Embrace the Argument!

Arguments are not a terror from which to flee, but a vital part of finding truth and understanding. Within one's daily life, fights often remain unfinished for fear of continual offense, yet it is those very fights that may lead to a greater understanding of relationships and individuals. An argument (if conducted as a search for truth), leads one to discover and grasp truth, for all objections and points of view can be aired and duly considered. We can look to the Catholic Church to see illustrated the positive fruits of arguments.

"And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question." (Acts 15:2) Even in the very beginning of the church, there were those who fought amongst themselves, faithful followers of Christ who disagreed on how best to serve him. It was on account of these dissensions that councils were convened, questions were debated, and doctrine was defined. Every council of the church that sought to answer the current arguments and get to the bottom of current fights of the Church Triumphant always concluded their proceedings with clarification, resolution, and relief for the church and all her members. It was when she neglected and put off answering these bothersome questions that heresy and error abounded, sin festered and grew in dark places unseen, and many souls were lost to Satan.

I could give many examples, but I will illustrate with two well-known issues: The Reformation (or Protestant Revolution), and the Circumcision Question. Though far apart in time and place, these two events marked significant points in the Church's history, and deserve equal consideration. 

If the Apostles had ignored those who taught that one could only follow Christ if he be circumcised, error and heresy would have continued to spread unchecked, and grown until it was a firmly established sect, or possibly (which is more likely and far worse) it would have become a deep-seated error inside the Church itself. However, because the Apostles addressed it immediately, the error was rectified before too many followers of Christ were attached to it, and could therefore drop the matter without a fuss. Thus were many of us lucky Christians saved the disagreeable and unnecessary experience of circumcising ourselves for Christ. 

The second example (one that did not go over so well), is the Protestant Revolution. The selling of indulgences, the claiming that man had no free will, and similar mistaken and dangerous beliefs, began to arise within the church simultaneously. The selling of indulgences sprouted from corrupt clergy who were seeking sources of revenue, and the faulty doctrine came from Luther and those like him, who were seeking to reform the corrupt clergy. Luther requested that his beliefs and objections to the Church be discussed by a convened council. This council would have heatedly debated his arguments, and eventually reached a final and clarifying decision, as had been the case in so many previous church disputes: thereby avoiding confusion and the loss of souls. However, due to many factors such as corruption, war, and misunderstandings, the council took fifty years to convene; and by that point, the heresies were established beliefs and Luther was past wanting to debate his doctrines. By avoiding a fight, the Church lost precious charges entrusted to her care, and allowed misunderstandings of truth to abound.

So, do not fear an argument: whether it involves politics, religion, social practices, or personal improvements, for sometimes it is only through debate and a heated word here and there that an understanding of truth can be found out. Do not leave the words unsaid, for that will only allow the problem to develop unseen until it rears its insurmountable head. Embrace the Argument! 

The Pilot at the Doctor's

I was at the doctor’s office today, and a man in a pilot’s uniform was sitting next to me. He was an elderly gentleman, hearty and strong looking, with a tanned, handsome face. I struck up a conversation with him, and despite his shy and quiet demeanor, there was a kindly something to his face that betokened a life practiced in patience and kindheartedness.

            He turned out to be a co-pilot, and I asked him if he liked his job. He almost smiled, but didn’t as he reflected. “I like flying.” He answered cautiously, “I’ve always liked flying. But it’s different now than it used to be.” He seemed like he would retreat back into his phone, but I was intrigued, and wouldn’t let him.

I pursued my questioning, “How is it different?”

“Just, the attitude towards it, I suppose.”

“More impersonal, maybe?”

“Yes, maybe. All about the bottom line now. And, it used to be special for people when they flew. They got dressed up for it. Now it’s – flipflops.” He said that word like it was a terror rearing its head from the depths of the Inferno. My sympathetic heart quickened and went out to him. He finished by saying, “I still love flying, but the people are different. They treat the pilots differently: more carelessly; so that’s not as enjoyable anymore.”

Nowadays, the attitude toward flying, toward taxiing, toward grocery store clerks, is one of commodity. We have done away with social structures and the result is that everyone is simultaneously elite and a slave. When we are behind the counter, being served, we treat the server like a commodity – a machine. And when we are on the other side, we are treated the same.

Here is a man who soars to the clouds, revels in the wonder and un-owned freedom of the sky, and is a slave in his own cockpit. A slave to attitude, dress, customs – a slave to the lack of civility that mankind deigns to bestow upon him. And he loves people: I could tell. He wants to share the joy of climbing to the blue-white heights with sympathetic, beating hearts! and instead, he is treated with cold indifference and confronted with pajamas, and yoga pants, and ‘flip-flops’. Exupery would deeply pity him.

How can we guard against this? How can we learn to treat each member of humanity with grace, dignity, and respect? This man does not pass many words with his passengers – not now, and probably not even much in the past. But he has still noticed a difference of attitude: he specified it as “dress”. People used to get dressed up to fly. Think about that! To don one’s fine, smart clothes and meet the world with dignity and poise. It’s not asking much, really. Just a tasteful, classy outfit, and other people around you see that you are serious about life, fun, and business – instead of constantly ready to fall asleep all the time. Yet your clothes do not simply reflect you, but the activity you are engaged in. When we garden, we wear appropriate attire; when we go on a first date, we dress accordingly. When we fly wearing only sweatpants and an overlarge sweater, we are indicating that flying is just a sloppy business, and the pilots and flight attendants are insignificant commodities shuttling us to our destinations. Not even decent English lords treated their chauffeurs thusly!

So please, next time you get dressed in the morning, think about what you are saying: about yourself, your activities for the day, and the people with whom you will be. 

It matters.

A Brief Treatise on Fashion

"Clothes make a man. 

Naked people have very little 

or no influence on society. "

                              – Mark Twain

It is the pride and joy of our modern day world to glory in the freedom that woman has attained in her mode of dress. Woman has freed herself from the constraints of free-flowing gowns and thrust herself into the liberty of tight pants. She is now her own person, wondrously indistinguishable from the male sex, and thus able to embrace her true potential.

            Obviously, as I am sure you can tell from my tone, I disagree. It’s not that I disapprove of pants: I do in fact sustain an intimate relationship with jeans, which were first sown in heaven, if we are to believe the ancient legends. 

However, I can not and will not assert that our mode of dress heightens the dignity of woman in any way.

            When we take a look at the ancient modes of dress, we find that both men and women wore tunics. Pants were a development that did not take place in the western world until around the 14^th century, at which time our ancestors decided that pants were a good idea for men, but not necessarily for women. Why was that? Probably because women did not wish to attire themselves in something that was actually, at the time, pretty ugly.   

Trousers were certainly not as attractive as a dress. It wasn’t until the late eighteen hundreds that men’s pants became, consistently, the loose trousers we have now.

       

Women wore dresses not because they were a slave to fashion or convention, but because it was generally accepted that dresses were the most flattering attire, and since women are the most beautiful of God’s creatures, it stands to reason that they be clad in the most beautiful of clothing.

   

That which is beautiful is hidden behind a veil. The woman’s body is the most beautiful in all creation, and in reverence for that beauty it is veiled behind beautiful, flattering folds of fabric.

            

Throughout history, women’s clothes have taken on different forms: 

Some universally and agelessly beautiful,  

some debatable,  

and some downright ugly.     

For certainly, it is not true that dresses were always the prime example of beautiful fashion. Take France in the 18th century. Get a load of that hair! And I am certainly not arguing that corsets should be brought back into fashion. Taste and moderation should be practiced in everything - even dresses!

However, it is certainly true that there are fashions of dresses and skirts which are, and have been, extremely flattering for many years. Yet, we seem to have a paranoid fear of being forced back into skirts - as if they were somehow unwomanly and unflattering. I know that I grew up in mortal dread of the jean jumper, afraid of appearing frumpy and too casual. Yet, nowadays, we seem to have no problem being frumpy in society so long as it is with the liberty of pants, and is in fashion.
 
Just remember: just because it's in fashion, doesn't mean it's tasteful - or attractive. (See 18th century French Fashion above)

Pants are great, comfy, and can be pulled off with definite flair,  but don't write off dresses. After all, when all's said and done, all pros and cons considered, dresses are more attractive than pants any day! You are woman, and you are beautiful.

Daniel and Un-baptized Infants

Baby Daniel

On Tuesday, the 18^th of September, 2012, a beautiful baby boy was born into the sober quiet of an Illinois hospital room. We knew, before he was born, that he was dead – he had been dead three days; we never found out how. But it is not the how that is the most desperate question for the family members: it is the why that kills you. Why would God take such a badly-wanted child from the loving and expectant arms of his mother, father, three sisters, and five brothers? So much love would have encased and blessed his life, bearing him on a cloud of care and laughter; instead, his deprivation led to many months of heartbroken tears.

        
As we gathered about the hospital bed to hold our new baby brother for the first and last time, not one of us in the room doubted that he was being held in the warm and maternally loving arms of the Blessed Mother. We knew very little of the Church’s teachings on un-baptized infants, but we knew much of the unfailing Mercy of Jesus Christ and trusted in it wholeheartedly.
      I had just begun classes at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen (now known as Northeast Catholic College) and after the funeral I flew back to New Hampshire to continue my courses. That first year was difficult, understandably, but the worst was the first semester of my sophomore year. Apparently, I have a delayed reaction to grief, and this reaction was benefited in no way by the Theology classes I was taking at the time. I began to learn that the Church did not necessarily teach that Baptism of Desire applies to un-baptized infants, or that God’s mercy compensated for his justice in this matter. I even heard that St. Augustine taught that un-baptized infants experience the torments of hell-fire.

Naturally enough, I reacted extremely emotionally to these discoveries, lashing out at my teacher, and vehemently defending Jesus’ mercy to the friends who already agreed with me. I did not care about objective truth, I cared about my baby brother.

Daniel with his brothers and sisters.
That's me in the middle, holding him.

Since then, I have gradually been more and more able to listen with an objective mind to the theories that Catholics put forward regarding the fate of un-baptized infants. At least, I don’t yell at them.

Unfortunately, the Church is unclear in her definite teachings, and the theories regarding this topic are varied and even, sometimes, completely opposite. The lack of a dogmatic definition is saddening and has led to various schools of thought amongst Catholics: schools of thought wherein one group often refers to another as ‘heretical’. It is a topic that has not only been hotly debated by Catholics since the beginning of the Church, but one on which the Church herself has seemed to change her teachings on multiple occasions.

Augustine says infants experience hell-fire, Thomas Aquinas claims they experience no pain, but only separation from the beatific vision, and John Paul II has recently declared that they may even experience heaven. Some claim infants are in Limbo, some claim Limbo is a heresy. We can not even turn to the decrees of the popes for clarification, for the popes, throughout the years, have said many different things, and never under a doctrinal decree. What is a Catholic, one who is seeking the truth of Christ objectively, – in disregard to his personal feelings about lost loved ones – to believe?

(To be clear, I do not know the truth of this matter, and if at any point I seem to be supporting one theory or another, it is only because I am allowing it weight, attempting to examine every aspect of every argument. I have personal preferences for what I wish were true, but I do not think my feelings are sufficient proof for the validity of an argument.)

NewAdvent, a catholic online encyclopedia, discusses Baptism of Desire, stating, “it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.” In another section, it discusses un-baptized infants specifically, declaring,

“The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God....Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm# vii; emphasis mine)

       It seems, according to this Catholic source, that infant’s deprivation of the Beatific Vision is soundly held by the Church, with extensive documentation and history upholding the position. The article goes on to talk about the exact state of the infant souls, and the various theories regarding it,

“In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense....Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others, and is now the common teaching in the schools. It accords with the wording of a decree of Pope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell." Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin.... Many, following St. Thomas (De Malo, Q. v, a. 3), declare that these infants are not saddened by the loss of the beatific vision, either because they have no knowledge of it, and hence are not sensible of their privation; or because, knowing it, their will is entirely conformed to God’s will and they are concious that they have missed an undue priviledge through no fault of their own.”(Ibid)

If it is the case that my infant brother is deprived of the Beatific Vision, then it is Thomas Aquinas’ theory that I would hope were true. For I would hope that my brother was happy in existing in accord with the will of God.

"Again (a. 2) he [Aquinas] says: "They will rejoice in this, that they will share largely in the divine goodness and in natural perfections." While the opinion, then, that unbaptized infants may enjoy a natural knowledge and love of God and rejoice in it, is perfectly tenable, it has not the certainty that would arise from a unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, or from a favorable pronouncement of ecclesiastical authority.” (Ibid)

It would appear that recent scholastic thought has shifted from the views maintained in the article by NewAdvent, toward a more liberal view that hopes for salvation for all souls. In a recent document written by the International Theological Commission, and published by the Vatican under the name The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, the Commission acknowledges the pain experienced by parents in relation to their un-baptized dead child,

“Parents experience great grief and feelings of guilt when they do not have the moral assurance of the salvation of their children, and people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian.” (http://www. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html; intro, paragraph 2)

The guilt and grief associated with the death of un-baptized children is nothing new in the situation of mankind, and did not seem to deter St. Augustine or many popes in their pronouncements concerning punishment for these little souls. Truth, unfortunately, does not always accommodate the feelings of individuals. For example, when a young man asked Christ if he could wait until his father died in order to follow Him, Jesus unequivocally told him that he must follow immediately, and must not worry about the disappointed feelings of his father.

         The basis for the Commission’s theory is not based solely on feelings, however, but rather on the hope that all Catholics must have regarding the Mercy and Love of God. “The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.” (Ibid; preface) It appears, then, that the current consensus of the Vatican at this time is in agreement with the mentality of my family as we gathered in the hospital room three years ago. It is in Christ’s Mercy that we must trust, and in the belief that for God, all things are possible. And if, at any future time, it is declared unconditionally and doctrinally that infants do not receive the blessings of Heaven or the Beatific Vision, it can not be used as an excuse for us to leave the Church; for if we are Catholic, then we believe in the great goodness of God. The Goodness of God is beyond our understanding, and involves greater good for our loved ones than we can grant, even if it goes against our understanding or our preferences. For His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). 

The Beauty of a Rock

Rocks.

The hardest, firmest material on the planet.      

Rough, uneven, dense:

crack open to the center and nothing new to

discover – the same in and out.

So incredibly plain, and gray, and heavy.

But there is so much beauty to a rock!

Why? So beautiful, and so plain.

They are the Janes of this world – the plain, solid, practical Janes who provide the firm, unmoving foundation for the earth. Without them we would lose our way for there would be no solid way to follow.

Green grass growing, blue ripples flowing, red sky dying, and gray stone stands firm. Predictable and unchanging, in this ever-shifting life. They are wholly themselves; and unashamed; they sparkle bright in the sun.

Filmmaking Clichés: Good and Bad

A small-town sheriff walks up to his new deputy with the intention of asking a favor from her.  He hands her a box of donuts, saying: "Sometimes, the clichés are true." (From the television show Once Upon a Time).  I think he makes a good point.  After all, clichés are clichés for a reason.  They are good techniques, observations, statements, etc. that have become over-used over time.  For example, Darth Vader says to Luke Skywalker: "No, Luke; I am your FATHER!" (to which Luke responds with the most melodramatic wail/howl in cinematic history; but that's beside the point).  Because of that famous scene, every film since which contains such a revelation must keep it in mind to avoid repeating it.

I want to focus here on those clichés which can be traced to a previous work of art.  There are three ways that one can approach the making of a film (or any story) that contains such a cliché.  First, you can essentially repeat the cliché, either because you don't think anyone will notice or because you think the audience wants to see the cliché again because they liked it so much in another film; "Hey, they really liked when Neo bended over backwards in The Matrix.  Let's do the same thing in our movie so that our movie will be as famous as The Matrix!"  That generally doesn't work very well, or, if it does, the audience they are appealing to doesn't have much taste when it comes to storytelling.

The second approach is to play too defensively when making a film.  This occurs when someone is trying very hard to get the message across that this movie is not the same thing as another movie.  Whenever the story seems to be headed towards something that another movie did, they yank the steering wheel hard to one side and make it totally different.  This generally results in poor storytelling with mismatched plot elements.  This kind of film is usually not successful (I am unable to recall any examples of this type of film at the moment, probably because they are rarely good films and I try to purge my mind of such things; if any of you readers come up with an example, please mention it in the comments).

The third and final approach is to recognize the fact that someone else has used the same storytelling technique before and, even if with a great deal of subtlety, pay tribute.  This is perhaps most commonly done in comedies but can happen in more serious films as well.  This is the very best approach to storytelling with clichés.  If you recognize your film's place in the tradition of filmmaking, your piece achieves a certain level of integrity and dignity.  Examples of this are hard to come by because it is so rarely done.  However, Christopher Nolan, one of the greatest filmmakers of our day, manages to employ clichés well in his films.  For example, in his latest film, Interstellar, the AI robot who drives the spaceship makes a subtle reference to HAL 9000 from the film 2001 Space Odyssey.  Nolan, recognizing that he owes a debt to this previous film for setting a precedent, acknowledges this fact within his film in a way that is subtle, humorous (even though the film is anything but a comedy), and fits in well with the dialogue.

So, the next time that you find yourself in Hollywood making a blockbuster film, follow the example set by Christopher Nolan and other great filmmakers instead of those people whose films will be forgotten by history.  The ability to employ clichés and other film elements successfully is what separates geniuses from the not-so-geniusy.