The 4th Pope in Portugal (6th visit of a Pope to Portugal): Fátima's 100 Years of the Prophecies

Some atheist friends of mine keep saying this Pope faces a daunting challenge not faced over most of the 2000 years since a hastily assembled collection of short stories made it onto the bestseller list: the march of science. There was a time when the church could just impose rules and people knew they had to live by them because heaven or hell awaited. They knew this to be true because there were no alternative narratives. Sure, there were competing sects but these said pretty much the same kinds of things: god is in charge, do what we tell you he says. In the last 100 years, science has looked at the cosmos and found no god; it has looked back to the beginning of time and found no god; it has considered the building blocks of matter and found no god; and it has considered the formation of life and found no god. It is almost as though there is no god. The harder the church makes it to be a Christian the greater the incentive to accept what science is saying: that god is how people understood the world before people understood the world.

But I prefer to think otherwise.

I tried the above-mentioned rationale with my house. I looked at the bricks and found no builder. I looked all around the street and found no builder. I looked up the plans and found no builder. It is almost as if there was no builder. I know the bricks look as if someone made them just as the fine tuning of the universe gives the very strong delusional impression that this is not "base reality". When Einstein resisted the concept of the Big Bang conceived by a Catholic priest he was part of an atheistic tradition that held out an "eternal cosmos" theory of the universe. He later called it the biggest mistake of his career. The Church isn't in the business of "making it easier to be a Christian". It is in the business of making us better persons, but that's like asking the Portuguese Olympic team to make it "easier to run the 100 metres in under 10 seconds", but some of us are not built that way.

I fail to see why anti-religionists and atheists feel so offended if I choose to believe in God. Why ridicule my beliefs? Am I hurting you in any way? If you do not like what Pope Francis says, then do not listen to him. If your ideology does not match my religion, why should you care? If I die and cease to be, then I won't know it, and it makes no difference. And if I do not exist, you won't be able to tell me, "I told you so." I've already not existed for millions and millions of years and it didn't bother me. If I die in the state of grace, I'll have an eternity to live in happiness. The only problem would be if there is no merciful God and I'm sent to hell for eternity. That would be an eternity of misery for me, but why should you care? Besides, if I live by the beatitudes I can be happy and make others happy. Not a bad life. You might ask me why I'm concerned about what you believe, and you are correct - I do not need to be. But it would be nice to have you for a friend and see you happy in an afterlife. But that is your choice. And if there is a merciful God maybe I'll see you anyway, and you will be happy. If there is reincarnation, then I'll have another chance, but "I" won't know it.

NB: Today my father would turn 76 years old.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam: "Silence" by Martin Scorsese

I wonder if the script and movie could have done more in the way of character development, especially regarding the protagonist. While viewing the film, I thought that the Andrew Garfield character's struggle with his conscience and deeply-felt religious convictions did not feel as organic, naturalistic, and credible as the Garfield character's somewhat similar struggle in Hacksaw Ridge. Martin Scorsese is certainly a subtler filmmaker than Mel Gibson, but Silence is so concerned with its ideas and themes that perhaps character development and narrative flow lag behind. That said, those ideas and themes are quite fascinating—and chilling. 

And most modern cinema, for all its action and fireworks and slow motion people flying away from explosions and such...is oh-so-very boring to me....There is nothing more boring to me than a sustained 20 minute action scene.... 

You don't have to be religious to appreciate this piece of art or the ideas it conveys. There are no particular supernatural elements to the film, and it doesn't treat the supposed existence of God as matter-of-fact. But I think you'd struggle with it if you despise and disrespect the religious, because it would then be hard to empathise or even sympathise with and understand the protagonists' circumstances. It's less about religion and more about the tests of faith. Would you let others suffer for you? Would you symbolically reject your faith to prevent that suffering? The priests genuinely believed they were doing good by spreading what they perceived to be the truth. One can argue about the wisdom or "misguidedness" of such a pursuit, but I don't see how anyone can describe it as 'evil' or simply part of a consciously imperialist desire to make Japan exactly like Europe. 

This movie is a "meditation". I think labeling it as a "religious" or "Christian" film, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's why a lot of people will pass on the film, why the film doesn't have a wider release, and thus is why society is so ignorant: because they pass on the chance for meditation. You can meditate without involving religion. I saw this film very differently. This film tries to recreate the conflict between religion and culture. There's nothing inherently wrong with that premise, but by positioning a religious padre as its moral center and its protagonist, it portrays the indigenous cultural leaders as the murderous villains. The protagonist's faith is tested repeatedly and his resistance to apostatizing is the main conflict in the film. That's where I believe the split in the audience is. If you see his faith as something important, then the suffering is meaningful. If you don't find his mission and faith to be meaningful, his words are sanctimonious, judgmental and irritating. 

If people choose not to see Silence because of its strong religious themes, you can't fault people for having different beliefs. If you didn't want to watch a Muslim, Buddhist or pagan film because it doesn't align with your ideology, there's nothing wrong with that. As long as you understand the differences it's okay to pass on a movie. That doesn't make one ignorant. This movie doesn't necessarily have to be a religious movie. It could be about control or freedom. The government wants you to act they how they want you to act. They want you to conform to their way of thinking and not have the freedom to think as you wish. The religious part of the movie could be substituted for anything. Democracy, for example. Or the religious part could be seen as a deviation away from the culture of the nation. Reminds me of 1984. 

I feel the priests were right in stepping on the symbolic "their way of thinking' plaque in order to save lives. And the guy that constantly wanted to be forgiven, yet renounced his faith at every turn could be the devil. Or he could be confession itself. 

And the silence. Silence from anything you think you believe in. Doubt. Ambivalence.

Sadly, Hollywood is mostly only interested in appealing to fanboys which is why we get so many comic book movies and why a director of Martin Scorsese's stature had to wait 30 years to make something else. I understand the need to go to movies to escape the craziness of the modern world, but when there is so little room for thoughtful movies that require thought for longer than 10 minutes after the closing credits have begun things have gone too far in one direction. I thought it was a very somber and contemplative film, as well as a rewarding one that never truly demonised the Japanese inquisitors, nor entirely venerated the actions of the European priests, asking interesting questions about the spread of certain faiths, how it can thrive in some societies but struggles against the cultural traditions and practicalities of others, and the righteousness, or otherwise, of the people seeking to spread their faith, and what they believe is the 'truth', to other communities. I also felt it ended on a hopeful albeit bittersweet note on the abiding faith and individual's strength of belief, even in a society that has relentlessly sought to knock it out of them.

NB: Scorsese he's a hardcore catholic, like myself. In fact, I don't believe we can separate good art from religion, otherwise, we couldn't enjoy a large percentage of art. It is religion but it also offers really great discussion on faith and sees perspectives of the various factions offered in this film. it's also very beautiful to watch. So, if you can leave your prejudices at home, you may have a rollicking good time. if you just can't stand religion. then watch a good documentary that doesn't have any religious influence.