Review of "The Host" on Times Online

I have read only one Stephenie Meyers book. It was on a dare from someone who found my criticism of the book's sexual content hard to handle. Before I read the book, I based my criticism on the overreaction of adolescent girls to a dark romance. I opposed "Twilight" not so much for what it was, but for how innocent young minds were corrupted and obsessed by it.

I had experience with adolescent obsession over a book. When I was 13, I was obsessed with Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone with the Wind" reading the 1037 page book in only 4 days. I loved the pathos and the romance of her impossible love for Ashley Wilkes, the pathetic failure of her marriage to Rhett Bulter, and the fairy tale life of rich plantation owners in the antebellum South. My obsession ignored both the misery of the slaves and the adulterous actions of Scarlett kissing a married man. It was unhealthy escape of a shy, bookish teen, yet it is a romp in the tulips compared with the potent sexual pull of "Twilight" series.

I read "Twilight" and was mortified by the subtle yet powerful undercurrents of sexual tension, dragging readers into a story with masochism, sadism, necrophilia, and many other shades of ugly and unworthy elements for young minds. A well known child author called it "kiddie porn". Yet many Catholic writers defend the series, after I suspect falling under its sensual spell, calling it 'a good book about abstinence'. If my daughters ever practice that type of abstinence (Edward in bed with Bella yet restraining himself) she will find herself grounded till she's 25!

So, I enter this review by the Times Online of Stephenie Meyer's latest book series, "The Host" for adults as evidence that "Twilight" is kiddie porn, and not suitable for young women or old women.
"Erotic abstinence is the potent subtext that sold more than 40 million copies of Stephenie Meyer’s young adult Twilight series, working like catnip on teenage girls, for whom the theme of forbidden sexuality holds particular resonance. . .
The sizzling Edward/Bella dynamic is Meyer’s winning formula and abandoning it to write The Host, her first adult novel, would risk losing her marketplace monopoly on burning loins, along with the teenage characters to whom they belong. "
If the Times Online could name the attraction which drove the "Twilight" craze, why were intelligent Catholic women so blind? It's time to undertake a painful examination of conscience about the corrosive effects of literature and film on our sense of morality. I had a neighbor whose obsession with romance novels and her subsequent comparison of her husband to the romantic heroes, led to the breakup of a perfectly good marriage. Don't let a clever author make millions as you lose your soul.
Frs Eteneuer and Amorth warned us about implicit dangers in Stephenie Meyers books. There is something to be said about obeying good advice from priests, even when our loins are telling us to ignore them.
Let's not allow "The Host" to become an obsession.

Book Review: Sexual Wisdom for Catholic Adolescents

Sexual Wisdom for Catholic Adolescents

by Richard Wetzel, M.D.
Huntington Beach, CA: Sex Education for Advanced Beginners, 2009



Note: This review contains adult material.

“Sexual Wisdom for Catholic Adolescents” was written to fill a need in the realm of Catholic Sex Education. It is designed for older adolescents and covers a wide range of topics relating to sexuality. It is intended to be used in the home, either with parent and child together or having the child read it on their own.

Dr. Wetzel begins with a good introduction to the biology of human sexuality. He then moves on to discuss sex without love, premarital sex, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, artificial contraception and sterilization, natural family planning, infertility, and sexual deviations. He handles these topics in a straightforward, pull-no-punches manner. There are many things that adults will learn from reading this book.

One particularly insightful chapter is on “Good Sex.” In it, Dr. Wetzel divides sexual activity into five levels with Level 1 being “Perfect Sex: God’s ideal toward which we strive but can never achieve.” Level 7 is “Most severe sexual problems.” It is a useful chart because it clearly delineates different sexual behaviors. One can find where one is on the chart and know what he or she needs to work on to move closer to Level 2, the level which is as high level as we can achieve. It was comforting to know that everyone does struggle with sexual sin at some point. No one is perfect in this area.

One concern is that this book is recommended for older adolescents. Dr. Wetzel acknowledges that some will want to discuss topics with their children at a younger age. Many of these topics are only appropriate for those approaching adulthood. One would certainly not recommend going into detail with young children about the variety of sexual behavior or sexual codependency. However, children in today’s world are exposed to sex and are often offered sex at much younger ages. It is sad but true. Waiting until a child is sixteen to inform them about sex can be much too late. Eleven and twelve year olds are engaging in sexual activity. They need to be informed about the moral issues and physical concerns relating to this and they need to hear it from their parents. While one would not want to allow their eleven year old to read this book, it can offer a good starting point for parents to read and then choose what to discuss.

Dr. Richard Wetzel and the Sex Education for Advanced Beginners, Inc., the publishers of this book, are offering to supply as many boxes of these books that are needed for distribution at any high school, diocese, parish or other organization that will distribute these books to 11th graders at the cost of $2/book. Details are available at www.sexual-wisdom.com.


Reviewed by Patrice Fagnant-MacArthur
http://spiritualwomanthoughts.blogspot.com

Thanks to a sensationalized report on Nightline (I mean, what did you expect, in depth treatment, they only reported on TOB in order to shock the public?) Christopher West is answering charges that he is over the top, misinterpreting Pope John Paul, and idolizing Hugh Hefner. He gives an explanation here to misinterpretations of his comments regarding Hugh Hefner;
"I never said Hugh Hefner is a hero, never," he remarked, explaining that Hefner said he started Playboy as a personal response to the hurt and hypocrisy of Americans’ Puritan heritage."The point I was making with ABC was that we as Catholics agree with Hefner’s diagnosis of the disease of Puritanism, a fearful rejection of the body rooted in heritage of Manicheanism. Sadly, that very important point did not come out in the interview.""Let the record stand very clearly: the pornographic revolution that Hugh Hefner inaugurated, the medicine that he suggested, proves to be in many ways more dangerous than the disease itself.'"

West went on to that while ABC took time to do a good interview, it was boiled down to a 7 minute clip with sound bites which were misleading. This is a danger of being part of tabloid TV; only the juicy bits make the cut, and who knows what the agenda of the editor is. I was asked to review The Dangerous Book for Girls (see my review here) on the Today Show, but after finding suggestions to practice both Yoga and the occult in the otherwise good book, I refused, on the basis that my comments on TV would be edited, and my appearance on the show with the book might be misconstrued as approval. As a Catholic film and book critic, I value my reputation of being orthodox and forthright too highly to risk it for 3 minutes of fame.
Maybe Christopher West should be more careful in the future about to what type of program he gives interviews. I have reviewed his latest book "Heaven's Song" very positively, in fact Ascension Press used my blurb(as well as Jeff Miller's who also writes for CMR) for their advertising, so obviously I feel his interpretation of Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body is important. Too important to trust to the National Enquirer of TV: Nightline. Maybe Huckabee or Bonnie Hunt would give him adequate time to express the true meaning of Theology of the Body.

Read the entire story on Catholic News Service.

Book Review of "The Thrill of the Chaste"

What non-fiction book can rivet your attention so that you suspend normal activities until you have finished it without the 'obligatory sex scenes'?"The Thrill of the Chaste" of course!

Dawn Eden, former agnostic, NYU graduate, Sex in the City practitioner, writer for Rolling Stone, The New York Post and the Daily News was the least likely candidate to become a pro-life, chaste Catholic single woman.

"The Thrill of the Chaste" takes the reader back into her past when she was a typical professional urban woman looking for lasting love in a series of sexual encounters where each found herself lonelier than the last. She found herself holding back more and more of her herself as a relationship became more sexually intimate, in order to prepare for the inevitable emotional wreckage of the breakup. Dawn shares with the reader the poignant details of the emotional cost of the lifestyle which fails to satisfy, and her painful, yet steady climb out of it. Her evocative storytelling ability makes the story a great read as well as a valuable guide to those who are leaving sexual immorality behind for something far better. Her book draws from the wellspring of Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body as she

discovers her true vocation as a single woman and her renewed hopes for a future of true intimacy in married life.

This book should be on the bookshelf of every high school. So many young women today are suffering the painful loneliness inherent in unchaste lifestyles and fear that there is no starting over. Dawn's intimate testimony is proof that God's merciful grace is always sufficient to begin anew, and has awakened hope in thousands who have had the experience of reading it, or attending one of her talks.

I first met Dawn when I lived on Long Island, and she gave a Faith on Tap talk on her book. Because of her 'coming out' as a pro-lifer while working at the New York Post, and subsequently losing her job, I summoned up the courage to come out as a pro-life writer at Suffolk County Community College where I was an adjunct professor. We next met in 2007, as we gave presentations on the Catholic blogosphere at the Annual Meeting of the Catholic Society of Social Scientists at St John's Law School. Dawn has an engaging humility about her, she never acts like the celebrity, no matter when we meet, she warmly remembers me as a fellow blogger, further evidence of her profound conversion. She is a wonderful role model for single Catholic women striving to live a life of grace in a hostile, pornographic society.

Last fall Dawn spent some time in Baltic, my hometown in Eastern CT and was interviewed by Friar Roderick on AIR MARIA. We just met in Washington DC in January in the John Paul II Cultural Center where she was conducting a chastity workshop, and I promised to review her book here. Dawn recently held her own on The Today Show where the Sex and the City practitioners gave her a run for her money.

She blogs at The Dawn Patrol.

Movie Review: The Reader

Should I see it?
Nope.

The middle of this story holds a fascinating conflict which deserves a film. The opening and end of the film are indulgent, unnecessarily drawn out distractions from a potentially great tale. The story centers on Michael Berg (David Kross), a fifteen-year-old boy in post-World War II Germany. Berg becomes ill on his way home one day* and is helped out by an older woman, Hanna (Kate Winslet in an Oscar winning performance.) She seduces the lad and the two begin a fling. All of their grunting and fondling goes on for a while and then Hanna unexpectedly ups and leaves. Berg is dismayed that his middle-aged shag doll has run off. He carries on with his life. While studying to become a lawyer, he attends a Nazi war crimes trial. Not surprising to us, but rather shocking to Berg, is that it is Hanna who is on trial. It turns out his former lover is little more than a cold heart Nazi succubus. Berg watches the trial and makes the mental note to run full background checks on middle age women who offer themselves to him in the future. The end of the film focuses on Berg as a grown man (Ralph Fiennes). Berg is now an emotionally-awkward, snickering doofus, apparently still broken from his youthful mistake.

The trial portion is very well handled and carries the potential of a great film. There's a striking conflict played out in Berg. He has a secret about Hanna that could save her, but does he announce to the world what he has done? This holds some interesting questions about the truth, and law versus morality. The film toys with this question for roughly five minutes and lets it die on the vine. The trial itself is brief and not treated with the weight it deserves. If the film had focused more intently on the trial instead of all of the other aspects of the story, this would have been a brilliant work. As it is, director Stephen Daldry (The Hours) lingers an incredibly long time on the love affair between Berg and Hanna. While this is an important aspect of the film, Daldry ponders on their lovemaking far too long. All the audience needs to understand is that he is a virginal teen, she is an older woman. She takes his innocence and basically exchanges sex from the boy for him reading books to her (she's illiterate). Daldry takes the opportunity to show the two actors completely naked in multiple scenes and plays up the eroticism like some high-budget Skinamax flick. It gets to the point where the film is about nothing other than this kid getting laid. The relationship between the two is so focused on their sexing up one another that the emotional bond between the two is weakened. This is a fatal flaw since Berg must have a deep, and believable, emotional connection in order to explain his actions for the rest of the film. Daldry expends all of his energies with the sex scenes that the remainder of the film is devoid of any real emotional punch.

Kate Winslet won a Best Actress Oscar for her performance as Hanna. This once again proves that one does not need to actually provide a masterful performance to win an Oscar, one simply needs to seem like they did. Winslet's no slouch, but this performance could have been done just about anyone. Now that I consider it, it would have been a far more interesting film if it had been cast with Selma Hayek in the lead - but that would make this into an entirely different movie. Back to Winslet - she's okay in the role, not great. The other performances are solid, but also not masterful. David Kross keeps up with Winslet and shows he can act. He will probably have a good career. He manages the transition from innocent teen to jaded young adult effectively and is a good anchor for the whole production.

Overall, this film is not worth the attention and hype it has received. The Oscars were far too generous, as are most critics. This is a lopsided, and sometimes even boring film that misses its mark. On top of all of this, the relationship between a fifteen year old and an older woman is given far too much attention. I have strict rules when it comes to the portrayal of sexuality and children in film, this includes teens. David Kross may have been of age during the filming of this production, but to show him in full-frontal nudity while portraying a kid is unacceptable in my book. I don't know what the laws were in Germany in the late forties, so it may be incorrect to call Hanna a statutory rapist - but for the sake of what my point is, I will refer to her as such. She is raping a fifteen year old boy, taking his innocence; which yes, I understand is the whole point of the story. My issue is with Daldey fawning over the sex scenes. We can be told of the relationship without having to see her sagging breasts and his dangle. It is unnecessary and it is therefore pornographic in its delivery - given that he's supposed to be underage, this is a huge problem.

I don't recommend this film. It is no where near as good as others have claimed.


* - When was it agreed that every other film will not only display someone vomiting, but when it happens we have to SEE it happen. Having the character turn away after dry heaving a little isn't enough - we have to witness the projectile leap from their lips and splatter heavily on the ground. I've noticed the vomiting shot is usually found in films that are meant to be smart and serious. It is as if the filmmakers say to the audience, "See the despair of the human condition! Witness the trouble of this character's body and soul...okay, that's done, let's go look at Winslett's aged butt."


Cross Posted at Good News Film Reviews

No one is beyond the grace of God

This powerful conversion story of the writer who wrote the script for "Basic Instinct"(known for pushing the envelope with it's sexual content) and "Showgirls" proves that it's not too late to convert anyone in Hollywood.
In his book, Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith, the former senior editor of the Rolling Stone, Joe Eszterhas, explains his conversion.
Eszterhas grew up in refugee camps in Hungary during World War II before living in the back alleys of Cleveland. It was there that he worked as a police reporter racing to cover “countless shootings” and “urban riots,” he told the Toledo Blade.
At the time, his life was very dark—one filled with death, murder, crime and chaos. He describes his writing as equally dark and also “sexually graphic.”
And then he had a 'road to Damascus' conversion. Someone was praying for him. Now he is in love with the Holy Eucharist. It's such a powerful story, and one that can be repeated.
We all need to pray for Hollywood.
Read the entire article at CNA

There's no need to review "Sex and the City" is there?

The title speaks for itself, without any of us having to incur a state of sin by seeing the film. Colleen Carroll Campbell, does an excellent job explaining why we needn't bother with this bit of cultural toxin in her review.

Disney and decency

ABC has been fined $1.43 million dollars for a shower scene in "NYPD Blue" which shows a woman entering a shower shocking a little boy. The Disney Company owns ABC, so it's lawyers did their best to twist the meaning of the FCC law to justify showing partial nudity on broadcast televsion. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center has some interesting commentary on Disney's influence on the media.
"Was this scene necessary to the story line? No. Was it there to titillate? Absolutely. ABC claimed it was "nonsexual nudity," and therefore okay.
When it was finally rapped on the knuckles, Disney-owned ABC was petulant. It responded first by joining the crowd in Tinseltown now asserting in federal court the "right" to drop the F-bomb on millions of children. Then the lawyers insisted to the FCC that there's nothing inappropriate in an ABC show lovingly fixating the viewer on the young woman's bare behind several times. It was only seven seconds, they protested."
What would Walt say?
HT Catholic Exchange