Matt and Gina: observations on the Zeitgeist

I suspect that the Sun newspaper's video of Matt Hancock, now the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in an intimate clinch with a female aide will turn out to be a classic of its genre.

But it does raise a three interesting questions, not specific to the case of Mr Hancock and Ms Coladangelo, but with respect to a range of surrounding assumptions, what one might term "the zeitgiest".

Is consent on the part of the man and woman a sufficient condition to make an otherwise morally unjust action morally just? If we were to remove the element of consent on the part of Ms Coladangelo to the action shown in the Sun's video clip (Mr Hancock is shown squeezing her bottom), the video would provide an example of precisely the wrong behaviour of a man in a position of relative power towards a woman in the workplace that has been raised by #Me Too. News reporting suggests that both Mr Hancock and Ms Coladangelo were being unfaithful to their respective spouses, and the consenting nature of their office clinch does not remove the injustice towards spouses that this involves. Even if one sets this consideration aside, there remains a question as to whether or not that squeezing of the bottom in an office clinch represents a respectful behaviour of a man towards a woman, and whether the woman's consent is sufficient to overcome that lack of respectfulness.  (I don't intend this as a criticism of Mr Hancock as an individual, but as a more general observation about male/female behaviours.) 

The question is of a much wider significance, as much of the contemporary discussion about the safety of women in society, both in social life and in the workplace, focusses on educating men about the nature of consent. But if consent is not a sufficient criterion (though it will be a necessary criterion along with others) for the morality of the actions involved, a focus on consent is not going to resolve the question of the safety and wellbeing of women. We do, perhaps, need to have a conversation about what constitute the boundaries of right and wrong behaviours independently of, and in addition to, the question of consent.

Should we be indifferent to marriage in our public life? Mr Hancock's resignation has with, some emphasis, been connected to his breach of social distancing rules that he himself was responsible for drawing up. In Mr Hancock's own words:

I understand the enormous sacrifices that everybody in this country has made, that you have made, and those of us who make these rules have got to stick by them and that's why I have got to resign.

Reporting, following Mr Hancock's colleagues, have distinguished this reason for resignation from matters of his personal life. The public conversation appears to have a certain style of indifference to the lack of faithfulness to spouses and families shown by Mr Hancock and Ms Coladangelo; tabloid comment refers to Mr Hancock"cheating on his wife" and Ms Coladangelo as a "cheating aide", but more serious comment is keeping a discreet silence about this. Certainly it would be wrong for public conversation to consist of a witch hunt in the media or hounding on social media; charity is required in this context as in any other, and Mr Hancock and Ms Coladangelo just happen to represent far more publicly than is typical the circumstances of many others. A certain silence about the specific case might well be the manner in which charity is shown. 

But the BBC are carrying this morning what might be considered a piece of lazy reporting, reflecting I think reporting from the Sun, but which nevertheless is indicative:

Mr Hancock has ended his 15-year marriage to his wife, Martha, and the relationship with Ms Coladangelo is understood to be a serious one.

It would appear that Mr Hancock has left his wife with an immediate effect, announcing his departure abruptly as the Sun broke the story of his office encounter with Ms Coladangelo (according to the Sun, at least); but even in civil law, leaving aside any particular belief that one might have about the permanence of marriage vows, a marriage has not ended until a divorce has been granted.

Whilst one would not want to launch witch hunts in any individual cases, is it really healthy for society that the wider public conversation in the case of Mr Hancock and Ms Coladangelo should remain  indifferent to the the place of marriage in the life of society? Should not the good of marriage, and expectations around that good, be at least a part of the public conversation? 

How should we correctly understand the significance of private life for public life? There are certainly dangers to freedoms when matters of personal life are seen as necessary conditions for participation in public life. But does this mean that how people conduct themselves in their private lives is completely without significance for their public lives? A personal characteristic such as integrity is one that can be common to both a person's private and public life, for example; likewise a characteristic such as honesty.  The commonality of such characteristics to both private and public life does mean that I think we should be able to expect more from those who play a larger part in public life than might be the case of those who play a smaller part (recognising that we all risk failing to live up to expectations, those with a large public profile as much as those without). 

At the very least, I think we should recognise that private life has some significance for public life, and that this is true for all of us, even if our part in public life is relatively small. It might be of greater significance for those who have a large public profile.

Film Review: The Father

 It is now well over a year since Zero and I last visited the cinema, but this afternoon we went to see the film The Father. 

The film has its origins in a stage play, Le Pere, by playwight Florian Zeller. It was co-written by Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton (who previously had translated the stage play in to English), and directed by Florian Zeller.

A first observation to be made is that, perhaps unsurprisingly considering its roots, and the fact that the director is the author of the original stage play, the film does look like a film that has been made from a play script (though it would be wrong to suggest in any way that it is a filmed performance of the stage play). An early scene with just Olivia Colman and Anthony Hopkins really did have the feel of two actors on a stage set, with Anthony Hopkins on stage as the curtain went up and Olivia Colman entering from stage right.  An aspect of this, too, is a very strong accentuation of themes, that comes close to but just falls back from exaggeration. Watching a stage play in a theatre would make this rather less noticeable, and would indeed be part of an effective use of the art form; but on film it can be a bit disconcerting. In this respect, if I were looking for a film that communicates a more natural experience of dementia, I would probably choose Still Alice, which was in cinemas in 2015.

The reflection of the play script in the film does, however, have a strength in an underlying intention on the part of the writer/producer to portray the confusion experienced by Anthony Hopkins character in such a way that the audience themselves also experience that confusion. As you watch the film you become increasingly unsure of what is reality and what is the product of Anthony's confused imagination. I came out of the cinema, for example, quite unsure as to whether or not Olivia Colman's daughter figure had actually gone to live in Paris leaving Anthony in a nursing home. Even the time sequence of scenes becomes confusing, with uncertainty as to whether you are later in the same day or at the end of the previous day. The film is certainly successful in getting the viewer to share in Anthony's confusion, with perhaps only the closing scene relieving that confusion; the effectiveness of the stage play in this regard must be quite stunning. There is also a more subtle aspect that might be discernable at a second viewing, and that is the extent to which the film at some points places the viewer essentially in the point of view of Anthony and in others in the point of view of Olivia Colman's  daughter figure. Where another film might make such a transition explicit by way of some technical device such as a blurred transition, The Father does not, so you never quite know for sure when you are in the daughter's point of view.

There seem to be one or two suggestions of features that might be typical of memory loss - Anthony's preference for chicken, which Olivia Colman's character cooks for him; Anthony's wanting another daughter to visit who we learn part way through the film had been in an accident and presumably died (though the film does not make that explicit); and Anthony's obsession with his watch. But, on the whole, I did not feel that the film communicated a genuine understanding of the nature of dementia; and Zero suggested that the nurse in the closing scene did not really show the kind of skills that specialist nurses caring for dementia patients might show. As I suggest above, I think that Still Alice would be a better film to go to if you want to understand something of the nature of dementia.

A theme that is clearly portrayed in The Father is the impact that caring for an elderly relative with memory loss/confusion has on the carers' relationship with a "significant other" (in the film, it is not absolutely clear if they are married or not) who is not a blood relative. The tensions between them are perhaps deliberately accentuated in the film, but the challenge is a real one.

Anthony Hopkins portrayal of his character is absolutely gripping, and his Oscar very well deserved. There are several shots where the cinematography places Anthony Hopkins in one half of the screen, perhaps the left hand side; and you eventually realise that your regard has been drawn totally to his portrayal in that part of the screen and you have to make a conscious effort if you want to even notice the right hand side of the screen shot. His acting of his role really is outstanding. Perhaps I undervalued Olivia Colman's portrayal of her part, in the way in which she shows her character's reaction to Anthony's difficult behaviours. Perhaps a second viewing of the film would allow me to appreciate it more; but it does face the challenge of wondering, in the intention of the film maker, how far her character is being portrayed from the point of view of Anthony or from her own point of view.

Another aspect of the cinematography is of interest. Most of the film shots are filmed with a static camera, and it feels as if that is the case as you watch those shots. The setting in a flat lends itself to this... with a room, or a view through a door from one room into another, providing a natural kind of frame for such a "fixed" shot. Such fixed shots of a scene without the presence of the characters also lends itself to the similarity of portrayal of Anthony's own flat in early scenes, of his daughter's flat in the middle section of the film and, with a noticeable change of decor, of the nursing home at the end of the film. It will take me a second viewing of the film in order to appreciate exactly what the film maker is trying to achieve with these shots. [Listen to Florian Zeller's account of this, and Anthony Hopkins' remarks about how the set is another actor in the film, in the interview linked below, which I listened to only after writing this comment.]

Whilst there are moving moments in the film, I am not sure that I would describe the film as a whole by the term "moving". The accentuation of its style, referred to above, and its intention to embroil you in Anthony's own confusion, gives the film an overriding sense of drama rather than of being moving. 

There is an interesting conversation with Florian Zeller, Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman about the film: The Father: Conversation with Olivia Colman and Anthony Hopkins.

Ideology, the family and the human person

There is a very good account of what is meant by the term "ideology" in Don Luigi Giussani's book The Religious Sense (pp. 128-129 in my edition), a book which is a key text for the movement Communion and Liberation:

Ideology is a theoretical-practical construct developed from a preconception. 

More precisely it is a theoretical-practical construction based on an aspect of reality, a true aspect, but taken up in such a way that it becomes unilaterally and tendentiously made into an absolute; and this comes about through a philosophy or a political project.

Ideology is built up on some starting point offered by our experience; this, experience itself is taken up as a pretext for an operation that is determined by extraneous or exorbitant preoccupations.

Pope Francis (who will be very familiar with Don Giussani's account of ideology - he presented the Spanish edition of The Religious Sense in Argentina before his election as Pope) has spoken more than once of "ideological colonisation". He adds to the understanding of "ideology" an understanding of the term "colonisation", which extends that concept beyond its geographical/political presentation, generally in the past, to an ideological presentation today, in the 20th and 21st centuries. Though he refers to ideological colonisation largely in the context of the family, his understanding of ideological colonisation includes the propaganda activities of the 20th century dictatorships, that is, colonisation by any ideology.

Speaking to a meeting of families (a video report is here) during his visit to Sri Lanka and the Phillipines in 2015, Pope Francis spoke of the "ideological colonisation of the family":

Let us be on guard against colonization by new ideologies. There are forms of ideological colonization which are out to destroy the family. They are not born of dreams, of prayers, of closeness to God or the mission which God gave us; they come from without, and for that reason I am saying that they are forms of colonization. Let’s not lose the freedom of the mission which God has given us, the mission of the family. Just as our peoples, at a certain moment of their history, were mature enough to say “no” to all forms of political colonization, so too in our families we need to be very wise, very shrewd, very strong, in order to say “no” to all attempts at an ideological colonization of our families. We need to ask Saint Joseph, the friend of the angel, to send us the inspiration to know when we can say “yes” and when we have to say “no”.

In the press conference on his way back to Rome, Pope Francis was asked to say more about this, and, in part, answered as follows, a response which clearly indicates that he considers gender theory as an "ideological colonisation of the family":

Ideological colonization. I’ll give just one example that I saw myself. Twenty years ago, in 1995, a minister of education asked for a large loan to build schools for the poor. They gave it to her on the condition that in the schools there would be a book for the children of a certain grade level. It was a school book, a well-thought-out book, didactically speaking, in which gender theory was taught. This woman needed the money but that was the condition. Clever woman, she said yes and made another book as well and gave both of them. And that’s how it happened. This is ideological colonization. They introduce an idea to the people that has nothing to do with the people. With groups of people yes, but not with the people. And they colonize the people with an idea which changes, or means to change, a mentality or a structure.

The promotion of gender theory, and of LGBT culture, to the whole of society is an example of an ideology - the move from respecting an aspect of life in society to making that aspect an absolute for the whole of life in society. 

And is there not a possible new manifestation of an ideology in the conversation about climate change, where some are now referring to the effect of "humans" on the planet, rather than the effect of "people", as if the human race were just one species absolutely equivalent to other species?

The greengrocer's slogan - updated for 2021

 Some five years ago I posted on St Charles Lwanga and companions, on the occasion of their feast day (3rd June): St Charles Lwanga and Companions: an opportunity to comment on recent events.That post included an explanation by Rocco Buttiglione of events which occurred when he was nominated as a commissioner for the European Union.

When we compare the experience of St Charles Lwanga and his companions to that of Rocco Buttiglione, what occurred for the former as a physical persecution has been replaced now by a discrimination at the level of culture. At root, what is at issue is the same - Catholic teaching on homosexuality, explained very clearly by Rocco Buttiglione in my earlier post. But the challenge experienced by Catholics now is in resisting a cultural imposition of an opposite teaching rather than in facing a direct threat to life. The timing of St Charles' feast is surprisingly pertinent, with the annual display of LGBT flags and banners that is currently under way just about everywhere. 

I am reminded of a passage from Vaclav Havel's famous essay The Power of the Powerless, in which the author reflects on the role of ideology in a post-totalitarian society such as that existing in Czechoslovakia (as it then was) during the Communist era. The passage begins at the bottom of page 5 of this post of the essay, and forms section III of the essay. Reading the whole of this section, but with "Pride" flags in mind rather than "Workers of the world unite!" slogans, prompts the thought as to how far Vaclav Havel's essay can be applied to the very different time and context that prevails now. Think about it, especially when you visit your supermarket during this month.

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moments thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? 

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Do follow the link to read the rest of Vaclav Havel's analysis. 

Pope Francis' prayer intention for the month of June: "The beauty of marriage"

Vatican News reports that Pope Francis has chosen, as his prayer intention for the month of June, "the beauty of marriage", inviting us to pray for those who are preparing for marriage with the support of a Christian community.

The Holy Father's video message to accompany this intention can be watched on Youtube: June: The Beauty of Marriage. Each and every image in this video shows a relationship between a man and a woman, reflecting Catholic teaching that marriage is a lifelong and exclusive commitment of one man and one woman for the birth and education of children. The different cultural backgrounds reflected in these images remind us that marriage has a universal character; and there are one or two lovely images of couples who have been married for some time.

The Pope's Worldwide Prayer Network have also produced a useful infographic.

Pentecost with Pope Francis

On the eve of Pentecost, Pope Francis took part, by way of a video message, in an international vigil, hosted in Jerusalem but with participation from around the world. A full video of the vigil can be found on Youtube: Pentecost Ecumenical Vigil 2021. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, offers a reflection at 1:10:54; the message of Pope Francis occurs at 1:32:21.

The vigil was ecumenical in nature, organised by CHARIS, the body recognised by the Holy See which offers a service of communion to the different expressions of the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church (see here for an earlier post which refers to CHARIS). Pope Francis thanked them for having listened to him and realising in this vigil the mission he entrusted to them of working for Christian unity.

If you watch the full video, you will find reflected in it many of the different aspects of the Charismatic movement described in my recent posts for the novena of Pentecost. It may be worth dipping in and out rather than trying to watch it all in one go. A section I have just dipped in to recognises, for example, the activity of the Holy Spirit at the beginning of  non-Catholic Pentecostal churches.

I copy below two sections of Pope Francis' homily at Mass for the Solemnity of Pentecost. As I usually say when posting a section of a homily or speech, please do follow the link and read the whole. My choice of sections to quote is partly driven by the way in which they have been misrepresented in at least one online outlet:

The Paraclete is the Comforter. All of us, particularly at times of difficulty like those we are presently experiencing due to the pandemic, look for consolation. Often, though, we turn only to earthly comforts, ephemeral comforts that quickly fade. Today, Jesus offers us heavenly comfort, the Holy Spirit, who is “of comforters the best” (Sequence). What is the difference? The comforts of the world are like a pain reliever: they can give momentary relief, but not cure the illness we carry deep within. They can soothe us, but not heal us at the core. They work on the surface, on the level of the senses, but hardly touch our hearts. Only someone who makes us feel loved for who we are can give peace to our hearts. The Holy Spirit, the love of God, does precisely that. He comes down within us; as the Spirit, he acts in our spirit. He comes down “within the heart”, as “the soul’s most welcome guest” (ibid). He is the very love of God, who does not abandon us; for being present to those who are alone is itself a source of comfort.

Dear sister, dear brother, if you feel the darkness of solitude, if you feel that an obstacle within you blocks the way to hope, if your heart has a festering wound, if you can see no way out, then open your heart to the Holy Spirit. Saint Bonaventure tells us that, “where the trials are greater, he brings greater comfort, not like the world, which comforts and flatters us when things go well, but derides and condemns us when they do not” (Homily in the Octave of the Ascension). That is what the world does, that is especially what the hostile spirit, the devil, does. First, he flatters us and makes us feel invincible (for the blandishments of the devil feed our vanity); then he flings us down and makes us feel that we are failures. He toys with us. He does everything to cast us down, whereas the Spirit of the risen Lord wants to raise us up. Look at the apostles: they were alone that morning, alone and bewildered, cowering behind closed doors, living in fear and overwhelmed by their weaknesses, failings and their sins, for they had denied Christ. The years they had spent with Jesus had not changed them: they were no different than they had been. Then, they received the Spirit and everything changed: the problems and failings remained, yet they were no longer afraid of them, nor of any who would be hostile to them. They sensed comfort within and they wanted to overflow with the comfort of God. Before, they were fearful; now their only fear was that of not testifying to the love they had received. Jesus had foretold this: “[The Spirit] will testify on my behalf; you also are to testify” (Jn 15:26-27).

Let us go another step. We too are called to testify in the Holy Spirit, to become paracletes, comforters. The Spirit is asking us to embody the comfort he brings. How can we do this? Not by making great speeches, but by drawing near to others. Not with trite words, but with prayer and closeness. Let us remember that closeness, compassion and tenderness are God’s “trademark”, always. The Paraclete is telling the Church that today is the time for comforting. It is more the time for joyfully proclaiming the Gospel than for combatting paganism. It is the time for bringing the joy of the Risen Lord, not for lamenting the drama of secularization. It is the time for pouring out love upon the world, yet not embracing worldliness. It is more the time for testifying to mercy, than for inculcating rules and regulations. It is the time of the Paraclete! It is the time of freedom of heart, in the Paraclete....

In this second passage, Pope Francis speaks of the Holy Spirit under the title of "advocate":

The first advice offered by the Holy Spirit is, “Live in the present”. The present, not the past or the future. The Paraclete affirms the primacy of today, against the temptation to let ourselves be paralyzed by rancour or memories of the past, or by uncertainty or fear about the future. The Spirit reminds us of the grace of the present moment. There is no better time for us: now, here and now, is the one and only time to do good, to make our life a gift. Let us live in the present!

The Spirit also tells us, “Look to the whole”. The whole, not the part. The Spirit does not mould isolated individuals, but shapes us into a Church in the wide variety of our charisms, into a unity that is never uniformity. The Paraclete affirms the primacy of the whole. There, in the whole, in the community, the Spirit prefers to work and to bring newness. Let us look at the apostles. They were all quite different. They included, for example, Matthew, a tax collector who collaborated with the Romans, and Simon called the zealot, who fought them. They had contrary political ideas, different visions of the world. Yet once they received the Spirit, they learned to give primacy not to their human viewpoints but to the “whole” that is God’s plan. Today, if we listen to the Spirit, we will not be concerned with conservatives and progressives, traditionalists and innovators, right and left. When those become our criteria, then the Church has forgotten the Spirit. The Paraclete impels us to unity, to concord, to the harmony of diversity. He makes us see ourselves as parts of the same body, brothers and sisters of one another. Let us look to the whole! The enemy wants diversity to become opposition and so he makes them become ideologies. Say no to ideologies, yes to the whole. 

Ms Lovato is non-binary

The BBC news website has reported that Demi Lovato is non-binary and is changing pronouns to they/them. Their report includes this observation:

Many fans have said they're "proud" of Demi's announcement, with some describing the singer as a "role model".

Another comment in the report quotes a fan of Demi Lovato as now feeling able to speak about their gender identity to their parents in a way that they had not felt able to do before.

I do wonder, though, whether there are other narratives that are not being reported - of young people who would otherwise happily have a certainty in a conventional gender identity as they experience puberty but who now feel that they should question that certainty; not because they are in themselves uncertain, but because the surrounding culture is telling them that they should be uncertain.

Interestingly, the report is being carried in the Newsbeat section of the BBC site, part of BBC news  programming (for Radio 1 and Radio 1 Extra) aimed at younger listeners  and particularly carrying news relating to entertainment and social media.

My first thought is one that I have expressed before on this blog. There is a common courtesy in addressing another person in the manner in which they wish to be addressed, and this represents a respect for their person, precisely as person. This would certainly apply to someone who was a work colleague, for example, and would stand alongside such a simple thing as someone like myself having a preference for being addressed as "Joe" or "Joseph". 

But Ms Lovato's very public announcement, and widespread media following, provide an added complication to this principle. From the point of view of Ms Lovato, is there an intention in making the announcement that those who adopt the use of the preferred pronouns, particularly in the media, are in effect being asked to consent in the public domain to an underlying ideology of gender? Is there, not just an announcement of a personal decision, but an intention to promote for acceptance in wider society a particular ideology of gender? Whilst Ms Lovato is due the respect of my using her preferred pronouns as a question of respect for her person, at what point does that also become an expression of belief on my part in a notion of gender fluidity to which I do not subscribe (and therefore come into conflict with my own conscientiously held belief)?

Too often the term gender is conflated with that of biological sex, to the extent that the part to be played by biological sex is disregarded in discussions of gender identity. If gender can be considered as being determined by social conventions and roles, biological sex is not - it is determined by the physiology of a human body. So, whilst I might accept non-binary as being Ms Lovato's identification in terms of gender, I would still wish to say that she is a person of the female sex.

Once the question of biological sex is included in the conversation, we can then ask if  the pronouns that are used of people should, objectively speaking, follow their identified gender or follow their biological sex - the question cannot, of course, be asked if gender and sex are conflated together. The usage of language by the vast majority, if we are honest about it, is that pronouns follow from the biological sex of people; and for those who do not subscribe to gender ideology this is of added significance. If we wish to adopt a use of language that is consistent with this, we should still be able to use female pronouns to refer to Ms Lovato without that being seen as disrespectful towards her or towards others who identify as non-binary at the level of gender. Rather it is a recognition by us of her female sex and not an adverse comment about her identified gender; a statement about what we believe rather than an attack on Ms Lovato.