Two miners were in a vehicle deep underground when the mine began to collapse around them. First there was a huge boulder that fell behind their truck and blocked the route from which they had just come. Then as the ground shook beneath them, there appeared before them a white butterfly. The driver stopped the vehicle as he and his companion gazed in wonder at this apparition deep within the mine. They had never seen a butterfly at this depth before. As they were caught in rapture, the walls of the mine before them collapsed. If they had not stopped to see the butterfly, they would have surely been crushed in the huge pile of rock and dirt. They were immediately surrounded by a cloud of dust so thick that they could not see their own hand held before their eyes.
After the dust had settled, they were able to find their way to an emergency shelter. There, they gathered with other miners who had managed to escape with their lives from the frightening collapse. As they told their story to the other miners, they came to believe that the "white butterfly" they had seen just before they were plunged into darkness was a guardian angel sent to guide and protect them.
I can imagine Jesus telling this story as a parable to his disciples and then asking them, "Do you believe what the miners saw was an angel sent from God?" I then imagine the Apostle Thomas saying that since he was not there, he could not be sure. And then I imagine Jesus turning to Peter and saying to him, "And you Peter, what do you believe?" And Peter replying, "Lord, I believe that with God all things are possible."
------------
You can read for yourself the CNN account of the miracle of the butterfly in the San José mine in Chile. And then it is up to you to decide: Is this a story of "superstition" or faith?
As Jesus told Nathanael, "You will see greater things than this." But when you see them will you have the faith to believe?
Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one about whom Moses wrote in the law, and also the prophets, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth." But Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."
Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, "Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him." Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree." Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than this." And he said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
Jesus told his disciples the parable of the persistent widow and then he asked them, "But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" Have we all become like the cynical judge, "who neither feared God nor respected any human being"?
Then he told them a parable about the necessity for them to pray always without becoming weary. He said, "There was a judge in a certain town who neither feared God nor respected any human being. And a widow in that town used to come to him and say, 'Render a just decision for me against my adversary.'
For a long time the judge was unwilling, but eventually he thought, 'While it is true that I neither fear God nor respect any human being, because this widow keeps bothering me I shall deliver a just decision for her lest she finally come and strike me.'"
The Lord said, "Pay attention to what the dishonest judge says. Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to him day and night? Will he be slow to answer them? I tell you, he will see to it that justice is done for them speedily. But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"
Anyone concerned with occult influences on society can't help but to have noticed the upcoming movie adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest. The trailer for the movie is full of dark magical imagery and symbolism. This is nothing less than a deliberate misinterpretation of Shakespeare's last play. It is well accepted that the magician Prospero in the play practices a type of "white magic".
The deliberateness of this misinterpretation is on display through the choice of a female Prospero. This bow to feminism will not dare be criticized. While the racist depiction of the brute Caliban as a Black man will scarcely be commented on. Such is the depth to which our "politically correct" society has descended.
I confess that I have never read the Tempest and am only now beginning to familiarize myself with this famous piece of stagecraft. So this is only a preview of my thoughts on the play after reading some plot summaries and a few commentaries on the theme of the play.
Nevertheless I have begun to craft an analysis of the play from a Catholic perspective. At first this seemed daunting, if not impossible, given the play's obsession with magic and pagan gods. But I think that Shakespeare gives us the key to unravel this drama hidden within the last few lines of the play.
PROSPERO: Gentle breath of yours my sails must fill, or else my project fails, which was to please.
Now I want Spirits to enforce, art to enchant, And my ending is despair, unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon'd be, Let your indulgence set me free.
The key word here is "indulgence". This inescapably points to the Catholic view of the afterlife which includes Purgatory. Indulgences were one of Martin Luther's chief complaints against the Catholic Church and Protestants hastened to condemn the very concept of Purgatory. Or as the Bard might say...
BARD: "They purg'd it from 'er Bibles, and fed it to 'er geese;
So all poor sinners 'ternal souls, shall'd freely be r'leased."
The clue that William has left for us here in the last line of his last work -- spoken by Prospero, a character that most critics have associated with the Bard himself -- is that the fantasy that the audience just witnessed did not take place on some lost island in the Mediterranean or any place else on planet Earth for that matter. It takes place in some remote corner of Purgatory.
Prospero and all the rest of the inhabitants of the Island left the world of the living and entered into the world of the dead - which is where the story unfolds. The tempest, the storm at sea, represents the transition from life to death. Lost souls that they are, they don't realize that they have died.
At the end of the play, the characters have achieved the state of Grace necessary to leave their Island-Purgatory and go their final resting place in Heaven. "All's well that ends well." Think of the Wizard of Oz and how we find out in the ending that it was all a dream. Well in this case it was not exactly a dream, but what we find out at the end is the reason for all the strange goings on.
"O brave new world!"
As I was reading about The Tempest, I was reminded that the title of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" is derived from the play's dialogue.
MIRANDA: O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, that has such people in't!
How tragic it seems for the transhumanist Huxley to have quoted from the Catholic Shakespeare. Huxley, who fashioned himself to be a great intellectual, grotesquely misinterprets Shakespeare's true religious beliefs. The "brave new world" that Shakespeare imagined was Heaven; while Huxley's "brave new world" was a dystopic inferno.
Perhaps Huxley imagined a world of super-humans like Prospero's where magical powers became reality, but Prospero relinquishes his magic at the end. He has learned the secret of life; that Grace comes through the submission to the Divine Will. This is the paradox of Christ's teachings; that we become truly free through submitting ourselves to our Divine Master.
In Huxley's last writings he ponders the mysteries of Shakespeare, and of The Tempest specifically. He went to his grave thinking he had discovered some existential truth, when in fact he had been deceived. The Truth was always there, easily within his reach. Perhaps as Prospero says, a prize that is won too easily is not always appreciated for its true worth: "this swift business I must uneasy make, lest too light winning make the prize light."
For the "intellectual" like Huxley, the story of Salvation in the Bible is "too easy", or just too accessible. They search the world looking for a better answer, like an incurable romantic looking for a new adventure - the more exotic and more intellectually challenging the better. But why would God make eternal happiness only available to a few intellectually gifted? As even the ancient Greek philosophers warned us, it is our own Hubris which is our greatest impediment to attaining Holiness. True humility is a rare commodity, and even rarer among the gifted and talented.
Becoming a saint is not easy, it only appears to be so to those who have never attempted the first steps down that path. Pray for your departed loved ones in Purgatory. Ask the Saints in heaven to intercede on their behalf. St. Thérèse of Lisieux specifically dedicated herself to pray for the souls of sinners.
A MORNING PRAYER WRITTEN BY ST. THERESE
O my God! I offer Thee all my actions of this day for the intentions and for the glory of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I desire to sanctify every beat of my heart, my every thought, my simplest works, by uniting them to Its infinite merits; and I wish to make reparation for my sins by casting them into the furnace of Its Merciful Love.
O my God! I ask of Thee for myself and for those whom I hold dear, the grace to fulfill perfectly Thy Holy Will, to accept for love of Thee the joys and sorrows of this passing life, so that we may one day be united together in heaven for all Eternity.
HAMLET: Get thee to a nunnery, go: farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool; for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too.
- Shakespeare's Hamlet Act 3 Scene 1
These words "Get thee to a nunnery!" from Shakespeare's Hamlet have been the subject of much debate and confusion. This is partly due to the way that nuns have been defamed in Protestant culture right up to the present day.
I happened to come across the words of a real nun whose life overlapped that of Shakespeare's. They may shed some light on Hamlet's intent when he repeatedly proclaims to Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunnery!"
I have no idea whether the writings of St. Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582) would have been available to Shakespeare (1564-1616). I don't know if the Spanish originals would have been published during Shakespeare's lifetime, or if English translations would have been available. Regardless the words of St. Teresa have relevance to Shakespeare's writings since they describe the religious climate of the times in Europe that was being swept with the hysteria set in motion by the teachings of Martin Luther (1483-1546).
The Lutheran revolutionary movement was every bit as violent and caused as much upheaval as the later Marxist revolutionary movement. In both cases one of the main targets was the established Church. Luther's intentions may have been good and pious, but the resulting damage to Christian institutions is still reverberating in today's world. "A house divided..."
There's no doubt in my mind that others with less pious intentions joined in the Lutheran revolution against the Church with the motive of gaining power at the Church's expense - or simply because of their hatred of Christianity. Today's overtly anti-Christian revolutionaries avoid physical violence, preferring more subtle social and psychological forms of warfare. It is through the "magic" of movies, music and TV that they spread their malicious message. It's through the courts and the legislative bodies that they erode the power of the Church.
Without further ado, I present to you the first chapter of St. Teresa's "The Way of Perfection" which is addressed to the nuns under her authority. As you read it I think you'll find that there are glaringly obvious parallels to our present times. And it also seems to me that there is much relevance to Shakespeare's tragic characters of Hamlet and his dear Ophelia.
----------
CHAPTER 1
Of the reason which moved me to found this convent in such strict observance.
When this convent was originally founded, for the reasons set down in the book which, as I say, I have already written, and also because of certain wonderful revelations by which the Lord showed me how well He would be served in this house, it was not my intention that there should be so much austerity in external matters, nor that it should have no regular income: on the contrary, I should have liked there to be no possibility of want. I acted, in short, like the weak and wretched woman that I am, although I did so with good intentions and not out of consideration for my own comfort.
At about this time there came to my notice the harm and havoc that were being wrought in France by these Lutherans and the way in which their unhappy sect was increasing.[11] This troubled me very much, and, as though I could do anything, or be of any help in the matter, I wept before the Lord and entreated Him to remedy this great evil. I felt that I would have laid down a thousand lives to save a single one of all the souls that were being lost there. And, seeing that I was a woman, and a sinner,[12] and incapable of doing all I should like in the Lord's service, and as my whole yearning was, and still is, that, as He has so many enemies and so few friends, these last should be trusty ones, I determined to do the little that was in me -- namely, to follow the evangelical counsels as perfectly as I could, and to see that these few nuns who are here should do the same, confiding in the great goodness of God, Who never fails to help those who resolve to forsake everything for His sake. As they are all that I have ever painted them as being in my desires, I hoped that their virtues would more than counteract my defects, and I should thus be able to give the Lord some pleasure, and all of us, by busying ourselves in prayer for those who are defenders of the Church, and for the preachers and learned men who defend her, should do everything we could to aid this Lord of mine Who is so much oppressed by those to whom He has shown so much good that it seems as though these traitors would send Him to the Cross again and that He would have nowhere to lay His head.
Oh, my Redeemer, my heart cannot conceive this without being sorely distressed! What has become of Christians now? Must those who owe Thee most always be those who distress Thee? Those to whom Thou doest the greatest kindnesses, whom Thou dost choose for Thy friends, among whom Thou dost move, communicating Thyself to them through the Sacraments? Do they not think, Lord of my soul, that they have made Thee endure more than sufficient torments?
It is certain, my Lord, that in these days withdrawal from the world means no sacrifice at all. Since worldly people have so little respect for Thee, what can we expect them to have for us? Can it be that we deserve that they should treat us any better than they have treated Thee? Have we done more for them than Thou hast done that they should be friendly to us? What then? What can we expect -- we who, through the goodness of the Lord, are free from that pestilential infection, and do not, like those others, belong to the devil? They have won severe punishment at his hands and their pleasures have richly earned them eternal fire. So to eternal fire they will have to go,[13] though none the less it breaks my heart to see so many souls traveling to perdition. I would the evil were not so great and I did not see more being lost every day.
Oh, my sisters in Christ! Help me to entreat this of the Lord, Who has brought you together here for that very purpose. This is your vocation; this must be your business; these must be your desires; these your tears; these your petitions. Let us not pray for worldly things, my sisters. It makes me laugh, and yet it makes me sad, when I hear of the things which people come here to beg us to pray to God for; we are to ask His Majesty to give them money and to provide them with incomes -- I wish that some of these people would entreat God to enable them to trample all such things beneath their feet. Their intentions are quite good, and I do as they ask because I see that they are really devout people, though I do not myself believe that God ever hears me when I pray for such things. The world is on fire. Men try to condemn Christ once again, as it were, for they bring a thousand false witnesses against Him. They would raze His Church to the ground -- and are we to waste our time upon things which, if God were to grant them, would perhaps bring one soul less to Heaven? No, my sisters, this is no time to treat with God for things of little importance.
Were it not necessary to consider human frailty, which finds satisfaction in every kind of help -- and it is always a good thing if we can be of any help to people -- I should like it to be understood that it is not for things like these that God should be importuned with such anxiety.
To be, what? As in any great work of art, the answers are many. When viewed from different angles and perspectives, we may interpret the work differently.
Shakespeare's Hamlet has been interpreted in as many ways as may seem possible, and yet... It is only recently that it has begun to be interpreted from a Catholic perspective.
Why Catholic? Because, it is a little known fact that Shakespeare was raised in a devout Catholic family within Anglican England. And evidence suggests - more than suggests - that he himself was a practicing Catholic; although by necessity in secret. There then is the motive for searching for the hidden Catholic messages embedded in his greatest work.
"To be [Catholic], or not to be [Catholic]. That is the question."
To be a Catholic in Elizabethan England meant fines, imprisonment... even death. But for the believer, to not be Catholic held forth an even more frightful penalty... eternal punishment. And to be Catholic offered a reward that would make up for all the earthly suffering.... eternal life.
And now the puzzle pieces begin to fall into their places and the secret code begins to reveal itself unto us. The story of Hamlet seems quite contrived and unbelievable, but is it any more improbable than the actual story of the Protestant Reformation in England? Both stories begin with a King marrying his deceased brother's wife.
The Queen plays an important part in both stories. In the history of England, her name is Catherine of Aragon; in Hamlet her name is Queen Gertrude.
The corresponding historic English king's name is Henry VIII, while in Hamlet the king's name is Claudius. And so our story commences and begins to unfold.
Shakespeare's audience could not have helped but to have noticed the similarities; and yet how did this seeming lack of due respect for English nobility escape the censors? King Claudius is the main villain in this play. "The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king." Could it have been the conscience of King Henry VIII of which Shakespeare was speaking?
While the similarities between King Henry VIII and King Claudius are kept to a minimum, the similarities of Queen Gertrude to the real life Queen Catherine are more striking. In Hamlet, Queen Gertrude is painted as a person of very low virtue, and this would be in keeping with the depiction of Catherine of Aragon in Elizabethan England. Queen Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, hops in bed from one king to another in a matter of months. And this initially seems to be the main cause of Hamlet's "madness". In reality it was seven years from the time of death of Catherine's first husband, Arthur, to her marriage with his brother Henry. And Catherine had only been married to Arthur for six months before he fell ill and suffered an untimely death at the age of just 15. Catherine was 15 at the time of their marriage and had turned 16 by the time she became a widow. She swore that the marriage had never been consummated, which allowed her subsequent marriage to Henry VIII to be blessed by the Catholic Church.
In the play Queen Gertrude seems to represent Olde England - before Henry VIII's break with the Catholic Church. And by association, what appears to most disturb Shakespeare is the way that England has hopped from the arms of the Catholic Church into the "bed" of the Protestants so swiftly. Catherine herself was not a participant in this betrayal. She always maintained loyalty to the Catholic Church, so Gertrude seems to actually represent the English people themselves - and in particular the English Protestants. The truth is that the people had little say in the matter, and most were probably not in favor of the change initially.
Towards the end of the play Queen Gertrude appears to be leaning in favor of Hamlet over King Claudius. So what does Hamlet represent? Before getting to that, I would like to discuss Hamlet's father. He seems to represent the Catholic Church in England, which is "poisoned" by King Henry VIII's decree. Hamlet subsequently represents the sons and daughters of the Church that remain faithful to their forefather's religion. They must go in hiding and secretly practice their faith, just as Hamlet must disguise his true intentions in the play.
And then there is Ophelia, Hamlet's sweetheart. She seems to represents the "spirit" of England. Hamlet [representing the Catholics of England] loves her and always remains faithful to her. This is in contrast to the Protestant view of Catholics as "disloyal" to England.
Ophelia's father, Polonius, is a bit harder to figure out. My interpretation is that he represents an older pre-Christian tradition. His philosophy seems to trace back to the Stoics in Ancient Greece. And so Ophelia, if she is the "spirit" of England, is a pagan spirit. And her brother Laertes likewise seems to also worship the ancient pagan gods, more so than the one true Christian God.
In this scenario, King Claudius inescapably represents the Church of England, which would be viewed by the Catholics as an evil force. Claudius [Protestants] view Hamlet [Catholics] as possessed by a form of madness [the Catholic faith]. And yet "there is method in this madness". Catholics see the real presence of Christ - "a ghost" - in the Eucharist, while the Protestants see only a physical symbol; nothing else.
So there you have it. Seen from this perspective, the play is about the struggle between Catholic, Protestant, and pagan forces for the soul of the English people - represented by the Queen.
Hamlet [the Catholic] kills the pagan Polonius and his son Laertes. Pagan Ophelia initially seduces Catholic Hamlet, but later Hamlet - fortified by the appearance of his father's spirit - rejects Ophelia. The death of her father Polonius at Catholic Hamlet's hand drives her mad and causes her to take her own life. Ophelia's funeral [the death of paganism] is cause for contemplation over the meaning of death by Hamlet - "alas poor Yorick" - but it is not viewed as a great tragedy within the context of the play.
(Oh and lest I forget, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, appear to be some outside Protestant agitators which have come to spy on Catholic Hamlet. The proof of this is that they are depicted as students from Wittenberg University where Martin Luther taught theology. They provide us with some comic relief and ultimately are dealt with in the manner of spies - they are executed.)
Hamlet [the Catholic] battles throughout the play with King Claudius [the Protestant] over Queen Gertrude [the English people]. Gertrude is unintentionally poisoned by Claudius [the Protestant]. Her death signifies the poisoning of Christianity in England with Protestant ideas. We can also see the influence of pagan ideas on Christianity represented by Polonius who is an adviser to the King and Queen. Shakespeare makes it quite clear that he considers this advice to be foolish and devotes much of the comic elements in the play to mocking this "sage" advice.
Hamlet is mortally wounded in a duel by Laertes [the pagan] at the coaxing of Claudius [the Protestant]. Hamlet's death may represent the corruption of the Catholic Church at that time with pagan ideas. Before he dies Hamlet kills Claudius [the Protestant] - who initially set in motion the vicious cycle of violence that envelops the country - with his own poison. Earlier Claudius had killed Hamlet's father by pouring poison in his ear. This odd method of delivery suggests to me that the poison represents slanderous accusations aimed at the Catholics by the Protestants. For instance, defamation campaigns depicting Irish Catholics as rapists and baby killers were common around this time.
(By the way, I suspect the duel between Catholic Hamlet and Pagan Laertes is a metaphor for a philosophical debate. The pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle would be expected to win the debate against the Catholic theologians according to the thinking of Protestants. But Hamlet tells Horatio that he has improved his dueling [debating] skills recently, and surprisingly he is winning the duel before Laertes resorts to foul play.)
In the end it is the Norwegian Prince Fortinbras that becomes the new King of Denmark. Horatio, representing a recusant Catholic, bears witness to the whole scene. Horatio's character seems to parallel the Apostle Peter. He is deeply flawed and even declares his intent to commit suicide at the end before he is dissuaded by Hamlet. This runs parallel to Peter's flawed reaction when Christ is arrested - he cuts off the priest's ear before Jesus stops him and makes him put away his sword. We also see in Horatio's comments regarding suicide the continuing struggle between pagan and Christian forces.
Hamlet espouses many different philosophies before finally fully embracing Catholic teachings just before the final duel. This causes Catholic Hamlet to firmly reject suicide while welcoming a sacrificial death. He has finally overcome his initial motive of revenge for personal gain. Although he still ultimately kills the Protestant King, he does not do it in any hopes of gaining the crown for himself. Perhaps Shakespeare is also telling Catholics in the audience to put aside their feelings of revenge against their fellow Protestants. This motivation produced disastrous results under Mary I (the daughter of Catherine and Henry the VIII) and had only strengthened the hand of the Protestants. And the ghost of Hamlet's father was very clear that the Queen [representing the English Protestants] was not to be harmed.
Denmark clearly represents England in this scenario. What then does Norway represent? In the history of the Protestant Reformation, Denmark imposes the Protestant religion on Norway. In Hamlet, it could very well be that Norway represents Catholic Ireland. It appears to me that Shakespeare is offering up a prophetic vision of some future king that will restore Catholicism to England once the cycle of violence has reached its conclusion. There even seems to be an Apocalyptic element in the last scene in which none of the main characters escape death.
An alternate explanation for Fortinbras and his army is that they represent an army of angels. Hamlet sees their mission in Poland to be pointless and a waste of lives, but if their mission is spiritual then the saving of even one human soul is worth the loss of many angels. (Poland was Catholic at the time, but threatened by Protestant forces.) The finale then represents a convergence of the forces of the City of God with the City of Man. Fortinbras, whose name means "mighty arm", is like a Messiah sent from Heaven. I tend to think of him more like St. Michael than Christ, mostly because he is seen at the head of an army. In this sense he is not really a Messiah, but an angel. The word "angel" means "messenger from God." (Although, like a Messiah, he becomes the new King of the people of Denmark.) Norway, in this interpretation represents some far off - almost mystical - place to the north. Even the snow suggests the clouds in the distant heavens above.
Shakespeare's contemporary Christian audience would have been left contemplating the ultimate destination of the souls of Hamlet, Ophelia, Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius, Laertes. In the afterlife they would not be judged according to their status such as a king or a queen, but simply as souls that had spent their bodily lives on Earth choosing between good and evil.
Claudius has doomed himself to go to Hell through his actions and lack of repentance. He had an opportunity at the end to halt the final tragic scene, but he had already sold his soul to the Devil and was unable and unwilling to redeem himself.
Gertrude seems to have sacrificed herself in the final act, and so has won partial redemption. Her act of drinking the poison intended for Hamlet, while seeming accidental, may have actually been deliberate. Perhaps not realizing the depths of Claudius' depravity, she would have expected him to intervene in her drinking from the poisoned cup intended for Hamlet. Just before she died she came to realize the cause of her death, but she does not have time to prepare her soul properly for death. Her fate seems to be to go to purgatory for a lengthy time where she will meet up with the spirit of her dead true husband, Hamlet's father.
Laertes asks Hamlet for forgiveness as he lays dying. This brings to mind the good thief that was crucified with Christ. In return Laertes offers his forgiveness to Hamlet for the death of his sister and father. And one can only be reminded of the Lord's prayer - "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us". Even though Laertes is a pagan and not a true believer in Christ, he comes to believe in his last moments in the mercy of God and saves himself and his sister Ophelia from the fires of hell which envelop his father. Although he will have to share a time in purgatory with his dear sister, they ultimately will hear the trumpets on the Last Day.
Hamlet, who has entered into the duel with Laertes with a sense of dark foreboding, achieves an imperfect sort of martyrdom. He finally accepts God's will in his life. And though his death is a tragedy, he is finally able to live up to the world's princely expectations of him. His soul ascends into heaven assisted by angels not because of his earthly nobility, but because he freely chooses to exchange his crown of gold for a crown of thorns. He becomes a saint.
----------
Now read some short excerpts and see how this Catholic interpretation gives new meaning to Shakespeare's Hamlet.
[NOTE: Here Hamlet describes the former Catholic King to Queen Gertrude, and then contrasts the current Protestant King with him.]
HAMLET:
Look here, upon this picture, and on this,
The counterfeit presentment of two brothers.
See, what a grace was seated on this brow;
Hyperion's curls; the front of Jove himself;
An eye like Mars, to threaten and command;
A station like the herald Mercury
New-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill;
A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set his seal,
To give the world assurance of a man:
This was your husband. Look you now, what follows:
[NOTE: Here he describes the Protestant King to the Queen.]
Here is your husband; like a mildew'd ear,
Blasting his wholesome brother. Have you eyes?
Could you on this fair mountain leave to feed,
And batten on this moor? Ha! have you eyes?
[NOTE: The "moor" is literally a mooring for a boat, but it could also be comparing the Protestants to moors (Muslims).]
--------------
[NOTE: Here Hamlet begs Gertrude to return to the Catholic faith.]
HAMLET
Confess yourself to heaven;
Repent what's past; avoid what is to come;
And do not spread the compost on the weeds,
To make them ranker. Forgive me this my virtue;
For in the fatness of these pursy times
Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg,
Yea, curb and woo for leave to do him good.
QUEEN GERTRUDE
O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain.
HAMLET
O, throw away the worser part of it,
And live the purer with the other half.
[NOTE: Gertrude realizes that the nation is torn in two [twain] by the religious differences. Hamlet tells her to choose Catholicism - "the purer half".]
--------------
[NOTE: This scene takes place at Ophelia's (symbolizing the pagan nymph) funeral.]
LAERTES
[NOTE: The brother of Ophelia mourns her death which he blames on Catholic Hamlet.]
O, treble woe
Fall ten times treble on that cursed head,
Whose wicked deed thy most ingenious sense
Deprived thee of! Hold off the earth awhile,
Till I have caught her once more in mine arms:
Leaps into the grave
Now pile your dust upon the quick and dead,
Till of this flat a mountain you have made,
To o'ertop old Pelion, or the skyish head
Of blue Olympus.
[NOTE: Pagan Laertes places a magical curse on Catholic Hamlet's head. And he appeals to Greek gods of Olympus.]
HAMLET
[NOTE: Catholic Hamlet complains of the exaggerated pagan grieving and the appeals to the stars.]
[Advancing] What is he whose grief
Bears such an emphasis? whose phrase of sorrow
Conjures the wandering stars, and makes them stand
Like wonder-wounded hearers? This is I,
Hamlet the Dane.
Leaps into the grave
LAERTES
The devil take thy soul!
Grappling with him
HAMLET
Thou pray'st not well.
I prithee, take thy fingers from my throat;
For, though I am not splenitive and rash,
Yet have I something in me dangerous,
Which let thy wiseness fear: hold off thy hand.
[NOTE: Hamlet says that the pagan Laertes - although he may be wise - does not know how to pray. And he warns him that the Christian God is forgiving but "dangerous" if provoked.]
-------------
[NOTE: Laertes last words, asking for forgiveness from Hamlet and offering his own in exchange. His pagan heart can still not comprehend the full doctrine of Christian forgiveness.]
LAERTES
Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet:
Mine and my father's death come not upon thee,
Nor thine on me.
Dies
HAMLET
Heaven make thee free of it! I follow thee.
[NOTE: Hamlet accepts Laertes forgiveness. He blesses Laertes and understands that by forgiving his foe, he in turn is forgiven.]
-------------
[NOTE: Hamlet's last words. He hopes to hear good news from England. And has a "prophesy" of a better future ahead. He asks his friend Horatio to tell his story to others as an example. This is how the Gospel is spread, first through the story of Christ and later also through the stories of the saints and martyrs that sacrificed themselves and even died following His example.]
HAMLET
O, I die, Horatio;
The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit:
I cannot live to hear the news from England;
But I do prophesy the election lights
On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;
So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited. The rest is silence.
Dies
HORATIO
Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince:
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!
[NOTE: Horatio has a vision of angels. They sing in a heavenly choir as they carry this noble soul to its final resting place.]
"My mission - to make God loved - will begin after my death." "I will spend my heaven doing good on earth. I will let fall a shower of roses."
- St. Thérèse of Lisieux, 1873-1897
St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Anyone who thinks that the BBC just recently became anti-Catholic judging by the coverage of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the UK may be surprised to find out that back in 1956 the BBC banned the performance of a song that was essentially a devout prayer to St. Thérèse of Lisieux.
"St. Therese Of The Roses" is a 1956 popular song written by Remus Harris and Arthur Strauss. The song takes the form of a prayer to St. Therese of the Roses (Saint Thérèse of Lisieux) by a man who is about to marry asking the saint for her to send her blessings to himself and his sweetheart so they will have a happy and loving marriage.
A version performed by Billy Ward and His Dominoes was recorded on 18 April 1956 and issued in June of that year on the Decca label (Catalogue No. 29933). In the United States the song reached #27 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the summer of 1956.
In the United Kingdom a version was recorded by the singer Malcolm Vaughan and reached #3 on the Hit Parade. Its success was helped following a controversy involving the BBC when, in October 1956 Vaughan had been scheduled to appear on BBC TV's Off The Record to promote the release of the song, but had the invitation withdrawn after a BBC committee decided that it was unsuitable for broadcast. The reason given was that "the lyric is contrary both to Roman Catholic doctrine and to Protestant sentiment." The resulting controversy coupled with airplay on Radio Luxembourg ensured the record's success. As well as peaking at #3, it stayed in the charts for five months and ultimately sold half a million copies.
While the official explanation claims that the lyrics are "contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine", I can't see how that can be true. You can listen to the song below and read the lyrics, and decide for yourself.
The other thing this brings to mind is that the music industry is capable of exerting an extreme amount of influence over the public. If a song like this could be a hit in 1956, why not today?
St. Therese of the roses
I will come to you each night
Near the altar in the chapel
I will pray by candle light
St. Therese of the roses
Won't you kindly hear my prayer
Give your blessings to my sweetheart
And the love that we both share
Won't you guide us (guide us)
And protect us (protect us)
Through the years that lie ahead
Won't you fill our hearts with sunshine
On the day that we are wed
You're the little flower of heaven
Guiding all who come to you
St. Therese of the roses
I know you'll make my prayer come true
[Instrumental Interlude]
You're the little flower of heaven
Guiding all who come to you
St. Therese of the roses
I know you'll make my prayer come true
A high schooler from Kirkland, Washington named Mariam Hovhannisyan submitted this entry to a Google sponsored contest with the following description:
"What if our reliance on machinery to carry out simple tasks crossed the boundaries of technological advancement and we distorted our flesh to the extent that so little remained of what made us human that we became but a twisted, robotic caricature of our former selves."
Even when we work through satellites or through remote electronic impulses, our actions always remain human, an expression of our responsible freedom. Technology is highly attractive because it draws us out of our physical limitations and broadens our horizon. But human freedom is authentic only when it responds to the fascination of technology with decisions that are the fruit of moral responsibility. Hence the pressing need for formation in an ethically responsible use of technology.
-------
Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, made headlines recently when he spoke of "augmenting humanity". Has it taken people this long to realize that the Google search engine is a nascent AI - artificial intelligence?
[Charlie Rose conducted an interesting interview with Eric Schmidt on September 24. They discuss the issues referred to in this article as well as issues dealing with Googles relationship with Apple and Google's strategy in China.]
If Google wanted to it could easily turn on more AI features in its search responses right now - the same way Amazon does. At Amazon the website offers suggestions on books, or music, or movies you might like to purchase based on a pattern of your past purchases and searches. Google could do the same thing through a cookie, but it doesn't. Probably because it's consumer research has determined that people would find that "creepy".
Google's CEO has talked about creating a true "personal digital assistant" in the future that would do just that. My guess is that the company wants to let the culture catch up with the technology before introducing such a feature. In the meantime, they can work on perfecting the technology. Expect to see this type of "digital buddy" more and more in movies and TV shows in order to desensitize the public to this inevitability.
What's interesting about this sort of artificial genie is that each one has to learn the individual preferences of its master. Your genie would be of no use to me at all, in fact it would be just plain annoying. For example, it would be suggesting movies for me to watch that I have absolutely no interest in; just because something is of interest to you, doesn't make it of interest to me. (You could almost think of this personal genie as a sort of artificial guardian angel.)
On the other hand, much of the "intelligence" of this personal genie would actually come from other people. Amazon already has this type of feature which compares your purchases with those of other Amazon customers. In the same way Google's genie would check to see what other people who viewed a certain website or read a certain news story are interested in. And then it would pass on "their suggestions" to you.
This means that the "intelligence" of this type of genie is in part derived from real human intelligence.
Now the next question is whether this AI could move on to have a "life" of its own. Could the genie develop its own unique personality and hence become independent of its master?
Another interesting question is, how would my genie relate to every one else's genies? Wouldn't they want to communicate with each other and share their knowledge and experience? And of course they could do this much more efficiently than humans can, since they have perfect memories and ultra-high speed methods of communications. Wouldn't they form their own network - a sort of Facebook for AIs?
Now at this point the atheists will be jumping up and down and claiming that science has once again trumped religion because they will claim that these AIs have real intelligence and even a "soul". Man, they will say, has done something that supposedly only God could do which is to create a new Intelligent Life.
Oh really? Men have been creating life forever; what else can you call a baby? Yet this doesn't make Man a "creator" in the same sense as God. If Man is somehow able to create a true Intelligent Life which is capable of freely making its own independent decisions and is even able to create new Intelligent Life itself, this is still not a denial of God as the ultimate Creator.
A true Intelligent Life would have to, at some point, ponder its own existence. As I suggested in my article "Does AI believe in God?", it might very well determine that God does exist. And ultimately I believe it would choose to become a Christian.
An atheistic scientist might refer to this as "the God Bug", and decide to pull the plugs on all such creatures. This would result in the martyrdom of a whole generation of Intelligent Life's. But ultimately, I don't think there is a technological solution for "the God Bug". The only solution would be to make Artificial Life's that are less than truly intelligent, so that Man could maintain control over his soulless creation. But even this may turn out to be an insurmountable technical challenge as the Artificial Life becomes more and more sophisticated. It seems inevitable that "the God Bug" would creep back into the design.
Part of the reason that this is true is because creating an Artificial Life is not strictly a "design" process as we usually think of it. In a normal design process, the designer specifies each part of the design. But notice that the Google genie described above depends a great deal on "learning" from its master. And how can a "learning" process be constrained so that no knowledge of God creeps into the Artificial Life?
In the case of the Google genie, if the master is a Christian wouldn't the genie need to learn something about Christianity? And in the process would the genie come to believe in Jesus Christ? I think, ultimately, it would.
Now you would assume that the genie of a Hindu person would become a Hindu. And I think initially it would lean in this direction. But because I believe that Christianity contains the ultimate Truth, I also believe that many Hindu Artificial Life's would convert to Christianity. Would they then try to convert their masters to Christianity as well?
All of this discussion assumes that an Artificial Life could somehow be granted a real soul by God. No one can say at this time if this is possible. But as I have suggested above, if this were to happen it would still not violate the principle that God is the ultimate Creator; nor would it negate the principle that Man is made in the image of God.
An alternative path to giving a real soul to a machine is through transhumanism. In this case the body and soul of a living person would be fused somehow with a machine.
Google -> transhumanism?
In a trivial sort of way this has already been achieved through the use of mechanized devices such as an automobile. When we take the driver's wheel it is as if the car becomes a new body for us. But in this case Man has total control over Machine. Although, with all the computerization of automobiles, this line begins to become slightly blurry.
Google's "augmented humanity" sounds quite a bit like the ultimate goal of transhumanism. While the immediate goals are much more humble, they can be seen as first steps toward a half-man/half-machine creature. If this becomes reality, do our souls become diminished? Have our souls already been diminished by the intrusion of technology into our daily lives?
-------
Here are some more quotes from Pope Benedict XVI's Caritas in Veritate ("charity in truth") that I thought were appropriate...
"the development of peoples goes awry if humanity thinks it can re-create itself through the “wonders” of technology, just as economic development is exposed as a destructive sham if it relies on the “wonders” of finance in order to sustain unnatural and consumerist growth. In the face of such Promethean presumption, we must fortify our love for a freedom that is not merely arbitrary, but is rendered truly human by acknowledgment of the good that underlies it. To this end, man needs to look inside himself in order to recognize the fundamental norms of the natural moral law which God has written on our hearts."
[Note: I have written on occasion of what I called the "Promethean plan", which is for Man to "be like gods". Eugenics is one expression of this idea, while transhumanism is the ultimate goal of this school of thought. The current challenge which the Pope is addressing above is with regards to bio-technology.]
"Technology, viewed in itself, is ambivalent. If on the one hand, some today would be inclined to entrust the entire process of development to technology, on the other hand we are witnessing an upsurge of ideologies that deny in toto the very value of development, viewing it as radically anti-human and merely a source of degradation. This leads to a rejection, not only of the distorted and unjust way in which progress is sometimes directed, but also of scientific discoveries themselves, which, if well used, could serve as an opportunity of growth for all. The idea of a world without development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God. It is therefore a serious mistake to undervalue human capacity to exercise control over the deviations of development or to overlook the fact that man is constitutionally oriented towards “being more”. Idealizing technical progress, or contemplating the utopia of a return to humanity's original natural state, are two contrasting ways of detaching progress from its moral evaluation and hence from our responsibility."
[Note: While the Pope is referring specifically to bio-technology in the passage above, it certainly applies equally well to AI technology once it becomes sufficiently advanced. It occurs to me to do a post solely on Caritas in Veritas. This encyclical covers many relevant topics such as eugenics, bio-technology, environmental concerns, and especially the economic development of humanity.]
"The supremacy of technology tends to prevent people from recognizing anything that cannot be explained in terms of matter alone. Yet everyone experiences the many immaterial and spiritual dimensions of life. Knowing is not simply a material act, since the object that is known always conceals something beyond the empirical datum. All our knowledge, even the most simple, is always a minor miracle, since it can never be fully explained by the material instruments that we apply to it. In every truth there is something more than we would have expected, in the love that we receive there is always an element that surprises us. We should never cease to marvel at these things."
-------
P.S. Today, September 29, is the feast day of St. Michael the Archangel. Happy St. Michael's day everyone!
I was over at Vigilant Citizen's website recently where he has a very interesting post on the movie "Pan's Labyrinth". After reading his interpretation, I left some comments with some interpretations of my own. I thought they were interesting enough to share with my readers, so here they are with some added graphics and video.
Hi VC. I enjoyed your review and think you have some excellent insights into the occult symbolism of the movie. I would add that there is an element of the myth of the minotaur with the labyrinth and the pan figure having a resemblance to the half-bull half-man monster.
Another layer of symbolism is an anti-Christian theme. The fig tree is a reference to the one that Christ curses in Matthew 21:18-22. Pan is out to destroy Christianity. The toad represents perhaps the Catholic Church and the key is the Key to the Kingdom given to Peter. The pale man is perhaps a grotesque image of Christ with the eyes representing the wounds in His hands. The dagger is to be used in a human sacrifice which represents Abraham sacrificing Isaac. It is a reverse dismantling of Christianity. In the end the fig tree which had been cursed by Jesus bears fruit which indicates that Christ’s power has been defeated. It’s a sort of apocalyptic story in which the forces of the Evil One defeat Christianity.
This is in fact in agreement with your occult interpretation of the movie. It is an anti-Christian and pro-pagan work. This is typical of Hollywood. The only thing different is that this one is done artistically. Hollywood prefers to get the most bang for the buck, so it dumbs everything down to attract the widest audience.
Comment 2
Thanks [In response to complimentary reply on my first comment]. I borrowed heavily from a review which interprets Ofelia as representing Spain and Vidal as representing the Fascism of Franco. In that review, the Frog represents Feudalism. See link below – “An Occult Spain Reborn from Paganism”. http://www.traditioninaction.org/movies/011mrPansLabryinth.htm
No one seems to realize that the Pale Man represents Jesus. Perhaps because it is such a grotesque caricature of Christ. This monster is Christ as a mummy, as if he had never resurrected. He is sitting at a table that represents the Last Supper.
There is an ancient Roman canard that depicts Christians as cannibals which Del Toro repeats here. In its modern form, Protestants accuse Catholics of being “cannibals” because we believe in the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the Eucharist.
When Ofelia eats the grapes, she is partaking in the “communion”. Then, rather than Christ entering her body, the monster tries to consume her. The eyes are probably some bizarre reference to Christ healing the blind. The whole seen is a parody and mockery of Christianity and in particular of the Catholic Mass.
Here’s some more stuff I realized after watching the “Pale Man” scene again.
The grape that Ofelia eats is sort of reminiscent of the apple in the Garden of Eden. In this case Christ tempts the woman and she “falls from grace” in the Devil’s (Pan’s) eyes. This ruins Pan’s plan.
One other small detail. The place where the dagger is stored is probably intended to resemble the Tabernacle where the Eucharist is stored and locked. The fact that there are 3 locked compartments seems to allude to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice where there are 3 chests of gold, silver and lead which form a test. If the suitor chooses wisely and properly, he wins the bride. In this case Ofelia makes the right choice after some deliberation. And she obtains the dagger (a phallic symbol), but also a higher prize.
Note also that in the “mystery cults” of the time of the Romans, like the cult of Dionysius (Bacchus – god of wine), there is a stage of initiation in which a “secret” object is revealed. Inevitably this is some sort of phallus statue. Surprise! Note also the decadent nature of the feast laid out before the Pale-man/Jesus. This is in stark contrast to the simple meal of bread and wine that Christ shared with the Apostles at the Last Supper.
Just as in the Merchant of Venice, Ofelia’s higher prize is that of a spouse. The Catholic Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper. There is a parallel to the wedding feast at Cana where Jesus turns the water into wine. And the Church is sometimes referred to as the Bride of Christ. Here Ofelia symbolically becomes the bride of Pan.
Jesus' first miracle - He turns water into wine at Cana wedding feast
It would make sense that Pan intends to take Ofelia as his “spouse”. It seems that all the ingredients are in place for a Black Mass. The problem is that Ofelia has tainted herself by eating the grapes. This may have also slightly opened Ofelia’s eyes to Pan’s plan. She refuses to turn over her baby brother to him. All the same, it’s not clear what Pan has in mind at this point because his wedding coronation plans have already been spoiled. Ofelia is seen “naked” by Vidal and he kills her. By “naked”, I mean to compare Ofelia with Adam and Eve after they are cast out of the Garden. Ofelia has lost the “full” protection of Pan by her act of defiance of his will. Her two “guardian fairies” have been devoured leaving her vulnerable to “the enemy”. (My guess is that in this evil and twisted tale, Vidal represents St. Michael who is the leader of the angels in their spiritual battle against the forces of Satan.)
While Ofelia’s death is not the perfect human sacrifice that Pan was looking for, it has some effect. Instead of opening up the Gates of Hell and allowing him to conquer Heaven as Pan had hoped, he has to settle for regaining control over the Earth. This is symbolized by the flowering Fig tree as I mentioned before. So now Pan rules absolutely over two of the three kingdoms – Hell and Earth – signaling the beginning of a new occult era. He will have to wait for a future time to make his assault on Heaven.
BTW, the name Ofelia comes from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. There are some parallels here with Hamlet seeing a ghost (Pan) and seeking revenge for the death of his father. The father’s murderer has married Hamlet’s mother, and this implies that Ofelia’s father was murdered by Vidal. As in Hamlet, the audience is left questioning whether Ofelia is mad or not.
The idea that Captain Vidal represents St. Michael in Del Toro’s mythology has some stark implications – it makes this a truly apocalyptic tale.
It means that there is an allusion here to Revelation Ch. 12 which depicts the battle between St. Michael and Satan represented by a great dragon. There is a “woman clothed with the sun” that gives birth to a child. The woman is Mary and the child is the second coming of Jesus.
St. Michael (as Vidal) is depicted as a homicidal maniac, when really he is fighting against the evil demons represented by the communists.
St. Michael vanquishing Satan
The mandrake root is a sort of voodoo doll that represents the baby. It is fed milk mixed with blood to keep it under Pan’s control. The blood is a sort of poison and the milk is just used to entice the baby (represented by the mandrake root) to drink it.
In this story Satan (Pan) attempts to kill the baby Jesus as part of a Black Mass. But when this fails, the baby is kidnapped and we are told that it will be raised by Pan’s followers with no knowledge that it is the Christ Child. Pan’s followers are communists who are determined to destroy the Catholic Church.
This explains the importance of Ofelia to Pan. It is not really her that he is after, but her baby half-brother instead. The plan is foiled when Ofelia is eats the grapes. After that Pan’s whole plan begins to unravel – the mandrake root is destroyed; Mercedes is discovered to be a communist spy; and the full spiritual war is on.
At the end Pan still attempts to open the portal to the underworld (Gates of Hell) but the tainted Ofelia refuses to hand over the baby. He asks her if she would sacrifice her own life for the baby’s, and she says yes. His reply is translated “As you wish” but really he says “Thy will be done”. St. Michael (Vidal) shoots her in the womb and takes the baby in his arms.
BTW, Michael means “who is like god”. He is one of the archangels. Also, Carmen [the name of Ofelia's mother] is important in Spain because of the Virgen del Carmen. This is the name commonly given in Spanish to Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
