There is joy
in all:
in the hair I brush each morning,
in the Cannon towel, newly washed,
that I rub my body with each morning,
in the chapel of eggs I cook
each morning,
in the outcry from the kettle
that heats my coffee
each morning,
in the spoon and the chair
that cry "hello there, Anne"
each morning,
in the godhead of the table
that I set my silver, plate, cup upon
each morning.
All this is God,
right here in my pea-green house
each morning
and I mean
though often forget,
to give thanks,
to faint down by the kitchen table
in a prayer of rejoicing
as the holy birds at the kitchen window
peck into their marriage of seeds.
So while I think of it,
let me paint a thank-you on my palm
for this God, this laughter of the morning,
lest it go unspoken.
The Joy that isn't shared, I've heard,
dies young.
-ANNE SEXTON
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
My Call to L’Arche
People sometimes ask me how I came to be an Assistant at L’Arche, a Christian community centered on the lives of people with disabilities (I served there from Dec 2005 - Feb 2007). This is the story I tell them:
A couple of years ago my friend Ashley was an Assistant at L’Arche, and one day she invited me to the house for supper. Although I had heard of L’Arche, I had never visited before, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was a little bit nervous sitting around that great big table with so many new people; but because I was sitting next to a warm and wonderful Core Member named Becky, I started to feel right at home (at L’Arche, Core Members are people with special needs; they are called Core Members because they are at the very core of the community).
I remember it was about half way through supper when I began to talk more with Becky. I asked her a few questions about herself and how long had she lived at L’Arche. And after getting to know her a bit, I asked the big question: “Becky, what do you like about L’Arche?” That’s when Becky, who has an intellectual disability and was legally blind, turned to my friend Ashley, sitting across from us, and said: “The people. I love the people here, and I love my friend Ashley!”
It is hard for me to capture Ashley’s reaction, but I will try. The best I can say it is that it was like Becky shot an arrow of love directly into Ashley’s heart. Ashley’s face became flooded with color and emotion, and her eyes became wet with joy.
Seeing this made me understand what a special place L’Arche was. I realized then the true meaning of my favorite Taize song: Ubi caritas et amour, ubi caritas Deus ubi es. [Where there is charity and love, God is truly there.] And I will always be grateful for Becky, as it was through her love for my friend Ashley that she showed me that God was truly alive in this humble little community. It also brought the words of Deitrich Bonhoffer to life for me: “The one who has found Jesus on the cross knows how wondrously God hides in this world and how he is just there, closest, where we expect him to be furthest.”
That’s why a couple of years later when I’d finished my theological studies, I thought of how special that dinner was, which helped me make up my mind to apply to L’Arche. Looking back, I truly believe that it is ultimately God who calls us to places like L’Arche. But now I also believe that God uses special people like Becky to deliver the message.
A couple of years ago my friend Ashley was an Assistant at L’Arche, and one day she invited me to the house for supper. Although I had heard of L’Arche, I had never visited before, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was a little bit nervous sitting around that great big table with so many new people; but because I was sitting next to a warm and wonderful Core Member named Becky, I started to feel right at home (at L’Arche, Core Members are people with special needs; they are called Core Members because they are at the very core of the community).
I remember it was about half way through supper when I began to talk more with Becky. I asked her a few questions about herself and how long had she lived at L’Arche. And after getting to know her a bit, I asked the big question: “Becky, what do you like about L’Arche?” That’s when Becky, who has an intellectual disability and was legally blind, turned to my friend Ashley, sitting across from us, and said: “The people. I love the people here, and I love my friend Ashley!”
It is hard for me to capture Ashley’s reaction, but I will try. The best I can say it is that it was like Becky shot an arrow of love directly into Ashley’s heart. Ashley’s face became flooded with color and emotion, and her eyes became wet with joy.
Seeing this made me understand what a special place L’Arche was. I realized then the true meaning of my favorite Taize song: Ubi caritas et amour, ubi caritas Deus ubi es. [Where there is charity and love, God is truly there.] And I will always be grateful for Becky, as it was through her love for my friend Ashley that she showed me that God was truly alive in this humble little community. It also brought the words of Deitrich Bonhoffer to life for me: “The one who has found Jesus on the cross knows how wondrously God hides in this world and how he is just there, closest, where we expect him to be furthest.”
That’s why a couple of years later when I’d finished my theological studies, I thought of how special that dinner was, which helped me make up my mind to apply to L’Arche. Looking back, I truly believe that it is ultimately God who calls us to places like L’Arche. But now I also believe that God uses special people like Becky to deliver the message.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Etty Hillesum quotes
“Sometimes the most important thing in a whole day is the rest we take between two deep breaths, or the turning inwards in prayer for five short minutes.”
“Ultimately, we have just one moral duty: to reclaim large areas of peace in ourselves, more and more peace, and to reflect it towards others. And the more peace there is in us, the more peace there will be in our troubled world.”
“Ultimately, we have just one moral duty: to reclaim large areas of peace in ourselves, more and more peace, and to reflect it towards others. And the more peace there is in us, the more peace there will be in our troubled world.”
When Death Comes
When death comes
like the hungry bear in autumn;
when death comes and takes all the bright coins from his purse
to buy me, and snaps the purse shut;
when death comes
like the measles-pox;
when death comes
like an iceberg between the shoulder blades,
I want to step through the door full of curiosity, wondering:
what is it going to be like, that cottage of darkness?
And therefore I look upon everything
as a brotherhood and a sisterhood,
and I look upon time as no more than an idea,
and I consider eternity as another possibility,
and I think of each life as a flower, as common
as a field daisy, and as singular,
and each name a comfortable music in the mouth
tending as all music does, toward silence,
and each body a lion of courage, and something
precious to the earth.
When it's over, I want to say: all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.
When it is over, I don't want to wonder
if I have made of my life something particular, and real.
I don't want to find myself sighing and frightened,
or full of argument.
I don't want to end up simply having visited this world.
-by Mary Oliver
like the hungry bear in autumn;
when death comes and takes all the bright coins from his purse
to buy me, and snaps the purse shut;
when death comes
like the measles-pox;
when death comes
like an iceberg between the shoulder blades,
I want to step through the door full of curiosity, wondering:
what is it going to be like, that cottage of darkness?
And therefore I look upon everything
as a brotherhood and a sisterhood,
and I look upon time as no more than an idea,
and I consider eternity as another possibility,
and I think of each life as a flower, as common
as a field daisy, and as singular,
and each name a comfortable music in the mouth
tending as all music does, toward silence,
and each body a lion of courage, and something
precious to the earth.
When it's over, I want to say: all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.
When it is over, I don't want to wonder
if I have made of my life something particular, and real.
I don't want to find myself sighing and frightened,
or full of argument.
I don't want to end up simply having visited this world.
-by Mary Oliver
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
'THE SECRET' NOT WORTH SHARING
So what is this book 'The Secret' that everybody's reading? Its the latest new-age/self-help book that promises, "regardless of who who you are or where you are, The Secret can give you whatever you want" just by following the ancient "Law of Attraction." The "Law of Attraction" is simply (and I mean simply), the concept that if you want positive things to happen, you must think positive thoughts. And conversely, negative thoughts create a negative reality. That's The Secret.
So why has mankind sunk to such depths -- war, famine, disease? Why do we suffer? According to the authors, "The problem is people are thinking about what they don't want. It is the 'dont want' epidemic. But this is the generation that will change history because we have the knowledge that will free us of this epidemic." Positive thought is the ancient hidden secret that can transform our health, our relationships, and our world. Want to get rich? Stop fussing with all that hard work and budgeting and start "visualizing cheques in the mail." And yes, these are actual quotes from the book.
Harmless, new-age mumbo jumbo, right?
Not to throw any "negative thoughts" your way, but there is a dark side that deservers serious attention - especially considering 'The Secret' has spent the last 12 weeks on the New York Times bestsellers list and currently occupies the #1 position for books on advice.
From a Christian perspective, the problem begins with the premise that "the Universe emerges from thought. We are creators of our own destiny, and also the universe." If mankind is at the center of our spiritual reality, we must reject the Judeo Christian perspective that puts God first. When The Law of Attraction trumps the Law of Moses, everything is permitted: "The knowledge of The Secret is being given to you, and what you do with it is entirely in your hands. Whatever you choose for you is right [...] There is no blackboard on the sky in which God has written your purpose. Your purpose is what you say it is. Your mission is what you give yourself. Your life will be what you create it as and no one will stand in judgment of it, now or ever."
No judgment to fear. Do whatever you want. Get whatever you want. You decide what is good - The Secret to happiness is yours...
Would you like an apple with that?
So why has mankind sunk to such depths -- war, famine, disease? Why do we suffer? According to the authors, "The problem is people are thinking about what they don't want. It is the 'dont want' epidemic. But this is the generation that will change history because we have the knowledge that will free us of this epidemic." Positive thought is the ancient hidden secret that can transform our health, our relationships, and our world. Want to get rich? Stop fussing with all that hard work and budgeting and start "visualizing cheques in the mail." And yes, these are actual quotes from the book.
Harmless, new-age mumbo jumbo, right?
Not to throw any "negative thoughts" your way, but there is a dark side that deservers serious attention - especially considering 'The Secret' has spent the last 12 weeks on the New York Times bestsellers list and currently occupies the #1 position for books on advice.
From a Christian perspective, the problem begins with the premise that "the Universe emerges from thought. We are creators of our own destiny, and also the universe." If mankind is at the center of our spiritual reality, we must reject the Judeo Christian perspective that puts God first. When The Law of Attraction trumps the Law of Moses, everything is permitted: "The knowledge of The Secret is being given to you, and what you do with it is entirely in your hands. Whatever you choose for you is right [...] There is no blackboard on the sky in which God has written your purpose. Your purpose is what you say it is. Your mission is what you give yourself. Your life will be what you create it as and no one will stand in judgment of it, now or ever."
No judgment to fear. Do whatever you want. Get whatever you want. You decide what is good - The Secret to happiness is yours...
Would you like an apple with that?
‘Screening’ out Downs Syndrome: The New Eugenics
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) is recommending the “screening” of all pregnant women for Downs syndrome, with the specific intention of giving them the option to abort. Previously screening was reserved for women over 35, whose chances of bearing a baby with Downs increases significantly.
Already 90% of babies with Downs are aborted, according to the New York Times. What might that number spike to with the new screening guidelines—98%, 100%? How is this nothing less than a ‘silent eugenics’—one not of totalitarian ideology, but of consumer choice?
Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of SOGC told The National Post, “Yes, it’s going to lead to more termination, but it’s going to be fair to these women who are 24 and say, ‘How come I have to raise a baby with Downs whereas my cousin who is 35 does not have to.”
Lalonde’s imaginary 24yr old is precisely the voice of what Newsweek columnist George F Will (whose own son has Downs) calls ‘entitlement mentality’: “Nothing—nothing—in the professional qualifications of obstetricians and gynecologists gives them the standing to adopt policies that predictably will have, and deem intended to have, the effect of increasing abortions in the service of an especially repulsive manifestation of today’s entitlement mentality—every parent’s ‘right’ to a perfect baby.”
This is what happens when a culture loses sight of the profound fact that having a child is not a ‘right’ bestowed upon us by biotechnology, but a gift from the Creator.
And what, as Margaret Somerville warns, will this ‘entitlement mentality’ do to the traditional values of parenting? “Parental love becomes conditional on the child having certain characteristics, and not having others. This is a fundamental change in the shared morality and values on which society has traditionally rested.”
But that is not the only cataclysmic shift unfolding. The other involves the medical profession itself: it is insidiously ironic that a head of a major medical body—which is supposed to be devoted to saving and healing life—has become an advocate for the extermination of life.
Sadly, none of this will change until we see beyond our limited notions of ‘value.’ Thomas Waugh of the Los Angeles Times recently characterized Downs syndrome by “congenital heart defects and mental retardation.” After spending the last year living at Larche, sharing my life with people with Downs, I have to disagree. It is not the mental retardation and heart conditions that characterize them—it is their indomitable spirit and tenderness of heart. They have a gift we could all benefit from, especially those at the SOGC.
Already 90% of babies with Downs are aborted, according to the New York Times. What might that number spike to with the new screening guidelines—98%, 100%? How is this nothing less than a ‘silent eugenics’—one not of totalitarian ideology, but of consumer choice?
Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of SOGC told The National Post, “Yes, it’s going to lead to more termination, but it’s going to be fair to these women who are 24 and say, ‘How come I have to raise a baby with Downs whereas my cousin who is 35 does not have to.”
Lalonde’s imaginary 24yr old is precisely the voice of what Newsweek columnist George F Will (whose own son has Downs) calls ‘entitlement mentality’: “Nothing—nothing—in the professional qualifications of obstetricians and gynecologists gives them the standing to adopt policies that predictably will have, and deem intended to have, the effect of increasing abortions in the service of an especially repulsive manifestation of today’s entitlement mentality—every parent’s ‘right’ to a perfect baby.”
This is what happens when a culture loses sight of the profound fact that having a child is not a ‘right’ bestowed upon us by biotechnology, but a gift from the Creator.
And what, as Margaret Somerville warns, will this ‘entitlement mentality’ do to the traditional values of parenting? “Parental love becomes conditional on the child having certain characteristics, and not having others. This is a fundamental change in the shared morality and values on which society has traditionally rested.”
But that is not the only cataclysmic shift unfolding. The other involves the medical profession itself: it is insidiously ironic that a head of a major medical body—which is supposed to be devoted to saving and healing life—has become an advocate for the extermination of life.
Sadly, none of this will change until we see beyond our limited notions of ‘value.’ Thomas Waugh of the Los Angeles Times recently characterized Downs syndrome by “congenital heart defects and mental retardation.” After spending the last year living at Larche, sharing my life with people with Downs, I have to disagree. It is not the mental retardation and heart conditions that characterize them—it is their indomitable spirit and tenderness of heart. They have a gift we could all benefit from, especially those at the SOGC.
BENEDICT XVI AND THE ‘SPIRITUAL COLLAPSE OF THE WEST’
In a press conference the morning after the conclave, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago aptly remarked, “In 1978 when John Paul II was elected the primary challenge to the Catholic Church came from the east in the form of Soviet Communism. Today however the most difficult challenge comes from the west. Benedict XVI is a man who comes from the west and who understands the culture and the history of the west.” The challenge to which Cardinal Francis George refers is sometimes called relativism, the fashionably postmodern view that truth is itself a ‘construct’ and the dangerous legacy of the meta-narratives of the enlightenment, narratives founded upon the audacious Judeo-Christian notion that human history is not only profoundly meaningful, but is also going somewhere. Rather than holding onto such claims, postmodern orthodoxy rejects the entire spiritual and intellectual heritage of the west, replacing it with the concept that human identity, experience and culture are simply constructs entirely dependent upon our subjective, linguistic, cultural and historical horizons. In short, the only truth is that Truth (capital T) is untenable: a good postmodernist will only go so far as to politely acknowledge ‘competing truth claims.’ Not exactly fertile soil for the gospel.
Here in Canada we have seen first-hand the near collapse of Catholicism in Quebec, while English speaking Canada appears to be following the footsteps of Europe towards what has been called the ‘spiritual collapse of the west.’ And this problem is compounded by the dynamics of global power and communications; the west now stands poised to disseminate this mentality to the rest of the world.
This summer I had the good fortune of reading ‘God and the World’ (Ignatius Press 2002), Pope Benedict XVI’s book length interview with Peter Seewald, and was heartened to discover that we have a Pope that truly appreciates the gravity of this problem (I would not be surprised if grappling with this challenge will come to one day define his pontificate). Even the name ‘Benedict’ refers to the great St Benedict, the father of western monasticism who built the foundations of a new civilization within a crumbling Roman Empire.
But in order to grasp the problem, a nuance is in order. This is not a descent into a pragmatic atheism that characterized the political ideologies of the 20th century. Benedict sees this not as a ‘religious crisis’ but clearly as a ‘God-crisis’: “The formula today is ‘no to God, yes to religion.’ People want to have some kind of religion, esoteric or whatever it may be. But a personal God, who speaks to me, who know s me personally, who has said something quite specific and who has met me with a specific demand, and who will also judge me—people don’t want him. What we see is religion being separated from God.” Reading this called to mind the countless times in conversation I have heard people characterize themselves with the phrase; “I’m not ‘religious’, but I consider myself spiritual.” For Benedict, this is the result of western philosophical relativism having been ‘baptized’ by eastern religious agnosticism.
What’s the fuss, you ask? The divorce between religion and spirituality has major spiritual and social consequences. The dynamic of spiritual healing involves overcoming our pride and self-deception by submitting to God, which is not what happens when we tailor an image of God to suit our specifications, as Benedict observes, “they have wandered away from God and now only turn to refracted images in which they see reflected only themselves.” We are made in God’s image, not vice-versa. If ideologically driven atheism was the heresy of the 20th century, religion-without-God may in fact be the reigning heresy of our time.
Socially, the consequence of this erosion is that we live in a time where everything appears to be up for grabs, from the definition of marriage to the very status of human life. When the very ground of truth erodes the given-ness of things is called into question, which is why it seems fairly obvious that the reason gay marriage has become such a burning issue is because it hinges upon this matter, that is, Is our social reality to be oriented towards a horizon beyond our own? Is there a divine order, revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition, to which the human order must be attuned?
Ironically, a major obstacle towards realizing that there is a deeper truth is often good intentions. Benedict acknowledges that people who resist the notion of truth in an absolute sense are often motivated by the suspicion that such a position leads to violence, whereas relativism is thought to produce a tolerance and peace. However having lived through the Nazi rule of Germany, Benedict has seen first-hand the danger of anchoring truth in anything less than God alone. Despite the claims that relativism is superior because it produces a type of peace, the truth of the Christian faith actually protects human freedom and dignity by elevating it beyond the whims of popular opinion and the authority of the state. The ultimate foundation of democracy and human rights is guaranteed—not compromised—by the truth of our loving creator.
But even if pluralism does create a type of peace, this is only a negative virtue. It is not enough to adopt a philosophical system because fails to provide us with something to kill for: it must give us something to live for. That something is that Christ is the incarnate meaning of history and the self-manifestation of truth itself. Christians in this post-Christian era must walk a fine line between proclaiming the truth of our faith, while humbly realizing that the truth has too often been co-opted for evil. Perhaps a humble but firm witness to the truth will show others that the truth of our faith is life-giving and redemptive. With plenty of grace, this may be enough for truth with a capital ‘T’ to penetrate the cynical (but well-intentioned) postmodern heart.
Here in Canada we have seen first-hand the near collapse of Catholicism in Quebec, while English speaking Canada appears to be following the footsteps of Europe towards what has been called the ‘spiritual collapse of the west.’ And this problem is compounded by the dynamics of global power and communications; the west now stands poised to disseminate this mentality to the rest of the world.
This summer I had the good fortune of reading ‘God and the World’ (Ignatius Press 2002), Pope Benedict XVI’s book length interview with Peter Seewald, and was heartened to discover that we have a Pope that truly appreciates the gravity of this problem (I would not be surprised if grappling with this challenge will come to one day define his pontificate). Even the name ‘Benedict’ refers to the great St Benedict, the father of western monasticism who built the foundations of a new civilization within a crumbling Roman Empire.
But in order to grasp the problem, a nuance is in order. This is not a descent into a pragmatic atheism that characterized the political ideologies of the 20th century. Benedict sees this not as a ‘religious crisis’ but clearly as a ‘God-crisis’: “The formula today is ‘no to God, yes to religion.’ People want to have some kind of religion, esoteric or whatever it may be. But a personal God, who speaks to me, who know s me personally, who has said something quite specific and who has met me with a specific demand, and who will also judge me—people don’t want him. What we see is religion being separated from God.” Reading this called to mind the countless times in conversation I have heard people characterize themselves with the phrase; “I’m not ‘religious’, but I consider myself spiritual.” For Benedict, this is the result of western philosophical relativism having been ‘baptized’ by eastern religious agnosticism.
What’s the fuss, you ask? The divorce between religion and spirituality has major spiritual and social consequences. The dynamic of spiritual healing involves overcoming our pride and self-deception by submitting to God, which is not what happens when we tailor an image of God to suit our specifications, as Benedict observes, “they have wandered away from God and now only turn to refracted images in which they see reflected only themselves.” We are made in God’s image, not vice-versa. If ideologically driven atheism was the heresy of the 20th century, religion-without-God may in fact be the reigning heresy of our time.
Socially, the consequence of this erosion is that we live in a time where everything appears to be up for grabs, from the definition of marriage to the very status of human life. When the very ground of truth erodes the given-ness of things is called into question, which is why it seems fairly obvious that the reason gay marriage has become such a burning issue is because it hinges upon this matter, that is, Is our social reality to be oriented towards a horizon beyond our own? Is there a divine order, revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition, to which the human order must be attuned?
Ironically, a major obstacle towards realizing that there is a deeper truth is often good intentions. Benedict acknowledges that people who resist the notion of truth in an absolute sense are often motivated by the suspicion that such a position leads to violence, whereas relativism is thought to produce a tolerance and peace. However having lived through the Nazi rule of Germany, Benedict has seen first-hand the danger of anchoring truth in anything less than God alone. Despite the claims that relativism is superior because it produces a type of peace, the truth of the Christian faith actually protects human freedom and dignity by elevating it beyond the whims of popular opinion and the authority of the state. The ultimate foundation of democracy and human rights is guaranteed—not compromised—by the truth of our loving creator.
But even if pluralism does create a type of peace, this is only a negative virtue. It is not enough to adopt a philosophical system because fails to provide us with something to kill for: it must give us something to live for. That something is that Christ is the incarnate meaning of history and the self-manifestation of truth itself. Christians in this post-Christian era must walk a fine line between proclaiming the truth of our faith, while humbly realizing that the truth has too often been co-opted for evil. Perhaps a humble but firm witness to the truth will show others that the truth of our faith is life-giving and redemptive. With plenty of grace, this may be enough for truth with a capital ‘T’ to penetrate the cynical (but well-intentioned) postmodern heart.
VT Massacre: Evil as Existential Sickness
The Virginia Tech Massacre: Evil as Existential Sickness
by Stephen Morris M.Div
I. ON THE ESSENCE OF EVIL
The more incomprehensible the killing, the closer it is to the essence of evil.
Manslaughter for instance is the most benign type of killing because we understand it as accidental, "I didn't mean to kill him—he was drunk and driving on the wrong side of the road and I couldn't avoid him…" We think OK, tragic but definitely not evil.
And if killing occurs in self-defense we might say to ourselves, "She didn't want to kill him, but the rapist had a knife at her throat." This we can understand. Evil? Not likely.
In crimes of passion we at least comprehend to some degree, "Well I understand how things got out of hand when he caught his wife in bed with another man…" But though we may understand, we are moving closer to pure evil because here murder could have clearly been avoided.
Even suicide bombers in crowded Baghdad markets are understood through the murky prism of religious fundamentalism (though what is incomprehensible about this evil is how religion could be twisted into justifying the mass murder of innocents).
But I want to suggest that the Virginia Tech killings shook us so deeply because they touch the very core of evil, utterly devoid of a framework for comprehension. Seung-Hui Cho had no motive. He didn't know his victims. He had no politics or ideology. Not even a 'religion.' The motive stated in the 'Multimedia Manifesto' is vapid, a red herring. A German or Engineering classroom is hardly a bastion of debauchery, wealth or 'deceitful charlatanism'. There isn't the feeblest thread of logic connecting the victims to the so-called crime.
There's just no explanation.
And yet the Virginia Tech massacre was obviously excruciatingly methodical. This wasn't a spontaneous 'boiling over' of homicidal impulses.
So why did this massacre touch on the core of evil?
Because in its essence, evil stands in stark opposition to God's loving, creative activity. Incomprehension is its hallmark because evil defies logic; evil is inherently illogical because it makes no sense to destroy what is good, and creation is good. But ironically, that is precisely what gives evil its logic, its cohesion. And that is the inner connection between all such unspeakable acts.
The VT massacre was perfectly evil because it was a perfectly orchestrated destruction of innocents. It was a raw affront to the value and goodness of creation, and for no other purpose.
II. NON-BEING AND RESENTMENT
It is tempting to argue that not evil, but mental illness is the key to unlocking the Virginia Tech massacre. Mental illness of course problematizes culpability and therefore the notion of evil; Yet of the many, many insane people in this world, why are so few drawn to unspeakable acts of violence? Is that just the nature of insanity?
Allow me to suggest that we temper this discussion with a closer look at the facts, because I believe we can discern the logic of the illogical at work, a demonic logic at best.
Let's start with a profile of the killer, Seung-Hui Cho. Relatives say that his behavior in early life was marked by non-responsiveness; they thought he might even be autistic (a diagnosis which received no medical validation). He was extremely quiet, did not respond to greetings and declined affection. When he fought with his older sister, relatives were shocked by the fury of his violence. Cho was also said to have an unusual voice, which caused him to shy away from speaking.
Not surprisingly, the overall developmental arc of Seung-Hui Cho is one of deepening withdrawal. The Washington Post described him as, “angry, menacing, disturbed and so depressed that he seemed near tears. He often spoke in a whisper, if at all, refused to open up to teachers and classmates, and kept himself locked behind a facade of a hat, sunglasses and silence." On the first day of his British Literature class he identified himself as "?" on the sign-up sheet. He became known as "The Question Mark Kid" (he would also use the “?” for his name on his Facebook account). Cho's roommate told reporters: "I didn't know how to pronounce his name until I heard it on TV because he never told us his name."
When Prof Lucinda Roy noticed that other students were failing to attend her class because they were afraid of Cho, she made a bold decision to pull him out and give him a private course. She spent hours with him alone, trying to coax him out of his shell by working on poems together. One of her insights about his inner state was astonishing; ``I tried to keep him focused on things that were outside the self a little bit because he seemed to be running inside circles in a maze when he was talking about himself.'' Prof Roy also stated: “I really felt very strongly that he was suicidal, that he was so depressed that he had a negativity about him, like it was like talking to a hole sometimes, that the person wasn't really there.”
Emerging is a portrait of a young man at the threshold of non-being. A question mark lost within an internal labyrinth.
But let's be careful to qualify this state. We are not talking about the enlightened non-being we find in Buddhism, a withdrawal from the realm of ego and desire into pure bliss. This is the polar opposite; Cho's non-being was tortured, fueled by resentment towards life and towards being itself.
This is what gave Cho's state of non-being its hateful character. In class he started taking pictures of female students under their desks, and read very violent writings to the group, prompting some students to stay away from the classroom. Prof Nikki Giovanni remarked; ``I know that there's a tendency to think that everybody can get counseling or can have a bowl of tomato soup and everything is going to be all right, but I think that evil exists, and I think that he was a mean person.''
Garrett Evans confirms Giovanni's insight. Evans was a student wounded in the classroom where the greatest loss of life took place, and told CNN: "He walked to the door real fast, didn't say anything. All he did was bang, bang, shot a girl here, shot a girl there. An evil spirit was going through that boy, that shooter. I know it."
As Cho's non-being was driven not by choice but by resentment, it ultimately did not accept its own status. It refused to go quietly into that night, literally raging against being itself with unmitigated violence, which is why he addresses his 'multimedia manifesto' to an ambiguous YOU: "YOU had a million chances and ways to have avoided today, but you decided to spill my blood. YOU forced me into a corner and only gave me one option. The decision was YOURS. Now YOU have blood on your hands that will never wash off […] YOU have vandalized by heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience…"
'You' is the undifferentiated other, no one and everyone. In other words, being itself. From the perspective of non-being, being is the archenemy because its very existence affirms its non-being. And sadly, reaching out to someone in this condition can backfire; Lucinda Roy's private course may have only fed Cho's resentment by affirming his status as someone beyond the realm.
III REBIRTH THOUGH VIOLENCE
Up to now we have focused on the destructive dimensions of the massacre, but now let us turn to the superficially 'creative' element. Allow me to suggest that Cho's motive was not only to
wage war on being, but to enter the realm of being in the most insidious way.
We cannot underestimate the significance of the of his 'Multimedia Manifesto'--so intrinsic to this homicidal act that Cho literally stops killing in order to post his parcel before resuming the murders. This parcel contained 27 QuickTIme video files of him reading text to the camera, 43 photos of him brandishing weapons in menacing poses, and thousands of words of text, much of which has not been published by NBC.
This is vital to understanding the events of that day because if Cho is suffering from the existential sickness of non-being, the Multimedia Manifesto functions as a deranged antidote to his problem. It is in this package that Cho attempts to trade his old identity of isolated loner for a new one. Overnight this voiceless misfit has gained the world's attention--the Question Mark Kid is now a household name.
And with the world watching Cho gives the performance of a lifetime, nailing the role of persecuted martyr who was tragically forced into becoming the exterminating angel - a part he claims he had to play with the greatest reluctance.
But as Dr. Michael Wellner remarked (Wellner reviewed the original materials Cho mailed to NBC), "These videos do not help us understand him. They distort him. He was meek. He was quiet. This is a PR tape of him trying to turn himself into a Quentin Tarantino character." Cho's attempted rebirth was of course a lie, a slick marketing campaign. But it was what it was; a desperate and pathetic attempt at being from the ultimate state of non-being—from beyond the grave.
IV JESUS IN REVERSE
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Manifesto was the degree to which Cho identifies with Jesus; “…You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people. […] Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon on a cross? And left to bleed to death for your amusement?”
Just as evil is a mockery of good (i.e. the Black Mass as a parody of the Mass), Cho turns the story of Jesus inside-out. The basic movement of Jesus' death and resurrection is the story of
one who surrenders himself in self-giving love and is raised to eternal life by God the Father. Cho's story is of one who kills in hatred, only to be raised from death as a ghostly image flickering across TV screens the world over.
And instead of inspiring disciples to spread the message of love, Cho believes his act will ''inspire generations of weak and defenseless people'. We can only surmise what he means my this, but it is not hard to imagine copycat killers taking up the call to arms.
V. GOOD IN CONTEMPLATING EVIL?
Unfortunately understanding evil provides little comfort, nor does it explain why God allows its existence. So we may be asking, what benefit can we possibly draw from these insights into the sad, tormented life of Seung-Hui Cho?
Perhaps only that Cho is an exemplary counter-model to what Jesus promises when he says; “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (Jn 10:10) If this abundance is the fruit of love, mutuality and forgiveness, in Cho we have seen how evil can deprive us of this as hatred and resentment took him into the realm of non-being, culminating in his act of radical destruction.
And finally, if we truly contemplate our instinctive repulsion to evil—how our sensibilities recoil in horror at its senselessness—it should affirm the profound truth that life is utterly precious and good. And though that revelation may arrive shrouded in darkness, we might still be surprised to find ourselves trembling before God’s mysterious presence.
by Stephen Morris M.Div
I. ON THE ESSENCE OF EVIL
The more incomprehensible the killing, the closer it is to the essence of evil.
Manslaughter for instance is the most benign type of killing because we understand it as accidental, "I didn't mean to kill him—he was drunk and driving on the wrong side of the road and I couldn't avoid him…" We think OK, tragic but definitely not evil.
And if killing occurs in self-defense we might say to ourselves, "She didn't want to kill him, but the rapist had a knife at her throat." This we can understand. Evil? Not likely.
In crimes of passion we at least comprehend to some degree, "Well I understand how things got out of hand when he caught his wife in bed with another man…" But though we may understand, we are moving closer to pure evil because here murder could have clearly been avoided.
Even suicide bombers in crowded Baghdad markets are understood through the murky prism of religious fundamentalism (though what is incomprehensible about this evil is how religion could be twisted into justifying the mass murder of innocents).
But I want to suggest that the Virginia Tech killings shook us so deeply because they touch the very core of evil, utterly devoid of a framework for comprehension. Seung-Hui Cho had no motive. He didn't know his victims. He had no politics or ideology. Not even a 'religion.' The motive stated in the 'Multimedia Manifesto' is vapid, a red herring. A German or Engineering classroom is hardly a bastion of debauchery, wealth or 'deceitful charlatanism'. There isn't the feeblest thread of logic connecting the victims to the so-called crime.
There's just no explanation.
And yet the Virginia Tech massacre was obviously excruciatingly methodical. This wasn't a spontaneous 'boiling over' of homicidal impulses.
So why did this massacre touch on the core of evil?
Because in its essence, evil stands in stark opposition to God's loving, creative activity. Incomprehension is its hallmark because evil defies logic; evil is inherently illogical because it makes no sense to destroy what is good, and creation is good. But ironically, that is precisely what gives evil its logic, its cohesion. And that is the inner connection between all such unspeakable acts.
The VT massacre was perfectly evil because it was a perfectly orchestrated destruction of innocents. It was a raw affront to the value and goodness of creation, and for no other purpose.
II. NON-BEING AND RESENTMENT
It is tempting to argue that not evil, but mental illness is the key to unlocking the Virginia Tech massacre. Mental illness of course problematizes culpability and therefore the notion of evil; Yet of the many, many insane people in this world, why are so few drawn to unspeakable acts of violence? Is that just the nature of insanity?
Allow me to suggest that we temper this discussion with a closer look at the facts, because I believe we can discern the logic of the illogical at work, a demonic logic at best.
Let's start with a profile of the killer, Seung-Hui Cho. Relatives say that his behavior in early life was marked by non-responsiveness; they thought he might even be autistic (a diagnosis which received no medical validation). He was extremely quiet, did not respond to greetings and declined affection. When he fought with his older sister, relatives were shocked by the fury of his violence. Cho was also said to have an unusual voice, which caused him to shy away from speaking.
Not surprisingly, the overall developmental arc of Seung-Hui Cho is one of deepening withdrawal. The Washington Post described him as, “angry, menacing, disturbed and so depressed that he seemed near tears. He often spoke in a whisper, if at all, refused to open up to teachers and classmates, and kept himself locked behind a facade of a hat, sunglasses and silence." On the first day of his British Literature class he identified himself as "?" on the sign-up sheet. He became known as "The Question Mark Kid" (he would also use the “?” for his name on his Facebook account). Cho's roommate told reporters: "I didn't know how to pronounce his name until I heard it on TV because he never told us his name."
When Prof Lucinda Roy noticed that other students were failing to attend her class because they were afraid of Cho, she made a bold decision to pull him out and give him a private course. She spent hours with him alone, trying to coax him out of his shell by working on poems together. One of her insights about his inner state was astonishing; ``I tried to keep him focused on things that were outside the self a little bit because he seemed to be running inside circles in a maze when he was talking about himself.'' Prof Roy also stated: “I really felt very strongly that he was suicidal, that he was so depressed that he had a negativity about him, like it was like talking to a hole sometimes, that the person wasn't really there.”
Emerging is a portrait of a young man at the threshold of non-being. A question mark lost within an internal labyrinth.
But let's be careful to qualify this state. We are not talking about the enlightened non-being we find in Buddhism, a withdrawal from the realm of ego and desire into pure bliss. This is the polar opposite; Cho's non-being was tortured, fueled by resentment towards life and towards being itself.
This is what gave Cho's state of non-being its hateful character. In class he started taking pictures of female students under their desks, and read very violent writings to the group, prompting some students to stay away from the classroom. Prof Nikki Giovanni remarked; ``I know that there's a tendency to think that everybody can get counseling or can have a bowl of tomato soup and everything is going to be all right, but I think that evil exists, and I think that he was a mean person.''
Garrett Evans confirms Giovanni's insight. Evans was a student wounded in the classroom where the greatest loss of life took place, and told CNN: "He walked to the door real fast, didn't say anything. All he did was bang, bang, shot a girl here, shot a girl there. An evil spirit was going through that boy, that shooter. I know it."
As Cho's non-being was driven not by choice but by resentment, it ultimately did not accept its own status. It refused to go quietly into that night, literally raging against being itself with unmitigated violence, which is why he addresses his 'multimedia manifesto' to an ambiguous YOU: "YOU had a million chances and ways to have avoided today, but you decided to spill my blood. YOU forced me into a corner and only gave me one option. The decision was YOURS. Now YOU have blood on your hands that will never wash off […] YOU have vandalized by heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience…"
'You' is the undifferentiated other, no one and everyone. In other words, being itself. From the perspective of non-being, being is the archenemy because its very existence affirms its non-being. And sadly, reaching out to someone in this condition can backfire; Lucinda Roy's private course may have only fed Cho's resentment by affirming his status as someone beyond the realm.
III REBIRTH THOUGH VIOLENCE
Up to now we have focused on the destructive dimensions of the massacre, but now let us turn to the superficially 'creative' element. Allow me to suggest that Cho's motive was not only to
wage war on being, but to enter the realm of being in the most insidious way.
We cannot underestimate the significance of the of his 'Multimedia Manifesto'--so intrinsic to this homicidal act that Cho literally stops killing in order to post his parcel before resuming the murders. This parcel contained 27 QuickTIme video files of him reading text to the camera, 43 photos of him brandishing weapons in menacing poses, and thousands of words of text, much of which has not been published by NBC.
This is vital to understanding the events of that day because if Cho is suffering from the existential sickness of non-being, the Multimedia Manifesto functions as a deranged antidote to his problem. It is in this package that Cho attempts to trade his old identity of isolated loner for a new one. Overnight this voiceless misfit has gained the world's attention--the Question Mark Kid is now a household name.
And with the world watching Cho gives the performance of a lifetime, nailing the role of persecuted martyr who was tragically forced into becoming the exterminating angel - a part he claims he had to play with the greatest reluctance.
But as Dr. Michael Wellner remarked (Wellner reviewed the original materials Cho mailed to NBC), "These videos do not help us understand him. They distort him. He was meek. He was quiet. This is a PR tape of him trying to turn himself into a Quentin Tarantino character." Cho's attempted rebirth was of course a lie, a slick marketing campaign. But it was what it was; a desperate and pathetic attempt at being from the ultimate state of non-being—from beyond the grave.
IV JESUS IN REVERSE
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Manifesto was the degree to which Cho identifies with Jesus; “…You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people. […] Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon on a cross? And left to bleed to death for your amusement?”
Just as evil is a mockery of good (i.e. the Black Mass as a parody of the Mass), Cho turns the story of Jesus inside-out. The basic movement of Jesus' death and resurrection is the story of
one who surrenders himself in self-giving love and is raised to eternal life by God the Father. Cho's story is of one who kills in hatred, only to be raised from death as a ghostly image flickering across TV screens the world over.
And instead of inspiring disciples to spread the message of love, Cho believes his act will ''inspire generations of weak and defenseless people'. We can only surmise what he means my this, but it is not hard to imagine copycat killers taking up the call to arms.
V. GOOD IN CONTEMPLATING EVIL?
Unfortunately understanding evil provides little comfort, nor does it explain why God allows its existence. So we may be asking, what benefit can we possibly draw from these insights into the sad, tormented life of Seung-Hui Cho?
Perhaps only that Cho is an exemplary counter-model to what Jesus promises when he says; “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (Jn 10:10) If this abundance is the fruit of love, mutuality and forgiveness, in Cho we have seen how evil can deprive us of this as hatred and resentment took him into the realm of non-being, culminating in his act of radical destruction.
And finally, if we truly contemplate our instinctive repulsion to evil—how our sensibilities recoil in horror at its senselessness—it should affirm the profound truth that life is utterly precious and good. And though that revelation may arrive shrouded in darkness, we might still be surprised to find ourselves trembling before God’s mysterious presence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)