Joy of Evangelizing

The recent Apostolic Exhortation from Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, is inspired and inspiring, delightful and thrilling. It burns passionately with love for Christ, our Lord and Savior, and for the poor. It practically explodes with evangelical fervor. It is single-minded and resolutely focused on The Essential: love for our Lord, and love for the brother and sister. It is firmly, unambiguously in continuity with previous pontiffs: There are 217 footnotes, all from popes, the Second Vatican Council or classics like Augustine and Aquinas. Direct quotations from John Paul and Benedict may number close to 100. This is no maverick pope! Sections of it are worthy of spiritual reading and meditation; others are striking for their originality and provocativeness. For example, he notes that as we go forth to evangelize the poor, we are ourselves evangelized by their responsiveness, faith, patience and love. No ecclesiastical triumphalism here! Just the victory of the Cross! The section on homily preparation must be required reading for all priests. John Paul is quoted: "To be human is to be son of a culture and father of a culture." Now that is something to mull over. He is visceral in his disgust for the culture of affluence and consumerism, indifference to the poor and social inequality. But this is entirely in accord with previous papal statements, not to mention the rage of the prophets, Church fathers and Jesus himself. He identifies abortion as a moral abomination and matter-of-factly indicates that woman priests is not open to discussion and explains why in a succinct manner. It is appropriately labeled an "exhortation" and does not pretend to be a complete teaching. Like all things human, it is limited and finite; just as its author, our dear sweet Vicar of Christ, is himself limited and finite. This man is a lover, a zealot, a man on fire with the Holy Spirit. He does not have the depth, breath, sophistication, nuance and "catholicity" manifest in his two brilliant predecessors. In his admirable single-mindedness, he pays scant attention to dramatic, significant realities: the absolute need, of the poor especially, for a cult of sexual fidelity and chastity; the primacy of worship and liturgy, even over mission; ambiguous, not univocally evil, nature of global capitalism and the need for a complicated, nuanced, social ethic of subsidiarity as well as solidarity; the ominous alliance of the expansive state and an imperial ethos of sexual license; and our own emergent, promising friendship with evangelical and pentecostal streams of Christianity. We will want to become inflamed with his zeal, and complement that with the wisdom of his two predecessors.

Our Pope

Unlike his predecessors, he is no wordsmith; he is not a brilliant theologian; he will not be a doctor of the Church. Like his namesake from Assisi, he teaches…not with words…but with actions, with his life. He is my father; and I love him! Entirely in communion and continuity with the prior dual-pontificate in substance, he is a refreshing change in style. At his election I was glad the Cardinals did not choose an outstanding theologian because the legacy of our previous two is so rich it will take 100 years to assimilate. He is free, spontaneous, unscripted, raw, human, fallible, genuine, and free. He is awkward and goofy, but in a disarmingly gracious manner. The Church, because of its invincible unity, has a genius for diversity (catholicity): whether it is parish, diocese or papacy, the change of regime is always a reversal…the crack administrator replaces an incompetent one, the saint is followed by a man of the world, a slacker by a workaholic, and the scholar by an anti-intellectual. Always on offer: something new, fresh, surprising, annoying, upsetting, challenging and consoling! He calls us out of complacency to move to the fringes, to the poor, to the marginalized. He realizes, I hope, how much so many of us are ourselves poor and weak, desperately in need of being strengthened in our families, communities, prayer and inner selves. The centripetal and centrifugal energies of the Holy Spirit need to fructify each other: we cannot give away our riches and become poor until we are rich in faith. But he is my father; and I love him! He is refreshing. He is free. He teaches by his way, not by his words. He shoots from the hip; he has loose lips; he says silly things. We will have to get used to him: comments thrown off on an airplane or in an interview are very far from the infallibility of the Chair. He is my father. And I love him! He insults and scandalizes precisely those who love him the most: those who sent him spiritual bouquets, those who would protect the life of the innocent, the chastity of the young, and the integrity of the family. But he is human…a poor sinner, fallible and weak…and so I love him and forgive him and support him. He is my father, and I love him! He is my captain, my king, and I follow him. The editors of AMERICA magazine are happy that he speaks like a brother not a king. But I do not need another buddy; I have plenty. I need a Father, a King, a genuine Authority figure! My father’s cousin Walter, who had lost his Catholic faith, had occasion to see Pope Pius XII during WWII and said: “He seems like a nice fellow.” Nice fellows and buddies are a dime a dozen! In my pope I want a father, not a buddy. He is my father, even if he doesn't always speak that way, and I love him! He cares about the poor and seems to dismiss concerns about sexuality and marriage. I hope he realizes that, at least in the USA, poverty is mainly rooted in infidelity, betrayal and unchastity. The poor desperately need the full Gospel…especially the Theology of the Body. I hope that he will advance, rather than ignore (with most of his Jesuit brothers) this precious body of work by our soon-to-be-Saint-John-Paul! Despite his neglect and imperfection, he is my father and I love him! He is worried that the Church come across as a body of detached rules, mostly about sex. In my world, we have been afflicted, from the pulpit, for half a century by a steady stream of moralism of the “do-gooder” social activist type…and complete silence about chastity of the body, mind and spirit. His own remarks could be understood to affirm this catastrophe, although that is not his intent. Wisdom is not his strong suit, but he is my father. And I love him. His political economics are just about right…in the Catholic middle…infatuated with neither the free market nor the expansive state…he values solidarity, subsidiarity and liberty…and cares deeply for the least. He is my leader, my captain, my exemplar…and I follow him. We, especially the lay faithful, will have to complement and correct his magisterium as this loving and holy man is markedly deficient as authoritative teacher of the faith. But he is my father; and I love him!

Interceding with Abraham

"The gay life is a sad life." My dear friend George told me this before he died of AIDs. These words came back to me this past Sunday when I found myself stuck in the middle of the Gay Pride Parade in lower Manhattan. This was the mother of all such parades after last week's Supreme Court decision. The gaiety was on show, none of the sadness. By contrast, the mass readings for Monday and Tuesday narrate God's destruction, by fire and brimstone, of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no doubt about God's wrath and judgment against the sin there. Abraham does not disagree. But he intercedes and pleads, cleverly, insistently, boldly: "If there are 50 good men, will you spare the city?" It is striking that Abraham is not judgmental, righteous or even removed from the folks in Sodom; rather, he pleads and bargains for them. He loves them; cares about them; and wants them to be saved. Clearly, God is directing us to pray for our brothers and sisters who suffer this condition. May we humble ourselves and come to Him together, with all our particular disorders, and seek His Mercy!

NOT a Good Person!

I am NOT a good person! I am like my old Honda CRV before it died: it would stall out, randomly, unexpectedly, uncontrollably at every 7th or 12th or 19th red light. It was not a "good car"...it was unreliable, unfaithful, fickle, embarrassing, dysfunctional, pathological and annoying. So am I. My wife, mother, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters...not a "good person" among the seventeen of them. We are, all of us, miserable sinners, desperate for God's pardon, mercy, and help. That is the single most important fact of our existence. We NEED God, desperately! We need a Savior! We need Jesus Christ! It is not that I lack goodness. On the contrary, goodness flows into and through me, constantly, miraculously, inexorably. But the goodness comes from beyond me...it comes as gift...it is not my doing. The marvel is that despite the overflow of love, grace and gifts I have received, I remain helplessly prone to infidelity, cowardice, malice, fear, and distrust. Like my old CRV, I am fickle, unreliable, disordered, pathological. You can see that I am an Evangelical Catholic, not a liberal. Words like "He is a good person!" flow easily from the lips of a liberal. "He doesn't go to Church, but he is a 'good person.'" This apparently means: he is not a militarist, a capitalist, a rapist, or a preacher. This apparently means: he is originally and actually innocent, un-wounded by sin, in need of neither a Savior nor the pardon and grace of the sacraments. "Why do you call me good? One alone is good!" were the words of Jesus himself. As Catholics, we know that Jesus is a good person...even though he denied it. Mary is also. So are all the saints in glory, the Church triumphant. But we are the Church militant...still fighting the war daily...each of us an unstable dynamic of good and bad...the best of us infected by badness, the worst of us influenced by goodness. But I am not...a good person!

The Inevitability of Dogma

The human mind requires certitude. I am certain about where I came from (my Mom and Dad and God) and where I am going (death, the particular judgment, and an eternity in hell or purgatory/heaven.)As a Catholic, I have total certitude about the inexhaustible mystery of Being in the form of our creed and dogma: Trinity, creation, original sin, Christ, transubstantiation, angels and devils, absolution, and so forth. With such certitude, I am able to entertain a healthy, rational skepticism about tentative, empirical, political and scientific matters: for example, the saving efficacy of the expanded state (Obamacare) or of the low-taxed, low-regulated free market. Those bereft of such a sanctifying creed, are compelled, unconsciously, to construct a bogus dogmatic system in which they place their trust. The editors of The New York Times or of CNN, for example, are entirely incapable of tolerating any doubt about evolution as a mega-theory, explanatory of all life, about the catastrophic imminence of man-made global warming, or the messianic significance of contraception and legalized abortion. Deprived of a supernatural or transcendent revelation, the liberal mind substitutes a "scientistic" creed by making absolute theories and values that are vulnerable to doubt and questioning. In this manner, it is the liberal, secular mind that is irrational and anti-scientific. By contrast, as an unabashedly dogmatic Catholic, I approach issues like evolution, climate change, and contraception with a healthy, reasonable, questioning attitude...open, inquisitive, free, and therefore genuinely liberal. Bogus dogma enslaves the mind that is unaware of itself; genuine dogma frees the intellect and the will.

Aging: Moving from Martha to Mary

Aging is the steady loss of energy, stamina, and strength: the inexorable decline, over time, of the "Martha capacity"...the ability to do, to accomplish, to achieve, and to serve. With God's grace, however, we can become more like Mary: receptive, appreciative, contemplative, prayerful, and loving. It seems that we need to accept weakness, fatigue, forgetfulness, and incompetence...not as failings or curses...but as opportunities to relax, trust, surrender, and love. Mary and Martha, dear friends of our Lord, pray for us!

The Neutrals

In the Culture War that has been blazing for over 40 years, a troubling, puzzling, significant, and determinative phenomena is the persistence of The Neutrals, those who abstain from the fray, who do not advocate for or against legal abortion, women priests, or gay marriage. This group is the deteminative majority, or at least plurality: since neither side of the war has a decisive plurality, there is a virtual parity with the neutrals determining the outcome. Their passivity has, by default, ennabled the liberal drive for sterile sexuality and abortion and the triumphant, unstoppable parade for gay marriage. Within the Church, it is different: for more than a decade after the Council, the revolutionaries set the tone but the emergence of John Paul, and all his collaborators (present company included),turned the tide and the Church is today, more than ever, dedicated to protect the helpless and the family and is ferociously at war with the hegemonic, liberal, elite culture. Many of the brightest, best Catholic minds I know,especially among the Jesuits and Maryknollers, are neutrals. They sharply separate their personal and social values: privately against abortion, they vote pro-choice, unfailingly; anxious about climate change, they are unable to defend the male priesthood or the normativity of heterosexuality. The logic is: I wouldn't abort my child or grandchild, but I don't care, politically, about the 60% of black NYC pre-borns who are aborted...an attitude that is less than inclusive, Catholic or compassionate! They follow the correct liberal line on war and the enviroment but would not be caught dead praying the rosary in front of an abortion clinic. These culture war issues are all binary in that they require a yes-or-no answer, much like: Will you marry me? Are you alive? Is the electricity turned on? Clearly, if women have a right to become priests, it is a grave injustice to deny them; but if they do not, it is impossible for the Church to contravene the will of God. It is not possible to straddle these issues. A common dodge for such neutrals is to sympathize with the liberals but advocate patience: the Church takes its time, sometimes centuries, to develop its understanding. This doesn't work: the stress, pressure and polarization are all so intense, right now, that a decision is required. The Church is right or the Culture is right: you can't have it both ways. How is it that such fine, bright, good minds persist in abstaining from the fray? I see two major causes of this neutrality: inherited reticence about sex and life; and an inadequate catechesis on the body. First, especially among the Irish with their Jansenist background, there is a deep, traditional Catholic reticence, shyness, and avoidance of sex and the body. Many fine Catholics don't want to talk about abortion and contraception and so they ignore them. This is especially true of the older, "great" generation and those who came of age before the sexual revolution of the late 1960s. A Victiorian propriety and decorum continued to influence these generations so that the bishops, for example, who governmed the Chuch in the 60s and afterwards had no real answer to the Sexual Revolution: they were unarmed, defenseless, inarticulate...and so they largely avoided the topic. They have been ready to pronounce on war, immigration and the federal budget, topics about which they have no competence, but retreat from teaching God's plan for the human, male-female body. The second and primary cause of this neutrality is an inadequate catechesis or understanding of the meaning of the gendered, human body. The ground-breaking, breath-takingly inspiring teaching of John Paul remains a secret due to the indifference of so many. Bereft of such a personalist, Catholic understanding, the neutral remains reactive against what is perceived as a legalistic, negative religion of condemnation. They remain indecisive, split between a private and a public world, confused and ambivalent. It is like being undecided on slavery in 1860 USA, or disinterested in Hitler in 1937 Germany. It would be better if they were hot or cold.

A Recipe for Raising Catholics

My life achievement, my role in (Salvation)History, my legacy...I hope and pray...will be: with my wife, our families and the Church, I raised seven Catholics...real, practicing, believing, hoping, loving, sinning-and-repenting Catholics. Not canonizable saints; no, sinners like all of us, but sinners who know how to receive the incomparable love of Christ, the graces, pardon, strength, and truth our Savior gives us through His Church; not perfect individuals, not fabulously successful achievers, not celebrities, not even "good people"; but living, pulsating, suffering, militant members of the Communion of Saints who think, act, breathe, desire and hope with The Church. The world in which we raised our children was already a sharp contrast from the pro-Catholic, Christian 1950s USA in which we were raised. When our children were born in the 70s and 80s, our culture had already turned dark and hostile to the Catholic way. The recipe we used to pass on our faith and way of life included four crucial ingredients: a Catholic family and home, a Catholic parish, parochial schools, and inspiration from the ecclesial movements. Only the synergy released by the interaction of these four energy fields is adequate to overcome the toxic actors that prevail in our culture. Primary, of course is a Catholic home: where God is evoked, together, in prayer, commonly, frequently, naturally; where the Church and her tradition and practices are honored; where there is care for the poor and suffering; and where we share a sense of our need for forgiveness and pardon. Secondly, the parish: where we are baptized, married, buried; where we learn our faith; where we are forgiven of our sins. The parish, like the family is always imperfect: the priest too conservative or too liberal; too taciturn or too gregarious; too disorganized or overly-controlling. Nevertheless, the parish is where the sacraments are efficaciously performed for our sanctification. Thirdly, parochial schools. These again are hardly utopias; often enough they are not very Catholic or not great schools. Nevertheless, they are a place where the light of faith can openly, unashamedly, freely and boldly be shed on all aspects of reality and human life. Lastly, the ecclesial movements are environments of intense, deep, heartfelt faith. Most of these emerged in the post-Council Church and manifest distinctive and interesting charisms, all for the Church. Particularly helpful for us was the practice of sending our adolescents, during their summers, to special events and experiences: Youth 2000s; World Youth Days; immersion, mission experiences; catechetical camps; NET retreats; and charismatic conferences. It was here that our children saw that it was "cool" for people their own age to avidly, openly, and articulately love Christ and His Church. There is nothing magical about this formula. Not every Catholic would agree. My own nephews, one recently ordained and the other in evangelical vows, received their faith and vocation without attending Catholic schools and with minimum contact with the movements. Indeed, it is a good bet that many of our priests are less than enthusiastic about maintaining parochial schools and about the influence of the movements. Ours is a very "lay" perspective. It worked for us...thanks be to God!

Our Lord Jesus Christ: Lover of Women

I have come to see our Lord Jesus Christ as the absolute, perfect lover of women. He is, after all, the Bridegroom to His bride the Church...a title that is largely ignored by most of us. He loves us, his bride, with a love that is uber-virile, ultra-masculine, infinitely-paternal, and endlessly gentle, sensitive, strong, tender, heroic, brotherly, and husbandly. His personal love for me, a man, is husbandly and mine for him, even in my own masculinity, is always primarily bridal-feminine in that it is receptive, responsive, inviting, welcoming, and grateful. This reality is deep, mystical and not easily accessible to the average guy. What is more concrete, practical and realistic though is the fact that Jesus himself loved women so marvelously. It is endlessly inspiring to contemplate his relationships (a good word, relationship): the woman caught in adultery, the one who washed his feet with her hair, Mary and Martha, the polyandrist Samaritaness, Veronica, the women at the foot of the cross, and of course, his mother. His love is reverent, chaste, appreciative, supportive, generous, pure,steadfast, admiring, sensitive,and gentle yet strong. He is blissfully free of disrespect, possessiveness, domination, lust, resentment, covetousness, and insensitivity. He is NOT like the rest of us men. And so, especially when I eat His body and drink His blood, I ask him to fill me with this marvelous love for women.

Hell...and a Virile Faith

In pondering the important reality of hell, three sets of polarities have to be held in tension and balance. First, God's Mercy, his immense and unconditional desire for the salvation of every single person, must be answered by his justice, wrath, holiness and absolute rejection of sin. Secondly, our freedom of choice, our free will, must be countered by awareness of the weakness, determinations and limitations of our nature, rooted in our body and the condition of sin...which is to say, our misery. Our spiritual and theological culture has come to emphaize the mercy of God in response to our misery. This is a positive development. For example, we bury suicide victims with full Eucharistic hope in awareness of the suffering and diminished culpability of intellect and will and of God's overwhelming love. But our culture has also come to avoid and deny, implicitly if not explicitly, the justice, wrath and holiness of God and our own responsibility by virtue of our free will. This imbalance can be understood as a domination of a feminine over the masculine dimension of spirituality. The maternal impulse is one of nurture, comfort, understanding, affirmation, unconditional acceptance and inclusion. This is the spirit of our age. The masculine spirit more strongly inclines to transcendence, judgment (which is a bad word in today's world), holiness, demands, conflict, separation, accountability, justice and retribution (a terrible word in today's world). Mention of hell invokes images of a cruel God, of pity for the damned, of an desperate demand that ALL be included in salvation, of a realization of the pain and limitations of those who are victimized by their own choices. This reaction indicates an imbalance of the maternal over the paternal. It was not always so. For example, traditional Catholic mariology looks to our Lady for mercy and comfort as a balance to the harsh but sanctifying standards of the Father and his Son. A balance of mercy and justice is thus set. Ralph Martin, in his critique of Balthasar, appears to be balancing the equation. He appreciatively quotes Balthasar's affirmation that the two streams in Scripture, on the mercy and on judgmental wrath, need to be held in tension without either being evaporated. Martin argues that the Swiss genius did not succeed in keeping that balance. The later's theology of the descent into hell and hope for a depopulated hell appear to have come largely from the Holy Saturday mystical experiences of Adrienne Von Speyr. These need careful scrutiny by the Church. They are quite different and may reflect a mixture of the human and divine: in her case, a deeply feminine nature is painfully vulnerable to the suffering of Christ and his thirst for souls. But it is possible that her confessor and theological collaborator did not bring a masculine balance. Perhaps here the "marian" overwhelmed the "petrine" or, more accurately, was not fully surrendered to God our Father. If so, he is not the only man who has failed to bring a strong but gentle, corrective but affirmative, protective but empowering paternity to an exquisite, sensitive, compassionate feminity.

Hell

Hell. I am thinking a lot about hell. Truthfully: since Vatican II, hell is not a reality for us. No one really talks about, preaches about or seriously thinks about hell. It is a taboo subject: the "null curriculum" of our culture. Most of us believe in heaven and presume (important word: presume) that we are all going there...with a few possible exceptions like Hitler. Even my own beloved, ultra-Catholic Von Balthasar affirms the creed about hell but radically reconfigures it with his hope that Jesus, by his literal descent into the hell of the damned, has triumphed in his mercy and won for heaven even those damned by their own choice in this life. Ralph Martin, in Will Many Be Saved? is theologically "incorrect" in a bold and fearless way as he talks about a real, vital, populated hell. He argues persuasively that revelation, scripture, Jesus' own words, tradition, the magisterium and the witness of the saints are unanimous, unambiguous, definite, unflinching, and lucid: there is a hell, many are going there, and all of us are at risk, including and especially those (I include myself here) who are gifted with rich graces. This is a awesome, quietly terrifying, sobering and salutary thought. It has become fashionable to contrast reverential, loving, filial "fear of the Lord" with "servile fear" but I am thinking that a degree of servile fear (I am afraid of hell, sin, damnation...for myself and others) can complement and fortify the filial kind. As I ponder the reality of hell, I personally feel a dread of sin; an urgency to repent and become holy; a deep and desperate desire for the Holy Spirit; a virile, militant sense of urgency; a sense of vulnerability and need for sacramental support; and a desire to become holy to help others to get away from hell and into heaven. For me at least, such thinking about hell is most helpful. Thank you, Ralph Martin!

St. Ignatius Discerning the Beautiful as Demonic

In his autobiography, St. Ignatius of Loyola relates a most curious experience: "While in this hospice it often happened that in broad daylight he saw something in the air near him. It gave him great consolation because it was very beautiful--remarkably so...He found great pleasure and consolation in seeing this thing and the oftener he saw it the more his consolation grew. When it disappeared, he was displeased." Ignatius thought at first that this was a consolation from God, but later he discerned differently: "There, the vision that had appeared to him many times but which he had never understood, that is, the thing mentioned above which seemed very beautiful to him, with many eyes, now appeared to him But while before the cross, he saw clearly that the object did not have its usual beautiful color, and he knew very clearly with a strong agreement of his will that it was the devil. Later it would often appear to him for a long time; and by way of contempt he dispelled it with a staff he used to carry in his hand." Ignatius of Loyola: The Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works (NY: Paulist Press 1991) pp. 76, 81). As described, there is nothing obviously evil about this apparition: it seems to be neutral. Clearly, it is beautiful, fascinating, pleasing and mesmerizing. It consoles him but then leaves him sad when it departs. Only before the cross, Jesus crucified, does it become clear that this beauty comes from Satan. And Ignatius is very certain and decisive about this. How interesting! Perhaps Satan realized that he could not get to this holy man by the allurements of lust, avarice, or covetousness and so needed to be ever so much more subtle and disguised. So he presents him an object that seems to be neutral morally but dazzlingly lovely. My thought is that the thing of Beauty, unconnected to God, the Good or the True, is itself so fascinating, distracting, consuming and consoling that it can, eventually, lead away from God. Only before the crucified Jesus was its final purpose and nature unveiled. This is a sobering thought: that Beauty is supernaturally powerful. It seems that Beauty, with its immense power to move the human heart, soul, intellect and will...cannot be neutral with regard to its origin and goal...it must be iconic, pointing beyond itself to Absolute Beauty; or idolatrous, drawing us to the counterfeit, away from Real Beauty. How crucial it is that we cultivate our sense of beauty; that we be vigilant about what attracts, pleases and fascinates us!

More Than Satisfied: Incredulously, Deleriously, Insanely Delighted...with The Church

Is there something wrong with me? Seems like everyone, progressives for sure but also many conservatives, are dissatisfied with and indignant at the Church: "need for reform, change, reform of the reform, modernization, anti-modernization" and so forth. I could not disagree more! I am deleriously, intoxicatingly, insanely, viscerally in love with the Church, just as She is. Well, what is the Church? It is NOT the curia, the papacy, the chancery, or the parish. It is three things. Essentially, it is the Bride of Christ, the Communion of Saints: it is our union with Christ our Bridegroom-Savior-Lord-Brother and our union with each other, our Blessed Mother, the saints and angels, and the rest of us. This "abiding"...this "communio"...this relationship, or web of relationships...is just perfect as it is. No wonder the theology of a different age spoke of "the perfect society." There is here a surplus, an abundance, an extravagance that all the human efforts in the entire history of the race cannot improve one iota. Secondly, the Church is a hospital for sinners. It is the place where our Lord ministers His mercy to our misery. If you walk into a Church and you see incompetence, disorganization, mediocrity, disunity, hatred, ignorance, and fear...You know you are at the right place, if you are yourself a sinner...You are right at home...You can take a deep breath, relax, and be your miserable, sinful self. Lastly, the Church is our infallible teacher and our efficacious sacrament of grace. She CANNOT err; she CANNOT fail in dispensing of the Mysteries. She is Absolute Perfection: Heaven on Earth. And so, I am absolutely, without ambivalence, content with our Mother the Church. My discontent is with myself. I do not live up to my identity...I do not deeply abide and bear fruit. I fail to reflect the fullness, the overflowing love, the perfection that is the heart of the Church...the radiance and fruitfulness shown in our Lady and the saints. My discontent is also with ourselves: we do not fully abide and therefore fail to bear fruit. But I am more than content with the Church: She is sheer perfection!

Cursing the Party

I curse the Democratic Party. This is not a matter of political disagreement or opinion; it is far deeper than that. Viscerally, morally, spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, socially, financially...I despise, I loathe, I renounce and I curse to hell the Democratic Party. To be clear: it is not the Democratic Party of my youth (1947-70) that I curse. That was a force for good as it defended the worker, the poor, minorities and exemplified Catholic social teaching, including an implicit defense of innocent life and the family. It is the Party of my adult life that I curse. Like a Jew curses Nazism or an Afro-American the KKK does this Catholic curse The Party. There is a special emotional and personal intensity to my hatred because I so loved the party in my youth and was so betrayed in my early adulthood. Nor do I curse any person who is a Democrat as I distinguish between the person and his misguided, even evil allegiance. I respect and like the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens just as I might very well respect, like and even love a Nazi, Commie, bigot or Islamist if I knew one. I don't know any of that later group, but I know plenty of Democrats. Where I live (Jersey City) Democrats are probably more than 99% of the voting population. At least half of those I most love and respect pledge allegiance to the Dark Side on the cultural issues of defenseless life and the cultural sanctity of sex and family. That such good, intelligent, practicing Catholics and others can actively support the agenda of death is the most troubling, mystifying reality of my lifetime. That such moral blindness can descend upon good people remains always, for me, a source of shame, consternation and sadness. I think about the heritage I will leave behind me. At my funeral, how will memory of my life affect family and friends? My hope is that they will be somehow strengthened in their love for Christ and His Church, in devotion to family, to marriage or vocation, and to care of the weakest. And over my grave, I hope that they will quietly, serenely, and confidently whisper a curse on the Party of Death.

The Fractured Male Psyche

With the Boston Marathon bomber we again see the propensity of the fractured male psyche for a hidden, secret life. Friends, family, coaches and those closest to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are completely mystified: no one detected signs that he was capable of such violence. By now we are used to the hidden life: priest pedophiles (but never nun molestors), Opus-Dei-FBI-spies, policemen-criminals, and so forth. My own uncle was in military intellence for most of his life but withheld this information from his closest family members even when he was dying. His spy life was entirely opaque, closed off to and untouched by his family life. All my uncles fought in WWII but they didn't speak about it: it was a different world. We now know that there are morphological, neurological bases for this in the male brain: fewer connecting neurons between brain areas so that the sectors are disconnected from each other, in contrast with the integrated, synthesized, and organically harmonious female brain. But more important than that is the unavoidable, inexorable gender abyss. Boys and girls are both conceived in, born from, nursed by, and raised by mother. The developing female never leaves this world. She imitates, echoes and images her mother and never fully separates. Not so with the boy. By the age of two, he is already spending most of his day in a world entirely incomprehensible and inaccessible to Mom: the terrain of super heros, Jedi knights, pirates, and other aggressive, malicious, combatative villains and heros. Mom has no clue about the nature of this world: she observes benignly, externally, absolutely denied participation and comprehension. Just recently I have been informed by two different, intelligent women that war is always about food: even viewing of The Godfather or Goodfellows is unlikely to illuminate them as their brain seems to be constituionally incapable of understanding the masculine nature of war. School is a continuation of mom's world (alma mater) and we see that girls do much better in that quintessentially feminine ambience. But by adolescence things really heat up for the boys. The dynamics of fist fights, bullying, gangs, competition, sarcasm, and aggression challenge and intimidate and the youngster is on his own: mom, teacher and school are useless on this battleground. Even worse: overwhelming sexual urges erupt from the testosterone volcanoe and with them bring urgent desire, fascination, shame and confusion and an entire drama that must be completely shielded from the eyes of mother. So the adolescent male finds himself alone with an under-devloped intellect and an insecured identity as he navigates three different worlds: the Good Boy" maternal environment of home and school; the battleground of conflict; and the maddening, intoxicating delerium of sexual desire. The last two easily collude to undermine the maternal influence. And so, the typical male is an unstable tri-part system with very weak, loose connections: the superego, the sexual beast, and the embattled combatant in a hostile world which must be fled or fought. Most of us are walking around on the verge of some kind of explosion or breakdown: the right combination of stresses, contradictions, frustrations and opportunities and we fall into violence, quiet despair, or sexual depravity. So how is the young man to confront these threatening worlds that are opaque to each other? How is he to integrate and channel his energies and longings? The key is: the Paternal Presence! I do not say "Father" here because I am referring to three distinct, but interconnected realities: the actual or surrogate Dad; the symbolic, cultural realm which I will designate as "Patriarchy" (to be mischevously anti-feminist); and our heavenly Father himself. Dad and God our Father have a clarity about themselves, but here we will deal with the "Patriarchy" understood in the very best sense. Like Dad and God, the cultural or spiritual patriarchy is a loving, transcendent, personal presence that descends, from a distant, awesome, superior realm, to the young boy to uplift, protect, challenge, discipline, encourage, correct, strengthen, and inspire. Patriarchy is the domain of law, discipline, tradition, authority, hierarchy, instruction, ordination, certification, testing, standards, risk, danger and empowerment. It is distinctively not that warm, nurturing, enclosing, affirming, comforting, inclusive, accepting and unconditionally loving maternal womb from which we emerge and to which we are so stronly drawn. It is the Father (Dad, cultural patrimony, God) who will coach, guide, train, and groom the young man...will elicit his loyalty and within that greater love synthesize all energies and desires...will prepare him for combat and model for him the splendor and tenderness of genuine sexual affection. It is heartbreaking to read that prior to the bombing, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev tweated: "I miss my father." He needed his own father, he needed the guidance of a genuine paternal culture and religion, he needed to truly know his heavenly Father. But the void of fatherlessness, for the male, will not remain neutral: it will be filled with a surrogate...usually a deathly one.

Absent, yet Present...Present, yet Absent

For years I have wondered: after the words of consecration in the Eucharist, we know that Jesus is actually, physically present under the appearance of bread and wind but our proclamation of faith does not state this, but seems to contradict it: "We proclaim your death and profess your resurrection, O Lord, until you come again." We affirm that he came in the past, that he will come in the future, but we overtly do NOT affirm his presence now. By implication, we seem to affirm his absence. If I told you my friend came to see me yesterday and will come tomorrow, wouldn't you assume that he is not with me at the moment? Von Balthasar's magisterial "On Prayer" instructs me on the eschatological tension: Our Lord is present as absent. He is here, even as he is not yet here. He is to come, but is already here, really, proleptically or in promise. We rest contentedly in his presence, even as we long for him that much more. He is absent because of our sin; he is absent because our world is plagued with suffering, evil, death, guilt and dread. He is really present, but in the most unobtrusive, anonymous, hidden manner: as a thin, white, tasteless, quiet wafer; as the slightest sip. He is present discretely, enticingly, as he engages us, seduces us, arouses us, inspires us. He is present as absent; and absent as present. Welcome, Lord Jesus! Come, Lord Jesus!

Loyalty

Loyalty: is virile, fierce, steadfast, honorable, courageous, aggressive, protective, self-confident, serene, reliable, forgiving,powerful and yet gentle. Loyalty is everything. Loyalty, in contrast to integrity, is always to a concrete person: this specific king, captain, spouse or friend. Integrity involves moral principles...it is complementary to loyalty. We have become too familiar with corrupted forms of loyalty that violate integrity: police, mobsters or clergymen covering up for the misdeeds of their friends. Such is less than genuine since it violates another loyalty: to the innocent victim of the misdeed. Yet, if forced to chose between integrity and loyalty (which we really never would be), I could not opt for integrity without loyalty since such would be isolated, lonely, moralistic. Loyalty is primary...loyalty infused with integrity...but loyalty first and always. Loyalty: always to a concrete person. Loyalty, first, to our Lord Jesus, and His Father, in the Holy Spirit. Loyalty, next, according to my unique, specific, concrete state in life: this spouse, family, community, boss, and friend. In the Church, thirdly, my loyalty is to this very specific, concrete, limited, imperfect and even sinful pastor, bishop and pope. It is always personal. Inexorably, the prelate thrust at me is a frustration: too progressive or too traditional; too enthusiastic or too staid; out of control or overly controlling; lethargic or hyper-active. But my loyalty is always to a person: not my own spirituality, ideology, theology or style of worship. Jesus himself, Augustine reminds us, did not withhold the kiss of peace from his betrayer, one of the original twelve. Jesus was loyal to us to death, when we tortured and murdered him. Ignatius of Antioch, one of the very earliest post-apostolic writers, exhorts us to gather around the bishop, priests and deacons...the hierarchy, specific individuals with all their warts. Ignatius of Loyola, following his fellow knight and role-model Francis of Assisi, insists on a very passionate, personal allegiance to the bishop of Rome...without conditions about his theology, piety, politics or ideology. Especially today, with our pope, bishops and priests under attack from all directions, let us renew our allegiance, fidelity, support and obedience for these very specific, imperfect persons. God bless them all!

To The Wonder

To The Wonder, the current offering of Terence Malick, like his previous Tree of Life,is not a movie in the normal sense, it is a visual meditation, it is really a prayer, or rather three prayers: that of the exquisite and exuberant female protagonist, that of the saintly but desolate priest, and that of the admiring camera, or director, or viewer. As with the mother in Tree of Life, the director's eye is unabashedly masculine in his adoration of the feminine lead (Olga Kurylenko)...an adoration that never objectives the Beloved, but maintains a sense of awe and wonder, and the excruciating distance of reverence. With a minimum of plot and dialogue, the camera wants mostly to contemplate and marvel at the feminine loveliness and preciousness of the feminine lead in the dance movements of her form and the expressions of her face: wonder, grief, puzzlement, sadness. The second prayer is that of the priest, played poignantly by Javier Bardem, who is gently showing God's love to the most unlovely even as he is in anguish at the absence of God. He is a fresh expression of the dark night of St. John of the Cross, of the (Diary of a) Country Priest, of Mother Teresa and the young Karol Woytija. A summary of the movie explains it as the "story of a man divided by the loves of two women." This is not accurate. The male lead, Ben Afflek, is actually marginal to the agony and ecstasy of the real protagonists: he is a foil for Kurylenko, and is himself unbearably monotonous in his wordless, emotionally repressed, unexplained melancholy. He seems to be an expression of the grief of the director/viewer at the reality that the Desired One, in all her loveliness, tenderness, and preciousness, is finally elusive and out of reach. Despite an occasional smile, he is the morose male, trapped in the Oedipal passage, deeply longing for the maternal, the Eternal Feminine. As others have done with Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman, and Penelope Cruz, this male director mostly wants to gaze at, marvel at, and long for Feminine Beauty. The melancholy of Affleck and the dreaminess of Kurylenko is balanced by the deeper spiritual emptiness and goodness of the Bardem priest. His is surely one of the finest portrayals of the Catholic priesthood available in movies. A key scene has her confessing to him and then receiving communion. In an erroneous detail that is highly significant for the Catholic, she receives Holy Communion, outside of the liturgy, under both species. This, of course, could never happen as the precious blood is not reserved. But far more disturbing is that, shortly after this reconciliation, she inexplicably commits an act of infidelity. This scene is possibly the most realistic, terrifying portrayal of adultery ever: deeply sad and alienating, bereft even of glamour, there is nevertheless the allure of evil, as she freely and consciously desecrates her own preciousness and her spousal love. Perhaps never on the screen has the allure, the sadness, and the power of sin been unveiled. This is Elvira Madigan meets Diary of a Country Priest, it is Nietzche meets John of the Cross (by way of Heideggar whom Malick studied). It is not a movie to entertain or divert; it is a piece of art that can only lead the viewer into prayer: prayer of desperation for our present-but-absent God, prayer of frustration and yet gratitude for the excruciating splendor of sexual love, prayer of praise for that "love that loves us."

In Movement to the Father

The manhood of Jesus is bracked and defined by two events: his emergence into maturity in the temple and his ascencion to the Father. Both involve a disconnect from the feminine and maternal and a movement to the masculine and paternal. The former event is known as the loss or finding of Jesus in the temple but this wording reflects the anxiety of Mary and Joseph. From his own point of view, Jesus was neither lost nor found. He was exactly where he was supposed to be: moving into his manhood as Son of the Father, gathered with the elders, the patriarchs, the wise men and scholars. His words to his mother are harsh, sharp, corrective: "Did you not know that I must be about my Fathers's house (work)!" A similar renunciation occurs with Mary Magdalen after his Resurrection: "Do not grasp me...I must go to my Father and your Father..." Jesus understands that he has come from the Father and is going to the Father and on the way is doing the work of the Father. This entails a sober, chaste, generous, liberating love for women but also rejetion of romance, sentimentality, codependency, domestication, and masculine weakness. Like his cousin John, Jesus is drawn to the desert where he becomes fierce, hard, tough, free and entirely available to the work of the Father and combat with Satan. He is no mama's boy! First, last and always...He is Son of his Father!

Enemies: A Love Story

Enemies: A Love Story, a marvelous, mesmerizing novel by Isaac Singer, later a movie, has Herman, a Jewish Holocaust survivor in Coney Island circa 1949, hopelessly enmeshed in relationships with three women and eventually married to all of them. Raised as a devout Orthodox Jew, his faith is shattered by the events of his life; he is intellectual and sensitive. He has married the simple Polish peasant servant who risked her own life to save his. He is indebted and devoted to her as she adores him and is helpless without him in a new culture. He is in love with a beautiful, sexy, neurotic woman who also loves and needs him. Then his wife (played marvelously by Angelica Huston), who supposedly had died in the war, surfaces. She is attractive in a seasoned way, intellectual and wise. Their relationship had been volitile but also filled with respect, loyalty and memory, largely of their two children who perished in Poland. Herman is attached to each of the three: each is charming in her distinct manner; he cares about each; each needs him. He does not give himself completely to one woman because he is incapable of extricating himself from any of them. He bounces from one to another, engulfed in evasion, hopelessness and deceit. His situation is very poignant. I marveled at the paralysis of decision and sympathized. In the novel, however, the underlying cause and its connection with the Holocaust is made evident in a way it was not in the movie: he very clearly did not want to father children. He had renounced his paternity. In his earlier life, according to the novel, he did not want to have children but it happened in spite of his intentions. But their murder hardened him in his state of psychological hopelessness and infertility. He was swallowed up by the needs of the three women and his inability to say "no" because he was anti-paternal. At one point, Herman tells his wife that his then-mistress did not want to have children. She wisely responds: "If a woman loves a man, she wants to have his children." Shortly after that he is told that she is pregnant, agrees to marry her and hears her voice these words: "I wanted to have your child from the day I laid eyes on you." Clearly: the erotic, romantic and spousal are insepable, in this most carnal woman, from the maternal. Herman is a tragic exemplar of how the paternal/maternal infuses the spousal. The repression of fertility aborts the spousal relationship itself. This calls to mind a conversation in which a man, happily married with two children, told of seeing an old girlf friend who invited him back to her place. He refused. On arriving home, he told me, he looked at his wife and realized that going for the fling would not have been a "big thing." But he looked at his children and thought that he could never do such a thing. It was his fatherhood that sealed his fidelity. Lacking such paternal orientation, Herman could not give himself and became victim of his own needs and compulsions and those of his three lovers. What does this say about gay unions? About homosexuality and the paternal priesthood? About the plague of co-habitation? About the inability of our young men to commit? About our countraceptive culture? About the REAL needs of our young women? The crisis in paternity...flight from it, contempt for it, maginalization of it... is certainly the defining tragedy of our age. The story weaves a pattern of nihilism and seems incapable of anything but a tragic conclusion. But the ending is surprizing and largely satisfying as it delivers what is suggested in the title by means of the very thing that Herman most dreaded.

Why So Quiet, Gentle Guest?

Why are you so quiet, covert, anonymous, and shy...gentle, silent guest, Holy Spirit? I know that you live in my soul: you came at baptism and then at confirmation and a zillion times at Eucharist, confession, prayer and invocation. But you seem distant, absent, resting...like Jesus on Holy Saturday! Meanwhile, my heart and mind are a cacophony of dissonance: desire, fear, resentment, more desire, jealousy, confusion, discouragement, and more desire! Is it that I myself must become quiet, serene and still to hear your gentle, consoling voice? But how can I do that without your help? I cannot! I simply cannot! I need you to arouse yourself...to calm and reassure me, to strengthen and encourage me! If you have been waiting for the invitation, here it is: Come, Holy Spirit!

Hate the Sin; Love the Sinner

Gay marriage is not about equality and not about the treatment of homosexuals. It is about the meaning, nature, and purpose of sex acts. The hegemonic liberal consensus is that such acts are entirely unrelated to procreation but intended for the romantic/physical union and satisfaction of two individuals, involving exclusivity and ideally longevity. By such logic, gay marriage is a right and a healthy development. Sodomy is the moral equivalent of the unitive marital act. This is what our culture, in a million implicit and explicit ways, will instruct our young. To dissent is homophobic and hateful. All previous popes and preachers, martyrs and saints, even Jesus and Joseph and Mary were unhappily homophobic and prejudiced. On the other hand, the view of all traditional religions and societies, proclaimed explicitly and passionately by the Catholic Church, is that sex acts are intrinsically oriented to new life, that the complementary union of man and woman fructifies and culminates in children. By this logic, sex acts that are intentionally sterile (contraception, masturbation, oral, anal and manual intercourse) are intrinsically futile, pathological, toxic and sinful. This applies to everyone, equally, hetero and homo, male and female, married and single. We see that there is a straight line from contraception to gay marriage. When our culture went contraceptive in the 1960s, gay marriage (along with abortion, serial monogomy, co-habitation and the list goes on) became inevitable. Acceptance of contraception requires validation of gay sex. The logic is inexorable. Contraception is so widely assumed that it cannot even be discussed. So there is, for our society, an inevitability to legal gay marriage. The Church probably cannot win this Culture War. What the Church can do is strengthen its own counter-culture: family, religious life, the sacraments, and service of the least...the path our new Holy Father is blazing! In the long run, the cult of futile, sterile sex will disintegrate on its own, as surely as happened to the Nazis and the Commies. Our culture of fecundity, life and family will flourish, regardless of broader cultural and legal developments. Demographics alone will ensure this. The future belongs to the fertile: folks like observant Catholics, devout Muslims, and Orthodox Jews. Consider the later: they are increasing prodigiously while secular Jews are cohabitating, contracepting, aborting, inter-marrying and divorcing. Liberals don't know how to propagate as they are addicted to sterile sex and technological "reproduction." It is good for us to relax a little about our dismal political, cultural and legal situation... and exult in the richness of our family and Church life!

Why Lucifer Hated Eve: Don't Hate Me Because I Am Beautiful!

Why did Lucifer target his attack at Eve rather than her spouse? Because she had so much influence over Adam that with her seduced, the corruption of Adam would flow smoothly? Yes, certainly! Because she is, in her own gracious way, vulnerable, delicate, and fragile? Yes, definitely! Because she has an underlying capacity for suspicion, anxiety, distrust, jealousy and control? Yes, clearly! Because he found her at a moment when she was separated from her partner and protector, isolated and alone, independent, autonomous, liberated,empowered and "leaning in?" Yes, of course! But above all he attacked her because she was Beautiful. He feared, resented and envied her feminine Beauty. Feminine loveliness is arguably the greatest power in creation. Beauty elicits love, admiration, loyalty, courage and self-surrender. The loveliness of the creature, in its feminine structure of receptivity, vulnerability and fragility...attracts the love of the Father, the passion of the Son, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Lucifer resented and envied this power. Great as he was, he seems to have been ambitious, competitive, proud, and alone. And so, he despised the humble power of fragile loveliness. Beauty does not compete, dominate or overcome. Beauty invites, welcomes, consoles, comforts, nourishes, heals, inspires, fascinates, captivates, strengthens,edifies, encourages,and sanctifies. It draws us, as St.Augustine knew, to its source, the One who is Himself Perfect Beauty. Jesus...naked, scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed, mocked, dying, obedient and merciful...is the absolute embodiment of fragile, omnipotent Loveliness.

The Cultural Trumps the Economic; The Spiritual Trumps the Cultural

The recent presidential election was characterized by a crass materialism on both sides: dread of tax increases versus resentment of the "one percent." But we learned from Blessed John Paul II that the cultural trumps the economic, the political, and even the military. He lived to triumph, joyously, over the legacies of Hiler and Stalin. And so, in the present context, tax rates and regulation and the expansion or shrinking of government are far less important than the moral and cultural issues: the heritage we pass on to our children about the value of innocent life, sexuality, gender and family. However, even more primal and significant than the culture war is the spiritual combat in which we are engaged every day. The Church is pretty much losing the culture war on gay marriage and contraception, but that is not what matters most to us who follow Jesus. More important by far are the spiritual issues: do I love my enemies, political and cultural? am I humble and contrite about my own limitations and sins? am I gracious, merciful, and generous to those with whom I disagree? If we get the spiritual realities right, we enter the Kingdom of Heaven, here and now, and God's grace will flow inexoribly, efficaciously, infallibly into our families, communities, and economies.

Assisi or Xavier?

We may soon find out whether our new Holy Father took the name of the saintly Franciscan or the zealous Jesuit, but I like to think he had both in mind: both/and rather than either/or, in good Catholic (i.e. inclusive, universal) fashion. Clearly, our new pontiff emulates the humility of the Poverello, the "little one," as his first gesture was to bow his head and request the prayer of the assembly in St. Peter's Square. He is a man of the poor and a man for the poor: this is an immensely significant development: he will call all of us to service of the very least and those who suffer. But as a Jesiut and evangelist himself, he may be consciously emulating the fervor, zeal, vigor and militance of the companion of St. Ignatius. Let us remember also that the Poverello was himself quintessentially an evangelist. A friend sent me a picture of the Argentinian Cardinal on his knees, being prayed for by Father Raniero Cantalamesa (theologian for Pope John Paul II and charismatic Franciscan) and some Pentecostal ministers. It perfectly exemplified humility in his receptive posture but also, implicitly, an eagerness to surrender to the Pentecostal energies and collaborate, ecumenically, in the evangelical task. If the interiority of holiness is intimacy with the Holy One, the exteriority of sanctity has two faces: that of humility, littleness, meekness and patience; and that of magnanimity, courage, and boldness. They are the two faces of a love that receives everything, that fears nothing, and gives all.

Father (No-Work) Burke

The pastor of the parish of my childhood and youth was Father Burke, a genuine eccentric. As an involved altar boy, I was well aware of the pattern: He would entirely disappear for months; no one seemed to know where he was. There was a rumor of alcoholism. Suddenly he would appear; rush around in a frenzied manner, wearing a strange cape that seemed to come out of Phantom of the Opera; say a few fast words; and then disappear again. Something was not right. Why someone so dysfunctional would remain a pastor for so many years remains, for me, to this day, one of the mysteries of the Church. The amazing reality was that the work of the Church in this large, thriving parish continued smoothly, fruitfully, vigorously...despite the shipwreck of a pastor. Fine associate priests (Fathers Rock, Dante, Shirer, etc.) took care of things; the sisters and brothers educated thousands of us; the sacraments were performed and catechesis was delivered; and Catholic family life flourished. I don't recall hearing a word of criticism about the pastor from family, friends, teachers or priests. Everyone just seemed to know and accept, without mentioning it, that our pastor was different, not quite right, but that that was okay. We respected him nevertheless. He was like an odd uncle that everyone accepts and loves and doesn't make a big fuss about. I didn't really understand this, but I got it. For the rest of my life, I was immunized against scandal: I never expected too much from the priests. I appreciated, of course, the intelligent, charming and holy ones. But I understood that they are weak like the rest of us...and some are afflicted with unusual difficulties. I soon learned that many priests suffer alcoholism. Later I learned about sex abuses and their toleration by the bishops. I heard the criticisms of the Vatican and the popes. None of this fazed me. I expected it. Intuitively I knew that Christ dwells in this Church of sinners and loves us as we are...including and especially our priests. If anything, every "scandal" endears me to the Church: it is truly home and hospital for the weak and sinful. Even the leaders are such. God bless Father Burke for the beautiful lesson he left us. May he rest in peace!

He is Still Our Father

One of the last sentiments voiced by Pope Benedict before his retirement was that he had become Pope, not temporarily, but as a permanent change...forever. I take this to heart. Functionally, a Pope can retire; but spiritually, he is a father and, as the French poet said, "Once you are a father, you can only be a father." Any father (and, of course, mother) understands this. He is fathering us, now, in a different mode: in silence, prayer and reflection; in humility and anonymity; in weakness and trust. He is still my father. He is still our father.

Mange

"Mange" is Italian for "eat." I am imagining an expansive, generous, outgoing Italian woman, serving a rich, delicious meal, and exhorting-commanding-imploring: "Mange!!" What, I ask myself, is the primary, foundational, and essential command of Christ to us, his disciples? I would argue that it is: "Mange!" In English: "Take and eat...Take and drink..." He did not say: "Believe in the real presence" or "Accept the concept of transubstantiation." He said: "Take and eat." This is first and foremost. Eating is active reception. Normally, we are served a meal, we receive, we accept. But it is an active reception in that, ideally, we gratefully receive and then actively, and happily ingest. Recently I was feeding my grandson Michael small pieces of cheese. I was enjoying how heartily and eagerly he was eating them. I realized how much I love to feed people, especially little people and particulary my grandchildren. It occured to me that this might be a glimse of how God yearns to feed us. We are talking about the Eucharist, of course. That He hungers for us to come to Him hungry and thirsty, eager and expectant, grateful and happy. Much of the Church seems to be afflicted with "eucharistic anorexia"...a lack of appetite. But this eagerness of appetite extends well beyond the Sunday banquet and infuses all of life. Every experience comes to us as gift, as nourshment and satisfaction, and we need to eat and drink with relish: every joy, encounter, disappointment, trial and suffering. Everything...is gift! May we eat and drink voraciously, passionately, deeply!

Men Not Appreciating Femininity

The immature male psyche is incapable of appreciating femininity. With the onset of puberty, the male is overwhelmed with an urgent physical urge for the feminine, but the exigencies of his developing body and psyche, cultural forces, and the itinerary leading to his final paternal mission, all together blind him to the mysterious, inner intelligibility and splendor of femininity. Femininity, like its complement virility, is an interior form, an essence, a gestalt, a spiritual intelligibility, a profound integrity and harmony, a radiance that reveals a hidden mystery. Like any form of Truth, Beauty or Goodness, it reveals itself, gently and trustingly, only to one who is wise, reverent, and loving. The main reason immature men are blind to the exquisite inner worth of women is that their developmental task emphasizes qualities that contrast sharply with femininity: he is working towards independence, she embodies interdependence; he is developing toughness, she is tender and sensitive; he is prizing autonomy and initiative, she epitomizes relationship and receptivity; he is impelled to objectify, distinguish, separate and analyze, she intuitively synthesizes, harmonizes and personalizes. These are not stereotypes; they are profound spiritual realities. Example: at a social event, two young women are likely to excuse themselves and go to the rest room together. This is indicative of a personal bond or communion between them. The capacity for relationship is a constitutive moral-emotional-spiritual strength of femininity. If he thinks about it, the adolescent male would consider it a sign of weakness and dependency, a lack of integrity and confidence. He projects upon the girls the values of his own stage of development. The male and female are moving in contrasting psychic directions: towards maternity and paternity. Material causes include the hormonal, organic and morphological endowments of the bi-polar genders; efficient causes include cultural expectations; formal causality is the underlying femininity or masculinity of the specific soul; and final causality is the contrasting goals of maternity and paternity. The woman is destined to be profoundly in union with her children, other women, husband and everyone surrounding her,especially the sick and needy. The man is preparing himself to be the head and founder of a family, a provider and protector of his wife, children and especially the weak and needy. Further in the journey, the two are destined to fall deeper and deeper in love with each other, a love that is mutually and increasingly respectful, appreciative, humble and generous. As the male takes into himself the female, in so many acts of knowledge and love, his masculinity becomes whole, meaningful, fertile and noble. Likewise for the female. Mature masculinity may be defined as the capacity to receive femininity: in knowledge, reverence, and an affection that is at once gentle and strong, generous and tender. This truth is, of course, offensive to cultural correctness and fashion. Feminism, in its harsher forms, can be understood as a feminine internalization of male devaluation of the feminine and a consequent mimicking of male immaturity at its worst: profanity, promiscuity, careerism, and abortion. The indignant demand for women priests, for example, springs from a failure to appreciate femininity in its own right and a pathetic imitation of insecure male power envy. In our culture and time, the "normal" and transitional undervaluation of the female by the developing male has been vastly expanded and now infects all of society. Technology and science, as control, in contrast to knowledge as (feminine) contemplation and reception, have become the dominant modes of knowledge. This mode of operating can be understood as the masculine, cut off from the feminine: manipulative, exploitative, violent, and irreverent. The culture cannot even comprehend the form or essence of femininity because it recognizes no forms in that it reduces reality and truth to the measurable as it marginalizes deeper forms of knowing (art, religion, morality) as subjective, emotional and feminine (in a derogatory sense.) Within our Church, our celibate clergy have, unhappily, not been immune to this sin of misogyny. Nevertheless, the Church remains the last and invincible preserve of radiant femininity: She is infallible and efficacious in her preservation and cherishing of her own identity as Bride of Christ, as Mother of all her children, in union with the saints especially consecrated virgins, and ever receptive of the nuptial (sacramental) acts of love from her infinitely appreciative Spouse.

Contraception: the Logic of Ungenerosity

If liberals want to get contraceptives to all women, why don't they just start their own non-profit instead of forcing us Catholics to pay for and provide them? Because such would be a contradiction: the urge to contracept, especially other peoples' children, is intrisically an ungenerous one, and ultimately a eugenic one. The act of contraception is a "NO" to life, to children, to serendipity and surprize, to God's extravagance. Contraception is protection: it is a reaction of defensiveness, fear, and insecurity. Contraception is the reflex of one who feels poor, afraid, deprived, lacking in resources. It is the recourse of one bereft of the confidence of self-restrain. It flows, not from interior peace and integrity, but from tension, anxiety and restlessness.Contraception is rooted in a disconnect from God, the Generous One. It deconstructs the conjugal act, the sacrament of union and life, into a mutuality in use of the other. It is masculine instrumentalization of the woman's body. It empties the love act of faith and hope. It emasculates the male, depriving him of paternity. It attacks the body, heart and soul of the woman. It expands the masturbational urge of masculine insecurity into an ungrateful, violating intrusion into the body and soul of the woman. It is a deconstruction of sexuality as dignity in bi-polarity; it disparages femininity and virility in favor of an abstract, contrived, body-less androgyny. The liberal is liberated from communion with God; is freed from the patterns of God's plan as inscribed in Nature, Beauty and Being; is delivered into the isolation of personal autonomy. Unconnected and defensive, the liberal compulsively defends himself against chaos without and within. Unsheltered by family and Church, he uses the power of the expansive State to impose his paradign of control upon all, but especially upon the poor and the religious. He cannot help himself, the liberal: threatened and afraid, he is compulsed to impose his will through the coercive State. Lonely and orphaned, bereft of father (God) and mother (Church), he consoles himself with the illusion of technological control...over life, death, fertility and indeed Being. A Catholic, of course, is identical to the liberal in his fear, insecurity, and defensiveness. But recognizing, in the face of the Crucified, his poverty, sickness, confusion and sin...he brings them to the sacramental banquet, to confession and communion. He allows himself to be overcome by God's generosity: to be nourished, satiated, ravished, fascinated, intoxicated and infatuated at the altar. To the degree that this happens, he cannot help himself: his heart becomes pierced with joy and open to life, to newness and to God's liberality; he is poor himself and embraces the poor; he delights in gender, generativity and most especially generosity, not his own, but that from which he flows, that which flows into him and through him, that in which he lives, and moves and has his being.

Roots of War

"Wars are caused by hunger and poverty" said someone I immensely respect. But I could not agree. War is caused by the expansive and defensive masculine psyche...almost always. Hunger is the sometimes material cause of war; but it is neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause. We see poverty without war and war without poverty. Hunger is to war like wood is to fire: often enough wood is a material occasion for fire, but you can have immense areas of wood (forests) without fire and the worst fires can be chemical, nuclear, paper or just straw. Males intuitively understand war because already in the playground and locker room there are bullies: males who are impelled to domininate and demean others. Women often lack such understanding. The maternal instinct understands that little one need food and basic necessities. Unfamiliar with the dymanics of masculine aggression and competiton, they hear that the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting and instinctively think: the poor people must be hungry; let them work and eat and we will do away with war. The great warmongers of history were not hungry, except in the sense of "libido dominando"...the lust for power and domination. Think Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, Napoleon, the Japanese and Nazi empires of the 1940s, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. War is an explosion of the defensive or expansive masculine ego. A classic example: the Bush invasion of Iraq. Dick Cheny was not hungry. He was defensive. Apparently, he was terrified that we were vulnerable to another terrorist attack and he had explicitly vowed that such would not happen on his watch. Out of this paranoia, he construed questionable intelligence to ensure that he would not underestimate the threat of an attack. As Saddam Hussein resisted inspections so as to fake the Iranians into believing he had WMDs, the one who took the bait was Cheny. He fell into rash judgment, a very important sin against the seventh commandment. Contributing to this rush to error was a certain arrogance, a confidence in American might, and a Neo-conservative presumption of the ultimate superiority and appeal of capitalism and democracy. With the invasion, he imagined that we would rid the world of a threat and push forward the inexorable victory of "the American way" in the Mideast. At one and the same time, the Bush administration was flush with post-Cold-War American confidence and trembling with insecurity about our vulnerability to terrorist attack. This conbimation of cockiness and camouflaged insecurity is the makeup of every bully and every war. The only hunger involved in the Iraq invasion was that of the populace who were starving under the Clinton boycott: a hunger that was relieved by the invasion. This "humanitarian intervention" was probably the best reason for the invasion even as it was hardly a leading motivation. The worst war of my 65-year lifetime was certainly the Iran-Iraq war, waged by fabulously wealthy oil countries, which claimed a million Iranians and almost half as many Iraquis. Saddam Hussein invaded, not because he was hungry, but because he was threatened by the repurcussion of the Iran revolution among his own Shiites as he was ambitious to enstall himself as the strongman of the area. Again: the interplay of power, arrogance, and insecurity. To wage war requires power, especially in our world: it is not the recourse of the hungry and the powerless. Hitler waged war after he had revived Germany into a technological powerhouse. Hunger is the sometimes occasion of war, but more frequently war is the cause of hunger as it is an immense waste of resources. The Islamist war against women is a case in point: education of women can only improve the economy, yet the Taliban torture girls for going to schools. The roots of warfare go back to Lucifer's rebellion: it was a matter of pride, not hunger. The greatest act of war was the crucifixion: perpetuated by welll-nourished religious leaders and an imperial governor. Warfare is quintessentially a male sin. Women don't seem to get it.

Romantic Love

The most pervasive, pernicious and unrecognized deception in our world is surely the myth of romantic love: the idea that there is a special person who can make me happy, can satisfy and fulfill my longings.The latest permutation of this illusion is the fantasy of gay "marriage." Romantic love is mostly, but not always completely, an infatuation, an illusion in which we project, out of our longing and need, a perfection upon the one who is beloved. Like the thirsty man in a desert, we create a mirage out of our thirst, in this case an emotional one. In the vast majority of cases, romantic loves ends sadly in disappointment, betrayal, loss and heartbreak...of one sort or another. Nevertheless, the myth retains a stronghold on our culture and people of every age: even aged, experienced and wise elders fall into the morass. But it is not completely a deception: for oftentimes, there is an actual, true perception of the beauty and value of the beloved. This perception is like a seed that must fall into the soil and die to bring forth life. If it does so, it can fructify into a genuine and lasting love...actually, into three distinct types of love. The best case scenario is growth into spousal or nuptial love, the love of marriage which forms a family and becomes a crucible of frustration and sacrifice that inexoribly burns away the delectible illusions of infatuation. In this best case scenario, the bliss of being "in love" disappears but the perception of the value of the beloved is purified and enhanced so that the love grows into a richer, deeper, and stronger form. The romance dies to be reborn in an enduring, truthful way. A second, less common itinerary is for the romance to transfigure into a genuine friendship, a chaste brother-sister (or brother-brother or sister-sister for homosexuals) relationship,infused with mutual reverence and respect, free of the cravings and fantasies of infatuation. This may be the case with any number of homosexual relations which endure and grow into genuine trust and fidelity. Father Groeschel was surprized himself to discover some Catholic gay relationships growing in this manner into chaste friendships: as they came to deeply love each other, they found abstinence from sexual acts to be the real way to love each other. This raises a fascinating question: could we imagine, within a Catholic context, a blessing upon a committed, even vowed love that is specifically celibate? I can imagine it, but as an exceptional and specially blessed friendship, not as a common ritual. Lastly, we see that romantic love is an expression of the Great Love in which we were created, by which we are redeemed, and for which we are destined. God and only God is the Great Lover, who alone can satisfy our longings. The aching, desperate, and often disappointing loves we suffer on this journey are all premonitions of the Great Love for which we were created.

Inebriated in the Holy Tavern

St. Catherine of Sienna, in her Dialogues, speaks of being "inebriated with the blood of Christ" and then speaks of the Church as a tavern, provided by God for us on our journey over the Bridge to heaven, in which we receive rest, nourishment, fellowship and good spirits. This image of the Church as a "tavern" is rich and suggestive and not exactly commonplace among ecclesiologists. Tonight being shrove Tuesday and tomorrow the beginning of Lent, it is espceially helpful. Clearly, Catherine's idea of a tavern was not one of drunken revelry, but something like what we experienced in the pubs of Ireland: refreshment, laughter, great conversation, women and children of all ages, music and singing, and good cheer all around. This is the Church as I know it!

Virile Chastity, as Reverence and Care, on the Offensive: Confident and Aggressive

"Avoidance of the near occasions of sin" is the traditional, defensive approach to chastity. I have known priests who would not allow a woman to ride in the front seat of their car. I recall a minister saying approvingly of his secretary that she would never have lunch alone with him. There is wisdom to this approach and it certainly made sense in a culture where men and women were largely segregated from each other. But things are different today: men and women work and live so closely that oftentimes it is not possible to retreat and distance oneslf from temptation. An example is our new military policy in which men and women, in combat areas, wll be placed together in circumstances that entail extreme physical intimacy. Our times require a fresh, new approach: not one of defense and retreat, but of offensive, confident, magnanimous agressiveness in regard to reverence and care. Since we cannot get away from women, we need to push more deeply, tenderly, passionately into a posture of reverent, protective, fraternal-paternal love for the women around us. Rather than pulling away, we need to push more deeply into respect and care. Rather than avoidance, we need to intensify our love as agapic and generous. This approach is more difficult and risky: women respond to tender, respectful love with trust and a tendency to really be themselves. This unveiling can arouse even more love, in its eros or desiring component, in the male. So, a dangerous cycle is initiated: the respect of the man elicits the trust of the woman which allows for personal disclosure which arouses deeper desire from the man. We are in VERY dangerous terrain here. It would take a miracle for this to work...and a miracle is exactly what we must pray for and expect. This can work only if the man, the woman and the relationship are all infused with grace; if it is situated in the context of accountability and transparency, prayer and liturgy, a rich network of support and encouragement, and a readiness to confess and enter into God's infinite mercy. We have no choice: we cannot return to the defensive, avoidance strategies that worked for our forefathers. We are involved in the fiercest spiritual combat in the arena of sexuality and our only hope for victory is in taking the offensive: aggressively, confidently, and magnanimously. Onward Christian soldiers! Viva Cristo Rey!

The Illiberality of Liberals

Articulate a reasonable doubt in liberal company about things like: the genetic basis for homosexuality, the non-genetic basis for gender difference, the certainty and imminence of catastrophic man-made global warming, evolution as a mega-theory explanatory of all life, female rights to combat and priestly roles, or the moral urgency of gun control! The response: incredulity, indignation, righteous anger, intolerance, disgust! Why are liberals so illiberal, dogmatic, close-minded and intolerant? There are several reasons. Firstly, the human intellect craves certitude. The liberal mind, allergic to religious revelation, authority, tradition and certainty, is addicted to agnosticism, relativism, and deliberate metaphysical vagueness and indecision. Lost in such uncertainty, the human mind diverts its longing for certainty into alternate dogmatic systems, in this case a "scientism" that grants absolute certainty to theories that are, scientifically or rationally, vulnerable to doubt. Ironically, then, those who, despising dogma, pay tribute to reason and science, themselves unconsciously baptize debatable values and theories into truths that cannot be questioned or scrutinized. By contrast, those of us who unabashedly accept the certain existence of purgatory, guardian angels and devils, can entertain a more light-hearted, open-minded and skeptical attitude towards currently fashionable scientific theories. Secondly, the liberal mind, uprooted from tradition, authority and revelation, is insecure,dependent upon the limitations of subjective experience and argumentation, and therefore extremely vulnerable to doubt. Lacking the shelter and security of religious authority, it unconsciously creates its own system of repression that is all the more pernicious in that it is unrecognized. Contrast the Catholic system: we clearly, unambiguously claim divine inspiration for the papal-episcopal teaching; but the liberal imposes its authority more covertly through intolerance and moralistic indignation. Thirdly, the liberal mind tends to be agnostic about the supernatural and the afterlife, therefore life on this earth takes on an absolute urgency, unqualified by a secure Hope in the eternal and transcendent. Therefore, anxiety about things like global warming, the population explosion, or the atom bomb reaches a state of ultimacy. By contrast, believers subordinate all these concerns to the fundamental drama of sin and salvation. We lose little sleep worrying about our carbon footprint. Fourthly, liberals, of the right and the left, tend to be uprooted from concrete, local ties to family, Church, ethnic tribe, and the range of subsidiary communities and therefore pledge their allegiance to the autonomous individual in relation to the mega-state or the global-free-market. If the right professes a naive trust in the workings of the impersonal "market," the left is desperate to ward off chaos and death through the agency of an expansive, messianic, mother-State. "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" we learned from the New Left in the 1960s. So, opposition to universal health care, gun control or mandatory provision of "reproductive services" is viewed as cooperation with evil. Fifthly, the liberal consensus is dominant, pervasive and unquestioned in academia, entertainment, the media and urban areas of both coasts. Liberals are unaccustomed to real debate and discussion on these issues. By contrast, conservatives in these environments are living in enemy territory and are used to dealing with the contrary positions. Lastly, the liberal mind is characterized by an emotionalism, a feminization (in a negative sense), a compulsion to personalize and a lack of virile objectivity, sobriety and abstraction. Theological and political issues are not argued in an objective, impersonal manner; rather, there is an immediate move to the ad hominem: concerns about the disvalues of sodomy are construed as homophobia and hatred; reservations about female priests can only spring from misogyny, ignorance, and chauvinistic arrogance; suggesting that entitlement programs will need to be cut back is seen as an intentional attack on the poor and helpless. Whether it is Chris Matthews pontificating on reporoductive rights, Senator Ted Kennedy lecturing nomine Alito on the activist role of the courts, or Father Roy Bourgeois condemning Vatican practice, we see emotionalism, refusal to acknowledge another viewpoint, and an incapacity for sober, detached analsis. Fortunate indeed, are we who have received the gift of faith, a shamelessly dogmatic faith, a gift we are especially celebrating in this Year declared by our Holy Father, in that our use of reason, science and wholesome doubt and questioning is purified and liberated from unrecognized dogmatism.

Veneration of Women

At contention between God and Satan is the status of femininity. Two millenia ago, in the Assumption and Coronation, God exalted a poor, humble, fleshly, mortal woman, mother of a tortured and executed mendicant preacher, to be Queen of heaven and earth, of all the angels and saints. From eternity He intended this. In doing so, he exalted all women, precisely in their fleshly femininity, not in spite of it or in disregard of it. In a Saturday mass communion antiphon we pray: "Blessed be the womb of the Virgin Mary, that bore the son of the Eternal Father." Attend: it is the feminine body, precisely in its sexuality, that is the carnal temple of God's holy presence! Tradition has it that the brightest and greatest of angels, Lucifer, father of lies, his pride fully inflamed, flew into a rage on hearing that he would defer to a weak, fleshly woman and proclaimed his everlasting "Non Serviam." Since then, his obsession is to degrade women, as women, especially in their flesh. Our Scripture starts with the assault upon Eve and God's promise (the "proto-evangelium" or "first gospel") that a woman would crush the head of the serpent; it ends in Revelation with assault of the Beast upon woman and child and the final nuptial triumph of the Bride and her Bridegroom-Lamb. It is crystal clear: veneration of women comes from heaven ("Blessed are you among women"). The meaning, mission and identity of masculinity is precisely to emulate God in honoring, cherishing, protecting and delighting in the woman and her child. Degradation of femininity comes straight from the pits of hell: rape, pornography, honor-killings, abuse and gender-or-sex-based profanity as well as misogyny in its more subtle forms. Words which express contempt for women, particularly in their body, clearly carry a demonic origin and intent. The exalted, glorified feminine body of Mary in heaven unveils, unequivocally, the eminently sacred nature of the specifically feminine body, especially in those sacred areas associated with the conception and nurture of children and the marital love act. Such exaltation of woman has characterized Catholicism from its inception ("Son, behold your Mother"): consider the iconic, artistic representations of our Lady including the Madonna and Child and the Pieta. Unfortunately, this veneration has been too frequently obscured by clericalism, chauvinism, unrecognized masculine insecurity and the consequential fear, dread and incomprehension of femininity. Femininity is experienced by the male with fear and trembling: fascination, obsessive attraction, incomprehension, annoyance, adulation, and most importantly, as a reminder of his own mortality, finitude, and vulnerability. Woman reminds the male that he came from flesh, that he is and was dependent upon a mother, that he is deeply incomplete and desperately desirous of "another," and that as flesh he is marked already for death. Unconnected with God our Father, the source of all life, temporal and eternal, the feminine becomes for the man an affliction, a scandal, a curse, an object of fear, dread, rage and contempt. In other words, unconnected with the Father, the male inexorably conspires with Satan in his contempt for women. The feminism that gripped our culture in the 1970s was misguided in its reaction against male misogyny in that it failed to deeply recognize and honor femininity, but attempted to deconstruct gender difference in favor of a neutralized, homogeneous androgyny. Feminism as we know it is largely a contempt for femininity in that it denies that there is anything special and sacred about women: we have sports journalists in men's locker rooms and women in combat and we construe that as "equal rights." Unconsciously, it has mimicked the perverse male disregard for femininity by leveling the two sexes into a uniform, sterile, neutral and abstract "personhood" that is actually a version of selfish, non-paternal masculinity at its worst: abortion, sterile intercourse, autonomy, careerism, envious clericalism ("we want the power of the priesthood too"), and incomprehension, if not disparagement, of the real meaning of gender as filial, fraternal, sororial, spousal, maternal and paternal. We Catholic men, on the other hand, have the unbounded Joy and Honor of emulating St. Joseph as he cherished his Woman and her child, in humility, reverence, chastity, obedience, quiet and courage. St. Joseph, Pray for Us!

The Feminine Sense of Time

So engaged in conversation with friends in a Hoboken pub was she, my daughter, that she allowed barely enough time to get to the Newark train station to pick up her boyfriend at 5 PM. Unexpected traffic delays caused her to be a half hour late. He was not happy. Women run late; men like to be on time. This womanly tardiness is rooted in two moral strengths. First, women are more deeply engaged in the moment, in the current task or conversation; they are more "incarnated" and surrendered to the flow of the "now." The male has a more pronounced tendency to abstraction and thus more easily distances himself, emotionally and cognitively, from the moment in order to relate to schedules, appointments and timetables. My wife normally runs late because she is so involved in the cooking, gardening, cleaning, shopping or child care that she loses track of the more abstract schedule and timeline. A second moral strength is that the female is more involved and invested in other people: getting the kids ready, cleaning and cooking for the family, shopping for presents, and so forth. The male is more selfish, isolated and individualistic. The father can't understand why the mother can't get herself and their four kids ready on time; he has no such problem. Feminine tardiness is rooted in two moral strength: a deeper, more intense involvement in the moment and a broader investment in the needs and concerns of others. The male is abstracted and self-centered and therefore gets to that meeting or mass on time, most of the time. And so, we have a more masculine and a more feminine sense of time. It is not that one is superior to the other: they are different and destined to compliment each other. But in our industrial, technological society, the masculine is privileged. Industrial or mechanical time is measured precisely by the clock, by numbers; more primitive societies work out of a more organic sense of time. The one privileges control and efficiency; other is more creative, nurturing, flexible, fluid and contemplative. Cultures, like individuals, differ on this spectrum: Hispanic cultures are notorious (among us Angolos) for their loose and light sense of time. UPS, my employer for many years, was the epitome of punctuality: you just did not arrive for a 9 O'clock meeting at 9:01; if the plane's wheels rolled one second after scheduled time there was hell to pay. President Bush once locked the door on Colin Powell who arrived a few minutes late for a cabinet meeting. Nor are all men punctual and all women late. In my own family of origin, for example, my father, who was born on a farm (organic), worked as a union organizer for the UAW, a very industrial setting. We ate dinner every night at 6:00 PM, not 5:59 or 6:01; he arrived at 8 O'Clock mass at 8:00, never 7:59 or 8:01. He was quietly inflexible on this and my mother was entirely deferential. My own sisters emulate this habit and are reliably punctual or masculine in their timing. I have not been successful in eliciting from my wife the deference my mom granted dad. My daughter's boyfriend stands even less chance than I did in winning this battle. Sometimes, the wiser course is to recognize and surrnder to the moral strength of the other.

Personal Vows

Outside of marriage and the religious life, we don't often think or speak of vows. But vows are very important and I think we make them all the time, if in a less than fully conscious, deliberate manner. Father Von Balthasar wisely observed that genuine love always has a "vow-like" quality to it. A true friendship, for example, endures in some form for a lifetime, and probably into the afterlife. He emphasized that Catholic-Christian identity inexorably expresses itself in a specific vow, normally to the married or evangelical life (poverty, chastity, obedience, community.)In contrast to such solemn vows, however, we make many more ordinary, simple vows: I will never have children, I will never trust a man, I won't fall in love again. Vows can be holy, in accord with the destiny God has planned, or unholy, contradictory of God's intentions but expressive of those of The Enemy. But even an evil vow has a grandeur about it in that it is absolute, final, permanent, unlike so much of modern life in its fickleness and impermanence. Think Javert (Russel Crowe) in Les Miserable, Henri Duchard (Liam Neelson) of the League of Shadows in Batman Begins, or all the vengenge-fueled villain-heros portrayed by Clint, Arnold,Sylvester and the like. Revenge may be the quintessential demonic vow. Lucifer himself must be respected for the finality of his "non serviam" in that he is vowed to resist God for eternity. Our own baptismal vow, renewed so frequently in the liturgy, is itself a renunciation of his renunciation. On the positive side, our journey into the Kingdom of God is marked by vows. Some consecrated groups make special vows, in additon to the normal three: service of the Holy Father (Jesuits), stability of place (Benedictines) or service of the very poor and suffering. At about the age of 8 or 9, I reacted with a serious sensitivity as I learned about how many people suffer poverty and need and at that time probably made an inchoate promise that my life would have to somehow respond to such suffering. Much later, my encounter with the delightful people in boarding homes gave this intention a more precise expression as I prayed that I might help them. A bad experience of a marihuana high at a party about 40 years ago left me with the resolution that I would never smoke again. The marital vow includes a pledge to regard every other woman as a sister-in-Christ and ennables a rich diversity of loving, reverent, trusting and even intimate if chaste relationships with women. Vows of abstinence in regard to chastity and alcohol are exemplary: think of the Nazarite Samson, Bathseba's husband Uriah, John the Baptist, and the chastity of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Even politics has a quasi-vow quality: my own allegiance to the legal protection of all human life largely precludes me from voting Democrat in national elections; most of my family and friends and just about everyone in Jersey City where I live, on the other hand, are unbendingly loyal to and collaborative with the regime of "choice." To say this is a source of tension and pain is an understatement. Our Lord and Savior gave Himself to us finally and absolutely on the cross and comes to us every day in the Eucharist; may all our smaller promises and pledges be expressive our responsive, Eucharistic devotion to Him.

In Retreat

We are in retreat. With Obama's re-election, the liberals are clearly winning the Culture War for our major institutions: government, law, media, entertainment and education. But that is alright. The war is far from over. And we know how to retreat. We love to retreat. Today's festal saint, Anthony of the desert, retreated into the Egyptian wilderness and his spiritual descendants were to create Western Culture. As Reno points out in this month's First Things: we have a place where we can retreat: our families, Church and associated institutions. We don't have to control society's institutions because we have our own. By contrast, the liberals have no such haven so they are absolutely desperate to prevail in law, politics and the broader culture; they are apoplectic about gay marriage, contraception, and "reproductive rights." By contrast, we conservatives view the state and law as subordinate, subsidiary institutions which are rooted in and contribute to the primary ones of family and Church. We can lose the battle because we know that in the long run we will win the war. We can retreat, regroup and revive ourselves in peace and hope.