Author: Eric Johnson

Mary’s bath
I’m about to get a custard out of the oven in a few minutes. Did you know that the water bath surrounding a custard’s dish is called a bain marie, or “Mary’s bath”? Supposedly, that is because the bath moderates the temperature of the custard and keeps it from getting too hot or cold, and ensures the custard is evenly cooked throughout; that is analogous to the mildness and temperance of the Virgin. Interesting, no?

Ye Hypocrites!
A post on Mark Shea’s blog got me thinking about hypocrisy. To think more deeply about something, I find it helpful to start with etymology, so I looked up “hypocrisy”. It’s from the Greek hypokrisis, the “act of playing a part on the stage.”
In that sense, hypocrisy is an essential part of the Christian life. We must all pretend to be better than we are, if we want to progress in the Christian life. Asking yourself, “How would I behave if I weren’t so [uncharitable, prideful, lustful, etc.]?” is the key to figuring out how you ought to behave when your stubborn self doesn’t want to cooperate. We are all indeed actors on a stage; but after a while, we become the part. (I think Lewis made a similar, if not identical, point in his writings.)
It’s true, then, when the world hurls the charge of “hypocrisy” at Christians. Militant secularists find exquisite joy in faithful people’s shortcomings. Sometimes the sinners are Protestants (Falwell, Swaggert), sometimes they are Catholics (too many examples to list), but you can always expect to hear cackles of joy when someone espousing “family values” is found cheating on his spouse. Or embezzling, or lying, or whatever.
Surely, though, true hypocrisy doesn’t consist of “saying one thing and doing another.” Using that definition, if you aren’t a hypocrite sometimes — if you always meet your own moral standards — then either you’re a living saint, or your standards aren’t high enough. Our Lord didn’t call the Pharisees “hypocrites” because they fell short of the Law, it was because they proudly held themselves up as exemplars, or icons, if you will, without admitting their own sinfulness. Jesus did not even point to himself as an example of righteousness, though he could have (Mt 19:17).
True hypocrisy must therefore begin with pride, like so many other sins. Permitting the world to accuse us of hypocrisy is perhaps God’s way of keeping us more honest than we might be otherwise. It is sometimes easy to ignore the wrath of God when it feels so distant from us, but the ridicule of men is immediate and stinging, and often obstructs our worldly preoccupations. So even if we’re called hypocrites and it’s not true from a Christian perspective, it would still be a good time to think about the ways in which we fail God in front of others.

Why blogging is getting bigger
Not very long ago, I was suspicious of blogs. Maybe it was because I know what unedited text looks like; maybe it was from working in the so-called “establishment medium” of print. Either way, I figured most blogs are junk.
And they are. Most blogs are self-indulgent, masturbatory junk, emanations from people who couldn’t get published anywhere else. However, I think they’ll put a huge dent in traditional journalism, and here’s why:
Clue #1. Months ago, I was watching the “Tonight Show” for whatever reason (I don’t watch much television and I’m not usually up that late). They have a recurring “man on the street” segment where they ask people about current events and what have you. The answers that people give, and the opinions they espouse, are very amusing.
I don’t remember what the questions they were asking that night, but one girl was a real standout. She had brown hair, wore strange glasses, was a little overweight, and wore a frumpy red dress — not the kind of person who usually appears on TV. Yet instead of letting her talk for 15 seconds like the other people, they stayed with her for two or three minutes, almost the entire segment. They asked her if she attracted really masculine men, and she said, “No, I usually attract English-major types who look like they’re dying of consumption.” The mini-interview went on in that vein. She was sardonic, witty, and riveting to watch, though completely unrehearsed and natural.
Next on the show was Gwyneth Paltrow, who began by saying how funny the girl in the red dress was. And do you know that Paltrow wasn’t half as engaging or witty as the girl from off the street? Here was a professional actress, who gets paid millions for a dozen weeks’ work, and she couldn’t be as entertaining as a rank amateur.
Clue #2. I write play occasional reviews for the newspaper at which I work. I’ve seen the “big name” local actors, in many cases several times, in various roles. There are a few who are as good or better than any celebrity actor you can name. So why were they making chump change in a prominent but second-tier theatre city?
The answer is that most famous actors are famous not because they are talented, but because of brutally hard work and rapacious ambition. There is no other explanation: normal people can’t compete because they prioritize their lives differently: they might consider their work to be important, but as one important thing among several. Read about the malformed souls in People magazine and you’ll quickly see that most celebrities order their lives around fame, money, and influence; if everything else didn’t take a back seat, they wouldn’t be as successful as they are. How else to explain the rise of marginally talented pinheads in Hollywood?
“You started off talking about journalists, Eric,” you’re thinking. Quite right, and here’s the tie-in. Having worked with journalistic larvae in college, and around professional journalists for years, I am convinced that reporters and editors are generally no smarter than average. That goes double for television news people, who are mainly selected for being cute and charming but not smart (there are the odd ones who are cute and smart, but they are in the minority.) They are paid to attend events, talk to people, research facts, then write articles about what they’ve read and observed.
Journalists will never describe their work that simply. They act as if journalism is some kind of mystery religion, only accessible to the initiated, when the reality is that any decent writer can learn to write a basic news story. That tactic used to work, back in the days when it took a lot of effort and cash to turn out a publication. Now, the veil has been lifted. The revolution that began with cheap, affordable desktop publishing — which let anyone with a computer and printer become a publisher — only accelerated with the ascent of the Internet. The bottleneck with desktop publishing came after the publication left the printer: printing and distribution costs a lot of money. To host your own Web site costs practically nothing.
While I don’t think blogs will replace traditional journalism, they will satisfy a good portion of the public appetite for news — not the actual reporting of the events, but the interpretation of those events. The public will increasingly realize that attending a news conference at the White House does not make a person wise. Don’t get me wrong — there is no substitute for a professional journalist when it comes to investigating and writing in-depth stories. However, their opinions will be less important in a world where anyone can throw out their opinion, for better or for worse. This will depress journalists’ salaries even further, too.
A related change will come when broadband connections are bigger and more prevalent. Then we’ll start to see the rise of small-scale TV shows and movies, too. After all, there are plenty of theatre companies with unexploited talent, kept away from the public by entertainment-industry executives.

Me alerted
My Marine Reserve unit has officially alerted me that I may be activated in the next week. Just wanted to let you all know if I suddenly stop posting anything. (At which time the people will rejoice.)

A Jewish view of a Christmas in Bethlehem
Joel Fischer, a friend of several Catholic Light contributors (and a man who likes his firearms, God bless him) wrote this about the recent Christmas celebrations, or lack thereof, in Bethlehem. He’s a thoughful guy as you will see below. I offer it for your enjoyment.
I recently read an article posted on the FoxNews.com Web site, dated Dec. 24, “With Israel in Control, a ‘Sad Christmas’ in Bethlehem.”
Being a Jew of Eastern European descent, I learned early on in life the horrors of the Holocaust, blind hatred, and intolerance. Yet, l also learned the stories of those who refused to give in to the evil hands of the Nazis and their collaborators. I learned, too, of so many anonymous heroes who risked their own lives, and lives of loved ones, to protect those hunted by the Nazis.
I find it altogether disturbing that clerical leaders around the world, in Bethlehem specifically, should assert such lamentations at the presence of Israeli troops in the birth town of Jesus. Just the other evening, my wife and I were watching public programming that told the stories of those who survived Nazi death camps, Russian pogroms, and the anti-Semitic hands of their fellow villagers. The tones of their stories were uplifting, however. They told of families, friends, and total strangers, alone or banded together, risking all to observe the Sabbath- argued by some to be the holiest Jewish holiday, despite its weekly recurrence. They jeopardized their lives and the lives of other individuals, other families, and entire villages. Those people, with nothing more than their love of, and devotion to, God, made it a point to never let a Sabbath or other holiday pass without observance and reverence.
To sympathize with the priests of Bethlehem, focusing on what Christmas this year is NOT, and who in my opinion should be celebrating what Christmas IS, belittles the very spirit of Christmas. Dr. Seuss, in his hallowed classic, “How The Grinch Stole Christmas,” illustrated this point so beautifully. When the Grinch made off with the presents (and everything else indicative of the holiday, for that matter), of all those living in Who-ville, believing that this would thwart the coming of Christmas to their village, what happened? Was the Grinch victorious? Absolutely not! He found the citizens of Who-ville in a great circle, hand-in-hand, and singing songs! The Grinch learned a big lesson on that day, and I ask the clergy of Bethlehem, “What lessons are you trying to teach?”
Is the celebration of the birth of your Lord and Savior not cause enough to shed the doldrums brought upon by the presence of soldiers and militants? Shouldn’t’t this most special of seasons be used to rise up, celebrate, and cheer in opposition to such a forbidding environment? Should this opportunity not be used to place a flower in the barrel of a rifle, as the weary, peace-loving college student did at Kent State? Apparently not, as the article explains:

“With few pilgrims, no light-laden tree in Manger Square, and no bells and music, Bethlehem was less than festive. Although Israeli soldiers withdrew to the outskirts to allow celebrations to take place, locals said they could not remember a sadder Christmas.
“Protesting the presence of troops, town leaders canceled all Christmas festivities except religious observances.”

I ask again, “What is the lesson being taught here? What is your message to the world?” My interpretation is this: Times are rough, so point fingers, and bewail the predicament. I know that this is not what Jesus would have in mind for his followers.
I submit that these leaders of their congregations and denominations should have instead taken the opportunity to ring in Christmas as never before. Announcing to the world that no homicide bombing, no tank, no grenade, no rocket launcher, no hatred, no politics, would impede the joyous celebration of Christmas in 2002.