Kakistocrat

People articulate different reasons either for the defense of a Supreme Being’s existence, or for the rejection of one. Still other suggest that because such a question lies beyond the discernible physical, an agnostic response is the most appropriate.

Without belittling those more cautious than I, who would suggest that such knowledge is beyond our reach (and therefore doesn’t warrant our confidence), I would appeal to Rabbi Harold Kushner, who in Who Needs God, tells of a time in which he taught the teenagers of his congregation about the Holocaust, only to ask them ‘why’ Hitler was wrong. The students responded naturally, only to have the Rabbi remind them that the Nazis had passed laws sanctioning their own actions. This however was a detail that did not alter the teenage perception of Nazi wrongness.

Few questions of morality appear as easy as those which invoke the memory of the Holocaust, however, my belief that rightness and wrongness are not simply a matter of human consensus, suggest to me that rightness and wrongness lie far deeper and find their origin in a God who exists.

Bertrand Russell, not a theist, would argue: "I cannot… refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it."

So there you have it. I believe in God, because I believe that certain things are right and certain things are not, and if there was not a God to sanction such things, then it seems they would be little more than a matter of consensus which I do not suppose they are.

K.

Since some rather notoriously attach thoughts I have not expressed to my posts, let me make two disclaimers

-recognizing a God who sanctions certain things as right or wrong hardly points to the identity of such a God

-recognizing a God who sanctions certains things as right or wrong hardly demands our own ability to distinguish between them

Today marks the third anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI. In his recent visit to the United States, he has tackled the priestly sexual abuse crisis directly and has even met with several of its victims. The subject of priestly celibacy, which mistakenly stems from this crisis in the minds of many, is the subject of this post.

Lightweights tend to bring up the issue of priestly celibacy, and their desire to see a renewed debate on the subject, when the priestly sexual abuse crisis is raised. While it is likely never wise to become unthinking and confine oneself to a particular ideological camp (conservative, liberal…), if I may use these labels, those more liberal seem to suggest that a priesthood that allows its members to express their sexuality openly in marriage would not then see its members express their sexuality in such vile manners (by abusing a child). Those more conservative, equally unthinking in their response, have supposed that the crisis is on account of some sort of homosexual infiltration of the priesthood, reasoning that such vile actions like the abuse of a child, are to be expected from homosexuals. Such people tend to view the descriptive terms homosexual and pedophile as synonymous.

The former argument is easy to defuse since a frustrated priest with normal sexual urges, should he wish to actualize them, will normally seek out a normal venue (with a female partner…) and not an abnormal one (like abusing a child…) while with regard to the latter argument, Benedict himself, on the ride over to the US, while talking about the sexual abuse crisis, distinguished saying he was not speaking about homosexuality "but pedophilia, which is another thing."

However, just because those unthinking desire a renewed debate on priestly celibacy for the wrong reason, that doesn’t mean that those thinking should be uncomfortable with such a debate. I am not arguing that the Church open it’s priesthood to married men  but I do hope that those who are satisfied with the current state of priestly requirements realize that what Jesus and St. Paul made optional, the Church has since made mandatory, and that those seeking a priesthood closer in resemblance to the one Jesus and Paul envisioned are no more "sinful" or "unfaithful" for their "dissent" than Jesus and Paul.

The Church has allowed married ministers who convert to the Catholic faith to carry on their duties, both as married men and newly acquired Catholic priests, showing in my mind that while there are very real and acceptable reasons to confine the ranks to those who have made a vow of celibacy, such extensions of the ranks (or a desire to see extensions) does not constitute as dissent.

K.

"If one wants to be a bishop, I suppose it is a good aspiration. But let him be a man of tried and proven virtue, married only once." I Timothy 3:2

"There are some who are celibate by nature; there are some who are celibate by choice; there are some who are celibate for the sake of the kingdom. Let him who can take it, take it." Matthew 19:12

I thought I would lighten the mood here by identifying 6 movies that I find so enjoyable that I can (and have) watched over and over. Suggestions for comments would either be to comment on my list, or even identify your own…

In no particular order:

K-PAX (2001)

K-PAX is the mysterious story of ‘prot’ (played by Kevin Spacey), a patient brought to a mental hospital on account of his claiming to be an alien from a far away planet named K-PAX. When a psychiatrist at the hospital takes on his case, he is fascinated by the immense scientific knowledge of ‘prot,’ and in one humourous scene takes ‘prot’ to a conversation with some prominent astrophysicists, whereupon ‘prot’ astounds them with his own astronomical knowledge. As the questions regarding ‘prot’ origin remain unanswered, the psychiatrist begins to hunt down every discernible detail that he can in an attempt to establish and convince ‘prot’ of his ‘true’ identity, all of which leads to a rather splendid, sad, but touching ending.

Millions (2004)

The relatively unheard of film (unless you walk in my circles) is directed by Danny Boyle, and written by Frank Cottrell Boyce (a father of eight…) and is the story of two brothers, Damian and Anthony Cunningham, who having come across a sack of British pounds, have only a short time to spend it before the transition is made to the Euro. The boys differ as to how best to spend it, with the more materialistic Anthony wishing to satisfy his own needs, while the more imaginative Damian, because of his fascination with Saints (some of whom he actually converses with), instead wishes to spend it on the poor. When the nature of the money’s origin is discovered, the confusion about what to do with it is even more pronounced.

The Village (2004)

M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village is the story of an isolated, late 19th century community shocked by a recent wave of animal killings believed to have been committed by "those we do not speak of," an unknown set of creatures that is believed to populate the forest which surrounds the village.

The film received rather negative reviews, and was not financially successful, however The Village like all of his others (except Signs) is brilliantly done, and it does seem a shame that viewers at least judge all of his films (and particularly their endings) on the basis of how they compare to his wildly successful Sixth Sense.

Heat (1995)

Heat is described as an epic crime drama, and centers around the relationship between expert thief Neil McCauley (played by Robert De Niro) and Lt. Vincent Hanna (played by Al Pacino) who is attempting to stop him before his next big heist. Directed by Michael Mann, this film was both a critical and commercial success and includes a stellar cast of actors (Pacino, De Niro, Val Kilmer, Ashley Judd and John Voight).

Big Fish (2003)

Directed by Tim Burton, Big Fish is the story of a son returning to visit his dying father who he hasn’t spoken to in three years. Their relationship has been strained on account of the son’s eventual frustration with the fact that he does not truly know who his father is, in light of the rather larger than life, exaggerated and fantastic manner in which the father has presented his own life history. These particular experiences, which are quite remarkable, are lived through by the viewer of the film, during flashbacks to the father’s earlier years.

The Insider (1999)

Like Heat, The Insider also is directed by Michael Mann and starts Al Pacino.

This is the true story account of a research chemist/big tobacco executive (played by Russell Crowe) who comes under fire from his company for calling into question the rightness of the company manipulating nicotine through ammonia chemistry so as to allow it to be more rapidly absorbed by the brain and central nervous system. Once fired, the chemist is befriended by a producer at 60 Minutes who devotes everything to bring this story to air.

There’s six.

K.

It’s all very nice that Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski has apologized for the anti-gay rant he went on 17 years ago which has recently been uncovered and made public. In the House yesterday he was on record as saying that such comments "should not be tolerated today [and] they should not have been tolerated in 1991." He described himself in that context as "stupid, thoughtless and insensitive" and said that the anger directed to him from members of the gay and lesbian community in particular "is certainly understandable and justified." While few doubt the sincerity of his apology, as it has been publicly accepted by gay and lesbian organizations as well as opposition MP’s including Bill Siksay and Libby Davies (both homosexual parliamentarians), when a person makes a mistake in either word or action, an apology does not end the matter. There are consequences to both our words and our actions that move beyond the act of professing regret.

Liberal MP Scott Brison (also a homosexual parliamentarian) suggested yesterday that while he does not believe Lukiwski should resign as a Member of Parliament, "it’s not appropriate that he remain as a parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader," and I wonder if anyone disagrees. I certainly don’t disagree. Although he has not given any indication he will do so, I hope that MP Lukiwski will resign on Monday as a parliamentary secretary.

K.

The transcript of the comments that have gotten MP Lukiwski into trouble can be read here or watched here.