Pope discusses it. Besides which, nearly everyone agrees that banker bonuses in the midst of deep recession are bad. It is on this issue, this threat to 'human ecology' in the words of His Holiness, caused by the legislative onslaught of 'gay marriage' that the Holy Father wishes to see the Church in those countries where it is being considered, spring to life and to action.

Like I say, whether markets can be made moral is an important discussion and perhaps I am being hypercritical, but it just strikes me that the publicity for this Academy talk makes it look like the Church is treating the issue of 'gay marriage' as it might 'capitalism and markets'. It makes it look like we are still discussing it, trying to work out the answer and also, at this time, makes it appear that we are ambivalent as to how things will turn out when Parliament goes into motion on the marriage of two men or two women. It makes it appear that we don't care passionately about marriage, or that the Bishops don't care passionately about marriage. Or maybe not. I just saw it and thought, 'The Government are about to do this and you're talking about that?' Keep talking about this because this is where the fight is going to be! This is not a time for navel-gazing.

Bloggers are peripheral to the media. We are not passive in as much as we blog and communicate through the internet but we are also not so active that we are on BBC or quoted in The Guardian. Among the thousands of words that have been said about the CV project, some nice, some not so nice, has been perhaps lost the sense that all Catholics should want uppermost the success of the Catholic Voices project in communicating the Church's teaching and explaining it to the United Kingdom. Further, I don't know any Catholics who do not want Catholic Voices to be a resounding success. Where I do think some bloggers and the leaders of the CV project might differ is in the interpretation of 'success'.

After all, Catholic Voices are there to represent the whole Church, Bishops, Priests and lay faithful, even His Holiness himself, I guess. What they do over the airwaves over the next year either reflects well on us, the Body of Christ, or not. Also, just a thought. Have Catholic Voices recruited anyone who is willing to talk about the fact that they are both a homosexual person and a Catholic loyal to the Magisterium to defend the Church's position in the media? If you want to give Catholicism a human face, that seems to me like a good idea. Otherwise, you'll be open to the accusation that 'the Church just hates gays'. Anyway, I'm sure Austen's got all bases covered. Finally, if you want to attend Academy sessions, get in there quick, before the Academy 'membership scheme' comes in. Obviously, its not my job to tell Austen Ivereigh how to run Catholic Voices. With all his experience he has far more knowledge of the media than I. But then, if that's true for me, then its must also be true for those bloggers who think they could do John Smeaton's job so much better than John Smeaton with all his experience in the pro-life field.

The Four Feathers (2002)

Another lousy remake of a classic movie, The Four Feathers (2002) is a woeful miscalculation. Shekhar Kapur's take on A.E.W. Mason's book is handsomely mounted, but warps everything that made the 1939 Korda production so enjoyable into wretched nonsense.

British Army officer Harry Faversham (Heath Ledger) resigns his commission after becoming engaged to Ethne (Kate Hudson). Unfortunately, Harry's decision comes on the eve of the Mahdist War, when Muslim fanatics threaten to overrun Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Harry's friends (Michael Sheen, Rupert Penry-Jones, Kris Marshall) and Ethne deem him a coward, giving him feathers to symbolize his shame. Only Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley) sticks up for him, even though he has eyes for Ethne. A chastened Harry must redeem his honor, joining friendly native Abou (Djimon Hounsou) on a death-defying mission into enemy territory.

The Four Feathers certainly looks good. Kapur and photographer Robert Richardson deliver a visually lush film, every frame a delight. The period detail is perfect, the costumes beautiful (though inaccurate - the Brits had switched to khaki uniforms by 1885), the Moroccan locations breathtaking. Best of all is the set-piece battle towards the halfway point (supposedly Abu Klea, though not very accurate). Despite some egregious slow-motion, Kapur stages it with verve, excitement, and a genuine sense of scope. The lack of obvious computer effects is really refreshing in a modern film. Aesthetically, it's an accomplished film.

Otherwise, the film gets everything wrong. Kapur queasily vacillates between modern sensibility and imperial adventure, satisfying neither approach. A particularly stupid scene features Jack trying to disarm a Mahdist sniper, a bit more appropriate to modern policemen than Victorian soldiers. The racial politics are all over the place. The '39 film's charming Arab doctor is replaced with a sleazy slave trader. Abou comes from the original book but seems dumb for helping Harry; all he gets for his trouble is repeated beatings. The Brits treat their servants harshly, but since most of the non-white characters are murderous fanatics who cares?

There's also a baffling lack of context. Having read Michael Asher's Khartoum: The Ultimate Imperial Adventure I know the rough outline of the Mahdist Wars. Can most audiences say the same? Will they have seen earlier Four Feathers films or Khartoum as a guide? Even I had a hard time following what the hell was going on. A single fleeting reference to General Gordon is all we have to go on. Geography and strategy are a complete mystery: what are the British doing in Sudan? Where are they going and what do they hope to achieve?

Harry's heroics are toned down considerably. He's an inveterate coward in this version and frankly, we feel his peers right for judging him. Nor is his redemption very convincing. In the '39 film, he goes deep cover as an Arab, singlehandedly saves his friends and helps rout a Mahdist army at Omdurman. In this version, he more or less blunders into the Sudan and achieves little beyond his own survival, needing Abou even for that. Instead of an improbable hero, we get a sunburned git wandering around the desert.

Worst of all, though, is Kapur's unaccountably somber tone. Earlier versions knew the material was ridiculous and had fun with it. The remake's seriousness is wholly inappropriate for such lightweight material, lacking the original's humor or flare. Moving the story to the Gordon Relief Expedition allows Kapur to depict the British expedition as a failure. This bleakness jars badly with the story: Harry is redeemed, most of the protagonists survive and all should be right with the world.

The cast is the final insult. Heath Ledger showed some talent in his later films but he's an unemotive stump here. Wes Bentley made a splash in American Beauty before mostly disappearing, while Kate Hudson vanished into Romcom Hell by mid-decade. Both make game tries at English accents but can't overcome weak characters. Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator) seems lost in a pointless role, lacking his usual intensity. Pros like Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon) and Tim Piggot-Smith (V for Vendetta) don't fare much better.

More than anything, The Four Feathers seems superfluous. True, the 1939 film's unabashed imperialism wouldn't go over well with modern audiences. But when a perfectly good version exists already, why bother?

Liberalism and the Last Chance Saloon

University College London

Life Site News today carries a report that 3/4 of British Christians believe that anti-Christian discrimination, though perhaps a better word is 'sentiment', is on the rise in the United Kingdom.

The same site informs us that the University College of London is to force the UCLU Catholic Society to invite pro-abortion speakers should any pro-lifer give a talk to their Society.

The same site carries a report that in Barcelona, peaceful pro-life demonstrators had insults, food and then rocks thrown at them for demonstrating against abortions being carried out in Catholic hospitals.  In the US, we have news that President Obama is doing all that he can to force the Catholic Church to burn incense to the emperor in a new and more open phase of his administration's desire to silence, divide and then rule the ability of the Catholic Church to proclaim Her faith in Her hospitals and institutions.

We are beginning to see that liberalism's true colours are anything but liberal, but it is also likely that 'we ain't seen nothing yet'. The ongoing spread and rise of liberalism coupled with the State's dominance and frightening control over every sphere of human activity is a one-way road to firstly dividing the Church and then, if She is not pliant, or indeed compliant, crushing Her freedom.

In the US, only an orthodox-believing Catholic president will be able to reverse the tide. It is unlikely the Republican party will elect Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. In continental Europe, hopes that traditionally Catholic nations would defend the institution of the family and marriage, or defend the unborn child and the freedom of the Church are proving ill-founded, aside from Eastern European states such as Poland and, as Fr Tim Finigan reports, Hungary. 

And without wishing to state the blatantly obvious, liberalism's dictatorship is grotesquely unjust. This is not least because the Catholic Church has, in Europe and the United States, as well as the United Kingdom, been the 'salt of the earth' for those nations. In all of these nations, the Catholic Church has provided for those countries relief to the poor in terms of soup runs, soup kitchens and organisations working within communities, doing the kinds of things the State would never dream of doing.

The Church has also provided schools which give education to children - and not all of these children, as we know, are Catholics. The Church has provided hospitals and hospices which have cared for and treated hundreds of thousands of people. Yet, the huge benefit that Church-owned institutions have brought to the Western states is not the only reason why forcing them to go against the Church's own teachings is unjust.

After all, here in the United Kingdom, the Catholic Church continues to be relatively mute concerning the raft of legislative insults to the Christian Faith that this country has seen, even to the point of allowing the State to bring its own liberal ideology into Catholic schools.

In the UK, the Church has been worryingly compliant with Government. Dr John Senatmu's recent defense of marriage was more impressive than anything we have yet heard from the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. How refreshing it was to hear that he believes that the truth about natural marriage is more important than wanting to be 'popular'. We hear little from the Hierarchy in terms of defending the unborn or against human embryonic research. We hear a lot about the danger of cuts to welfare, but little on the right to life. Bishops here are not in the habit of speaking out in ways which embarrass the Government and even when they do, it might have been from a speech from Ed Miliband. In the US, more Bishops are becoming bolder but that is because the Government is removing freedom and liberty from Catholic institutions.

By and large, although liberalism has become the adopted, default position of most Western states, the Church has tried to maintain moral standards in Her own institutions, but has by no means given the Governments of the West a particularly difficult time over its immoral decisions concerning human society.

This is because although the Church has authority over its own institutions, She cannot force adherence to the moral law upon the rest of society. The Church shows a great deal of tolerance, even towards those things which are morally evil. The Church does not, nor cannot, force societies or Governments to accept the Gospel. The Church also understands that her own members too are in need of forgiveness and purification and that there is plenty of sin to be found in the Church itself.

Yet, in the US, and surely over the next few years in Europe and the UK as well, the Church will come under renewed pressure to accept in Her own institutions that which goes against what She believes in terms of both the natural law and the law of Almighty God. The Church forces nobody to believe. Like God, She leaves to men and women within and without the Church free will in choosing God and true freedom, or sin and slavery. The liberal State, however, cannot tolerate those who contradict liberalism. Liberalism, by its very nature, is aggressive. It cannot tolerate 'dissent'. It cannot abide the opposing viewpoint and it sure as heck cannot tolerate Christianity for long. Eventually, it throttles those who are not convinced by its own very arbitrary and narrow definition of freedom.

While in Spain (and England, we are told) Catholic hospitals are only too willing to forget their founders' moral convictions and provide abortions, abortion referrals and abortifacients, in the United States, the power of the Executive arm of Government is forcing Catholic hospitals to go against the conscience of its own workers, benefactors and the Church which laid those hospitals foundations and maintains them. How long before that becomes the situation in Europe and the United Kingdom? How would our Bishops react when, after all the back-room negotiations, consultations and social gatherings, the State decided that the drinks were nice, the chats were friendly, but it is now time to force the Church to do those things that She does not want to? We still have conscience clauses, I believe, for health workers in the United Kingdom. These clauses are, I believe, on their last legs.

Since liberalism began its open assault on the Church in the 1960s, the Church has been nothing but kind to the State and to those who really are Her sworn enemies. Undoubtedly, in some countries, such as ours, the Church has been 'too kind' to these enemies. In the United States, we are beginning to see that co-operation and kindness means nothing to those who seek to destroy the Church. To liberals, kindness is a weakness of which to be taken advantage. Sadly, it will not take too long for the doctrinaire liberalism, the inquisitorial liberalism of President Obama, to be adopted in Europe and the United Kingdom as well. Freedom to worship means nothing if Catholics do not have the freedom to live according to our consciences. I hope and pray that the Bishops do not discover too late that the niceties of dialogue with liberal Governments means nothing and that your freedom to worship means little, when the State removes your right to live according to your sacred Conscience.

Forget the poor, it's the rich that need our charity

He earns £100,000 each week amounting to well over £5 million pounds each year but no one questions his right to that money, or his skills and ability that enable him to command such a sum.

He is not alone.
In the UK and Mainland Europe, there are literally hundreds more like him, with a spread of adoring supporters worldwide.

He is, of course, footballer, David Beckham.

Compare him, if you will with the vilified Mr Stephen Hester, the hatchet man brought in to turn around the disaster that was the banking icon, RBS. He has probably studied and trained for a similar period of time as Mr Beckham, admittedly, on a more academic pitch, but the value that Mr Hester brings is not one of entertainment.

He has averted a crisis of proportions unimaginable that would have had a major impact on the living standards of every man, woman and child, in the UK and beyond. The impact on the poor man, woman and child would have been disastrous.

Hester saved RBS (and the country) many billions, of which, his annual bonus of c. £950,000 seems small fry - what David B would earn in ten weeks!

But the tragedy of all this anger that is now directed at the banking community (bankers are the new estate agents) is, that we have overlooked just how much they need prayers and charity, for their future is a bleak one and I am not talking about a hardening of the arteries and type two diabetes.

We seem to have forgotten that Christ, when He walked the earth, was not overly concerned about the fate of the poor (because he knew what their fate would most likely be).
He was most concerned for the rich and their spiritual welfare.

Where was Our Lord to be found most evenings once His mission had begun?

Not preaching to the old and infirm, or young families with many mouths to feed - he was eating with the filthy rich, the tax collectors (bankers?) the pimps and the prostitutes, the business community.

He knew the danger that they were in and, on the principle of not finding a Doctor among the healthy, there He counselled, preached and guided.

Matthew 19: 23-24:
And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

An extraordinary experience, today's Missa Cantata

Something happened at Mass this afternoon and I don't know what  it was or why it occurred.
At least five of us in the congregation, choir and serving on the altar independently experienced it.

It was not influenced at all by the music, beautiful as it was; it was felt as soon as Mass started with the Asperges.

The feeling was palpable, as if Christ Himself had suddenly materialised on the sanctuary.

If Christ was present, so were His angels, it was St Augustine who said that:

"When Mass is being celebrated, the sanctuary is filled with countless angels who adore the divine victim immolated on the altar."

They were certainly present today; I have never quite experienced anything similar before. 

It was if a voice was saying: "Nothing matters except Me, all will be well "

Now I apologise if this all sounds rather schmaltzy or spiritualist, even. It was nothing like that.

It was a profoundly Catholic experience, I cannot say more than that.

But a friend who was present emailed me with this sentence that goes a long way to summing it up:

"The Mass was so beautiful today;  the reverence shown to Our Lord was very moving. The gentle bows in adoration; the pauses in the Gloria Patri...; the genuflections......it was all so lovely. I wanted it to last and last".

 

Just for the record, this clip is the same Mass (Orbis Factor) that was sung by the Newcastle Emlyn Schola today.

And....a reminder, for me, as to why the Holy Mass is so critical to our welfare
 from the Catholic Bible website

                       

"At the hour of death the Holy Masses you have heard devoutly will be your greatest consolation. 

Every Mass will go with you to Judgment and will plead for pardon for you.

By every Mass you can diminish the temporal punishment due to your sins, more or less, according to your fervour.

By devoutly assisting at Holy Mass you render the greatest homage possible to the Sacred Humanity of Our Lord. ...

Through the Holy Sacrifice, Our Lord Jesus Christ supplies for many of your negligences and omissions.

He forgives you all the venial sins which you are determined to avoid. He forgives you all your unknown sins which you never confessed.

The power of Satan over you is diminished. 

By piously hearing Holy Mass you afford the Souls in Purgatory the greatest possible relief.  

Through Holy Mass you are preserved from many dangers and misfortunes which would otherwise have befallen you. You shorten your Purgatory by every Mass.

Through the Holy Mass you are blessed in your temporal goods and affairs.

When you hear Holy Mass devoutly, offering it to Almighty God in honour of any particular Saint or Angel, thanking God for the favors bestowed on him, etc., you afford that Saint or Angel a new degree of honour, joy and happiness, and draw his special love and protection on yourself.  

Every time you assist at Holy Mass, besides other intentions, you should offer it in honour of the Saint of the day. 

In holy Mass, in obedience to Christ's command, "Do this in remembrance of me," we of the Church offer perfect praise to the heavenly Father, and sanctify ourselves and the world by the power that flows from the priestly office of our eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ.  

The benefits of even one holy Mass are infinite and include the whole world. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant was "shed for you and for all."  

In every Mass that is offered the Church remembers before God "those who take part in this offering, those here present and all your people, and all who seek you with a sincere heart." In a special way those who have holy Mass offered and those for whom a Mass is offered partake of the grace of the Eucharistic sacrifice.  

The Church which offers Mass each day includes not only the faithful on earth, but the saints in heaven, as well as the suffering souls still awaiting entrance into heaven. 

It is a pious and praiseworthy custom for the faithful to have Masses offered for their particular intentions, and especially for departed friends and loved ones. It is a laudable Catholic practice when requesting Mass for a special intention to make an offering both for the support of the priest who will celebrate the Mass and to provide for the needs of the altar as well as the materials required for the holy Sacrifice.

It is very sad that so many non-Catholic Christians consider the Mass to be an abomination.  It is just the opposite.  It is the one-time sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross recreated, through time and space, in an unbloody fashion, just like Jesus did during the Last Supper". 

Tabula Delenda Est!

Thanks to my friend Lawrence who played harmonica on this song and to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints who inspired me. If you like it then Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio et in saecula saeculorum. Amen. If you don't then, sorry. I chose a car park for recording because the acoustics are good and we are the Catholic underground.

Tabula Delenda Est

Well I walked into the Mother Church of England and Wales

To light a candle, say some prayers and confess

Took a stroll around and found a magazine

Enigmatically titled, ‘The Tablet’

So I read a couple of the articles and the more that I read,

The more it dawned on me this mag once had Catholic zeal

Now its a vehicle for dissent

So I said:

‘Tabula Delenda est!’

Now I know why so few Catholics genuflect

They're so comatosed by this infernal, liberal journal

They don’t believe in the Real Presence

‘Tabula delenda est’

The barely beating heart of the Catholic Establishment

Surely its days are numbered

If their faith is so encumbered by liberalism’s foul-smelling stench

Domine exaudi orationem meam

Et clamor meus ad te veniat

When will the axe fall upon this moribund magazine

And its liberal editrix?

No subject is taboo, no line can be drawn

Nothing's sacred, no Teaching unchallenged

And if you dare to tell them they’re writing into oblivion

They’ll say you’re a fundamentalist

Tabula delenda est!

The intelligensia ain't that intelligent

 Because they’re losing readers by the weeks, months, years

And its obvious they’re best years are spent

Tabula delenda est!

And we wonder where all of the Catholics went

They either lapsed or died of boredom readin' this nauseatin'

Excuse for the Catholic press!

An insult to the energy Cardinal Vaughan spent

On a Catholic journal called The Tablet

That would explain Catholicism rather than end up in schism

That would be loyal to Christ to the end

Now we get articles by Bobby Mickens wishing that our

 Beloved Pope was dead

But who'll be Bobby’s successor?

And who's a rank outsider?

Have a word with Archbishop Vincent

Living proof for the Doctrine of Original Sin

But at least in Adam and Eve’s defence

Although they picked from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

At least they knew the difference

More than we can say for…

Tabula delenda est!

The barely beating heart of the Catholic Establishment

When will the Archbishop of Westminster tell Catherine Pepinster

 She's non dignus of her monthly pay cheque

Tabula delenda est!
What kind of Catholic does this weekly represent?
Not the ones who adhere to the Magisterium
 You'll find them all on the internet

Tabula delenda est!

Are you wondering where all of the Catholics went?

Their faith collapsed, possibly, when they swallowed the Suppository

 Implausibly, bitter Tablet


Tabula delenda est!
Why not consider reading the Herald instead?

The Pill's dwindling readership's still cryin’ over Humanae Vitae

So they read The Tablet

Tabula delenda est!
Let's burn copies of The Tablet 'til there's no Tablets left
And then return to the Church to adore Our Blessed Lord
In the Most Holy Sacrament

Tabula delenda 
Tabula delenda
Tabula delenda est! 

Tabula delenda
Tabula delenda
Tabula delenda est!

Why Do They Keep Banking?

Daniel Knowles today writes...

'Since starting at RBS in 2008, Mr Hester has been paid something like £4.8 million in basic pay, before we even consider his bonuses. Surely he has something better to do with all that money than carrying on working as a banker?'

I think I'd consider retiring after £4.8 million as well, but then I guess I don't have the Protestant work ethic.

The Church does provide us with an actual answer to the question of why no amount of money is ever enough for Mr Hester, but it would be uncharitable to say it. Sorry, I should correct that. It's not just any money. It's your money. RBS was bailed out by the taxpayer in the financial crisis. We must keep reminding ourselves that the economic crisis was caused by men and women on disabled living allowance in council estates. I need to fix my van and start a small business. Any chance of a loan, Mr Hester? No? Thought not. You see, no amount of money is ever enough for these guys. Also, important to remember that the huge welfare bill is the fault of those claiming housing benefit. It has nothing at all to do with the rent prices themselves, which are by no means inflated by landlords asking for £170 a week for a 1 bed flat in Brighton in which you can barely swing a cat. That's just the 'market rate', much like there exists a 'market rate' for Mr Hester.

Christian Art for Sale in Brighton

I went for a walk (I nearly typed a welk) in Brighton yesterday and popped into an artists shop where he sells his art. He's called Daniel Laurence and one thing that I liked was his Psalm typography which he has put onto canvas. The one in his shop is quite large. You can see his website here. The Psalm typography is simple but very pretty I think. I asked whether he would like to use the Community Centre as a place to promote his art (a donation) or he could sell it there, like they do in pubs with a price tag and the name of the artist. He said he was open to the suggestion. I don't know whether its a bit Protestant to have stuff like this up in the community centre or not, but I just thought the simplicity of it was quite beautiful. Perhaps he could do one in Latin! I know that the AA group that meets has a serenity prayer. A nice big psalm would be nice for them as the whole premise of the AA thing is that people seek the help of a 'higher power' to overcome addiction to alcohol. Anyway, I thought I'd just post it up because I told Daniel that it was "unusual" to see any Christian art in "Godless" Brighton and that it was nice to see that faith in the art world was not totally dead. Nice chap and it seems he is selling these things at reasonable prices.

The Ides of March

In George Clooney's The Ides of March (2011), we learn a valuable lesson about how politics is a dirty game that sullies everyone involved. This will come as a revelation to everyone who lives under a rock. While the subterranean may be shocked - shocked! - by its message, surface-dwellers will detest this dull, dramatically inert film.

Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) is a campaign staffer for Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), a charismatic, idealistic Presidential contender. Morris is naive enough to believe Morris is a savior, but soon finds out that Mr. Dooley's epigram - "Politics ain't beanbag" - is as valid as ever. Campaign manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) will do anything to get the endorsement of a popular Senator (Jeffrey Wright), rival campaign boss Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) tries to bring Stephen over to his side, and intern Molly (Evan Rachel Wood) has a secret that could destroy Morris's campaign. Stephen must get down in the gutter with them to come out on top.

The Ides of March's biggest miscalculation is passing off common wisdom as profound insight. A satire like The Best Man seems quaint today, but has the excuse of coming from a more innocent time. In the era of 24 hour news media and the blogosphere, when Barack Obama and John Boehner couldn't schedule breakfast without a fillibuster, Ides comes off as insightful as a dime-store psychic. A satire would be one thing, but Ides plays this absolutely straight.

Ides might get away with this if it weren't completely devoid of drama. The script is packed with stilted dialogue: the scenes of political players scheming and lecturing one another grow old really fast, while the "human" moments (Stephen and Molly's flirtations) seem written by cyborgs who learned human behavior from Google searches. Non-stop profanity only highlights the lousiness of the non-cuss words. Worse, the characters are interchangably obnoxious, preventing any investment in or engagement by them. The central melodrama plays as a desperate ploy for audience involvement, but it undermines the movie's docudrama posturing.

Ryan Gosling is an expressionless plank of wood. Not only is he given the most obvious arc imaginable, he scarcely changes his facial expression or raises his voice over the course of the film. It's the same performance as Drive without the face-stomping, which is completely wrong. It requires more than a droopy eyelid to pull off this sort of character.

The supporting cast isn't much better. George Clooney is such a cipher that the revelation of his evildoing comes as no suprirse. Evan Rachel Wood (Across the Universe) isn't so much a character as a trite plot pawn. Good actors like Paul Giamatti (John Adams), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Charlie Wilson's War) and Jeffrey Wright (Quantum of Solace) struggle with underwritten characters. Marisa Tomei plays a conniving journalist, as if the film didn't have enough cliches.

The Ides of March is a sub-Stanley Kramer message film for the incurably obtuse. Is there anyone alive still so naive about our political process that this "expose" will shock? All you need to do to dispell this is turn on CNN.

The SSPX - are they really Elves?

The Church has been beleaguered before.
 Many times has the Holy Father been isolated and besieged; many priests, Bishops and lay men and women have gone to meet their death at the hands of evil.

And now wars, famine, pestilence and disease abounds.

Morality is at an all time low.

The Devil appears to be gaining ground.
Wherever one looks there is pornography, violence, dishonesty, greed, corruption, exploitation - and human life has never been held so cheap.

All appears hopeless, all is lost.....but could the Society of St Pius X provide us with the required force to repel the works and pomps of Satan?

If only those in the Vatican could offer a little more and if only Bishop Fellay's men could unbend a shade, then we could win the Battle of Helm's Deep and all future battles.

They could be the saving Elves that we so desperately need right now!

Make my day punk!

If you think that you can get away with blasphemy, with throwing filth at the image of the Son of God, of taking His name in vain, in abusing statues of His Blessed Mother, in propagating lies about pagan festivals being the prototypes of Christian ones (The Little Way), in destroying the life in the womb that He created, in assaulting His priests, His chosen ones, in taking the lives of the aged and the infirm, of experimenting on embryos in order to undertake the great 'good' of finding a cure for this, that and the other, if you think, for one minute you can get away with promoting mortal sin through the defence of homosexuality, licentiousness and immorality -

Think again!....Make my day!

"I have ten shots and you don't know how many I've used....so take a chance, make my day.....I'm taking a bead on you......"

The Diary of an Unborn Child

Who could fail to be touched by this post written by Fr Bernhard Speringer ORC. For British readers, substitute Mommy for Mummy etc.

October 5: Today my life began. My parents don’t know it yet, but I am here. I’m a girl; I’ll have blonde hair and blue eyes. All my genetic imprints are present, also that I will have a weakness for flowers.....


Read the diary in full here at KATH.NET and, of course, be ready for the shock.

Santorum is right about the NHS

It's taken me a little time to brew over the remarks made by Rick Santorum regarding the National Health Service of England and Wales.

At first, my knee jerked in accord with most Brits when I heard what he had to say. You may see for yourself in this video clip.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9671217.stm

At the time, Santorum was under a bit of pressure with a mike thrust under his nose, but he must be able to take that, and then he comments that the NHS "devastated British society".
He also stated that it spelt the end for the British Empire. I think our Empire was at an end long before Nye Bevan brought in the NHS but let's overlook that and focus on whether we were "devastated" by health reforms.

As a nation we love the NHS, despite the fact that it's under the thumbscrews of consultants who rule the roost and ensure that management and practice are firmly rooted in the 1940s.

It is horrendously expensive, wastefully so and it's also pretty crap!

What do I mean by that?

I mean that it uses old technology (if it uses technology at all); it cannot put patient records online so it relies on paper files going back to the days prior to penicillin, the General Practice service is risible and can only half cope with coughs and colds (any complaint outside of runny noses is a mystery to the Doctor).
Again, electronic communications appears beyond them and as for patient satisfaction surveys - forget it!

When you finally, after many months, struggle to a hospital for a consultation you have to beat the consultant to a pulp before he/she will authorise an operation or a scan or any bleep thing for that matter.

And when, after a year or two, you are admitted for your operation, you are fed food that appears to have passed its sell by date in the days of Florence Nightingale.

But we love it - we cherish it, because, you see, it's free! And because the nurses are such angels (which they are).

Well, we do pay extortionate taxes to fund its profligate lifestyle but that's all right, we must be grateful and not complain. It was much worse for Grandfather who had to have his leg amputated with a penknife and a rusty saw with no anaesthetic!

The point is, that a catchall state funded organisation is pretty well bound to be full of flaws.
If you remove the competitive edge, provide a thick tissue of bureacracy so that no challenge to the system can be upheld, instigate political correctness to the enth degree, allow racial discrimination (from the ethnic minorities involved)  and alien cultural practices to flourish and chuck well over £700 billion at it, what do we expect?

When Santorum made his NHS comment he followed through by mentioning the name of one Margaret Thatcher, whom he obviously admires. Good.

Having seen the Lady Thatcher film, The Iron Lady this week I was reminded (by newsreel footage) of just what a grim Britain she inherited back in 1979.

Constipated by trade union greed and menaces, violent with mobs running out of control, communists behind every door of industry and commerce. Banana Republics around the world were getting out of hand and threatening British outposts and citizens.
The poor were being well and truly kept poor and then, a Lincolnshire grocer's daughter came along into a heavily male dominated Parliament and kicked it all into touch.

Whatever one thinks about her, she was one amazing woman and leader. I just wish that she had been Health Minister in the Heath Government rather than Education Minister, she would have given the NHS a good shaking.

What has all of this got to do with the Catholic Faith and Rick Santorum?

Well, I'm still saying my Rosary for Rick's success.
 If ever the US (and the world) needed a good Christian leader, now is the time.
And we should not write him off just because he criticised the NHS.
Rather we should embrace him with our hopes and prayers and wish him every success.

Anyone who can damn the Health Service and praise Lady Thatcher in one sentence has got to be Presidential material.

Seven Up! The week's top posts

1. Suffering should be regarded as a gift from God; but there are many types of suffering and to be the parent of a child with a disability must rank as being close to the top of the list - hard for both parent and child.
Making Things Visible carries a post with a message from that inspirational leader, Archbishop Chaput.

2. This week we remembered the 39th anniversary of Roe vs Wade. The day that the earth lost a large portion of its light as we began a more efficient slaughter of the innocents. Anthony Layne marks the day with his usual pithy and punchy approach - a day of shame and repentance.

3. Left Footer, (stout man that he is) has started another blog dedicated to the practice of swimming in the sea, preferably when you have to break the ice to enter in. This should be part of every Bishop's spiritual exercise - heh! heh!

4. The Blog of a Country Priest (good title) carries a post on how one cannot convert people to the faith by argument; something that I heartily agree with but, often fall by the wayside in following.

5. A new blog (for me) and one that I stumbled across on the Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma blogsite. Ethelredasplace carries a good post on the dangers presented by the "games" industry - more like "occult" industry.

6.  James Preece never fails to hit the target and score a  high impact. His post on Dangerous Emissions and CAFOD is bullseye material, read it HERE

7. The threat of Islam. Is there a country in the world that has a Muslim base and that does not persecute Christians - can't think of one offhand.
 EF Pastor Emeritus  (I almost typed Emiritus!) has yet another tragic story of how nuns cope with rampant discrimination by Saudi emigres.

And if we had an eight day week, I would award Signor Mundabor a gold star for his great post on niceness. We all live in a nice society where everything is very nice...trouble is, the inhabitants of Sodom were nice also - and look what happened to them.

The nun that said "No" to the Pope

In the aftermath of Mary Johnson's piece about obedient mindless nuns (those who wear the habit and lead a life according to their vows), we have an outspoken nun who is now a Saint - Sister Angela Merici.

The story of her life is told HERE

                                                   Prayer to St Angela

Saint Angela, you were not afraid of change. You did not let stereotypes keep you from serving. Help us to overcome our fear of change in order to follow God's call and allow others to follow theirs. Amen

The Gambler

With President Obama making his intentions for religious freedom, especially for the Catholic Church in the US, abundantly clear, the question is, has he overplayed his hand, or revealed his hand too early?

In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party always cosied up to the Catholic voters up North just in time for the election. Once in office of course, they'd behave as if the Catholic vote was toilet paper, but strategically, you would call this sound politics.

It seems as if President Obama is gambling on the sentiment in the US being virulently pro-abortion and gay marriage, even to the point of declaring war on the Catholic Church. His plans, in the run up to the election, have drawn criticism even from Bishops and Priests hitherto seen as incredibly liberal and friendly to the administration. Though I dare say there is a culture shift going on still in America towards sex, sexuality, marriage and abortion, a lot of Americans are very frightened of the federal government removing liberty from States, Churches or anyone apart from terrorists. Has he misread the American public? Does he not understand the American psyche or soul or has America turned the page on religious freedom? And if the American public care about the issue will there be a Republican candidate like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or even Ron Paul, who will stand up to the Obama plan? I expect the Republican party to elect Mitt Romney, lose the election and hand over the Executive to a rabid enemy of liberty and the Church for another four years. If that happens, America will most likely crumble and fall one way or another.

Was it something I said?

I noticed, recently, that my blog had been removed from the sidebar list of a priest blogger. That is his absolute right.

But, I was saddened by this. Had I offended him by some view expressed rather too stridently?

Was it that he did not like my comments on Bishops?

I don't think that I would retract anything that I have said over the past 14 months but I am truly sorry if I have offended this priest, because, of course, I have offended one of Christ's own which is as good as offending the good Lord Himself.

I do not care at all about being dropped off the favourites listing but I would have liked an email from him telling me why.

Is there a protocol for bloggers? A code of courtesy and conduct? I rather sense that there is an unwritten, loose form of way of carrying on; the trouble is, no one tells you about it, you just bump from rock to rock finding out the painful, hard way - trial and error.

Perhaps some erudite soul with a love of constitutional matters might cobble together a Catholic Blogger's Code?

Or, does one exist?

Catholic Voices Poll

I have a Twitter account but I don't want to get involved in the incessant online tit-for-tat that I see flying between various Catholic Voices and various Catholic bloggers who are not in Catholic Voices and who tweet about it a great deal.

I'm sure readers are aware that I'm generally suspicious of any activity organised by Austen Ivereigh, but I'm not going to go on a massive rant about it and prejudice is always ugly. The mud slinging on Twitter is ugly, but I get the feeling that what is being fought over is truth, or the Truth. Even the great Councils of the Church have seen strong disagreements over the truth. The difference is that in the Councils the victors emerge in the end and something is definitely settled. I won't go on.

However, I do wonder what UK Catholics familiar with the blogs think about the project and especially with regard to the involvement of a number of Catholic bloggers. On Twitter the accusation that I see banded around is that Austen Ivereigh saw the Catholic blogs as a problem and now some bloggers have got involved in the project something has changed and critics see those bloggers as having been co-opted by the Catholic Establishment. I'm interested in how readers of this blog would answer the poll question in the sidebar. Comments on this post are closed. If you want to comment, comment in the poll. There's an error in the question title with overuse of the word 'have'...apologies for that. You get the gist.

Misinterpreting the Faith

"Asparagus me..............."

There were some excellent additions to my 12th January post regarding misinterpretations of the faith - all of them funnier than my originals.

Here they are.....

'Asparagus me.....' - is courtesy of Sandy at A Catholic Comes Home (whom I wish would post more)

Purgatory - Left Footer states that it is neither a laxative nor an anti-Conservative witch-hunt.

Lauds - not for cricket, more for early morning prayer according to Porta Caeli

Fr Whelan states that the Barque of Peter is not an angry growl from the Pope

Webmaster Gareth, another Papal one -And, if the Popes don't like something they don't say, "Let him have Asthma"

Fr Abberton (Stella Maris) says -  the dialogue on entering the Confessional is NOT, "Bless me Father, for you have sinned"! And the humeral veil is not funny

The Little Way (with a French bias) - And the Confiteor is a prayer confessing sinfulness, not a person with a penchant for roasting duck.

Tony Layne - pithy as ever - The mantilla can't be found over a small fireplace

And Compline is not a powdered milk nutritional supplement available in a range of delicious flavours...states Mark at Joe Versus the Volcano 

Nuns - are they a force for good or....?

The nuns always laid on a welcoming
ceremony when the Bishop paid a visit

An American ex Nun has published a report stating that she believes that Vatican officials (and, presumably the Holy Father) are afraid of them, nuns, that is.

Too damn right they are! A US nun of the liberated feminist variety is enough to scare Attila the Hun.
The ex sister in question, Mary Johnson, claims that it is the lack of nunnish clothing ie a wimple and habit that makes the Cardinals jittery. It has become a sign that the woman in question is modern, liberal and not afraid to question authority.

I would have thought that all of those attributes would be classified in the 'bad' file.
Don't nuns take vows of poverty, obedience and chastity?

And humility must come under the poverty tag just as keeping oneself pure and free of rebellious thoughts and actions must come under chastity.

As for obedience - that went out of the window years ago.

H/T to Luke Coppen of The Catholic Herald for flagging this one up and also to Bloomberg who ran the story.

Here is an extract from Mary Johnson's article, my comments are in red.

Nuns in Street Clothing Shouldn’t Frighten Vatican: Mary Johnson

The Vatican recently finished an exhaustive, three-year inquest, the kind it reserves for its gravest problems. The subject: “American apostolic women religious,” commonly known as nuns.

Almost 400 religious institutions throughout the U.S. were studied as part of this “apostolic visitation,” and a final, confidential report on the nuns’ activities was submitted to the Vatican in December.
Why investigate nuns? (Why? Because they were/are running riot in total disobedience to the Faith and a cause of great scandal) Because, Vatican officials said, they were concerned for the sisters’ welfare. But as a former nun -- I left the convent in 1997 after 20 years as a sister in New York, Rome, Washington and Winnipeg, Canada -- I know what the church leaders won’t publicly admit: American nuns frighten them.
I should qualify that remark: Not all U.S. nuns scare the Vatican. The Catholic hierarchy dotes on those who wear long habits with hanging rosaries, unquestioningly obedient nuns (Isn't that what nuns are supposed to be?) who staff Catholic institutions for less than it costs to employ laypeople. (This is not an employment opportunity, it's a vocation!)  But these conservative sisters, who are represented by the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, make up less than a tenth of the approximately 50,000 nuns in the U.S. The majority align themselves with the more liberal Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

Second Vatican Council

In 1965, when the Second Vatican Council issued a decree calling all nuns to renewal, most American sisters embarked on a demanding, often painful process of discernment and revitalization. (What? by discernment does she mean learning to apply make-up? And by revitalization, well what does she mean?) They tried on normal clothes, branched into new ministries (like what?) and abandoned traditions that kept members childishly (I was educated by nuns of the ultra traditional variety, Dominicans and others and childish is not a word I would have used about them) dependent on superiors.
Some sisters felt that renewal went too far; others thought it didn’t go far enough. The number of American nuns has shrunk by almost 75 percent since 1965 (Is there a message in that statistic?)  But those who remain have learned to listen to their consciences, (nice one, Sister, nothing like a bit of diminishment by appearing virtuous) make decisions collectively and, more audaciously, speak their minds -- even if it means opposing the Vatican.
To Rome, these liberal nuns are voices of dangerous dissent: (at last, a statement that one can agree with) Cardinal Franc Rode, who initiated the new investigation of American sisters, stated on Vatican radio two years ago that U.S. nuns display a suspect “secular mentality” and “feminist spirit.”
In 1976, at age 19, I joined Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, a traditional community of nuns. Liberal American sisters in polyester didn’t appeal to me; Mother Teresa’s mission to the poorest did. I didn’t realize the community would observe every Vatican decree as though it came directly from God. (Well, they do come direct from God - or have I missed something?)
I was told that the highest use of my intellect was its unquestioning surrender in obedience; my superiors would always tell me what God asked of me. Eventually, I came to see that the Missionaries of Charity’s anti-intellectualism (oooh!) and rigid separation from the world stunted our work and each sister’s development. Modern nuns’ encouragement of individuals’ gifts and responsibilities no longer seemed like egocentric selfishness -- it seemed like oxygen. (More like carbon monoxide)
Sometimes I think that if I had joined one of those modern communities, I might still be a nun. (What a stinger to end on, you've got to hand it to Sr Mary, she certainly knows how to damn with faint praise).

ends/.....


I did not particularly like the nuns of my childhood, most of them were harsh and severe. Conservative, even.
But they were all amazing examples of humility, obedience and, I am sure, chastity.
They reflected God's love, albeit in a somewhat direct manner. I do not view them through rose tinted glasses, they did have faults but, by and large, they were a good bunch.

They may have been obedient to Rome but there was nothing subservient about them; they challenged the Diocesan education authorities as a matter of course. They had to fight hard for every bit of kit and technology and every resource that was available.

They did not kow tow to the Archbishop or Cardinal of the time; I once witnessed the Headteacher nun giving Cardinal Heenan a real ear bashing for not featuring the school in one of Westminster's televised ceremonies.
He left the school a very chastened man but not before Sister Catherine had knelt to kiss the ring on his finger.

That's what I call a real nun.

Serpico

Sidney Lumet's best work (12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon) addresses topical issues sans the obnoxious preachments that mar so many "significant" films. Serpico (1973) is a case in point: a powerful depiction of police corruption, it sublimates any grandstanding to a compelling story.

Newly-minted New York cop Frank Serpico (Al Pacino) finds life on the force rough. From his unkempt whiskers to his love of ballet, Serpico is a decidedly unconventional cop - even more so when he's shocked that his colleagues extort and skim money from criminals. At first Serpico turns a blind eye, seeking reassignment to a clean section, but finds every precinct honeycombed with corruption. With the help of a Mayor's aide (Tony Roberts) and an honest cop (Edward Grover) Serpico reports his findings, but his image-minded superiors are reluctant to pursue it. Serpico's peers soon discover his game, and arrange a nasty surprise for him.

Serpico is an extremely angry film, calling out the NYPD's institutional corrutpion. One of Frank's first experiences is seeing his partner beat a rape suspect to a bloody pulp, and it goes downhill from there. Every department has its own con going, reasoning their larceny "won't hurt anyone." The higher-ups, whether through incompetence, complicity or simple face-saving, drag their feet in addressing the issue. Frank's colleagues openly threaten him and take credit for his arrests, even trying to frame him for sodomy. The most pointed scene has several officers getting chummy with a hustler (and cop killer) Frank just arrested.

"Message films" are hard to pull off; it's tricky to make a point without being preachy or sacrificing entertainment value. Lumet keeps the anger at a low boil, sparing the audience any on-the-nose homilies. There are no easy villains to tear down: all the cops are complicit, the rackets a self-perpetuating, universally accepted part of police life. We want Frank to triumph, but it hardly seems worth the effort. Even if Serpico succeeds, his career is ruined and the big fish will likely escape justice.

Lumet's direction is typically strong, mixing some directoral flair (the chaotic opening especially) with docudrama grittiness. Lumet uses Serpico's ever-growing facial hair and pet dog as clever ellipses for gaps in the story, and screenwriter Howard Wexman's dialogue, character interactions and plot development ring absolutely true. The fine music comes from Mikis Theodarkis, who'd previously scored the similarly subversive Z.

Al Pacino hit paydirt with The Godfather a year before, and he's no less impressive here. His Frank Serpico is a truly unique creation, a rough-hewn cop who mixes street smarts with intellectual pursuits. Despite his hippie appearance he's the department's straightest arrow, and possibly the only one interested in justice. Pacino nails his cultivated eccentricities, fierce individuality and righteous anger with remarkable panache.

Barbara Eda-Young and Cornelia Sharpe are effective as the women in Serpico's life. Tony Roberts (The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3) is excellent as Serpico's friend in a high place, perhaps too eager to help. Jack Kehoe (The Untouchables), Judd Hirsch (TV's Taxi) and M. Emmett Walsh (Blade Runner), among others, play crooked cops; John Randolph and Biff McGuire are lugubrious bureaucrats; F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus) helps set Serpico up.

Serpico proves yet again the '70s (almost) had the monopoly on great crime films. Mixing perfect dramaturgy with measured polemics, it's remarkably effective.