Who Will Save My Soul?

First of all, I hope everyone had a happy Easter-- or whatever holiday you may be celebrating in the vicinity of days we currently are living.

I realize it has been quite some time since I really ripped into a topic. Looking back on some of my first blogs, there were some classics. I can't promise a profanity-laced tirade of old, but I'm looking to get back into form.

With that in mind, I think it's time for me to find a new parish. Due to schedule constraints, I am not a weekly participant at church-- though I find other ways to worship. Seriously, I have found peace with alternative worship (not to say I'm worshiping potatoes, but more some other form of worship than weekly mass). It goes back to my days in junior hockey, when Saturday night and Sunday morning, you often find yourself at an ice rink or on a bus. I still frequently find myself at the ice rink when the Catholics celebrate, so I'm not making excuses, but rather explaining where I am at in terms of Christian worship.

Moving on... those rare occaisions when I find myself in the physical church building, I realize that it is time for me to find somewhere else to worship. More or less, the fact that I can't go five minutes without not understanding something the people of my parish do should be cause enough. As it is, it leaves me an open door to find the situation somewhat humourous.

I happen to belong to one of the richest parishes in the Omaha Archdiocese, which is an uncomfortable feeling. To start, I feel like a peasant... and wouldn't you, if you worshiped in a place dubbed the 'Taj Mahal of West Omaha'?

Before mass starts, they have us greet our neighbours with a handshake. I'm already having my doubts about this day. Church is not a place to socialize-- it's a place of worship. You want to socialize? Wait for Bingo Night. Besides, isn't this flu season? I know strep throat is making it's way around town-- perhaps we should think better of this. I know I'll have to take my chances later on in mass... but I can do without a morning greeting. Besides, I'm not used to being up a 6:30am for a 7:30 mass... I think we're all still just a little tired.

Opening hymn... the priest and a deacon walk in... both wearing microphone headsets. I can hear Al Michaels in the press box saying: 'Your concelebrants for todays service are from the Big Ten Conference'. So you can imagine how hard it was for me to not crack up when the preists mic failed to work. Really, just speak loudly, and be heard. You don't need the mic.

Believe me, I know. I work in ice rinks-- lots of noise, terrible accoustics... and people can still hear me. Just lean back an give it all you got. Besides, I gave tours of the building just after it opened-- we all raved about the acoustics of the building. But if you want to be sure, perhaps we should start building churches like the Mormon Tabernacle. Ever been there? Great acoustics-- you can hear a pin drop... and they'll be glad to demonstrate.

While we're talking about referees... when did every hymn and reading become open to interpretive dance? I don't need inflection, we've all read the passage before, we know the song-- you're just a little too into this, right now. You're not there to be a spectacle, and the only person who should be interpreting the passages is the man who gets paid to do so-- the priest. Let him do his job.

Speaking of getting paid... don't priests take a vow of poverty? Just one more reason to do away with those microphones. Really, it's a luxury we could do without. I think my offeratory could be much better spent-- repairs to the building, perhaps a real charity, or a poorer congregation could use the funds. Here we are with state-of-the-art technology is this very nice building... but growing up my dad and I remember our parish wasn't able to pay to heat the building in the winter. Just something to think about.

Keeping with the football theme... I walked by a full-emersion baptismal font on the way in. Surely in the interest of bringing in more money into the church, perhaps we should begin selling hot tub seats for mass. Might work.

That reminds me... what is up with people saving seats. The people across the aisle from me chased off three other families to save their seats. Wait a minute, I got up early to make sure I got a seat. When your family gets here, I want to see their ticket stubs. There is no reason to save seats in church. If you're there, you're there. If you're not, you're not. And nobody needs that much personal space.

I sat through a homily (sermon) trashing any and all other religions-- how PC of them I thought, as I realized what a load of bull the homily was. At the present time, perhaps starting crusades is not something we want to do... our government has that handled pretty well, thank you. Let's be a bit more open-minded here.

Here's something I think is wrong on several levels. During the offeratory, the priest grabs a basket, sits in front of the altar and hugs the children who bring money to him.

Where, or where do I begin on this one? I'm not much for children being in church-- especially now that their parents allow them to bring toys with them. Babies, I understand... but whatever happened to Sunday School? Surely these children are not comprehending the sermon. Is there really a point for them to be there? I don't think so. Besides, is it really wise for a priest-- in the current climate-- to have contact with these children. I think it's part of the problem. Let's help them out a bit-- don't put them in that situation. It's lose-lose.

Then there is communion. Apparently the Archdiocese is mandating that everyone bow before receiving communion. Can anybody confirm that for me? As it is, I'm waiting for Vatican III to make that one official. I don't see how bowing before communion makes me any more penitent. It's kinda like how my dad said the church has wavered on blessing yourself after recieving communion. My dad was taught yes, his brothers taught no, and I was taught yes-- I guess it's just personal preference. Still, I'm not bowing... my body is not as limber as it used to be... I don't care to throw my back out for the sake of making the Archbishop happy.

That said, I'm waiting for everything to shut down because I refuse to do this. Come on, someone in this rich parish is bound to throw a fit over it-- which makes me wonder how guests would be accepted at church. It would be great, communion lines come to a standstill as they wait for me to bow. Panic, chaos, and disorder... my work here is done.

But what bothers me more than anything else... is what happens post-mass. People applauding in church. It's not a concert. The choir and their dances do not need to be encouraged-- but if you really want to show your approval, take the time to walk up to them to tell them how great they sounded. Really, that gesture means more than generic (and inapropriate) applause. Besides, it will help thin out the traffic jam out in the parking lot-- people arriving before we have a chance to leave. Makes me yearn for the days of my youth when I used to walk to church.

So there it is... my little rant about going to church. I know, I'm going to hell for this-- and so is anyone who laughed.

But seriously, can anyone recommend their parish for worship?

Bond... James Bond

No secret. I am a huge fan of Ian Flemming's 007.

In fact, as I blog tonight, I am in the process of viewing most of the 007 collection. On right now, 'A View To a Kill'. (...and somewhere Matty is making a comment about Duran Duran, Rio, my baldness, and other jokes he's beat into the ground.)

Now, I will get very little argument over who the best James Bond was-- Sean Connery, he made the role... he is the role. I can even forgive him for 'Never Say Never Again'. Beyond Connery, I say next in line is Pierce Brosnan. For some reason I wish they could have gone from Connery to Brosnan and skipped George Lazenby, Roger Moore, and Timothy Daulton. For all intents and purposes, Brosnan revived the role-- and had he been the original, he'd get serious consideration for Best Bond Ever.

As for Lazenby, I think he gets a raw deal. OK, the role became a one-off for him, but he did it on his own, feeling that the role would fade with the times. Maybe he saw where the role was headed, and wanted no part of it.

Lazenby was a victim of a poor script. I'm sure someone reading here is going-- are you kidding me... he cried! James Bond, Jack Bauer, Chuck Norris, and the Lone Ranger never cried... Lazenby cried as Bond. So Lazenby showed an emotional side of Bond-- I don't think anyone would have said much if it had been Connery crying. Besides, it was scripted, not just him on his own.

Bond is a movie character, not strictly a sexual icon like Fabio. I mean, we all laughed our asses off then Fabio had his nose broken on a rollercoaster. That's just justice for most men.

Then again, I can't see Connery crying. That's more of a Roger Moore thing. Even Albert Broccoli said Lazenby had the potential to be the best Bond.

It's just that our final memory of Lazenby was of him crying in his car, dead wife in his arms. And then he walked away from Bond. Really, it just wasn't a good script for a new actor in an established role.

Now before I get too far and someone asks what I think of Daniel Craig... I should say that Casino Royale is next up on the viewing list, and it will be the first time I've seen it. I'll get back to you on Craig.

As for Roger Moore. I'm convinced he nearly ruined the role. Seriously, he's just not a good actor... he didn't have the witicisms of Connery, and just wasn't tough enough for the role. That, and he held on to it way too long. 'A View To a Kill' belongs in the same pile as 'Never Say Never Again'... aging actor, probably shouldn't have been in the role.

Now maybe Moore was a victim of bad production. But much of it was bad acting. Have you ever seen the opening scene from 'The Spy Who Loved Me'? Moore is skiing down hill-- and while it's obvious he's in front of a green screen (though, at the time it was probably blue), and he's got this dopey look on his face. I swear I can hear the director yelling: 'hey moron, you're supposed to be skiing!'

Like I said, maybe it's the production team. The stunts in the Moore movies sucked, and were totally unbelievable-- though, that could just be those courses in Film Theory and Criticism shining through.

Of course, Moore would later appear in 'Spice World'. (Thank you to imdb.com for that little tidbit.)

Let's put it this way: Moore had the best woman in 'supporting roles' and I still don't care much for his movies. Barbara Bach, Jane Seymour (yes, Dr. Quinn), and Carole Bouquet... all knockouts (Bouquet and Bach being my #1 and #2 Bond Girls of all time... with Brosnan foil Famke Janssen #3)-- I don't know a single straight man that would pass on any of them... and I just get this sick feeling that Moore got to star with them. Can we give them to Connery?

With that in mind, I rank Daulton ahead of Moore. Daulton just happened to luck into the role, when Brosnan was not available due to a commitment to 'Remington Steele'. Like Lazenby, Daulton gets a raw deal. Obviously he couldn't fix the damage Moore had done to the role. But he held the fort until Brosnan could take on the role.

'Goldeneye' is by far the best Bond movie ever. 'Goldfinger', 'Dr. No', and 'From Russia With Love' are great, but not quite the best. 'Goldeneye' saved the franchise... and gave us Famke Janssen (as Xenia Onatopp) with her best way to die, ever-- ironically the first actual intimate scene in a Bond movie.

So there you have it: Connery, Brosnan, Lazenby, Daulton, and Moore... in that order, with Craig yet to be seen.

And for Joel: Bouquet, Bach, Janssen, Hatcher, and Andress as the five best Bond Girls.