• Strange Notions Strange Notions Strange Notions

Zombies, Sin, and Salvation

<em>World War Z</em>
 

(If you can't see the video above, click here.)
 
There were a number of reasons why I liked World War Z, the film based on Max Brooks's book of the same name.

First, it was a competently made thriller and not simply a stringing together of whiz-bang CGI effects. Secondly, it presented a positive image of a father. In a time when Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin are the norm for fatherhood in the popular culture, Brad Pitt's character, Gerry Lane, is actually a man of intelligence, deep compassion, and self-sacrificing courage.

But what intrigued me the most about World War Z is how it provides a template for thinking seriously about sin and salvation.

As the movie opens, an ordinary American family is alarmed by news of a mysterious contagion that is spreading quickly across the globe. In a matter of days, the disease has reached their hometown of Philadelphia, and they are forced to flee. It becomes clear that a virus is turning people into the walking dead, hungry for human flesh. What is particularly frightening about this iteration of the zombie myth is that the undead of World War Z are not the lumbering oafs that we've come to expect, but rather are fast-moving, teeth-grinding, extremely focused killing machines.

After a series of close calls, Gerry and his family manage to escape and make their way to a ship off the eastern seaboard. We learn that Gerry had been a special operative for the United Nations, skilled in fighting his way in and out of hot spots around the world. His superiors draft him back into service, charging him with the task of finding out how to contain the virus. Accompanied only by a small team of scientists and military personnel, Gerry wings his way first to Korea and then to Jerusalem, where, at least for the moment, the Israeli government has managed to keep the zombies at bay behind a high and thick wall. Now, when Jerusalem came into focus, I realized that the filmmakers perhaps had some ambitions beyond simply another ringing of the changes on the zombie story.

One of the more thought-provoking assertions of the sixteenth century Council of Trent is this: original sin is passed on from generation to generation, "propagatione et non imitatione" (by propagation and not by imitation). What the fathers of Trent meant is that sin is not so much a bad habit that we pick up by watching other people behave, rather, it is like a disease that we inherit or a contagion that we catch. A newborn inheriting a crack addiction from his mother would be an apt trope for the process. If it were simply a matter of imitation, then the problem of sin could be solved through psychological adjustment or mental conditioning or just by trying harder. But if it is more like a disease, then sin can be fully addressed only through the intervention of some medicine or antidote that comes from the outside. Moreover, if sin were just a bad habit, then it wouldn't reach very deeply into the structure of the self; but were it more like a contagion, it would insinuate itself into all the interrelated systems that make up the person. The fathers of Trent specify that sin causes a falling-apart of the self, a disintegration of mind, will, emotions, and the body, so that the sinner consistently operates at cross-purposes to himself.

Do you see now why the zombie -- a human being so compromised by the effects of a contagion that he is really only a simulacrum of a human -- is such an apt symbol for a person under the influence of sin? And do you see, further, why the erection of a mighty wall would be an utterly unsuccessful strategy against such a threat? Indeed, one of the most memorable scenes in World War Z is of the zombies swarming over the walls of Jerusalem.

A bad habit might be solved by a teacher, but a disease requires more radical treatment. I won't burden you with all of the plot details, but Brad Pitt's character figures out that the zombies are dissuaded from attacking if they sense in someone a deadly disease. Accordingly, he enters a lab, protected by a veritable army of zombies, in order to inject himself with a noxious contagion. Having done so, he is able to walk among the undead unmolested, and from his blood, an antidote can be produced for the world.

Now, one would have to be inattentive in the extreme not to notice the rather clear Christ symbolism at play here. Gerry does not fight the zombies on their own terms; rather, he enters courageously into their environment, takes on a deadly disease and then, through his blood, offers a cure to suffering humanity. St. Paul said that, on the cross, Jesus became sin so that "in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21); and "in him we have redemption through his blood" (Eph. 1:7). Jesus becomes the healer (Soter in Greek, Salvator in Latin), precisely in the measure that he enters the world of sin, even to the point of shedding his blood, and explodes it from within.

The great story of salvation is still in the intellectual DNA of the West, and that is why it pops up so regularly in the popular culture. And perhaps this is happening precisely because the Christian Churches have become so inept at relating the narrative. To those who don't know this fundamental story well, I might recommend a thoughtful viewing of World War Z.
 

(If you can't see the video above, click here.)
 
 
Originally posted at Word on Fire. Text from Real Clear Religion. Used with author's permission.

Fr. Robert Barron

Written by

Fr. Robert Barron is an acclaimed author, speaker, and theologian. He’s America’s first podcasting priest and one of the world’s most innovative teachers of Catholicism. His global, non-profit media ministry called Word On Fire reaches millions of people by utilizing emerging technologies to draw people into or back to the Faith. Fr. Barron is also the creator and host of CATHOLICISM, a groundbreaking, 10-part documentary series and study program about the Catholic Faith. He is the author of several books including Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master (Crossroad, 2008); The Strangest Way: Walking the Christian Path (Orbis, 2002); and Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith (Image, 2011). Find more of his writing and videos at WordOnFire.org.

Enjoy this article? Receive future posts free by email:

Note: Our goal is to cultivate serious and respectful dialogue. While it's OK to disagree—even encouraged!—any snarky, offensive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Before commenting please read the Commenting Rules and Tips. If you're having trouble commenting, read the Commenting Instructions.

  • http://twitter.com/david_nickol David Nickol

    First, I find it interesting that Fr. Barron says nothing about baptism, since the primary remedy for the "virus" of original sin is not receiving the body and blood of Christ in communion, but being baptized.

    1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

    The interesting thing about "original sin," though, is that unlike a zombie virus, you can allegedly pass it along even if you have been cured of it yourself! I assume there is an answer to this (since there is an answer to everything), but it seems strange that people who have been baptized (freed from the "virus" of sin) still pass it along to their offspring. How does that work?

    Also, in terms of working against sin, baptism and reconciliation (confession) may be received by people in a state of serious sin, but to receive communion in a state of serious sin is itself a serious sin, not a way to conquer sin.

    I take it, by the way, that it was quite intentional for Brad Pitt's character to be a Christ figure, but I rather doubt that the length to which Fr. Barron takes the interpretation is actually justified by the film, although I have not seen it.

    [SPOILER ALERT!]

    It is one thing to have Brad Pitt's blood be the means by which people are cured or made immune to the zombie virus, but I can only presume the people of the world don't eat Brad Pitt's flesh and drink his blood forever after. It is the zombies, after all, who are the flesh eaters.

    • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

      ****The interesting thing about "original sin," though, is that unlike a zombie virus, you can allegedly pass it along even if you have been cured of it yourself! I assume there is an answer to this (since there is an answer to everything), but it seems strange that people who have been baptized (freed from the "virus" of sin) still pass it along to their offspring. How does that work?*****
      I think the problem is that Fr. Barron is *really* stretching the analogy here, given that "original sin" is not really "sin" in the sense of "act" but is actually a "fallen state" that has resulted from the "original" and personal sin of Adam, whose sin is what lost the gift of sanctifying grace for all his descendants. So original sin is really an absence, a deprivation, of a gift, rather than the "presence" of something akin to a virus.
      And it is in this sense original sin is "contracted" via propagation--it is because we are part of the "body of Adam," so to speak (a member of the human race), that we have lost the gift of sanctifying grace originally lost by Adam. From the first moment of our existence we "enter" that condition of fallen-ness because we lack the gift of that grace.
      Through Jesus the New Adam, in baptism, we become part of the "Body Christ" and find that gift of grace restored to us by being a member of *His* Body....
      But this is also why our descendants are born, as children of Adam, into that fallen state even though we might ourselves (through baptism) have been "saved"--because our restoration is accomplished by being "born *again*" in Christ, through baptism.

      • http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/ Rick DeLano

        What an astonishingly Catholic post.

        • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

          Thanks--I think we "talked past" each other quite a bit in our earlier exchange on this subject. We're probably much closer on this than perhaps we appeared to be...I wasn't being very accurate in my language about how original sin is "contracted" (not transmitted as I'd said) via propagation...

          • http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/ Rick DeLano

            All I can say is that it was a pleasure to read your post, Jim.

            It was excellent.

            Couldn't think of a better way to get this important truth of faith across.

            Thanks.

    • Fr.Sean

      Hi David,
      My knowledge of symbolism is that it is never exact. the primary modes of evil, sin, and a remedy is what i believe Fr.Barron was pointing to. if they had indeed made a direction connection to baptism, confession, the Eucharist the movie would have only become another Christian movie and wouldn't have attracted as many people to it.

      • http://twitter.com/david_nickol David Nickol

        There is a problem in that the "transcript" does not match exactly what Fr. Barron actually says. I am not criticizing the film for not making a connection to baptism. I am saying Fr. Barron leaves it out entirely. Here is my own transcript of what Fr. Barron actually says toward the end:

        How do you handle sin in a Catholic framework? . . . You solve the problem of sin by drinking the blood of Christ. By consuming his body. By interiorizing like an antidote the one who went into the heart of darkness to deal with the contagion of sin. . . .

        My point is that no one is permitted even to do this without baptism. And it is baptism, not the Eucharist, that primarily deals with Original Sin, which I take to be symbolically represented in the movie by the "vampire virus." Also, Fr. Barron has, in the video version, departed from the script (assuming the "transcript" came first) to narrow his explication from a Christian one (Jesus shed his blood for our salvation) to a Catholic one (we need to drink the blood of Christ and eat his flesh).

        • Fr.Sean

          David,

          you make a good point, it is baptism that undoes original sin, but we are also to remember that it was the sacrifice Christ made that brought about redemption. Baptism doesn't have any meaning without the passion death and resurrection of Christ. The Shedding of Jesus blood for our salvation was what opened up the doors of heaven, but the grace from that action is first manifest to the disciple through baptism. I suppose you could say if the writer wanted to perhaps draw a closer connection to the Christianity he should have had some notion of baptism, still there does seem to be some similarity to Christianity.

          • http://twitter.com/david_nickol David Nickol

            I suppose you could say if the writer wanted to perhaps draw a closer connection to the Christianity he should have had some notion of baptism, still there does seem to be some similarity to Christianity.

            Oh, I don't doubt the Christian symbolism was deliberate in the movie. It seems quite apparent. I am questioning why Fr. Barron did not mention baptism but only the Eucharist.

          • http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/ Rick DeLano

            That is an excellent question, particularly given Fr. Barron's quite novel (I can think of no more charitable way to put it) treatment of original sin in his "Catholicism" series.

    • markiemarie

      I Think it's a given,not an oversite.

    • Kevin Aldrich

      Those are great questions about how can you pass on what you are cured of and why Holy Communion is not a cure for mortal sin. Theologians relish those kinds of questions.

      I don't know the answer to the original sin question--I've never heard it asked before (you're brilliant!). However, I think the disease/original sin analogy breaks down becasue Baptism doesn't cure original sin the way medicine can cure a disease.

      Rick will flay me if I get this wrong, but what is propagated by generation is not an actual sin we have committed, but a condition of not being in a state of holiness and justice, meaning estranged from God, ourselves, other persons, and even the natural world.

      Also, the effects of original sin never leave us in this life: difficulty in knowing the truth, difficulty in doing the good, an inclination to sin (concupiscence), vulnerability to suffering, and finally death.

  • Michael Murray

    The great story of salvation is still in the intellectual DNA of the West, and that is why it pops up so regularly in the popular culture. And perhaps this is happening precisely because the Christian Churches have become so inept at relating the narrative. To those who don't know this fundamental story well, I might recommend a thoughtful viewing of World War Z.

    Or alternatively the idea has always appealed to humanity and that is one of the reasons that Christianity has survived so well. In other words it was in our intellectual DNA even before Christianity.

    • Fr.Sean

      Hi Michael,
      That's an interesting perspective but i would like to offer one from a slightly different point of view. This morning's reading for Mass was the call of Matthew (as you probably know, Matthew was a tax collector). Matthew probably thought being a tax collector would offer some security, not only from the money he received but also from the Roman soldiers who would protect him. chances are good that Matthew came to a point of dissatisfaction with his life realizing money does not really offer happiness as well as being kind of a cooperator with the occupying nation. He sees Jesus, Jesus calls him, he sees something more in what Jesus is offering so he abandons his occupation to follow.

      i think there is something within all of us that can be dissatisfied with life when we only look at it through a material means. life can be empty pointless or meaningless. The Zombies could offer an extreme symbolic relation to a life of sin. Brad Pitt in offering his life speaks of something more. in other words, the call the pull of our need for God is something inherent within all of us. we all sense that we need some divine help to free us from the bond of death. perhaps the movie pulls that out of the depths of our hearts and that is one of the reasons it is so reminiscent of Christianity.

    • Kevin Aldrich

      I don't think Barron would disagree with you.

  • markiemarie

    I Love this Commentary,,,,seriously , it should be given in every RCIA,CCD class, then See The Movie and Reflect on The Damage Sin Does To Our Souls and The Hope There is to be found ONLY in The Sacramental Lfie Of The Catholic Church. The Eucharist IS Jesus,He can and does cure the disease !!!

  • http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/ Q. Quine

    I think the idea of inherited sin is despicable, just as is the caste system in Hinduism. I have not studied how that was codified by the Council of Trent, but it sounds to me that the political ends of the RCC were advanced by making the Church indispensable to the entire population. Although I have not seen the movie, I would be more inclined to associate the mind robbing virus with religion itself.

    • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

      It would seem you are misunderstanding the Catholic understanding of the term "original sin"--or perhaps you are inferring something inaccurately from what I'd call Fr. Barron's "over-stretched" analogy...
      The use of the word "sin" in the phrase "original sin" is unique: it does not refer to us "inheriting" some sort of positive guilt or culpability because of something someone else did (e.g., it's not like Dad stole a Ferrari 30 years before I was born and now I've got to go to prison to pay for his crime).
      "Original sin" is a term to describe the fallen state of the human race resulting from Adam's personal sin, a personal sin which separated Adam and his descendants from the *gift* of sanctifying grace God had given Adam as a gift for him and for his descendants.
      Think of it this way, perhaps: If I've got a million-dollar bank account in my name, and I decide to add my *son's* name to that account so he has access to it, too, then my son can also share those dollars with the next generation. But if my son acts to remove his name from that same account, he *forfeits* those dollars not only for himself but for his descendants as well.
      The only way to change that reality would be for me to do something to restore my son's name to that account.
      That is, in effect, the way "original sin" affects us. It's not "despicable"--it's fair. And it makes God's reaching out to us to restore what was lost even more of a gratuitous gift....

      • http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/ Q. Quine

        With all due respect, Jim, I see that as post hoc rationalization. The facts on the ground are that the RCC has traditionally held Original Sin as a barrier to salvation which could only be passed by baptism in the Church and adherence to its teachings. (Not to mention the psychological damage of telling everyone that we are born "fallen" and should feel guilty about it.) The presentation of this barrier (without any evidence that it is true at all) for its political value is what I find so despicable.

        I recommend the book "Evolving out of Eden" to you, which goes into great detail on this subject.

        • clod

          When I was at school the teachers, mostly priests who were both physically and sexually abusive, laid on the guilt and shame with a trowel. The notion of 'original sin' is one of the most inhuman, despicable ideas ever put forward. Little wonder it takes so many ex catholics years to recover, if ever they do.

          But it's a fantastic corporate plan: to create the disease and be the only ones with the cure.

          • Boris G

            Hi Clod,

            Yes ,abuses happened in the Church and I can only hope that forgiveness prevails there. As far as the existence of 'Original Sin' is concerned you need to first demonstrate by way of argument that a notion is unreasonable before you start explaining motives for how the people who believe it got that way.

            The Catholic churches teaching on Original sin merely refers to the originating events ,as given through revelation, of sin(evil) in man and disorder in creation.I dont think anyone in this world and judging by your comments neither do you denies the existence of evil and it would follow then that sin must have an originating event in man at the beginning of history.

            That some have abused this truth just goes to illustrate the point. Afterall what is there in this life that could not be abused if one chooses to?But that does not prove the truth or falsehood of original sin.

            The Church also realises that there is much mystery surrounding the origins of evil as well and not everything is or can be explicated although it is reasonable to believe.

          • epeeist

            Yes ,abuses happened in the Church and I can only hope that forgiveness prevails there.

            Abuse can happen in any organisation that has access to children and the vulnerable. One should of course ensure that one has stringent safeguarding procedures in place and that they are followed.

            The more heinous crime as far as I am concerned though would be the institutional cover up of such abuse.

            As far as the existence of 'Original Sin' is concerned you need to first demonstrate by way of argument that a notion is unreasonable before you start explaining motives for how the people who believe it
            got that way.

            In that it is Catholics who are making an ontological commitment to the existence of such a thing then it falls to them to demonstrate its existence, not to the sceptic who has doubts.

          • clod

            I'm not dumb enough to attempt a disproof of 'original sin'. Down to you to demonstrate it exists.

            Shit happens. Call it 'evil' if you want, but naturalistic explanations are perfectly adequate.

          • Vuyo

            I'm interested in hearing some naturalistic explanations.

          • Max Driffill

            Of what?

          • Michael Murray

            at the beginning of history.

            When was the beginning of history?

          • Max Driffill

            5 March 175,000 BCE?

        • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

          Not sure how Church teaching on original sin qualifies as "post hoc rationalization". And to claim that "this barrier" is presented "without any evidence that it is true at all" seems remarkably unreasonable, given that the evidence of human thinking and behavior seems very supportive of the idea that we human creatures seem to lack something that would otherwise make us much more "good" than we typically are...
          But what is your theory? How do you explain the "evidence"? Why are we humans not the epitome of decency and selflessness and good? Where does this come from?

          • Max Driffill

            Jim,

            Why are we humans not the epitome of decency and selflessness and good? Where does this come from?

            Why ever should we be this kind of thing? It seems like you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

            We are animals evolved to maximize the replication of our genes in a given environment. We are sophisticated bonobos, with a bit more sexual jealousy, and brains capable of expanding the envelope of our moral concern. Much of human nature, the good and the bad, by counting genes (assessing relatedness, and examining how certain behavioral practice favorable outcomes toward individuals) reciprocal altruism. There are certainly open questions about human nature, but nothing is lost when you ignore religious explanations of human nature (which does often amount to question begging).

          • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

            So human beings shouldn't be "this kind of thing"--decent, selfless, and good?

          • Max Driffill

            Jim,

            So human beings shouldn't be "this kind of thing"--decent, selfless, and good?

            Where did I even imply this? Your question was:

            Why are we humans not the epitome of decency and selflessness and good? Where does this come from?

            Now its possible that I misinterpreted your question, so let me rephrase so you can see what I was meaning to say more clearly.

            Humans are a complex mix of concerns, and wants, driven by our biology, our analysis of the world, and our environment. Our goodness and our badness can be found in us and this complicated mix.

          • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

            Well, the statement made was "Why ever should we be this kind of thing?" I thought you meant "why should we be decent, selfless and good (this kind of thing)".
            I agree we humans are a complex mix. Indeed I believe we are an even *more* complex mix than the mere material universe would suggest, because I believe we are also spiritually complicated...

          • Max Driffill

            And I thought you were asking why people were not the epitome of..(your list).

            I was simply suggesting that there is no reason to imagine that we would, naturally be this. Not that being that wouldn't be good, or that we should not strive to be nicer to one another.

            I agree we humans are a complex mix. Indeed I believe we are an even *more* complex mix than the mere material universe would suggest, because I believe we are also spiritually complicated...
            This spiritual complication would require some evidence. Why should we posit spiritual complication?

        • http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/ Rick DeLano

          "the RCC has traditionally held Original Sin as a barrier to salvation which could only be passed by baptism in the Church and adherence to its teachings."

          >> This is a dogma of the Faith which remains in force today, and will until the end of the world.

          The question is not whether baptism is necessary for salvation- it is.

          The question is whether the justification obtained through baptism is obtainable by the desire for it, given circumstances under which the catechumen is inculpably prevented from receiving baptism.

          The answer is yes.

          • http://twitter.com/david_nickol David Nickol

            The question is whether the justification obtained through baptism is obtainable by the desire for it, given circumstances under which the catechumen is inculpably prevented from receiving baptism.

            The questions are also whether there can be an implicit desire for baptism (1) in those who have never heard of Christianity and baptism, and in those who have indeed heard of Christianity and baptism but who may not be able to accept it because of the way it was presented to them or because of prior formation of a mindset that is just not open to Christianity.

            The answer is yes to both.

          • http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/ Rick DeLano

            I cannot disagree with the above, given one point of clarification.

            I merely point out that baptism of explicit desire is a dogma of the Faith; baptism of implicit desire is a permitted theological speculation.

            It is dogmatic that a catechumen can be justified by the desire for baptism.

            It is not dogmatic that an implicit desire suffices.

      • severalspeciesof

        If I've got a million-dollar bank account in my name, and I decide to
        add my *son's* name to that account so he has access to it, too, then my
        son can also share those dollars with the next generation. But if my
        son acts to remove his name from that same account, he *forfeits* those
        dollars not only for himself but for his descendants as well.

        • http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/ Rick DeLano

          Unless of course one preferred, in consideration of larger objectives, to secure the inheritance only for those who remained faithful to the purpose for which it was established.

      • Max Driffill

        Jim,

        Think of it this way, perhaps: If I've got a million-dollar bank account in my name, and I decide to add my *son's* name to that account so he has access to it, too, then my son can also share those dollars with the next generation. But if my son acts to remove his name from that same account, he *forfeits* those dollars not only for himself but for his descendants as well.

        Lets press this a bit further

        As the holder of the account though you could reason, that your son's kids might have elected to be stricken from this record, especially if your son's actions were the product of some stupidity. You might say, at some later date, talk to your grandkids and your son and say, "while you son have made some bad choices, I'd not see your kids reduced to beggary and a life of squalor, so I will, if it is okay with you, place them as holders of my account and they may collect on this when they are 18 or so. There is no need to make them pay for your mistakes."

        I've seen wealthy parents, and not so wealthy parents help their own kids' kids out in exactly this kind of way. Strange that humanity gets this bit correct and your god does not.

        • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

          In saying what the account holder "might" have done, the analogy is overextended. Unless you really want to argue that I, as the account holder, would be somehow "wrong" to let stand my son's cutting himself off from the account.
          But here's the thing--you are missing the inherent dignity and logic of "pro-creation". Our first parents were given the great gift to pro-create, having been made in the "image and likeness" of God Himself, they were given the opportunity to pro-create offspring in their *own* "image and likeness," so to speak. Had they not sinned, their human image and likeness would be the pristine reflection of *God's*, passed on to their offspring. But they sinned, and thus the only "image and likeness" to be passed on was human nature in the fallen state.
          God gets it absolutely correct (of course): God doesn't "owe" human nature the gift He was willing to give. Yet, indeed, in the fullness of time He gave use even *more* when restoring that gift to us--He gave us His Son.

  • Andre Boillot

    "Gerry does not fight the zombies on their own terms; rather, he enters courageously into their environment, takes on a deadly disease and then, through his blood, offers a cure to suffering humanity."

    In an effort to absorb yet another story into his Christian frame-work, Fr. Barron is playing fast and loose with the elements of the piece he's analyzing. Gerry doesn't cure the disease through his blood, the "cure" if you want to call it that, is the ability to move about the zombies undetected and slaughter them while they're unaware. So, no anti-virus to cure the zombies and help them regain their lost humanity, but instead, eradication of the infected. This is, I believe, hardly the metaphor for Christianity he's trying to make it into.

  • Max Driffill

    The biggest problem with this piece is the smearing of Homer Simpson. Homer is actually a pretty decent father. He loves his kids, has managed to stay employed (no small feat considering that his employer thinks one of the greatest break-throughs in labor relations was the cat of nine tails). He goes to work every day. Maybe he drinks a little too much but that is the worst of it. His only crime is that isn't necessarily the brightest guy in the world.

  • Sample1

    Oy vey, this priest/film critic needs to stick to his day job. I just finished watching World War Z and found nothing positive about faith in the film--at all--let alone a salvation/sin story. If I'm not mistaken Pitt is not a person of faith outside the theater either. Perhaps the book is different from the adaptation?

    *Spoiler Alert*

    In point of fact, it was the very loud singing (noise attracts zombies) of the faithful that drew the attention of the undead to pile up and form a human ladder eventually overtaking the walls surrounding Israel. Israel fell because of faith-inspired actions.

    If anything, it's a quasi-pro-medical movie that properly focused on the importance of science-based inoculation. In other words, faith healers won't like this movie.

    Mike

    • Eric Turtles Peterson

      The book is so greatly different from the movie that barely a word of this post's interpretation of the movie applies to it. If I didn't have evidence otherwise I might suspect that the entire crew working on the film had only coincidentally come up with the name "World War Z" and had never even heard of the book.

      • Sample1

        Does the book make mention of the sacrifices borne by Gerry's partner?

        The movie clearly shows the anguish and reasonable concerns she had (taking care of kids on her own, being seen as a burden by soldiers in the cafeteria, etc.). In other words, in yet another rebuke of this priest's review, I reject the insinuation that fatherhood owns any kind of copyright on intelligence, deep compassion and self-sacrificing courage (a main point in his review to wring Yahweh out of this story).

        Mike

        • Eric Turtles Peterson

          The book had no character named Gerry. It didn't even have a main character, at least not in an applicable sense--it was "published," in-universe, by a chronicler who was compiling various accounts by the people who experienced it.