Pope Leo XIII: Non-Theologian, Institutuionalist

 In an astute essay in First Things, reviewing two recent biographies of our new pope, Fr. DeSouza notes: we know nothing about the theological views of Robert Prevost, his rise in the hierarchy was entirely the doing of Pope Francis, he was the "Francis candidate" most unlike Francis temperamentally. He spent his life in in Peru and Rome, mostly in leadership of institutions. His formative years, the 1970s in the seminary, and his entire life has been in a Church in institutional decline; and he wonders "what he learned from this?"

I take a slightly different view. Leo is clearly an institutionalist, an "organization man," in the best sense. While he has lived in a Church in institutional decline, he is himself, a canon lawyer, instinctively a preserver of the institution. This is a very good thing. 

He is a man of prayer, a holy priest. Like his mentor Francis.

He is pastoral, urgent to share the love of Christ, especially with the suffering and marginalized. Like his mentor Francis.

He is not a theologian. Like his mentor Francis.

He is inclined to steady the bark of Peter; to strengthen unity; to minimize conflict and stress. Unlike his mentor Francis. 

The best Churchmen, progressive or conservative, are instinctively "catholic" in an openness, a liberality, a "live-and-let-live" acceptance of diversity. In the Archdiocese of Newark which I know, Cardinal Tobin is a ranking lieutenant of Francis but he rules here with a light hand, allowing distinct groups like the Latin Mass and the Neocatechumenate to live peacefully. Prior to him, Archbishop Meyers came here with a reputation as the second most conservative in the nation; I expected fireworks as our presbyterate could be described as moderate-liberal; there was peace. In a recent Pillar piece, Ed Conlin expressed appreciation for Cardinal McElroy of Washington D.C. who is on the far left of the American episcopacy but well received by conservative priests.

Pope Francis blatantly lacked this openness, notwithstanding his profession of openness and "synodality." He shamelessly refused the red hat to prelates of leading sees (Philadelphia) that always receive it out of personal animosity. It is clear that, by contrast, Pope Leo does have this disposition towards unity.

The Church in which Prevost came of age, the 1970s, was most significantly in catechetical crisis. Coming out of the Council, the Baltimore Catechisism and the received synthesis was discarded but nothing replaced it, until the papacy of John Paul II. Catechetically, Prevost was part of the "lost generation" in its intellectual grasp of our Catholic tradition. Our faith was passed on as a communion in prayer with God, as a worshipping community, as a fraternity of love and outreach to the suffering. But theologically most of the Church was in a fog of confusion. There were points of light. A hungry theological intellect could find its way to the Communio School or that of St. Thomas. 

But Prevost was apparently not such an intellect. He majored in college in math. Clearly bright. But not drawn to theology. He is an American: a pragmatist. His vision, just announced, for the John Paul II Institute for the Family is entirely pastoral and (shades of Francis) anti-intellectual. He wants to move away from abstraction and reform it as a practical guide and aid to family life. Depending upon who leads it, this can be a good or a bad thing. But it is a retreat from the outstanding academic tradition of that school.

It is striking: in my lifetime we had three popes (Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI) with fine, clear, deep theological intellects. These were followed by John Paul and Benedict: theological geniuses, possibly the finest pope theologians in Church history, surely to be doctors of the Church. And now we have two quite mediocre theological popes.

Nevertheless, I am happy with this pope. He is modest, judicious, stable, self-effacing, gentle, open to all. He is a force for steadiness, for unity, for peace. He is endearing and charming.

We have the theology of John Paul and Benedict. It will be taught in seminaries and schools of theology for generations to come. Those hungry for the truth of the Gospel will bask in it and radiate it. Leo will steady the ship of the Church. He will call us to works of Mercy. As the legacy of John Paul and Benedict draws us into the clarity, the depth, and the profundity of Truth.

Make America Godly Again: A MAGA Vision

 Do not be so quick, dear Reader, to dismiss what follows as impossible, as sheer fantasy. ALL things are possible to God. Also: we know that Donald Trump is quite capable of change.

IMAGINE:  Donald Trump wakes up one morning, overwhelmed by how much he is loved by God. Perhaps it is the prayers of those who love him. Perhaps the intercession of Charlie Kirk in heaven or his friendship with Erika. Perhaps the unfailing affection and loyalty of Melania and his family. He is largely (but of course not completely) liberated from enslavement to narcissistic compulsions. So, he:

- Announces that he has been wrong to so many people and asks forgiveness. He starts a serious program of amends to those he has harmed, insulted, or hurt in any way.

- He forgives all who have harmed him in any way. He expresses appreciation for those who have tried to hold him accountable by indictments and impeachments. He issues presidential pardons for Comey, Bolton, James, Smith and Willis.

- He authorizes a full audit of his personal wealth in order to donate 80% to the poor and going forward to give 80% of his income annually to the needy. 

- He joins a Narcissist's Anonymous group, gets a sponsor, works the 12 steps, He finds that virtually all elected politicians in DC certify for the program.

- He joins the OCIA program to enter the Catholic church so he can confess his sins to a priest.

- He enjoys a special Synodal session of congress and hosts it at Mar Lago so Democrats and Republicans can get to know and like each other.

- He takes a 30-day prayer sabbatical from his duties, handing responsibility to JD Vance. (Is this constitutional? Possibly not. But who would have standing to contest? And if anyone did, he would be back in charge within a month anyway.)

- He does a 30-day directed retreat with a good Jesuit to consider the direction of his life after the presidency. Everything is on the table, including jail ministry at the prison in El Salvador with all the gang members, the hermitage or cloistered monastery, a Josephite (abstinent) marriage with Melania, teaching ESL to immigrants, and other.

Granted, dear Reader, the details here seem far-fetched. But you get the drift. Let's pray for something in that direction! This is, after all, November, the month of the last things: death, judgment, heaven, hell.

Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and the Rosary

Reporter Jonathan Karl, in his book Retribution reports on the final, secret meeting of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden shortly after the disastrous debate which revealed his incompetence. The Biden family now despises Pelosi as the prime mover in ending his campaign. The meeting was in the Biden family living room and was a secret even from his staff. She delivered the bad news: widespread consensus was that he would not only lose the election but also bring down the house. The meeting was not contentious. When she finished she took out what Karl calls a rosary or also a rosary coin. I don't know of a rosary coin although a rosary ring with 10 beads is common. In any case, it turns out that Biden then took out the same rosary. It isn't clear that they prayed together, but they did show each other a rosary (or rosary coin?) That was the final meeting between the two of them. They are now, in Karl's words, "enemies forever."

This anecdote is fascinating on several levels.

These two are the incomparable icons of "Catholic" Progressivism of the last several decades. Pelosi has been arguably the most powerful woman politician in American history. She is not allowed communion in her diocese of San Francisco. Biden, the second Catholic president, disparaged the values of his faith in a number of public ways. 

Cultural Progressivism (post 1970) is itself a religion, competitive with and contradictory of Catholicism. Core beliefs: sterilized sex, deconstructed gender, abortion, superiority of technological/scientific culture over the past, and other. Biden/Pelosi are key figures in the triumph of Progressivism. But they flavored this, their core religion, with a superficial, nostalgic, sentimental Catholic piety.

They embody the stereotypical private/public binary: I wouldn't want one but I want the state to pay for everyone else's abortion, especially the poor and the black. 

How ironic that it is reported in a book entitled "retribution." Actually, the theme of the book is retribution by Trump against his enemies. (You are aware, Dear Reader) Fleckinstein is a strong advocate for the retrieval of "retribution" as a moral, cultural, religious form. One might view the aftermath of the meeting as heavenly retribution as  the Biden/Pelosi legacy was devastated by the sweeping Trump victory.

Ironic also that after these displays of piety, they now despise each other.

If they did pray (which I strongly doubt), what mysteries would they have pondered. The first are of course the Joyful: the Annunciation, the Visitation, The Nativity. These deal with the sacredness of unborn life: conception, the embrace of two pregnant cousins, the birth of Jesus (accompanied by the slaughter of the Holy Innocents.) I cannot imagine that these two crusaders for legal abortion would have prayed these foundational Catholic realities. 

Perhaps they replaced with Progressive Dogmas: contraception, abortion of the unborn through 9 months, artificial technologies of surrogacy and other, euthanasia and assisted suicide of the elderly/infirm, the contagion of legal pornography, the sacred status of homosexual and other forms of sodomy. 

These two perfectly represent the dyad of Cultural Progressivism: the passive, impotent male; the empowered, controlling, grasping female. This is resonant of Eve, jealous, manipulative, aggressive; Adam, emasculated, self-pitying, finger-pointing. It is the pathetic Ahab and his vicious, controlling wife Jezebel. It is Herod, manipulated by the incestuous Herodias to cut off the head of the prophet whom he admired.

Catholicism has always been vulnerable to syncretism, impure mixture with other religious practices. It would be hard to imagine something as depraved, as repellant to the Catholic mind as these two mutually admiring each others rosaries. We compete, respectfully, with political/cultural adversaries, for example, the Clintons and Obamas in the political arena. But the presence within our own Church of a Trojan horse, an enemy within, a betrayal by our own of our basic values presents an immense challenge.

The temptation here is a serious one: to contempt. To view a fellow Catholic, a brother and sister in Christ, with spiritual loathing. How do we renounce this temptation? Only with prayer! Prayer for our enemy. 

Lord, touch our hearts with your tender Mercy. Touch as well the hearts of our enemies, cultural progressives, especially Catholics, within the Church and in the political arena. Let your Mercy be upon us as we place our trust in You!

Election Day, November 3, 2025: End of a Temper-Manic Episode?

Like a pampered 2-year old or a raging neighborhood bully, Trump has been on a 9 month rampage, manic and furious. It is simply amazing that he got away with so much for so long. Our constitutional system, still resilient and steady, is finally restraining him.

On Tuesday, the electorate in a number of states, especially in NJ, decisively rejected the Republicans.

 On the following day, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the Trump tariffs and will almost certainly find them unconstitutional. These are a centerpiece of his diplomacy and economics. He sees this as total catastrophe. The Wall Street Journal anticipates it with joy.

With the ongoing government shutdown, Trump is calling for the "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster. Like a self-centered infantile, which he is psychologically, he sees only his own immediate concerns. Finally, Senate Republicans are finding some spine and defending their institutional integrity. 

We can hope that, led by moderate-conservative justices Barrett and Roberts, institutions including congressional Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives, agencies including the FED and others renounce their contemptible subservience to this dictator-wannabe-narcissistic. 

This comes from a moral conservative who voted for Trump in 2024 and for the Republican ticket this week. Ciattarelli is personally prochoice and unappealing. My vote was ideological: pro-Republican and anti-Democrat in defense of fundamental Catholic realities including the life of the powerless, religious liberty, the dignity of the person, gender, sexuality, marriage, the role of science, and more.

While I was initially disappointed with the outcome, I quickly saw the positive. The pendellum had to swing back against the MAGA excesses. Precisely from a conservative viewpoint, basic institutions and protocols of respect have to be protected from the violence, the crudeness, the irrationality of MAGA. 

Is it too much to hope for a resurgence of a more based, traditional, stable conservatism?

We can always hope and pray! 

Almost Catholic...The Twilight Zone of the Catholic Church

 Almost Catholics

Charlie Kirk was seemingly on a trajectory into the Catholic Church, under the influence of his amazing, best-of-many-worlds wife, Erika. Who knew that a woman could be Evangelical and Catholic, a social activist, a mother, a gorgeous celebrity, and a prayerful theologian?  

Jordan Peterson, whose wife famously entered the Church, stands frozen at the boundary, apparently unwilling to or incapable of crossing that line of trust, even as he powerfully articulates Catholic views.

C.S. Lewis remained Anglican, apparently retaining reservations about the papacy and Marian devotion as well as some residual prejudice against Catholicism from his childhood. His teachings were resoundingly Catholic. If he were alive today, it is hard to imagine that he could resist the pull across the Tiber.

Simone Weil, brilliant philosopher-social activist-mystic, was possessed by love for the poor and by the person of Jesus Christ. She was deeply drawn to the prayer of the Church but rejected baptism out of a disgust for dogmatic and institutional dimensions of the Church.

Mother Margaret Cusack, a fiery Irish nationalist and brilliant, prodigious writer (35 books)fought the English overlords and fed the starving during the famine before converting to Catholicism.  Described as eccentric, passionate, rebellious and difficult (think Maureen O'Hara in The Quiet Man), she was an early advocate of the apparitions at Knock and claimed that the Blessed Mother spoke directly to her. After fighting with the episcopacy in Ireland, she got permission personally from the Pope to found a new order, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, to house and train "friendless girls." In 1885 she opened a home (still there) in Jersey City. She again got into ecclesiastical trouble, now with Newark authorities and NYC's  Archbishop Corrigan over her support for a leftwing activist priest and over funds. She left the Catholic Church, returned to the Anglican and was buried therein.

My high school friend Frank was a Catholic priest for 25 years and an Episcopalian priest for just over that. He considers himself a Roman Catholic who has a job with the Anglicans. He says as Episcopalian he does half the work and gets twice the pay he did as Catholic. When he isn't presiding at Eucharist as a visitor he attends a Catholic mass. He, unlike myself, seems untroubled that the mass he celebrates is probably valid but illicit and therefore at least disrespectful but perhaps sacrilegious as his communicants entertain various theologies of the mass.

Another friend left the Church to be ordained a Methodist minister; then reverted to Catholicism, renouncing his ordination; then re-reverted to Methodism; then re-re-reverted to Catholicism. He is intelligent, passionate and articulate in his faith.

I graduated in 1969 from Maryknoll College Seminary with over 50 classmates after 4 years preparing to be missionary priests. Today most do not practice our faith. In large part, their children and grandchildren are minimally familiar with our faith.

If I were to honor, from my generational cohort of idealists, priests, psychologists, activists, and academics,  one figure for his service to the suffering and his prayerfulness of life it would clearly be college classmate John: ordained a missionary priest, he still happily displays a picture of himself concelebrating mass with John Paul II. He left the missionary priesthood, confronted his alcoholism, surrendered himself to the 12 steps and prayer, married, raised a son, and built a marvelous community of service to the addicted, homeless and mentally ill. He speaks with affection, gratitude and reverence of the Church as he seems to remain distant.

To summarize, we contemplate with awe the complexities, nuances, depth and boundless variety in such relationships with the Church.

A Church in Decline?

By all the numbers, our Church has been in steady, steep decline for the last six decades since the Council. There seems to be now a plateau, and even signs of a revival, certainly among young men in the USA. But numbers do not accurately disclose spiritual realities. And so, the argument here is that the reality of God and his Church in our lives is immeasurable, mysterious, dense, largely anonymous.

Not long ago, Catholics were 50% of the NJ population; now it is closer to 33%. The NONES are now more than 25% and possibly half of them are ex-Catholics. Only one in six Catholics practice their faith by weekly participation in Sunday mass. So, in NJ about one in eighteen, just over 5%, people practice our faith. Even these are largely victims of the catechetical famine that afflicted us from the Council until the pontificates of John Paul and Benedict (from 1965 through the 70s). Few understand with any depth and clarity our faith. So, integral, intelligent, passionate Catholic faith has become rare, almost a cult, found in niches like religious orders, priests, renewal movements and the Latin Mass. (For example, many Sunday mass attendees would be unpleasantly surprised by the previous essay on the structure of the spousal act.)

However, (as noted in an earlier blog essay), our experience in hospital ministry shows that while institutional loyalty has declined, there abides a immense, deep Catholic influence. Almost everyone we encounter has some connection, usually positive, with the Church. Some are influenced by marriage or a family member. Many retain practices and beliefs: devotion to Mary or the rosary, Padre Pio, St. Francis. Most at least admire the Church's solicitude for the poor and suffering. Most respect and (to some extent) emulate the ideals of marital fidelity. Even those who self-identify as agnostics or even atheists are open to prayer as they entertain some uncertainty in their "unbelief." Frequently we hear grateful mention of a happy connection with a priest, nun, devout layperson or a vibrant institution.

The Church is like other movements and communities of value: there are concentric circles of participation. At the very center, those fully dedicated: professionally or voluntarily, but wholeheartedly. Moving outward, we find decreasing intensity. At the outside circles we have nonmembers who nevertheless are influenced, and therefore participant in some degree. At least in NJ, it is like St. Patrick's Day when everyone is Irish: everyone is, however incompletely, Catholic.

Conclusion

Christ and His Church is a bright, flaming, illuminating, warming fire at the heart of creation, history, society. It reaches everything and everywhere. Even as some are moving away; others moving closer;  many strangely moving now one way and then another. The warmth and light is available everywhere to everyone. There are shadows everywhere; and in everyone. There are also black holes of sin ready to devour the willing. 

May we despise the dark and the cold. May we crave the light and the warmth. May we draw each other closer to that Fire!

The Structure of the Conjugal Act

 Most widespread slander against the Catholic Church:  "Not fair! Gays can't have any sex! Straights can have all they want!"

Foundational cultural error of post-1970, sterile, contraceptive American culture: "Sex is a human need."

The Spousal or Conjugal or Marital Act

In the Catholic world, everyone...homosexual, heterosexual, married, single, vowed to virginity or celibacy...plays by the same, very strict rules. 

The conjugal act belongs within the spousal union. That union is exclusive, male/female, perpetual, free, open to life, in union with God, legitimately manifested as a sacrament or with explicit Church approval. 

The act has a sacred, sacramental character as enactive of the "one-enfleshment" of man and woman. It is inherently unitive and procreative, even though every single act is not fruitful. The very nature or inner form of the act requires that the male climax occur within the woman, who receives the man's seed.

In other words, at climax, with the release of the seed, the penis must be within the vagina. Even slight penetration allows the act to be valid and well-ordered.

Accidental premature ejaculation is unintended and therefore morally innocent. Within the flow of the intercourse, the woman can be brought to climax before or after ejaculation without harm to the act.

Deliberate arousal to climax outside of this spousal one-enfleshment is inherently non-unitive and sterile and therefore disordered as mutual masturbation. This applies even to a married couple.

Consummation and Dissolubility of Marriage

In the 12th century Church especially, there was disagreement as to what created or ratified the marriage: consent of the spouses or consummation understood as natural intercourse, open to life. The final resolution included both: the actual marriage is ratified by the consent. But the consummation completes or seals the marriage. So, a valid but unconsummated marriage is a real marriage. However, such can be dissolved by the Pope for good reasons. A sacramentally valid and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by the Pope or anyone else. It is absolutely permanent.

To dissolve is different in kind from an annulment which is common. The later declares the sacrament to be void: there never was a real marriage at all due to some defect, for example in consent or form. By contrast, to dissolve is to declare there was a real marriage, but it was not finalized by the spousal act, and therefore can be dissolved. This leaves the parties free to marry or make vows in the religious life.

I have never heard of such. It must be quite rare. In earlier times we can imagine: a man and woman, on the night of their marriage, share that the man desires priesthood  and the woman religious life but perhaps married to satisfy their families. This case would also raise a question about the consent being free. Nevertheless, if they refrain from natural intercourse it is possible that they petition to have the marriage dissolved. 

Josephite marriage, in which spouses validly marry but voluntarily and mutually refrain from sex in imitation of the marriage of Mary and Joseph is another rarity in our time. But such a marriage, unconsummated, can be dissolved, for example if either desires consecrated life or ordination.

We see from this discussion that the spousal act is itself normally constitutive of the sacrament, understood broadly beyond the marriage ceremony itself.

The sacredness of the act would be intuitive for most traditional religions. The idea is ridiculous in our secular, sexually-sterile culture.

Impotence as Impediment to Catholic Marriage

Here is another little known fact, really a well-kept secret: sexual impotence, the inability to complete the spousal act, is an impediment to marriage. Impotence here does not mean sterility, the inability to conceive. Nor may it be confused with sexual dysfunction including female disinterest in sex. Rather, it refers to permanent, irreversible incapacity to perform the act. This would normally mean erectile dysfunction on the part of the male such that he can never, even slightly, penetrate the vagina. On the woman's part, this would mean a pathology such that she is unable to receive the penetration and the seed. I am not aware that this is a known condition although I did read of a woman who suffered a muscle condition due to rape but that seemed not to be permanent. And so, permanent and irreversible impotence, discovered after marriage, is grounds for annulment. 

We see here again: not fertility nor ability to enjoy sex but capacity to perform the act itself is intrinsic to a Catholic marriage. 

This raises issues for couples that marry late in life. Such are obviously sterile. Studies indicate something like 60% of men in their 60s suffer some degree of impotence. It is well known that there are treatments for the condition if it is not permanent and total. If there is even slight capacity and possibility that some seed be received, than the condition is not an impediment. Doubt is resolved in favor of the marriage. But lets assume the condition, possibly due to surgery, is total and irremediable by any drug or licit device. In that case the marriage could be annulled. 

Lets assume that the spouse, normally the woman, accepts the condition and opts not to seek annulment.  Obviously, if the Church does not know about it than it is not an issue. In the eyes of God? My guess is that he takes delight in the couple. But in this case, they would be restricted...along with everyone else...from sexual activity deliberately leading to climax, for either or both spouses, as it would not be a proper conjugal act.

Yes. This is a hard teaching! He never said it would be easy!

Conclusion

In Catholic life, the marriage bed, along with the family table and the Eucharistic altar, is the sacred place where God communes with the human person most intimately. The spousal act is sacred in many ways. It is cooperation with God in the creation of a person, a soul that will live for eternity. It is an incomparable union of husband and wife, not just physically or extrinsically, but in heart, soul, intellect, will and in all things. It is the most precious, intimate, holy, natural act imaginable.

And so, wisely, sternly, the Church protects the act...as well as the marriage, the family, the woman and the children. It is a hard, but inspiring and splendid teaching.

The Allure of the Femme Fatale: Meryl Streep in "Still of the Night"

Here is a largely unknown, unheralded movie. Streep herself apparently thought little of it, calling it "a mistake" and noting that she got to spend a lot of time with her infant as it was shot near her home in NYC. I differ. Perhaps her effortless nonchalance allowed her raw talent to shine so brightly.

It is a gem of a film. A merciful 83 minutes! (In film as in all things, "small is beautiful.") Made in 1982 in a drab, dark Manhattan, which suits me as I savor many memories there and love movies set there. It is taut, clear, austere; a psychological thriller worthy of Hitchcock. Roy Scheider plays a tight, repressed psychoanalyst, just divorced, quietly in crisis. A playboy patient is stabbed to death. Streep shows up as an ex-girlfriend, who is very possibly the murderess. She is strikingly lovely, in an ethereal, surreal fashion. Fair skinned, slightly exotic, impeccably proportioned, she is so pronouncedly sweet, innocent, and vulnerable that she almost has to be (the intelligent viewer sees immediately) a psychopath. But maybe not! As evidence increases that she is the culprit, she radiates all the more a virginal luminosity that can only be direct from heaven or hell. The poor psychotherapist (along with the male viewer) is without defense!

She is easily the best femme fatale I have every known! (And I have never known one I didn't like!) She is the type that drives you crazy because she is either very good or very bad but you just cannot tell...until the very end. (Sorry, Reader, there will be no spoiler here. It is on Prime.)

Such a classic femme fatale is a heightened expression of three prime manifestations of the feminine to the masculine gaze: the innocent, fragile, precious, vulnerable one to be rescued or protected; the comforting, pleasure-giving, object of desire reminiscent of maternal enclosure; and the ominous, evil, murderous seductress. Blend them together and you have a powerful cocktail!

First: the "daughter" figure: virginal, fragile, precious and vulnerable. This appeals, powerfully, to the paternal instinct. She must be protected or rescued. This is the most powerful passion of the mature, virile man. And so, the psychologist, throwing prudence to the wind, engages in the investigation, at his own peril. The ambiguity becomes unbearable: she is so sweet that it must be a con job. 

A contrasting, flaming femme fatale is the Kim Basinger prostitute in LA Confidential. She is blatantly shamelessly seductive; even as she is the victim of violence. The Russel Crowe detective, who had watched his own mother be abused, is a combustible combination of rage against the abuser and lust: the chemistry between them is nuclear.

The second manifestation is that which awakens desire: erotic, romantic, covetous, deeply emotional. Here the child-bearing-age-woman draws the man to herself, promising pleasure, comfort, and ecstatic inclusion. We recall here the explosive appeal of the feminine hour glass, figure 8 shape: petite in the manner of the precious one but full and reminiscent of infantile euphoria. These lead of course to the third: the dark mother, the threatening feminine.

It is perhaps more fear of his own cravings that awakens dread in the male heart and psyche. The woman becomes so desirable that the man loses all control, he is powerless, overwhelmed, without resistance to the woman's seduction. In contrast to the strong father figure awakened by the first feminine manifestation of powerlessness, here the man becomes passive before the machinations of the clever beauty. 

Here we recall the original fall of Adam. He is not participant in the initial act of sin, the engagement of Eve with the serpent, Lucifer. Adam is strangely absent from that prime drama. He is drawn in, secondarily, by the more dominant Eve. He puts up no resistance, but submits at her mere suggestion.

Like Eve in the initial drama of the human story, the femme fatale dominates the noire film. The male protagonist, like Adam, is secondary, derivative, passive.

By a happy coincidence, the Vatican just released a new document clarifying our Catholic devotion to Mary. It reviews the history, highlighting Mary's maternal love and care for us, her perpetual virginity and purity, and her preeminence as first among us as recipient of and collaborator in salvation. It discourages the use of controversial titles "co-redemptrix" and "mediatrix" of graces. These tend to lift Mary up into participation in the divine, distancing her from us, and possibly obscuring the absolutely unique salvific role of Christ. 

We might contrast the image of Mary with the femme fatale. She also is small, humble, vulnerable, virginal. She also is mother, source of comfort, protection, assistance. She is virgin mother, mysteriously. But the shadow of evil that haunts the femme fatale is entirely absent from Mary. She is the answer to the complicity of Eve in sin. She is without sin, from conception, entirely holy all throughout childbirth and with Jesus on Calvary, after his rising, until Pentecost, and finally assumed into heaven. 

The allure of the femme fatale, life-giving mother and yet virginal innocence, is in Mary purged of sin and illuminated with the beauty of purity and holiness. She is not the primary protagonist in the drama of our salvation. But she gets Oscar for incomparable actress in a supporting role!