Showing posts with label 1984. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1984. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Comparing Silence with 1984: "Do it to Julia!"

The late John Hurt as Winston and Suzanna Hamilton as Julia in the most recent film version of 1984

This post was prompted by an excellent review by Fr. Lawrence Lew of Martin Scorsese's film Silence.

The climax of the film, and the climax of the novel by Shusaku Endo that it is based on, is the moment where Rodrigues, a priest, arguably apostasizes - he mimics stamping his foot on a picture of Christ in order to save others (and perhaps himself) from horrific torture and death.

The question is not per se whether we should condemn the fictional Rodrigues for what he did. He obviously confronted an awful choice. Many men, including some of the greatest saints, denied Christ for far less weighty reasons. And Christ would surely have forgiven Rodrigues if he had asked for it.

Rather, the controversy concerns the question of whether this really does constitute apostasy - especially against the background of a final scene in which "Christ" tells the priest that trampling on the image was in fact he right thing to do. I put "Christ" in scare quotes because it's somewhat ambiguous whether it actually is Christ or just Rodrigues justifying himself in his own mind. It's only a story, of course, so in a sense, the question of who it really is, has no answer. But from the context and from some of his other writings, I think it's clear that Endo (and thus I assume Scorsese as well) meant to suggest that stepping on the image is what Christ would have wanted. From the novel:
“Trample!” said those compassionate eyes. “Trample! Your foot suffers in pain; it must suffer like all the feet that have stepped on this plaque. But that pain alone is enough. I understand your pain and your suffering. It is for that reason that I am here.”
“Lord, I resented your silence.”
“I was not silent. I suffered beside you.”
“But you told Judas to go away: What thou dost do quickly. What happened to Judas?”
“I did not say that. Just as I told you to step on the plaque, so I told Judas to do what he was going to do. For Judas was in anguish as you are now.”
He had lowered his foot on to the plaque, sticky with dirt and blood. His five toes had pressed upon the face of one he loved. Yet he could not understand the tremendous onrush of joy that came over him at that moment.
But is this really the Christian position? Fr. Lew writes:
Christianity is essentially about the Person of Jesus Christ and one’s relationship with him. It is, above all, about loving him and following him even at the cost of one’s life. And here’s where the question concerning apostasy lies: how many of us, even to save others, would deny and stamp on our wife, our child, our Beloved? It is a conundrum, sure, but I believe that few of us would betray and stamp on someone we truly deeply loved. Now, if we grant that the external act of stamping one’s foot on an image of the Lord has that kind of relationship-breaking, love-denying significance, then the question we have to ask is: Do we love the Lord enough? Interestingly, that is the very question Jesus asked St Peter after he denied him: “Do you love me more than these?” (Jn 21:15).
There is a similar dilemma in another classic novel familiar to us all, George Orwell's 1984. In one of the final scenes, the Party attempts to break the hero Winston by confronting him with his worst fear - the prospect of being devoured alive by rats. A grotesque torture device is placed on his head:
The cage was nearer; it was closing in. Winston heard a succession of shrill cries which appeared to be occurring in the air above his head. But he fought furiously against his panic. To think, to think, even with a split second left – to think was the only hope. Suddenly the foul musty odor of the brutes struck his nostrils. There was a violent convulsion of nausea inside him, and he almost lost consciousness. Everything had gone black. For an instant he was insane, a screaming animal. Yet he came out of the blackness clutching an idea. There was one and only one way to save himself. He must interpose another human being, the body of another human being, between himself and the rats.
Winston instinctively knows that there is only one way to save himself, and that is to betray his lover, Julia. He screams out:
"Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!"
Winston and Julia are eventually released and they meet again on the outside. It is implied that Julia had gone through a similar ordeal. She tells Winston:
"Sometimes...they threaten you with something – something you can't stand up to, can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' ... And after that, you don't feel the same towards the other person any longer."
Winston and Julia are physically alive. But inside they are dead. We might say they are now "spiritually dead," although Orwell of course wouldn't have put it that way. They do not anymore love each other. They love Big Brother.

This is how they break you.

I doubt there are very many readers of 1984 for whom that ending, as horrible as it is, does not ring true.

Contrast that with the ending of Silence and that "tremendous onrush of joy" that came over Rodrigues.

For many critics of Silence, that ending not only doesn't ring true - in any sense, Christian or otherwise - but positively drips evil.

The irony is that in some of his non-fiction works, Endo implicitly styled himself as a sort of "love expert," at least when it came to the Christian understanding of it.

Could it be that the atheist Orwell understood a bit more about love than the Christian Endo?

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Papa Francis is Watching You

"Unmerciful! Unmerciful! Unmerciful!"

This could be from some young-adult dystopian future. There's "Papa" leading the Two Minutes Hate against ex-Cardinal Goldstein and his nefarious band of neo-pelagianists.

Interestingly, it was posted by Vatican Media advisor Thomas Rosica. It is creepy to discover that Rosica made it his Facebook cover photo.

Update: As some of you may have noticed, I changed the title on the post to link it more clearly with the picture. I would be remiss if I didn't also include a meme that appeared on my own Facebook page shortly after I linked to this post.


This Yahoo News story gives the context--a "surprise" video message from Pope Francis at a Stadium rock concert celebrating the Jubilee Year of Mercy. 

Among other things, Francis said that living without God was like not getting a signal on your iPhone.

Maybe we should call him iPope.

I liked, if that is the right word, the bit about the teenager gushing that when she got right up to him she found that the Pope was just an ordinary guy.

But note her claim that she was not given a penance during confession (and she also gushes over this). While this does not negate the forgiveness of her sins, it is technically a violation of the confessor's role in the sacrament.

No doubt the sacraments were made for Francis, not Francis for the sacraments.
Vatican City (AFP) - Happiness is not an app you can download on your mobile phone, Pope Francis told thousands of teenagers on Sunday at a mass to mark a weekend dedicated to youth. 
"Freedom is not always about doing what you want. In fact it is the gift of being able to choose the right way," he said in a homily punctuated by regular bursts of applause from the crowd on a packed St Peter's Square. 
"Your happiness has no price. It cannot be bought and sold: it is not an application you download on a mobile phone. Even the latest version cannot help you to grow and become free in love." 
An estimated 70,000 teenagers were in Rome for a weekend of events to celebrate Francis's Jubilee year dedicated to the theme of mercy. 
In a surprise move on Saturday, the 79-year-old pontiff heard confessions from 16 of them and a video message from him was broadcast at a rock and rap concert in the Stadio Olimpico. 
One of the teenagers chosen to confess to the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics said she had been trembling as she approached the chair on which the pope was sitting in St Peter's Square. 
"But as soon as I sat down I had the feeling of being next to a normal person rather than the pope. Francis is really one of us," Anna Taibi, 15, told La Repubblica newspaper. 
The Sicilian teenager said she had been touched by Francis's tenderness as he listened to her confession. 
"I expected him to give me a penance ... instead he absolved me and let me go." 
The importance of mobile phones to contemporary teenagers was also reflected in Francis's message to the concert. 
Clutching an iPhone, he told his audience that living without Jesus was like not having any signal. "Always be sure to go where there is a network: family, parish, school," he said.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Yeah, but Can I Bribe the Eunuchs to Give Me the Key: Islamic "Sisters Only Funday" at British Water Park

At Jim Bakker's water park the women had to dress like Tammy Faye

Frankly, I think the original Sunday Express (by way of Jihad Watch) headline was a bit misleading:
A BRITISH waterpark has sparked fury by banning bikinis and ordering visitors to cover up in "Islamically appropriate" clothing.
Actually, as far as I can tell, the "banning" was only for a one-time, two-hour, women-only event at the park, specifically for Muslim women and their young children.
WaterWorld in Stoke-on-Trent plans to black out windows and provide a prayer room during a women-only night aimed at Muslims. 
Only female lifeguards will patrol the park during the event, which has triggered a flood of complaints. 
Staff will also "guard" the front entrance to "make sure that no males enter the facility". 
Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said: ‘I imagine there would be a lot of outrage if the boot was on the other foot and swimmers were told they had to dress appropriately in respect of Christians. I don’t see how this is different." 
One invitation to the "Sisters Only Funday" advises attendees to cover their "awrah" (nudity) by wearing full-length jogging bottoms and a dark-coloured t-shirt. 
Protesters are now planning to demonstrate outside the event. 
WaterWorld owner Mo Chaudry said: "I'm astonished that we have been targeted. We feel we've been victimised for offering something that we feel there is a demand for." 
A WaterWorld spokesman said: "We pride ourselves in having the adaptability and diversity to cater to demands of our guests. 
"This is a female-only event and is not specific to any ethnic or religious group."

Here is what I have on this one:
  1. Personally, I don't have a problem per se with an entertainment park setting aside two hours to cater to, and as result, change the rules a bit for, a particular group--whether it be ethnic, religious, sex-based or what have you. And I suspect this position is shared by most of my Islamophobic friends. I would have no problem with Sikh Male Night or Estonian Woman's Day, for example (indeed, I have to admit that I like contemplating Estonian Woman's Day). But of course, if one doesn't like the group in question, then it is perhaps natural to get annoyed. How about two hours set aside for Neo-Nazi skinheads or pedophiles or whatever? And this is especially true if one feels the group in question is currently "on the march", so to speak, making special demands, threats and so on that impact the rest of us. Since, as many of you know, I think Islam is morally equivalent to Nazism and the founder of Islam was a pedophile, I'm annoyed.
  2. In our hyper-politically correct times it's unclear how one is supposed to feel about something like this. I think the probable PC view is that this sort of thing is generally wrong--it's discriminatory or whatever--though if it is for Muslims, it's super duper. (The PC tenet is that anything done for Muslims is super duper.)
  3. I never knew the Arabic (?) word for nudity is "awrah", as in "cover your awrah." Does that mean that Muslim nudists are called "awrites"?
  4. Okay, that was lame.
  5. Most religions and cultures have dress recommendations, if not specific dress requirements, that often seem silly to others. Sikh males must wear a turban and carry a small ceremonial dagger. Buddhists like frumpy sandals. French women are prohibited from shaving under their arms*, etc. Even secularized western culture has its own codes and imposes somewhat different dress requirements and prohibitions on men and women. For example, full public nudity is generally frowned upon, and going shirtless is often okay for men but rarely okay for women, unless you're breast-feeding, in which case it's a) disgusting or b) super duper depending on what county you're in.
  6. Traditionalist Catholics must emphasize their sex but not look sexy.
  7. Nevertheless, Islamic requirements are particularly freaky and oppressive. Males are encouraged to grow beards so they can look like the founding pedophile. Women must be completely covered in public. Even in semi-private environments away from males--where the area is patrolled by female guards--they still have to wear long pants or whatever. In a water park.
  8. It's not diversity. It's not modesty. It's oppression. Wearing a head-to-toe burka, or a niqab leaving only an eye slit, or wearing long pants even among other women and young children in a freaking water park is a sign of enslavement, or to put it more neutrally, submission, which is what "Islam" actually means, after all. It's like putting your hands together like they're cuffed when Big Brother's face comes on the giant telescreen. Islam is like Ingsoc, except you never see Big Brother's face, or if someone draws it, you have to kill them. 
  9. But what's really wrong with people wearing what they want to wear? Isn't all of this voluntary? Don't those Muslim sisters want to dress that way? Sure they do. And I would too if the alternative were having acid thrown in my face.

*That's a stereotype.