Respondeo ad Doctorem Fastiggi

For full context: the article to which I refer is located here. You should probably read it before continuing as, without that, my piece will make less sense.

Respondeo ad Doctorem Fastiggi

I read Dr. Fastiggi’s article, “Pope Francis and Papal Authority under Attack,” when it was recommended to me by a friend on Facebook as “setting the record straight” on the whole papal correction issue. I was curious and excited to read it as I had heard only good things about Dr. Fastiggi from friends who had attended his classes at the seminary. However, as I read the article, I was more and more surprised by statements of condemnation by a man who is held to be a fair-minded scholar. That is not to say that Dr. Fastiggi does not make some good points. I think that some of his comments about sensationalism and how other churchmen should clarify their own points makes a good deal of sense. However, I think there are other points in his article that are quite problematic which I feel I ought to address. You should probably read it before continuing as without that, my piece will make less sense.

Among his first lines is: “To be a Catholic is to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff” To be pedantic…. To be Catholic is a bit more than simple communion with the Pope. You must believe (and follow) the Church’s teachings and practice the faith. Likely this is what was meant, but this can be easily misconstrued.

“Catholics are obliged to manifest reverence and obedience to the Roman Pontiff.” True, but not to the point of blind obedience. We are created as rational beings; our actions must be justified by our own rationality, not just because somebody told us so. Acceptance of authority can be a part of it, but it cannot be the entirety; that leads to Nuremburg.

I would also add that charging all clerics to be in lock-step with the Holy Father out of obedience is not healthy. We have had many saints in the past who have not been in lock-step with anyone. They were, in fact, reviled by those who saw them as “destructive,” but they were vindicated in the end. St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Phillip Neri, St. John of the Cross, even St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic are examples that come to mind.

“To attack the person of the pope is to attack his office because the Roman Pontiff is not merely an office holder.” While this is true in the sense that The Pope is more than a politician or CEO, this appears to make the error of making the man identical to the office of the Papacy, which, I would argue, simply doesn’t make sense as we have had some fairly unworthy Popes in the past. I would also point out that this assertion and how it is used precludes the correction (which would be seen as an attack by supporters) of Popes such as Julius II, Alexander VI, that early one whose name I can’t recall, and <insert your least favorite pope here>. Either way, he appears to be begging the question.

While I agree that the Supreme Pontiff has the ordinary and immediate authority over the Church, we must also take the principle of subsidiarity into account. Otherwise, we fall into the error of Ultramontanism. I would also say that the Pope is seen to be the “Vicar of Christ” or Christ’s steward. The example that comes to mind is the Steward of Gondor in the Lord of the Rings. While the steward has the authority of the king in every meaningful sense, he ought not perform every action of which he has the right, for it is more proper for the king to do it personally. And before you say that Christ always acts through intermediaries and so cannot do anything personally, Christ can also act in other ways if he so choses; who are we to limit God?

Regarding prudential judgements versus otherwise. Outside of the modifications to the catechism or the encyclicals, it is not clear to me what else would be considered to be moral teaching. I think that the complaints about the Pope’s “off-the-cuff” comments are legitimate as they are not stated under conditions that make them authoritative statements. Besides, there are various points within these documents that are (again, my opinion, I make no claim of being the expert here) based on opinions formed from a certain political view (not that it is wrong in its entirety, but its tendencies have not been proven to be true). The question that is being raised is whether or not these statements or changes are in continuity. This, I believe, is a legitimate concern. Is it being blown out of proportion? Perhaps, but it is still a legitimate question.

Dr. Fastiggi notes that Pope Francis has admitted mistakes in some areas. This is a good point that many people gloss over. However, the Pope does not address other things that people ask him to address. While I do not think that authority figures need to bend over backwards to please everybody (that would be unreasonable), I do think that there should be come concessions to commonly held concerns, if only to allay them and say that it’s not what is being assumed. Having read some of the documents (not all, I confess), I never got the impression that the authors of the dubia and other corrections were being disrespectful, simply that they were very passionate about the faith and desperately wanted an answer. I also think that the strict interpretation of Lumen Gentium that Dr. Fastiggi mentions hampers our understanding of fraternal correction. Fraternal correction is a venerable tradition that ought to continue. The main scriptural example is when we see St. Paul confronting and opposing Cephas to his face[1] regarding some of the Judaizer tendencies.

“They appear to trust their own judgments more than they trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the successor of Peter.” This is an assumption based on judgements of appearance. We cannot be certain of this, so this statement appears to attempt to lead the reader into judgement of the hearts and minds of Francis’ critics. This is clearly a type of ad hominem argument and is not only wrong, logically, but it is disingenuous for a scholar claiming level-handedness.

While I think Dr. Fastiggi’s observation that ciriticism of Pope Francis as ramped up since Amoris Laetitia is accurate, I must point out that this whole scenario of a Pope possibly being in error has been a question in Catholic schools and seminaries for decades. Now we are just seeing people act on it because they believe that they have reason to do so.

Another thing that I must point out is that there were vociferous critics (Winters, Martin SJ, etc.) of Benedict XVI and John Paul II who agree with Francis and now demonize his critics. It works both ways. This is not a Francis-unique problem. It’s just larger and more obvious.

“Catholic scholars and prelates, however, have defended the orthodoxy of Amoris laetitia and have found that the five dubia are based on misunderstandings of the exhortation as a whole.” Some have and some haven’t; this is slightly misleading. It is not wrong per se, but it doesn’t hold as much water as the author would have us believe. Most of the critical scholars, to my knowledge, only point out two or three paragraphs out of the whole document as being problematic. This is not to be understood as a blanket condemnation, just a seeking of clarification. In fact, “clarification” is the language I have seen used in every instance of “correction.” Contrasting the hermeneutic of continuity with the “hermeneutic of suspicion” seems a bit disingenuous as this is not the contrast that Benedict XVI used when addressing the hermeneutic of continuity. The opposite was “rupture.” The continuity also needs to be in line with the rest of the Magisterium of the Church, including historical understandings, not simply being consistent with modern understandings.

Pointing out that the authors have violated the rules for respectful theological discourse also seems to be mildly hypocritical as this piece is not particularly respectful of the authors with whom he disagrees. But, aside from that, there is scriptural precedent for bringing errors out into the open when the alleged sinner is being obstinate (Cf. Matthew 18:15-17). To say that the Pope cannot be such a sinner who can be corrected according to the same rules is to ignore the humanity of the man who occupies the office as “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”[2]

In his paragraph about the death penalty catechism controversy, Dr. Fastiggi seems to assert that a monolithic approach exists, which is opposed to the few critical scholars who are following their own interpretation. While I agree that we cannot simply follow our own interpretation of Church teaching (that’s one thing that separates us from the Protestants [no offense meant]), I think it is misleading to say that there is univocal support for the change. There are various scholars (such as Dr. Peters) who say that the previous wording of the catechism was sufficient (and licit). It seems that the main issue is that the catechism applies to all times, not just the present, so it invalidates any action of any right-willing Christian ruler in the past. The contention also stems from a belief that the change is due in part to the modern misunderstanding of the distinction between personal morality and civil morality (i.e. morality pertaining to the actions of the state). It has been my understanding that part of the legitimacy for the state’s authority was that it comes from God. If we say that it is wrong to assert this, then we deny that a part of the authority is delegated to states. This may seem good at first as modern governments are fairly corrupt, but it makes me wonder about Jesus’ words to Pilate: “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.”[3] It seems to me that since Jesus submitted to the Romans, it implies that He saw them as having authority, but was also reminding Pilate that authority over life comes from God, not man. If we were to deny this, it would then de-legitimize the Romans’ authority to put Jesus to death. You may not find this problematic, but I do as it gives rise to multiple problems with the relation of divine law to human law.

Regarding Archbishop Viganó: Asserting that two authors have written, questioning Viganó’s accuracy, does not prove his claims to be false. In fact, many of Viganó’s claims have been confirmed as time has gone on, so this information is rather pointless. Dr. Fastiggi also says that Pope Francis’ lifting of then-cardinal McCarrick’s sanctions was an “alleged” action. I am a bit confused by the relevance of this statement as we have known that Pope Francis lifted the sanctions (though not the reasons) for the past several months. It is also odd that he would say this shortly after McCarrick has been laicized for the things that Viganó accused him of in his testimony.

When he says that Cardinal Müller is implying that the ignorance of the faith among the faithful has suddenly arisen under Francis, I believe that this is a misleading statement because I don’t think this is what Müller is getting at. Dr. Fastiggi points out this problem has been observed by various people, both lay and cleric, for the past 15+ years. This is true, but I fail to see how that observation then makes Müller be the one who is suddenly implying that Francis is its cause. While I agree with Dr. Fastiggi that the tack of sensationalism is reprehensible (as we are seeing more and more in our American media), I don’t think that this is necessarily where Müller is going. And even if he were, it doesn’t invalidate his points, it would just make them poorly stated. And while the worry of silence as being a sign of apostasy is pretty clearly aimed at Francis (especially in relation to his silence on the dubia), this accusation can also be leveled at many ecclesial figures, so I don’t think it is simple Francis-bashing, more of a lumping in with the other weak churchmen of our day.

Another thing that I noticed Dr. Fastiggi repeatedly returning to is the idea that communion means obedience to someone. I would contest that it is possible to be united in purpose and belief (i.e. in communion) and yet have some disagreement over something important. My main source for this belief is the tradition of fraternal correction that stems from the previously cited incident of St. Paul’s correction of St. Peter in Galatians. While it can be argued that by virtue of the disagreement, the two were no longer “in communion,” I would say that there wasn’t an intention of rupture, but a desire for unity that supersedes that claim.

I believe it is fair when Dr. Fastiggi asserts that Cardinal Müller should explain how his "manifesto" remains in union with Francis. Since Müller claims that he remains in union with the Pope and multiple people question that, it would be a good starting point for one cleric to be willing to clarify what he means when there is confusion.

Regarding the “attacks” over the joint document with Imam Al-Yayyib: I don’t think anybody is really taking issue with the idea that God allows or even actively wills that aspects of the truth be made manifest in other cultures as a sort of preparation for the Gospel. The issue is that the wording is seemingly vague. It leads me to wonder what is meant by the verb “willed” in relation to the subject’s telos.  If it is meant that God willed the other religions to help lead others to the truth, then there is no issue. If it is meant that God willed that other religions might be paths to salvation in themselves, that would be false. For outside the Church there can be no salvation. Of course, what precisely that means has been hotly debated for quite some time, but that is where the issue lies, not that it questions the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as Dr. Fastiggi claims. (Incidentally, I think this claim is a straw man).

Dr. Fastiggi’s claim that theologians and canonists using past criticism of non-heretical popes as precedent for current critiques is unreasonable seems to be a bit weak. As I’ve pointed out above, there is even scriptural precedent for this. He also appears to claim that there is a “purely papal” ordinary magisterium while affecting shock that one of his colleagues (Dr. Edward Peters, a well-respected canonist) would argue that no such thing exists[4]. It has always been my understanding that the Pope teaches in consistency with the ordinary Magisterium of the Church herself and aside from special circumstances, like ex cathedra pronouncements, he follows the same conditions as any teacher in the Church for infallibility. To say otherwise, seems to set the Pope up as some sort of dictator who can unilaterally change things of his own volition. I’m fairly certain that no one is willing to entertain this as a serious alternative.

Dr. Fastiggi also accuses the Pope’s critics of believing “that they know the doctrine of the Church better than the pope.” First, I would point out that it is logically possible for this situation to occur, so that is not a point that offers much condemnation. Second, He further says that this mentality is telling of the critics’ belief in the fifteenth century error of Conciliarism. In my opinion, this is simply a red-herring and false analogy to paint the critics in a heretical light. From my observations, the majority of the Pope’s critics, while perhaps asserting that they know more of theology than he does, never have said that they have executive or judicial authority over him. That is what constitutes Conciliarism and I have not seen it in the approach taken by the men and women (who are not clerics nor on a council) who have raised their concerns.

He also says that there is a massive push on various media platforms to try to manipulate the Pontiff because they have, at this point, taken a disliking to him and so oppose him on everything. While I don’t deny that there are some people who have this mindset, that doesn’t appear to be the majority, or, at least, not the critics whom Dr. Fastiggi is criticizing. Besides, there are also those on the other side who unquestioningly accept everything that Pope Francis preaches and will defend him at any cost. It is simply the all or nothing mentality of modern discourse (I would hesitate to call it dialogue).

Dr. Fastiggi says that there is room for respectful and responsible criticisms of prudential judgements by popes, but that difficulties with papal documents should follow strict guidelines at set out in Donum Veritatis. He seems to want to imply that no one is being respectful, even though he does admit that only some are guilty of this. Quoting Donum Veritatis, he says: “This document teaches that communications of difficulties with magisterial documents must be done “in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties” (n. 30). It also warns against presenting one’s own opinions “as though they were non-arguable conclusions” (n. 27)” I would argue that the fact that the criticisms are mostly presented (especially in the case of the dubia) as a desire for clarification, that there is more than enough evidence for a desire to resolve difficulties. I would also point out that Dr. Fastiggi’s constant disdain for the fact that Pope Francis’ critics express what they consider to be the “correct teaching” on capital punishment and otherwise seems to overlook the fact that most people only passionately argue about things about which they do consider themselves to be correct and which they believe very strongly; otherwise, there would be no debate. Besides that, it is a common tendency in modern debates to simply allow passions to rule the argument and resort to ad hominem attacks. He says that the critics’ attitude “completely contradicts Donum veritatis, and … comes across as rash and presumptuous.” Again, these are very strongly held opinions and the belief that they are correct. It is not rash nor presumptuous, merely passionate argument.

“What is clearly lacking in the papal critics is humility and trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Roman Pontiff.” This statement presumes to know the hearts and intentions of the men and women who question the Holy Father. While I might be willing to concede that they may not have as much trust in the Holy Spirit as they ought (this is, unfortunately, a common modern malady), I cannot accept the assertion that they are, therefore, lacking humility. My experience is that these questions are raised by those who are aware of their own lack of knowledge and want affirmation that what they have been believing isn’t false. I would also add that there are some who prefer to appeal to the Holy Spirit as a sort of nebulous agent that allows men to say that they are acting under his inspiration and are therefor infallible. I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit does not act in this way. He does. However, some use it as an excuse for poor judgement or as a reason why people should listen to them without question.

Dr. Fastiggi’s constant reference to the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Pope as keeping the Pope from error, seems to follow the incorrect view of Papal infallibility that Protestants usually level at Catholics as a point where we are contrary to the faith. This view is that the Pope is kept from error of all kinds. While Dr. Fastiggi does not endorse this view wholesale as he does point out that the Pope can commit personal sin, but his insistence that the Holy Spirit keeps the Pope from nearly all error, seems to be forgetting that there are certain circumstances that the Pope must fulfill in order to be infallible. This is not something that I have ever seen questioned until now. This claim gives me the sense of a creeping fideism. Fideism is defined as ““exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth.”[5] I may be reading too much into this, but it brings the belief to mind and is thus concerning.

In the end of his article, Dr. Fastiggi quotes the CDF (using Cardinal Ratzinger as an authoritative touchstone), where it points out that Peter was weak and that that fact shows how Christ is the one who keeps the Church in existence rather than human effort. While there is no issue with this claim, Dr. Fastiggi appears to think that this quote shows that the Church and Papacy persists because of the weakness of her popes. I would argue that the Church persists by the power of Christ in spite of her popes (at times). To make the claim that Dr. Fastiggi appears to be making would mean that the historically bad popes were very good for the Church. I would say that the Church may grow harder / stronger during those Popes, but not necessarily growing in other ways. The “bad popes” are also potentially damaging for the Church in terms of theological understanding, the moral character of the hierarchy, and her relations to other faiths (and in modern times, countries).

With respect, I think Dr. Fastiggi has fallen prey to the unfortunately common practice of a modern-day ultramontanism. As I described above, this is the belief that most if not all difficulties or conflicts must be resolved by Rome. While I do believe that Roma dixit, causa finita holds, I don’t think it is healthy to appeal every single case to the Pope as there can be cultural misunderstandings as the Pontiff is (for good or ill) a product of the culture in which he was raised. It also tends to hold that the Pope is right in every case of prudential judgement unless we can prove beyond the shadow if a doubt that he is mistaken. I find this sort of one-sided burden-of-proof to be unnecessary.

In conclusion, I think that Dr. Fastiggi’s article does nothing to set the record straight on attacks on papal authority. I believe it falls into the trap of over-correcting a perceived flaw and trying to showcase character flaws in the Pope’s critics rather than addressing the ideas head on and refuting their reasoning. I find this problematic as it turns the piece into a primarily ad hominem work that begs the question at multiple points all the while presenting itself as a reasonable, objective look at the issue. In my opinion, Dr. Fastiggi’s article completely fails to fulfill this goal of objectivity. The article also reveals a kind of hypocrisy where Dr. Fastiggi attacks the credibility (and authority) of the Pope’s critics, often treating them dismissively, all the while accusing these critics of doing the exact same thing. While it is understandable that Dr. Fastiggi would do such a thing as Pope Francis is – unfortunately – guilty of a similar practice when he claims that his critics are tools or agents of the Devil,[6] it does not make it an acceptable, nor moral tool to use. I can respect Dr. Fastiggi’s desire to see the divisions in the Church come to a swift end; truly, all Catholics should seek this. However, I do not find that his approach is helpful; in fact, it appears to be more detrimental to the dialogue than perhaps he expected.

---

[1] Cf. Gal 2:11-14

[2] Romans 3:23

[3] John 19:10b

[4] Dr. Fastiggi links to Dr. Peter’s article, but does not mention him by name. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/16/the-death-penalty-debate-and-the-churchs-magisterium/

[5] Plantinga, Alvin, 1983. “Reason and Belief in God,” in Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff (eds.), Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

[6] I am a little too lazy to dig through all of the homilies to find all of these quotes, so here is a list that somebody else compiled. https://onepeterfive.com/revealing-the-great-accuser-pope-francis-fires-back-at-crictics-despite-pledge-of-silence/

Seminarian Testament: Vere Dico Vobis

If you're looking for the testimony I wrote about my experiences in seminary, it is not published here on this blog. If you want to read it, head on over to De Civitate.

But if you were looking for confirmation from me that I wrote it by finding the "original" on my blog: Yes, I wrote it.

The Last Jedi: A review. Kinda....

Review of The Last Jedi.

After two years, we finally got the next installment of the main Star Wars franchise. Before I get into this one, I will give the disclaimer that I don’t really care for The Force Awakens, so, be warned, some of that may come through in this.

My first reaction when I stepped out of the theater was “bleh.” I haven’t left the theater with a bad taste in my mouth in a long time, but this one managed to pull that off. Why? There are many reasons. So, I will attempt to give an examination of the movie. Even though, I cannot claim to be entirely objective on this one, I will try to give it a fair review.

To be clear, I am not going after the actors, nor am I attempting to vilify the writer/director. I think some errors were made (some, perhaps intentionally), but ad hominem attacks take away from the discussion, are not professional, and just don’t add anything helpful to the mix.

I guess I’ll take this one walking through the film and then give some wrap-up comments at the end.

One of the first things I noticed in the title crawl was that it was stated that the First Order was now in basically complete control of the galaxy. I wondered how this could be. It was stated multiple times that this movie starts right after Episode 7. If that’s the case, we’re dealing with the space of a few hours or a few days at most. It seems entirely unlikely that the First Order would have complete control of the entire galaxy in that short of a space of time. However, it has been put forward that time is never explicitly stated in the film, so it could be a much longer time (such as months) which would then put it in the realm of feasibility. This is a definite possibility since time in Star Wars films has always been a little vague, but the fact that Disney made a big deal about this film starting right on the heels of the last one and the fact that the continuation of the scene between Rey and Luke doesn’t take place until after the opening space battle, I would say that it is more likely that little time has passed. 

The space battle itself was fairly well done. I was appreciative of the fact that there were some old-school A-Wings zipping around. One of my major complaints about Episode 7 was that for an organization that was founded using the left-overs from the Rebellion, the Resistance only appeared to have new ships and only one kind of fighter, the T-70 X-Wing. So, a little diversity in the ships was nice. The bombers, however, made no sense. In space, there is no gravity and the fact that these bombers relied on gravity a la World War II Mitchell’s made very little sense. I understand that they were trying to make the bombers feel vulnerable and raise tension, but it made no sense and took me out of the story. Also: Y-Wings were the bomber of choice in the Rebellion, and they projected their bombs (as did Tie-Bombers). General Hux was made into more of a parody of himself during the odd call-waiting stall tactic.

On that note: the humour in this film was a bit forced. It felt like the writers were going for the current Marvel style of jokes and slap-stick that was introduced with Guardians of the Galaxy. This kind of humour just doesn’t quite fit with the story that they were telling or with the universe… If anyone has any doubts, re-watch Episode I.

One thing that I heard many people didn’t like was Leia using the Force to return to the ship after the bridge was blown open. I thought this was a cool scene. Why? Well, it showed that Leia could actually use the Force (which as an old EU fan, I expected), and it showed that she was a fairly powerful Force user. Most people say that this power isn’t even possible. I would point out that in the book Heir to the Empire, Luke did something similar to move between ship, albeit a bit less extreme. So, the precedent is there, just not quite to this extent.

Side note: Did anybody else notice that when they blew up the bridge, all the male leadership of the Resistance just died (including Ackbar! Boo!), leaving only women in command? Not that this isn’t possible, it just felt more like the writers trying stick in our faces the fact that women can lead (which I’m pretty sure, nobody debates) rather than allowing in-universe logic to dictate that other folks would still be alive in other parts of the ship (that’s how chain-of-command works).

I’ll get back to the fleet story in a bit, but now, on to Luke and Rey.

So, we go right back to where we saw them, standing at the top of the hill, gazing at each other. Then Luke takes the lightsaber. We are all expecting him to say something profound or, heck, anything at all. But what does he do instead? He glares at Rey, tosses the lightsaber over his shoulder and walks away. Rey then follows him around and we see what Luke does with his days. Apparently, he milks giant creatures (which was a very weird scene), fishes for giant fish, and just generally mopes around. Then we hear Luke’s first words in 25 years: “Go away!” If it weren’t for the fact that I’m more mad about what Luke is doing, I would have found this funny, since I’m not a huge fan of Rey and having Luke tell her to go away, expresses my feelings on the matter (I will say, however, that this is not a bash against Daisy Ridley, who has done a fine job, I just don’t like the character and how she is written. But more on that later).

We learn that Luke is hiding on Ach-To for one simple reason. To die and let the Jedi die with him. This is a far cry from what most of us were expecting him to be doing. However, this is what I was expecting after I saw Episode 7 as it seemed to be the only logical reason why Luke would be gone for that long. This is where that line that startled everyone when the trailer came out: “it’s time for the Jedi to end.”

Luke’s grumpiness and refusal to help the galaxy out of a mess that he purportedly caused isn’t even alleviated by Chewbacca’s intervention or by R2’s. Granted, R2 does play the Leia recording from Episode 4, which is a nice bit of nostalgia (and which does get Luke to agree to train Rey), but both of these characters are extremely underused in this this situation. (R2 is never seen again in the movie) Luke knows the two of them much better than he does Rey (whom he just met). Luke even asks her “why are you here?” I asked this very question at the end of 7, why send someone Luke doesn’t know to try to convince him to come out of hiding? Yes, Rey wanted training and so wanted to find the great Master Skywalker, but somebody else could have come along as well to lend weight to her claims of the galaxy being in danger. You know, someone like….. his sister. However, Luke has cut himself off from the Force because he believes that it is out of hubris that the Jedi use it. This explains why Luke is unaware of things that have transpired in the galaxy, such as the death of his friend. We do get a somewhat amusing scene with Chewie and the porgs, but after that the porgs just bother me like the cash-grab ewok-ish marketing scheme they are.

Ok, now back to the fleet. The fleet has been tracked through hyperspace by the First Order and is once again getting pummeled. How are they tracked? They never really explain it. It’s apparently some device at the front of the new Star Destroyers that allow them to do it. Apparently it was mentioned in Rogue One when Jynn is going through files to find the Death Star plans so “it has precedent!” Meh. Still doesn’t explain how it works or why we haven’t seen it until now. Seems more like an ex machina for the sake of the plot to me… So, Finn wakes up and tries to run away because he thinks the whole situation is hopeless and wants to make sure Rey stays away. He then bumps in to Rose who both him, plans on taking him to the brig for attempted desertion, and then decides to help him when they both figure out the hyperspace tracking and Finn’s janitorial past means that he can get them to where the device is. I would like to point out once again that Finn being a janitor and a stormtrooper is very odd. Poe is also in the doghouse because he got a lot of people killed in what ended up being a pointless attack run on that dreadnaught in the beginning. To be fair to him, nobody could have known that it was going to be pointless. Leia is right that not everything can be solved by hopping into a cockpit and blowing things up, but Poe getting demoted felt a little forced. Laura Dern’s admiral character is a very strange addition to the story. Don’t get me wrong, I like Laura Dern as an actress, but the character was just… odd. She was supposed to be an awesome strategist and great leader, but we end up getting someone who doesn’t tell anyone on the ship what the plan is, making Poe freak out and think that she might be an enemy agent. This was just tension for the sake of tension…. No military would operate like that. There was no reason why Poe couldn’t know the plan. So, because Poe doesn’t trust Dern, he helps Rose and Finn sneak off the cruiser to go to Canto Bright to try to get a splicer to break into the First Order ship to shut down the hyperspace tracker so they can get away. Meanwhile, the Resistance ships stay just outside of effective blasting range all the while losing fuel and eventually evacuating everyone to the main big cruiser. That’s mostly it on that story part for now. Nothing much happens. Oh yeah, Snoke’s B-2 shows up.

We finally see Snoke, sitting in his big, red throne room. He mocks Kylo Ren about being defeated by Rey in the previous film and tells him to lose the helmet. He tells Kylo to forget the past and move on. Kylo then has a massive tantrum in the turbolift and smashes his helmet.

Soooo…. Finn and Rose. Nope, not going to talk about this much. This storyline/subplot/filler was superfluous. They go to a casino city that is part Crouscant, part Mos Eisley, but mostly dumb. It was more of a little soapbox for the movie to declaim that rich people are war-mongers and bad people. But oh look! They also sold to the good guys! War is perpetuated by rich people who just want money and who exploit everything for their own pleasure! They ended up not even getting the splicer that they were sent to find. But they did find some random low-life who could apparently do the same things. Was he the guy they were sent to look for in the first place? Unknown. Who this guy is is never explained. Rose then gets really worked up about the animals being kept in pens for racing, but doesn’t seem to bat an eye that there are children in slavery to watch said animals. It’s “worth it” when they let the animals get away, but they just left the kids behind…. She left her ring to give them “hope,” sure, but words are words until action is taken. BB-8 also has some very strange ex machina moments where he can just do things that a droid never has done before: shoot coins (never mind storing them), stealing a ship (although this is more plausible), he even lost his head earlier, and will pilot a walker by himself later (inexplicably getting into it). So, Finn and Rose escape this pointless planet and head back to Snoke’s ship. Apparently, the official explanation of this side-story is that it allowed Finn to grow outside of himself and start to care about other people more than himself. It also, apparently, let Rose start to become the hero that she idolized. Ok. There’s some of that in there, but it doesn’t take away the fact that this scenario added basically nothing to the plot.

Back to Luke and Rey. Alright, Luke agrees to train Rey. Side note: Luke uses the name Sidious instead of Palpatine. While he could have conceivably learned this name from ghost Yoda, Obi-wan, or Anakin, it seems strange that Luke would refer to him as Sidious instead of Palpatine or simply ‘The Emperor.” Anyway, Luke gets Rey to sit down and “reach out.” What then happens is a humourous, Yoda-esque moment where he messes with her about physically reaching out. Seriously, this was one of the few moments in the movie where I actually laughed. So, Rey then actually reaches out to the Force, Luke gives a talk about how the power of the Force is not ours to use; it is the energy of the universe and should we should stay out of it since it is not our place to mess with it. Luke also reveals that he has cut himself off from the Force because of this. Then Rey apparently reaches the Ach-To version of the Dark Side tree on Dagobah. She doesn’t hesitate, but just goes right to it. Justifiably, Luke is frightened by this as she “went right to the Dark Side.” He then avoids her again. After this (I think, the flow of the movie is a little weird, so I forget exactly where some of these things happen), she starts having visions/telepathic conversations with Kylo Ren. I found this very odd, especially the explanation that was given later. The “put a shirt on” gag was lame. Also, things seemed to be able to go between the two (like water) and they were able to touch each other. Yes, this was a sort of foreshadowing of what would happen later, but still very odd. 

Luke gives a version of the story where he “caused” Ben Solo to become Kylo Ren. Later, though, we get another version of the story from Kylo Ren and Luke amends his story. Question: Why did Luke feel compelled to lie (or at the very least, not tell the whole story)? He has nothing to lose as he himself has pointed out.

Sometime during this, we see Rey practice with the lightsaber, showing that she has figured out how 

to use it. By herself.

Then we get a whole long sequence of Rey trying to figure out who her parents were by going into the Dark Side pit. Yes, the special effects were cool in this sequence. The temporal versions of Rey doing the same actions were interesting. We’ve seen this in a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “We’ll Always Have Paris.” The outcome of this scene is nothing. Rey sees herself. This basically tells us that her past is unimportant, and we need to just accept her as she is. That is a fairly important point as it appears to be the main message of the movie.

Rey talks to Kylo Ren again and this time Luke interrupts. He and Rey have a brief fight scene and then Luke tells the whole story of what happened that night at his Jedi Academy. Apparently, Luke felt the influence of Snoke and was afraid Ben was going to turn to the Dark Side. But instead of trying to combat the influence, or make Ben aware of it, or try nearly a dozen other options, Luke decided that he should kill Ben to stop him from falling to the Dark Side. Good choice there, buddy. Then he realizes his mistake. However, the damage is done as Ben wakes up to Luke standing above him with an ignited lightsaber. Rage ensues and Ben succumbs to Snoke’s influence. Luke is knocked away and out and comes to after Ben has taken many of his students, killed the rest, and destroyed the academy. Luke takes this as a sign that he was so arrogant, believing that he could train the next generation of Jedi and that he had such hubris, believing that he could use the Force to change events. He essentially blames himself for things that were, at least in part, outside his control. Rey decides that Luke cannot help her, especially now that she has decided that she can go save Ben, and leaves. Luke then decides that he has failed for the last time and goes to burn the first Jedi texts.

What follows is a fun scene with Yoda. Yoda tells Luke that the texts are not all that important, even setting the tree where they are stored on fire with lightening. Then Yoda gives Luke the wisdom that failure is the often the best teacher. I agree with Yoda that this is important. However, I wonder about the timing. Did Luke manage to prevent Yoda from appearing to him and telling him this? Apparently, Luke succeeded in stopping Yoda, Obi-wan, and his father from appearing to him… Even though he cut himself off from the Force and can’t manipulate it at all…

Aaand back to the fleet. Poe is grumpy about not being told what is going on, so he decides that somehow, the Admiral (Holdo?) must be a First Order agent. So, he plans an attempt to retake the ship while Holdo is getting ready to evacuate it. The plan fails miserably when Leia comes onto the locked bridge and stuns Poe. They end up finding out that it was Leia and Holdo’s plan to escape to a nearby abandoned rebel base on Crait. Poe is once again chastised and the remainder of the Resistance jumps onto the transports and start flying to the old base, hoping that the First Order won’t detect them. Holdo stays behind on the cruiser to give them cover.

Meanwhile, Finn and Rose get onto the First Order ship somehow and get to where the tracker is. Del Toro’s splicer manages to get the door open, but they are all captured anyway. Without managing to deactivate the hyperspace tracker. They are then dragged back out to the hanger deck where Phasma and Hux plan to kill them. We also find out that Del Toro made a deal with the First Order and is leaving with payment. What he did isn’t entirely clear… Tipped the First Order off that they got there? Made a deal for information that he had after they got captured? I’m not really clear.

Then, Snoke’s ship begins firing on the escape transports and begins destroying them. For some odd reason, the Resistance pilots fail to begin evasive maneuvers… I get flying in a straight line before you are spotted, but once you start taking fire you should ditch the Prometheus school of running away from things.

During this time, Rey gets onto Snoke’s ship. She is greeted by Ben and brought directly to Snoke’s chamber. Much like Luke in Return of the Jedi. Snoke then proceeds to sneer, taunt, and mock Rey. Hitting her head with the lightsaber (which, I admit, was funny) and uses the Force to wrench Luke’s hiding place from her mind. Snoke does manage to appear menacing in this scene and they even use the Emperor’s theme for him at one point. He then decides that she is useless and orders Ben to kill her. Rey says that Ben has some good in him. Snoke then says that he knows Ben so well and has controlled him for so long that there is nothing Ben can do about following Snoke’s commands. Ben then turns the lightsaber and… psych! He turned Anakin’s lightsaber on the throne’s arm and ignites it into Snokes stomach, then pulls it forward and cuts Snoke in half. Snoke is then very, very dead. I will point out that one Sith has survived this sort of thing (Darth Maul, canonically, survived his unfortunate defeat at the hands of Obi-wan), so while he is probably dead, it’s not out of the range of possibility for him to come back.

Rey and Ben then have an awesome fight with Snoke’s guards. Seeing vibro-whips and such was 

really cool. My only complaint is that Rey just seems too good, even saving Ben in the end of the fight. Ben then asks Rey to join him and vice-versa. They both refuse each other and Ben shows that he killed Snoke just to gain power. Ben also tells Rey that he has seen into her mind and knows who her parents are. Who are they? Absolutely nobody important. Apparently, they were scavengers who sold her so they could get off-planet. Aaaand we unceremoniously drop yet another of the carefully built up J.J. mystery boxes.

They then start to fight a bit, trying to pull Anakin’s lightsaber to themselves. They only manage to destroy it (and it explodes, oddly enough).

Holdo then turns the Resistance cruiser and jumps to lightspeed facing the First Order ships, taking out a several of the smaller ships and taking off a good part of the starboard section of Snoke’s ship. This allows the Resistance to escape to Crait and provides enough disruption for Finn and Rose to escape Snoke’s ship (after sending Phasma to die… again [she just ended up being useless… again… such a waste of a character]). The lightspeed scene was absolutely awesome! However, I don’t think making Holdo sacrifice herself redeems her in a meaningful way. If this were a character that had some sort of connection to the series previously, it would have had some sort of emotional payout, but this one didn’t so, while it was cool, it was rather meaningless.

Kylo Ren is then declared the new Supreme Leader of the First Order and he orders them to make a 

ground assault on Crait.

Finn and Rose crash into the Rebel base in a stolen First Order shuttle. This is one of the first times that the good guys open fire on a bad guy ship with good guys in it. Most times they figure it out. I liked that this happened since it is more realistic.

What happens next is very strange… The Resistance fortifies their position with a giant blast shield and the First Order brings down walkers and a mini Death Star laser (to act more or less like a battering ram)… Strangely, this reminded me of the Return of the King. Oliphants (which, at the time, reminded me of AT-ATs) and Grond. Anyway, what follows is similar to the opening moments of the Battle of Hoth. The speeders that the Resistance uses are pieces of garbage and most get destroyed (or fall apart) before they get to the giant planet killer laser-ram. Finn has a moment where he overcomes his selfishness and cowardice.  He’s just about to sacrifice himself to destroy the laser (á le Decker in The Doomsday Machine) when Rose steals his thunder. Just when his character was completing his arc and making me like him, they steal his moment of redemption from him. Yes, they said that we need to fight for someone instead of just fighting against something. Yes, that was an ok message. However, that doesn’t remove the fact that sometimes fighting for someone means sacrificing yourself. There are several examples that come to mind. I’m sure you can think of them yourselves.

The Millennium Falcon shows up and takes care of the Tie Fighters (which was pretty cool, and brought back a good motif). Somehow though, Rey was back on the Falcon, even though it was said a scene ago that she escaped Snoke’s ship on Snoke’s own personal transport. I assume that a supreme leader’s transport would have weapons, so wouldn’t it be good to bring more than one ship to a dogfight? Besides that, how in the galaxy did Rey have time to contact Chewie, dock with the Falcon, and head down to Crait? Not a huge deal, but it bugged me.

So, after the speeder plan fails, Luke suddenly shows up. The scene that follows with him and Leia is absolutely fantastic and the score at that moment is also amazing. It allows these two characters to come to terms with the past 25 years in the space of a few minutes. It also contains what is, I believe, to be the best acting in the entire film. Leia tells Luke that all of this isn’t his fault and that Snoke is mainly to blame.

Luke says he has to go face Ben, which he promptly does. Now that the walking laser has blasted a very tiny hole in the blast shield, Luke walks out to face the entire First Order force. As he walks through, we see the Resistance fighters light up with some hope.

Then… Kylo Ren does the most immature thing he does in the entire film. He orders every ship, walker, and trooper to open fire on Luke. Luke then disappears in a cloud of dust and laser blasts. This continues for a bit until Hux gets him to stop. I wasn’t a fan of this as, it seemed that in the last scene Kylo Ren was supposed to have come into his own as the successor to Vader. But, he doesn’t act like Vader… Vader would have gone down to deal with Luke himself, not pelt him from a distance. Vader was very hands-on that way. So, it undermined Kylo Ren’s development a bit. Then Luke emerges from the dust cloud, completely unscathed; he even goes so far as to brush some dust off his shoulder in order to rub it in. Finally, Kylo Ren decides to come down and challenge Luke directly. So, yes, the lightsaber “fight” was cool. Some very nice camera angles and some ok dialog. Then we get the big reveal: Luke isn’t actually here! He is doing some sort of Force projection from Ach-to! I think I am probably one of the only people who found this lame. Yes, the power was a cool new power. I personally found it to be a letdown of the character. I’ll explain this at the end. So, Luke gives a sort of Obi-wan comment “If you strike me down, I will be with you forever…. Just like your father.” Once Kylo figures out that Luke is not physically there, Luke says “See you around, kid” and disappears (LUKE SKYWALKER has vanished!). What is left of the Resistance does manage to escape through some holes behind the base that some ice foxes show them. Luke also reveals that he is no longer the last of the Jedi, since Rey has become a Jedi (I suppose.) Rey then lifts the giant rocks blocking the Resistance’s escape (with no help from Leia…. Why? Just reinforce to us that Rey is important and powerful.)

Kylo Ren walks into the base and sees Han Solo’s Sabaac dice, which also are Force projections (which lasted for some reason after Leia put them down and Luke disappeared).

Luke drops from exhaustion from his projection, then apparently crawls up and sees the Resistance escape. He then sits on his rock, gazing into the suns-set just like his did all that time ago on Tatooine (you remember, the very first Star Wars? *wink wink*). Then, as the Williams score swells, he disappears, becoming one with the Force. *Sigh* I’ll come back to that.

So, the Resistance escapes and Leia says something about them having hope and all 15 of them escape on the Millennium Falcon. It’s definitely just a spark now… Oh yeah, and Rey took the Jedi texts from the tree on Ach-to. Anyway, last scene of the movie, we go back to the slave kids on Canto Bight and they get in trouble for telling stories that we just saw instead of mucking out the stalls. So they get yelled at. One kid goes out with a broom, looks up to the stars and “sees” the Falcon go to lightspeed. We see that he has Rose’s Rebel symbol ring and we see a look of “hope” on his face. After that he raises his broom (apparently with the Force) so we get a silhouette that looks like a Jedi with a lightsaber. My guess is that this is to tell us that anybody, even those from humble stock, can be the next generation of heroes. Alright, you don’t need to beat us over the head with it. Anakin only started life as a slave….

Did this review feel disjointed? Yes? Good. That was how the movie felt. It had a very uneven flow to it and didn’t seem to be able to make up its mind as to where it was going. As much as I complained about Episode 7 being basically a copy of Episode 4, it had a definable story that you could follow. Even some of the garbage scripts I wrote as a teen had more of definable story arcs and character development. Yes, yes; some people will say “you can’t have it both ways!” I say: “Why not?” Is it so hard to work inside of a pre-existing universe, and still make a new story? Then I look around at all the reboots and prequels going on…. I think we’ve exhausted the creativity of the folks who write for movies. If you want some stuff that works in the universe and still tells a new story, look at some of the old EU Star Wars material, namely: Knights of the Old Republic, Timothy Zahn’s Thrawn books (and any other Star Wars book he wrote), and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (the newer series). These took what was already there, didn’t contradict it (for the most part), and even inserted new characters into the universe that became awesome in their own right (Reven, Thrawn, Mara Jade, Ahsoka). So, don’t tell me it can’t be done. It also feels like the movie has been highjacked to try to give social commentary. This has never been Star Wars’ strong point. There are some comments on a few things, (like the Republic in the Prequels), but generally things are just in the film rather than focused on (you know, like strong female leads who just are there because they are part of the universe, and why wouldn’t they be there rather than “Hey look!”)

So, what did I like about this movie? Well, I liked the score. I think that this movie allowed Williams to do what Williams does best: swelling epic scores. The Force Awakens didn’t have very many score moments that I can remember being excited about. This score did. The use of the Force theme (mostly for Luke), Leia’s theme, the Tie Fighter fight theme, and even Rose’s new theme were effective for what they were supposed to do. I don’t think it quite has the same connection to the film that the original six did, but I don’t think modern directors approach scores the same way people like Lucas and Spielberg did. It definitely will be a fine addition to my collection. I also liked that Kylo Ren was written better. He felt much less whiney and “emo” in this film. While he still remains that way to an extent (see his turbolaser infused Luke-hating tantrum), he is far less annoying than he was in the last film. I’m still not on board with him being a great bad guy (he’s not even a Dooku), but he has gotten better. Leia having the Force was great (although used inconsistently). There are a few more things I mentioned in the above monster text (like the A-wings, Yoda, the lightspeed kamikaze, and Luke’s initial grumpiness), but that’s just about it….

So: Rey…. Rey didn’t really have much growth in this film. Much like the last one, Rey seems to grasp everything that Luke shows her either intuitively or far too quickly. Yes, there was some training, but it definitely felt like a continuation of the last film, where she only needs to see something once or barely guess at it to know how to do it. As someone wise once said: “That’s not how the Force works!” She is so confident in her abilities that she decides to go off after Ben by herself. Yes, this is a throwback to Luke going to Bespin. However, Luke had a bit more training and you also felt that he was doing something potentially disastrous. I didn’t have that feeling with Rey. Also, when she faced Snoke, I never got the feeling that she was in grave danger because I knew that she would find a way to win, or have one conveniently land in her lap (which happened). The big reveal of her parents was that they were nobodies. Ok…. I get it, we’re trying to show that not every hero needs to be a Skywalker or Solo. However, I will point out, that that is what the anthology films are supposed to be about. The saga episodes are purportedly telling the story of the Skywalker family, but if this is the true nature of Rey’s background, then Johnson and Disney just fired a large shot right in their own foot, contradicting their own declared purpose for the films. Besides that, it was a huge let-down as everyone was expecting something cool and we just got “oh, they’re nobody important.” It’s the problem with the whole mystery box idea. You get people hyped up for something and then when you finally reveal what it is, nearly everyone is disappointed. I am of the opinion that this will likely become a red herring and that J.J. Abrams will retcon it, say Kylo was lying, or something. They dropped far too many of his storylines for him to just go ahead with it.

Snoke: Where to start…. Snoke was another major blunder. We’ve been waiting two whole years to find out who this guy is and we’ve been told in the books, comics, and releases that Snoke is a really powerful guy who has been around since before the Clone Wars. He may even be that dark power that Palpatine felt in the unknown regions. This big bad guy mostly delivers for his time on screen; he’s not quite as menacing as Vader nor as creepy as the Emperor, but he does have some menace of his own, especially when he toys with Rey and gets Luke’s location out of her head. However, he manages to get killed by not paying close enough attention while monologuing (You caught me monologuing!). This totally undermines any importance that the character had in the universe. Even if he was a big bad guy, he gets killed so quickly after seeing him, that the supposed terror he has inflicted upon the galaxy seems cheap. Granted, we only saw the Emperor for a very short while in Episode 6, but they, at least, waited to kill him in the end in a way that added to the main story plot and gave Vader more drama. I think this was another part one of Abrams’ plot points that Johnson just dropped, because he thought it was silly and didn’t let him do what he wanted with Kylo Ren (namely, make him a really big, bad guy). While I thought the Snoke thing was silly when Episode 7 came out, I would have expected some consistency with the character and with the internal mechanics of the universe. I guess I expected too much. We expected some sort of confrontation and got a lame villain who gets killed without actually doing anything bad other than tossing some people around the room.

Luke: Alright, this was probably my biggest critique of the film. Luke does not seem like Luke. As I said before, Luke’s hiding and waiting to die does not seem to fit with the character that we saw at the end of Return of the Jedi. Yes, things happened in the intervening 25ish years, but now that we have gotten a look at what happened…. I don’t think it’s enough to make Luke fall into despair like he has. Luke is supposed to have been the most powerful Jedi that has ever lived. While we did see him use astral projection (Which nobody has done before), he didn’t do anything. It took something away from his character that he didn’t physically go somewhere. Yes, it showed some power in the Force, but it just ended up being a mostly pointless delaying tactic. What I would have preferred would have been to see him start to raise his X-Wing, then show up at the last battle, taking out a few TIEs, before going head-to-head with Kylo. Anyway, the ending. Why do I think it is weak? Well, it makes Luke Skywalker, the man who was a hero to the galaxy (yes, maybe a few people hadn’t heard of him, but it’s doubtful; if a junker on a planet like Jakku knows who he is, then most people know who he is [Yes, Rey knows all, but logically…]), just die of exhaustion. It is reminiscent of the ending of the Golden Compass series, where the main characters find “God” and watch him die; he doesn’t go out with a bang or some other massive celestial show, just with a quiet whimper. It seems like this last great show of force has drained him of any strength that he had left and he just dies. Before anyone points out Yoda, Yoda was old and sick, he died naturally. Luke’s death seems anti-climactic for a character who is so beloved. Did he need to go out in a blaze of glory or get wasted like a red shirt? No. If he had actually been there, done the fight, then escaped and died of his wounds at the very end, that would have worked. That would have been a sacrifice that would have meant something and allowed us to leave him in a way that felt right.

As this review is already waaaay to long, I’ll stop here. If you need/want clarification on anything I have written or my thoughts on anything that I may have missed, leave a comment.

 I’ll leave this with one final thought. This film has proven to be possibly the most divisive film for the Star Wars franchise. People are going after each other left and right. Much digital space has been filled with people’s thoughts and reactions. However, much of the discourse has been vicious and unnecessary. So: if you like the movie or if you didn’t like the movie, you can say you did or didn’t and why (as long as you can keep it level and rational [being a little emotional is fine, we are all attached to the franchise, after all]). But above all, keep it civil. Somebody liking it doesn’t make them a liberal misandryist and hating the movie doesn’t make somebody a misogynistic racist. There is so much hate going out on both sides. It’s like the Dark Side has taken over. So, long story short, talk about the story and the ideas. No name calling. Jerks. ;)