Oppobrium

What is the opposite of an encomium? No, that’s not a (lame) joke. Whatever it is, this (below) is it. For as Remy Wilkins asserts in Theopolis, “blunting the sword of your mouth benefits only the enemies of the kingdom,” and I intend to cut them down. 

I’ve long detested the holier-than-thou, ad hominem attack style of author Tim Egan, perhaps because—at my weakest—there’s a whiff of it in my writing, too. The (alleged) hypocrite is his perennial target—read his biweekly opinion pieces in The New York Times—and perhaps I subconsciously fear/wish he’ll one day train his proverbial guns on me. Or perhaps because we are alums of the same university and share a hometown I see him as a kind of traitor, as a wayward brother. At any rate, we share little else. His politics mirror the predictable salad of leftist causes—vitriol for the traditional, skepticism of any virtue that challenges the religions of environmentalism and multiculturalism, and innumerable other -isms and anti-isms. He lives in Seattle.

Egan, promoting a new book, returned home this week to discuss it, and, though I couldn’t secure tickets to the event, I wrote an op-ed of my own—hence the brevity—hoping the local paper would publish it. They didn’t, so here it is.

Tim Egan is not alone in thinking “the Catholic Church is sick with sex.” The well-documented sacerdotal problem with pedophilia, systemic seminarian abuse, scandals and cover-ups; you catch the drift. It disgusts.

But his solution? More sex. “Celibacy should be optional,” he writes in a New York Times op-ed published last year. His logic? That’ll mitigate the temptations of perverts rife in the ranks of the cloth. What Egan doesn’t understand is that celibacy is to the priesthood what marriage is to the laity: a commitment to love of the highest order, only with Christ the bridegroom. 

Deny yourself, He preached. It’s an order anathema to those of a culture of decadence and “self care” (“treat yourself,” “take it easy,” “just do it”) because it is a tall order. “To be priest” means to empty yourself of worldliness so that you can be filled with Christ, with the eternal, with Truth. Celibacy, then, says writer Patricia Snow, is a promise, “to live, in advance, the nuptial realities of heaven.” 

Fidelity to God and His Kingdom—it was once a noble aim. And a costly one; preferable even, but realized by so few. An honor, in other words. A triumph over our enduring fallibility. Egan’s take, however, in reducing such a calling to an act of cheap grace, makes a mockery of human aspiration, and reveals the author’s search for “a faith” to be nothing more than the vicissitude of a muckraking dilettante. 

In his new book he asks, “How can you believe in a savior whose message was peace and passive humility, when the professional promoters of that message were complicit in so much systematic horror?” That’s easy. Because He is the savior even of the most embryonic and ignorant seeker: the man who, in his quest for eternity, sees only his reflection at the center of history. The man who, consumed by darkness, confounds the morning with the light of Christ.

Image: Jones, David. Crucifixion. A Child’s Rosary Book. 1924.

Somewhere on the Road to Emmaus

Last night I watched Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker (1979), his last film made in the Soviet Union before a self-imposed exile. It is a movie perhaps best explained in the Christian tradition of via negativia, a telling of what it’s not. As the central character remarks en route to a place (“The Zone”) where your most secret desire is realized, “There are no direct paths.” It’s not science fiction, per se. It’s not realism either. It’s not a Christian allegory, nor is it a supposed prophecy of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. It’s not a horror film. It’s not of a piece with modern cinema. It’s not “so boring it’s sublime,” as one critic described the film India Song. It’s not misogynistic or homoerotic. It’s not even particularly beautiful, cinematographically, like Andrei Rublev, my introduction to Tarkovsky.

Perhaps that is why Stalker is so beguiling and enchanting. It is so many things, and yet, like descriptions of God, none capture its true essence. But let’s try. It is, I think, a film deeply indebted to the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer. “Willing,” he writes, “springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering.” The infamous “Room” of the film is rumored to fulfill the will of those who dare to enter it, to finally and irrevocably end suffering and orient them to happiness. But, Tarkovsky seems to propose, it’s a ruse. If what is willed is anything other than the Truth of Christ, one is doomed. Happiness is an illusion. The ambitions of science and art, even those of the holy fool, all are earthly manifestations of the insatiable will and are, therefore, unable to confer “a satisfaction that lasts and never declines.” Only death, “the correction of a grave mistake,” says Schopenhauer, is “a joy, so great, so deep.” That is the “unavoidable, deeply pessimistic core,” says The New Criterion’s Roger Kimball of Schopenhauer’s teachings. That is also, paradoxically, the triumphantly optimistic revelation of Tarkovsky’s Stalker and the escape—from desire, from suffering, from the temporal, from Russia—offered through the Cross.

And yet, here it is. Here we are, living. Stalker feels to me like a profoundly human film. Tarkovsky’s sympathy for his characters’ fears, their petty wants and foolish pride, like Christ’s for his disciples, never falters. Instead of sneering at the folly of mankind, he seems to make the case for–at all costs–brotherhood. Individually the Stalker, the Writer and the Professor (avatars for, I think, mysticism, art and science, respectively) loathe the other’s actions and aims, but it is their mutual dependence on each other that brings them to–and from–the very threshold of Truth, i.e. the “Room.” Whether or not any of the characters come to this realization isn’t disclosed. I don’t think they do. They are human, after all. Tarkovsky is, then, yes, an empathetic puppet master, but never a romantic one.

If not “science fiction,” what is Stalker? I think it’s a capital-em Mystery, an ode to the Mystery of Mysteries. “Christianity,” said Malcolm Muggeridge, “is a stupendous riddle without a solution; a stupendous joke without a point; a stupendous song without a tune; a stupendous waking dream that we lose in sleeping; a death in life and a life in death.” Schopenhauer would have loved it.

Photo: Stalker. Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, performances by Alexander Kaidanovsky, Anatoly Solonitsyn and Nikolai Grinko. Mosfilm, 1979