Genuine Filial Love for Our Mother

When King David was old and advanced in years, though they spread covers over him he could not keep warm. His servants therefore said to him, “Let a young virgin be sought to attend you, lord king, and to nurse you. If she sleeps with your royal majesty, you will be kept warm.” So they sought for a beautiful girl throughout the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunamite, whom they brought to the king. The maiden, who was very beautiful, nursed the king and cared for him, but the king did not have relations with her.” 1 King 1: 1-4

The great David is old, weak and cold: he seeks comfort, passively, in the arms of a beautiful virgin. No longer fierce warrior, virile lover, magnificent king; he has regressed back to infancy and it’s longing for connection with the nurture of life-giving fecund femininity. While he is in this weakened condition, his son Adonijah plots to take over the kingdom against David’s pledge to Bathsheba and Solomon so that the nation moves towards division and bloodshed.

David is paradigmatic: Every day we learn of some powerful, celebrated and aging man who shames himself and his family by marital infidelity and a desperate but passive surrender into the arms of a young beauty. Governors are prone to this. Think of Hugh Heffner who surrounds himself with young beauties who could be his granddaughters.

In his gracious providence, however, our heavenly Father has given each of us such a perennially young virgin to nurse, warm and comfort us: Mary our Mother and the Church as virgin spouse and mother. These two mutually indwell each other so that we receive in Mary, the Church; and in the Church Mary. In baptism, we become forever children of our Father, but also sons and daughters of Mary and the Church. So, in a spiritual and chaste but corporal and concrete manner we are always receptive of the Immaculate’s liberating maternity; we remain childlike, innocent, and trusting in a holy dependency that is always freeing and empowering.

Consider than the virility and paternity of John Paul II and Benedict XVI: both exhibit an abiding filiality towards Mary and Church; this filiality grounds and empowers their vigorous virility, paternity, royalty and wisdom. Child of the Father and of Mary and of the Church, such men do not grow weak and cold with time but deepen and purify their potency as lovers, fathers, warriors, kings and wise men.

Today, as every Saturday, we celebrate Mary our Mother. Recalling St. Cyril of Alexandria, great defender of Mary as Mother of God, we especially renew our filial love for her. In doing this, we are warmed, strengthened and invigorated by her virginal innocence in its purity, vitality, fecundity, hopefulness, and freshness.

What Happened to Filial Obedience?

Predictably, America magazine has endorsed Notre Dame's honoring of President Obama and disparaged the widespread Catholic protest. The contemptuous tone and the contradictory logic of the article are remarkable. The editorial describes the Cardinal Newman people and their associates (over 350,000 of us)as "self-appointed defenders of orthodoxy" and applies to them a quote from St. Augustine ("We are the only true Christians.") against the heretical Donatists.

But wait a minute! Bishop D'Arcy of South Bend is himself boycotting the graduation: Is he self-appointed! Seventy other bishops have protested: Are they self-appointed? Hardly: they are merely implementing the clear teaching of the American bishops that pro-legal-abortion leaders are not to be publically honored by Catholic institutions.

The editorial goes on to piece together statments and actions from Pope Benedict and the Vatican to create an impression that they share the genuinely open and tolerant attitude and would also endorse the invitation.

They must be kidding! Surely the editors know that then-Cardinal Ratzinger clearly directed our bishops to refuse communion to politicians who persist in advocacy of choice! Surely they recall St. Augustine in his hold-no-prisioner ferocity against a range of heresies (including the Donatists).

The article ends with the Jesuit magazine correcting and instructing the bishops about their mistaken instructions on political defense of innocent life. So, who are the "self-appointed" defenders of orthodoxy? The editors of Americaarrogantly correct the bishops, misinterpret Augustine and Benedict, and disparage those of us who are loyal to authentic apostolic teaching...and they do this with most subtle and sophisticated sophistry.

This is why I get a knot in my stomach every time I pick up a copy of that magazine. I read The NY Timesregularly with enjoyment and profit because I know what it is: a secular, liberal newspaper. America,by contrast, advocates similar values but under the guise of being a Catholic, albeit enlightened, voice. What ever happened to the filial obedience of St. Ignatius himself? Will someone please tell me why these editors, along with the univesity Presidents, who are so superior to our Pope and bishops, do not just take their institutions into The Episcopal Church?

Notre Dame Commencement

Bishop D’Arcy and Doctor Glendon are boycotting Notre Dame’s commencement. With Glendon’s rejection of the Laetare Award, who will accept it? The award is intended for a Catholic whose “genius…illustrates Catholic ideals,” but anyone who shares Glendon’s loyalty to the bishops and protectiveness of unborn life will have to reject it. They will have to choose someone who is either pro-choice or so soft on the issue as to be tolerant of legal abortion. Is this illustrative of Catholic moral ideals?

What would I do if my daughter was graduating this year from Notre Dame?

Would I attend, listen politely and applaud as President Obama receives his award? No, I could not do that as I would be complicit in defiance of the bishop’s clear instruction and implicitly validating his abortion agenda.

Would I boycott or picket? Would I stand throughout his address with my back turned to him in protest? Would I join others in a few rousing stanzas of “We love babies; Yes we do; we love babies; How about you?” or chant with Dr. Seuss “A person is a person, no matter how small!” These actions are objectionable as they would spoil the joyous occasion and be uncivil and disrespectful to the President whom I respect as our leader and a decent person.

What if my daughter were this year’s valedictorian? Would she decline the honor rather than defy the bishops? Would she use the occasion to mount an attack on the culture of death and thereby openly condemn our President’s policy? Would the Notre Dame censors allow such an open challenge? Is commencement the proper situation for such Culture War bloodletting?

Notre Dame has done an injustice to all Catholics who respect Church authority and who cherish unborn human life. The parents and students are facing an unfair choice: to peacefully attend the commencement is to honor the abortion agenda and defy the bishop’s direction; but to do otherwise is to spoil what should be a joyous occasion.

Father Jenkins, along with usual cohort of liberal Jesuit colleges who are honoring abortion advocates, will bask in a self-righteous aura of diversity and tolerance as he implements what then-Cardinal Ratzinger called the “dictatorship of relativism.”

President Obama would save the Notre Dame family from intensified disgrace and polarization were he to graciously find a reason to miss the commencement.

Torture

The form of torture is self-evident: the application of unbearable physical /psychic pain and/or the threat of such for malicious or instrumental purposes (such as gaining information).

The Catholic view of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of the body absolutely forbids torture.

Waterboarding, which I take to be simulated drowning, is obviously torture: recall your feeling as a 8-year old when the 11 year-old bully held your head under the water. Sleep deprivation, slapping and aggressive verbal interrogation are not torture. Use of Waterboarding in the training of our own agents is entirely different since the context is one of training and implied trust/hope. Application of the same act in a hostile and intimidating manner against terrorists is an entirely different act. (Contrast: amputation of an arm by a surgeon with the same act by a sadist.)

The single, unambiguous moral failure of the Bush administration was the use of torture.

Thought experiment: Imagine we capture Osama; we know there is a ticking bomb due to go off in NYC within 24 hours; we know we cannot break him by applying physical pain; we also have custody of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, the joy of his life. We have the technology to simulate torture of the little girl, using and adapting videos and tapes of her voice, so that he will be convinced he is observing, by television, actual, real-time violation. The girl herself remains unharmed and protected. May we perform this simulation to possibly save 10 million innocent people in the NYC area? Clearly not! The love of a father for his daughter is sacred and is not to be violated. Were we to do so, even with good intentions (Do we know that Osama’s intentions are evil?), we would transform ourselves into terrorists.

We live in a structured, intelligible universe with clear rules and boundaries so that there are some things we can NEVER, EVER do. Torture is one of them.

I was disappointed to view EWTN the other night and observe Raymond Arroyo agreeing with Father Sirico as he opened the door to a pragmatic and liberal approach to torture.

Our nation needs to clearly renounce the use of torture, under any circumstances.

The liberal lynch mob in its rush to condemn Cheney and Company is, however, nauseatingly hypocritical. How can the Evil Empire of Abortion and Embryo Destruction sit in judgment against the limited, specific use of torture? This is like Hitler standing up at the Last Judgment to condemn Truman for bombing Hiroshima: He is technically correct, of course; that was the intrinsically evil act of targeting innocent civilians. But what gives him the authority to accuse? His crimes are immensely greater. We must credit President Obama for a measure of moral integrity in his renunciation of trials since he apparently intuits that his own relativistic, pragmatic morals requires an openness to the use of torture in some cases.

To Rest, Not to Sleep, in Vigilance

“Come to me all you who labor and are heavy burdened, and I will give you rest.” Matthew 11:28

“Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you not undergo the test.” Mark 22:47

“Jesus is in agony until the end of time. Until then, we cannot sleep.” Pascal

Scripture instructs us to rest in the Lord, but not to sleep, but to keep watch in vigilance. This is a striking paradox.

Sleep is, of course, a primal human need. Those with nervous and addictive personalities are especially counseled to avoid HALT: becoming inordinately hungry, angry, lonely or tired. Under the stress of these triggers, the weakened psyche is prone to toxic, self-destructive compulsions and decomposition. In my own youth, natural stamina and energy allowed me to tolerate a degree of sleep deprivation but upon approaching middle age (late 40s) I learned that such indulgence made my fragile body-psyche-spirit vulnerable to nervous debilitation and compulsivity. For about a decade and a half, I have considered a good night’s sleep my number one survival priority. In cases like my own, vigilance urges and requires adequate sleep: I try to be in bed between 8 and 9 PM which allows me to arise around 5 PM for prayer.

Surely then scripture cannot be advising sleep deprivation; rather, sleep here is understood metaphorically as a failure in vigilance, a grogginess, an escape, an avoidance. We are exhorted to watch, to be alert, to wait on the Lord and be prepared for temptation and testing, always prepared to renounce the attack of the evil one. “Sleep” in this sense refers to the maidens who fell into a slumber when they should have been waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom, in readiness and expectation.

At the same time, however, we are constantly encouraged in God’s Word to rest: to be quiet and still, trusting, like a child in her mother’s arms, still and hopeful. This state of rest imitates the Rest of God which is at the same time Action, for within God rest and action are not contradictories or polarities, but mysteriously indwell each other. And so, the holy person, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, can be active and yet in an internal state of rest. St. Faustina, for example, in her diary, speaks constantly of her trust in God and her relaxation in his Mercy and yet she tells us that this is a time of struggle, not of rest. So we see that she was fairly constantly in a state of spiritual combat but interiorly was at rest, confident and trusting. This calls to mind an image of General Robert E. Lee who, even in the midst of very bloody battles, maintained a composure, a sobriety, and a dignified serenity.

And so we pray for this peace that surpasses understanding, a peace the world cannot give, a state of rest, confidence, and serenity; a rest that awakens us to vigilance and alertness; a calm and steady eagerness to endure patiently, to renounce evil, and receive the coming of our Lord.

See you at the Parousia!

Images of Dissonance and Division

The University of Our Lady is to honor our pro-abortion President as commencement speaker.

The Harvard Aid’s Prevention Center, hardly a bastion of reactionary Catholicism, confirms Pope Benedict’s controversial statement that condoms do not prevent, but risk aggravating the AIDS epidemic, thereby igniting a worldwide liberal lament, even as our tax monies are directed by the Obama administration into the exportation of condoms and abortion. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece)

Secretary of State Clinton visits Our Lady of Guadalupe; she asks who painted it; and then goes on to accept the Margaret Sanger award the next day.

Our President pushes the Employee Freedom of Choice Act which would deprive workers of the anonymity of a secret ballot in union elections, even as he moves to deprive health care providers of the right to refuse participation in abortions and edges slowly, steadily, piece-by-piece to implement the Freedom of Choice Act which will absolutely forbid ANY restrictions on the right to abort.

A current Pew Survey shows a deeper polarization in our country now than during the Presidencies of the Bushes, Clinton or Reagan. Abortion supporters proclaim the end of the Culture War but this war is more intense than ever. We have probably not been so divided on primal moral values since the Civil War.

As Catholics, we may disagree on policy issues ranging from foreign affairs to economic stimulus to immigration to tax rates; but we must stand together on the protection of innocent life and the sanctity of the family. The tragedy of 2008 was not the Obama victory, but the betrayal of Catholic values by a majority of among us.

Shane: The Loves of a Gunslinger

The western classic Shane (1953, staring Alan Ladd) traces a straightforward, archetypal plot: mysterious gunslinger Shane rides in; befriends hardworking homesteader Joe, his son Joey, and wife Marian; eventually faces down ruthless cowboy mob, including hired gunslinger Jack Wilson; and rides out of town in a mood of quiet, triumphant, heroic, but melancholic loneliness. The setting is the high plains near the Grand Teton Mountains and perfectly frames the resonant mythic themes: battle between good and evil, the loneliness of the hero, and the tender bonds of affection between prairie family and noble stranger. The film is particularly lucid and penetrating in its unveiling of a tripod of masculine loves: Shane’s devotion to Joe, Marian and Joey.

The brotherly friendship between Shane and Joe develops in a quintessentially masculine manner: initial respect and hospitality, followed by suspicion, loyalty, staunch and fierce solidarity in work and combat, shared love for women and children, and finally a fierce physical conflict rooted in loyalty and love. They work aggressively together, shirtless and muscles rippling, to attack a large stump on the farm; later, Shane single-handedly stands up to a vicious saloon mob and is rescued by a fierce, powerful, club-swinging Joe. The brotherly love between them is pronounced and inspiring: they intuitively recognize and mutually respect each other’s courage, decency, and nobility of character; they work and fight together in defense of family and justice; they fiercely confront each other, even drawing blood as each seeks to do the right thing. This theme of brotherly conflict is constitutive of man-to-man affection and loyalty. My son Paul tells me that in the military, when two men quarrel they are immediately directed to the boxing gloves and they slug it out with each other; afterwards, the combatants infallibly become good friends. Shane and Joe perfectly image this classic pattern of masculine love.

The sexual attraction between Shane and his friend’s wife Marian (played by an older Jean Arthur) is pronounced, but impeccably discreet, chaste, and ennobling. Shane, played by Ladd, is virile, handsome, mysterious, decent and immensely appealing. One understands that a woman, amidst the monotony and hardship of frontier life, would be enlivened by the appearance of such a man. Marian is modest, lovely, gentle, loyal, and tender. No wonder that a lonely and red-blooded man like Shane finds her irresistible. But her marital bond with Joe is so sacred to all three of them that it is never even remotely endangered. And so, the complex web of loyalties (brother-to-brother, husband-to-wife, wife-to-husband, brother-to-friend’s-wife, wife-to-husband’s-friend, father-to-son, mother-to-son, hero-to-younger-admirer) is so powerful that they are able to recognize and entertain the mutual attraction with a striking tenderness, discretion, and chastity, free of jealousy, resentment or covetousness. The scenes in which they dance together, when she serves an elegant meal and is respectfully complimented, and especially when she tends his battle wounds…each unveils an affection most poignant for its gentleness, reverence, tenderness, nobility, and saddened sense of longing.

This dynamic recalls the chemistry that occurs between priest and woman in strong Catholic cultures such as the one that flourished in the USA in the two decades after World War II. In that era, the priesthood attracted many virile men, including veterans, while marriage was highly cherished and protected by the ex-GIs and their loyal wives. In that context, the chastity of the priest and the spousal fidelity of the wives were unquestionable; as a result, woman and priest were protected by an inviolate taboo system and a certain wholesome and restrained flirtation was possible. Like Shane, the priest also is a stranger from another world; he is not domesticated and rooted in the family; he enters a family’s life, brings freedom from evil, and then moves on in a heroic, mysterious manner that is not comprehensible within the categories of home and family. He is unavailable and therefore all the more appealing. By virtue of his celibacy, he is more strikingly masculine in his loneliness, courage, and self-sacrifice.

The drama unfolds through the eyes of 8-year-old Joey who immediately idolizes Shane. His love for his own father is undiminished by this obsession; rather, it seems to complete and complement his passion to emulate masculine nobility. Here again we encounter an archetype of the male itinerary: the son loves and emulates his own blood father, but must also move beyond that foundational role model to find new heroes and mentors. The son knows his own father in the context of domestic routine and monotony; in the inescapable drudgery of duty and responsibility. Unconsciously, the loyal son admires and imitates this quiet, humble loyalty. But the son is also destined to leave his mother and father, to test and prove himself in battle, to follow his own vocation, to forge his own distinctive masculine identity, and to start his own family. Therefore, by a marvelous, complex and incomprehensible mimesis, the son respectfully distances himself from his own father and finds alternate mentors and masters.

And so, for me as a father, it has been thrilling and delightful to observe my two sons journey into masculinity as they are mentored by “secondary father” including teachers, coaches, priests, uncles, professors, officers, bosses, and random strangers like the mysterious gunslinger.

Shane was produced in 1953 in the heart of the post-war renaissance of primordial values rooted in spousal loyalty, feminine virtue, and masculine heroism. In the wake of the sexual revolution, it became improbable for such a film to come out of Hollywood. But it is good for us to return to such movies though Netflix or Turner Classics, to encourage and inspire ourselves in the pursuit of such masculine nobility.

It Is A Good Day To Die!

Thomas, called Didymus, said to his fellow disciple: “Let us also go to die with him.” John 11

Indian chief, rallying his warrior brothers for battle: “Today is a good day to die!”

“We need someone to die a little tomorrow morning,” Frank Palumbo, Responsible and Catechist for our Neocatecumenal communities at St. Columba’s, NYC, needed help the next morning preparing the Church for Holy Week activities. “The Christian life is about dying, little by little; and we have an opportunity here to die a little tomorrow morning.” I didn’t volunteer, but his words stayed with me. Several months later, on September 11, 2009, Frank was one of the first firemen over the Brooklyn Bridge, to the World Trade Center, and into the hands of God. He left his wife to raise their 12 children; but his mission was accomplished. He had died for the brethren.

Story narrated by Michael during adoration of the Blessed Sacrament at Men’s Conference (“Iron sharpens iron; so a brother strengthens a brother”), West Orange, NJ, March 28, 2009:
The car hit a spot of ice and slid off the road at Bear Mountain. The husband came to and realized he had two broken legs and his wife had a broken spine and neck. What happened next we know because she survived. The police eventually found her alive in the cold, covered by two winter coats. They found her husband up the hill, frozen to death, where he had pulled himself, coatless and crippled, in his attempt to get help for his suffering wife.
This brother had fulfilled his purpose: he laid down his life for his spouse.

Every man is destined to lay down his life: for wife, children, nation, or Church. We all had the privilege of watching John Paul II lay down his life, in slow motion, as he nobly suffered the ravages of Parkinson’s and taught us all how to die.

The warrior chief is right: Today is a good day to die! Every day is a good day to die!

See you at the General Judgment! We will compare battle scars (i.e. stigmata)!

Emotivism

I was very troubled today by my freshman religion class on the Eucharist. I raised the question: Who can receive? I planned to cover the normal material: a baptized Catholic, who has been catechetically prepared, who understands and believes the Catholic teaching, who is in union with the Church, in the state of grace, and has fasted the hour. I was flabbergasted when several students insisted that everyone had a right to receive: unbelievers, those ignorant, drunkards, and even animals. Not only did they insist that all God’s creatures are entitled to the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, but they did so in a contemptuous manner, disgusted that the Church (and I) would discriminate against other species. They saw nothing wrong with sending the sacred host through the mail to a family member. These were good students from good families who spoke in a tone of righteous contempt for the sacramental practice of the Church.

These students live in an entirely different ontological and moral universe. They fail to see any essential structure to existence: the sacraments are for everyone and everything without discrimination and there is no hierarchy to being so that animals receive respect equal to humans.

Meanwhile, in my senior marriage course on marriage and the theology of the body, the most vocal students see cohabitation and gay coupling as morally equivalent to marriage.

Meanwhile, in the news we learn that President Obama is being honored by our premier Catholic university and the intellectually precocious President Clinton declares that embryos can be destroyed as long as they are not fertilized!

This is deeply troubling. Our youth inhabit a universe devoid of intelligent order, moral purpose or structure. They know only feelings and emotions: they are emotivists. They feel pleasure and pain, they emote good and bad, but they do not know reality as intelligible, as purposeful, as orderly.

This is all very discouraging. But then I think of Pope Benedict and his mission to restore a sense of Creation as infused with Logos, intelligent love and loving intelligence. His gentle, sweet, brilliant, and hopeful lucidity restores me to courage and confidence.

Sad

Notre Dame’s choice of President Obama as commencement speaker has saddened me. When our own local St. Peter’s College invited him to speak last year I was angry for months (and am still not over it!) but now I feel saddened by loss, alienation, and betrayal.

When my daughter graduated from ND, I was thrilled to be associated with such a great institution: so much positive energy, intelligence and confidence extending into all areas of culture and study! Such a marriage of what is best in the Church and in the USA!

This blow culminates month after month of Catholic deference to the culture of death: the election, the “Catholic” cabinet and congress, the disunity and impotence of our bishops, the immediate implementation of abortion and clone-and-kill policies. It all heightens the awareness of so many family and friends who support or tolerate these policies.

How do I handle the sadness? I renounce resentment and judgmentalism; I bring it to prayer; I intensify my commitment to Catholic values and practice; and I strengthen my communion with those who share my faith and convictions. However, the sadness and loss remain: it is not a difference of opinion; it is a profound moral and spiritual gulf that has come to separate us from those we love.

There Will Be Blood

“Do not think that I only suffered for three hours on my cross. I am in torment until the end of time.” Words of Jesus received by the young Padre Pio.

The entire value of any drama depends upon its ending. Bad ending = Bad drama. The climax and conclusion in a good drama, even a tragedy, is able to sum up the entire plot and yet transcend it, with serendipity, bringing freshness and insight. The tendency of modern cinema is towards nihilistic, depressing endings: Crash, The Departed, There Will Be Blood.The Christian Drama is delightful because the climax is so exhilarating. We already know the ending (Paschal Mystery) even as we continue through our own piece of the drama.

Therefore, the other night I was troubled while watching a documentary on Saint Pio to learn the words he received from Christ: “Do not think I only suffered for three hours on my cross. I am in torment until the end of time.”

Frequently, I console myself and my students with the fact that Jesus was on his cross for only three hours; that his passion lasted about 18 hours and then concluded; that he was in the desert only 40 days; that suffering, in short, is always temporary and passing, like the pains of childbirth, but the afterglow of glory and joy is eternal.

The words Padre Pio heard suggest the opposite: that suffering is indefinite and maybe eternal; that, the Resurrection notwithstanding, there is no end in sight for our suffering; that, indeed, suffering may be eternal, intrinsic to God’s very Self; so that reality is endless pain…the myth of Sisyphus. Taken in this way, the words received overrule the Gospel of Christ’s triumph and he himself remains captive to suffering indefinitely.

These words to the saint are private revelation and therefore not definitive or binding. Nevertheless, given his sanctity and the fruits of his life, they cannot be dismissed.

After pondering these words in the light of the Gospel Mystery itself, I resolved my confusion by recalling that Jesus has identified himself with the very least among us, until the end of time. Until the end of time, the least among us will be in torment, the torment of physical pain, the torments of the emotions and the psyche, and the deeper torment of sin. Jesus words, spoken from heaven where He dwells in his humanity in eternal joy and glory with His Father and mother and the communion of saints, reveal that He, who has transcended time and defeated death, suffering and sin, nevertheless continues to identify His very Self with the suffering, sin and pain of those still moving through time and history…and He will do so until the very end of time.

The words received cannot contradict the more foundational reality of Christ’s final and eternal victory over suffering and sin. But there is within Jesus a mysterious duality: His body is now glorified and joyified in heaven for ever; but he is also “in torment,” not his own torment, which is finished, but He chooses to dwell in the torment of the little ones. Therefore, He who has triumphed over suffering now dwells in the torment of others, bringing his victory there.

The lives of Padre Pio and of all the saints reveal this paradox of duality: immense suffering suffused with hope, joy, love and miracles of new life...indeed, the very pathway or sacrament of this joy, life and love. And so there will, until the end of history, be blood: the blood of childbirth and of martyrdom, the blood of sacrificial/sacred violence, the blood of the stigmata, and the precious blood of the Eucharist.

The ending is happy but the drama is intense. And we are still in the midst of it.

Padre Pio, pray for us!

See you at the Eschaton!

“Education President” and the Schizo Psyche of the Limousine Liberal

To the mind attuned to subsidiarity, the pretensions of an “Education President” arouse suspicions of social engineering and a “messiah complex.” The implication seems to be: family, Church, community and the educational guild are together incompetent so what is needed is a federal intervention, an infusion of tax funds, and reform imposed by the experts from above.

The current administration is particularly worrisome given the bipolar split between Obama’s private and public values: this great champion and reformer of the public school system sends his own daughters to prestigious, expensive, elite schools. This is paradigmatic of the double-mindedness of limousine liberalism: our privileged children go to private schools that we can afford; the public schools are great for everyone else; and no, there will be no school choice or tax relief for poor and working class families who would like to choose parochial or other alternate schooling. The limousine liberal enjoys his prestige and wealth as well as a moral righteousness because he supports the sanctimonious progressive agenda involving a school system that is devastating for the poor. The problem is not the choice of an elite school: who in that situation wouldn’t choose the very best? The problem is the hypocritical public allegiance to monopolistic governmental schools and financial repression of alternate education for those with lower incomes.

Making matters worse is the moral value system of the elite who ambition to reform education. Perhaps the most telling indication of Obama’s moral values was his campaign reference to a hypothetical unplanned teen pregnancy as a mistake. This choice of words unveiled the moral universe inhabited by this most discrete diplomat.

The unintended pregnancy of an unwed teenager is many things:
- A natural consequence of intercourse;
- A gift from God;
- An awesome challenge and call to responsibility;
- The discrete creation by God of a unique soul, destined for eternity with Him;
- A painful cross to bear;
- A promise for the future;
- A concrete call to repentance from sin.
This new person is many things; she is not a mistake.

We cannot blame Obama. He has not received a solid catechesis on sexuality from his anthropologist mother, his Ivy League mentors, or the Reverend Wright. Nor is he likely to receive one from the “Catholic” collaborators who surround him. In regard to basic morals of life and love, they are truly a Gathering of the Ungifted. And yet, this is the crew who will presume to transform the education of our young.

To be a Catholic in Obama’s America is to be a stranger in a strange land…to be a captive in Babylon.

Fearaholic’s Anonymous

Hi! My name is Matt and I’m a grateful, recovering fearaholic. I have been addicted to fear and powerless over my cowardice. (Chorus: Hi Matt!)

For decades, I have been fearful of failure, of confrontation, of pain, of beautiful women (and my feelings for them), of tough guys (especially Italians), of competition, of rejection and disapproval, of bosses and authorities, of groups of teenage boys, of my students and my employees, but mostly of my own weakness and cowardice.

At the core of my fear was a sad sense of isolation and loneliness. I felt alone and scared. My addict (a.k.a. Scratch, the Deceiver, the Accuser, Lucifer, Satan, Beelzebub, Tempter, Adversary, Old Nick, Prince of Darkness and many more) shamelessly took advantage of my vulnerability and haunted me for years with a tormenting interior chant: “You are a wimp! A coward! A waste! A (capital L) Loser! You do NOT have what it takes! You should be ashamed of yourself!”

Thanks to Higher Power, the program, the fellowship and my sponsor, I have been growing sober from fear now for some decades. I am no longer ashamed, inadequate, alone and afraid. Whenever I do feel that way, I immediately call upon my Sponsor (a.k.a. Counselor, Advocate, Hallowed Ghost, Third Person, Comforter, Intercessor, Paraclete, Consoler, Mother of the Poor, Light Eternal, Inner Guest, Sevenfold Gift and many more). He immediately and efficaciously relieves me of my fearful, sad aloneness and brings me into a most encouraging communion with Himself, with the Father, with the communion of saints, all my brothers and sisters in recovery, those still in bondage to fear and deception, and most of all with the One who accepted all fear and failure, all pain and confusion, all competition and confrontation, all weakness and humiliation…and made all of that the pathway to communion and love and positive sobriety.

Thanks to my sponsor, the program, and all of you (my brother and sister addicts), I am growing in freedom from fear every day; I am a saint-in-the-making; I am training for heroism.

See you in the Eucharist!

Modest Politics a la Benedict: a Catholic Third Way

“The pope’s modest vision of politics clearly goes against utopian views as we commonly understand the term...the expectation of a state of salvation within history that in itself transcends the possibilities of political action but is established by political means…The Christian tradition provides other views of utopia that do not partake of such irrationalism…the monastic ideal which was to live the life of paradise now…Mendicant religious orders that went into the world and later third orders were again attempts to transform the world by establishing a utopian ideal within it. So for all of its rejection of false, political utopias, the Church provides, as it were, other utopias which edify the world and push it to a higher, more spiritual standard.”
Thomas Rourke in “Fundamental Politics,” Communio, Fall 2008.

Pope Benedict gives us a sophisticated, nuanced critique of the two utopian ideologies that compete in our current contest: Obama-ism and Reagan-ism. The first places its hope in the preternatural ability of the expanded, progressive state to revive the economy, provide universal healthcare, quality education, alternate energies, international peace through diplomacy and a cleaned environment…all through tax increases on the very wealthy. This is utopian thinking in spades. Unfortunately, the alternate ideology is an exaltation of the impersonal “invisible hand” of global market capitalism which, allied with democratic politics, is construed as the privileged vehicle of redemption for the poor. The two visions share an illusional belief in the efficacy of market capitalism, the first as regulated by an expanded government, the second as freewheeling. Pope Benedict preaches neither of these market-gospels.

Current events surely confirm Benedict's skepticism. The long-running Madoff ponzi scheme and the AFG bonuses: could there be more blatant evidence of governmental incompetence and capitalistic greed? It is astonishing that people continue to place such trust in the bureaucratic state and the impersonal market!

Benedict’s modesty would shift us from the macro to the more micro level. Recalling his sainted namesake, he points to the monasteries and their role in the creation of medieval Europe as models for a Catholic politics of realism and humility. The Catholic vision here is that communities of every level, but especially the most foundational, the family, are empowered in the Eucharist to flesh out a civilization of love, respect, fraternity, and joy. So, we imagine, with Benedict, a culture rich with a web of interconnected families (extended and open), neighborhoods, parishes, study meetings, ecclesial movements, non-profits, fraternities and sororities, political action groups…all in their own way fleshing out the Triune life received in the sacramental Church.

This view suggests a relative shift of emphasis away from macro-politics towards energetic involvement on the more immediate, concrete level. It prescribes a degree of skepticism, but not complete cynicism, about grand schemes involving state action or market infallibility. The first priority today must be protection of the family, chastity and innocent, helpless life from destruction by the liberationist state, now allied with capital, media and elite culture...a triumphant state actively colonizing guiless Catholics. (Who is the commencement speaker at Notre Dame this year? The Divine Emperor Obama himself!) A Catholic third way will collaborate with the Republicans on this priority without pledging allegiance to the entire conservative ideology and remain open to cooperation with the Democrats on a wide range of issues beyond the moral and cultural.

So, let us “do the good that presents itself” in the immediate communities where we live; placing our trust in the Church rather than any political program; defending our most cherished values centered in the family and the very little ones who are most fragile and vulnerable; and doing all in the Eucharistic spirit of reception, gratitude, and confident assertiveness.

Good Lenten Movie Alert: The Island

This Russian (subtitled) film is not for everyone: it is slow moving, meditative, and deeply spiritual. Father Anatoly is an eccentric, mystical, guilt-ridden (WWII incident) monk in the “holy fool” tradition who attracts people because of strange powers to heal, exorcise and prophesize. It will probably be incomprehensible and even ridiculous to a secular mind. It pushes beyond the boundaries of the Western, and even the ordinary Roman Catholic, mind into a domain where the supernatural, including the demonic, is as close as the air we breathe. The chilling, stark Russian environment becomes a leading actor in the tradition of Lawrence of Arabia, Into Great Silence and Black Robe. Either of the two exorcism scenes is alone worth the price of admission. I have never seen genuine, heartfelt prayer like this in any other movie: a masterpiece and a great Lenten meditation.

I Am a Copy Cat

“Oh my gosh, she is touching the tabernacle. Isn’t that disrespectful, nervy and eccentric?” I thought, observing the elderly, wheelchair-bound woman in the nursing home chapel. But then I watched her. Slowly, rhythmically, devoutly she would touch the golden tabernacle and then bless herself. Her genuine piety was tangible. After some time, she slowly wheeled herself over to the statue of our Lady, that of St. Joseph, and then onto the stations. I thought of offering to push her but realized that I was invisible to her and that she was deeply in prayer and did not want to be disturbed. A little later, when she was gone, I surrendered to the impulse myself: I approached the tabernacle and stood within two feet, asking our Lord for more intimacy and closeness. I copycatted her.

At the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, moved by the faith and humility of the campesinos as they climbed the hill on their knees, I surrendered to the mimetic urge and did the same, praying on each of the many steps for a different person from my past (childhood playmates, ex-teachers, family, school friends, etc.). At the end my knees were sore and my pants soiled but my spirit restored. I am a good copycat.

When the librarian explained her pilgrim walk across northern Spain, I was filled with the urge to mimic the adventure. Eventually I did copycat her.

From charismatics I learned to pray in tongues, prophesize, sleep in the spirit, cast out demons, and praise God with physical exuberance; in my Neocatechumenal community I mimicked the (European) kiss of peace on both cheeks, exhortations and echoes, asking for forgiveness and acknowledgment of judgments, and a little about giving away all of my wealth to follow Christ. At the hermitage I copy the hermits in silence and recollection; at the monastery I follow along with chant and the liturgy of the hours. From recovering alcoholics and addicts I learn to own my powerlessness, take my inventory, make my amends, and surrender to Higher Power. In the coming years, my ambition is to emulate Dorothy Day, Catherine Dougherty and Mother Teresa in their love for the poor. In these things and many more, I am a copycat.

Planted within the Church, I want to copycat everything that is good, beautiful and noble: to serve with those who serve; pray with those who pray; grieve with those who grieve; and rejoice with those who rejoice. Within the mimetic community of the Church, living in truth and love becomes increasingly effortless as the surrender to mimesis becomes routine and enjoyable.

As an expert copycat, I am not shy to be an example for others. Charles Barkley could not be a role model because he is a superstar and a celebrity. But I am just a copycat and so I am not shy to shout out with St. Paul “Follow me as I have followed Christ!”

It is great to be a copycat!

The Return of the Establishment

Yesterday the Church remembered the martyrs of Cordoba. The Moors overran Spain in 711 and Christianity was oppressed. Many Catholics found a measure of peace and tolerance by cooperating with the regime but eventually a more vigorous, witnessing Catholicism emerged that dared to publicly declare Mohammed as a false prophet. The martyrdoms began in 822 but intensified in 852 with reign of the more severe King Mohammad I. So, we see that in Moorish Spain, the Church took two different postures to oppression and hostility: compliance and resistance.

At least weekly we remember the heroic martyrs of Elizabethan England, many of them learned Jesuits, who willing accepted torture, hanging, drawing and quartering in fidelity to Pope and Church when the broader Church submitted to the monarch as head of the Church. Here again we see two Churches: the collaborative and the oppositional.

In China today we have the two Churches: the underground, persecuted Church unfailingly loyal to Rome and the public, governmentally-controlled “official” Church. Again: a Church colonized by a hostile, state power and an underground Church that suffers persecution and martyrdom.

The USA Catholic Church split into two in 1968 with Humanae Vitae: the majority, especially in the academy, renounced the Pope’s restatement of tradition and a small minority accepted the same. The following 40 years has seen both groups developing in a tense, competitive relationship with each other. Formal, overt schism has been avoided because episcopal leadership has adopted an irenic, tolerant approach to dissent. The election of 2008, when a majority of Catholics actively supported the agenda of “choice,” however, marked a threshold. This electoral decision consolidated and sealed the allegiance of the majority to the emergent, anti-Catholic new Establishment.

In an insightful article, “The Return of the Best and the Brightest” (February 2009 First Things), R.R. Reno writes of the Obama presidency:

“Not since John F. Kennedy have we elected a man so closely identified with Northern urban, educated elites. His inner circle shares a similar profile. Their resumes shine with degrees from the old establishment colleges and universities: the Ivy League, University of Chicago, and so forth. There are no DePaul or Purdue grads to be found, no ward politicians, no in-laws with dubious credentials clamoring for civil-service jobs, no thick-nicked labor leaders…Their progressive views, trim physiques, and well-disciplined lives remove all doubt: We’re witnessing the restoration of the Establishment.”

Reno goes on to show that The Establishment, after the Kennedy era, transformed itself by diversifying and reaching out and captivating the “best and brightest” of other ethnic and religious groups into the orbit of Northern, secular, cosmopolitan Ivy League culture.

By this logic, Obama, culturally and morally, is no more Black than Biden and Pelosi are Catholic. Notwithstanding his dark complexion and their self-professed piety, they have been thoroughly assimilated into the dominant cultural paradigm.

Reno discloses the real nature of The Establishment:

“The easy combination of progressive ideals with institutional conservatism characterizes Establishment leadership. When the chips are down, what matters most is protecting the status quo. Therefore, the new Establishment evident in the Obama administration is likely to govern from the middle, as did the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, which were dominated by the old Establishment. Expect moderate economic interventions and no fundamental changes in foreign policy.”

And so, the new administration moved forcefully to dead center in foreign policy with Gates and Clinton. Economically, they are anything but socialists: they are committed to saving the finance system and preserving a market economy. More precisely, they show a credulous belief in the preternatural ability of our markets, with some state stimulus and regulation, to stimulate the economy, provide universal health care, develop alternate energies, clean the environment, revive education, maintain world peace, and redistribute wealth…all by just increasing tax rates for the very wealthy. They are “true believers” in capitalism (albeit with an expanded state, a la fascism.) Consider all the millions donated to the Obama campaign by the bankers, elites and corporate America.

Culture and morality are where Obama and crew most embody the Establishment. By contrast, Sarah Palin is the antithesis of that value set: she has too many kids, including her (eugenically) undesirable; her children do not use “protection” and so give birth to “mistakes;” she likes guns, hunting and the military; she talks openly about demons and heaven and, worst of all, speaks freely about her love for Jesus! She actually means the person Jesus; not abstractions like justice, peace or the environment, but the actual person! She is quintessentially the redneck moron whom Obama described, in a moment of uncharacteristic candor, as “clinging to guns and religion” because she does not understand her real economic interests.

The Catholic majority supported the anti-Catholic Establishment in the culture war skirmish of 2008 because of a soft-leftist-materialism that said: “We can live with abortion, embryonic destruction, and all the rest but we can’t put up with the rich getting any richer. We can put those things like innocent life and family to the side: we need jobs and health care!” Recall that foreign policy differences were muted by election time since Bush had already established a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq and Obama was talking tough about Afghanistan.

Now we watch as Obama recruits “the best and brightest” of our pro-choice Catholics into his cabinet and continues the colonization of Catholics spearheaded over the decades by the Kennedys. Much blame for this domestication and castration of Catholic vigor lies (with some exceptions) with the bishops.

Their feeble resistance to the Establishment brings to mind an image of a Human Resources professional (think Toby of “The Office”) who comes upon a workplace scene where a stronger man is beating the living daylights out of a much smaller man. Aware of the liability and legal dangers of getting involved in the fray, our professional scrupulously avoids forceful intervention but dutifully protests: “This behavior is inappropriate and entirely unacceptable. It violates our ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy. It is being reported and there will be proper consequences.” With that, he calls 411 and then notes accurately the time, his precise words, and the fact that he called the police immediately. He is satisfied that he has followed procedure and is shielded from liability. Meanwhile, the bigger man is kicking the smaller man’s face in.

We can only hope and pray that our bishops and all of us may receive the courage and clarity to honor, visa vie the new Establishment, our memory of the martyrs of Cordoba, the Tower of London, and Red China.

Tripod of Generosity to the Poor

There are three ways for society to help the poor: charity, business, and government.

Direct actions of personal charity are the most primal and essential. These are voluntary acts of generosity, sometimes called almsgiving, and have always and will always be a staple of the Christian life. Jesus himself said “The poor you will always have with you.” Pope Benedict instructs us that even the best society will always require such acts. They are spontaneous, extravagant and come with no strings attached. They are intrinsic and essential to the Church as a participation in and expression of God’s generosity.

Business activity and initiative provide the broadest and richest pathway out of poverty into productivity and security. Entrepreneurial initiative, investment, free markets, incentives, limited taxation and regulation, networks of trust, synergistic energies of collaboration and cooperation, rigorous work ethics and moral standards: all of these in the longer term conspire towards a prosperous economy which rewards the industrious and enterprising and all who have the ability and desire to participate at any level.

Last of all we have government assistance including a safety net, reasonable regulation, advocacy for the disadvantaged, unions that defend the worker and countervail the power of capital, welfare for the very needy, and a restrained but activist government able to protect the weakest and correct injustices arising in the business environments.

A healthy society combines all three elements in a harmonious synthesis. Compare it to making pancakes: you will always need flour, milk, and eggs. Without these three you will not have pancakes but something else. The exact proportions we can argue about: some prefer thin, small, “silver dollars;” others like to fill the entire frying pan with a thick, cake-like batter. Economic policy is a constant balancing of state intervention and the market economy. Catholics and others of good conscience will inevitably disagree in prudential judgment about policies and the balance of power between the state and the market in a fascinating, intense, challenging dynamic of competition and collaboration.

Franklin Roosevelt represented an emphasis on state intervention; Ronald Reagan swung the pendulum towards free markets; and Obama, with a clear popular mandate, is swinging back again. Newt Gingrich, free marketer par excellence, who coincidentally is just now joining the Catholic Church, has urged moderate Republicans to align themselves with Obama in a moderate/liberal realignment and thereby cut him off from the liberal extreme that supported him so vigorously through the primaries. This proposal discloses a Catholic appreciation for pragmatism, compromise, moderation and balance. The plan has less than a 50/50 chance of succeeding because ideological extremists dominate both parties in a bipolar politics that leave moderates like me without a home. David Brooks, the conservative voice of the NY Times opinion page, is the most insightful and lucid defender of pragmatic moderation in economics.

My own suspicion is that the American economy is resilient enough to survive the current crisis and the Obama project without collapsing; but it is not powerful enough to fulfill all the expectations aroused by his campaign. Hopefully, the stimulus will help to revive investment and activity; unfortunately, the overreach of his longer term agenda will itself have negative consequences that will in turn provoke a reaction back towards the right.

In the meantime, the business implosion and the worrisome governmental expansion give us all the more incentive to direct our energies into charitable activities at the more local and concrete level of family, neighborhood and city. These micro activities are far more enriching for our minds, souls, bodies, families and communities.

Ponzi Prankster, Monopoly Champ, Hand of God

You can’t make this stuff up!

Bernie Madoff, having stolen $50 Billion in a Ponzi scheme, claims with his wife that their own $69 million was money he made elsewhere. The late night comedians wonder where the wealth came from:
- Money he saved at Geico?
- Bought all his clothing at the Nearly-New store?
- Money he saved by fully inflating his tires?
- Used green stamps?
- Shoveled walkways for his rich neighbors when it snowed and invested wisely?
- Turned off all lights and kept his temperature at 68 instead of 70 degrees?
- His tithe was so generous that God simply had to reward him handsomely?

This guy is hilarious! It is some kind of Vaudeville act: the smartest, richest guy around tricks all the smartest, richest people out of all of their money. If they make the movie, they will have to bring Grocho Marx back!

Many people don’t get it because they take the whole thing so seriously. Elie Wiesel, who lost his personal fortune and his foundation to Madoff, has spoken with gravity about his wickedness. It would be good for Elie to lighten up and have a big laugh about the whole thing. Unlike the crowds who revere him as a spiritual, moral guru, Madoff did him a big favor: he relieved him of his illusional wealth; deflated his ego and sense of self-importance; scrutinized his soul; prepared him to meet his Maker at his particular judgment (which cannot be too far off given Wiesel’s age); and provided him with a much-needed opportunity to forgive an enemy and bless God (with Job) in a time of trial.

The Ponzi scheme was not such a wicked event in my view: probably a venial rather than a mortal sin. First of all, it is just money; it is not something serious like running a concentration camp, selling pornography, cheating on your spouse, or voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Secondly, he only stole from the rich who were eager to become even richer; he was Robin Hood writ large in technological post-modernity. (Okay, I know he also ruined some good foundations!) Thirdly, our money-obsessed society needed just such a huge prank to unveil the illusions around wealth, status, and security. Lastly, let’s be sympathetic: after you get into a Ponzi scheme for, let’s say a few $hundred million, it is awful hard to back out gracefully. I probably would have done the same in that circumstance: once you tell a little lie, you need to tell a larger one to cover up, and so on ad infinitum. Anyway, doesn’t the whole thing seem like a big game of monopoly? Isn’t that really what finance is all about: a big game to see who dies with the most points? Consider also that this could have turned out differently: if the economy had continued to prosper or the world had come to an end suddenly, no one would have even known and no harm done.

On TV, Madoff is unfazed by the entire thing. He has a slight smirk on his face. In one part of his Jewish mind, he realizes it was a fantastic joke; his competitive side is thrilled that he beat all his buddies at their own game; but in the deeper level of his Hebrew consciousness, he senses himself as an instrument of a providential God, disciplining his recalcitrant, greedy children and calling them to repentance.

Part Grocho Marx; part Jeremiah; and all-time Monopoly champion: You have got to love Bernie Madoff!

Catholic Agnosticism

Our Catholic Faith teaches: (Choose the correct answer.)

1. Babies who die without baptism (including abortions and miscarriages):
a) Go automatically/directly to heaven due to their innocence and God’s love.
b) Go to hell because of original sin and separation from God.
c) Go to limbo.
d) We really don’t know, but we trust, pray and hope (which is to say that we don’t know.)

2. Evolution of species as the mechanism that originated the human race is:
a) An indisputable, absolute fact.
b) Impossible because it contradicts the clear testimony of Genesis.
c) The marvelous, complicated way God created humans.
d) We really don’t know from our faith about evolution.

3. Christ’s second coming:
a) Will not be a historic reality since it is a biblical myth.
b) Imminent because of current events prophesized in scripture.
c) Will probably occur in a few million years.
d) We have no idea of its timing although we know it is coming.

4. The population of hell is:
a) Few or none because the love of God forgives all sins.
b) Immense because the vast majority remain in sin and disbelief.
c) Probably about a 50/50 split with heaven.
d) We really have no clear idea from revelation, scripture and tradition; we only know there is a hell, not how many are there.

5. The ideal political/economic society:
a) Abolishes the injustice of great wealth alongside of horrendous poverty.
b) Secures freedoms associated with democracy and market economies.
c) Directly obeys the Church in the manner of medieval Christendom.
d) We have no such template. Rather, we have principles (solidarity with the poor, subsidiarity, freedoms including that of religion) that can be applied to critique and improve all imperfect societies.

6. The State of Israel is:
a) A divinely intended compensation for the guilt of the Holocaust.
b) Clearly God’s proximate preparation for the imminent Parousia.
c) A cruel injustice against the disenfranchised Palestinian Arabs.
d) A complex, multifaceted secular fact without any clear, univocal religious content.

7. Judas, Hitler, Stalin and Mao are now:
a) In purgatory or heaven because God wants no one to go to hell.
b) Without any doubt in hell.
c) No longer exist.
d) We don’t know where.

8. The details of the Genesis story (temptation with fruit, serpent, etc.) are:
a) Purely fictional (like myths from other ancient religions) and entirely void of actual, historical content.
b) Literally true in all details because they are divinely revealed.
c) Blend of fact and fiction which scripture scholars can unravel.
d) Aspects we do not clearly know about the actual, real event of the fall.

9. Jesus’ descent into hell between his death and resurrection is:
a) Not factual but a poetic/mythical way of saying he frees us from evil.
b) A precise, accurate, historic description of his temporal stay, from Good Friday afternoon to Easter Sunday morning, in hell where the souls of the just had been waiting through the centuries (linear time line) to enter heaven.
c) A metaphoric way of saying that he emptied himself and entered the very deepest realities of despair and abandonment.
d) A revealed reality about which we know very little.

10. The homosexual condition is:
a) Something one is born with and therefore morally neutral or good.
b) A self-chosen moral depravity.
c) A dysfunction treatable by therapy.
d) We do not know, from our faith, its origins.

The correct answer to all these questions is d: we don’t know. Catholicism, agnostic about these realities, maintains an epistemological humility before the Mystery of these mysteries. Most of them we will probably never know this side of heaven and the eschaton: population of hell, destiny of the nonbaptized, and detailed knowledge of the fall. Some may yield greater theological light with the passage of time (descent into hell.) Others will be clarified by developments in science (evolution, origins of homosexuality) but always with the partiality, tentativeness, provisionality, and correctibility that characterizes scientific hypotheses.

Liberal sentimentality renounces such humility in favor of a rigid dogmatic system that teaches: the mercy of God without his justice and wrath; presumption about heaven; avoidance of the reality of original sin; evolution as a dogma; homosexuality as inborn; foundational scriptural realities as mythical; a softened version of class warfare and leftist utopianism. All of the a answers above express this subjectively infallible mythology/ideology. These beliefs are not rooted in revelation or science; rather, they are personal sentiments, feelings, and presumptions. Imbibed from and reinforced by a secular ambiance, they are asserted all the more aggressively and defensively because they lack scientific and revelatory authority as mere assertions of emotive, psychological certitude.

The b answers above all express a Protestant fundamentalism that, deprived of an apostolic magisterium and tradition, interprets particular biblical passages in a literal and selective manner. It also sanctifies secular realities (Israel, democracy, capitalism) thereby immanentizing heaven and the eschaton as an inverse image of leftist utopianism.

In contrast with these competing closed/rigid systems, the genuinely “catholic” (universal) position welcomes a diversity of opinions to the Big Table: Intelligent Designers and evolutionists; Christian Zionists and pro-Arabs; utopian optimists and apocalyptic pessimists; socialists, anarchists, libertarians and capitalists; clinicians who identify homosexuality with psychological harm and scientists searching for biological predispositions. There is, then, a liberty within the Church in regard to a large range of philosophical issues; a liberty that does not characterize the opposing, polarized ideologies of our society. Paradoxically, it is the magisterium that preserves and protects this liberty by preventing the sacralization of any particular school of thought.

The Catholic deposit of faith is as clear about what we don’t know as it is about what we do know, with certainty, from Divine Revelation. It deconstructs mythologies and ideologies of the right and the left, even as it tolerates both. With the wise man, the Catholic can say about these many realities: “I know that I do not know.”

Black Robe

Good Movie Alert: Black Robe. This 1991 film is solid, serious Lenten fare. I recall that my father included in his Lenten practice reading of religious inspiring literature. I have been trying to use my Netflix membership to view similarly uplifting movies. This one is at the top of the list.

It resembles The Mission: poignant soundtrack, intelligent and courageous Jesuit priests, magnificent and authentic scenery, frightful violence, and an ending that is at once saddening and thrilling. Along with that movie, Keys of the Kingdom, and Inn of the Seventh Happiness, this tops the list of great mission movies.

Rated R, it is clearly adult fare due to graphic (but not suggestive) sexuality and violence (more suggested than actually portrayed.) As a viewer, I felt an unusual historic authenticity about the entire film, even more so than The Mission or Last of the Mohicans and infinitely more than the Holywood-ish, politically-correct Dances with Wolves. It demonstrates a most realistic anthropological sensibility in disclosing the darker and lighter sides of the native Americans, the French and the Jesuits themselves. The interactions between Jesuit and Indian were profoundly lucid in unveiling the cultural dissonance and mutual incomprehension between the groups: the clock, the alphabet, and views on marriage and heaven. Daniel, a young frontier Frenchman, in love with a beautiful Algonquin maiden, straddles both worlds and helps the viewer see the values, disvalues and conflict between the two human, and imperfect, cultures.

In the end, however, beneath and beyond a dark realism and relativism, the movie is about faith, courage, and martyrdom. It is one beautiful film!

The Candy Test

Four Catholic School girls (all chocolate lovers) gave up candy for Lent.

The first came home from school on Ash Wednesday, ashes still fresh and prominent on her forehead, and seeing pieces of chocolate on the kitchen counter, could not keep from snacking on them. The next day she came home to find a box of chocolate covered cherries (her favorite) on the same counter. She ate three of them. Friday lunch found her obsessing about chocolate and the fact that she would have none for 40 days. Agitated with her day, she became increasingly sad and aggravated until she surrendered to the impulse and got an Almond Joy from the candy machine. Upon finishing the treat, she fell into a swamp of self-loathing: “I am overweight and ugly; I don’t do my homework; I can’t even give up candy; and I will not follow through on my promise to get back to Sunday mass. I am a total Loser!” In her contempt for self, her name is Discouragement.

The second girl is the polar opposite: strong of will, disciplined athlete, and straight-A student. For her, the 40 days wiz by without a taste of candy and on Easter morning she enjoys a moderate portion of chocolate and congratulates herself on her moral performance. Surveying her moral, academic, social and athletic successes, she gloats with a sense of satisfaction on her superiority to peers. Consciously, she is aglow with self-confidence and self-reliance; subconsciously, she is independent of and disconnected from God. Her name is Pride.

Our third faster duplicates the failed fast of Discouragement (three strikes in three days) but her response is different. Beating her breast with contrition, she begs God for mercy and aid: “I am so weak! Help me! Jesus, I trust in your Mercy! Despite my failure, I will not lose faith in you!” In her hope and trust, she is Humility.

Our last faster is successful like number two but exults on Easter morning in gratitude: “Thank you so much, Lord, for a beautiful lent. You have blessed me in so many ways: my family, school, friends, and all my great activities. I am not worthy! And I see so many who suffer: Let me help them and show them your love!” In her joy and generosity, she is Gratitude.

Our line-up of four: Discouragement, Pride, Humility and Gratitude. Who is the worst? Who is the best? This question provoked a thoughtful discussion in religion class. A narrow majority saw Pride as the worst response, thus agreeing with the traditional identification of pride as the primal and deepest sin. The decision on best response was a split between Gratitude and Humility. The more immediate reactions favored the all around positive and successful position of Gratitude. But more pensive students moved on to see a deeper faith and surrender in Humility who found union with God even in failure.

We were able to agree that Lent is not about will power; it is about deeper connection with God, in our failures and our successes.

See you on the confession line!

Holy Mother the State

We Catholics look to Holy Mother the Church for nurture, nourishment, protection and Life itself. She provides these in superabundance because of her bridal union with Christ: more than a social institution, she is the Communion of Saints, an eternal personality; even as a historical reality, she is a living, supernatural organism.

A theological liberal may be understood as someone unable to understand and cherish the conjugal, feminine, receptive and maternal essence of the Church (and of Creation itself) who therefore defaults to an ontological model based on the supremacy of the individual: isolated, autonomous, atomic, and homogeneous. (Therefore, woman priests, contraception, and so forth.)

A political liberal may be understood as one who distrusts the Church and looks to the State for redemption, who expects superabundant nurture, protection and Life from the federal government. Within a post-Protestant America dislodged from the Marian/Sacramental/Apostolic Church, the liberal finds his inverse image in the political/fiscal conservative who places his security and trust in unregulated, low-taxed, free markets.

Last night Raymond Arollo interviewed Father Sirico of the Acton Institute on the Obama economic plan. I listened with interest but was disappointed that Arollo and EWTN with their centrist, populist instincts would endorse such extreme, right wing economic views. Father Sirico defended the moral validity of market economics, locating moral goodness/evil in the personal decisions of individuals, thereby shielding capitalism from systematic critique. In this he implicitly ignores or denies the strong papal critique of structural or systemic injustice consistently echoed by our popes and applied to the USA with lucidity and brilliance by David Schindler and his colleagues in the Communio School of theology. Nevertheless, as a Catholic corrective to Obama adulation, Father Sirico was helpful with his comments on subsidiarity, the effect of tax increases upon charitable giving and the non-profit sector, and the expansion of government as a threat to other social actors.

The Obama economic plan has good intentions: stimulate the economy, restore infrastructure, provide adequate health coverage, redistribute wealth back to the poor and working classes, increase federal spending for education, and correct the climate and energy problems. He promises to do all of this by taxing the rich and bringing our troops home and still cut taxes on the middle class. Do you really believe our government will be able to do all of this? If so, you have a most credulous, and possibly delusional, trust in Holy Mother the State.

Aside from the unreality of the vision, consider that this administration is already pouring millions of our dollars (with the backing of “pro-life Catholic" Democrat Bob Casey) into contraception and abortion for poor women overseas; that he has promised to sign FOCA which absolutizes a woman’s right to abortion and would coerce participation in such; that “faith based initiatives” receiving federal funds will have to deny their faith convictions and collaborate with his secular, anti-life agenda. The liberal fantasy of a nurturing Mother State will turn into a smothering, voracious, and destructive Monster: depriving her children of liberties and even of life itself.

The more I read of Obama’s plans, the more eager I am to cling to our true mother, the Church. As Catholic, I look to neither government nor free markets for security and hope; I walk a middle path of subsidiarity and moderation; and I am free of delusional, idolatrous and destructive economic ideologies sanctified by names like Obama or Reagan.

See you in the Eucharist!

Lenten Priorities

Happily, I am three days into Lent without hearing the now-standard homily by some liberal priest on “Lent is about doing good, NOT giving something up!”

Of course Lent is about giving something up. It is about going into the desert with Jesus and joining Him more intensely in the three foundational practices of prayer, alms, and fasting.

The Catholic Lenten urge to fast is irrepressible and seems to be coming back with a vengeance this year. Even my 6-year old, kindergarten granddaughter Brigid is enthused about Lent. One of my freshman classes asked if they could share openly what they are doing for Lent. Most of the class said something and it turns out that everybody is “giving something up” but almost none have planned any extra prayer or almsgiving.

So, the lib priests in their campaign against “giving something up” may actually be on to something: there is an imbalance in priorities. Pope Benedict, as usual, is impeccably precise and balanced in his Lenten exhortation. He highlights fasting but places it in the context of reception of the Word of God in prayer.

The three practices together are essential for the observance of Lent; but there is a sequence of priorities. First and foremost is prayer: time spent with the Word, resting therein, actively receiving and ingesting, being absorbed into the One who feeds us so richly. Second is almsgiving: doing good to others, including the poor and those around us; doing the “good that presents itself;” after which our “wound will be healed.” And last, least, but nevertheless essential, is fasting: voluntary acts of sacrifice. These can be very modest and generally should be lest we bloat our ego with our moralistic accomplishments. I have been getting up a little early in the morning so that my prayer time is not rushed and I find that my day seems to unfold so much more gracefully and smoothly, without excess effort and stress.

The goal of Lent is to deeper our communion with our Lord. Prayer is first and foremost in this journey; it feeds, supports and draws from the other two practices.

After posting these thoughts, I am walking to the chapel for a short visit. I will remember anyone who happens to read this post. (I don’t know who you are, but God does.) And maybe you, reader friend, will say a short prayer for me. Thanks!

What’s Up With Our Bishops?

This week I signed a statement petitioning the US bishops to deny Holy Communion to political leaders who persist, 36 years after Roe, in advocating for the destruction of innocent, powerless human lives. The intent here is not primarily to change our political landscape; and it is certainly not to judge the soul of another person. The intent is to protect and communicate our Catholic faith, specifically the sacraments in their integrity in relation to our moral ethos of respect for life. That prominent, prestigious and powerful personalities like our Vice President and Speaker persist and prevail in their agenda of death through many decades, with majority support of Catholics, and remain in good standing in the Church is an injustice to them, to the Church, and especially to the “little ones” who deserve clear, inspiring teaching.

Our bishops have been a grave disappointment in recent decades: first we had the cover-up of the priest sex scandal; that was followed by the unhappy Dallas response in which priests were denied rights but the bishops accepted no responsibility. But worst by far is the continued failure of the bishops to speak and act with clarity, courage and force on powerless life.

How striking is the contrast between our lukewarm, indecisive, assimilative and “let’s-all-just-get-along-and-not-ruffle-any-feathers” bishops and the last half-dozen of our popes in their intellectual brilliance, inspirational courage, and Holy-Spirit-inspired leadership. Imagine the US Church without a strong papacy! It would be very close to the calamity that is the Episcopal Church.

Why are the bishops so weak? One part of the problem, I believe, is the job description. Each bishop is CEO of a major corporation and this task demands that they protect, maintain and build the organization. In our society, such a job requires financial, legal and political skills. These skills and mind habits are not always coherent with the Gospel. So we have a pious and talented cleric like Cardinal McCarrick who accomplished so much for the American Church but is so irenic and diplomatic that he was unable to confront pro-choice politicians in a virile, forceful, authoritative, challenging and genuinely paternal manner.

Decades ago, Ivan Illich called for the de-institutionalization of the Church. Perhaps he was right. If the hierarchy did not have to worry about so many schools, hospitals, cemeteries, buildings, property and organizations of all kinds, perhaps they would be able to proclaim more freely and clearly the Good News. This does not mean that the Church would give up organized corporal and spiritual works of mercy; rather, these tasks would not be directed by the hierarchy, but by the laity. An analogue would be the decision of the early Church to delegate serving of food to a distinct class of deacons so that the apostles were freed up for prayer, study and preaching of the Word.

Such an amiable separation (not a divorce) in many cases will also benefit the works of mercy. For example, Mother Angelica spun EWTN off as an independent group, free from the episcopacy, in a brilliant maneuver, so that it might present Catholic truth unhindered by a hierarchy bound up with institutional anxieties, liberal orthodoxies, and political correctness. That network presents an orthodox, challenging, and fascinating symphony of catecheses (Father Groeschel, Marcus Grodi, Ralph Martin, Raymond Arollo, and Scott Hahn, to name a few) in a manner the bishops’ conference never could.

We are desperately in need of virile, authoritative, paternal guidance from our bishops. We need more men like the late Cardinal O’Connor who ran the Archdiocese down financially but spoke the truth in season and out of season.

For lent, let’s all pray for our bishops!

True Confessions

On the short list of quality cinematic treatments of the Catholic priesthood, I offer 1981’s True Confessions with typically stellar performances by Roberts DeNiro and Duvall. Set in L.A., immediately after WWII, DeNiro plays a bright and ambitious monsignor who is ascending within the hierarchy due to his financial and political prowess; Duvall is his kid brother, a hard-nosed homicide detective with personal familiarity with the seamier side of life. The two worlds collide into each other due to the double lives of prominent Catholic leaders. The film is interesting and engaging on several levels.

The two stars play off each other as brothers very well and the explosive combination of love, competition and resentment between them is very realistic.

The movie also offers a perspective on a darker side of the phenomenal growth of the Church in those post-war years, especially the growth in Church buildings, schools and plants. The DeNiro character personalizes the cost in moral integrity incurred by this expansion in property, power, status and glamour. Combined with Philip Lawler’s insightful book The Faithful Departed, the movie illuminates the secularization and corruption quietly at work in those decades leading up to the deconstruction of the late 60s.

The sacrament of confession becomes a pivotal point in the movie as protagonists confess to the compromised monsignor who himself, interestingly, confesses to an older and holier cleric who happens to be his enemy within ecclesiastical politics. Generally, the portrayal of the sacrament is fair and true although some sequences raise serious questions for a Catholic. (Example: towards the end, the villain confesses with an indignant and wrathful disposition blatantly lacking in contrition and purpose of amendment and yet receives absolution.)

The movie portrays the distasteful sexual violence and the intriguing moral ambiguity of the film noir genre. However the radiance of redemptive grace does, in the end, prevail to dispel the heavy darkness that dominates throughout. This conclusion suggests the operation of an (at least implicitly) Catholic imagination in its sensitivity to genuine contrition and conversion.

Truthful treatment of the priesthood is a rarity in the movies; even rarer are quality presentations of the sacraments in their simplicity, efficacy and mystery. This movie qualifies for that short list. The sacrament of penance seems to be the one most congenial for cinematic drama. Hitchcock’s I Confess and the riveting confessional confrontation between the DeNiro conquistador and Irons’ Jesuit in The Mission are surely at the top of the list. A scene of Eucharistic desecration and personal heroism by the sainted Archbishop in Romero is also unforgettable and inspirational.

The dark nature of True Confessions leaves it less than ideal for devotional viewing during lent. But for Saturday night entertainment, it might serve as remote preparation for Sunday morning Eucharist due to its subtle sense of the workings of Grace even in the corruption of sin

Lenten Stimulus Program

Lent is a stimulus program in which we invigorate and intensify our faith, hope and love.

It draws upon the infinite merits and graces already deposited by Our Lord, Mary and the saints. It does not borrow from the future, with anxiety and forebodings; it gratefully receives from what has been accomplished 2000 years ago and since.

It does not stimulate consumption, but simplicity, austerity and gratitude. Aware of the infinite abundance of God’s Kingdom, it draws us into stark desert vulnerability and poverty where we luxuriate in the gratuity and exuberance of Love.

It provides us with work in the way of multiple opportunities for deeds of kindness and generosity; there is a surplus of such employment; not lack of jobs.

It is an economy of abundance and surplus and hope: as we open ourselves to receive more, we are able to give more; as we give, we are opened up to receive more. There is no anxiety, worry, sadness or resentment here; there is joy after joy, love after love, hope building upon hope, and gratitude issuing perpetually into praise and adoration.

This is a stimulus program that will do more than rebuild the global economy; it will redeem the entire creation.

Our God is good!

Spiritual Synergies and Undervalued All-Stars

The film version of Capote’s In Cold Blood has the voice-over commentator towards the end pointing out that neither of the two murders (who were eventually executed by hanging) would have been capable of the brutal slaying of the family of four (for a few dollars) without the other. It makes sense: one was cold-hearted, calculating and manipulative but not violent; the other was sensitive and tender but explosively violent. The first planned and engineered the crime and the second actually did the bloody act.

This heinous crime is a case study of synergistic energies by which two or three of us united can produce a far greater effect, for good or for evil, than the sum of our individual capabilities. In the doing of evil, there is a mimetic contagion by which we excite each other into an escalation of malice and destruction beyond the capacity of the individual: Nazis, Rwanda, and Iraq. Clearly, there is also a supernatural, Satanic dynamic that intrudes as well. This is very scary stuff: “Deliver us from evil!”

The Good News is that this explosive, synergistic dynamism is even more powerful in the doing of good: Where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in your midst. How often are we energized, encouraged, inspired by even trivial exchanges with others?

Sunday’s NY Time’s Magazine had a front cover article on Shane Battier as an unsung and undervalued but most valuable all-star. His personal statistics are not in the least impressive but he does a range of barely visible things that make his team win consistently. He will tip a rebound to a teammate, move off his own man to box out a stronger rebounder, and force offensive all-stars like Bryant to take lower percentage shots. His athletic ability is unexceptional by NBA standards but his basketball IQ is off the charts. He is the quintessential selfless player: calls no attention to himself but does everything to make his team and teammates better and his opponents worse.

These two concrete cases lead to a thrilling insight: those of us who are not all-stars in our personal stats are nevertheless all part of a team and intelligent, selfless performance of miniscule tasks at the right time and in the right manner contribute to a synergistic, mimetic, socially contagious and explosive dynamic that far transcends our wildest individual fantasies. Only Kobe can be Kobe, but each of us can be like a Shane Battier in his given task and mission.

Scrutiny

Thursday’s gospel, the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mark 7:24-30), is remarkable for the initial response of Jesus. The gentile woman, asking for the deliverance of her daughter from an unclean spirit, is clearly motivated by love (for her daughter) and faith (in Jesus). His response is shocking: “Let the children be fed first. For it is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” This is NOT the sweet, nice, saccharine, girly Jesus of love and mercy we have been introducing to our young for the last 40 years or so. This is a harsh, insulting, confrontational, challenging and candid Jesus. For the Jews, dogs were unclean and not allowed into their houses. This woman, as a gentile, is unclean to a Jew. It is most probably a historical incident by use of the "embarassment criterion:" it is unlikely the apostolic Church would have fabricated such a negative incident about their Lord.

Apparently the Greek language has a connection in the root words for woman and dog so there may even have been a negative insinuation of the woman as dog-like. Even today, our most derogatory expressions for the feminine refer to the canine in a way that profanes both. The fact that the woman’s daughter has an “unclean spirit” brings another suggestion of impurity to the situation. Clearly, Jesus’ words to the woman imply an insult: you are unclean, associated with dogs, and unworthy of the work of God occurring in my mission to my (not your) people.

The woman’s response is even more surprising. She is not offended, but persists in her petition: “Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.” Indifferent to the insult, she is remarkably humble: free of pretense or arrogance. Recall that she has already cast herself at his feet in the posture of a beggar or even of a dog. Clearly, she has no ego, reputation, image or social status to defend: she only wants her daughter free and she is convinced that Jesus can do this for her. Jesus is completely disarmed by her “littleness” and responds affirmatively and succinctly: “For saying this, you may go. The demon has gone out of your daughter.”

On the one hand, the passage indicates that Jesus’ mission was clearly to the Jews. He understood the limitations and boundaries of his work and did not overextend himself to solve all of mankind’s woes. He initially resists the request in the manner he rebuked his own mother at Cana. His rebuke here, like that at Cana, seems to be a scrutiny, a challenge, a provocation. He sees the evident love and faith of the woman; but that is not enough. He scrutinizes more deeply and surgically for the presence of pride and arrogance and he dramatically elicits the fundamental humility of the beautiful woman. “Insult me all you want,” she seems to say, “but I love my daughter and I will persist in the face of your rebuke because I believe in you.”

What an exhilarating word! This marvelous woman invites us to emulate her love and faith, but even more so her humility and persistence. Furthermore, we are invited to be faithful to our given task and no more: to know, with Jesus, the boundaries and parameters of our mission and not to overextend; to say NO with the same decisiveness with which we say YES. And we are called to welcome those who refuse to flatter us but honor us with the candor, precision and challenge of such a scrutiny that unveil our hidden pride and beckons us to humility. This unclean woman with an unclean daughter models for us the way to real freedom (for ourselves and for those we love): love, faith, humility and persistance.

Where's Mom?

With the recession impacting mostly male jobs (only 18% of jobs lost are to women), the NY Times reports that women hold just slightly less full time jobs than men and may pass them soon for a historical first. In 1965, men held about 70% of the full time jobs with women holding 30%. The gap has now closed and men are losing jobs at a rate quadruple that of women since construction and factory jobs are more vulnerable than those in fields like medicine or education.

This is a milestone in the drive for woman’s equality. Women are now earning more college and graduate degrees than men and are about to surpass them in the job market. You Go Girl! Equality at last!

But if we move beyond the rights and equalities of the individual, let us ask if this is good for everyone: For the family? For the little ones? For men? For the elderly? For the Home? No! It is terrible for everyone, especially for women.

In 1965, most families lived on the “family wage” of the male provider and most homes and families were rooted in and supported by the homemaker mother. This was especially good for younger children, the elderly and other sick or needy family members. It is the particular genius of the woman to create a home, not a just a dwelling or residence, but a womb-like, life-giving ecology of beauty, nurture, safety, inspiration and attention.

In general,masculine self-esteem is highly invested in achievement and performance while the female’s sense of self worth is less preoccupied with career success and more involved with relationships, family, and nurture. The loss of a job for a man oftentimes, beyond the financial stress, is more costly in terms of morale and mental health. The Great Depression saw many male suicides. Our own Grandfather suffered a severe nervous breakdown from which he never recovered; while his wife went on to raise three children in dire conditions and remained mentally and emotionally resilient beyond her 100th year. This case is quite typical and paradigmatic. The loss of so many jobs by men is a deep concern beyond the obvious economic distress.

With women surpassing men in the workplace, the big loser is the home and the family. The home has been greatly deflated as an environment of life. The care and attention formerly rendered there has been delegated to impersonal, bureaucratic institutions: day care, nursing homes, summer camps, and specialized group homes. Children are the biggest losers as they grow up in a “latch-key” environment.

Meanwhile, the stress on Supermom continues to increase. Women still do most of the domestic work. When women lose a job, their time devoted to domestic chores doubles; when men lose a job, their time devoted to this remains the same. They either devote themselves full time to finding a job or they use the time for TV and golf. The brave new feminist world places inordinate expectations upon women.

We live in a world of careerism in which the bourgeois parent’s biggest nightmare is that her child not attend college; a world of individualism where few renounce their own private ambitions for the good of the family; a world of materialism where safety and security are located in insurance policies, retirement accounts and equity statements; and a world of bureaucracies which structure life from infancy to senility.

The current economic crisis will go away soon enough. The destruction of the family is a deeper and far more ominous reality.

Presentism: Loss of Memory, Denial of Hope

“Catholic” Grandma Nancy Pelosi fervently defended the use of stimulus funds for contraceptive services: fewer kids = less expense = more for us here and now. This unveils the inner economic logic of liberalism: borrow against the future to enjoy the present; the debt will be repaid by our children and grandchildren; contracept and abort and therefore destroy the generation intended to repay or debt. The culture of sterility (contraception, abortion, gay sex) is at the same time an ethos of Presentism or indulgence in the present. Economically, it is praxis of debt and consumption. Spiritually, it is a religion of despair. The gay lifestyle is paradigmatic for liberal policy: indulge in the present because there is no fruitfulness or next generation to sacrifice for; borrow against the future since there really is no future beyond the immediate present.

Consider the society we boomers entered in the post-WWII era: large families, sharp gender roles, austere and frugal financial habits learned in the depression (“neither a lender nor a borrower be.”) Tested and chastened by the Depression and War, our country experienced a revival of religious faith led by Billy Graham, Bishop Sheen and Father (of the family rosary) Peyton.

The Cultural Liberalism of the 60s inverted all of these values and exalted: economics of debt, credit cards and consumption; sexuality of sterility and recreation; a rejection of authority; and preference for indulgence over sacrifice.

The various currents of liberalism generally share a renunciation of past orthodoxies, traditions and beliefs in favor of a “change we can believe in.” So, Hans Kung just wrote wistfully about what an “Obama papacy” would represent in contrast to Pope Benedict who is “looking backwards.” Post Vatican II progressivism identified that council as a radical break from the past in contrast to John Paul and Benedict who insist on seeing it in continuity with the past. Liberalism is fundamentally a break with the past, a rejection of tradition, and therefore a loss of memory in preference for a euphoric present and an immanent and utopian future. At the deeper level, however, contemporary liberalism is abandonment to the present because of despair about the future: there is no transcendent hope and therefore a retreat from fruitfulness and the sacrifices it requires. So, a culture of sterility produces negative population growth and trillions of dollars of deficit spending and national debt. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide become fundamental rights because pain carries no seed of future glory.

Obama’s entrustment of the stimulus plan to Pelosi and her lieutenants shows that he remains in bondage to the thought patterns of cultural liberalism. Last week, while encouraging inter-religious dialogue and harmony, he solemnly declared: “Remember,” pausing to bring additional gravity to his words, “there is no religion that advocates killing of the innocent.” The man who repeatedly resisted the Baby Born Alive Act said this with a sincerity greater than that of Bernie Madoff, Father Marciel Maciel and Rod Blagojevich combined. Our President demonstrates a complete disconnect between his rhetoric and the brutal realities his policies impose.

Our prayers for President Obama need to be joined to a realism that demons like these will not be exorcised without fasting and extended spiritual combat.

No Intelligence Required

Good movie alert for your Netflix queue: Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The movie is serious and yet lighthearted, entertaining and informational, funny and significant. Stein himself is quite a trip: brilliant lawyer, economist, Yale valedictorian and journalist; both pro-life and pro-animal (not that most pro-lifers are anti-animal, we are just not particularly pro-animal, except for the Franciscan Felicians I work with); a celebrity actor and a Republican speech writer; owner of multiple-cats-and-dogs and adoptive father; and Ferris Beuller’s boring high school teacher! If you have time to kill, do a Google and read some of his writings and interviews. They are precious!

In the movie, he interviews top-shelf scientists who have serious intellectual problems with Darwinian evolution as a comprehensive explanation for the “origin of species.” It is clear that Intelligent Design has roots in legitimate scientific thought and research and is not merely fundamentalist creationism in a more sophisticated outfit. He interviews a string of outstanding scientists who were immediately blackballed for mentioning the
I-word and the D-word sequentially or hinting the slightest doubt about the infallible dogma of evolution. As a Jew, he taps into his own heritage and shows the roots of eugenics and Nazi genocide in Social Darwinism.

Clearly, there is a strong community of scientific dissent against Darwinism as a comprehensive scientific theory. There are holes and gaps in the theory; but apparently the establishment does not tolerate such disagreement.

Mainstream evolutionists have a valid point that Intelligent Design is itself not a scientific concept in that it is not verifiable or measurable. It does not operate within the realms of efficient and material causality that the natural sciences have adopted as their parameters. The concept is not really theological either because, unlike Creationism, it does not come from revelation. Rather, it is a philosophical concept and belongs in the curriculum under something like Philosophy of Science. This area is an important one today because science is increasingly determining how the broader culture understands reality. Catholic education on the secondary and college level is the ideal place to treat these important topics. I can’t imagine that public schooling is equipped to address them with any depth and nuance (so I am not boycotting the teaching of evolution in public schools!)

The broader cultural problem, beyond science class, is that evolution in widely accepted as a meta-narrative or Grand Theory that can explain all of life. Popular literature, news articles and magazines are filled with bio-babble: men are promiscuous because they want to enhance chances of their genes surviving; men play golf because hunting patterns of shoot and pursue were functional for survival in the jungle; and so forth.

In a post-modern academy that boasts of deconstructing every arrogant meta-theory, evolution flourishes as the unacknowledged grand paradigm that is credulously accepted even as it prides itself on thoroughgoing skepticism and criticism. Stein masterfully demonstrates that in such circles, intelligence is neither required nor allowed.