Dr Andrew Thomas Kania entitled today's commentary "Lillies that Fester" (cf Matthew 6:4). He takes the title from Shakespeare's Sonnet 94: "But if that flower with base infection meet, The basest weed outbraves his dignity: For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds; Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds." It is a thought-provoking discussion starter on the subject of leadership. By way of introduction Andrew informs us that he was born on the 22nd of November, 1966 and shares his birthday with the anniversary of John F Kennedy's assassination. His interest in Kennedy began with each birthday having a documentary, or eulogy, about and to Kennedy. In time this interest developed into an admiration for the man, eventually Kennedy becoming a hero figure for Andrew as a teenager. With the focus also these days on the flaws that are evident in ecclesial leaders, the ideas that Andrew touches upon in this commentary might lead us to ponder: how do we integrate the very human flaws that all of us exhibit into our picture of leadership — do we go back to a system of hypocrisy where, for example the media, carefully camouflage the personal failings and flaws of our leaders, or do we seek out "lilly-white, goody two shoes" who lack the capacity to inspire, or are we seeking some different model? Do the sort of qualities Dr Kania articulates towards the conclusion of this commentary offer the basis for a model of leadership or is it an ideal that is unrealisable in practice without throwing up the sort of insipid leadership that makes people blanch and leads a community into the sort of irrelevant place in human affairs the Christian churches seem to be rapidly heading towards? How do we find the right balance in these matters? What modelling of leadership does Jesus Christ, or Peter or Paul offer to us?

A 2002 motion picture, The Emperor's Club, (a movie based on the novel by Ethan Canin, The Palace Thief), tells the story of a brilliant teacher of the Classics, William Hundert, at St. Benedict's Academy, a fictitious exclusive private school for boys in the United States.

The unmasking of a cheat…

Hundert, a man who believes in academic excellence, the pursuit of virtue, as well as the applicability of the wisdom of the ancient world, is the organizer of an annual school competition, an ancient history quiz, in which the victor is crowned, "Mr Julius Caesar". The contest takes place between the three best students of the graduating class; for that particular year: Louis Masoudi, an intelligent, though fun-loving student; Deepak Mehta, a diligent and naturally gifted scholar; and Sedgewick Bell, a Senator's son, a young man known for his arrogance and 'born-to-rule' personality. Soon after the contest begins, Masoudi answers incorrectly, leaving Mehta and Bell to fight out question after more difficult question in order to take the prize. The audience, comprising parents and students, are riveted to their seats as the favourite Mehta is challenged by Bell for the laurel. Hundert, initially glowing with pride at Bell's good performance, (for Bell has shown much improvement throughout the course of the year), becomes suspicious about Bell's 'brilliance'. He notices that each time Bell answers a difficult question Bell raises his hand over his face to sweep his fingers through his hair. Inside Bell's toga (a dress requirement for the competition), Bell has 'cheat notes'. So as to find Bell out, Hundert adds a question that was not on his original confidential quiz sheet of questions, and directs this to Bell: "Who was Hamilcar Barca?" Bell looks in disbelief at Hundert. In all that is contained in that single glance, Hundert knows that Bell must have broken into his office and read the question paper. Bell responds incorrectly to the question – and Mehta by virtue of his correct reply, wins the day. The sizeable audience rise to their feet to applaud Mehta; while Bell, disconsolate, stands, staring at Hundert in disbelief.

The movie then proceeds to a time twenty-five years later. Sedgewick Bell is now running for the United States Senate. Bell has organized a reunion for his class – with an added event, that he will contest a rematch of the "Mr Julius Caesar" competition of his graduating year. As fate would have it, Masoudi fails the initial question, leaving Mehta and Bell to once again contest. This time Hundert feels that he can be proud of Bell. With each question that Hundert delivers, Bell moves a step closer to redemption in the eyes of Hundert. Yet once again, Bell fails. Hundert notices that on the more difficult questions, Bell presses his hand to the side of his head. Hundert, who sits close to the stage, can see a small device in Bell's ear. At the back of the hall, Hundert notices that the man employed by Bell to organize the lighting and the sound for the event, (we learn later he is a graduate school student in Classics), is speaking into a microphone, providing Bell with the answers. As he had done previously, Hundert, slips into the competition, an additional question. This time the question is obscure, so obscure that few academic texts would contain the answer; but Hundert feels justified in asking the question, for he had used this in Bell's class to emphasize the importance of knowledge, even that knowledge which is obscure: "Who was Shuutruk-Nahhunte?" The audience laugh, as they all seem to remember the class, that Hundert gave on this obscure historical figure; but for his part, true to form, Bell had not been concentrating during this class; he had instead debated with Hundert, the worth of such knowledge. Bell stumbles and Mehta is victorious.

Winning at all costs…

Now what happens next is what makes the movie worthy of remembering. Exasperated by Bell once more caught out cheating, Hundert goes into the bathroom to throw cold water on his face. Bell follows soon after. Hundert confronts him about his unethical behaviour. Bell quickly counters by scoffing at Hundert's career as a simple teacher – and begins to give his own lesson to Hundert about winning at all costs. There is nothing that Bell won't stoop too in order to achieve his ends; lying, cheating – he tells Hundert, are all a part of his life. With all this off his chest, Bell smiles smugly at his old teacher. The short ensuing silence is broken by the sound of a toilet flushing. From out of the cubicle comes a small boy of about eight years of age. He looks up at Bell. Bell's jaw drops, and the sadness that appears in Bell's eyes and those of his son, redound in Hundert's visage. Bell calls out to his son, who has heard the entire conversation, but his son continues to walk out of the bathroom. Bell is shattered.

The mixed legacy of John F Kennedy…

Jacqueline Bouvier and John F Kennedy on their wedding day

Two American historians, Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager, concluded about President John F. Kennedy, after his death: "Thus died, a victim of senseless hatred, a great gentleman, a devoted patriot, a wise statesman, one who combined gaiety with dignity, patience with ardour, compassion with courage, and poetry with power". (Nevins & Commager, 1966, p. 598)

Another historian, William Manchester, would write in his recollection of Kennedy in One Brief Shining Moment: "His elegance, his sophistication, and his self-deprecating wit were effective camouflage. He needed that; he was a man of understatement ... Duty, dedication, and devotion were the very essence of him, and if those words sound quaint, the fault lies with us and not with him." (Manchester, 1983, p. 276)

At the time that Kennedy was President, newspapers and magazines referred to his Presidency as, 'Camelot'; King Arthur had returned, it seemed, surrounded by his trusty and able knights, accompanied by a beautiful Queen; it was almost as if an Age of Chivalry had dawned again. Here was a man of unquestionable physical courage — a decorated hero, from the Pacific Theatre of World War II, as well as a man suffering bravely under the constant torment of numerous physical ailments; here was a man who was a Pulitzer Prize winner, a student of Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and the London School of Economics, a man married to a beautiful and intelligent wife; a father of two attractive and healthy children, and the acclaimed leader of the world's wealthiest and most militarily powerful nation. John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963) was all of these, as well as being handsome and wealthy. Yet modern scholarship, with the recent opening of what were once confidential files and memoirs, has torn savagely away from the Kennedy mystique.

Robert Dallek in his biography, John F. Kennedy: An Unfinished Life (2003), gives us a glimpse of, among other well-known aspects of his character, Kennedy the reckless and seemingly compulsive philanderer, a man for whom the principles of faithfulness in marriage, pre-marital commitment to chastity, as well as a fundamental respect for women, were seemingly a joke. Dallek writes: "In the summer of 1956, while she [his wife Jackie] was in the late stages of a pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage, Jack went on a yachting trip with George Smathers in the Mediterranean, where he enjoyed 'a bacchanal, with several young women getting on and off the boat at its ports of call'. He was especially drawn to 'a stunning but not particularly intelligent blonde who … referred to herself as "Pooh"'. Even after getting the news that Jackie had lost their child, Jack did not decide to go home until Smathers warned him that a divorce would play havoc with his presidential ambitions. In 1958, when younger brother Ted got married, Jack was caught on tape whispering to him 'that being married didn't really mean that you had to be faithful to your wife'."(Dallek, 2003, p. 195)

The same author also describes how Kennedy continued his chronic womanising throughout his presidency, at one point Dallek noting Jackie's predicament: "But she had no illusions about her husband's behaviour. At the end of their visit to Canada in 1961, while the president and Jackie were saying goodbye to people in a receiving line that included a 'blonde bimbo', as JFK's military aide General Godfrey McHugh described her, Jackie 'wheeled around in fury' and said in French to McHugh and Dave Powers standing behind her, 'Isn't it bad enough that you solicit this woman for my husband, but then you insult me by asking me to shake her hand!' One day, as she escorted a Paris journalist around the White House, she said to him in French, as they walked past 'Fiddle' [Jack's latest lover], 'This is the girl who is sleeping with my husband'." (Dallek, 2003, p. 477)

Dallek rationalises Kennedy's behaviour by recounting how the President's father, Ambassador Joseph Kennedy (1888-1969) had in Jack's youth, frequently brought lover's to the family dinner table, unashamedly parading them in front of a devoutly pious, and long suffering wife and mother, Rose (1890-1995). From such early role-modelling, Dallek concludes, John F. Kennedy developed a taste for infidelity, of which Marilyn Monroe was but an extremely minor player in his long retinue of infidelities and indiscretions, a retinue that even included, Inga Arvad (1913-1973), a Danish beauty, who had been romantically linked with Adolf Hitler in the 1930's, as well as other high level members of NAZI Germany.

As such, the "great gentleman" of Nevins & Commager's character summation, was in the light of truth, far from. The words written by Plato in Gorgias are very apt for Kennedy, a man born into power, prestige and influence: "For it's a difficult thing, Callicles, and one that merits much praise, to live your whole life justly when you've found yourself having ample freedom to do what's unjust. Few are those who prove to be like that". (Plato, The Complete Works, p. 868) It would seem that Kennedy was not one of Plato's esteemed few, for he chose to consistently use women as play-things, drawing his clientele like moths to a light via the public position in society which he held.

True leadership…

The polished public persona of JFK In an official White House portrait

James McGregor Burns once wrote with regard leadership that in its truest sense it "occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality." A true leader cannot live as a dichotomy of persons, professionally astute, but privately bereft of moral virtue, for they hold within their hands, not only the ability to sculpture things of this world, but also, by their example, they offer their citizens an example of a higher form of government; a government ruled by virtue, things pointing to a better world. Society must require more of it leaders than the mere appearance of virtue – for when the bubble of hypocrisy bursts, and it eventually does, the scars that remain on the psyche of a people, who once deluded now know the Truth, tend to engender cynicism and bitterness with regard the notion of morality itself. The effects of such moral scarring inevitably lead to relativism and permissiveness, whereby so-called heroes are excused their lack of virtue on the basis of them excelling in other areas of their lives; or in fact, belief in goodness as a reality in the world may be doubted, by way of a 'significant other' being found out to be a hypocrite. Whereas the demand to lead a holy life is on each of us, this demand is even greater on those who are in the public eye or those who by virtue of their vocation acquire a moral esteem, people such as: lawyers, doctors, teachers, political leaders, and of course, clergy and religious. There is a sacred and moral trust involved.

A Christian model of leadership…

Christianity seeks to develop the whole person, and especially that facet of living which requires of all of us, rich or poor, black or white, a good and Godly life. We need to be whole people – real people, and not figments of imagination, nor cartoon superheroes, both which exist only in a number of dimensions, but not in the fullness of humanity. A person becomes known not only by the actions which are seen under the stark rays of noon – but even more so, in time, by what actions he or she sees fit to carry out under the deep pall of night.

Unlike Sedgewick Bell, who would only check his behaviour if within ear-shot of his son; nor like John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who relied upon the poor example of his father to give him carte-blanche with regard his own morality; we are called, each of us, to live as the mystic, to understand that all of our actions are on display to a higher audience than either son or father, and all of the time. It is the reality in our minds and hearts of such a Seer that determines whether we live a life according to an ideal higher than our basest desires of lust or greed, or whether we indeed fool ourselves to assume that the tree makes no noise in a forest for want of no animal with a sense of hearing to hear it; or that our actions for not being seen by another person are less sinful. Sound waves reverberate, and cause things to move by their sheer volume, felt if not by the deafened ear, then underfoot; and immoral acts echo from their point of origin throughout time, no matter how powerful the person, nor how great the means available 'to keep things quiet'; for the victim of a moral crime may not speak, but those around who love that person will notice something, if not immediately, then overtime, and all lives are subsequently changed.

The perceived 'public' nature of God in your life, should in fact check the goodness or not of all private actions, for as St. Augustine summarized: the more one prays to God from the depth of one's heart – the less one will be able to sin; for one cannot live in the presence of Absolute Love, and know and love that one is doing so, and simultaneously do harm to either self or another.

Image Credits:
Clicking on the images in the body of the article will take you to the original source. The background used in the headline was sourced from www.insideyourchicago.com

©2008 Dr Andrew Thomas Kania

[Andrew Kania's Archive]