Blisters in the Sun

If, this Easter morning, I failed to leap out of bed and sing the praises of a risen Lord, I had good reason. My lower body bore the marks of a stressful pilgrimage. These included a blister an inch and a half long on my left arch, and a cut of about equal length on the right big toe. Add to those a certain soreness in the quadriceps, a tenderness in the hamstrings and a general enervation about the gluteus maxmius, and you’ll have the full clinical picture.

The previous evening, I’d made a 22-mile round trip to Vigil Mass on foot. Because it was Easter, I’d undertaken this miniature camino in wing tips. My destination was not a generally recognized shrine, but an ordinary parish church in North Scottsdale. Back in November, a friend of mine, who is a regular parishioner, had suffered a massive stroke, and I was eager for updates. But, thanks to Facebook, I could have gotten one through mutual friends without leaving my kitchen. No, I walked to this perfectly run-of-the-mill place because, like an aged and unambitious Forrest Gump, I just felt like walking.

Ambulation may be the one area in which Catholic religious tradition and my own native inclinations agree perfectly. In the Gospels, Jesus puts in His time on water, and very briefly, on an ass’s colt. But, for the most part, He hoofs it. Without explicitly restricting the disciples’ means of conveyance, His exortation to “Take nothing for your journey; neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, etc.,” put St. Francis in mind of foot-mobile evangelization force. St. Dominic, who dispatched his preaching friars in pairs, had broadly the same vision. In the movie adaptation of Umberto Eco’s Name of the Rose, the part where inquisitor Bernard Gui travels in a lavishly appointed carriage — the 14th-century equivalent of an Escalade — looks false to the point of libel. Whatever can be said against Gui, whose heresy trials resulted in 42 executions, the Dominican would have gotten around mainly on his own humble tootsies.

Thoreau suggests that the verb “to saunter,” referred originally to medieval pilgrims. When asked why they were walking, they answered that they were going “a la Sainte Terre,” or to the Holy Land. (The hint is that they had no such plans in fact, but weren’t above fudging the truth in their pleas for alms.) Fittingly, there’s nothing aescetical in Thoreau’s appreciation for walking. On the contrary, he sees it as both a luxury — since it requires leisure time — and, for a person of imagination, a necessity. Unless he spends at least four hours a day “sauntering through the woods and over the hills and fields, absolutely free from all worldly engagements,” he might, he fears, go stark, raving bonkers.

Probably, my own walking fever has more in common with Thoreau’s than St. Francis’. In my family, my mother was the aescetical one. For her, ploughing the Manhattan streets in what were then called sensible shoes represented a revolt against the internal-combustion engine. Like sugared cereals, carbonated drnks and fast-food chains with no obvious ethnic flavor, Benz’s folly represented a pillar of suburban decadence. She walked fast — “A dazzling ball of energy,” said my father, who claimed she forced him off the sidewalk one day when they chanced to cross paths on Amsterdam Avenue. I used to imagine her as a John Henry figure, outpacing a yellow cab on a race from the Columbia campus to South Street Seaport until its head gaskets melted.

The only sure way to upend aesceticism is to find fun in it. Finding people who enjoy being flogged or wearing hair shirts wouldn’t be much of a challenge at all. (If anyone likes, I can steer him toward certain websites.) By the time I was 12, walking had evolved from a discipline into a full-blown kink. Like Thoreau, I found in walking a rare kind of freedom. With a mixture of pity and admiration he writes of people who “confine themselves to shops and offices for weeks and months, ay, and years almost together.” I can barely imagine what he’d have said about people who ride the No. 6 train or the Madison Avenue local bus. Denied even the privacy afforded by a cubicle, these poor souls have no choice but to stare each other in the face, or the armpit, until their stops. It’s the kind of crush-of-humanity experience that any sensitive person would want to reserve for the Last Judgment or visits to the MVD.

When people call Manhattan a walker’s city, they mean it’s designed for the short jaunt. Densely packed with restaurants and boutiques, supermarkets and newsstands, it creates for the resident the possibility of seeing to all his existential needs without having to walk much more than half a mile in any direction. Phoenix, which sprawls for dozens of miles in every direction, with only a few official commercial districts and only the barest hint of a skyline, is a hiker’s city. Reaching any destination more rewarding than the local Circle K means covering miles at a stretch.

Whenever my fridge starts looking empty, I grab my green duffel bag and march through the desert of Papago Park to the Smart and Final on Scottsdale and Oak. Then, having loaded the duffel with three weeks’ rations (12-packs of Maruchan lunch noodles on the bottom), I march back, for a round trip of eight miles. In one recurring daydream, the ghost of General Bigeard meets me at my door and, consulting a checklist, informs me I’ve covered enough ground to qualify, at last, for the képi blanc. As he crowns my sweating brow with the storied hat, I straighten and salute, grinning exaltedly, the way Sam Jaffe did at the end of Gunga Din, when we see him outfitted in regimental tartan.

Thoreau associates walking with the impulse to seek out Nature and the Wild (caps his) — all that Unabomberish stuff. He feels alarm in those walks when he finds himself “not being easily able to throw off the village.” Here, he and I part company a little. It’s true that Phoenix has plenty of Nature to enjoy. In Papago Park, which begins about a mile from my house, you can climb brick-red buttes pocked by holes and recesses that could have been made by God’s own loving thumb. In Vista del Camino Park, if you’re willing to ignore the driving ranges, you can stroll beneath swaying eucalyptus trees around ponds fished by ducks and geese and even cranes. But I’ve found that my own compass leads me to Old Town Scottsdale and Downtown Tempe. Chic and upbeat and well-swept, their proportions obsessively planned, both have as much in common with the Upper West Side as anything west of the Rockies. If Thoreau walked to nuture his inner Noble Savage, I grab at the best of both worlds, waltzing Mathilda in order to feed my starving inner yuppie.

Making my pilgrimage last Saturday afternoon, I felt these paradoxes as sharply as my feet felt the pinch of my Bostonians. On one level, in tribute to the crucified Christ and in sympathy with a stricken friend, I was consciously courting discomfort. Yet, at the same time, I was treating myself to views of the most comfortable parts of the Valley. Reaching the church meant walking through the Scottsdale waterfront promenade, past high-end strip malls, walled, like the city-states once fought over by Guelph and Ghibelline. Costumed in Calvin Klein dress pants and a Nautica dress shirt (which, I was overjoyed to discover, I was beginning to fill out), I took pleasure in knowing I could pass for a native.

A cheap imitation of sacrifice balanced by a cheap imitation of comfort isn’t much of a compromise, is it? At one point, as I passed what was once a Pony Express stop but is now a small bridge over one of Scottsdale’s gracious canals, I decided it would be fitting if, on my way back, I were mistaken for a real yuppie and jackrolled by my actual peers. That didn’t happen. Here’s what happened instead: worn out from the outward journey, I slumped through Vigil Mass in a stupor, and nearly fell asleep during the new long-form Eucharistic prayers. The next day, I woke up so sore, I couldn’t walk anywhere until around five in the evening. And then I had to wear my crappy old tennis shoes.

Maybe that’s how Christian karma works: if you die with Christ only a little, you get reborn with Him only a little. Don’t ask me how that’ll affect next year’s Vigil plans. In any case, I hope to have a new car by then.

Romero and Sweet Schmaltz

YouTube Preview Image

A little more than halfway through the film Romero, the title character, played by Raul Julia, walks nervously into a church that’s been occupied by the Salvadoran National Guard and announces his intention to remove the Eucharist. Expressing the contempt felt by the Salvadoran military establishment for the Church, an insolent, gum-smacking goon of a first sergeant empties his assault rifle into the tabernacle. Struck mute, Romero can do nothing, for the moment, but gape.

It’s a wonderful scene. Unfortunately, it’s also one of very few surprises the film offers. Weighted down by the good intentions (and perhaps as well by the low budget) of the Congregation of St. Paul, which produced it, Romero plods. The dialogue is stilted; most characters exist in two dimensions at best. At times, Gabriel Yared’s soundtrack is simply bizarre — when Romero SOA-trained assassin creeps into the church where his target is celebrating Mass, it plays a bouncy tune apparently inspired by Bizet’s “Habanera.” Granted, Carmen ends badly, too, but still.

For all its faults, Romero ranks among my favorite faith movies. I re-watch it once a month, on average. By now, it’s become a Rocky Horror-like event: I enjoy reciting “YOU’RE NOT DEFENDING — YOU’RE ATTACKING!” and “Do you expect me to baptize my baby with a bunch of Indians?” along with the actors. Nevertheless, my appreciation is sincere. Throughout, the cast struggles valiantly, and sometimes successfully, against the script. Julia tackles the grueling and thankless feat of portraying a character who guards not only his words but also his facial expressions. For most of the film, he acts entirely with his eyes, and he does it well. In one gem of a mini-monologue, Claudio Brook, playing the conservative (and extremely suave) Bishop Flores, talks himself into supporting Romero to his own amusement. Ana-Alicia manages to make the snobbish, spoiled, featherheaded Arista Zelada likeable — you want to smack the character, but not that hard.

But Romero works first and foremost because it believes in itself. As far as the writers were concerned, Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdanez, who ordered the death squads, “STOP THE REPRESSION!” was a saint. Anything that distracts from that message is noise. That sense of conviction adds life to the flattest characters. When Harold Gould, playing fat cat Francisco Galedo, sneers, “The Church is a whore who will spread her legs to the highest bidder,” I wince — but more at the ugliness of the conceit than the ham-handedness of the line.

Last year, a friend of mine dragged me kicking and screaming into the world of American Christian cinema. (She also got me to go to a Matt Maher concert.) To my chagrin, I was unable to master my tear ducts through Letters to God or The Blind Side. Both shot bolts straight into my gooey center in a way the far more complex, better-written Doubt simply didn’t. Though the cinematic equivalent of a Paula Deen dessert, Brother Sun, Sister Moon had me humming the Donovan Leitch soundtrack. Despite featuring Mickey Rourke, the object of a longstanding man-crush, in the title role, the dark and gritty Francesco made about the same impression as Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.

It was only after joining the blogosphere that I first learned of the cult of Flannery O’Connor. Her fans toss out her quotes like party favors, and — this drives me insane — call her “Flannery,” as though she were the GOP front-runner. I suspect one reason for O’Connor’s popularity is her hipness. In her work, she was dark; in private life, she was always good for a snide one-liner. Although O’Connor admitted to identifying with some of her least likeable characters — with Hulga in “Good Country People,” for example — this needn’t prevent her readers from feeling superior to them. Read on a certain level, her work proves a Christian doesn’t have to be a drip. She can still feel, and traffic in, Hobbes’ “sudden glory.”

But the best schmaltz seduces by staring down whatever prejudices make consumers equate sophistication with darkness, flippancy, irony or moral ambiguity. “Listen,” a good schmaltzy script will tell viewers. “I know perfectly well part of you wants to believe in happy endings and teddy bears and rainbows and a merciful diety. And you know what? It’s okay. Everybody does. You’re normal, trust me.” Michael Landon once said his greatest gift was the the ability to make audiences cry. He should have said his gift was for making audiences cry without making them feel condescended to. What else could have made Little House into a cultural icon in the swinging 70s, or Highway to Heaven one in the coked-out 80s?

Maybe it’s no coincidence that Italy, which gave the world opera and Life is Beautiful, is creating religious-themed movies that are completely sentimental, and at least halfway intelligent. Assured of a robust domestic market, Italian production company Lux Vide has invested its Stories of the Saints series of made-for-RAI movies with staggeringly high production values. Jurgen Prochnow of Das Boot and The English Patient co-stars in Padre Pio. Ennio Morricone, who wrote the scores for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Fistful of Dollars, provided the soundtrack for Maria Goretti. To Romero’s earnestness, both films add a kind of self-confident snap. When Sergio Castellitto, playing Padre Pio, reports to a panel of Capuchin superiors who want to scrounge some of the donations he’s received toward a new hospital, he tosses them candy from his pocket to prove how broke he is. It’s a great moment.

In 2010, Lux Vide produced an English-language film on the career of no less controversial a candidate for sainthood than Pope Pius XII. (Full title: Pius XII: Under the Roman Sky.) Starring in the title role is veteran character actor James Cromwell, who, though a WASP, might be the only man in the world who could play Papa Pacelli without a prosthetic nose. In Italy, it did well enough: Part 1 claimed 4.894.000 viewers; Part 2, 5.727.000. But, though in English, and despite Pope Benedict’s own recommendation, the film doesn’t seem to have made much of a splash here in America. IMDb users gave the film 4.6 out of a possible 10 stars, and some complained about its inaccessibility. Uncritical, unironic faith movies may play to a niche market for quite some time to come.

When weighing the pros and cons of that fact, I can’t help reflecting on Napoleon Dynamite. It baffled many very intelligent people I know. “It’s about nothing,” they’d say, “but somehow, I couldn’t tear my eyes away.” Well, to me, it was quite obvious what the film was about: a dork who proves to himself he’s no loser. In this, it resembles the 1986 film Lucas. But whereas Lucas was unapologetically a tear-jerker, Napoleon Dynamite is more circumspect. Screenwriters Jared and Jerusha Hess weren’t sure they wanted viewers identifying too closely with their awkward hero. Better hedge their bets by leaving room to laugh at him (as, for example, when he asks a farmer whether his chickens have large talons). Very urbanely, they buried their schmaltz under snark.

The Hesses are Mormons, as — implicitly — were most of their characters. Maybe this was their Flannery O’Connor moment, their way of telling the world, “Despite persistent rumors to the contrary, we’re actually quite funky.” They’re right — they are funky, and their film is one of my favorites. But I sometimes wonder whether it might not have been bolder of them to plead sympathy for their characters a little more directly, and for that matter, to play up their Mormonism. Is it right or just that I had to learn about their faith through South Park and Angels in America?

Stepping out on a Patron Saint

I totally spaced my patron saint’s feast day. Indeed, I might have gone all day without being any the wiser, but some friends posted clues to my Facebook wall. One, a video commemorating the fourth centennary of the founding of the Order of the Visitation, just made me go, “Mm. Very nice for the, er, Visitationists.” The second, a Peter Maxish image of a bearded man cradling a dove, his bald dome lit by a halo, made me pull a facepalm.

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop of Geneva, I remembered. Feast Day: January 24th. Mentor and confidant of St. Jeanne-Françoise de Chantal, founder of the Order of the Visitation.

Theirs was one of the Church’s great romantic friendships; the two were like Francesco and Chiara with shoes on. And I forgot.

Part of me hopes I can get away with saying, “Sorry, Monseigneur. I thought it was the 29th, honest. And I’ve been so busy lately.” But I would trust any man so discerning as Francis to recognize that as the flimsiest, sorriest excuse for an explanation. The sad fact is — like a girl from bygone times, eager to escape her parents’ home by marrying — I chose him in haste, only to discover after the match became final that the two of us had nothing in common.

I thought I was on solid ground. Patron of writers? Check. Faint, cross-channel resemblance to Shakespeare? Check. Turbulent historical setting? Triple check: Francis was five during the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, 31 when Henry IV signed the Edict of Nantes, and 43 when the good king was shivved to death by Ravaillac. Literary tie-ins? Not quite, but almost. Francis died in 1622, only three years before the action in Dumas père’s Three Musketeers. Though the fictional Aramis had a real-life model in Henri d’Aramitz, Francis could have inspired the Church-minded musketeer just as well. According to hagiographers, the future bishop fought with rapier and poignard while a student at Padua. Though said to have fled the embrace of a grisette, he did not — take note, Thomas Aquinas — threaten her with a fireplace poker. In that, the son of the Sieur de Boisy was true to his upbringing, a real gentleman.

Some time after standing before the altar in a white smock tagged with his name, I checked Francis’ signature work, Introduction to the Devout Life, out of the diocesan library. Reading Introduction’s introduction, I got goose pimples. Positing a universal call to holiness 300 years before Vatican II, the man was well ahead of his time. Except he wasn’t — the book went through several editions before the author’s own death! Even the Roundheads over in England tucked in with a translation that had been “purged of Popish errors.” By singlehandedly inventing middlebrow Christian inspiration, my patron was the Rick Warren of his day.

Then I dug into the text.

Reader, I found it all but unreadable. This is no fault of Francis’; I just never developed a taste for the genre. Sitting through homilies makes me fidget, and Introduction amounts to a homily, in five books. Francis addresses his fine words to someone he calls Philothea, or “Lover of God,” a pseudonym for Madame de Charmoisy, whose correspondence with the author forms the basis for the text. That’s fine, but “Philothea” sounds like a girl’s name. Every time I read it, I’m tempted to say, “Ah. This is a private thing. I’ll just leave you two alone.”

Viewed with serene objectivity, it’s a wise and witty book — I know that. Its value as counter-Reformatory propaganda is incalculable. At its publication, the diocesan clergy were noted for their ignorance, and the religious (rightly or wrongly) for soft living. The episcopacy’s most visible symbol was the Duc de Richelieu — able and visionary, but far from a teddy bear. Knowing they could ignore these models and strive for sanctity on their own without going Calvinist must have come as an enormous relief to the laity.

But for me, I’m afraid, serene objectivity is as unnatural an attitude to assume as the lotus position. When it comes to saints, I’ve learned sadly, my instincts are those of a fanboy: I go for the spectactular, the dramatic and the bloody. These instincts led me — via Chesterton — to the original St. Francis. Now that was the stuff. François engaged Calvinist leader Theodore Beza in dialogue; Francesco challenged the Muslim ulema of Damietta to a trial by ordeal. There’s no contest. If I were the tame Savoyard, I’d resent having to share a name with the wild Umbrian.

In our own day, there are a number of Catholics — I’m thinking Randall Terry and Alan Keyes — who would leap into the nearest fire only too happily, given assurance the video would go viral. Let’s just say that if they went into schism, I’d be praying for their return in the tone Willy Wonka adopted when warning Mike Teavee. But the fanboy’s headspace offers little room for realism. Behavior that looks tiresome or exhibitionistic in the here and now makes good copy when set long ago, in a galaxy far away. And that, I suppose, is the bottom line: I like saints whose stories read like good fiction, and for that reason, seem to demand no more literal a reading.

Read like a news item, the story of Maria Goretti is nothing but ghastly. It should turn any thinking person into a helicopter parent, and I mean a helicopter with a minigun. Considered at more than a century’s remove (and from a position of male privilege), it’s got mythic and literary valence out the wazoo. Sandro and Marietta look like Apollo and Daphne divided by Raskolnikov and Sonya, the remainder being that guy from “Ballad of Reading Gaol.” Kathryn Harrison reminds readers that Joan of Arc was “uncouth,” but also that “Her enemies spoke of clouds of butterflies following in her wake.” Well, uncouth is fine — I was once a big Gretchen Wilson fan — but it’s the butterflies (and the voices) that make her story into material fit for a comic book.

I’d love to have Francis de Sales as my bishop. A couple of years ago, when reading through the homilies of Wilton Gregory, archbishop of Atlanta, I noted a placidity and good sense that reminded me of my patron. “Lucky Atlantans!” I thought. But I’m afraid the game’s just not straight. Once you die and join the Church Triumphant, you find yourself facing much stiffer competition. Today, as I offer Francis belated congratulations, my prayer will include the words “It’s not you; it’s me.” Hopefully, he’ll understand.