Yeah, I know…


It’s a downright radical (or reactionary) publication (for the sake of complete transparency, I have a lifetime subscription), but this pre-Vat. II take on the flim-flam of films is, I think, right on. It was, after all, written by a member of the “greatest generation” – how could it be wrong?

“[P]erhaps you like the ‘progressive’ type priest better than the more old-fashioned kind. But don’t you see, even the old doddering padre, the one who’s made to appear as a typical ‘traditionalist’ or ‘conservative’ in the ranks of the Catholic clergy, is a far cry from what I would call a real Catholic priest. Because to all appearances he values his parish mainly in terms of a church building which it has taken him a lifetime collection drive to build. True, he doesn’t only take in money via raffle tickets and church pew collections, but in a kind of Robin Hood way he also pays back an occasional alms to the parish needy. Then, in moments of financial parish crisis, when the mortgagor’s handwriting appears in bold letters on the wall—the old padre seeks to revive his inner faith by an admittedly human, but hardly a very priestly way: he reaches dodderingly for his favorite bottle of scotch!”

I think of Spotlight winning this year’s onanist Oscar and can’t help but think that if the late and venerable Mr. Matt is right, he’s more right than he thinks…

Thank God for J.F. Powers…



  1. Big Jon Bully says

    Great post, thanks.

  2. Some day, remind me to tell you how J.F. Powers washed his dishes.

  3. Apart from writing poems are the writers doing anything useful? I have a headache from being gassed at the moment, so won’t write much. However, I have said what I think about disease. If you magnified as much as you need to to see a cell, the image would blur if it was that close to the microscope, even if there were light to see it. My own microscope looks like it contains two bird’s (perhaps three) eyes just above the objective lenses – ie, there are orange irises.

Speak Your Mind