''The Great Emasculation," "The Hegemony of Eve-ist, non-Marian Femininity," and the Effeminate Church

The current drama of history is a contest between two matriarchies: the Queenship of Mary, Virgin Mother, who co-reigns with and deferential to her son, Christ our King, and his heavenly Father; and the tyranny of evil stepmother Eve-ist Faux-Feminism, which serves the master Lucifer.      Fleckinstein 

In a remarkable piece ("The Great Feminization" Compactmag.com, October 16, 2025), Helen Andrews identifies the eruption of "woke" culture with the demographic transition, a decade or so ago, when women became the majority in important realms like education, law, medicine and other. She agrees that inflection point was  the famous demise of Larry Summers at Harvard, in 2005, due to remarks about female competence and interest, at the highest levels, in science and math. The canceling was not in principle or according to clear argument, rather a visceral, emotional reaction of resentment, orchestrated by the now hegemonic feminism. 

I would like to offer a further clarification of this monumental development, not to contradict, but to enrich the analysis. First, it is not femininity as such, but rather a toxic form of femininity that is ascendant: it is "eve-ist, non-Marian" femininity that has triumphed. Secondly, closely related. is the contemporaneous decline of wholesome virility that has allowed toxic feminism to fill the void.

Femininity: Marian and Eve-ist

Toxic femininity is what we inherited from Eve herself. In her surrender to Lucifer, she was an isolated individual, separated from, possibly abandoned by but at least neglected by Adam, depending upon her own resources, independent of spouse and God. Vulnerable, she surrendered to suspicion of God at the cunning words of the serpent. She decided to take things into her own hands...without communion with God or husband...and grab the forbidden fruit. She renounced her given identity as receptive, trusting, surrendered, serene and generous. She GRABBED the fruit. Then she influenced Adam, drawing him into her chaos. 

In sharpest contrast is the femininity we receive from Mary, virgin and mother. She is fully in communion, from conception, with God. She is receptive, trusting, innocent, compliant. She is eager only to do what pleases the Father. She receives and conceives by the Holy Spirit. She lives a humble, quiet life in union with Joseph. She crushes the head of the Serpent.

The militant feminism that exploded upon us in the 1960s was entirely Eve-ist, not Marian: sexually liberated, suspicious of masculinity, disbelieving in God, self-determining, individualistic, careerist, status-envying, sterile, abortion-loving, resentful, competitive, materialist, consumerist, self-pitying. 

This was not the sublime femininity of...say, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Theresa of Lisieux, St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross, St. Mother Theresa of Calcutta, or Blessed Maria Teresa Demjanovitch of Bayonne!

Nor was it the femininity of an alternate school of wholesome, holy feminism: Mothers Drexell, Cabrini, Cope, Jadot, Hawthorne, Cusak, Elizabeth of the Trinity, Elizabeth Leseux, Etty Helison, Faustina,  Edith Stein (already mentioned), Sigrid Undset, Raissa Maritain, Alice von Hildebrandt, Gertrude von Fort, Elizabeth Anscombe, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Caryl Houselander, Maisy Ward, Adrienne von Speyr, Madeleine DelBrell, Flannery O'Connor, Eva Peron,  Mary Anne Glendon, Tracey Rowland, Helen Andrews, Mary Harrington,  Rita Simmons, Debra Herbeck, Heather King, Chiara Lubich, Janet Smith, Helen Alvare, Anne Eberstadt, Margaret Rose Laracy  (a favorite of mine), Abigail Favale, Margaret McCarthy, Kimberly Hahn, Patricia Snow, Anne Hendershott, and many more.

Nor is it the St.-Joan-of-Ark like femininity-with-virility we see in figures like Nicky Haley, Condoleza Rice, Margaret Thatcher or...my current favorite: Amy Coney Barrett. 

Notwithstanding her radiant femininity, maternity, and charismatic Catholicism, Barrett stands in marked contrast with the faux-masculinity, effeminacy of Donald Trump. In the current term of the Court, she promises to be the distinctive voice, capable of restraining his actions according to the Constitution. She is calm, rational, objective, sober, steady,non-partisan, confident, clear, based, restrained, serene. Trump is quintessentially the non-virile, toxic male: agitated, irrational, emotional, resentful, jealous, attention-seeking, volatile, unhinged, unrestrained, obsessed with himself, indifferent to institutional protocols. In her recent book and current round of interviews (note especially that with Ross Douthat) she clarifies that the Court's decisions are not personal, not about Trump, but about the future of our country. She is our judicial Caitlin Clark: clear, competitive, forceful, determined, steady...and yet feminine! That is a miracle!

Another striking figure of virile femininity is Erika Kirk. Breathtakingly beautiful in every way; but strong, clear, decisive, determined, fierce. She is Catholic and Evangelical. She may ultimately exceed her husband in influence for the good. If so, it will be because her radiant femininity is infused with a holy, wholesome, vigorous masculinity...largely through the love she shared with Charlie.

The Decline of Masculinity

The great puzzle and tragedy of our time: the virile men who returned victorious from the war to work hard and raise large families failed, in large part, to communicate their masculinity to us, their boomer sons. My analysis: we are all Momma's boys. Our fathers were out working long hours...lots of overtime and career advancement...and our mothers happily left the work force to concentrate on the kids. At the same time our economy exploded with prosperity. By around 1960 our shared standard of living was surely the highest, on such a large scale, in human history. If our fathers were hardened like steel in the Depression and War, we were softened,  pampered and indulged by affluence, too much mothering, not enough fathering. We are the spoiled generation.

I speak with the expertise of an insider. A certified boomer, I am a "mama's boy in recovery." Always have been. Soft in temperament, I profoundly crave infantile regression: return to the enclosing womb, the warm breast, the maternal embrace, vision of the exquisite face, all the comforts of feminine attention. Fortunately, I am painfully aware of this disordered compulsion. Many men are not; and so they use porn; stay on their phones and computers; refuse to commit to marriage/career/family; contracept/cohabit to retain maternal comfort without the cost of marriage and paternity. I benefited in the long run by being exiled from the maternal paradise by the rapid birth of 8 younger siblings so I had no choice but to find my way as a man in the cold world of competition, confrontation, and warfare. (okay, dear Reader, I am being melodramatic here! It was not that bad!)

 En masse, upon entering adulthood in the late 60s and 70s, we embraced the sexual revolution, contraception, materialism, resentment of authority and tradition, the hegemony of the Imperial Self.  We abandoned our Catholic faith and the heroic ideal of manhood. 

Militant feminism, suspect of full throttle masculinity, preferred a soft, androgynous variety: gentle, non-competitive, domestic, therapy-friendly, quasi-pacifist. Toxicity was attributed to police, military, all-men clubs, competition, evangelicalism, traditionalism, capitalism.

Traditional rituals and rites of passage, absolutely necessary for the itinerary into noble virility, were systematically replaced by the amorphous ideal of androgyny. This takes, of course, an extreme expression, not so much in homosexuality as such, as in gay and transwoman identity. But it takes a more pernicious form across the mainstream as, for example, all-boy prep schools endorse feminism and sponsor LGBTQ clubs.

And so we welcome the primal, volcanic explosion of raw masculinity in the Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk and even Donald Trump phenomena. We hope to channel it into nontoxic, wholesome, even holy forms in the tradition of our fathers.

Effeminate Church

That Andrews' demographic model requires correction and elaboration becomes evident when we consider the Catholic Church.  Holy Orders remains restricted to men. Notwithstanding recent appointments of women to administrative positions, leadership remains 99% male. Yet, our Church has largely gone woke and effeminate. 

The Church inherently, internally is feminine as Marian, receptive of the love of the Groom. But "effeminate" is not feminine. It is a perversion of the masculine: a weakness in identity, a faux-femininity springing from a depleted or poisoned masculinity. It is a pathology. 

This is manifest in the priest scandal, which afflicted teenage boys predominately; as well as in the gay culture that is no longer so covert. It pervades the entire clerical culture and the Church itself since the Council. Arguably, today's Church is less the product of the (Spirit-inspired) Council than of the Great Emasculation. Priests, bishops, theologians and many laity are simply "mamma's boys," lacking in integral masculine confidence, certainty, fortitude, chastity, humility, and magnanimity. They are heavy on compassion, kindness, tolerance...which is good. But these are not tempered by justice, truth, retribution, wrath, ferocity, courage and authority. 

The fetish with synodality is effeminate: it replaces the masculine, decisive, authoritative, apostolic synod with a vague, feel-good, indecisive, bureaucracy of endless listening. At the same time, the protocol is tailormade to be manipulated, behind the scenes, in the effeminacy of a disguised progressive agenda.

The new, absolute ban on capital punishment is effeminate. It is not based on principle and reason: it does not firmly call the thing inherently evil. It is in part a foggy, illusory trust in prison systems as adequate protection; in part an avoidance of the reality of retribution, here and in the afterlife; but mostly a sentimentality, a distaste for the practice. It is emotional, not intellectual. It is effeminate.

The papal/episcopal disapproval of borders is admirably compassionate, but in its implicit approval of Biden-type open borders it lacks the masculine sense of boundaries, rules, protection, order, and rule of law. It is effeminate. 

The papal surrender to the Chinese Communists and the Cultural Progressives of the West: effeminate, a failure in virile, truthful witness.

The crisis of the Church is one of effeminacy. No wonder men are not drawn to the priesthood!

Conclusion

The two defining saints of the 20th century were St. Mother Theresa in her maternity; and St. John Paul II in his paternity. He in his iconic virility. She in her even more virile, heroic, holy femininity.

Male effeminacy is an infection, a sin to be overcome. As is "Eve-ist Femininism." But femininity and masculinity are creations of God. They are intrinsic to the order of reality. They are finally inexorable. We see around us surges of wholesome, holy femininity and masculinity. This is a Joy. This is our Hope.

Dear Pope Leo,

My youngest brother (by 8 years) graduated with you from Villanova, 1977; so I write you as I would him, as my little brother in Christ; with due reverence for you as our Holy Father and Vicar of Christ on earth; with tender affection; with respect for your evident gifts; aware of shortcomings only recently manifest. To do such takes theological confidence, clarity, certitude and even cockiness. Fleckinstein (you are aware dear Reader) is not lacking in such!

In your choice of name, you clearly emulate Leo XIII. I urge you: do not expect to give us a Rerum Novarun for the 21st century! Rather, echo the Augustinian (your order) Leo who foresaw the darkness of the 20th century, the invasion from hell, and gave us the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, the call to spiritual combat.  This second Leo understood Augustine's view of the City of God and the City of Man. The first is the presence of the Kingdom of God among us, since Jesus, in the Church. The second is the realm of libido dominando ("lust for domination") which is the determining force of "the world," the arena of political force, violence and control. You belong to the City of God, not the City of Man. This is not a dualistic binary, rather a realization that in the real world the two interpenetrate each other in subtle, complex fashion, but are clearly distinct.

It is NOT your job to be global chaplain and outline the framework for international peace and justice. That is NOT your mission! I urge you: Do Not Worry...about...climate, immigrants, income inequality, fascism, capital punishment. Pray (as St. Padre Pio taught us), hope, and do not worry. 

Renounce the error of Pope Francis: to see yourself as global chaplain of a new international Christendom, as instructor of everyone in political ideology. Even Ross Douthat (with whom I agree 98% of the time) (NY Times Oct. 12, 2025) is looking for you to do what Leo XIII did for 20th century Catholicism in Rerum Novarun : provide political guidance going forward. Such is not possible. Such is not your job.

Catholic social doctrine...initiated by Rerum but developed for over a century through John Paul and Benedict...holds up well in postmodernity as it is not a meta-theory but a body of fluid, flexible, organic principles, rooted in Natural Law and Revelation, applicable in all contexts and untied to any system or ideology: solidarity with the poor, subsidiarity, common good, freedom of conscience, etc. These remain useful to us going forward and admit of organic development.

Douthat correctly notes that Leo XIII set the table for Catholic politics of that century by rejecting, as the Industrial World was emerging, both collectivist socialism and individualist capitalism in favor of a balanced, communal vision of social life rooted in the traditional family and entailing freedom of initiative, markets, unions, a limited but a robust state to serve the common good, countervail power/wealth, defend the worker and the poor. This template was implemented faithfully in the postwar West after the New Deal and in Christian Democracy in Europe.

 That accomplishment no longer holds: we are in a new world, far more dark, violent, turbulent, dangerous, and puzzling. It has been compared to that of Augustine and Benedict by sages like Ratzinger, McIntyre and Dreher: the old order weakened and collapsing under the assault of barbaric forces. In that time, it is unthinkable that any pope, AI program or genius could have anticipated the subsequent development of the monastic movement into the Medieval order. And so with our world: we look back, 80 years, and know the world we are leaving; we do not know the one we are entering, except that it is dark, dangerous, and complex. We speak of  "postmodern" and "postliberal."

"Postmodern" is the rejection of mega-theories of rationality and sees around us decision and freedom in the face of uncertainty, chaos, contingency, irony, partiality.  Encyclopedic, universal political theories and systems of all sorts...Marxism, Democratic Liberalism, Progressive Evolutionism...are now sterile, abstract constructions. Neither system nor abstraction serve us: we stand in a dramatic war between the holy and the hellish. Our choice is a hard binary: Nietzsche (protege of Lucifer) or Christ!

"Postliberal" means that the liberal, global, postwar Pax Americana no longer holds in a multipolar world of competing totalitarianisms/fascisms and a West bitterly waging culture war. Surely the basic Christian values (freedoms, rule of law, human dignity, right to life) remain; but they no longer cohere in a neat system like that of FDR or Ronald Reagan.  

Do not pressure yourself to create a brilliant new social thesis including technology, AI, the internet, medical ethics, the renunciation of lethal force (war, death penalty, defund police), global warming, immigration and borders.

First of all, there is nothing in your resume, temperament, training, ordination, mission or charism that prepares you for this impossible task.

Secondly, the dark forces overwhelming us are immense, far beyond the capacity of anyone to understand and order: loss of faith and despair across the West, totalitarianisms of communism and Islam, emergent fascisms, technology, global warming, wars and violence. This is LIBIDO DOMINANDI at a volcanic, boundless degree. 

As pope you have no role, no capacity, no place in the arena of libido dominandi. Your domain is the sacred, this is the profane, the secular. One reason the Catholic hierarchy allowed the priest abuse to continue was the systematic clerical incapacity to recognize and confront Evil. Inherently, priests have an innocence, a naivite, a cluelessness in dealing with evil. And so, papal teaching on warfare, death penalty, borders and such is unrealistic, largely illusionary. If it was up to the hierarchy, the USA would never have bombed the Iranian nuclear site, Israel would not have devastated their war machine, and the Middle East would still be dominandi by totalitarian mullahs. 

Stay in your lane! Sweep your side of the street! It is yours to shepherd the flock in Truth! It is the truth of the Gospel and the life of worship that unites us in Christ and empowers us to enlighten the world now in darkness. It is for the laity to deal with the secular, the libido dominandi. Yours is the realm of the sacred.

Please:

1. Rescue the Chinese Church that Pope Francis surrendered tragically to the communists.

2. Strengthen, clearly, our Catholic ethos of family, chastity, fidelity, respect for life. It is this that underlies any just social order. Stand against cultural progressivism. Dismiss the "blessing of homosexual unions." Define "synodality" as a spirituality of reverent, compassionate listening and get rid of the emergent faux-apostolic bureaucracy. Restore the John Paul Institute to the teachings of John Paul.

3. Welcome the Latin Mass back into the heart of the Church as did Pope Benedict.

4. Correct the Catechism back to the ancient, unchanging Catholic teaching on the death penalty as a prudential decision by secular authorities.

5. Clean up curial corruption: the progressive, lavender mafia; all the financial corruption; the continuing tolerance for sexual abuse by predators like Rupnik, 

In the last few weeks, dear Pontiff, you have shown us something of yourself. I am saddened and disappointed. There are clear indications that you will, as you promised, follow the path of Pope Francis: act as global chaplain; accommodate Western sexual liberation and Chinese Communism; and neglect the our urgent pastoral needs above.

Nevertheless, you are our Holy Father and Vicar of Christ on earth. You are a holy priest, a man of the poor, a steady and judicious institutionalist. We love you. We will pray all the more for you as we see that you are not temperamentally prepared for the task before you.   

Come Holy Ghost!

Eucharistic Reverence

 Two essays on the America  website (October 12, 2025) troubled me with regard to reverence for the Eucharist.

Eucharistic Procession at Chicago ICE Facility

"Eucharistic Procession Turned Back by Feds at Broadview ICE Detention Facility," by Kevin Clarke, describes that a procession, led by Jesuit Fathers Inczaukis and Harnett,  to the facility, famous now for confrontations and attempted deployment of National Guard, were denied entry. A Chicago archdiocesan priest, Father Dowling, described the refusal by authorities: "Evil is repelled, recoils in the presence of Christ." 

This disturbs at several levels.

First, mere respect for the integrity and protocols of the facility itself. I have some familiarity with jails: over the years I have been in such perhaps 50 or 60 times: visiting my Godson, Goddaughter, and doctor friend; in the 1970s with a charismatic Catholic ministry; and recently in Ocean County jail where we do a Catholic communion service. I have been trying to get into my own Monmouth county jail for some time, unsuccessfully. It can be as hard to get into jail as out of it. Security is the first concern in these facilities and many have had bad experiences with "holly rollers," of various faiths, unrestrained in enthusiasm and dismissive of rules.

Rules in jails are very strict. Obvi, they house the worst of us: sociopaths, sexual predators, murderers, gang members, child molesters and such. To get in, even as part of a Church ministry, you need to be thoroughly vetted, documented, approved and put through training. Rules vary, but where we go you dare not bring into the facility a cell phone, rosary bead, pen. You do not give your full name, address or phone number. If it turns out you know someone or even know someone who knows someone in jail, you report immediately. You do not carry messages for anyone. When the weather recently changed, I asked a guard if I could give a shivering woman my sweater (I have 18 at home) and was refused. You do not give a holy card to an inmate without explicit permission from the guard. A single violation and you do not enter again. I swing loose in my life with the trillions of rules around us; but with the jail I am serious and religiously compliant. This is a sacred thing: in that we are bringing the Eucharist and joining with each other in Christ; but also in that we are in the presence of substantial evil, and protections are absolutely necessary.

There is no way the authorities could have allowed entrance, responsibly, to this procession. Ministry to those inside is possible, but only with thorough vetting, regulation and the establishment of serenity. To allow a rando group of activist do-gooders into a facility under siege would be ludicrous.

Secondly, but more sacrilegiously, this abuses the Eucharist, weaponizing it in an histrionic, melodramatic fashion. Common sense would assure these activists that they would be denied entry. This is a performance, a public relations stunt, a piece of ideological drama. 

Imagine a rightwing Catholic group planned a Eucharistic Procession as part of a prolife rally or a protest at an abortion clinic. This also would be a sacrilege. There is a profound, powerful interlink between politics and religion, but they are distinct arenas and need to stay in their respective lanes. 

Last, but not least, there is the demonization of the ideological opponent. The priests attribute Evil to the authorities. They wax self-righteously about the refusal of compassion, comfort and religious liberty. Those authorities are probably following the rule book, which they would be derelict in duty should they dispense themselves. The ICE agents are doing their jobs; they are working as directed. We can disagree about the Trump or Biden immigrant policy; we can argue; we can fight it our electorally. We can combat, respectfully and soberly, policies of Stephen Miller and Kristie Noem without demonizing personalizing, emotionalizing and melodramatizing. 

This procession is suggestive of a progressive clericalism which assumes a posture of moral superiority, consecrates its own ideology, demonizes that of the opponent, and rest upon an ignorance of the actual, complex, difficult realities of law enforcement, use of lethal force, running a business,  borders, taxes, health care, energy and environment policy. This clericalism is widespread in the upper echelon of the Church of Francis and Leo. Catholic laity do well to steep ourselves in the morals and dogmas we receive from the hierarchy, but receive with vigilant scrutiny the often uninformed clerical incursions into prudential, policy debates.

At the Catholic Eucharist we gather as brothers-and-sisters in Christ, across political, policy and ideological lines. It is a grave violation of our ecclesial unity to weaponize the Eucharist against the other side.

Kneeling and Standing at Mass

In "Why US Catholic Kneel During Eucharist and the Rest of the World Stands," the accomplished Thomas Reese S.J. does to me what I have come to expect from my Jesuit friends: educates me, but also disturbs me.

On the positive side: he explains the background of why Catholic outside of the USA stand. In the ancient Church, kneeling was associated more with contrition than praise so that kneeling was strictly prohibited on Sundays and Easter season. Standing erect in worship was considered more dignified and appropriate, expressing Easter freedom and joy. This makes a great deal of sense. We speak of "a standup guy." We encourage each other: stand strong. Stand up for yourself. I stand with ....! He notes that the Vatican II rubric calls for standing as the proper posture, with allowances for exceptions. The American bishops were granted such because we are associate kneeling with Eucharistic worship. This short history gave me a good attitude about "standing"...in worship and in life. I will more devoutly stand in worship going forward (even as age diminishes my stamina.) 

Catholics started kneeling in the 12th century, as the illiterate did not understand Latin, the mass became something like Benediction, visual worship, from a distance, increased sense of sin, less frequent reception of communion. Fr. Reese, less positive about this than many of us,  is arguing for a return to the ancient and still widespread practice. He makes a good case.

Personally, I cannot entirely buy it. I am formed in a practice: for example, returning from reception I kneel and pray. This is for me a posture of adoration and intimacy with Christ. I want to kneel, not stand or sit. The Church wisely allows both. The Catholic Eucharist is a Mystery of such transcendence, power and beauty that it is not contained in any single formula. I personally enjoy the Latin Mass, the Neocatechumenal Eucharist, and Charismatic celebrations as well as the normie parish rite. Unity in expression is valuable: I happily stand with the standing, kneel with the kneeling and sit with the sitting. What is distracting: Some stand, some kneel, some sit. Worse: everyone is kneeling except one guy in the front pew, who stands defiantly. Given the chance, I prefer to kneel at the rail and receive on the tongue. Regarding those who kneel, from the line, before receiving:  I respect their piety, but would prefer to be spared the distraction. These postures can mean different things in different cultures and contexts. I would not want to only go to the Latin mass (but my nervous physiology appreciates that we sit-stand-kneel about 36 times) or the Neocatechumenate so reminiscent of the Passover or mass served with prophesy and tongues.

So I liked Fr. Reese's history and would happily participate (to the degree that my 78 year old stamina allows) in his standing-friendly rite. 

Then he wrote: "The Eucharist, after all, is a prayer with Jesus to the Father, not a prayer to Jesus." Hold the phone!!! We are "...not praying to Jesus?" Are you kidding me? Are you exaggerating for impact? My whole life I have been praying TO JESUS at mass! Why would you set them against each other: Are you praying with or to Jesus...hard binary, one or the other. Yes we are praying with brother Jesus to the Father. But when we pray to the Father we are also praying to the Son. We are praying in and within Jesus, in the Holy Spirit, to Father-Jesus-Holy Spirit. This is the mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Those few words, "...not to Jesus" reflect an Arian-leaning, low Christology and a weak Trinitarian theology. 

Conclusion

In the Eucharist, we participate, through the humanity of Jesus, in the very inner life of the Trinity. It is the most sacred thing on earth. The Church in her Spirit-inspired wisdom strikes a marvelous balance: First of all, she allows a valid variety and flexibility in  rites, postures, languages, and styles. So, Pope Francis erred gravely in repressing the Latin Mass which inspires many with its pronounced solemnity, silence, kneeling, chant, and formal reverence. The Neocats, the America Jesuits, the charismatics all bring varied styles: if they are reverent, they are acceptable to the Church.

At the same time, as the very embodiment of God on earth, the Eucharist has a super-sacred integrity, which absolutely must be respected. We noted that a jail has a firm, definite structure to it which cannot be dismissed. So much more does the Eucharist have such an integrity: we genuflect in the Presence, we fast one hour, we reserve it for baptized Catholics (with some exceptions), we surround it with reception of the Word, praise and prayers, song and silence. We receive the very life of the Trinity and then we return to ordinary, secular life where we do our works of mercy and fight our political battles.

The Holy Ones I Have Known: a Litany of Gratitude and Praise

 Criteria: I consider anyone I have known, even by a single conversation or attendance at a public lecture. The below are not flawless in regard to heroic virtue, emotional maturity, or theological orthodoxy. Rather, each has been possessed by and radiate the truth, mercy, love and holiness of Christ in such depth and intensity that the imperfections are drastically diminished.

First, the heavy hitters: I spoke with Mother Theresa and Dorothy Day. I attended two lectures by John Paul, one audience with Pope Benedict, two conferences with Kiko Arguello, one with Cardinal Suenens and one with Bishop Fulton Sheen.   (Pretty good start, eh?)

Father Joe Whelan S.J. is the holiest person I have known. He taught me mystical theology at Woodstock Jesuit Theologate in NYC 1970-2.  At the same time, I studied fundamental theology with Avery Cardinal Dulles S.J. whose breath and depth of theology was infused with a modest holiness of life.

Fr. Mariusz Koch, Franciscan Friar of the Renewal, is the holiest living person I know. Everyone who knows him agrees.  This order (notwithstanding failings) is the most holy culture I have known: it's depth and intensity, closeness to the poor and prayer life, come from founders: Fathers Groeschel, Apostoli, Sudano, Pio and others.

My father and mother, Ray and Jeanne Laracy, and maiden Aunt Grace lived lives of quiet, modest holiness. They were formed in the great Depression and the war, products of larger families and the broader Church that looked to God for help in times of trial and suffering.

John Rapinich (my best friend) and his wife Mary impacted me closely. We participated in the charismatic renewal; he lived in our house; he introduced me to the Neocatechumenal Way. With  Frank and Jeanne Palumbo they catechized my original community exemplified the striving for holiness.

Leadership of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s would include prominently Ralph Martin and locally Fr. Jim Ferry. Our own prayer group in Christ the King was led by a marvelous group of women: Sister of Charity Patricia Brennan, Dominican Sister Marge Jarosz, Kay Ready, Gloria Jeanne, Joan, Betty. 

Fr. Paul Viale (charismatic), Fr. John Wrynn S.J., Fr. Neal Dougherty S.J., and Fr. Ray McKeon who served me as spiritual directors.

Betty Hopf was a dear sister to us and aunt to our children. 

 Sister Joan Noreen, founder of Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist, was our spiritual mentor in recent years. 

In Jersey City, Sisters of Charity Maria Martha Joyce, Virginia Kean, Margaret McCarthy all worked with the poor, taught school and were spiritual "big sisters" for me .  

Sister Marilyn Minter and fellow Felician Sisters set a tone of holiness where I taught in Immaculate Conception HS.

In my college seminary years, Maryknoll fathers Tom Malone and Jack Halbert were exceptional. My personal mentor was librarian Pat William. 

Among my classmates several stand out: Fr. Jim Lee who died slowly of ALS after a fruitful priestly life; Fr. Larry Lewis, a delightful, eccentric, insightful master of the spiritual life; and John Harper who has built his identity and work upon the 12 steps.

In the parish of my childhood, St. John's Orange NJ, Fr. Dante DeGioralamo, known for his devotion to the Holy Face, was saintly in a vivid way. But the large body of priests, Christian Brothers and Sisters of Charity all created a general ambience of goodness.

David L. Schindler, for me the premier Catholic American theologian of our time, embodied the "praying theology" of Balthasar, personal holiness combined with brilliant erudition. He set the tone for the entire faculty at the John Paul Institute in D.C. 

That school has a close relationship, through thinkers like Monsignor Albacete, Fr. Antonio Lopez and Fr.  Paulo Prosperi, with the Communion and Liberation Movement. This is another striking environment of Godliness open to all the goods of Creation.

Among Protestants, I was impacted in the Charismatic Renewal by Ruth Carter Stapleton (healing of memories) and other Evangelical-Pentecostals. 

In studies at the liberal Union Theological Seminary, NYC, I encountered holiness in Anne Ulanov, Samuel Terrien, Will Kennedy, Sister Mary Boys and others.

At Seton Hall University I was privileged to study under Fr. Larry Frizell and Rabbi Finkel, outstanding scholars of admirable character and spirituality. Immaculate Seminary there features similar thinkers including Monsignors Liddy, Guarino, Joe Rielly, Doctors Bill Toth and Dianne Traflett. 

Christian Brother Ray Murphy has been for many years a big brother, friend, mentor. Additionally he calls to mind the Christian Brothers who taught me from grade 5-8 in St. John's Orange NJ 1958-61 as well all the brothers in our Church.

Recently, Presbyterian Reverend Cindy Wilcox has mentored us in hospital ministry: high energy, talented, radiant with the love of Christ.

Ivan Illich is the last because he is by far the least canonizable. He was heterodox in significant ways. But he made clear he was not a theologian. He was a brilliant, eccentric, passionate, mystic, prophetic critic of modernity. 

I have surely been unusually blessed, over the years, in my associations. 

I am proud of my list of 65: 2 canonized saints, 2 two popes, 2 cardinals, 1 bishop, 5 founders of religious orders, 3 founders of renewal movements,  4 monsignors (I never met a monsignor I didn't like. Pope Francis didn't like monsignors; that was his problem!) 18 priests, 24 women, 9 of them sisters, 5 Protestants, 1 Jew, 1 Brother, 2 ex-priests, 4 eccentrics, 18 are alive today.

As I finish, I am mostly aware that I have been blessed to live always in communities that are far from perfect, but open in faith to God, striving towards him, aware and contrite for our sins and failings. This includes family, friendships, parishes, schools, ministries, and renewal groups of varying sorts. The hermeneutical key to Catholic life is not perfection; actually it is imperfection. It is desperation,  craving for and trust in God.. It is awareness of sin and weakness, honesty in confession, reception of pardon. It is gratitude and joy in praise. It is attraction to and association with those who are strong with us in this walk.

I invite you, dear Reader, to consider your own personal litany. You will find it encouraging and inspiring. What is your top 10, or 20, or 65?

Our Pope, Our Bishops, and Our President's Roundup of Noncriminal Undocumenteds

Pope Leo has asked our bishops to stand together strong along with him, on behalf of immigrants. Clearly he intends Trump's roundup of those who entered illegally but have not committed crimes here. As a political conservative, I see that bishops have no competence or charism for politics and policy. They err when they intrude, with the best of intentions of helping the disadvantaged, into complex matters with multiple dimensions and consequences. They needlessly polarize, including setting themselves against those with different views. They dilute their actual authority in faith and morals.

They teach on morals but not policy. When there is a clear, substantial social evil, they must speak out strongly. Examples: the Civil Rights movement, abortion, right of workers to unionize (e.g. farm workers), a reasonable safety net for the poor, religious freedom, and blatant injustice. Does this current deportation reach that bar of gravity?

I believe it does. This for two major reasons, and a number of secondary ones.

First of all, the fear, confusion, chaos and disruption is quite overwhelming. No need to detail.

Secondly, these immigrants technically broke the law, but morally, formally, actually they did not. We know that a law or rule that is systematically not enforced by authority becomes technically, but not actually a rule. Implicitly, authority is approving of the violation. 

Imagine: St. Fleckinstein's Prep School handbook forbids chewing of gum in the building. No one reads the handbook. Everyone chews gum. The Dean of Discipline is never not chewing. When he runs out of gum he asks the nearest student. The guidance counselor and the school nurse both give gum to students. There is a lively market for chewing gum in the hallways. A new Dean takes over; he reads the handbook. You are standing at your locker, chewing gum, when the new Dean spots you. He gives you a three day suspension for disrespecting school rules with a warning of expulsion if you chew again.  Is anything wrong with this scenario?

For four years our border was open. Biden basically announced upon his election that the laws about immigration would not be enforced. They were effectively voided. This was simply as stupid a policy as one can imagine. (You know, reader, that Fleckinstein rarely uses the s....d word!) Every immigrant that crossed that border "illegally" did so with the clear approval of the President. Biden broke the law by refusing to enforce it. Those whom he incentivized and allowed to cross were in compliance with his policy. For that reason, I do not call them "illegals." Daily I exceed the speed limit on NJ highways by over 10 MPH. In my work and life I probably break a dozen or more rules every day.  I am not "an illegal." 

There is widespread consensus, even beyond the Right, that Trump did a great job of closing the border and in gathering up the criminals. But arresting otherwise hardworking, decent people is troubling.

A reasonable government maintains a degree of nonpartisan continuity between administrations. For example, an international treaty or policy  (nonproliferation, peace, environment, tariffs) is not absolutely binding upon subsequent regimes but some deference to precedent is generally prudent. Otherwise our internal instability will make us unreliable in all diplomacy. Imagine: Trump deports millions and then AOC wins in 2028 and open the borders again. This can get crazy. But in any case, the culprit in this story is the Biden administration, not decent folk who accepted the welcome.

There is a host of other reasons why this practice is unwise. 

1. Our economy requires this cheap labor in agriculture, construction, hospitality and elsewhere.

2. Demographically we need more citizens because without immigration in a few decades our elderly will overwhelm our young in their demands for social security and Medicare.

3. For the most part, they are hardworking and industrious, eager for employment, not inclined to depend upon the state or play the victim and identity politics cards. Immigrants in general tend to be courageous, energetic, and ambitious and so enrich our nation.

4. For the most part, they are Catholic or Christian and therefore congenial to our culture, unlike the Islamic incursion into Europe. While they incline liberal politically, they bring strong family and religious values.

5. Immigrants send money home to their families and thus provide humanitarian assistance that is far more generous and efficient than aid from our government.

6. Their immigration is a testament to our nation. They and their children generally are grateful and become loyal citizens.

7. The imagery of masked ICE agents showing up at parking lots, Churches and schools has a Kafkaesque, Gestapo-like vibe to it. It is understandably infuriating at least half of us. I include myself. It is adding fuel to the tragic polarization of our society.

To conclude: this is the rare case in which I hope our bishops, with Pope Leo, will lean heavily into President Trump: keep up the good work on the border and criminals. Leave the decent people alone. Trump is himself flexible. He can turn on a dime. We need him to hear a strong voice on behalf of all these hardworking families.

  

The Confused Faux-Sacramentality of "Synodality"

It is a sadness that our new Pope shares the confusion, the "hopium" (delusional optimism),  of Pope Francis about what they call "synodality."

Spirituality of Listening

If this is about listening to each other, I am the first on line. Early in our married life, around 1972, I read the psychologist Fr. Charles Curran who brought into the heart of education, counseling and Church life the empathetic listening highlighted by Carl Rogers. I travelled to Winsor, Canada, to hear him in person. I was converted. Since then I have strived, imperfectly, to listen. It does not always come naturally. 

When you listen you soon see widespread confusion and error. So many people believe so many crazy things and are so certain about them. This ignorance and error is largely intractable, virtually invincible. It is not possible to convince them through listening and conversation. You listen; you witness to the Truth; you get no result; you remain in serenity about "the things you cannot change." 

Nevertheless, compassionate, generous listening remains at the core of Catholic life and our corporate witness to Christ and Truth.

"Synodality:" An Institution

There is a vagueness about this novel, invented concept. It may best be described as the organization of listening into a bureaucratic institution, a "synod." Traditionally, a synod is a gathering of bishops to decide a controversial matter. But this new synod is not such: it is a democratic gathering of all sorts of people to listen to each other. It is a mega-sharing session. Apparently, the results carry some degree of authoritative authority; this is unclear. But there is a mystique about it; a trust in it. To it is attributed a vague efficacy: if we gather people together, listen to each other, we will be drawn by the process deeper into truth and love. It is our new sacrament, a deliberate act that carries grace efficaciously.

We know that among Catholics a large majority does not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Similar large numbers would approve of contraception, gay sex, in vitro conception, legal abortion. Most Americans (but not Japanese) would approve of the bombing of Hiroshima. Increasingly large numbers, especially of the young on the left, accept violence for political purposes. Politically, our Catholic electorate is divided, almost exactly 50-50, in support of the contrasting forms of moral depravity on the left and the right, with few signs of moral ambivalence about their preferred side. What do we get if we gather such in synodal sessions? Confusion and error!

Another problem is that the process is easily controlled by Church insiders, ideological activists, who position themselves to construct the results that they intend: progress away from Tradition. Conservatives like myself are not spending time and resources to influence the process. We have much better things to do. 

 Conclusion

We need to contrast the traditional and the novel, progressive understanding of synod: the first denotes a gathering of ordained bishops to teach the truth; the second is an amorphous sharing session, of all kinds of people, easily manipulated, to which is attributed an illusory efficacy. 

Our Church of 2000 years...of the apostles, fathers, doctors, confessors, martyrs... has been synodal in the traditional sense, NOT the novel, progressive sense. If it was good enough for Peter, Augustine, Thomas, Newman, and John Paul...it is good enough for me!

 

I Never Saw a Movement I Didn't Like

 A movement...political, spiritual, cultural...is the eruption and spread of a coherent pattern of ideas/values/beliefs/practices across society, for a limited period, in mimetic contagion and deliberate advocacy, leaving an impact on the culture and its institutions.

An earlier blog essay inventoried the institutions which have defined my world and myself; here I will review the movements which have shaped myself and my world over the last 8 decades. Institutions are stable, permanent, reliable across time; they preserve, protect and advance values as they shape those of us who serve them. Movements are temporary, transient, novel and revolutionary; they arise, engage culture, and disappear, leaving an impact and sometimes new institutions to preserve their values.

The last 8 decades have been a time of rapid, deep, pervasive change...and many movements, spiritual and political. Life has been similar to a surfer: we ride a wave until it crashes on the beach, then paddle back to await another good wave. The immense ocean and the sturdy board represent the stable, enduring, permanent; while the waves are change, movement, novelty.

We will consider first  religious movements that have shaped my own faith and that of the Catholic Church. Then, broader political movements that have formed our  world and my view of it.

1. Post-war Catholic Revival in the USA 1945-65.

Just prior to my birth, my father's courtship of my mother consisted of weekly attendance, with his mother, at Miraculous Medal devotions. They prayed, I am sure, in 1944-5, for the end of the war and return of their brothers. (All five came home safe; every man from Our Lady of the Lake, West Orange, returned home safe.) Our family of 9 children, quite common at the time, prayed the rosary along with the global crusade of Fr. Patrick Peyton. Our parents participated in Cana. They read America magazine and books from Sheed and Ward, the flourishing Catholic company. Fulton Sheen and Thomas Merton were celebrities; John Kennedy became president. By the early 1960s, when I was in high school, there was a wave of confidence and enthusiasm about sending missionaries and Peace Corps volunteers to Latin America to assist. Small wonder that I chose to attend Maryknoll Missionary Seminary for college.

2. Vatican II Renewal 1962-78. 

Immediately after the Council, in college, I was caught up with much of the Church in a Dionysian frenzy of hyperactive argument, reading and criticism about change in Catholicism and the society. So much to read, digest, engage: politics, psychology, theology, culture. I spent about 6 years in a steady state of low key euphoria about ideas, books, theories. Intellectually it was overstimulating. But so much fun. Spiritually, not so good. Most of my classmates in the seminary fell away from practice of the Catholic faith as they were pulled into politics and psychology. We did not receive a solid catechesis on the Christ-centered focus of the Council. A tsunami of ideas assaulted us and no one was available to situate them within our Catholic legacy. For myself, prayer life and closeness to God were at best at a plateau, but more probably diminished as attention went to new secular ideas and enthusiasm. I was largely typical of most Catholic intellectuals engaged in this.

3. Catholic Charismatic Renewal 1970s.

Our young marriage and family that was to come were powerfully impacted by engagement in the Charismatic Renewal in 1973. Coming off of Cursillo in which each of us encountered in a personal way the person of Jesus Christ, we were swept into a new surrender to the Holy Spirit and immersion for several years in an intensive, exhilarating Bible-center, evangelical-Catholic community. This brought prayer to the center of our marriage and family and has directed the course of our life since.

4. Dual Papacy (John Paul and Benedict) and Communio Theology. Post 1978. 

When John Paul became Pope I had already dived into the theology of Balthasar as presented by the Communio school in Washington DC. And so I voraciously devoured every word that came from his teaching: on Divine Mercy, Theology of the Body, labor and the social order, the primacy of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and more. This deepened, clarified and intensified my Catholic faith in all its essentials.

5. Other Spiritual Movements.

Coincident with the above major developments were a series of smaller ones which strengthened and deepened our Catholic faith: Divine Mercy as revealed to St. Faustina, the Catholic Worker movement and related groups (Madalein Delbrel, Catherine Dougherty), Cursillo, Marriage Encounter, Marian devotions including messages from Medjugorje, Communion and Liberation, Neocatechumenal Way, the 12-steps, Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist.

Significant also was the influence of psychology, the (in)famous "triumph of the therapeutic." The challenge here was, of course, to harmonize good psychology with our Catholic philosophy. Helpful here were people like Fr. Charles Curran (psychologist), Paul Vitz, Fr. Groeschel, Eric Erickson, and others. Along these lines also were psychology-inspired contributions to spirituality: healing of the memories of Ruth Carter Stapleton, deliverance of demons as practiced by Neal Lozano, the "scrutinies" of the Neocatechumenal Way, the gentle spirituality of Adrian Von Kaam, and the Catholic evaluation of psychology of Paul Vitz.

So we see here four major and ten minor movements, renewals, or revivals that directly impacted my own life as well as the Church and society around us. Now we consider of political movements.

Political Movements

Prelude: victory of Allies which structured the world into which I was born.

Cold War.

Labor movement. (Important for my family of union men.)

Development of the "third world" out of poverty.

Civil Rights.

Farm workers.

Anti-war movement and the New Left.

Countercultural Hippie Movement.

Reagan Revolution.

Prolife Movement.

Neoconservatism, specifically of First Things, and the Evangelical/Catholic dialogue.

All of the above impacted me significantly, and our world, for the good.

Toxic Movements

Actually, not all movements are to the good. The decisive, destructive movement of my lifetime is the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. This was many things but importantly: liberation of sex from marriage/family/children, deconstruction of gender, rejection of Tradition, gay liberation, militant feminism including abortion, eruption of technology into sacred domains of life and death without restraint by the natural order. More recently this movement has developed identity politics and the culture of self-pity, victimhood and grievance. 

More recently we have the MAGA movement, a study in moral ambiguity. On the one hand, Trump is the singular political figure that has defied and (at the moment) pushed back imperialistic Cultural Progressivism and restored order and reason to our border and other things. On the other hand it is toxic with his egoism, disregard for truth and reality, inflated nationalism, contempt for constitutional order, xenophobia, cruelty to the undocumented, lack of fundamental respect and dignity. And so, we find ourselves forced, in some degree,  to ally with this disorder against the greater threat. 

Conclusion

The above litany is subjective, personal, and  autobiographical but it does cover a shared history.

When you are grounded in the solid rock of the Catholic Church, family, and American constitutional democracy, you can move fluidly with the movements, currents of novelty and creativity. 

We live in interesting times.