It being the season of Lent,  now is a good time to reflect on the state and habits of our lives. My mind was struck by the account of our Lord's parents searching for him and finally finding him in the Temple. There is a moral symbolism to the story,  and I hope that my explanation of it will make sense.
You are familiar with the story:  When he was twelve,  Christ's parents bring him to the temple in Jerusalem,  and then return home,  each thinking he is somewhere in the caravan.  Upon discovering their mistake, they spend three days searching for him in and around Jerusalem before finally discovering that he has been at the Temple the whole time, conversing with scholars and teachers.  The story has a direct symbolism with our spiritual life;  each character and event in the story can be interpreted as factors in our search for happiness.
Mary and Joseph represent us, the human race.  Far be it from me to accuse Mary of St. Joseph of making a mistake,  but they journey for a time without making sure of Jesus' whereabouts.  How often do we travel on life's journey without keeping close contact with Christ? Of course, the couple realize their mistake and act on it.  Beautifully, we do the same thing.  We search for that which will make us happy once the realization sets in that we are not fully satisfied.
The friends and relatives among whom Mary and Joseph search are the good things in which we hope to find satisfaction.  I have often tried to define my life my whatever job I currently have.  Or I have hoped that taking up a new hobby or pastime will bring me the fulfillment which my heart desires.  My imagination has even put happiness down to things I buy.  (Although if any of you are in the market for cowboy boots,  Ariat does make some good products.)  Don't be pulled to an erroneous extreme here;  things in this life are good,  and much satisfaction can be had from a good job,  a healthy hobby,  or a comfortable pair of shoes.   But none of them gives lasting happiness.  This is even true of our relationships.  As good as our families, friends, or lovers are,  we will not find what we are seeking among them.  We must make the return to Jerusalem.
Why did Jesus put Mary and Joseph through so much anguish?  Being God,  he knew exactly what his mother and foster-father were doing and chose not to help them for a minute. Though he could have easily walked out of the Temple and found them any moment he wished, he chose to remain.  There is a divine coyness to Christ which is mystifying and I'm sure aggravating to Mary and Joseph.  In our own lives too Christ maintains a high standard.  He will not be found among the things of this world.  Again, these things are good, and their goodness emanates from God, but we are talking here of finding our total satisfaction.  Christ will only let his parents find him on his terms;  they move around, he stays put.  In our lives the dynamic is the same.  We can only have Christ when we surrender the other things in life and go alone to the Temple.
When Mary and Joseph finally find Christ, Mary asks him why he would cause them so much anxiety.  Depending on the translation,  Christ responds that he must be in his Father's house or about his Father's business.  Both possible responses offer some insight.  By using the word, "must" Christ may be implying an obligation, but he may also be implying a logical conclusion.  If he is not to be found among the things of this earth,  then he must be only found in the presence of God the Father,  here represented by the Temple.  Alternately,  Christ saying that he must be about his Father's work reveals his true intentions.  He wants to be our happiness, but this is only possible when we seek him alone.  His work is to make us totally his so he can be totally ours. Either way,  Christ maintains his high standard: he will not be found anywhere, he is working that we might depend on him alone.  Our anxiety at not being fulfilled is necessary if we are to find our total happiness in him.

But Christ returns all the good things to us. Before the story ends, we learn that he returns with his parents to their home.  In other words, he comes and dwells among the friends and relatives.  I am reminded of what C.S. Lewis wrote and the end of Mere Christianity.  Frankly, I think he puts it the best:  "Look for Christ and you will find Him, and with him everything else thrown in."

Last week  I went and saw the new Die Hard movie.  Now I will freely admit that I knew this was not going to be a "worthwhile film."  But neither are comics "worthwhile" literature.  Yet the comics are the first thing I read in the Sunday paper.  Sometimes, its enough for something to be merely entertaining.  Like a bad comic however, the new Die Hard fails to even entertain.
Bruce Willis reprises his role of tough New York cop John McClane,  who travels to Russia to attend the trial of his estranged son Jack, played by Jai Courtney.  Turns out that Jack is a CIA agent, and trying to prevent the theft of nuclear weapons by a powerful Russian politician.  After an explosion destroys the courtroom,  the two McClanes team up, not always amicably,  to shoot, punch, and drive their way to Chernobyl, where the weapons are being stolen.
The movie suffers from a number of technical mistakes:  The blaring action is matched by the blaring soundtrack, which only seems to have any energy when something on screen is being blown up.  Without the credits, the movie barely makes it to 90 minutes, director John Moore seems to have replaced the middle act with a few fight sequences and forgotten to include interesting dialogue or character development.   Most problematic is the plan of the villain (played by a stone-faced Sebastien Koch) which seems confusing until one realize its just unimaginative.  Part of the fun of previous Die Hard films were the campy-but-clever plots of its charismatic bad guys,  most notably Jeremy Irons.  Here the the movie seems to rely on its endless action scenes, which fail to form an entertaining story.
But what really makes this latest Die Hard movie so uninteresting is the loss of John McClane's charm.   Throughout the various movies, McClane has always been an anti-hero, a hard-bitten cop with a lot of problems.  He suffered from hangovers, his kids were exasperated by him, his wife left. Most of all, his fights hurt, like when he had to escape a gunfight by running over broken glass. And McClane complained about all of it, just before suiting up to shoot back at the bad guys.  In short, John McClane was a bit of an Everyman, and audiences could relate to his issues and then root for him to win.  That everyman quality is lost in this film.  The New York cop crashes cars, gets shot at, and jumps through glass windows with hardly more than a scratch. And his son's distance has no poignancy;  it doesn't seem to bother John.   McClane calls Jack the "007 of Plainsfield, New Jersey."   His words are more a description of himself in this film:  a man who is impervious to physical harm or human feeling.  This missing element makes the movie distant from its audience.
One could argue that those audiences are only seeing a fifth Die Hard movie for the action, and since the movie delivers lots of that,  what am I fussing about?  I would hate to take light entertainment too seriously, but I think that this movie cannot even claim to be entertaining.  The action has no soul.  Like a bad comic, this film is not worth the time.