After 9 Years

After nearly nine years of rotating shiftwork, I have finally gotten a dayshift position at my job.  It is only for a year but still, for that year, I will have every weekend off, every evening I'll be home with my family for dinner, basically it is going to be great.  We'll lose some things as well but on balance, this is going to be a wonderful break.
Also, I should have more opportunities for blogging.  I hope.  We'll see.

Joan of Arc

As previously stated, this is the made for TV version, not the horrendous The Messenger starring Mila Jovovich as a crazed nut job pretending to be St. Joan.  Anyway, the good version stars Leelee Sobieski as Joan and a number of solid B list actors such as Robert Loggia as her hometown priest, Powers Booth as her father, and Neil Patrick Harris as the Dauphin.
For those who may not know the story, here's the short version.  France's very existence is threatened by the English and has been for sometime.  The king is not even the king as he cannot even make to Reims to claim the crown.  But there is an ancient prophecy attributed to Merlin that in France's darkest hour, a from the region of Loraine would rise up and unite the nation.  Joan of course is the maid and at the age of seventeen and under the guidance of St. Catherine of Alexandria, St. Michael the Archangel, and  St. Margaret leads an army under the authority of the king to raise the siege of Orleans.  She succeeds and has a number of other victories, enabling Charles to claim his crown.  However, after a disastrous attempt to take Paris, she is betrayed by Charles and is taken to England to be burned as a heretic.  Later, her case was retried by the Church and she was exonerated and five hundred later was canonized a saint. 
There is much more to it than that and for a more detailed account I strongly recommend Mark Twain's biography of her published by Ignatius press.
In any case, the movie seems to get it mostly right, taking the miraculous nature of her life at face value.  Such miracles included of course the voices of the saints but also the finding of a sword behind the altar in a church dedicated to St. Catherine and her vast military knowledge (you only get glimpses in the movie though.  Twain's book is again far more detailed).  The movie presents all this faithfully, avoiding both cynicism and sappiness.
The acting is solid all around with my only complaint being what I would consider to be the miscasting of the character Jean Metz (if I remember the name right).  The guy just didn't seem to have the right look, but this is a minor complaint.  As for other minor complaints, the battles and general production values are made for TV and not Hollywood but that is to be expected.  Bottom line is that this is a good and faithful representation of St. Joan's story.  You should get yourself online and buy it now. 

Carriers

Carriers stars Chris Pine and Piper Perabo as two of a group of four twenty somethings traveling back roads in post horrible plague America.  But this is not your typical post plague movie.  That is, there are no zombies.  Not one, despite what the trailer would have you believe.  I remember reading about the movie on screenrant before it came out and they remarked on how the trailer didn't seem very sure if it was a standard zombie flick or character driven piece about what people do in survival situations.  The worry was that the movie would be just as unsure of its direction.  I can tell you this, movie is very sure of its direction.  The studio however seemed unsure of how they wanted to sell it.  So unsure in fact that even though it was done first, it didn't come out until after the Pine starring Star Trek proved to be a resounding success.
Back to the movie.  Like I said, no zombies, so this is a look at how four people deal with survival after most of the country is dead.  There aren't really any big surprises in the movie.  The characters basically look out for themselves and anyone else is just a potential source of gas and other supplies.  What is new in this movie is that there is no big humanizing moment, in fact they get more ruthless as the movie progresses.  They start out by stranding a guy and is infected daughter, after stealing their truck.  The main character (Pine) then abandons his girlfriend (Perabo) in the middle of nowhere after she gets infected (which happened when she was trying to help the little girl.  After that, Pine's character just flat out kills two completely innocent women to stea their gas.  From there, Pine is infected and the other couple, that is, his brother and another girl plan on stranding him.  But things get complicated and Pine gets killed by his little brother.
This leads to another thing I liked about the movie.  It shows how one's decisions establish certain dispositions, or more bluntly, how being a little bastard make it easier to become a bigger bastard down the road.  Our decisions matter and can have major consequences for ourselves and others down the road.  There is also a narration at the end where the little brother realizes that while he have survived, he knows that now he will always be alone, never able to trust or love another person.
The movie also got me thinking about the whole survival movie genre in general.  Normally, the people in them are ruthless and if not ready to just screw over every one they find at least aren't exactly eager to help.  Why is that?  Well, I guess I know why.  But why not a movie where the main characters are motivated by a desire help others?  Why not have a zompocalypse where people are trying to recruit fellow survivors and try to cure the virus or what that is the cause of it?  Basically, what if the primary group of survivors were devout Christians?  You could still have all the typical conversation about what should be done with the infected person, the tension between survival and keeping our humanity, etc.  The only difference would be that the nice guy wins the argrument.    The only movie I can think of like that, even a little is I am Legend where Smith's character is rescued from certain death by Alice Braga's character and he in turn sacrifices himself so that she can survive with the cure that he developed.  And then she makes it to a settlement which features a Church in the center.  But this is the very end of the movie and is very different than the book it is based on.
Anyway, just some thoughts.

Good Will Hunting

So, like said a couple of posts ago, I finally watched this movie for the first time a week or so ago.  All I can say is, "Thank you Netflix instant!"  Seriously, I really enjoyed watching this movie.  It has a compelling story and is wonderfully written and acted.
Briefly, for the three other people in the country that haven't seen this movie (that is, living under the same rock I've been living under) the story is as follows:  Insanely smart working class kid solves really hard math problem at MIT, attracting the attention of the brilliant (but still nothing compared to young Will) math professor.  However, Will has lived a hard life in the "economically depressed" parts of Boston and ends up going to jail for hitting a police officer.  The professor persuades the judge to let Will out under his supervision with the promise that he will also see a therapist.  Enter Robin Williams as the brilliant shrink who helps Will (Matt Damon by the way) deal with his past and so learn to connect with people and take chances in life.
Which brings us to what the movie is really about, relationships and the need to allow oneself to be vulnerable in order to build those relationships.  It's not that Will doesn't have friends, he does but he doesn't let himself move beyond that.  We see this in his relationship with a girl (Minnie Driver) he meets a bar (in probably my favorite seen of the whole movie).  They have a great first date but he doesn't call her back.  Why?  Because he sees her as perfect and "doesn't want to ruin that."  As Sean (William's shrink) retorts, "That's a great philosophy.  That way you can go through life without really knowing anybody."
This same difficulty shows up in other ways such as his pushing away of the professor and the fact that he has never done anything with his considerable gifts.  Basically, he is afraid of developing new relationshps with people for fear that they may finally reject him.
The reason for this fear is that his parents had abandoned him and many of the foster parents that he had beat him.  As Sean put it, "the people who were supposed to love him the most abandoned him" or beat him.  That would tend to mess a person up.  Naturally, Sean helps Will realize that what those people did to him was not his fault, that the problem wasn't with him, allowing him finally to take the big chances with his girlfriend and with his gifts.
This got me thinking about myself.  While no Will Hunting, I'm slightly smarter in some ways than the average bear.  Or at least my interests are different.  But I have done very little with that, largly for fear of failure/looking stupid.  You see, I used to think I was a lot smarter than I really am but becoming Catholic helped me see that there are people far more intelligent than I will ever be.  Which is good.  In any case, doing something with my interests and limited gifts has been on my mind a lot anyway (hence this blog) and this movie is making me think about it even more.  And has it turns out, some new opportunities may be cropping up.  So, stay tuned.

Why do we ignore the natural law?

Latest entry in the Natural Law series.  Have at.  More movie reviews coming next week, including Carriers and maybe the made for TV over a decade ago Joan of Arc (which is way better than that piece of crap The Messenger).

Natural Law – Why don't we follow it?

So far, we have seen that natural law can be described as the set of principles that guide us to the best possible natural life for man. We have also seen that there is no shortage of disagreement about its content and even whether or not is exists. However, we have also seen that the use of reason and observation of the results of different modes of life show us that natural law does exists and that we can also determine much of its content, even as applied to individual lives and circumstances.

The question naturally arises, if we can know so much of natural law from reason alone and if it truly does la the best natural road map for our lies, why do so many people deny or ignore it?

Digression

Before delving into this question I think that some clarification is in order. I have emphasized that natural law provides the best natural road map for life for a reason. Natural law is just that, natural. It consists of what we can know about the good life based on what we can see, experience and determine through our every day lives and the use of our reason. It points toward and is compatible with, but does not include what we learn about the life of holiness through revelation. Thus, natural law points us toward the live of natural virtue but is does not consist of all that is necessary for the best possible life, that is a life lived in service to and imitation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Much could be and needs to be said about the life of grace but that is beyond the scope of this series, at least so far. Going forward, we will touch on matters of revelation but even then the focus will be on its relationship to the natural law, rather than the specific issues of revelation itself.

The Difference of Man

We return to the question, “Why do we ignore the natural law?” Two significant reasons for this have already been touched on in previous articles. These are our reason and free will. It is these two capacities, unique to man that on one hand allow us to contemplate what the natural law is and on other what make it possible for us to ignore it. Why the paradox?

Concerning reason, we are given different capacities for recognizing and applying universal principles. That is, some men are simply wiser than others. Some, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Blessed Mother Teresa are simply better able to understand and apply the natural law better than you or I. And even those two giants did so in very different ways. The causes of this variable capacity for reason are many. One is plain old genetics, whereas others include how we were raised, what books we read, our local environment and the customs of the community we grew up in. All of these and no doubt many others combine to form our intellects and personalities, resulting in different levels of ability to apply our natural reason.

Our free will of course allows us the ability to reject or accept the conclusions of our reason. The animals of course do not have this ability and simply follow the course that nature has laid out for them. We however, can ask the big questions and accept or reject the answers to those questions. Still, is this really an explanation? Granted that free will allows us to reject the good, why on earth would we?

This brings us to the single biggest reason that we ignore the natural law, sin. Or more specifically, original sin.

Now, I know I just said that these articles would not, as a rule, concern themselves with revelation. So, what am I doing dragging in the concept of original sin? First, it really is the only explanation for the utter insanity that seems to infect most of us. As Chesterton said, it is the most self-evident of all Christian dogma.

Second, it is not only a Christian dogma. Most, if not all religions of the world have some story of a fall, a story that attempts to explain why it is that man seems to be less than he should or could be. In a way, this is true even of the modern secularist who follows the lead of Rousseau and other philosophers of the Enlightenment in believing that man's first sin was to form laws and institutions to regulate property and behavior. Certainly, this differs in many ways from the Fall related in Genesis but on one essential point there is agreement, man is broken. I argue then that because is this brokenness is almost universally recognized, it is itself part of the natural law.

It is this essential brokenness that has corrupted our wills such that we are the only members of the material world that rejects the natural law. Our reason is often clouded by emotions or self-interest. Or our pride simply causes us to reject anything that would seem to reduce our station. This in particular is the disease of modern man. Enamored of our own achievements, modern man extremely resistant to anything that suggests that there is an authority or standard of behavior above our outside of our own wills. And thanks to free will, we can reject such standards even when they are obvious and we know exactly what we are doing. The abortionist, for example knows full well that the unborn baby he kills is alive and that he is killing that child. He cannot help but know that it is wrong. Yet, in his pride, he chooses to ignore his conscience. In fact, there has been a growing number of pro-abortion advocates admitting that they do know the child is alive, some are even willing to recognize the child's person-hood. While this is chilling enough, their argument for justifying the killing is even more so as it amounts to little more than stating that a child doesn't fit into their plans.

Such all-encompassing pride is not that only result of broken nature. The intellect of the woman having the abortion may be darkened and her will stunted by fear, ignorance and a number of previous bad decisions in her life. Such things can combine in such a way that person becomes virtually blind to the natural law.

For another example, think of child soldiers in the developing world. From an early age, they are surrounded by violence and are instructed in how to kill almost as soon as they are strong enough to hold a weapon. This creates an environment in which it would become almost impossible to recognize the most basic of principles.

Such situations give rise to question of whether or not people can be rendered completely incapable of following the natural law. The answer, according St. Thomas Aquinas is “not quite.” Essentially, our ability to recognize and apply to the natural law to various circumstances can be blotted out but the law itself remains. For example, the same child soldier may be utterly merciless to those he is told are his enemies and completely selfless in the care and protection of his tribe. Or think of the well known example of Hitler who, in addition to being a monster was also considered to be a loving father. Or, somewhat more pointedly there is the case of the moral relativist who suddenly cries out for justice when his car is stolen. While he chooses to ignore the natural law in every day life, he cannot help but appeal to its universal principles when their violation affect himself.

Next time, we'll begin to explore another guide to help us discern the natural law, the Ten Commandments.

The League of Bearded Catholics

My wife stumbled onto this blog:  http://timothyjones.typepad.com/tlbc/
Check it out.  If you go back a couple or three pages you will see the glory of Chesterton done up as an Incredibles character.  Oh the glory!

Levels of Being

Here is an essay in the natural law series from my brother.  If you haven't visited his website - http://catfoundations.com/ - do so now.  In fact, if you want, call him out for a speaking engagement.  He's smart, articulate and very faithful to the Church.  You'll be glad you did.


Natural Law
Part 1.5
Levels of Being
“Man fully alive is the glory of God” – St. Irenaeus
In Part 1 on natural law, or the law of nature, Mr. Postma, indicated that plants,
animals, and man are all created and fulfill their nature by the actions of their lives. For
plants, animals, and I will add rocks and minerals, this is facile because they lack
something that man has, self-awareness.
We have to understand that there is a natural progression of being in all of creation.
Rocks and minerals hold the lowest level of being. They are entirely inanimate and
completely contingent upon outside influences for their physical position and use.
Plants, although being mostly inanimate do possess at the lowest level the quality of
subject. Plants possess vitality, which allows them to lead their roots toward moist soil
and bend toward the sun’s light. Animals, like plants, are made up of what would be by
itself inanimate matter, possess vitality, but also are conscious creations. Animals have
the ability to move freely, organize, and even give an impression of emotion, such as the
purr of a cat or a dog appearing to be scared by a loud noise. Animals act out of instinct
rather than free thought and reasoning.
This is what separates man from the rest of creation mentioned. Man possesses all of
the above qualities, and also has been created with self-awareness. He is the only
creation that possesses a soul (vitality) that is also a spirit; and it is this spirit that allows
him to know himself, to know that he knows, to think about his thinking, to think about
others thinking; and to act based upon this knowledge of self and the world around him.
Mr. Postma discussed some examples of how man fulfills his nature. He writes,
“Here, we find that the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and courage
serve as invaluable guides in conforming our actions to the natural law.” Man, unlike
minerals, plants, and animals, can decide to not live according to his nature. He can
choose the opposite of virtue, the opposite of order. He can ignore the cosmic order of
life and creation and choose to live merely in the here and now. By solely living in the
here and now he ignores the reality that a particular level of being can only be understood
by a higher level of being. A plant is incapable of understanding itself, but an animal has
a basic understanding of the use of plants for itself. Man of course, is capable of
understanding minerals, plants and animals to great extends. However, man is unable to
understand himself completely without a higher level of being. This will be the concern
of further articles after this series on natural law.
Now, back to the quote pulled from Mr. Postma’s essay. Man needs guides, lights
along the path, because he is self-aware, he can imagine outcomes. He can imagine past
circumstances, imagine future possibilities; and create scenarios for real time decisions
that must be made based on this. Man’s memory can aid him to be raised up to the
fullness of his nature, or be the curse that holds him down to the level of an animal, living
on impulse and instinct where he changing his mind as often as the situations he is in and
the different people he converses with.
Man’s ability to be aware of his thoughts and actions then require the following
of natural law, otherwise total despair in inevitable. If he cannot recognize certain
lights along the path that must be followed, he will be swallowed up by his pride, being
forced to deal with his own mirrored image each day, wandering in the cloud of
confusion with apparent dimmed light all around him, but with no distinct direction to be
followed.
-Mr. Mark A. Postma, M.A.
Director of Catechetical Foundations
Questions for further understanding
1. How are minerals and plants different?
2. What makes an animal different from a plant?
3. What does man possess that animals, plants, and minerals do not possess?
4. What higher level of being is needed to understand man?
5. How has your own imagination/memory held you back from living more fully
in accordance with natural law?

At last!

Well, my long hours of work are pretty much done.  That means I can get back to some more blogging, especially movie and book reviews.  Here's a snapshot of some of what I'll be blogging about in the near future:


More natural law
Batman/Superman: Apocalypse
Batman: Under the Red Hood
Good Will Hunting (Just watched it for the first time last night)
Memento
Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman (Yes, I am a big Batman fan)
John Carter of Mars
How science fiction is such a great way to explore what it is to be human (with examples)
And lost of other things.

I'll still be a little sporadic as I'll be busting my butt on my basement, but posts will be a couple of times a week instead of maybe once a week.