Comic Books, Aquinas, Law, And Liturgy

Bear with me on this. Despite the weird title of this post, I will work everything in.

A lot of you have probably heard by now that DC Comics has re-launched pretty much every book they have. They are kicking off 52 new titles and doing so in the name of "innovation" and "surprise" and a whole bunch of other stuff.

This isn't nearly as innovative, creative, or whatever as they claim it is. Both DC and Marvel have had major "re-boots" like this in the past. Many times. If things get stale, they just restart everything. People, being suckers, run out and buy the new crap without wondering if it will be good or not. It's just new, ergo, good. Things will rock along for a while. Then the newness wears off, and readers start drifting away with the realization that what they've been reading is crap.

Time for another re-boot! And so forth.

For the purposes of our discussion today, by the way, let's leave aside that these re-boots (or re-launches or whatever you want to call them) are, on their substantive merits, typically events of the most awful caliber. There are exceedingly rare exceptions, but for today, let's just think about the point of a re-boot itself.

I'm saying that re-booting things this way lends itself to a complete lack of respect for the stories and characters. It's sort of like killing off a character then bringing them back to life. It cheapens the character. Nobody can take any threat to them seriously anymore, whether it's a super-villain or some sort of internal conflict/angst. They just have to wait for the writer to retcon or re-boot the badness into oblivion.

Indulging in such practices is one of the many reasons why Dan DiDio and Joe Quesada are scourges upon the literary world and should be banished from civilized society until they have done sufficient penance for the crimes against the comic book world and good taste in general. But I digress...


Novelty is a dangerous drug. People crave it without even knowing they do so. Stuff is old. Stuff is therefore seen as dull or tiresome. Rather than looking inward and realizing that the problem might not be with what is old but instead with ourselves, we look for something new to stimulate our senses back into enjoyment. Especially in an age driven so much by entertainment and titillation, we are constantly looking for something to feed our appetite for innovation.

Chesterton put it this way:

All the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumption. It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. This is a fallacy even in relation to known fact. For the variation in human affairs is generally brought into them, not by life, but by death; by the dying down or breaking off of their strength or desire. A man varies his movements because of some slight element of failure or fatigue. He gets into an omnibus because he is tired of walking; or he walks because he is tired of sitting still. But if his life and joy were so gigantic that he never tired of going to Islington, he might go to Islington as regularly as the Thames goes to Sheerness. The very speed and ecstacy of his life would have the stillness of death. The sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life. The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.


I wonder if the idea has ever occurred to any of these empirical thrill-seekers that perfection is changeless and therefore rejects novelty.


Back to the main issue. It's the same thing with the law. St. Thomas states the following:


Objection 1. It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs. Therefore the same should apply to human laws.

Objection 2. Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points. Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.

Objection 3. Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something better to occur for legislation.

On the contrary, It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."

Reply to Objection 1. Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed hitherto should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently they should not be quickly changed.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or in a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to the Third Objection.

New for the sake of being new isn't a good reason to change the law. In fact, even if the new law would be better, that isn't enough. It has to be so good that the goodness in the change will exceed the damage done to the overall respect for the law as a whole. After all, who would appreciate a law that changed all the time? I've often wondered what a session of Congress or our state legislatures would look like if they decided not to pass any new laws. Was their previous year/years of work so shoddy that all these new laws and changes were required? Why are they always trying to pass new laws or change old ones?

My opinion is that they do so just for the newness. They can go home and tell everyone about all the laws they passed. They can't really state a case for these new precepts having any utility. They won't have been in effect long enough. Many will probably get repealed before they have an effect at all. People hear all the shiny newness, though, and are led to think that something was actually accomplished with all this statutory diarrhea. To the contrary, the Angelic Doctor says, the only thing accomplished is a deterioration of the legal system and the public perception of their lawmakers.


Where else do we see this addiction to the new played out most palpably? You've probably guessed from my post title. It's the liturgy of course. The fact that the Gregorian Mass went pretty much unchanged for 1500 years wasn't a sign of life or vitality as Chesterton might point out. It was a sign of stagnation and death. What was needed, in direct contradiction to Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy, was a completely new Mass, with all sorts of new stuff. This was called reform.


You see it even today. Liturgical committees get together to decide what kind of Mass they want to have. Clown Mass, Halloween Mass, Gay Mass, LifeTeen Mass, Contemporary Mass, etc. If attendance is down, what's the solution? Bring in secular music. Liturgical dance. The list goes on. How odd that Mass attendance was at 80% back when we had the stodgy and dull "Old Mass." I still recall how the "expert" in my wife's RCIA group spoke about how the "Old Mass" just wasn't fun enough to enjoy.


Don't think that lust for novelty was at the root of the alleged reform? Consider the words of Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of Archbishop Bugnini's foremost liturgical consultants in his work The Liturgy Today and Tomorrow:

It would be false to identify this liturgical renewal with the reform of rites decided on by Vatican II. This reform goes back much further and goes forward far beyond the conciliar prescriptions. The liturgy is a permanent workshop.



At the root of all this is the same gluttony for sensations that drives all the other stuff I mentioned. Whether it's Justice League Dark, or the latest change in trapping regulations, or Disco Liturgy, it's all about people being addicted to the new. We look to feed our senses instead of our souls. More tragically, many think these are the same thing.


In the words of Archie Bunker, we need to stifle ourselves. Whether in terms of our literary, legal, or liturgical preferences, some acknowledgement of stability, tradition, and custom is needed. This is why the Extraordinary Form is so vital to the future of the Church. It subdues our appetite for this sort of stuff. We are decreased so that He may increase. And not just us, but the priests as well. You can't have Disco Liturgy in the Extraordinary Form. Priests making themselves the center of attention is impossible. Everything is degraded in favor of God's Presence.


Humans have a bad habit of screwing things up. We're fallen, so it's understandable. Let's not give ourselves so many opportunities, though.

Comic Book Musings: The Serpent Crown

The Serpent Crown is a recurring object of mystical power that pops up every now and then in the Marvel Universe.

Not that this has a whole lot to do with the Church, but it did trigger some thoughts after re-reading Steve Englehart's classic Avengers storyline that had the Crown as its main subject. It was written back in the 70s, which proves one of a few things. Either conspiracy theory never changes, the world has always been this screwed up, or Englehart is a prophet.

The crux of the story is that the Serpent Crown, in a sort of One Ring-ish fashion, takes over people's minds and turns them bad. This inevitably seems to always happen powerful corporate executives that then go about forming a network of other corporations for the purpose of taking over the world. In Englehart's particular arc, it's an alternate universe's Nelson Rockefeller who becomes President of the United States.

Anyways, if you substitute the Federal Reserve for Roxxon Oil, you've pretty much got the whole basis for modern conspiracy theory. I'm not looking to get on any one side of this fence. Just rambling a bit and reflecting on one of our prior posts concerning the possible existence of such conspiracies.

Movie Review: Thor

I went to see Thor last night. It was the first Imax 3D feature I'd ever been to. It was pretty amazing, but I'm not sure it's so great as to want to pay 2x the regular ticket price.

This movie was an interesting experiment on several different levels. First, Thor is not a character that has a lot of wide popular appeal. I say this as someone who thinks that Walt Simonson's work with this book was one of the greatest literary achievements in the history of the written word. That's the exception that proves the rule, though. It takes an exceptional talent like Simonson to make the character work. He's honestly just not that interesting otherwise, which is why he's on the feature team of the Marvel Universe.

Second, a film translating Norse mythology into contemporary times is not going to be easy either. What with all the archaic speech and such, it would be really easy to have this whole thing degenerate into a lot of melodramatic actors hamming it up whilst delivering poorly written sappy dialogue.

I think this is why Kenneth Branagh as director was important. Having worked in theater and Shakespeare stuff, I think he could recognize the cheese potential before it got out of hand. The movie kept it's tone, and everybody stuck to playing their character straight, without giving in to self-indulgence or mockery.

One final bit before I get to the substance of things. There was not a shred of foul language or inappropriate sexual content. There is violence, but it wasn't anything more than what is in any other super-hero movie. In fact, it's probably a bit less, at least as far as humans participating goes.

Now, for the review and Catholic bits garnered from my viewing.

Minor spoilers follow. You have been warned.

What has made the good Marvel movies good has tended to be the cast. Thor is no exception, though this was one of my biggest concerns since I'd never heard of most of these folks. Then again, everybody knew who Ben Affleck and Nicolas Cage were. That didn't help Daredevil and Ghost Rider.

This Hemsworth guy pretty much nails it, both on the arrogant jackass part and the fun guy to have a beer with side. The romantic part was a bit forced, but that seemed more a function of time than the acting.

The supporting cast was good as well. Anthony Hopkins does great as Odin. This isn't Marlon Brando stopping by the set of Superman to pick up a paycheck. Heimdall, Sif, the Warriors Three all got excellent treatments. Except for Volstagg who, quite frankly, just wasn't fat enough.

Tom Hiddleston, another guy I'd never heard of, was a fantastic Loki. I didn't like the motivations unveiled at the end. It just didn't sit well with me for some reason. Loki is pretty evil. The movie tried to tone that down a bit, even though he was trying to commit genocide.

The plot worked well and is the beginning of the Catholic perspective that we consider. Thor begins with a point instructive to the masses. Humanity once lived under the principle that mankind was not alone in the universe. We've pretty much ditched that now. We're way more pagan than the pagans ever were. Their gods were basically super-heroes and displayed all the regular foibles of humanity, albeit with greater capacity for harm due to their powers. At least the pagans didn't exalt themselves as gods, which is our favorite modern pasttime.

Anyways, humanity not being alone in the movie means being stuck with Asgardians and Frost Giants. That is the back-drop of the whole film. The remaining context is essentially a replay of The Fall. Thor allows his pride to override his sense of duty to Odin the All-Father. This unleashes enormous destruction upon his people and results in his being cast out. The road back is by subordinating his own will and self-love to the ideals that his father always wanted for him. This is all very Catholic stuff and was a pleasant surprise as to how it was presented.

Going back to our previous points above, all this is done without being heavy-handed and in your face. Branagh didn't need to resort to cheap Jesus imagery a la Singer in Superman Returns. He told a story with superfluities like that stripped away and what you had left was just a good story with great acting.

And yes, there's stuff after the credits, and it's awesome.

Go see it. You'll be glad you did. And by all means, please take your kids. They'll be glad you did.

Then all of you can read Walt Simonson's Thor.

I Saw Punisher: War Zone

I'm sure that many of you are appalled. Would it shock you more to learn that I thought the last Punisher movie, starring Thomas Jane as Frank Castle, was excellent? Even my wife thought it was good.

Note for fanboys: Straight to video Dolph Lundgren version isn't being counted here.

Being the stupid person that I am, I actually thought that this more recent effort might be of similar substance. Of course, this did nothing but affirm my dumb-headedness.

The first movie focused a lot less on violence than it did on Frank's inability to cope with his tragedy. Much of it centered on his family relationships, then his attempts to forge new relationships with his neighbors. His activities against Howard Saint, while featuring some bloodshed, were of a more cerebral nature, as he gradually eroded Saint's organization from within.

This second movie is almost(?) pornographic in its violence. More explode than in the entire Scanners franchise. People being blown to bits, cut into pieces, etc. is supposed to be interesting, I guess. Not only that, Frank is basically a moron.

About once every 20 minutes or so, the movie attempts to show some humanity on Frank's end, usually with about ten seconds of flashback to his family, Ray Stevenson (who really mails it in) staring woefully at someone who reminds him of his family, or some sad sounding music. Did I mention what happens to MicroChip? Probably best not to.

Anyways, the result is a bunch of people getting blowed up real good with a couple of "Let's all go to the lobby" moments inserted to make it look like someone tried to manufacture a plot. I should have anticipated this. Why bother making something that even vaguely resembles a real movie when you can cater to the base urges of the masses by depicting slaughter?

The first movie was good because it wasn't about slaughter. It was about the person of Frank Castle and his reaction to the bad things that happened to him. The comics are the same way. Frank is only interesting when someone talks about who he is, rather than what he does. The latter is a consequence of the former. When folks try to portray what he does as being identical to who he is, the door is opened for things to suck. Punisher: War Zone kicked the freaking door open, lobbed in a crap grenade, then laughed while it splattered all over the audience.

Anyways, avoid this movie. It is awful. Oh, and the ending is blasphemous (in the literal sense), but hopefully, even if you began watching this cinematic turd, you had the good sense to turn it off before you got to the blasphemy part.

Why Catholics Should Read Comics

Here's a new web site that I'll be checking out: Holy Heroes. It's basically about religion in comic books. I haven't read enough posts to know the precise religious affiliations of the folks involved, but it's interesting stuff thus far.

What lots of people don't realize is that the comic books are uniquely built for telling stories grounded in Catholic theology. The idea of comics as the modern day myths a la Zeus, Horus, etc. has been examined thoroughly over the years, so it's easy to see a religious character to their stories. Whether it's gods trying to live as men (aka DC) or men trying to live as gods (aka Marvel), the comparisons are there.

Why is it especially apt for Catholic stuff, though?

Because the underlying theme of all these heroic stories is sacrifice, despite the vast powers of the characters. It's about carrying a cross and offering up all those things that you most desire in the name of that which is greater than yourself. You aren't going to find much prosperity Gospel around. Cheap grace? Doubtful. Easy roads to salvation? Probably not.

Close enough to the call to holiness for me.

Why Batman is Catholic, Pt. 3

Thus far, we've covered why Batman isn't an atheist or Anglican/Episcopalian. The former proposition is simply ludicrous, while the latter is mostly an argument from demographics and silence. We will now explore why Batman is actually Catholic.

One of the main thrusts in all of these arguments relates to the question of why Bruce does what he does. As previously stated, it's not vengeance. Bruce is a lot of things, but Ghost Rider isn't one of them. The reason Bruce does what he does is because, for him, it truly is a never-ending battle for justice. And why is justice so important to him? Because he lived, and his parents didn't. When we examine Bruce's character, the central root of his virtue is his guilt over surviving his parents' murder. Not only that, but it's pretty clear that Bruce's guilt doesn't just stop there. It extends to every single person that he has been unable to save. For example, in Mark Waid's Mid-Summer's Nightmare, the JLA members are having their powers boosted beyond their control. Interestingly, Bruce's manifestation of this is to be perpetually vigilant over the entire population of Gotham, always watching and making sure that nothing bad happens to anyone.

This is a reasonable analysis. Batman walks in a world where his colleagues can move mountains, run at lightspeed, etc. Not being able to do that, there are going to be a lot more people that he can't save. I don't have any direct evidence of this, but having read Batman as long as I have, it is perfectly in line with his character to think of a person he did not save and be wracked by the idea that, "Clark would have been there in time. Diana could have saved them. Barry would have stopped that from happening," and so forth.

Consider Batman: Year One, the aftermath of Jason Todd's death, his disappearance in the beginning of the No Man's Land saga, the death of the original Batwoman, his multiple failed relationships and the fallout (Silver St. Cloud, eg), etc. All of these seem to point pretty heavily to a guy whose mission is one of reparation, not just for his own issues (of which his childhood survival is merely the genesis), but for the misdeeds of the entire world. Such wholesale solidarity and the theme of sacrifice to make up for the evil done by others is thoroughly Catholic. As stated in our earlier review of The Dark Knight, nobody sacrifices like Bruce, and the nature of his sacrifices are specifically to expiate the evil of others.

As the inspiring article has pointed out, Frank Miller apparently feels that writing Batman or Daredevil as anything other than Catholic makes no sense. I don't think it's a coincidence that both characters were "born" due to the murder of parents and their subsequent struggle to make sense of their own continued existence in the aftermath of such an event. Not only that, Chuck Dixon, who has written for both Batman and other Bat-Family titles (most notably, Birds of Prey), has conceded Bruce's Catholicism for the same reason as stated above, namely, guilt. I should also mention that Dixon wrote a stand-alone, yet canonical, story that showed Bruce to be the present-day guardian of the Holy Grail. This story, entitled The Chalice, depicted Bruce as definitely Christian. I'll simply add that the fact that he's tied to the Grail is also a heavy indicator in favor of Catholicism, though as the article mentions, it could weigh for Anglicanism as well. Regardless, the opinions of these guys as actual Batman writers, rather than someone just passing through a la Maggin or Kelly, is of fairly high value, I think.

Finally, we must acknowledge that Catholicism is a religion of absolutes. I hope I've been able to portray this throughout my blogging. The Church is very much an all or nothing deal. In contrast, Anglicanism is theologically quite hazy. I don't think it's a cheap shot to say so, and I've had many Episcopalians be very blunt in telling me they like it that way. That being said, it is very difficult to imagine Bruce subscribing to anything that would be regarded as less than absolute. Again going back to The Dark Knight review, one would think that his ironclad morality would reflect his religious views. He isn't making this stuff up as he goes along or looking for avenues to make changes to how he deals with evil and injustice. Anglicanism hasn't made such claims to absolute morality for a very long time, if it ever did.

So there you have it. The only coherent and non-ridiculous conclusion is that Batman is an active, practicing Catholic.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Why Batman is Catholic, Pt. 2

So we know why Batman isn't an atheist. Let's look at the other non-Catholic item in the Adherents.com article that is considered Bruce's most probably religious affiliation, namely, High Church Anglican/Episcopalian. Let me add another qualifier at the outset here. The idea of Bruce as a lapsed anything is really just the back-door way of pushing the atheist argument. As one respondent in the article says, when has Batman done anything half-assed. Once he's made a commitment, I think it's safe to say he's all-in. Being a rational guy, he would most likely take the path that since there can be no commitment more significant than that of man to his Creator, Savior and Judge, I don't see him "lapsing" or whatever.

Anyways, we move onward. We know Batman is some form of Christian. The fact that he studied in the Orient a long time ago really doesn't dislodge the multiple scenes displayed in the article of Batman/Bruce in prayer. True, many might argue that these scenes are ambiguous, but that seems a bit dishonest. For decades, we've seen Batman at his parents' graveside, past depictions of kneeling/hands folded, crosses for his dead loved ones, and so forth. Add it all together, and you have a tough time arguing for a non-Christian Bruce Wayne.

Finally, you've got a canonical Batman story, The Chalice, by Chuck Dixon, that has Batman as the guardian of the Holy Grail and explicitly Christian. The only real counter people have to this story is that they didn't like it. Nobody can really explain how the Christian aspects of the story somehow contradict Batman's character. Again, we are speaking of the traditional Batman, not the "Batgod." Given that there is more than enough evidence for Christian Batman, let's look at the Anglican angle and see what the arguments are there.

1. His family is rich, and everybody knows that WASPS are Anglican/Episcopalian.
2. A cross bottony in a cemetery scene.
3. Elliot Maggin said so.
4. He had an ancestor in the Revolutionary War who was buried in an Episcopalian cemetery.

Let's ditch Number 4 right away. My entire family is Baptist going back at least 3 generations. Who knows what we'd be two centuries back? From the article, we don't even know how this guy is related to Bruce. Nothing doing here.

Elliott Maggin said so. And Joe Kelly said Batman was an atheist. The problem with Maggin's characterization is that he doesn't really say why he believes this. My guess is the first two reasons above. It's difficult to refute this one much further, since no real reasons are given. I will say, as the article does, that Maggin is much more of a Superman guy (and made his Batman/Episcopalian comments in the context of a Superman story), so I don't know that his Batman opinion should weigh more than say, Frank Miller or Chuck Dixon, both of whom have written Batman and Batman Family stories.

The cross bottony scene on the future grave of Bruce Wayne from Teen Titans #18 makes for an interesting point. Here's my problem with this. The cross bottony is described as an Anglican symbol, but I see it in Catholic settings all the time. That it's on the Maryland flag is unconvincing as the cross is a pretty universal symbol for Christians in general, and I'm not sure how distinctive the cross bottony really is for one group or another. The article doesn't really give references here either.

I think the article is entirely in error when it tries to claim that Bruce chose an "Episcopalian-style Christian cross" for Jason Todd's grave marker. The cross in question is a Celtic/Irish cross which is quite common in Catholic circles, though I admit that it gets some play in Anglican circles as well. This site, seiyaku.com, has info (though I can't vouch for its accuracy) on both of these crosses here and here. I think the best we can say for this is that it provides no real evidence one way or the other, with the exception that they are more nails in the coffin of the atheist theory.

Finally, the best argument for Bruce being Anglican comes from the fact that he is from a billionaire family that seems to fit the WASP profile perfectly. This is actually somewhat convincing. Let's face it. When you think of really rich, old money, aristocratic-type families, you're going to be thinking of Episcopalian folks. It's tough to come up with a direct counter-argument here, except to say that, while Bruce's background fits this description, there is nothing in his personal character that would indicate an Anglican of any sort. The forces that drive Batman really don't seem to have much of a grounding in Anglican beliefs/theology. Any believers from the Anglican Communion tradition are welcome to offer examples to the contrary. I'm just saying that I don't see it. Moreover, as the article mentions, Gotham is usually regarded as a fictional Chicago, the same way Metropolis is New York and Central City is St. Louis. With that in mind, rich Catholic family might be a bit more likely. But hey, I'm not going to just ignore the fact that this weighs more heavily for the Anglican argument. Anyways, we'll say this particular bit still stands as evidence of a non-Catholic Batman.

We'll deal with the remaining anti-Anglican arguments next time. We'll also open up the pro-Catholic side of the equation and see how that flies with the readers here.

Why Batman is Catholic, Pt. 1

For starters, let me be clear that this discussion is not the most thorough treatment of this topic. For that, check out this site. I will candidly admit that most of the information that I'm using is pulled from its contents anyway.

Now that that is out of the way, let me set some parameters here. I am going to be distinguishing two different Batmans. I will be focusing on what I consider as the "traditional" Batman for the most part. This is what I consider to be the picture of Batman that one gets from viewing the history of the character as a whole. Yes, I know that Batman has a pretty diverse past, ranging from camp to psycho, but I think that what I'm doing here should be fairly non-controversial. The second Batman is the one who is sometimes jokingly referred to as "The Batgod." This is the Batman to whom I was referring in my previous post as the botched attempt to follow-up on Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. In that work, Miller gave us a possible (some would even say probable) future in which Bruce is an angry, bitter man who has become irreparably cynical due to the all-consuming corruption around him. Modern Batman writers have decided to impose these feelings on the current Batman, usually to an even greater extent than what we see in Miller. The result is a Batman caricature. He is a paranoid, narcissistic whacko in many respects. This is the guy who basically has no friends, no weaknesses, and no real semblance of humanity at all. Where Superman and Batman were once the stars of their own team-up book, they are now usually depicted as uneasy and uncomfortable with one another. A consequence of all this is that you really don't see any Bruce Wayne at all. This has led to the oft-expressed view that there really is no Bruce Wayne. There is only Batman, who uses the mask of Bruce Wayne to give himself some security with the rest of the world. Again, this is all a very recent development and is even inconsistent over the last decade or so. Hence this portrayal can only be cast as, at best, the minority view, or at worst, the work of hack writers who are just offering pathetic attempts to make Batman "grim and gritty" at the expense of his established history and characterization.

The foremost crime of these innovators has been to claim that Batman is an atheist. This view, as you can see from the article linked above, seems to be most closely linked to the writing of Joe Kelly during his run on JLA, specifically during The Obsidian Age storyline. Judd Winnick would later pick this up when Jason Todd returned in the Under the Hood arc. Let me get it out of the way and say that I think Kelly's writing is atrocious and Winnick's isn't much better. That being said, let's take a look at the evidence and arguments presented that might justify such a characterization of Batman. I think these are an accurate summary:

1. Batman is a scientist.
2. Batman has experienced a lot of bad things. (aka, the problem of evil)
3. Considering what Batman does (meting out vengeance/justice on his own), he at least couldn't believe in a Christian god.

Of course, none of these are very good reasons. Number 1 is a rehash of growing stereotypes regarding atheists and theists. Atheists must be highly intelligent, while theists are living a delusion. There is a negative corollary to this that scientific atheist types must be cold, unemotional a-holes. Naturally, this view meshes quite well with people whose Batman experience is limited to the "Batgod" version. The problem is that these are nothing more than stereotypes unworthy of any really complex character, which I think everyone believes Batman to be. It is an interesting societal comment on the effects of fundamentalist and atheistic propaganda that some would automatically assume that a character with a scientific background would necessarily not believe in God. Let's also not forget another important detail. Batman has always been a good scientist. He knows all sorts of CSI-ish tricks for solving crimes. It's part of his being a detective. The "Batgod," though, is really just a heroic Lex Luthor. Batman used to need help from guys like Lucius Fox or the savant from The Penguin Affair for really complex items. Not anymore. "Batgod" is capable of single-handedly whipping up devices that can not only annihilate the entire JLA but also space weapons powerful enough to threaten the existence of the whole world. Yeah, I know. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? My point is that we shouldn't get too carried away with this "Batman is a scientist" BS since it is clearly not keeping with the established identity of the character.

Number 2 is just as empty a proposition. It basically says that, since Batman has had a lot of bad stuff happen to him and people he cares about, he no longer believes in God. Somebody get Job on the phone. Or any martyr for that matter. Considering all the historical witnesses contradicting this view, it is rather easily shelved. For that matter, it can be a pretty convincing argument for Batman as a theist. It seems much more logical that someone who has experienced Bruce's level of badness, yet continues to endure continued badness for the sakes of others, must be driven by a belief in something beyond the world he slogs through on a daily basis. I am reminded of a comment from Wormwood to Screwtape:

Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round on a universe from which every trace of Him has vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

Number 3 is not a common argument, yet I included it because it comes up several times in the above article. For one thing, anybody who claims that Batman is about vengeance is so full of crap that they immediately lose all credibility anyway. Batman is about justice. He's not The Punisher or Ghost Rider or whoever. How somebody pays for their crimes isn't something he deals in. Making sure they pay is his business. If one is willing to keep this third argument in terms of justice, it still makes no sense. The proponents of this view claim that a vigilante's pursuit of justice is somehow contrary to what a Christian God would demand. This might be convincing if Batman was engaged in some sort of utilitarian ends/means analysis (eg, "If I have to waste a few informants to find The Scarecrow, it's Ok because it will save more in the long run"). St. Paul is quite clear that we can't do evil in order to further good. We don't see that, though. Batman apprehends criminals, then turns them over to the lawful authorities for disposition. I guess one could make some argument that Batman does "evil" to further good by, say, breaking into the homes of criminals and gathering incriminating evidence against them or by intimidating them into confession, but there is an equally valid argument that those things gained by illicit means are not rightfully possessed by the criminal owner anyway, hence it is not an injustice to deprive them of it. I don't want to push this too far, so I'll just close it out by saying that, for the reasons I mentioned under Number 2, there is an equally strong claim that Batman does what he does precisely because he believes in God.

So what are we left with to show Batman as an atheist? A line from Joe Kelly and a scene from Judd Winnick. If you are willing to accept that, there's no hope for you anyway. Note that I haven't even gotten to the specific examples that Batman is a theist, specifically a Catholic one. That will be coming up shortly.

One last thing, though. If you had been to Heaven, had colleagues go to Heaven, fought demons, been allied with angels, etc., just as Batman has, could you still be an atheist? Could even the "Batgod," when faced with all this confirmation, have the wherewithal to reject faith in God, knowing the potential peril to his soul? My response: Only if he is utterly insane.