Kakistocrat

This Blog began on March 17, 2007. It has survived longer than a year, and has procuded 63 posts, 2 of which were written by readers. Comments are averaging about 7 per post, and I am greatful for all those who read and comment and spread word about this blog.

Having said that, I have moved over to Wordpress. I hope you jump accross to http://mrkellywilson.wordpress.com/

Kakistocrat was taken, as was KellyWilson, so I added a ‘Mr’ which hopefully will give you a clue as to which pronoun to use when speaking of me.

K.

I will not delete this blog, partly because I want to keep the URL, but also because I might find I do not like wordpress. This might be a good chance for any feedback in general about the Blog.

In November of last year, in NOMA: Science and Religion, we outlined Stephen Jay Gould’s attempt to counter the charge that science and religion are at odds, and how he instead suggests that each oversees a domain where tools necessary for meaningful discourse and resolution are possessed. Science, Gould charges, is meant to document the factual character of the natural world, while religion possesses "the equally important, but utterly different realm of human purpose, meaning and values." 

While I appreciate Gould’s attempt (however flawed NOMA is, it is preferred to the perceived conflict between religion and science) Richard Dawkings naturally views it as a "very empty idea."

Dawkins suggests that the notion that religion holds some special expertise in the questions of morality, a notion that even many nonreligious accept, is nothing more than "a civilized bending over backwards," to concede the best point your opponent has to offer—however weak that best point might be. Dawkins states that while science cannot answer ‘What is right and what is wrong?’ and while absolute moral principles do come from elsewhere, his message differs from Gould’s in that Dawkins suggests that to believe religion is able to offer answers to such queries is a ‘forlorn hope.’  This is because the answers of the religious would come from authority, revelation, tradition, or even scripture, and that even with such aid, individuals are still quite selective in what they choose to demand application for. Because the God of the OT, for example, is seen by some as jealous, racist, sexist, bloodthirsty, and because we today believe that it is not charitable to judge the past by our present standards, Dawkins sees this as evidence that "we must have some alternative source of ultimate moral conviction which overrides scripture when it suits us." The ethical realm that Gould places under the domain of religion, Dawkins sees as not belonging there.

Thoughts?

K.

It seems that whenever I highlight a musical piece here, the particular musician in question is not one I particularly care for (example: Billy Joel). While Avril Lavigne will always naturally be an exception to this rule, Neil Diamond is not. However…from his latest album Home Before Dark (2008), I would like to highlight "Pretty Amazing Grace." Working an eight hour shift, I hear it at least twice a day, and I find the language rather moving especially when it is not interrupted by announcements highlighting cleaning requests for customers who have broken jars of pickles. Without the interruptions, here are the lyrics (you can listen to it here).

Pretty amazing grace is what you showed me
Pretty amazing grace is who you are
I was an empty vessel
You filled me up inside
And with amazing grace
Restored my pride.

You overcame my loss of hope and faith
Gave me a truth I could believe in
You led me to that higher place
Showed me that love, and truth, and hope, and grace
Were all I needed

It has been suggested that perhaps it’s a love song, and there is a personification of Grace that could lead to this interpretation (Diamond doesn’t necessarily dash this reading when he states ambiguously that the song is about the "perfection of love"), but a great deal of attention given to the song online has it’s wonderers inquiring as to whether Neil Diamond feels transformed by the love of Jesus.

Thoughts?

K.

Thirty years ago (and little has changed) Hans Kung identified the reality that when Christianity is confronted by the world religions, which also seek to reveal truth and provide a path to salvation and when Christianity is placed in a pluralistic setting, where it is only one of many attempts, the question emerges "What is there special about Christianity?"

His answer: Jesus himself.

None of the other religions, great or small, however much they may occasionally venerate him in a temple or in their holy book, would regard him as ultimately decisive, definitive, archetypal for man’s relations with God, with his fellow man, with society.

To the Christian, Jesus is not just a model for how one is to relate to one’s God, one’s fellow humans and one’s society, but rather Jesus is the model. As far as philosophies that have emerged over time (whether through evolution or revolution), philosophies aimed at restoring lost dignity in the human race, however good and beautiful certain philosophies may seem in either their theory or application,

however much they may occasionally respect him [Jesus] as man and even set him up as example, [none] would regard him as ultimately decisive, definitive, and archetypal for man in all his dimensions.

Kung argues that while it seems reasonable to suppose that Christianity will be relevant only by devoting her energy to doing first what others will do later (by taking the lead in issues of social justice for example…), in fact the primary goals of the Christian is to "speak of what is [his/her] own, bring it home, make it effective." What is ours, is Jesus. Christianity only becomes relevant "by activating the memory of Jesus as ultimately archetypal" and this activation process no doubt leads to a doing first what others will only do later.

Consequently Christianity cannot be reduced to any kind of "eternal ideas, abstract principles [or] human attitudes," but rather exists only where the "memory of Jesus Christ is activated in theory and practice." However commercialized the slogan ‘what would Jesus do?’ may have become, it is central in the activation of the Christian message, while a knowledge of the real Jesus allows us to attempt to better reflect his example.

Thoughts?

K. 

I was drawn to an interview with an American Catholic theologian who was recently (although now it’s several years old) asked: "Who do you think has the most to teach us about being Catholic, about being the Church, as we move into the 21st century?" After reflecting on the difficulty of answering, the theologian answered that Jean Vanier would have the most to teach. The theologian said: "He’s written such beautiful tihngs about his life with the mentally handicapped. I think he has so much to teach us about the patience and gentleness of God, about bearing each other’s burdens, and the joy this kind of openness brings."

Jean Vanier (born in 1928), the son of George Vanier (the famed Governor General of Canada), is the founder of the L’Arche community homes which seek to bring together those with developmental disabilities and those who assist them.

Serving both in the Royal Navy (British) and then the Royal Canadian Navy, Vanier, in 1950, pursued in doctoral studies in Philosophy at the L’Institute Catholique de Paris. Through a friendship with a Dominican priest, Vanier became aware of the living conditions of those who had been institutionalized because of their developmental disabilities. Feeling led by God, he invited Raphael Simi and Philippe Seux (patients of a particular institution) to leave and share their lives with him in his own home. Today, many decades later, there are such community homes in every continent.

Though there are over 100 such communities, Vanier stepped down in the late 1970’s  from the administrational side of his duties so that he could spend more time offering his services in a particular community. He still makes his home in the original community which is situated in Trosly-Breuil, France.

He is also the co-founder of Faith and Light which is similarily composed of people with developmental difficulties along with their own families and friends. Faith and Light brings such people together regularly for prayer and discussion about their hopes and difficulties.

Vanier’s life is one of service to those who have been marginalized in our world, and he believes that when confronted by a broken world, people can find solace in a God whose love is without limitation. In a beautiful tribute, Pope John Paul II stated that Vanier, through his life and work, has "grown to become a dynamic and providential sign of the civilization of love."

Vanier relates a story in which he and a number of members of his commuinty made a pilgrimage to Rome and were granted an audience with this same Pope.

While we were waiting for him to arrive, Fabio, a young man with disabilities, walked up and sat down in the Pope’s chair. It was obviously the best chair in the room, which is why Fabio felt so attracted to it.

It is a lighthearted story, producing an interesting image of such a Papal audience, but it does fit in with one of Vanier’s larger theme’s whic calls for individuals to break from a conformity to societal expectations. It also asks that the limitations society imposes on a person have no effect on those with developmental disabilities. They have less of the trappings that are sometimes contained within our own persons, and perhaps in this manifestation, they greater refelct the image of God. Vanier’s own act of starting such homes defied conformity to societal expectations as well.

It would seem that the Christian life be seen as being centered around granting allowance to God, allowance that God transform us into the persons that he want us to become, rather than simply the ones that those around us would prefer to see.

While Vanier’s life is one of service, it is also one of demand to those around him. He does not ask that dignity be bestowed upon those whom society often feels are disposable, rather he takes initiative and calls for others to do the same. Considering the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-21), or that of the Last Judgement (Matthew 25), where what seperates the saved from the unsaved is the act of love, I can understand why the Pope would say that Vanier’s life and work has "grown to become a dynamic and providential sign of the civilization of love."

K.

Some of Vanier’s thoughts can be found at this blog in the posts Eucharist and The Disabled.

Tony Campolo. Letters to a Young Evangelical. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2006. Pp. 280.

Campolo’s latest work is a series of 21 letters, addressed to two young Evangelicals, Timothy and Junia. Campolo admits the inspiration for such a concept (and the names too) lie with the Apostle Paul, who wrote for the same reason that he, Campolo, now writes today: "to keep [such individuals] from being swept up in movements within the church that distorted the Gospel…" Campolo’s biggest concern here, and it is one he has been talking about for years, is the rediscovery of what it means to be Evangelical, a discovery that has been overshadowed by the fac that  "American Evangelicalism today, in the minds of many, has become synonymous with the Religious Right."

Campolo says here, and elsewhere, that his intention is not to give the impression that there is anything wrong with Evangelical Christians predominantly voting Republican. Campolo however asserts that "to ally Jesus with either political party is idolatry [and that] the Jesus of Scripture will not conform to the ideologies of any party [but rather] stands in judgment of all of our political agendas…"

Hoping that Timothy and Junia will not be swayed into believing that the Evangelical faith and the Republican Party are synonymous, Campolo seeks to rediscover what it means to be Evangelical, but because of some uncertainly regarding whether the ‘Evangelical brand’ can be repackaged, he suggests instead the term ‘Red-Letter Christian’ might be more appropriate for those bothered by such an unholy matrimony. He suggests that the ‘Red-Letter Christians’ (those who focus on the red letters of the Bible [the words of Jesus]) cannot be seen as the Evangelical Left, because here again, this is no less an idolatrious claim than the ones that seek a Evangelical/Religious Right partnership.

Campolo strongly promotes what Cardinal Joseph Bernardin referred to as the ’seamless garment theory,’ one that embraces a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life. Therefore the pro-life movement, Campolo argues, cannot be confined to simply an opposition to abortion, but rather must extend itself to an opposition to war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and although (in his chapter on Abortion) he does not extend the pro-life movement to encompass a concern for health care, or the plight of immigrants who have made an illegal entry into the United States, it is hard to imagine how Campolo could view those disinterested in these matters as still being pro-life.

Campolo argues that it is high time Evangelicals overcome their homophobia (Campolo is clear that this does not mean watering down the traditional Christian understanding that homosexuality is disordered), their prejudices against those Islamic, their anti-Biblical defense of women being excluded from the ministerial ranks, and their abhorrence to caring for God’s creation.

One suspects that Campolo is not quite ready to give up on his fellow Evangelicals, and all throughout he reminds his readers that what Evangelicals have become is quite opposite to what the Early Church and early Evangelicals promoted (Jesus was a man of peace, and spoke in no uncertain terms about capital punishment, to site just two very quick examples…).

While I am not an Evangelical, and while one does not have to read and agree with Campolo 100% in order to come away a more informed person, Campolo’s central point, that the Evangelical community is not the arm of any particular political party, is a point worth defending.

The Evangelicals aren’t the first Christian community to have sold their soul in their quest for power, but in an increasingly polarized America, one with few bright spots in the near future for those more conservative, it seems quite foolish that any Church would want to hook themseles to such a sinking ship. And that’s only if we are speaking pragmatically. If we are speaking Biblically, as Campolo attempts to do, it is nothing short than idolatry.

K.

I have had a great deal of time over the last year to reaqcuaint myself with children’s literature (particularly that which appeals to those aged 9 to 13). I intentionally bypassed anything recent. An exception however is Lemony Snicket whose A Series of Unfortunate Events has brought me a great deal of enjoyment.

While each book in the Series is rather predictable (in fact, Snicket often explicitly tells in advance what will happen, as part of his continuous attempt to have the reader put down the book in favour of something less saddening), it is the process of investing something of oneself into Snicket’s characters (and particularly himself) that kept me reading through the Series. Snicket, as the narrator, leaves the occasional passing references to his rather extraordinary person life, and gives mention of a certain Beatrice. Hoping to discover more about her I read on and Snicket does not disappoint, but what I leave with you, are the dedications Snicket extends to his love.

One appears at the beginning of each book.

To Beatrice -
darling, dearest, dead.

To Beatrice -
No one could extinguish my love,
Or your house.

For Beatrice -
I cherished, you perished,
The world’s been nightmarished.

For Beatrice -
We are like boats passing in the night, particularly you.

Potential ways for discussion here could be to discuss the literary merits of the 14 books in the Series, or perhaps their moral or spiritual value, or perhaps an identification of some favourite moments, or lingering questions, or an evaluation of the film starring Jim Carrey which takes plot from the first three books, or even any questions you have about the books (perhaps if you are not familiar with them?). These are just ideas. I wonder whether anyone has read them?

I look forward to hearing from you.

K.

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.