The Joy of the Truth » media

Mel Gibson vs. Roman Polanski What’s the Difference?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:00:47 +0000

Mel Gibson has made the news – in the form of a media feeding frenzy – yet again. This time he is accused of making racial slurs and of possibly physically abusing his girlfriend (the mother of his nine month old baby). There is little doubt that the accusations are true. Mel Gibson has slid once again in his lifelong struggle with alcoholism. However, especially as far as celebrities go, this news is “nothing new under the sun.” I say especially as far as celebrities go mainly because their domestic woes are typically public knowledge. Alcoholism, extra-marital sex and even (sadly) abuse of all kinds are all-too-common occurrences. In fact, one has to wonder why such a media feeding frenzy (including an audio clip that went viral on the Internet) exists at all.

Meanwhile, another celebrity has made the news as well, though much further down the media page. Switzerland refused to extradite movie director Roman Polanski, who was accused of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. Unlike Gibson, Polanski was even defended by many in Hollywood. The ruling of the courts of Switzerland is considered a great victory for some people who claim that Polanski was just misunderstood, that the sex with the 13 year old was consensual, and that it all happened so long ago that we shouldn’t even bother.

So what’s the difference between Mel Gibson and Roman Polanski? Frankly, both cases of sin outrage and sadden me. Rape and abuse are both gross desecration of human dignity. At the same time, I am aware enough of my own sinfulness to be driven to prayer for both of these men. But I notice the difference in the way they are treated publicly, and I have to wonder.

To me, this is just another sign of the rampant presence of modernism in our society. As I have said before, modernists consider hypocrisy one of their few major sins. To the modernist-influenced media, Roman Polanski was just following his nature, and even though the girl was only 13, she did choose to be with him and to take drugs. However, Mel Gibson created the movie Passion of the Christ and claimed to be a faithful (and traditional) Catholic. Because he followed a religion that dares tell the world what is right and wrong, Gibson’s sinfulness is hypocritical.

The irony is that those who criticize Gibson and defend Polanski are themselves hypocritical. Abusive sexuality is apparently OK for some people but not for others. Unless, of course, the crime is not the abuse but instead the moral standards held by Gibson. Modernists aren’t really saying that abuse is evil, but that moral standards are.

Who Is Really to Blame?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 03 May 2010 04:45:54 +0000

The virtue of prudence gives rise to the virtue of “memory” – the habit of learning from our mistakes. The media and our decidedly anti-catholic culture continue to try to place blame on Pope Benedict and the bishops for the sex scandals. People who look to place personal blame assume that the problem with the bishops was a sort of malicious negligence. In reality it’s more likely that the problem lay in accepting the same philosophy that had shaped our culture. What can we learn from our past mistakes?

This philosophy, born of the Enlightenment, said that the human power of science would solve all of the world’s problems. Before the hubris of this philosophy too over our way of thinking, bishops would have assumed the traditional understanding of human nature. According to this understanding sexual disorder is caused by a warped or twisted appetite. This twisted appetite is common to all human beings due to fallen human nature, though it affects each of us in different ways and to different degrees. Any sexuality that was not grounded in family love was considered disordered. While psychology and therapy can help us come to terms with our twisted desires and maybe even give us some tools to overcome them to some degree, the Church has always taught that only grace can truly bring healing to our disordered appetites. However, the Enlightenment-born philosophy of our culture at the time, promoted by the likes of Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers, claimed that people with disordered sexuality can be healed through scientific methods.

Prior to the early 1990′s, most people in the Church and in the culture at large were unaware or only beginning to come to grips with the prevalence of this horror and the high rate of recidivism among abusers. Accordingly, many leaders- and not just in the Church- felt that sex offenders could be treated pharmacologically or therapeutically and then returned to their former lives and occupations. Many bishops throughout the 1970′s and 1980′s sent priest abusers to treatment centers and received reports from therapists recommending that priests could be safely returned to ministry.

— Robert Barron from Real Catholic TV

You can still see the error of this purely scientific view of humanity in the way we approach alcoholism and drug addiction and other such obsessions. We tend to speak of alcoholism as a disease. This philosophy correctly identifies a biological element to alcoholism and that a person is not able to heal himself without professional help, however it also connotes that the problem is purely biological and does not include elements of the sinful choice or disorder caused by original sin.

The problem with this opinion is that human conditions are much too complicated to be purely biological. Sin and choice and fallenness always come into play. Environment, biology, choice, habits all interact in human behavior and even in addiction. That is why medicine and therapy alone are never enough heal someone.

So the mistake made at the time of the sexual abuses was to put too much trust into human ability to heal pedophilia. This was the mistake of an entire culture, not just the Catholic bishops. The same actions were taken by heads of secular schools and other institutions.

The irony is that while our culture blames Catholic Bishops, it still holds to the mistaken attitude that human beings have the power to cure human disorder through science. This attitude of the Enlightenment has been combined in a schizophrenic way with modernism. So, our culture assumes that anything without a biological cause is a free choice and therefore acceptable.

While we have not yet come to consider pedophilia normal, there are signs we are headed in that direction. Take the case of the famous movie director and screenwriter Roman Polanski. He was accused of drugging and committing sexual acts with with a 13 year old girl. He is now being brought to justice and Hollywood is up in arms in his defense. Whoopi Goldberg said on The View “It wasn’t rape-rape.”

Watch the video of Whoopi Goldberg statements and see for yourself. Notice how Whoopi Goldberg seem to think that statutory rape is not a crime, or at least not the same level of crime as “violent rape.” What’s going on here? This is an example of the effects that the philosophy of modernism is having on our culture. Modernism is leading us to accept even pedophilia as just another lifestyle choice. What would have happened if the scandals that we face today. Had happened today in the age of our current schizophrenic blend of Enlightenment and modernism? Our schizophrenic philosophy would make it even more probable that this could happen. We should not be placing personal blame on the bishops or on the Pope. Rather, we should be analyzing the very thought processes that our culture is being led by now.

Explicit lyrics linked to sex among teens: scientists

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:00:44 +0000

After many indications by studies, but few verifications, a new study finally verifies that explicit lyrics in songs are linked to sex among teens.. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been watching the trends over the past 30 years or so. However, it is good to once again have science catch up to the Church and verify what we have always held to be true.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things (Phil 4:8).

Scripture is filled with warnings about guarding your senses in order to guard your mind and heart against evil. While Christians are often criticized for being “isolationist” and “protectionist,” I know in my own life that the areas that I failed to protect myself have become my largest areas of struggle for holiness as an adult.

It is true that a true attitude of isolationism and protectionism does exist within some Christian circles, and that this is not a healthy and true understanding of Scripture. Creation and culture are good things that are sometimes influenced by evil. To create a separate “Christian culture” that parallels but does not intersect human culture is not what Christ wants for us. Yes, he tells us not to be transformed by the culture, but to let our minds be transformed by the Holy Spirit, but he calls us to then go into the world and transform it.

Furthermore, natural law tells us that human culture is a necessary part of human life. To isolate ourselves from culture not only robs us of the chance to bring the Gospel into the world, it robs us of true human life.

We need to find the balance that allows us to find what is True, Good and Beautiful within human life while we interact with culture, but also to avoid what is false, evil and depraved. We need to make the good things in culture even better by revealing the supernatural as well as the natural source of their goodness. We also need to try to heal areas of our culture that have been given over to evil and depravity.

On the other hand, we cannot give ourselves to the culture to be transformed by it (as has sadly happened to many in the Catholic Church and in many Protestant communities as well). Listening to music or watching movies that glorify in using people as objects of gratification, or enacting violence against others, or in other evil acts only draws us into the lure of sin. Christians begin to wonder if they are really missing out on something (“You certainly will not die. No, God knows that when you eat of this fruit you will be like gods who know good and evil.”).

It is always interesting to me when secularists claim that certain ideas that are found in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition are just “religious opinions,” only to have science “discover” the same ideas eventually. Science plays catch-up with revealed Truth all the time. To me, that’s one of the greatest proofs of the truth of our faith.

We really should not be surprised that immersing ourselves in the message that evil is good would eventually turn our minds and hearts toward evil.

[adrotate group="1,2"]

The Absense of Myth

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:09:06 +0000

Recently I watched the movie Troy, based on the Greek classic The Illiad. I usually watch Hollywood versions of literature with a healthy dose of skepticism. Hollywood screenwriters often seem to read the Cliff Notes of the story they’re basing their screenplay on, then add their own political commentary that seems to fit the general flow of the original literature. The end result is often laughable. Still, when done well movies based on literature can be some of the most enjoyable.

As a movie, Troy was pretty well done. The battle choreography was impressive and the characters were solid and believable. However, the movie went wrong when it tried to purge the story of supernatural elements. The interplay of the humans and the gods is one of the most interesting aspects of Greek literature, and the story of the Illiad is no exception to this standard. More importantly, the story of Achilles is about a man who begins to blur the line between human and god, and suffers the consequences.

Central to the story of the Illiad is Achilles’ anger with Agamemnon. The anger of this amazing hero is so intense that Homer uses the Greek word menos to describe it. Menos refers to the anger of the gods, which is unique not only in intensity but also in kind to human anger. This great anger was caused by a serious breach of honor committed by Agamemnon against Achilles. This breach of honor was serious because Achilles fought for Agamemnon out of a sense of fidelity (love-based honor), and was a great hero truly worthy of great honor. Agamemnon’s betrayal was a betrayal of friendship. lordship and hero honor. By “modernizing” and naturalizing the story, the Hollywood writers have turned Achilles’ anger into simple belligerence and anti-authority blustering. In Troy, Achilles simply does not like or respect Agamemnon, who is portrayed as a power-hungry tyrrant.

In fact, the movie completely misses the entire point of the Greek concept of honor, which is central to a proper understanding of the Iliad. The entire Trojan War was fought because of a breach of honor when Paris steals Helen from King Menelaus while Paris is a guest under the king’s roof. Breaking the code of hospitality was a serious deal in the Greek world. Even an enemy who claimed the right of hospitality could not be harmed or abused as long as he remained a guest. In the Greek mind, the code of hospitality was the sign of civilization and the keeper of the peace. Only barbarians abused their guests.

Troy mentions the code of hospitality, but completely misses its importance. The Trojan war is not about honor, but about politics. Agamemnon is attempting to create an empire, and Troy is the last large community holding onto local sovereignty. While it is not explicit, one can almost sense the modernist trend of anti-nationalism in the movie (despite the fact that Troy is ruled by a king). When Menelaus comes to Achilles to convince him to return his son’s body, the code of hospitality is mentioned but Achilles still announces that he could kill the king and end the war right there. Viewers are left to believe that Achilles’ disdain for Agamemnon is the only thing staying his hand. This scene is particularly disappointing because it should have been the turning point that leads to Achilles’ eventual redemption and return to humanity.

The movie Troy makes Achilles a gifted human, not at all beholden to the gods for his power. The movie makes a point of “de-mythologizing” every bit of his heroic ability, even showing the birth of the myths of his invulnerability through misinterpretations of actual events. In fact, Achilles shows open disdain for the gods (like the modernist revisions of Hercules, which also miss the point of the importance of the hero’s connection to the gods). Hector also shows disdain for the gods that Richard Dawkins would be proud of, seeing claims to faith as superstitious nonsense. It is interesting to note that in the Illiad, Achilles’ connection to the gods is very clear, but it is not central to his heroism. You don’t see spears bounding off of his bare skin or a supernatural glow as he kills men left and right. The Illiad uses Achilles’ connection to the gods to raise expectations of his honor. By getting rid of Achilles’ supernatural connections and making his status of a hero dependent completely on his own abilities, the movie Troy makes Achilles’ pride into an American virtue rather than a flaw in his character or an affront to his true honor.

This ironic twist is of course true of all of the heroes in Troy. Immortal fame is not a result of bravery and honor but of skill in combat. In the Illiad, a warrior’s skills were attributed at least in part to the blessings of the gods, but his bravery was all his own. In Troy, the warriors are more like prideful, childish football players who think, “we may die, but if we show some skill here we can at least be famous.” Instead of focusing on honor, Achilles is obsessed with immortal fame – which is empty when stripped of the Greek notion of honor.

In the end, the Hollywood interpretation of the Illiad falls apart. The Illiad is a story about how prideful anger threatens to destroy Achilles’ honor. In the end, he wins the battle against pride, leans the true value of his honor, and dies bravely leading the charge against Troy. IN the movie Troy, Achilles’ petty, honorless anger stretches into treachery against his king that menos in the Illiad would never allow. Achilles becomes a tragic, empty figure who dies due to a misunderstanding fueled by the immature anger of another warrior, and becomes a mythical hero only because history fabricates his heroic story.

Isn’t that what always happens when we try to remove God from the picture and rely on our own power?

[ad#seasonal]

Chastity is No Longer a Choice

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:17:34 +0000

Social liberals support their stands on abortion and contraception with the claim that they support freedom of choice. They say, “Sure, some people may choose abstinence, but it’s not for everyone. Those who choose to be sexually active must have reproductive health freely available to them.” However antipathy toward chastity (sexual self-control) has been increasing lately. Unfounded attacks are made on abstinence education. Crisis pregnancy are assumed to be scaring women into keeping their babies. Sarah Palin is attacked for not killing her baby with Down’s Syndrome.

Now people who choose chastity are being publicly ridiculed:

From Running Purity Rings Around MTV on the Media Research Center website.

Disney stars the Jonas Brothers and American Idol winner Jordin Sparks have publicly declared their intention to wait until marriage to become sexually active. This public declaration has come under attack.

But announcing this publicly doesn’t come without a price, and that price is mockery.

The “Best Week Ever” blog on Viacom’s VH-1 website featured writer Michelle Collins bragging about losing her own virginity in a druggy haze and sneering that virginity at 17 is too normal to be courageous. “Now, if you’re still waxing ho-etic about your unplowed territory at 30 — and from the inside of your padded cell, of course — then, maybe, we’ll take you seriously.”

The ridicule of these young pop stars became much more prominent when MTV broadcast their latest Video Music Awards show on September 7. The awards-show host was a mangy-looking British degenerate named Russell Brand, and he mocked the Jonas Brothers for their decision. He noted their promise-ringed fingers and insisted “I’d take it a little more seriously if they’d wear it on their genitals.” Brand joked that this decision was “a little bit ungrateful because they could have sex with any woman they want. That is like Superman deciding not to fly and go everywhere on a bus.” Yuk, yuk.

Michelle Collins is able to glorify in her choice to lose her virginity, but the four stars who choose chastity are ridiculed.

It seems that liberalism is showing its true colors. With all their tripe about “free choice” and a woman’s right to “choose,” it seems that choosing virtue is out of the question. Let’s face it, the cultural moguls aren’t about choice. They are about hedonism.

[ad#seasonal]

The Joy of the Truth » media

Mel Gibson vs. Roman Polanski What’s the Difference?

Related Links:

Who Is Really to Blame?

Related Links:

Explicit lyrics linked to sex among teens: scientists

Related Links:

The Absense of Myth

Related Links:

Chastity is No Longer a Choice

Related Links: