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.

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

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.

*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

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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.