Discernment of Heroes - Week 3

This week we'll be exploring two basic questions Bird poses about all characters:

What role do you play in the story?  Hero, villain, love interest, friend?

Within this role, what is your type?

  

In some regards, Bird's questions don't fit with Christian discernment.  After all, we are all baptized priest, prophet, and king, sharing in Christ' own perfect fulfillment of those roles.  In other words, we're all called to be heroes.  But this is, in some sense, semantics.  Because when Bird uses the term "hero," he refers to not only to someone who defends justice and rights wrongs, but also someone who is the main character of the story.  And let's be honest: not everyone can be the main character.  But even if we cannot all be the center of attention, we are all called to do good.  And we are called to do this not simply at the natural level, but - by God's grace - supernaturally as well.  Thus, being a "love interest" or friend can be just as heroic and important as being the usual hero.

(I briefly considered writing about discernment of villains.  After all, we are all sinners, and thus struggle with that side of things too.  But most villains are super-evil, in ways that may not shed much light on our own temptations.  Moreover, really great villain characters are - in their way - quite lovable.  This might work in stories, but in the spiritual life the glamor of evil is nothing with which to trifle.)

When working on categorizing heroes, Bird asks an important question: Why categorize at all?

What’s the point? Are movies more fun when you pigeonhole the hero into a certain category? Not really. But I do think it can be a useful tool, whether for creating your own heroes or evaluating the work of others. First and foremost, it should remind us that not every “rule” for heroes can or should apply to each particular hero. Some heroes suffer a lot, some hardly at all. Some are proven wrong, some are proven right. Some start from scratch, others show what they know. In order to know which rules apply to which hero, it helps to figure out which type they are.

The same may be said of our own lives.  We are all called to heroic lives of faith and virtue; we are all called to be conformed to the perfect image Christ.  But we live that out in different ways, emphasizing and expressing different dimensions of who our Lord and God is.  Thus, although we all aim to be "little Christs" (to borrow C. S. Lewis' phrase), we all look quite different, and live out our lives in different ways.


Bird proposes nine different kinds of heroes (and a couple sub-types), based on the three following questions:

Are you qualified?  This question, reflecting Bird's background, is story-specific rather than existential.  That is to say: you might be qualified in one circumstance, but unqualified in another.  Movies tend to only show one circumstance (ie, the super-spy doing spying, not failing horribly at accounting).  Nevertheless, there is an important reminder here: Heroes are not always qualified.  Thus, the special skills we considered last week, though important, are not the final word.  God routinely uses the weak.

Are you on the job?  There are two fairly literal ways to read this question.  First, are you currently employed?  Second, at any given time, are you at work?  In and of itself, this is uninspiring, but the implied reminder is that God can use us at all times, wherever we are.  Sometimes we focus on getting back "on the job," when divinely-written adventures await us right where we are.

Are you in you element?  In other words, are you comfortable?  Again, remember: God calls us to be heroes in both comfortable and uncomfortable situations.


In short, we would all like to be "The Pro at Work," the hero who is qualified, on the job, and in his element.  But "The Worst Possible Pick" - and everyone in between - can be a hero too.  Of course, God does not call us all to be all types of heroes.  Some people, for whatever reason, are more often called to missions for which they are not qualified; these things just find them.  Maybe you are such a person.  Or maybe God is calling you in a more obvious direction, one that corresponds to your skills.  Look at your life and consider not merely what your gifts and talents may be, but also where God leads you and how He asks you to use them.

Finally, a brief word on love interests and friends.  These are generally helpful folks who support the big fellow with the flashy cape.  That kind of support can be as essential as the major deeds themselves.  It is worth asking, "What kind of friend am I?"  This may vary from one relationship to another, but chances are you often fill the same role in your relationships with different friends.  Here are a few types of friends and lovers Bird proposes.

1.  The Conscience

2.  The Mentor

3.  The Helping Hand

4.  The Total Bad Ass (that is to say, the sidekick who really helps our hero fight his battles, or even fights them for him)

5.  The Best Friend Seen in a New Light (specific to the role of lover)

There are doubtless other ways that we can be friends and supports to the heroes in our lives.  But Bird also reminds us that friends and lovers can also be stumbling blocks: corrupters, weasels, objects of envy, or nymphomaniacs.  So when you're considering the type of friend or lover you might be, make sure you're always seeking the good for others. 

Today's image of Indiana Jones comes via the Daily Mail.

Seeing Through Political Propaganda

The other evening my wife and I watched Triumph of the Will, a film some of my history students will be watching.  This piece of Nazi propaganda depicts the 1934 Parteitag, an annual week-long festival for the National Socialists at Nuremberg.  There are a number of directions in which to take a discussion of this film.  I will point out to my students, for example, the chilling fact that the Night of the Long Knives had happened only two months before the rally, at which Hitler tried to persuade members of the SA and SS - the latter of which he used to murder the leaders of the former - that there were no disagreements within the Nazi Party.



But the film also reminded me of contemporary US politics.  No, I do not think Barack Obama is the next Hitler or that Mitt Romney is going to establish a totalitarian Mormon state.  Allow me to explain...

Triumph of the Will is, in many ways, a very appealing film.  There is some great cinematography, lots of pomp and spectacle, and thousands of nifty uniforms.  The film - and the party it idolizes - denounces class conflict and Communist revolution, instead calling for national unity and cooperation.  On a practical level, the Nazis highlight the jobs they have created and the roads they have built; on a higher plane, the Nazis utilize religious-style symbolism and Hitler calls upon a generation of young Germans to commit themselves in sacrifice for an ideal larger than themselves.

All of this, in the narrow terms I have described it, is quite good.  The problem is that the casual observer might not think further - indeed, the Nazis hoped they would not.  Because behind the pageantry and the soaring rhetoric are empty lies at best and utter wickedness at worst.

Why all the militant uniforms and talk of "victory" when Germany is not at war?  What is to become of those not deemed fully German?  Why is Hitler identified as the embodiment of both the nation and the party?  What qualities make him pre-eminently German, or who put him in charge?  And to what end is all this national effort and striving?  For what are Germans asked to sacrifice?  The more one considers the Nazis and their program, the less it makes sense.  In the end, it is nothing but the worship of Power for its own sake.

Some in Germany saw through the Nazis' propaganda, and thus Hitler was opposed by the likes of Blessed Clemens von Galen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Claus von Stauffenberg and the July 20 Conspirators, and a number of others.  Some of these men recognized the bankruptcy of the Nazi ideology early on; others only came around later.  Unfortunately most Germans lacked the intellectual insight or moral courage to perceive what was happening in their country and do something about it until it was too late.

Here in the US the stakes may not be quite so high, but the task is the same: we must see through the half-truths and the hollow rhetoric of those who would use our political support as pawns in their own games.  We must wage intellectual resistance against the political shams of our day; we must convert, ourselves first and then others.

Discernment of Heroes - Week 2

This week we have fewer questions to discern than last week, but these are weightier matters.  Several of these topics would be deserving of an entire week by themselves.

How you talk: There are a number of directions in which to take this.  In some ways the most obvious is to ask whether you engage in "right speech" - not profaning the Lord's name, not gossiping, always speaking the truth.  Undeniably, these are good things.  But I think it can be tricky for many of us to notice our own speech.  After all, we've been listening to ourselves for a very long time, and we tend to think that we talk like - well, we talk like ourselves!  So let me suggest an exercise: try writing a description of how you talk.  Maybe you're describing a character in a novel or a film.  What kind of accent does he or she have?  Does he speaking quickly or slowly?  Loud or soft?  What kind of metaphors does she use?  Does he talk like his friends and co-workers?  Does she have catch phrases?  If you manage to write out a description, lay it aside and try listening to yourself over the course of the next day or two.  Do you match your own description?  Now that you have begun to pay serious attention to how you talk, ask yourself: Do I engage in right speech?  Do I use my words to glorify God?

Physical habits:  This is essentially an extension of the previous question.  What kind of body language do you use?  What do you do with your hands?  How do you sit?  How do you walk?  Cataloging your physical habits may simply be an interesting exercise, but it may also reveal to you habits that you ought to change: slouching or biting your nails or maybe, standing before an audience you "saw the air too much with your hand, thus."

Special skills:  Every hero has 'em, right?  But do you?  Matt Bird argues that Zero to Hero stories are rare and don't work well as narratives.  Heroes almost always start out with some special skills.  That finds an echo in Christian theology, which tells us that we are made in the divine image and we are made good.  But, you might be saying, what kind of skills do I have?  Oh, I can fix a radiator or type real fast or program computers, but those are hardly heroic skills.  Christianity is ultimately not about natural perfection, but supernatural perfection, accomplished by the grace of God.  But grace builds on nature; God works with us beginning where we are.  He draws out and makes use of our natural skills in ways we could not image or do on our own.  So as you're tabulating your list of special skills, be creative - be zany!  Because something you might not consider important, something you wouldn't bother to put on the resume, might be the very thing God wants to show you.


Vulnerabilities and ordinariness: Bird contends that a hero who is too awesome makes for a lousy story.  Now, let's be clear about some theology: Christianity teaches that perfection is good, it is possible, and it is the goal of the Christian life.  But Bird's observation is still insightful.  Heroes who are too powerful are boring because we cannot identify with them.  And why not?  Because we are imperfect.  You might be good at all sorts of things; you might be rather successful in life.  Your list of special skills may be five feet long.  But you have weaknesses and failings too.  And Christ wants to heal and redeem those.  He wants to transform your weakness into His strength.  Because that's the kind of God He is.  But sometimes it is hard to offer to him struggles or failings that we did not know we have.  So spend some time and ask yourself: how am I broken?  How am I weak?  How am I tempted and vulnerable?  And how am I simply ordinary, like my fellow man?


Today's image of Ben Cross (l) and Nigel Havers (r), playing Harold Abrahams and Lord Lindsay, respectively, in Chariots of Fire, comes via Wikipedia.

The Everlasting Yea

Thomas Carlyle's Sartor Resartus is like Thus Spake Zarathustra, but with a sense of humor.

Sartor Resartus is the effort of an imaginary English translator/editor to describe the life and opinions of a solitary, mysterious German writer named Diogenes Teufelsdröckh ("God-born Devil-dung"), professor of Things-in-General at the University of Weissnichtwo ("don't know where"), residing in his rooms on the Wahngasse ("Madness Street"), and author of the treatise Clothes: Their Origin and Influence. The book, containing pompous "translations" and summaries of Teufelsdröckh's autobiographical scribblings--literally scraps of paper sorted in bags by symbols of the zodiac--and of his magnum opus, is in part a parody of German philosophy in the first half of the 19th century, but also a vehicle for Carlye to expound some of his own opinions.

Carlyle himself seems to have been a proto-existentialist, a branch of philosophy generally associated not with him but with the later Nietzsche. Both the men and their works share important similarities. Both Carlyle and Nietzsche grew up in sternly religious families and were expected to become ministers, but both rejected the faith of their youth. And yet the writings of both men retain a strongly religious feeling. The most striking evidence is that both men make use of hermits to stand for wisdom-seekers in their philosophy. Teufelsdröckh, after being rejected by his true love Blumine roams the world like the Wandering Jew, pursued by his shadow. Zarathustra, on the other hand, remains in solitude on a mountaintop before deciding to re-enter the world. (Interestingly, Nietzsche also used the figure of the wanderer and his shadow, as witness his dialogue Der Wanderer und sein Schatten.)

The most important similarity between Sartor Resartus and Thus Spake Zarathustra, though, is the message at the heart of their existentialist philosophy: each individual must need for affirm the goodness of the world, say yes to it. This is a message that can and should be taken up by Christians, albeit with some modifications, as it was by Josef Pieper in Zustimmung zur Welt. [1]

In the biographical section of Sartor Resartus, Carlyle sets out three states of soul through which Teufelsdröckh passes: The Everlasting No, the Center of Indifference, and the Everlasting Yea. Only in the Everlasting Yea, when he affirms the goodness of the world, does he attain spiritual perfection. The "everlasting No" is not simply rejection of the world, but is also profound defiance. It can best be given in Teufelsdröckh's own words from his conversation with himself during a quasi-mystical experience on the Rue Saint-Thomas de l'Enfer in Paris, when he was sunk in misery after Blumine forsook him to marry a mutual friend:

Despicable biped! what is the sum-total of the worst that lies before thee? Death? Well, Death; and say the pangs of Tophet too, and all that the Devil and Man may, will or can do again against thee! Hast thou not a heart: canst thou not suffer whatsoever it be; and, as a Child of Freedom, though outcast, trample Tophet itself under thy feet, while it consumes thee? Let it come, then; I will meet it and defy it!"

In the Everlasting No, the individual is totally alienated and is thrown back upon his own freedom. In the midst of his despair, he decides to face death with nothing but his own will power to aid him.

The Center of Indifference marks an intermediate stage through which souls pass from the everlasting Yea to the everlasting No. The soul is still sick, but is also recovering from the defiant despair by which he has been afflicted up until now; the worst symptoms are now in remission. Or, as Teufelsdröckh's English editor describes it, in terms of demonic possession:

We should rather say that Legion, or the Satanic School, was now pretty well extirpated and cast out [of Teufelsdröckh], but next to nothing introduced in its room; whereby the heart remains, for the while, in a quiet but no comfortable state.

Only the everlasting Yea marks the decisive break with despair and defiance. Teufelsdröckh's account of his conversion bears quoting in full in his hyperbolic, exaggeratedly Germanic and professorial style:

Es leuchtet mir ein, I see a glimpse of it...there is in man a Higher than Love of Happiness; he can do without Happiness, and instead thereof find Blessedness! Was it not to preach-forth this same Higher that sages and martyrs, the Poet and the Priest, in all times, ahve spoken and suffered; bearing testimony, though life and through death, of the Godlike that is in Man, and how in the Godlike only has he Strength and Freedom? Which God-inspired Doctrine art thou also honoured to be taught; O Heavens! and broken with manifold merciful Afflictions, even till thou become contrite, and learn it! O, thank thy Destiny for these; thankfully bear what yet remain: thou hadst need of them; the Self in thee needed to be annihilated. By benignant fever-paroxysms is Life rooting out the deep-seated chronic Disease, and triumphs over Death. On the roaring billows of Time, thou art not engulfed, but borne aloft into the azure of Eternity. Love not Pleasure; love God. This is the Everlasting Yea, wherein all contradiction is solved: wherein whoso walks and works, it is well with him.

What is noteworthy about this passage is that Teufelsdröckh preaches something higher than happiness, for happiness would be too selfish. Instead, he preaches blessedness in the form of annihilation of the self. Love of God, and affirmation of the world, are one and the same thing, but they entail annihilation of the self. The result of this affirmation is to be "borne aloft into the azure of Eternity." The sense of disappearing into God and nature--if there is even a distinction in Carlyle's mind--is palpable here.

However, even though all three writers believe that affirmation of the world is necessary, they all differ from each in exactly how they affirm the goodness of the world. Nietzsche sings the glory of affirmation in poems and rhapsodic prose in Zarathustra, and even states in one of his posthumously published aphorisms: "To have joy in anything, one must approve everything." But in his post-Zarathustra writings it is not quite clear whether he actually can affirm the goodness of the world. He writes his autobiography and calls himself the "Antichrist." Nietzsche may claim that he just wants to affirm the world, but it seems that he is really more of a rebel, defiant in his despair, and angry at the Christian God. As Romano Guardini says of Nietzsche, his portrayal of the perfect man as a "man who can dance" on the surface of nothingness is a Sehnsuchtsbild, a projection of his longing to attain a freedom of spirit and affirmation of the world that he could never actually achieve himself. [2] The man who wanted to overcome himself tragically could not overcome the Everlasting No.

Carlyle reaches a more authentic affirmation than Nietzsche, but he is so full of irony that it can sometimes be hard to tell whether he secretly harbors reservations. On the positive side, his humor can be seen as a sign that he has come to accept the world. He can call the young Teufelsdröckh by the diminutive "Gneschen"! Nietzsche never could have written about a spiritual hero and called him by the nickname "Thustralein." Carlyle's English "editor" can also point out flaws in his author's style and organization, and even criticize some of his opinions. The sometimes flippant humor shows that he is not in continuous agony, like Nietzsche.

Moreover, Carlyle recognizes that our very existence is a miracle. This is one of Carlyle's core beliefs, and one which forms the basis of his affirmation of the world. He repeats this belief in clearer form in his essay on Odin in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History: "This world, after all our science and sciences, is still a miracle; wonderful, inscrutable, magical and more, to whosoever will think it." (Carlyle also holds that wonder at the divinity of nature is the chief characteristic of paganism--strikingly similar to G.K. Chesteron's views.)

On the other hand, Carlyle's irony may signal that he still feels some detachment from the world. One wonders at times whether the irony really indicates that Carlyle cannot but view the wanderings and despair of Teufelsdröckh with quiet ridicule. He may still be stuck in the Center of Indifference.

Furthermore, Carlyle was strongly influenced by German Idealism and its undercurrent of pantheism. While he was not a full-pledged pantheist, there are times when Carlyle blurs the distinction between God and nature. Moreover, in the tradition of earlier mystics, Carlyle also views happiness as an annihilation of self. In a later essay on Mohammad (also in On Heroes), he states: "Islam means in its way Denial of Self, Annihilation of Self. This is yet the highest Wisdom that Heaven has revealed to our Earth." This equation of denial of self--what Christ has called all his followers to practice--with annihilation of self--a false form of immanentism rampant in German Idealism--sets up a contradictory relationship to the world. If one hopes for one's self to be annihilated, how can one also affirm the goodness of the world? The two are not compatible--so long as one wishes to remain part of this world. An orthodox Christian, on the other hand, denies himself so that he can follow Christ more obediently and ascend to the source of this beautiful world with Him, not to be annihilated, even in the beatific vision. [3]

Only Pieper, with his characteristic serenity--remarkable for a man who lived through some of the most turbulent times in a country at the center of the last century's upheavals--seems to have actually assented to the world and reached the truly Everlasting Yea. And it is obvious from the types of books he wrote: a Theory of Festivity as well as Happiness and Contemplation; he wrote about affirming the goodness of the world without the rancor of Nietzsche or the irony of Carlyle. In a world turned upside down and full of fashionable sophists like Sartre who called being born absurd, he undertook the difficult task of explaining why the world was good, and why we should say "yes" to it. What made it possible for Pieper to attain the everlasting Yea was his belief in a transcendent God who does not demand self-annihilation as a prerequisite to happiness (or blessedness), as opposed to the quasi-Spinozan God of Teufelsdröckh and Carlyle. For Pieper, who saw himself as developing the key concept of Kreatürlichkeit ("creatureliness") he found in St. Thomas Aquinas, existence was even more of a miracle than for Carlyle--the free act of a Creator who was under no compulsion to make the world. Only with his belief in a transcendent God who created and redeemed the world could Pieper say, "Lord, it is good that I am here!"

The Everlasting Yea, in its sublimest form, is a fundamental affirmation of the goodness of the world and of its Creator. And for each of these authors, the Everlasting Yea is the source of any spiritual serenity they experienced.

[1] Pieper's book is available in English translation as In Tune with the World, but I hesitate to call it by that title because it is a mistranslation of the German: Zustimmung means affirmation, assent, agreement, or approval; it implies an active decision to say "yes" to something, not a passive surrender.

[2] Romano Guardini, Vom Sinn der Schwermut (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 2003), p. 24.

[3] Readers interested on the question of pantheism should consult Thomas Molnar, God and the Knowledge of Reality (New York: Basic Books, 1973).

Benedict XVI at the White House, 16 April 2008

With so much discussion of  the Catholic faith and American politics lately, I took the time to re-read Pope Benedict's first address upon his arrival in the US four years ago.  It is worth sharing.

 

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

South Lawn of the White House, Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, 16 April 2008

 

Mr. President,

Thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life of the Catholic community in America: the celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the elevation of the country’s first Diocese – Baltimore – to a metropolitan Archdiocese, and the establishment of the Sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville. Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America’s Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.

From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America’s Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society. 

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation. 

For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the United Nations Organization, where I hope to encourage the efforts under way to make that institution an ever more effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world’s peoples. On this, the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity – as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God’s bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish – a world where the God-given dignity and rights of every man, woman and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.

Mr. President, dear friends: as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America!

Image courtesy of the 40 Days for Life blog.

Discernment of Heroes - Week I

Each week of Lent I'll be posting a few questions for general discernment, drawn from the blogging of Matt Bird, a scriptwriter and film critic who is interested in heroes.

Ash Wednesday, a day when we recall that "You are dust, and unto dust you shall return" might seem like an odd day to begin discerning the heroism to which all Christians - indeed all men - are called. But in fact, humility is a key part of the story arc of every hero. Often the event that pushes a hero off on his heroic quest is a humiliating one. Sometimes the hero is threatened socially, other times physically, or spiritually. It is only out of such struggles, Bird argues, that a hero comes to understand his or her true nature, embracing strengths and rejecting vices. So that is our arc for this Lent.

Shifting gears a little... Bird suggests a number things a writer should know about his characters when crafting a script. If the writer does not have the full picture of a character, he or she will come off flat. In a similar way, self knowledge allows us to think about ourselves and God's call in our lives in a way that matches the vibrancy and complexity of life. Today we'll start with seven of Bird's items. Most of these matters are such that you could breeze through them in 5 minutes, or spend the entire day in meditation and prayer. A happy medium might involve taking a walk and spending a little time with your thoughts.

Age: How old are you? This might seem an open-and-shut question, but think of it in a fuller sense. Where have you lived? What have you done? What do the X years of your life represent? With God, all things are possible (Mt 19:26), but grace does build on nature. In other words, God works with us where we are. So where are you? How long have you been on the road.

The one-line description: This usually comes in the pithy form of “the sort of person who…” What sort of person are you? There are better and worse answers to this. You might be “the sort of person who puts ketchup on french fries,” but then again, most of us do. Slightly better, you might be “the sort of person who wears a tie with birkenstocks.” I am. But while that tells you something about my sartorial taste, it tells you less about my character. “The sort of person who turns a childhood hobby into a career.” Now we're getting somewhere. The possibilities are endless.

Who might play you: This question clearly shows its scriptwriting roots. But I include it for two reasons. First, it is a fun parlor game to wonder who might play you in a movie. Second, we often have trouble thinking outside ourselves. We're use to being on the inside looking out, not the other way around. That's why hearing your own voice is such an odd experience. Thinking about who would play you in a movie is a clever way to think about "seeing" yourself from a new viewpoint. If actors are not your forte, feel free to cast a fictional character or a friend as yourself. The exercise is more important than the outcome.

Profession: Like your age, your profession should be obvious, but related questions can be quite demanding. Why are you in the field you are? How did you get here? What does it mean to do X?

Where you work: This might seem like a repeat of the profession, but there are new details worth considering here. A scriptwriter needs to know what hours a character works, what the building looks like, who the co-workers are, and other related details. Just as those are not minor details in the hands of a good writer, but key details worked into the plot, so too the details of where you work reveal something about who you are, where you are, and where God - the Master Scriptwriter - may take you.

Hobby. Yes, life includes leisure as well as work! How we spend our leisure time - and how we came to the hobbies we have - can tell us a great deal about who we are.

Totem object. Objects certainly make great props for writers and they can certainly move a plot along. In real life, treasured totems are less common, but they certainly still exist. If you don't have one, try looking around your desk: What sits on it, and why? Or try cleaning out your wallet. (For some, that alone is Lenten penance!) What do you carry around? Why? Not only do these objects have stories in themselves, but the kind of objects you keep and the way you keep them also reveals a great deal.


Today's image comes from the LOTR Wiki.

How I'll Be Voting: The Rick Santorum Edition

A couple weeks ago I wrote a post weighing three presidential candidates - Romney, Gingrich, and Obama - against a series of issues I laid out earlier.  The short version of those ramblings was this: President Obama flubbed all of them.  He supports same-sex marriages in all but name and is beholden to the National Education Association, one of the biggest obstacles to school reforms.  He has shown no interest in overhauling the tax code or passing comprehensive immigration reform.  With regard to the national debt, his latest proposal is to expand spending, but expand taxation more.  That'll eventually get us there, but we need more.

Gingrich and Romney fared only somewhat better than the president.  Both support school choice and Gingrich understands the three-fold requirement for immigration reform.  But both are questionable on marriage - Gingrich' personal life leaves much to be desired in this regard, and Romney has a history of waffling on social issues - and although both gesture in the right direction with regard to the tax code and deficit, both seem more interested in slashing taxes than addressing the issues I am considering.

Meanwhile, events have overtaken my analysis.  With wins in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota, Rick Santorum now appears to have edged Gingrich out and may even be passing Romney in polls.  So how does he do?

Debt.  Santorum favors a balanced budget amendment, and is willing to talk about Medicare and Social Security reform.  Some of his particular proposals - such as halving the staff of USAID - I am less excited about, but there is a real commitment here to actually tackle the national debt crisis.

Tax Code.  Santorum explicitly favors simplifying the tax code.

Immigration.  Santorum favors reforming the immigration process, but only after securing the border first.  He is opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.  While I understand the opposition to amnesty, I don't see evidence here that he's considered the scale of the problem (10-12 million people) and the fact that some families are of divided nationality.  Likewise, while I have no problem with securing the border first, per se, I worry that subsequent reform might never happen.

Education.  Santorum favors pushing educational regulation toward the local level and increasing school choice.

Marriage.  There is no question that Santorum is a solid supporter of a traditional definition of marriage.

I would be equivocating if I did not say that this is easily the best slate of positions on these issues of any candidate I have yet considered here.  I will, however, make a few caveats.  There are other issues - foreign policy, healthcare, etc. - that I have not considered.  Likewise, there are other candidates I have not mentioned.  And Santorum has other positions I did not weigh.  (Perhaps typical of these is his first policy statement, against illegal pornography.  I quite agree that pornography is a pestilence destroying the soul of our nation; I do wonder, however, if government is the best tool for attacking it, or if there are more pressing matters to which government alone can attend.)  Moreover, a candidate with the right positions does not necessarily have a strong chance of winning a general election or passing his agenda if elected; prudence must dictate how far voters are able to compromise for political expediency before violating their consciences.

My colleague Stephen has made a compelling case that there is little a Catholic - or, indeed other persons of traditional faith - can do in the present political climate.  He argues that we must conduct intellectual and cultural resistance, beginning in our own hearts; we must withdraw from the politics that have already exiled us, while still caring for the society around us.  I find Stephen's comments quite persuasive, but I am certainly also intrigued by Santorum's recent success; does it represent a real breakthrough?

Image via ABC News.