Phantom Part II

Here's a link to the post Phantom Part I



In the last post about the Phantom movie, I setup the plot of the movie. ***Spoilers Alert!!!*** In this post I would like to talk about a line that David Duchovny's character, Bruni, said. That character was in charge of the Phantom device that fooled enemy ships (and Soviet ones too) into misidentifying the Phantom-carrier ship as some other ship due to the Phantom's sonic emissions.

***Spoilers Alert!!!*** Really, Bruni was trying to use the submarine's nuclear missile to start a nuclear war between China and the US (for the USSR to win the world). But, he needed the captain's and political officer's launch keys and some codes. The captain, let's just say, resisted a little.

When Bruni eventually won over the captain and violently took the key that was on a chain around the captain's neck, he saw a cross there too. Bruni said, "You really think religious icons are gonna save you?"

In the last post, I mentioned that the Sacrament of Reconciliation, or confession, was an encounter with Christ via the priest (in persona Christi) to sacramentally wipe the sin away from the penitent (the one going to confession). There was real grace in the sacrament, as long as the person accepted it, to be used in effecting change in the penitent to, if you will, save him from sins. (This grace is given by Christ to the Church.)

However, religious icons, or "sacramentals" are not revealed to effect the person in the same way as sacraments. Sacramentals like crosses, rosaries, scapulars, other religious art, or religious clothing do not in themselves effect any change in anyone. They are simply aids for Christians to enter more profoundly into prayer or remembrance of sacred things, people, or events.

So, Bruni was right in that religious icons do not save anyone, but it is Christ alone through His Bride the Church (sacramental graces) who saves.

Phantom Part I

Here's a link to the post Phantom Part II
Here's a link to the post Phantom Part III
Here's a link to the post Phantom Part IV

I just watched the 2013 movie Phantom with David Duchovny and Ed Harris. ***Spoilers Alert*** It was about ("based on") a Soviet submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis (1950's) that was captained by Ed Harris' character and had a secret mission, using the Phantom, that was to be supervised by David Duchovny's character.

This post is about Ed Harris' character who had a very heavy burden that he continued to carry from an earlier captain position. In that former sub tour as captain, he ordered a risky sub maneuver that made him lock some of his crew in an isolated compartment that resulted in their deaths.

This tactic, that should have made him loose his rank or worse, was covered-up because his father was a high leader in Soviet party leadership. Nevertheless, he kept his rank and was given another (secret) mission as Captain in the movie.

He never forgot the mistake he made in pride (the risky sub maneuver) which resulted in giving the order that killed his men.

Before he and his crew are sent on this secret Phantom mission, one of his crew was married in a Russian Orthodox church with the Captain as a witness. After the vows were taken, the Russian Orthodox Priest and the Captain, who had known each other since his marriage, talked.

Russian Orthodox Priest: You wonder why He’s silent and you have so many questions.
Captain: It was always, pretty much, a one way conversation.
…
Priest: It’s as much about what He hears as what He says. Would you like to make a confession?
(Pause)
Captain: Confession for what? Thank you Father.

The Captain could not bring himself to admit that he made a mistake in pride. His conscience did not recognize the sin.

This was from where the idea from Pope Pius XII came that "the sin of the [20th] century is the loss of the sense of sin."

Pope Paul II expands on this idea in an apostolic exhortation:

Nevertheless, it happens not infrequently in history, for more or less lengthy periods and under the influence of many different factors, that the moral conscience of many people becomes seriously clouded. "Have we the right idea of conscience?"-I asked two years ago in an address to the faithful" Is it not true that modern man is threatened by an eclipse of conscience? By a deformation of conscience? By a numbness or 'deadening' of conscience," Too many signs indicate that such an eclipse exists in our time. This is all the more disturbing in that conscience, defined by the council as "the most secret core and sanctuary of a man," is "strictly related to human freedom.... For this reason conscience, to a great extent, constitutes the basis of man's interior dignity and, at the same time, of his relationship to God." It is inevitable therefore that in this situation there is an obscuring also of the sense of sin, which is closely connected with the moral conscience, the search for truth and the desire to make a responsible use of freedom. When the conscience is weakened the sense of God is also obscured, and as a result, with the loss of this decisive inner point of reference, the sense of sin is lost. This explains why my predecessor Pius [XII], one day declared, in words that have almost become proverbial, that "the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin."

The "numbness of conscience" was surely widespread in Communist Russia.

However, it was the father-ness of the priest that saw the Captain's pain from hidden guilt. He knew that the Sacrament of Reconciliation, or confession would start the healing process. Jesus through His Church is the Great Physician who knows that our sins weigh us down. We just need to acknowledge and turn away from them and back to Christ. He wants to take that burden away from us through the grace of the sacrament (the Catholic ER's - the Sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation - for small (venial) and great (mortal) sins, respectively).

It is through the priest that the Captain can sacramentally talk to Jesus (in persona Christi - in the person of Christ). In the sacrament, he can have a conversation that can answer many of his questions.

Fr. Barron can explain it further.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Part IV

[So, I contacted Paramount to ask permission to add various clips to my posts on Star Trek II that I can't find on YouTube, but they unfortunately denied me permission. You'll just have to go watch it again if you can't recall what I'm referencing; yea, I know big burden (I wish I had time to watch it too, esp. part deux).]

This time, I would like to focus on the scene where Kirk, Spock, and Bones are first discovering what Project Genesis is (in Kirk's quarters). At the end, Bones has, let's say, some misgivings on the whole idea of reorganizing matter for a new matrix (just universal armageddon, that's all). While, Spock has the coolly logical, i.e., stoically utilitarian understanding of the usefulness of the technology.

We can see a parallel with the bomb, except that the (atom) bomb was initially created for destruction, not a means to constructively help society.

There are those who only see nuclear technology as an immanent danger to the entire planet. While there are those who see it mostly as a good that can bring clean energy (no one will actually use it in war). One side is calling the other inhuman while the other side is whispering "passionate nut".

Positive technological advancement must have a balanced approach that takes into account (1) the necessity of making or using the technology and (2) the moral implications that surround its manufacture or use. They must go hand in hand.

We must balance Spock and McCoy through civil discourse.

Huey Lewis and the News' If This Is It

So, there's this blog that is about kindness here: Within Reach of Every Hand.

At that blog, I asked what the difference between being kind and being nice was (at this link). The song If This Is It by Huey Lewis and the News was in my mind when I asked the question.



She replied back,

I think There is a big difference but it can be difficult to articulate. It may be a topic for a future post, but for now I would say Kindness stems from love, compassion, and mercy, where as niceness has more to do with not ruffling feathers, being agreeable, and following social norms. Kindness comes from somewhere deeper.

Upon comparing her response to If This Is It, that seems to be right. "You'd say anything to avoid a fight." is nice, but the romantic interest in the song should just let Huey know if they're through or not which would be kind (shows mercy and compassion).

Sometimes as adults, we need to grow up, get a backbone, and tell it like it is, or at least work something out. Otherwise, we never really grew up. If we're kids, we need to learn to ask questions and get to the bottom of things, else they may mow us down.

We shouldn't necessarily look to save people's feelings (we're just looking out for our feelings, really). We'll "be all right, one way or another."

Father Barron on Bob Dylan

Every once and a while, I'll be sharing some of what I would like this blog to accomplish via Fr. Barron.

Fr. Barron and the "Geek Priest" from Holland have really inspired this blog to connect pop culture and Christianity.

I hope that you get as much out of my commentaries as you do from at least 10% of Fr. Barron's.

Below is a commentary of his favorite singer, Bob Dylan (Blowing in the Wind and Rolling Stone).

One Direction's Story of My Life

I thought I would look at some top 40 songs for a couple of posts.

A girl in my old Sunday school class loved (and still loves) the latest boy-band One Direction. I noticed them on the most recent, top 40 list at number 10 with their song Story of My Life.



Some of the lyrics stuck out to me:

Written on these walls are the colors that I can't change
Leave my heart open but it stays right here in its cage
I know that in the morning now I see us in the light upon a hill
Although I am broken, my heart is untamed, still

And I'll be gone, gone tonight
The fire beneath my feet is burning bright
The way that I've been holding on so tight
With nothing in between

It's strange that even though the former couple of the song are no longer together, the singer of the song will see himself and his former love-interest "in the morning" "in the light upon a hill".

This reminds me of the light on the hill, or mountain:

You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father. Matthew 5: 14-16

It seems that their love was a glimpse, for them and others who saw them together, of the God Who is Love. And, even though the love that might have been there was requited by this girl, it can still go on to perhaps give itself to someone else. His love is still open to bare itself again.

This love cannot be hidden, or tamed once it is laid bare.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Part III

(Links for Part I / Part II)

One the best scenes of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the dialog between Kirk and Spock in Spock's quarters.

Kirk was debating whether to take the training crew of the Enterprise under Spock's command to a potentially dangerous location.


 
This scene is so good since it shows how two totally different people, one totally logical (really utilitarian stoicism) and the other passionate, can be friends and colleagues.

If you watch the other Star Trek movies and even the original series, these two and McCoy would just hang out together.

But what's the use of hanging out? Well, friendship in and of itself has no uses per se, but is a good in itself. Natural Law Theory defines friendship as one of the basic goods that is good in and of itself.

Miss Saigon Wedding Scene

My first girlfriend and I went to see Miss Saigon in Pittsburgh. She asked me a question about the wedding scene that gave me something to think about for a long time. (It's at 2:00 in the video below; **Warning** The first two minutes are not appropriate for young viewers.)



She asked me, "Do you think they are really married?" I thought, I don't know since there was no priest (or minister, she was/is Southern Baptist) to marry them.

It took me a while to discover that it's not a minister that makes someone married, but the couple themselves.

But, how can that be? Well, the nitty-gritty of it is that a marriage really takes place when it is consummated between man and woman. So, in any culture, if they are Christian or not, a man and women are married when the marriage is bonded in the flesh.

This actually comes from Jesus' own mouth.

He [Jesus] said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Matthew 19: 4-6

So, before Abraham (Judaism/Islam), before Christianity (the incarnation), before all modern religions, the way to make a marriage was through becoming "one flesh".

(Of course, many other questions could be raised, but that's all I'll say about this for now.)