MOVIE PAPER #2

Katie Wilmouth

RELI 124-08

April 18, 2010

The Chocolate Cure

“Once upon a time, there was a quiet little village in the French countryside, whose people believed in tranquilité- tranquility” (Chocolat). In the movie Chocolat, the inhabitants of the small French village of Lansquenet were anxiously awaiting the start of the Lenten Season, when a strong North Wind blew through their town. Moving with the wind, a mysterious unwed mother named Vianne Rocher and her young daughter Anouk arrived in the village. In the eyes of Lansquenet’s mayor, the Comte de Reynaud, Vianne was immediately deemed objectionable after declining to attend church and opening her store, La Chocolaterie Maya, during the season of Lent. Vianne and her delicious chocolates threatened to entice the villagers to disregard the restrictions of the religious season, a feat the mayor would not allow. Vianne ignored his attempts to drive her away from the village, continued to defy the town’s moral majority, and in turn liberated the spirits of the villagers who consumed her chocolates.

Despite the fact that she is pagan, her unconditional love and acceptance for even the worst offenders, made Vianne the most Christ-like character in the film. This can be seen in her love for the gypsy river rat named Roux, who the rest of the village found to be immoral. With the powerful sensual pleasures that it unleashed, her chocolate acted as a new Communion or Eucharist for Lansquenet’s inhabitants. There was magic in Vianne’s chocolate in a way that she accurately predicted the right combination of candy and counsel to address the villagers deeper hungers. She helped an outcast to escape from her abusive husband, reunited an ailing older woman with her grandson, and encouraged a man to express his secret love for a widow. The villagers became more approachable, honest and alive as a result of the material and spiritual ingestion of Vianne’s chocolate. Vianne knew that the wind still had plans that needed to be satisfied, but seeing the negative affect moving had on Anouk, decided that the wind would have to call upon someone else.

The Comte de Reynaud ruled the political, social, and religious life of the village of Lansquenet. He controlled the village with his own sense of morality that all inhabitants were expected to follow. By rewriting the sermons of the young priest, he used the church as a vehicle to denounce the new “immorality” of people like Vianne, who only wanted to introduce pleasures in the lives of the villagers. The opening of the chocolate store during the season of Lent was especially deplorable to the mayor because of his own struggle with fasting.

Like his predecessors, Reynaud took the view that morality is preserved by resisting change. Instead of encouraging people to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, he believed it was his obligation to decide for them. Reynaud personally attempted to rehabilitate the town wife-beater and organized the community’s boycott against rampant immorality. He considered himself the moral center of the village and yet his preaching is the sort of religious bigotry Jesus spoke out against. Reynaud’s attitude suggests that Jesus is far more concerned with getting people to conform to the rules rather than demonstrating freedom, joy, and acceptance. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors unconditionally no matter who they are or what they do. The character of the mayor is an example of a person who attempts to manipulate Christianity by forcing his personal beliefs on others.

Reynaud underwent a transformation of his own when a midnight attack on Vianne’s store backfired. In his attempt to destroy the chocolate, he unwittingly tasted some and surrendered to his own need for joy. After the Easter Sermon, the mayor no longer thought it was his obligation to rid the village of immorality and maintain tranquility and tradition.

At the end of the movie Chocolat, the young priest named Pere Henri, wrote his Easter Sermon without input from the Comte de Reynaud. He said, “I want to talk about Christ’s humanity, I mean how he lived his life on earth: his kindness, his tolerance. We must measure our goodness, not by what we don’t do, what we deny ourselves, what we resist, or who we exclude. Instead, we should measure ourselves by what we embrace, what we create, and who we include” (Chocolat). How do we measure goodness? One definition for goodness is a quality or character that the Holy Spirit builds into us, and how you can learn to live that way for others as well as yourself. Goodness is love, displaying integrity, honesty and compassion to others and allowing us to do the right thing. It is accepting people no matter who they are or what they have done. Goodness is giving up your seat on the bus to an elderly person or helping a younger sibling with homework they don’t understand. It is simply going out of our way to help those in need.

After analyzing this sermon, I concluded that the movie was trying to prove two points. The first was that religion is too often based on the notion that things we find pleasurable must be wrong. The season of Lent requires us to fast from these pleasurable things, something many Christians struggle with. Chocolat made the point that something as good as chocolate can be good or bad but that decision is up to the individual. The movie is trying to teach us that anything that doesn’t cause harm to others or ourselves shouldn’t be considered wrong. The second lesson was that change is not always a bad thing and opening your heart to new people can be life altering. By embracing the unknown, we learn new things that we otherwise would not have understood. Change is goodness in disguise. At first we our unsure of what it will bring, but if we put our faith in Christ, he will never steer us wrong. I believe that the goodness of people is not in restrictions inside a church but in our hearts and in our respect and tolerance for others.

Reflection Paper #4

Katie Wilmouth

RELI 124-08

March 22, 2010

Teaching on Divorce in the Gospel of Matthew

Marriage in one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church and according to the Bible, it is a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. For what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Matt. 19:6). Yet the divorce rate among practicing Christians is nearly as high as those who choose not to believe. There is no mistaking that the Bible frowns upon divorce, as clearly stated in Malachi 2:16. “For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” In the verses of Matthew 19:1-12, it is questioned whether there are any exceptions to Jesus’ teaching on not divorcing, which were previously introduced in the Sermon on the Mount.

In the Sermon on the Mount, divorce is described as a form of adultery. “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt. 5:32). Later in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was making his way to Jerusalem when some Pharisees approached him and tested him saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” (Matt 19:3). Jesus answered by quoting Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, which argue that God’s intention for man and woman is to be united. The phrase “unless the marriage is unlawful” is the only saying in Scripture that possibly gives God’s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many believe this “exception clause” refers to adultery.

In response to Jesus, the Pharisees cite Scripture as well. Deuteronomy 24:1-4, permits a man to divorce his wife by handing her a written bill of divorce. God did lay down some laws regarding divorce in the Old Testament, but they were made with the intent to protect the rights of divorced women. Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees that these laws were given “because of the hardness of your hearts” not because they were God’s desire (Matt. 19:8). He adds the statement, “but from the beginning it was not so” to illustrate that since God designed marriage without a loophole for divorce, to get a divorce would be a sin because it violates the standard for marriage.

Jesus’ one exception, adultery, permits divorce because a spouse who has been unfaithful has already destroyed the one-flesh marriage bond in God’s eyes. The innocent spouse or victim of the unfaithfulness should be free to divorce the adulterer and remarry.

Some claim that domestic abuse is also a valid reason for divorce even though it is never mentioned in the Bible. What we must remember is that adultery is only an allowance for divorce, not a requirement for it. Many couples, with the help of God’s grace and forgiveness, can learn to put the act of infidelity in the past and work to rebuild their marriage.

Jesus at the Movies #1

Katie Wilmouth

RELI 124-08

March 15, 2010

The Issue of Morality in Crimes and Misdemeanors

One critical theme in Woody Allen’s film Crimes and Misdemeanors is God’s role in establishing moral or ethical values in humanity. The film questions whether morals are dependent on an individual or an authority such as God. We see a misconception of what it morally right in the character of Judah Rosenthal, a wealthy ophthalmologist who entered into a several year extramarital affair with a flight attendant named Dolores. After Dolores threatened to reveal their affair to Judah’s wife, he decided to have his brother hire someone to murder her. Judah’s view of the world is pessimistic. He perceives it as a harsh and empty universe. During one scene in the film he stated, “God is a luxury I can’t afford” (Crimes and Misdemeanors). The film leaves us with the notion that Judah eventually felt no guilt for instigating the murder of Dolores and his life prospered after her death.

In contrast, the character of Ben, a rabbi and patient of Judah who is losing his eyesight, believes the world possesses a moral structure that originates from God. In the midst of a discussion with Judah about differences in their views of the world, Ben said, “ You see it as harsh and empty of values and pitiless. And I couldn’t go on living if I didn’t feel it with all my heart a moral structure, with real meaning, and forgiveness, and a higher power, otherwise there’s no basis to live” (Crimes and Misdemeanors). Ben’s optimistic view of life and his ability to distinguish right from wrong form the basis of a morally sound individual.

In a flashback during the film, Judah is watching his family celebrate a Passover dinner. He asked what the consequence of killing was and his father answered that one way or another the perpetrator would be punished. An aunt added that if the person responsible for the crime could get away with it and is not bothered by the ethics, then he walks free. When Judah realized that he would continue to live his life free of punishment his situation became that of the belief in no moral truths. Ben is lucky in that his worldview allows him to have a genuine religious faith.

The film Crimes and Misdemeanors demonstrates that the universe is not a friendly place. In the film it is implied that we are not always punished for our wrongdoings. Judah walked free of guilt because he was lucky enough not to be caught and strong enough to suppress his conscience. Murder is an example of an injustice that needs to be corrected and probably never will. Others include genocide, starvation, illness, and slavery. What some people fail to realize is that God is not responsible for these injustices.

A social and moral injustice that is currently plaguing this country is the lack of health care. The United States is the most industrialized country and yet it is failing to provide the hard working people who made it great affordable and quality health care for themselves and their families. The Congress has not yet found a solution to the current health care system that is inefficient and unaffordable to Americans and replace it with a national health insurance.

The greatest injustice in our world is ignorance of accepted moral values, something to which any person can be susceptible. The Lord’s guidance is not always the solution to distinguishing right from wrong. To do what is right is a decision we must select on our own. Just the other day I saw a mom purchasing groceries at the self-checkout in Safeway and watched as she put some items in the bags without scanning them. The first thought that came to my head was whether or not I would do the same thing in this situation. This is a circumstance where the lines between right and wrong begin to blur. How far should one go in order to provide what is necessary for survival?

In today’s society many people know what is morally right in any situation and simply choose to ignore this conviction. The world will not be a friendly place until humanity embraces love instead of hate. Ernest Hemingway once said, “I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.”

Works Cited

Crimes and Misdemeanors. Dir. Woody Allen. Orion Pictures, 1989. DVD.

RP 3: The Authorship of the Gospel of Matthew

Katie Wilmouth

RELI 124-08

February 24, 2010

The Authorship of the Gospel of Matthew

The first book of the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, is a synoptic gospel that provides an account of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. Certain details of Jesus’ life, especially those pertaining to his infancy, can only be found in this Gospel. The consensus among scholars is that the Gospel of Matthew was written after 70 A.D. because the text contains allusions to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. As with all of the other gospels, the authorship of Matthew is questioned. Although no author is stated in Matthew, church tradition has ascribed the book to the apostle Matthew the Levite. It was not until the eighteenth century that the question of authorship became an issue. Given that Matthew does depend heavily on the Gospel of Mark, some scholars no longer believe that the author was one of the twelve apostles.

“As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he rose and followed him” (Matt 9:9). Matthew, who is also identified as Levi, was the son of Alphaeus. He is believed to have lived on a main trade route near Capernaum. While many of the Apostles were fisherman, Matthew was a Jewish tax collector who was appointed by the Roman government. Tax collectors were expected to be able to write in a form of shorthand, which essentially meant that Matthew could record a person’s words as they spoke, word for word. This has led many followers to believe that the words of Matthew are not only inspired by the Holy Spirit, but should represent an actual transcript of some of Jesus’ sermons. Tax collectors were despised because of their reputation of being unfair and dishonest. The Jewish population considered tax collecting to be a great sin because it paid tribute to someone other than God. Jews saw Matthew as a criminal because by working for the Roman government, he was considered a traitor to God. Jesus called him from his life of social injustice to a life of Gospel missions. His acknowledgement as an apostle displayed the grace and forgiveness of God in the hearts and lives of sinners (Graves). Matthew taught how the grace of God extended to all sinners. The church tells us he died a martyr in Ethiopia.

Today, most scholars agree that the apostle Matthew was not the author of the Gospel of Matthew. The true author copied extensively from the Gospel of Mark, where an eyewitness would have told the story from his point of view. It is also doubtful that a tax collector would have the kind of religious and literary education needed to produce this Gospel (Reid). Scholars prefer to describe the author as an anonymous Jewish Christian, writing towards the end of the first century. He was writing for a predominantly Jewish Christian community and had extensive knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and a concern for Jewish tradition and the role of Law (Reid).

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew provided us with some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, as well as some of the most difficult sayings and teachings of Jesus. “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But is anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also” (Matt 5:38).

Works Cited

Graves, David E. "Author of Matthew." Crandall University. Web. 24 Feb. 2010. .

Reid, Barbara E. The Gospel According to Matthew (New Collegeville Bible

Commentary. New Testament). New York: Liturgical, 2005. Print.