Veronica's Veil: Icons in a Culture of Disconnection

Last night, at the NYU Catholic Center, Thomas Hibbs, Thomist philosopher and critic of contemporary nihilistic culture out of Baylor University, delivered a lecture ("Maritain, Modernity, Aesthetics and Beauty")that was remarkable for its clarity and depth of insight. Drawing from Maritain's understanding of art and beauty, Marion's more current insights in icons-and-idols, and the striking visuals of Roualt's Miserere, Hibbs contrasted (post)modern nihilism with Roualt's image of Veronica and her veil. Maritain, following Thomnas, understood that art is always based in the senses and the natural, in reality, even as it moves beyond mere portrayal to unveil deeper realities. The crisis of our culture is the disconnect (traced through modern philosophy back to the "angelism" of Descartes and his divorce of body from mind/soul)of image from reality. Futuristic film (e.g. The Matrix) is obsessed with the dread that image reflects only another image, in an infinite regress, so that nothing real or true is ever reached. So, for example, Maritain considered that early-20th-century art mostly ignored the human face...with a few exceptions. Prominent among these exceptions was his friend Roualt. The key to understanding Maritain and indeed the Catholic understanding of Beauty and Truth is Roualt's presentation of Veronica and her veil. Vera-icon means, of course, true image. And so, by this tradition we cherish the conviction that the face of the actual person of Jesus is truly an image of the invisible God; and that that actual image itself can be re-imaged by us, as Veronica did with her act of compassion and her humble iconic veil. And so, the Catholic Universe of Veronica, Thomas, Maritain and Roualt is the polar opposite of post-modernity in its skepticism, nihilism, isolation and loneliness. With Aristotle we know that our senses, images, words and thoughts connect us with the real, with Being, with "the Other." With Veronica we know that we can touch and caress and comfort the very face of God in the concrete, physical, sensual realities of service, sacrament, art, family and sacrifice.

Letter to Pope Francis

Dear Holy Father, With filial reverence and loyalty and the spirit of fraternal candor with which you exhorted the recent synod on the family I write to tell you of my sadness, disappointment and sense of betrayal because of your confused teaching. I admire and emulate your freedom of spirit and especially your pastoral passion for the poor and alienated. I appreciate the urgency of your desire to show God’s love to those who feel condemned and rejected by the Church. And I believe that your intention is to give a fresh, new approach or attitude while protecting the integrity of our faith. This evangelical purpose is praiseworthy…but perilous and risks polluting the truth by a feel-good, ambiguous open-mindedness. We are directed by Scripture to always “speak the truth in love” and we fall short of this when we speak truth without love, but also if we try to love while compromising the truth. I am saddened that: ----- You are critical rather than supportive of those of us who, in the face of a hostile culture, defend the innocent and helpless, the meaning of sexuality and family and religious freedom. We need a father, a leader to encourage and support us. We look to you for this. Do not betray us! ----- You referred to the active homosexual lifestyle with the words: “Who am I to judge?” We are well aware that none of us can judge the heart and soul of another: we love the sinner but hate the sin. That hatred requires a judgment. On this earth the first and foremost judge of right and wrong, for us Catholics, is our father and teacher, yourself. These words from your mouth would be like the same words coming from a policeman, judge or jury if faced with a heinous case of child abuse. As children of our heavenly Father it is our responsibility and honor to “judge”…to make decisions based on the truth, about right and wrong. To take action to defend the most vulnerable and violated. But it is above all your role, my Father, to guide us all. I understand your motive in speaking these words: to express love for those who feel condemned and alienated. But you cannot betray the truth! ----- Your exemplary love for the poor is corrupted by resentment: a Maoist-like contempt for the powerful and privileged. This is understandable from one who identifies with the poor…but is not Christ-like. While the media sees you as humble, I sense a harsh, arrogant, judgmental tone in your remarks to and about capitalists, clergy, cultural-warriors, and even the pious (e.g. your disparagement of the spiritual bouquet you received at the beginning of your pontificate.) These also need to hear the truth, the Good News, in a spirit of love. And so, if you offend truth in your ambiguous outreach to the margins, you offend love in your harshness to those closest to you and the Church. ----- Perhaps worse than anything you have said is that, in your appointments to date, you seem to be re-constituting the Church in reaction against the dual-pontificate of your immediate predecessors in favor of a hierarchy that identifies more deeply with the poor but accommodates to the corrupt values of liberalism and is bereft of the backbone and fortitude to wage cultural warfare on behalf of our most precious values. We understand the difficulty of your mission: to communicate God’s love to the distant and alienated. It is an impossible task: in speaking the truth you are seen as condemnatory; in expressing love, without clarity, you risk confusion and misguidance. You…and all of us…The Church…need, desperately need, the guidance of the Counselor! Come Holy Spirit!

The Mystery of Masculine Homosexual Desire

Human desire, but especially sexual longing, is a deep, awesome, complex Mystery: it is Godly, noble and holy and at the same time profoundly wounded and disordered, by sin. In this arena more than any other the intermingling of "wheat and weeds" is dense and formidable. The traditional understanding of "concupiscence" instructs us that all of us, in distinctive ways, are "sick" in our heart, desire and will. But the teachings of people St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Fr. Giussani have unveiled for us, more clearly, the divinely-inspired essence of desire. The recent provisional statement out of the Synod on the Family spoke of the "gifts and graces" that are available to us from people with same-sex attractions. While firmly, even passionately, on the conservative side of the culture wars, I welcomed this refreshing statement. I think of my dear friends who are gifted/afflicted with this disposition: they are so often sensitive, compassionate, intelligent, generous, creative, spiritual and admirable men. In homosexual relationships, as the provisional document stated, there is often the deepest empathy, support, self-sacrifice and goodness. It is good for the Church...the Synod, the Pope, and all of us...to say this loudly and clearly. Traditionalists need not be afraid: this is simply SO true! But there is another side of the coin: this desire includes a tendency towards sexual engagement that is sterile, extrinsic (non-unitive) and disordered. This is simply the truth! Additionally, this inclination is generally associated with wounds involving identity, paternity, authority, women and masculine self-esteem. And so there is good news and bad about the homosexual inclination: the conservatives are afraid to acknowledge the good lest it be seen as a capitulation to the Spirit of the Age while liberals get hysterical at any mention of the dark side. Both need to be seen: but what is most important is the heart or the root of the desire. At bottom, I believe, is not a sexual wish at all, but something deeper: the longing for connection, for intimacy, for communion with the paternal, with that which is strong and virile and gentle and affirming. At the deeper level, then, masculine same-sex desire is a longing for fatherly and brotherly love. It is at its core a holy, worthy, and ennobling desire...that must be correctly directed. And so, it is for all of us as brothers-in-Christ warmly, chastely, confidently and tenderly welcome our brothers with open arms in a fatherly and brotherly way. We need not fear this desire...We can embrace it...Gently and firmly we can direct it towards its satisfaction: the holy, fraternal intimacy with Jesus Christ and with His and our merciful Father.

Languages of Love

Psychologist Gary Chapman has famously identified five languages in which we express and receive love: physical touch, words of love and affirmation, quality time together, gifts and acts of service. This is a most helpful, fruitful suggestion. It has provoked me to consider five deeper, underlying, interior languages of love. First is the language of prayer...in which we pray with and for the Beloved. Any genuine love...parental, spousal, romantic or friendly...moves in, out of, and toward the deeper, broader, primordial love of God. For a love to be enduring, true and good, it must rest in the deeper love of God that is expressed explicitly or at least implicitly in prayer. Second is the language of gratitude: the Lover is unceasingly and passionately surprised, delighted and grateful before the unmerited, unexpected, and astonishing gift of the Beloved...as friend, spouse, father, mother, daughter, son, brother or sister. Third is the language of beauty: love is responsive to the beauty of the Beloved. It is this irrepressible, generous and extravagant loveliness that awakens love...and love finds its fitting expression in beauty...the beauty of flowers, a garden, or a gorgeous jewelry or attire. The splendor of our Catholic liturgy and churches is definitive of how we love God. Forth is the language of trust, because love can flourish and grow only in such an atmosphere. The Beloved shows forth her beauty, in its deepest dimensions, only when she trusts; and the Lover shows his love vigorously and efficaciously only when he trusts. Fifth is the language of humility and contrition. The Lover is also sinner and aware that he has failed to adequately reverence and care for the Beloved. And so, he is in a perpetual posture of amendment, eager to repair and compensate for his failure to love the way his Beloved deserves. It is clear that these five languages do not compete with each other, but mutually infuse and strengthen each other: prayer, gratitude, beauty, trust and humility/contrition. These might be understood as the interior of love, the soul or heart or form, which finds a multitude of exterior expressions in the five languages identified by Chapman. An additional and absolutely essential consideration is the necessity of purity in all five languages, and especially chastity in the language of touch. Physical touch is definitive of spousal and maternal/paternal love, but in the friendship between adult men and women, the dreadful realities of original sin and concupiscence absolutely require restrain, discipline, tolerance of frustration and custody of the eyes, thoughts and deeds. Such chastity is, of course, a specific if essential dimension of the deeper and broader purity of heart in which we view the Beloved always in her own goodness and in the light of God's surpassing love.

Influence of Women

It is the nature of women to be influential, not powerful. What is the difference between "power" and "influence"? Influence comes from the Latin "in-flow" and indicates a gentle, imperceptible, invisible but profound and significant causality, as was attributed to the stars. By contrast, power from the Latin "posse" or "to be able" indicates an ability to effect a change but in a more extrinsic, oppositional manner. So, power suggests "control over" or "force against" as in the case of an army that overwhelms or a strong man that exerts force against inert or hostile objects. Influence suggests an interior, gentle, spiritual force that seduces, enchants or otherwise transforms the interior, the heart and soul and intellect. Influence creates a bond, a communion, a covenant or a collaboration between two free, decisive agents. Ours is a de-feminized and hyper-masculinized culture in which "feminism" is reactive against and imitative of a deficient, insecure, abusive "machismo" masculinity. Understandably, a wounded, violated femininity is defensive and rallies to be "empowered." It was not meant to be so! Rather, when women are reverenced by men, they effortlessly and fluidly exercise influence in the hearts and minds and souls of those they love. Women are influential because they are mothers and form our hearts, minds and souls from conception to natural death. They are influential because they are beautiful, within and without, and they attract, fascinate, charm and delight us. They are influential because they have a vast superiority, over men, in regard to sensitivity, empathy, intuition, and emotional and spiritual intelligence. Women are influential because they are temples of loveliness, goodness and innocence...and their presence efficaciously transforms the man who is open and welcoming. Women are influential because effortlessly, by virtue of who they are, not what they do, they arouse in the virile heart and soul a tenderness, a delight, a nobility, and a gentle strength. In large part, the drama of salvation can be summarized as the rivalry between two women: the anxious, controlling, envious, suspicious Eve...and the trusting, joyous, surrendered Mary. The good man...the pure, courageous, generous, noble man...is the one who has been under the influence of Mary and women like Mary. Jesus is our best example.

Misogyny and the Great Philogynist

Misogyny...contempt for women in their very femininity...is everywhere! From Islam we have the kidnapping of Nigerian school girls, honor killings by girls' own brothers, and facial disfiguration of young women because they pursue education. In the "enlightened" West we have a pandemic of pornography,the exportation of abortion to the poor, our Obamic infatuation with and imposition of a Pill that is toxic for the feminine body (not to mention the psyche!), and the subtle and camouflaged voice of a careerist/glamorist culture that taunts each young woman that she is without worth unless she is Smart/Successful (capital S) and/or Sexy (capital S). What is a guy to do? Over 20 years ago I started praying for healing in my own relationships with women. I recognized, with new clarity, my own problems: lust and covetousness of course, but also fear, shame, indifference and a quiet contempt for much of what makes women different from men. My prayers have been answered and I have become a flaming, unrestrained Philogynist: I love women, in their femininity, ecstatically. But...I am still on the road with this one. My philogyny is impure: in some ways I love women too much, in other ways too little. What is a guy to do? My solution: our Lord in the Eucharist!!!! Our Lord Jesus is Himself THE GREAT PHILOGYNIST! He is the one who loves women...all women...every woman...and specifically in their exquisite femininity! He does this because he is strong in his own masculinity: without fear, shame, resentment or weakness. The hidden roots of lust and misogyny are masculine weakness. I know! So every day I approach our Lord in the Eucharist and I pray: "Lord Jesus, share with me your virility: your gentle, quiet, confident strength." "Lord, share with me the way you love women: tenderly, generously, reverently, and chastely!" Do you see why I love THIS GUY so much!!!!

Vanity

Vanity is defined as "excessive pride in one's appearance, abilities or achievements." We immediately associate it with related descriptors: pompous, conceited, arrogant, superior, smug, complacent, and pretentious. Understood thus is is opposed to humility and modesty. However, we might also set it against another list of antonyms: self-hate, insecurity, timidity and passivity. Clearly, the operative word in the definition above is "excessive." So we see that a moderate measure of "vanity"...understood as self-esteem, self-assurance, self-delight, confidence, and wholesome pride...is a good thing. We speak favorably of "someone who is comfortable in her own skin." Indeed, one could hardly exercise any talent or gift...athletic, intellectual, spiritual, artistic...if one is not aware of and delighted by the exercise of that ability. Imagine: an athlete who is insecure and anxious, an intellectual who compulsively doubts himself, a leader who is passive and timid! Or: a Princess who has a negative image of herself! The feminine vocation of bringing Beauty into our world particularly needs a measure of vanity as humble, grateful self-delight. How can the Beauty radiate her loveliness if she does not intuitively sense it herself? This self-delight needs to be leavened and lightened, of course, by gratitude, generosity, modesty, innocence and humility. Part of every woman's vocation is to enhance, radiate and communicate Beauty. In my own virility, I participate in this mission in a minimum way: I vigorously recycle paper and bottles, I groom myself appropriately, and I wear the tasteful clothes my wife and daughters give me; but I appreciate...more than that, I crave, I cherish, I revere, I exult, I almost adore... the feminine presence and the feminine touch with all my heart and soul and mind and strength! An so: a woman who goes to the mirror to review her hair and makeup and appearance or who spends a few hours in catalogs looking for the perfect outfit at the right price...such a woman is not selfish, narcissistic or "vain" in a bad sense! No, she is exercising her charism and vocation of Beauty! When she finds that lovely dress...on sale!!!...she brings Joy and Exultation to heaven and earth. I know this with certainty...although it is not explicit in Scripture, not part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and cannot be verified by science...from my own reliable, mystical, intuitive communion with the angels and saints.

Glamour

In the waiting room of my cardiologist, I couldn't resist the invitation of Glamour magazine to look at the most beautiful people in the world. Wow! Very strong stuff for one with my constitution! But I had to wonder: What is glamour? And is it good or bad? Regularly, in renewing our baptismal vows we renounce "the glamour of evil." Clearly, evil is...or can be...glamorous. But is glamour itself evil? Is everything glamorous bad? The roots of the word are not promising: it is related to the word "grammar" but associated with the language of witchcraft and occult as in the casting of a spell over a victim. For some of us, something magical and powerful and dark like this is operating in the photographs in Glamour or images from the red carpet. The dictionary defines "glamour" as: the quality of fascinating, alluring or attracting, especially by charm and good looks. Less than satisfied with that, I offer my own definition: "The artful enhancement of (usually feminine) beauty." Glamour here is a form of art, a creative action that brings Beauty into our world, a movement that brings Joy to earth and Glory to God. I imagine a woman, of any age, preparing for a wedding or a prom or similar event: she is fastidiously preparing her hair, skin, nails, clothing and jewelry in order to enhance her beauty. Is this a bad thing? Since I am not an iconoclast (as are Protestants, Muslims, Jews and atheists), but a Catholic...and a flaming Balthasarian at that!!!...I am recklessly enthusiastic about anything associated with beauty, charm, and attraction. Glamour is a kind of play...it is a game of beauty: "Let me see how beautiful I can be!" The logic is: "I am beautiful as I am. Just for fun: lets enhance my beauty!" Three year olds "dress up" for fun...so does my 94 year old mother, every single day! Beauty is useless: it does not serve another purpose but is an end in itself. It is frui, not uti...to quote St. Augustine. It is not useful for an extrinsic goal, but is itself an end in itself, like sports, art, learning, love, and worship. Women do not (usually) dress up to seduce or court or entice or propagate or preserve the species. (How I despise Darwinian psychology!) They dress up to be beautiful! Just to be beautiful! It is said that women dress up for other women. There is truth to this because it is mostly other women who will appreciate the beauty. Loveliness, charm, delight, joy...these are transcendental, spiritual (but embodied) realities that transcend the crude simplifications of sexual attraction. And so, there is something heavenly and even divine about being lovely: playful, joyous, purposeless, extravagant, generous and effusive! Imagine a bouquet of magnificent flowers that are haphazard and disorganized. The average woman will admire them and then move immediately to gather, organize and harmonize them in order to ensure the overall loveliness of the entire bouquet. Something like this happens with glamour: everything works together...the hair style, colors, movement of the clothing, jewelry, and so forth. BUT...and this is an enormous BUT...Like all things that are heavenly and powerful and engaging (think food, competition, work, family, alcohol...) too much of a good thing can be...very bad. And so, glamour must be careful to be modest, pure, wholesome, limited, and humble. Glamour so easily can become immodest, impure, corrupted, pretentious and proud. Then it becomes a catastrophe! It is so strong that it can have a magical, spell-like quality...especially upon insecure men. Let me describe one possible reaction. Imagine someone like Joe DiMaggio or Jack Kennedy in the presence of Marilyn Monroe. She is in high heels and a tight-fitting dress with low cleavage, blonde hair is blowing in the wind, she is laughing with sensuous self-satisfaction. She is glamorous! The poor guy is toast! He is fascinated and in awe...she is desirable beyond limits...she is unreachable and distant...a veritable goddess of desire...he is worthless by comparison...it matters not that he is a power-hitter or the most powerful politician in the world...it matters not that he is handsome, smart, athletic, or charismatic...he is nothing, he is emasculated, he is powerless, he is worthless before such a goddess! He wants only to kneel before her in adoration, kiss her feet,and lose himself in a mutual gaze! Such glamour is emasculating, magical, and idolatrous! But let's consider a different scenario: a case of elegance, charm and beauty within the limits of modesty, truth, humility, serenity and charity. Gregory Peck is in the presence of the Audrey Hepburn Princess in Roman Holiday: he is enchanted, but also ennobled, humbled, inspired, and encouraged in his own virility and goodness by her exquisite innocence, purity and loveliness. This is beauty and glamour as iconic, as heavenly, as Joy!

The Pill, the Pope, the Bishops and Boldness

The best defense is a strong offence! The Church has been weak, defensive, and lacking courage and boldness in its fight for religious freedom against the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. Specifically, we have failed to aggressively attack the atrocity of contraception! Contraception is a disaster...but no one talks about it. The pill is poison for the feminine body. Recently, waiting in an ER room I read in a health magazine (bereft of moral consciousness other than "nature-awareness") that in addition to blood clots, cancer and the rest, we now know that sustained time on The Pill systematically and cumulatively diminishes about 40 or so essential nutrients in the woman's body. Your multivitamin will not replace these! Contraception is a CATASTROPHE...for the woman, the relationship, the family, the culture and the society. But the Obama-Clinton-Sibelius-Pelosi regime worships before it and indignantly demands that every Georgetown law student has an innate right to tax-payer funded "protection." The bishops have been a big disappintment: they have argued on the grounds of religious liberty only and have not attacked the substantive issue of why we oppose contraception. They have granted the high ground to the contraceptors (Even the name sounds bad!. They have given the impression that our objection is without substance, a pious preference, an eccentric and archaic holdover from the past. Pope Francis is even worse: if the bishops are in retreat, he is stampeding away from the battle with his flippant comments. We can only assume that he is as clueless about the USA as his comments indicate. Attack mode may not win this culture war but at least people will know what we stand for. It is called witness.Where are our heroic, virile, forceful bishops... like those who opposed communism in Eastern Europe and the Protestant establishment in America a hundred years ago?

St. Catherine of Siena, The Crusader

The young woman from Siena is the most spectacular of the many magnificent saints Catherine: mystic, doctor of the Church, corrector of popes and monarchs...and she was a vigorous Crusader. Current events verify how right she was to so forcefully advocate the crusades. History alerts us that (with the singular exception of Spain), Islam violently takes control of a place and never loses that control. The entire world of early Christianity (Middle East, North Africa, Turkey, etc) is now completely Muslim and the very few Christians still there are now being ruthlessly and systematically persecuted and killed. With current trends, there will soon be really NO Christian presence in the very world that gave birth to our faith...and that includes even the Holy Land. Were it not for the crusades, each of my five daughters and six sisters would now likely be one of some man's many wives, they would be kidnapped or tortured if they aspired to an education, they would be stoned to death if they fell in love with a Christian man and executed if they converted to Christianity. There is a profound misogynist streak in that religion. Islam will not honor women as doctors or exalt one as Queen of heaven and earth! We know that the founder was a pedophile and an inflamed polygamist. The power of Islam is rooted in its merge of two forces, one very good the other evil: monotheism and the 10 commandments on the one hand, and violence and polygamy on the other. It is at once a noble monotheistic religion and at the same time an explosion of the primitive pagan energies of violence and sex. But the Crusades rescued Europe from this violent and oppressive religion. Today, Europe has lost its faith, drifts in a spineless nihilism, and is again vulnerable to becoming "Eurabia" within a few generations. But we need to be grateful for the Crusades. The myth of the Crusades as an evil, aggressive movement of the Church is, like so many Dark Legends (the Inquisition, Pius XII and the Jews, etc.) not entirely without some historic basis...the Church is, after all, made up of sinners. But the exaggeration is a product of powerful, and often unrecognized cultural forces, both fiercely anti-Catholic: our Anglo-Calvinist past (Puritans, Pilgrims and so forth) and a secular world that despises the Church. Like our fathers and uncles who fought the Nazi and Japanese empires in WWII, the Crusaders did wrong and made mistakes. We know that they had their own disgraces as we did with Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But we are grateful to that Great Generation that we are not living under Nazi law; and we are grateful to the great generations that we are not living under Sharia. And we need to alert our children to the pervasive, often invisible contempt for the Church which controls so much of our cultural narrative.

The Dissonance, the Pain, the Love of the Liberal Catholic

It is amazing: the depth, intensity and persistence of the love he has for the Church, the "Spirit of Vatican II" Catholic. For almost 40 years the liberal Catholic (one who rejects the Catholic view of sex and gender)has lived with dissonance, disappointment and sadness. Yet, he remains faithful to the Church. Logic would require that he merely move down the street to the Episcopalian or other Protestant congregation that mirrors his views. But a deeper, non-cognitive, emotional/spiritual bond keeps him united, if resentfully, to Mother Church. They are now starting to die off, for example those who were young priests or nuns in the 1960s and drank deeply of the euphoria for change. Many, I think especially of religious sisters, have lived generous lives of service to the poor. It is not their fault that they fail to understand and accept the Church's teaching. Swept along mimetically by cultural change, they remain reactive against a narrow and negative view of sex and gender that they attribute to the "pre-Vatican II" Church. They just do not get it! They missed the boat, the ship...the key catechesis of John Paul on sexuality. They haven't really heard it or read it or more likely they had already committed their intellects to a sterile view of sex. There is a great poignancy about them: their faith cannot be handed down to succeeding generations. They maintain a split loyalty: to the Church and to a liberalism that is hostile in fundamental ways to Catholicism. Their children cannot maintain this tortured ambivalence: they will move away from the faith or embrace it joyously in defiance of a social order gone anti-Catholic. There are almost no young priests and religious to carry the torch: religious vocations are almost all of a more conservative cast. The surge of optimism in reaction to Pope Francis will become, unfortunately, another disappointment. Pope Francis cannot change the Church in the fundamental ways they desire. And he does not want to. He seems compelled to downplay or avoid the important culture issues because he has a longing to reconcile and to show only mercy to "those on the outskirts." But regrettably, he is causing confusion: stirring up false hopes among liberals and discouragement among those of us committed to the Church's positions. This pope gives us good example by his way of life: simple, poor, charitable. But he will not reverse the body of teaching left by the previous dual-pontificate. Charity and justice require that we respect the Liberal Catholic...for the generous service to the poor, for the faithfulness to the Church. and for the pain of disappointment and dissonance suffered over these years.

The Vulnerability of Our Celibate (not bachelor) Priests

Dietrich von Hildebrand sees that the consecrated virgin gives up spousal union, the deepest earthly desire of the human heart, for an even deeper marriage: mystical union with Christ, the bridegroom of every human soul. A danger, however, is that if the consecrated does not push deeply into this communion, lesser human goods can fill the void that is left in the heart and soul. Even the work of ministry could become such a bogus substitute. When I shared this thought with my nephew, a Franciscan Friar now preparing for his final vows, he agreed but added: "For us, the ministry is third. First is union with Christ in prayer. Second is unity with the community in praise and life. And all this flows over into the service of love." This deep insight left me wondering: what does this mean for our non-religious priests, diocesan or even the fine Maryknollers and others I have known? They give up marriage and family but often they work and live independently, without the close communion of the friars and monks? It seems to me that the Church places them in a vulnerable, difficult position: they renounce spouse and family in the embrace of celibacy, but they are also bereft of the compensations and consolations of community living, which accompany poverty and obedience. Isn't it terribly easy for them to fall into a "bachelor life"...alone and in pursuit of their particular interests? What comes to your mind with the title "Monsignor?" For me it suggests a priest who is highly energetic, smart, efficient and something of a work-alcoholic, an achiever, too much of a Martha, not enough of a Mary. It seems to me that the best priests develop, in addition to a deep prayer life, their own unique network of supportive communities: priest support gatherings, 12-step groups, close friendships with lay people and families, and connections with lively ecclesial movements and prayer communities. The priest is primarily identified with Christ in the action of teaching, sanctifying and shepherding; but he, like all of us, needs concrete and practical help in drawing close to our Lord. Let us pray for our priests who face a tremendous challenge!

To The Rescue!

Yesterday these events grasped my attention: First, the Magnificat has the story of St. Felicity, the pregnant slave girl who died with that other "mother-martyr" St. Perpetua. Waiting to be executed, she and her small community prayed that she might deliver the baby and be able to suffer and die with the group. She was able to do so. She was led with Perpetua into the arena naked: her body still deformed by the pregnancy and her breasts dripping with milk. The Romans had the decency to cover her with cloth, but then handed her over to be gored by a wild cow before they beheaded her. Secondly, the kidnapping in Nigeria of over 200 school girls: inexpressibly horrific! Thirdly, the reading for yesterday in the Liturgy of the Hours has St. Ephrem narrating Jesus' descent into hell: "At length he came upon Eve, the mother of all the living. She was that vineyard whose enclosure her own hands had enabled death to violate, so that she could taste its fruit; thus the mother of all the living became the source of death for every living creature. But in her stead Mary grew up, a new vine in place of the old. Christ, the new life, dwelt within her. When death, with its customary impudence, came foraging for her mortal fruit, it encountered its own destruction in the hidden life that fruit contained. All unsuspecting, it swallowed him up, and in so doing released life itself and set free a multitude of men. Jesus came to earth, and descended into hell, to rescue Eve and to raise up Mary...to rescue Felicia and each of those Nigerian girls. He is our hero! I want to be on His squad!

Sexual Reverence (3): the Dark Side

"Fair and foul are close of kin, and fair needs four" I cried. Yeats As the holiest creation, sex can become the darkest reality. For many of us...maybe most of us in today's world...the abuse of sex is the quickest, easiest, smoothest path to hell. Because it is SO good, it can become SO bad! Since it is so dangerous, it demands a profound and delicate reverence. Even at its best, as spousal love, it retains four essential aspects that are dark in a deep way that requires decency: its intensity, its brutality,its association with lower bodily actions, and its relationship to death. Firstly, sexual arousal is an intense passion that takes over the person...physically, hormonally, mentally, volitionaly...to such a degree that we can say that the person "loses" his soul in the sense that intellect and will are overcome by emotional-physical desire. Again, within the protective and sanctifying shelter of marriage, this "loss of self" is blessed by God, open to life and motivated by a mutuality of self donation. It is, nevertheless, a real "loss of self" and demands a certain awe, protectiveness and fear. Secondly, even at its best as mutual conjugal surrender, the act of love retains a violent aspect: it is, after all, a penetration of the feminine by the masculine body. When invited and welcomed by the recipient in a posture of hope, trust and surrender, it becomes holy and good. But the brutal aspect remains even as it is transformed. We need to be aware that delicate spirits, especially females who are young and innocent, can be sensitive to this and even repelled. This is not abnormal or unhealthy, but a wholesome and realistic attitude. Advocates of the Playboy philosophy but even some students (usually men) of St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body sometimes are carried away by their reaction against puritanism to such a degree that they lose a sense of the complex, delicate, and profound nature of sex. Thirdly, we need not dwell on it but we need to acknowledge with Yeats: "Love has pitched it's tent in the place of excrement" and "'Foul and fair are near of kin and fair needs foul' I cried." Providence has associated the sublime with the ridiculous, the most holy with the very most profane. Why? I really don't know. But maybe He intended to further heighten the reverence, the delicacy, the protectiveness and the care we give to this, His holiest natural creation. Lastly, sex is close to death, psychologically and metaphysically. The deep exhaustion, release from tension and letdown after orgasm is itself a premonition of death. When the action expresses love, of course, this love endures and fills the ensuing quiet with deepest peace. But outside of such profound love, the act ends in desolation, despair and contempt: death! Other than death itself, sex is the most intense experience of "the flesh" and in its extreme volatility and fickleness it resounds with mortality. Sex is, then, a taste of death. As such, it needs to be redeemed by a love stronger than death. AS such it needs to move into such a deeper love: a love that is chaste and faithful unto and beyond death. And so, to review, these four deep, dark dimensions of sex are unavoidable. They require a deep reverence. The catechesis delivered to the Church by St. John Paul II has definitively proclaimed the positivity, the wholesomeness, the holiness of sex. But this positivity incorporates and transforms these four dimensions. And these four, in turn, add a gravity, a density, and a reverence to this Mystery.

Sexual Reverence (2):The Holiness of Sex

Sex is the holiest natural, physical creation for three reasons that mutually penetrate each other. First, it is God's plan to create new persons, souls that will live with Him forever. This alone makes it incomparably glorious, profound, and hopeful. Secondly, the physical union creates an incomparably deep union between two persons at every level: emotional, spiritual, intellectual, volitional and social. Because body-and-soul are a unity, the mutual penetration of the body creates an infinitely deeper union of heart, mind and soul. Therefore, in the right place, marriage that is blessed by God, it is a sacrament, an encounter with God Himself. Outside of that sacred precinct, it is a grave violation against God, the other and oneself. Thirdly, sexuality reaches into the deepest place of a person's mind, heart and soul. Sex is NEVER just sex. It is always a universe of moral and spiritual meanings: loyalty or betrayal, reverence or contempt, tenderness or brutality, truth or falsehood, beauty or ugliness, surrender or control, selfishness or generosity. Hildebrand notes that sins in this area pierce more deeply into the soul than comparable acts like gluttony, avarice, sloth or anger. Consider: which would be more toxic for a marriage and a family...alcoholism, anger or adultery? I would have to say that the last is far more intimate, profound, hurtful and disastrous. Since sex is sacred, it needs to be covered and sheltered by reverence in the way we speak, think, dress, look and act.

Sexual Reverence (1): For Women

Dietrich von Hildebrand's magisterial and inspiring Purity: the Mystery of Christian Sexuality has intensified my awareness of sexual reverence. In this posting, I want to reflect on the reverence we men give to women. My iconic, Christ-like virility is rooted above all in the mutual infusion of tenderness and reverence for women. Tenderness is the response, from my own gentle, peaceful, confident strength to woman in her sensitivity, preciousness and vulnerability. This tenderness is infused with a reverence before something inexpressibly sacred, holy and good. If virile tenderness is in part appreciation for feminine goodness-and-vulnerability, there is another reverence which genuflects before womanly strength, dignity, and honor. In this the male perceives a deeper, stronger, truer goodness in the woman, including the woman as bride, wife, mother, companion, sister, daughter and friend. In regard to the transcendentals, I have seen that women embody Beauty and Goodness more vividly and concretely while men are more vigorously oriented towards Truth. In this, we are created to balance, complement and fulfill each other. Proper virile reverence requires first of all the truthfulness of humility: this means that I consciously acknowledge my masculine sin towards women. This includes, of course: arrogance, lust, covetousness, superiority, fear, shame, and indifference towards what is most sacred and precious in women. Manly modesty and humility moves towards awareness of the distinctive strengths and charisms of women: the sensitivity, compassion, resilience, quiet wisdom, emotional intelligence, religious sense and innate purity and innocence. Esteem for and deference towards the distinctively feminine has the effect of awakening, strengthening, purifying, and directing all the energy, power and weakness of masculinity. Every woman is, then, for us men, a sacrosanct temple of infinite value. Along with Don Quiote, our purpose, mission and identity as "knights" absolutely requires that we honor each Dulcinea we meet, regardless of whatever mistakes mar her past. Catholic tradition instructs us to genuflect on the right knee before God alone, as in the Eucharist; but we may and should genuflect on our left knee to honor those of special worth. And so, as a man, I genuflect (interiorly) before every woman that I meet. Such inflamed reverence, allied with tenderness, is the only sure path to purity of heart: the sexual passions are so overwhelming that they do not yield to actions of the will and intellect unless those are themselves moved by passions more deep, purposeful, reliable and powerful. From the cross our Savior gave each of us a Mother, his own. I have found it miraculously helpful to consciously involve our Blessed Mother in every relationship, especially those that might be inflamed by sexual or romantic desire. Even more powerful, however, is the Eucharist: when I eat His Body and drink His Blood I ask Him to give me his attitude towards women...peaceful, confident, reverent, tender, delighted, generous, affirming, strong, protective, and innocent. The Eucharist, aided by regular confession, inflames me with a Love that purifies, lightens, and strengthens all my loves.

Divorce-Free Marriage Guarantee

The fine moral theologian Janet Smith famously gave her college students a guarantee that they would enjoy a guaranteed divorce-free marriage if they would do four simple things. She offered a $1,000 payoff for any student who did the four and came back to her divorced. The four are: go to mass every single Sunday, tithe 10% of your income to the Lord, wait until marriage for sex, and keep every act of love open to new life (no contraception although Natural Family Planning is fine.) I heartily agree with her. If you get money, worship, sexuality and new life right, you are in very good shape. Regarding the tithe I am loose: I don't see the 10% as sacrosanct. Those with weaker faith and/or smaller incomes might start off with 5% or even 2%. The idea is: give the top of your earnings to the Lord in the Church and in the less fortunate. Rick Warren started at 10% and increased it every year and currently he and his wife are giving 91%. I would, however, add a fifth...and a sixth practice to ensure a good marriage. The fifth: pray together! A couple HAS GOT TO pray together. It can be as simple as a Hail Mary or an Our Father...or a decade of the rosary...or simple spontaneous prayers: Lord, guide us! Jesus, we trust in you! Father, we thank you! Dear Lord, help us to understand each other, forgive each other, help each other! Marriage is difficult, at times impossible, even under the best circumstances. I know: I have the best circumstances. I have the best wife in the world and sometimes I just want to kill her! The misguidance of the world, the weakness of the flesh, and the lies of the devil all conspire to destroy marriages and families. If a young Christian couple cannot pray, just simply, together, something is wrong. It could be as simple as an embarrassment that has to be overcome by practice. Or it could be un-repented sin, or disbelief, or a resentment or toxic belief of some sort. They need to seek help from a good priest or minister. Prayer is essential! The sixth: Plug into some kind of more intensive Christian community. You simply HAVE TO TO hang out with people who are imitating Jesus. We are all mimetic...we are always and everywhere looking at others and imitating them, deliberately or unconsciously. You have to hang with folks who hang with Jesus. I pray especially for you young people who are now of marrying-age: May the Holy Spirit lead you to feed your heart and mind and soul with all you need to have fruitful, joyful marriages!

Did the Resurrected Jesus Appear to His Mother?

How did our Blessed Mother know that her son was risen? Did she learn from Peter, John or Mary Magdalen? Did she receive her own appearance? Or (as I will suggest) did she know, with certainty, in a more fitting manner? The Scriptures have no mention of a separate appearance to Mary and (aside from a misunderstood reference in St.Ambrose) there is likewise no evidence of such a tradition in the first millenium. Even St. Thomas knew nothing of such a revelation. However, just after the time of Aquinas, the tradition of such an appearance spread quickly and gained remarkably unanimous assent in medieval Christendom. St. Ignatius of Loyola has a meditation based on this event and assumes that anyone who doubts this reality is clearly a heretic. I think his logic is sound but I differ slightly in my conclusion. Our own St. John Paul II advocated forcefully for acceptance of this tradition in an audience in which he stated: "...the unique and special character of the Blessed Virgin’s presence at Calvary and her perfect union with the Son in his suffering on the Cross seem to postulate a very particular sharing on her part in the mystery of the Resurrection." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_21051997_en.html) Here again the logic is impeccable: Mary is close to Jesus at his conception, birth, private life, (not so clearly in his public life), in his passion, at Pentecost and now in heaven. It is hard to imagine that she was sidelined for the Resurrection. My suggestion is that she knew with certainty, through her mystic union with her son, that he was risen. She did not need an appearance: such would have been frivolous. We know that the disciples, with their lack of faith, desperately needed our Lord to show himself to them: doubting Thomas who touches the wounds, the discouraged and uncomprehending disciples at Emmaeus, the disbelieving apostles and their fishing expedition, and Peter with his three-fold denial redeemed by his triple-profession-of-love. But Mary did not need her son to appear: she already knew. I imagine it happened in the following manner. When Mary held the corpse of her son (the Pieta), she would have sunk into the deepest possible grief. When Jesus died, she herself died a psychological or metaphysical death, even as she continued to breathe. With his passion finally ended, there ensued the infinite quiet of death and she herself would have been relieved of the state of immense tension she suffered throughout the passion and would have relaxed into a quasi-death state herself. I imagine a psycho-neuro-physical collapse similar to what we know as "rest in the Spirit" or "being slain in the Spirit." Her sense of desolation was so complete and profound that is it more than metaphorical to say that she herself descended, with her Son, into hell. This dark night surely was deeper than that of St. John of the Cross or any other mystic. However, as she grasped her sons's corpse, as she collapsed in her own meta-death and sunk to the pit of hell, she knew, quietly and intuitively, deeply in her spirit, not emotionally or cognitively, but deeply-deeply-deeply that He had triumphed, that God had triumphed, that He was alive. Perhaps she was not discursively aware of it: she would have been incapable of saying "He is risen!" But she knew! Rising on Saturday, she would have gone about her day quietly, still exhausted and deeply grieving, but slowly and organically the Joy and Hope and intuition would grow. She would have been comforting others and in this her sense of God's presence and victory would be emerging. By the time she went to bed on Saturday night she would have known: Jesus is alive! She would know with complete interior certainty. And Sunday morning she would awaken and rise with her heart and soul exploding with Joy and Love! She had died, as a mother dies if her child dies, but she was alive in heaven...in heaven on earth. It was just a matter of time before her body would be taken to be with her soul which was already with her Son. Before, during and after Pentecost she would be a bounteous, flowing fountain of the Holy Spirit for the Church. She would be assumed into heaven, possibly from two distinct locations, Jerusalem and Ephesus, as differing traditions affirm. Since the Church has not spoken definitively on this question, we have the theological freedom to entertain any of these three, or other, views. However this third understanding does the most justice to what we know of the boundless union of love between Mary and her Son.

Pope Francis: Exemplary or Exceptional Jesuit?

To moderate the passionate imbalance of my previous post, I contemplate Pope Francis as a Jesuit: on the one hand, he is the quintessential Jesuit (individual), in the best sense; on the other hand, he is exceptional (anti-elitist, fully enfleshed with the poor) in a splendid manner. He is an individual...in the classic sense of Issac Jogues or Francis Xavier. He is his own man: free and spontaneous, invulnerable to intimidation or pressure, with a fine and educated intellect and a will made of flint and steel. Could he be the last of the Mohicans? I hope not! He is certainly NOT an elitist: on the contrary, he is an anti-elitist, with a vengeance! He has buried himself among the poor, all by himself, like an urban Charles DeFoucauld. He is far from the Georgetown that is trying to be Princeton or the Prep school counselor counting his Ivy League acceptances...as a matter of fact, he is the opposite! Nor is he a de-fleshed, "transcendental" thinker: he is enfleshed with the very poor as he rides their buses. What troubles, puzzles and fascinates me most about him is his retreat from the Culture War in the West. He is no libertine, he is more than capable of fighting the good fight, he could hardly be indifferent! He radiates the aroma of purity, chastity and innocence so he surely shares with his two predecessors a spiritual disgust for the degradation and defilement of lust. It may be that he has a different spiritual temperament: more allergic to greed and injustice than to lust. Or it may be that he has decided to take a gentle, indirect pastoral approach: aware of the evil, he purposefully chooses NOT to address it directly as he engages the sinner in a non-threatening, welcoming, and merciful way. He is blatantly not a vocal advocate of the cultural agenda of the previous dual-pontificate, but he is certainly not an opponent. Properly understood, his approach may be a brilliant compliment and development. George Weigel explains that when John Paul II came to the Vatican, there were two approaches within the Church competing on how to deal with communism: the culture war approach he shared with the native Church of Eastern Europe and the Ostpolitic diplomacy of Paul VI which accepted the reality and tried to make the best possible deals with the tyrants. Brilliantly, he kept Paul's Secretary of State Cardinal Casaroli and authorized him to continue that accomadationist approach WHILE he himself, more covertly and subtly, waged a fierce culture war. He was intelligent enough to know that he could best defeat the enemy by waging two kinds of warfare, brilliantly coordinated in a most covert way. The KGB did not know what hit them. Could it be that our two sets of Popes (the two that were canonized today and the two neighbors in the Vatican) wink at each other and secretly relish the risible incomprehension of the Western media who love to set the two lungs of the Church against each other?

What Happened to the Jesuits?

From my youth I have loved the Society of Jesus and specific holy Jesuits have influenced and guided me in my adult walk with Christ. But the order is a deep disappointment! Traditionally the brains, the guts, the storm troopers of the Catholic Church, fiercely and militantly loyal (in a particular way to our Holy Father) they, as a society, caved into the cultural-sexual revolution of the 1960s without a fight. Certainly there was, and still is, a tiny remnant of intelligent, noble, even heroic loyalists: Avery Dulles, John Ford, Henri DeLubac, Kenneth Baker, Joseph Fessio, Joe Whelan, James Schall and others. But these lost the battle for the soul of the order to the opposition, a small, militant faction of dissenting, sexual liberators. They lost the fight because the bulk of the Jesuits were indecisive, detached, and clueless in regard to the Culture War that erupted after the Council. Even theological geniuses like Lonergan and Rahner betrayed the Vatican and our Tradition on Humanae Vitae and the cascading flow of issues related to life, family and gender. That 1968 Encyclical was a powerful proclamation: It is either right and inspired from heaven or it is wrong-headed and disastrously toxic! You have to love it or hate it...passionately! But most Jesuits prefer to ignore it. I have known many Jesuits and (paraphrasing Will Rogers)I have never met a Jesuit that I didn't like...and admire...for his intelligence, erudition, humor, refinement and spirituality. But many of them seem to be walking in a world of their own, unconnected and unaware of the powerful, catastrophic, and mimetic cultural forces that are wrecking havoc on our society, particularly our youth. Many have bought into an anemic political ideology of the left and a soft humanist psychology bereft of the virile, vigorous ethos Ignatius left his followers. What happened to the Jesuits? The backbone of the Church for four centuries, why did they fall without resistance after the Council? I see three root causes in their spirituality: individualism, intellectualism, and elitism. The spirituality of the Spiritual Exercises is strongly individualistic, in contrast to the far more communal ethos of the more traditional monks and friars. Rather than immersion in a shared cult, community and culture of faith, the exercitant is led by his director to recognize, in his own spirit, the movements of God and those against God. It is a very individual, private thing. The Jesuit culture is one of individualism; there is not a powerful, shared culture in which one surrenders individuality to find personhood in communion, humility and obedience. Rather, classically, each Jesuit was trained to be another Francis Xavier: a rugged, independent individual, groomed to go alone to India or China or anywhere to share the Gospel. The danger, however, is that you can end up with a group of bachelors: intelligent, refined, pious, and highly motivated...but basically autonomous bachelors. Fine friendships; lively, informed, and enlightened conversation at happy hour; high motivation and brilliant insights; but there is little or no "there-there" in the community. Such a society did not have a shared culture to shelter and defend itself when the broader society went dark right about the time of the Council. Each Jesuit was an individual, in his own field of study or ministry, isolated and vulnerable. And for the most part they continue that way to this day. The epitome of Counter-Reformation, Baroque Catholicism, the rugged individualism of the Jesuits seems to have been reliant upon the broader, embrasive Catholic culture so that it decomposed when that world capitulated to the emergent, "late-modern" secular order of the West. The second cause of debility was a certain intellectualism that tended to be abstract, detached, and elevated above the flesh. Contrast the stark, almost-anti-intellectual corporality of the Franciscans. It is hardly an accident that the dominant theological school of 20th century Jesuits was called "transcendental Thomism." What is the probability of a Jesuit retreat house, college or high school addressing something like our pornography epidemic? There is a quasi-gnostic, ethereal, dualist quality to "Ignatian" spirituality that somehow distances the intellect and spirit from the grimy, messy realities of flesh, sex and real desire. Even the brilliant and flawlessly loyal Cardinal Dulles seemed uncomfortable with the relentlessly conjugal imagery of the Communio theology of the dual papacy he served so vigorously. And so a critical mass of Jesuits accomodated rather than resisted the sexual revolution out of a lack of conviction, a discomfort possibly rooted in the soft Janseenism of their mostly Irish past. Lastly, a taste for elitism moved talented young Jesuits in the mid-20th-century to aspire to academic excellence in terms defined Ivy League culture, just when that world was turning decisively from its Calvinist past to a militant secularism. Eager to "find God in all things," intoxicated by the honeymoon between the Catholic Church and post-WWII America, and opening "the windows of the Church" to the world, young Jesuits flocked to the Ivy's and surrendered themselves trustingly, abandoning the hard, critical realism that had been the glory of the order. Infatuated with a new love, ambitious to succeed in Academia on its own terms, the emerging leadership of the order diminished their affection and loyalty to Mother Church and their appreciation for core Catholic values like virginity and apostolic authority. And so we see that a perfect storm of individualism, de-fleshed intellectualism, and aspirant elitism together made this order singularly unprepared to face and challenge the the libertine, militant secularism that was taking over the broader culture just as the Council ended.

Innocence

Of late, maybe because I pray to St. Therese of Lisieux, I am conscious of innocence: innocence in myself and in others. I am aware, of course, of how I (and others) have violated and polluted this innocence. But I marvel...that innocence remains, with a stunning resilience and sturdiness. A worldly understanding of innocence would see it as a deprivation: an immaturity, a weakness that lacks experience, testing and temptation. But to a Christian, innocence is a fullness, a positivity, an original and abiding openness to God which is quietly but powerfully generous and fruitful. This is seen most clearly in the mystery of the Holy Innocents, who died for our Lord without deliberation or effort but in whom we perceive an inherent, effortless holiness. Innocence, than, is primordially a gift from God, a state of overflowing goodness, a fruit of grace. Mature innocence, of course, entails conscious and deliberate awareness and assent and eventually effort, achievement and fruitful results. But innocence itself is first and always gift...something received gratefully and shared generously. In its gentleness and quietness it is far more powerful than violence, evil, sin and even death. Our Blessed Mother, The Immaculata, is its epitome, of course. Imagine her as a young girl...say 10 years old...she does not struggle against jealousy, resentment and anger...her spontaneous gratitude, joy and generosity are increasing conscious, deliberate, and voluntary and thus take on a depth, a toughness,a broadness, and a purposefulness. We can speak of an Original and a Redeemed Innocence. Original Innocence was that of the Garden of Eden: it was wounded but not completely destroyed by the original sin. And so, intuitively we sense the original innocence, albeit weakened, of an infant or a child or even many older, simple and good people. What amazes me is that actual sin, even mortal, seems not to completely obliterate a remnant of original goodness. It is this remnant that is the basis for conversion of even the most sinful. Saddam Hussein, just before his execution, walked up to each of the American soldiers who had guarded him, and treated him with dignity, in his last months, and stuck out his hand in an expression of gratitude. This mass murderer had a remnant of original goodness. A close examination will probably unveil residues of innocence in Hitler, Mao, Stalin and even Judas whose suicide suggests a regret associated with love. I find that when I love others I see them with clarity, including sin and weakness, but that their abiding goodness and innocence appear with lucidity and radiance. Surely, Jesus on the cross saw the innocence of the repentant thief. While I regret the ways I have desecrated my original, baptismal and Eucharistic innocence, I am mostly grateful for the ways actual grace has protected it. I am amazed by its resilience, strength and fertility. I pray that it be increased in me and everyone I love.

Profession of Hatred

I profess my solemn hatred of the Democratic Party in the USA. This is not a dislike, a preference, an inclination or an opinion! It is a deep-seated, passionate, soul-defining conviction! This Party is essentially, structurally, and invasively hostile to what is most sacred to me: innocent life, sexuality/marriage/family, and religious liberty. This hatred is the inverse of my love for the Church: total, unqualified, enduring,and unequivocal. When it comes to the Church and the Party, I am not 80/20; not even 99/1; I am 100/0! My allegiance to the Republican Party, by contrast, is ambivalent, qualified, and lukewarm...for many reasons. But my contempt for the other Party is boundless. The way a Jew views the Nazi or an Afro-American the KKK...this is the way I see that Party. But my loathing is more intimate and more personal because I was raised a Democrat and I entered adulthood in this condition. It was in my early adulthood, during the 1970s, that the Party betrayed us Catholics in favor of sexual license, abortion, the deconstruction of marriage and eventually an attack on our religious liberty. It is as if my very best friend took and raped my wife, my daughters, and my sisters. This is intellectual, spiritual, social...it is also VERY personal! My loathing of the Party and what it stands for is simple, straightforward and uncomplicated. My real problem is: How do I relate with Democrats? About half of my best friends and family are such! I love them dearly. I respect them. How do I reconcile this love with this hatred? It is not easy! It is a challenging, complicated spiritual-emotional task. A key to this reconciliation is given by Jesus from the cross: "They know not what they do." Those I love clearly do not intend the destruction if the Innocents, the break-up of the family, and the dissolution of Catholic social action as we have known it. Their conscious, deliberate intention is to help the poor and needy. So, at the deeper level of intent, we are in union. I deliberately dwell in this communion. Nevertheless, objectively, formally and structurally, they collaborate directly with the politics of death. I see that they do so out of ignorance: like one under hypnosis or in a psychotic state. I assume that this ignorance is invincible...or virtually so. Their judgment is clouded by a most complex web of prejudice, indoctrination, and rash judgement. They are carried along, unawares, by a liberal consensus in which they ardently believe...the way a Nazi sincerely defended Country and Tradition and a KKK lynch mob protected its virtuous women. And so I see that family and friends are innocent subjectively, but complicit and guilty objectively. They, of course, see me in a similar way: I have been misled by reactionary, right-wing views. A second thought that is helpful is to keep in mind the prudential, positional, ambivalent nature of political views. Practical matters involve a universe of circumstances and conditions and give rise to varied opinions among the the most-informed and best-intended. Therefore, generally, political judgments are best if held in a tentative, non-ideological manner. The problem, however, is that issues of life, family and liberty are far more profound and decisive than issues like capital gains tax, immigration policy or what we do in Syria or Iraq or Iran. And so, I do my best to keep a sense of humility, tentativeness and openness...even as I pledge my total allegiance to the unborn, weak and elderly, to the sanctity of traditional marriage, and to freedom of religion. Lastly, I realize the limited nature of politics: most of life is NOT politics. For example, in my current work involving a residence for low-income, special-needs women, most of my collaborators are Democrats. We do not talk about or think about that arena. We happily conspire in the doing of good deeds. We enjoy peace and agreement to a remarkable degree. We dwell upon the deeper, broader things upon which we agree. And I do not focus on, but I cannot deny, the wound, the grief, that is best if not spoken.

Financial Psychology: Hysteria of Scarcity and the Exuberance of Extravagance

As we begin Holy Week, we have the embarrassingly extravagant, affectionate Mary anointing the feet of Jesus with a costly perfume and that stingy cheapskate Judas moaning about the "waste" of money. The contrast could hardly be sharper: overflowing, joyous generosity versus anxious, resentful complaining. The "Hysteria of Scarcity" is all around us. In our residence for women, for example, one lady worries constantly that we will run out of toilet paper. Another calls me to pick up milk even when we have four gallons in the refrigerator. Another over-fills her plate and later throws most of it away because she worries that someone she dislikes will get more than her. We see it more broadly in politics. On the right, we hear groaning about people who use food stamps for junk food and breast-beating about the deficit. On the left, we find envious obsession about the one percent and the growing inequality gap. To be sure, the long-term redistribution of wealth in favor of the obscenely wealth and the national debt we are leaving our grandchildren are both legitimate concerns; but isn't it strange that generally those who lament the one dismiss the other? A follower of Jesus knows only the boundless, excessive super-abundance of God and His Kingdom. There is ALWAYS plenty to share and tons left over. But this fullness comes in the costume of simplicity and frugality: consider the Eucharist...tiny, thin, tasteless, quiet, gentle, Divine! The one who feasts at this infinitely nutritious and delicious Banquet can only rejoice, give thanks, and share with others. Do not confuse this Cult of Plenty, disguised as austerity, with the counterfeit gospel of prosperity with its consumerist, materialist individualism. The Eucharistic Cult of Generosity is like the billionaire who doesn't look like one: dressed shabbily in worn-out jeans, he has hardly any cash in his pocket. His wealth is hidden in real estate and stocks. And so, the Catholic may be unimpressive to the exterior eye, but he feasts on and shares the Bread of Life.

The Cultural Underpinnings of Same-sex Marriage

The crusade for gay marriage will continue its virulent, triumphant march through the elite circles of law, entertainment, politics and academy because it is supported by four deep-seated, unquestioned cultural values or dogmas which are themselves even more toxic than the sterile, infectious acts they sanctify: the romantic myth of the "lover who will make me whole;" the separation of sex and new life; the deconstruction of gender; and individualism. The first, strongest, most influential and misleading myth is "there is another person, a romantic partner, a lover who will make me whole." Anyone who is really married should laugh at this powerful and pervasive deception, but instead we cling desperately to the belief; we long relentlessly for the perfect love object; and we wander, like Mickey Rooney and his 8 wives (may he rest in peace), in a fog of serial infidelity. And so, the logic determines, if I as a man can seek my happiness in the arms of my female "soul partner" (surely the stupidest concept imaginable!), why cannot a man find happiness with a man? The second secular dogma that cannot be questioned is the separation of sex, love and fertility that was definitively established by the immediate and complete cultural take-over by contraception in the 1960s. This disastrous divorce condemns sex to sadness, purposelessness and despair. But equal opportunity demands that if men and women can misuse each other in this way, why can't men do the same with men and women with women? The third cultural force is the deconstruction of masculinity and femininity. Increasingly and tragically, our young especially males, are incapable of seeing the form, the gestalt, the interiority of virility as fraternal, generous, paternal, chaste, courageous and heroic or that of femininity as virginal, fresh, receptive, loving, bridal and maternal. If you do not see this, I cannot help you! If you cannot see this, the deepest joy, thrill and purpose of human sexuality are all lost. If you cannot see this, then of course you think that men can marry men. Lastly, the religion of the USA, especially the young, is individualism. We see an emergent economic, diplomatic libertarianism of right and a corresponding sexual liberalism of the left infecting our young. Rick Warren, in his best-seller, recognized this when he started it with: "It is not about you." And so, gay militance is being carried by a perect storm, a tsunami of cultural confusion. But it will only progress so far before it hits a wall. The Church and common sense are clear about the toxicity of this way of life. Eventually the facts will emerge and science will catch up with faith and the intuitions of the ordinary citizen. In the meantime, Russia's tyrant Putin has unexpectedly positioned himself as the world's champion on behalf of traditional marriage against the corruption of the West. He has the entire continent of Africa and most of the world with him. In the long run, this infatuation with sterile sex will be a blip of insanity in the flow of history. We are losing in the short term. We cannot lose in the end.

The Butler

The Butler, propelled by the dazzling performances of Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey, is a rich, engaging, insightful, nuanced, complex and evocative film that eventually disappoints as it resolves its dramatic and personal tension in a surrender to simplistic, stereotypical political ideology. It is based, loosely, on the story of a real butler who served eight US presidents. The primal intuition of the film is the sterling character and integrity of this butler and the miraculous manner in which he transcends and transforms his subservient position by his quiet dignity, humility, industry, and loyalty. Additionally, he is a faithful and devoted husband and father. The dramatic action springs from his relationship with his son who is coming of age in the 1960s as a militant civil rights activist and is ashamed of his father’s submissive profession. The film poignantly portrays the excruciating break that occurred between fathers (the WWII generation) and their sons (the “boomers”) in that distressing period. The film brilliantly balances the protagonist and antagonist as the viewer respects and sympathizes with both positions: the butler is flawlessly admirable and charming even as the young man is surely justified in his rage at the system. Throughout the film, both sides of the argument are held in a delicate, provocative tension. In a key interchange, the son shows that he is ashamed about his father’s work and he is corrected by his mentor, a civil rights leader, who says that domestic servants are actually subversive rather than subservient in that they undermine the stereotype by their work ethic, loyalty, and moral integrity. This, I take, to be the key to the movie. A secondary plot is his relationship with his wife, played superlatively by Oprah, who is drifting into boredom, resentment, alcoholism and adultery until her unexpected and inexplicable awakening to sobriety and to the value of her extraordinary husband. It is only at the very end of the movie that we see the couple preparing for Church and sharing the Bible but her change of heart is unintelligible without something like a 12-step engagement or an evangelical conversion. The portrayal of the presidents is remarkable in that there were zero attempts at physical similarity. They are humanized, even as their residual racism is highlighted. And the Republicans, although on the “wrong side” of civil rights, are presented nicely: Reagan is shown in gestures of anonymous generosity and Nixon is surely smiling (from purgatory, I imagine) as he is so much more handsome, charming and “cool” than the movie’s JFK. (So much for historical accuracy!) Most of the movie is entirely fictional. For example, the historical butler had one, not two sons, and he was not a militant activist. More troubling, however, was the fabricated beginning of the film in which the protagonist, as a young boy, witnesses the rape of his mother by a white psychopath, the murder of his father, and the passivity of many plantation workers who stand by and watch the atrocity. The incident was overdone, melodramatic and offensive. But the conflict between the angry activism of the son and the deferential humility of the father captured the anguish of that time and deeper spiritual issues involving injustice, anger and submission. This is, however, where the film finally disappoints. The butler comes around, eventually, to embrace the civil rights movement as he joins his son in picketing against apartheid in South Africa and then weeps with elation at the election of Obama. The plot line is, then simple…it is one I myself learned very clearly in a Catholic high school around 1964: racism, as in the South, is bad; civil rights are good. However, the moral values, the nuance, the complexity on the personal level that was so brilliantly portrayed by the actors is waved away in political simplicity and stereotype. I would suggest that the moral values so passionately enacted by the butler are precisely those that have been disparaged, on the political or public level, by the civil rights movement and political liberalism in general in the years since King’s death. The butler was: humble, hard-working, responsible, chaste, faithful to his wife, loyal to his employers, self-reliant, respectful of authority, patient, manly, paternal and religious. By contrast, the civil rights movement went on to prostitute itself by adultery with a political liberalism defined by: abortion rights, sexual permissiveness, rejection of parental rights (vouchers, credits) in education, a culture of entitlement, and an ethos of “victimhood.” The film ends on the note of Obama-adoration without the slightest clue that the butler, as portrayed here, might not weep with elation at the consequences of political liberalism: serial abortions, single mothers stuck in poverty, the break-up of the family.

Love as Delight

The essence, the heart, the form of Love is Delight. Love is one...it is Delight...but it is also manifold, rich, expansive. It is also: gratitude, trust, respect, attraction, donation,companionship,fruitfulness and care. These eight moments are suggestive rather than exclusive or conclusive but entail the filial (gratitude, trust, respect), the companionable (companionship), the spousal (attraction, donation) and the generative (fruitfulness and care.)Every particular love is singular and distinctive: it flows from delight but gathers these eight moments into a unique gestalt. Delight here is understood as communion...intellectual, volitional and emotional...with the other in approval and celebration. The mysterious, profound, radiant "goodness" of the beloved is received, experienced, internalized, proclaimed and enhanced...the beloved is "glorified." The filial structure of gratitude is fundamental: the beloved is manifest to the lover unexpectedly, gratuitously, unnecessarily, uselessly and generously. The filial posture of trust is essential: to be in love is to be safe, comforted, hopeful and free to be genuine, spontaneous, decisive and active. The filial attitude of respect is primal: the beloved is received as worthy, awesome, fascinating, tremendous and holy. Attraction, so pronounced in romantic love, has two faces: in the creature, afflicted with sin, is flows from limitation, lack, privation, and need; but God's attraction to us is different, He desires and comes in search of us out of plenitude, not lack. And so, human desire can spring from the two fountains, one empty and one full. Companionship or partnership means that the lovers always look beyond each other to a shared task, interest, mission, or purpose. The two do not close in upon themselves but open up to a third in a trinitarian manner. Love between the two outflows to a third, always. This reaches a new depth and intensity with the fruitfulness of intimacy, quintessentially in the conception of a new child but analogously in other manners of fecundity. The donative or generous impulse is the marvelous drive to give to the beloved: the mother who breastfeeds, the groom on their wedding night, the child who draws a picture for a grandparent. Care is the tender, cherishing and protective response to the fragility, preciousness and vulnerability of the beloved. The Madonna with Child is the most paradigmatic expression of this. As creatures, we could never care for an infinite, invulnerable God had he not become a helpless infant and gone on to suffer and die for us. This is why a believer never tires of contemplating the crib and the crucifix. Finally, underlying and infusing delight and the accompanying eight moments of love is the most significant: every genuine love (friendship, romance, family) comes from and moves to God. To love, even slightly or momentarily, is to taste heaven. Love conquers death. Love transcends and transforms time and space. Love inspires the flesh but moves beyond it in a vow and surrender that can only find fulfillment in eternity.

"The Yellow Stream" by I. P. Standing

It may be 4th grade bathroom humor, but I still love that book title and author. Probably because of my memory. It is a marvelous memory: deep, strong, indelible and defining of my identity. I am unsure if it happened once or frequently. It doesn't matter. I don't know how we fit; our bathroom was so tight. This is it: my Dad, myself (age 7 maybe) and my little brother John (age 3 or so) are standing around the toilet, urinating in unison. Similarity and contrast: each of us is clear, firm and accurate in the aim of our streams at the target water; the sound of stream hitting water is music to the ear; my own is modest in comparison with the long, strong force of my Dad's; but substantial in relation to the miniature, tiny dimensions of my brother's. I sense the perfect harmony, hierarchy and order of the world. I am in my own place, which is smaller in one direction but larger in another. I am comforted and elated to be in the shadow of...and imitative of, reflective of, participative in...one so large, good and strong. I feel tender and dear to the other one who is precious and small. I sense my...our masculinity...in a non-conceptual, intuitive manner...as good, worthy, orderly, strong and purposeful. "Man and Woman He created us, in His own image He created us." Some things that are humble, physical and seemingly trivial, distinguish and define us. Only a woman can conceive, carry and give birth. Only a woman can give suck. Only a woman can, fruitfully and honorably, receive the seed of life from Another. Likewise, only a man undergoes an erection, which is: fickle, unpredictable, self-willed, irrepressible, excruciatingly embarrassing, exhilarating, frustrating and not entirely reliable. An erection is at once an icon of our Godliness, our power to love and give life, and our creatureliness and woundedness, as foolish, silly, uncontrollable and ridiculous. Likewise, only a man can urinate in unison with Dad and brother. Such a humble act, done in communion and reverent emulation, is in its own way an image of the Trinity. This is said with all respect for ANALOGY, the similarity is within a far greater dissimilarity. We know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not urinate in unison. But we can be sure that Jesus did with St. Joseph...and he surely enjoyed it...and that is significant!

Discontinuity Within a Greater Continuity

Pope Benedict gave us the exact key in which to understand the event of the Vatican II Council: "discontinuity within a greater continuity." This is a key to more than that council: it is the key to Church history and indeed Salvation History. The "greater continuity" is God's love, his covenant with Abraham that was renewed and enhanced with Moses, David and then fulfilled in Christ. The Church is in the habit of praying the canticle of Zechariah in the morning and the Magnificat of Mary in the evening. Each announces a surprising fulfillment of the earlier promise: a startling, serendipitous climax that perfectly accomplishes the earlier promise. "This was the oath that he swore to our father Abraham" and "he has come to the aid of Israel his servant, being mindful of his covenant, the promise that he made to Abraham and to his seed forever." There is a seamless coherence in God's work even as it is, every day, new, startling, and thrilling. So, our "maverick" new pope can only be understood as standing upon his two predecessors; who were themselves really a single-if-dual pontificate; as they emulated and developed the work of John and Paul; who were already rooted in Pius XII; and so forth. What a splendid Mystery is the Church: steady, rooted, eternal; and yet ever fresh, new and original!

Our Pope's Anger Problem

I am unaccustomed to so much negative energy from a pope. He is mad at capitalists, monsignors, pious people who count their rosaries for spiritual bouquets, cardinals who have chauffers instead of taking the bus, and people obsessed with culture war issues. He has quite a chip on his shoulder. Maybe it is his background: he comes from a Latin society that is prone to violence and extreme class consciousness and he was probably wounded, in his heart and soul, but that horrific Argentinian civil war. My problem, though, is that he has gotten my goat: I am mad that he is so mad. I am annoyed that he is harsh, moralistic and dismissive. I need to be patient with myself and with him, with my anger and with his. But more importantly, I need to surrender more deeply, every day and every hour, to the unfathomable positivity of the love of Christ, to the reality of eternal life, of the boundless steam of mercy. Have mercy upon us, Lord: Have mercy upon this pontiff, poor sinner that he is; have mercy upon me, a sinner in desperate need of you!

I Am Not Trustworthy, But My Network Is!

David DeSteno, psychologist writing in the Jan 19, 2014 "Sunday Review" of the NY Times, has it right: the self is NOT to be trusted. I cannot trust myself because my present-self is different from my future-self. For example, the resolution of my Sunday-morning-self to drink less the following Saturday night may be irrelevant to my Saturday-night-self. The self is fickle, volatile and entirely unreliable...even for those who appear to be stable and steady. What is the solution? Relationship!...and relationships...actually, a network of relationships. As a believer, my salvation is in my personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus Christ. But today I am thinking about the broader network of relationships, of which he is the foundation. A man is as good, as strong, as reliable as his NETWORK of relationships. It is this network that supports, encourages, heals, corrects, protects, guides, invigorates, inspires and shelters me. And so...If you see me as good, reliable, trustworthy...it is not due to qualities that inhere in me. It is because I am well connected with many good relationships and so I am constantly being refreshed and restored in goodness and truth. I am blessed with an awesome network: spouse and family, friendships, work connections. I am protected by a spiritual director, a (12-step-type of) sponsor, confession weekly, daily mass and adoration, and the entire sacramental network of the Catholic Church. I brag brazenly of my network. Every day I pray: "Make me trustworthy, as I place all my trust in you." I might add: "Make me trustworthy as I trust in these marvelous relationships!"

Our Brown World

In Jersey City, where I live, whites are a minority of 21% (we were about 70% when I immigrated here from Essex County in 1971), blacks (Afro-Americans) are a minority of 25%, the majority are various shades of brown (Asian, Hispanic, Arabic, and so forth.) We live in a Brown World. The black/white model no longer applies. It is all complicated, nuanced, rich, deep and fascinating. Consider: In the USA, those who inherit the genes and culture of Southern slaves are entirely different from the darker peoples who come here directly from Africa or the islands. Our current president is NOT Afro-American: his mother was a white, cosmopolitan, secular anthropologist; his father a leftist, polygamist African...that comes out to some kind of brown. George Zimmerman is not white: he would never have been admitted to a standard, racist, elite white country club. Many Afro-Americans, who in Haiti would be "whites," are actually brown...beautifully so...think Halle Berry! It is a rich, variegated, dense world we live in. The Al Sharptons of the world need to wake up, get with the times, snap out of the "racism obsession" and smell the flowers.

Invigorated, Refreshed, Enchanted, Rejuvenated...in INNOCENCE

"Loss of Innocence" read the movie poster, the words superimposed on a vague image of a gorgeous young couple in physical intimacy. Immediately, efficaciously, the image produced its intended effect: I was inflamed within by a desire to see this movie and become lost in a fantasy of alluring, passionate, illicit sexual love. A second later I thought: Wait a minute! Innocence is a good and beautiful thing! Loss of innocence...as in sin...is ugly, depressing, dreary, tired, toxic and sickly. This poster is a romantic illusion...a falsehood...but what an alluring, powerful one!!! Innocence is fresh, pure, delightful, new, hopeful,fruitful and energetic. To be alive in Christ is to be ever-refreshingly invigorated, encouraged and rejuvenated in Innocence. Every genuine act of prayer, contrition, forgiveness, generosity and piety is an event of novelty, surprise, and renewal. Such a life is an unending adventure of romance, excitement and serendipity! We have lost our innocence...but not completely. The innocence of original creation was weakened and wounded by the first sin in the garden, but not destroyed...is survives, and awaits revival. Our baptismal innocence is corrupted and weakened by every single sin, but for many of us is not annihilated, but endures, sick and impoverished, awaiting renewal. Life in Christ...communion with Him in sacrament, prayer, and companionship...is the never-ending and ever-new drama of refreshment and transformation in innocence. Our Lady is the epitome of such purity and youth...she is "younger than sin"...a fount of energy and fecundity. In union with our Vine and through the influence of our Mother, let us grow each day in innocence!

Is Pope Francis Anti-clerical?

Pope Benedict was quintessentially clerical, in the very best sense; Pope John Paul II was non-clerical, to his credit; and Pope Francis is anti-clerical, in a mostly helpful way. Let me explain: "clericalism" as I am using the term refers to the dense, complex, multi-valued culture that arises inevitably when we have a special group, a caste, set aside for special purposes with extraordinary powers, status and responsibilities. I am using it in an objective, anthropological sense: without immediate moral judgment...it is not necessarily good or bad, but is a sociological, organizational fact. As Catholics, we see that our priests are invested with greater than special or even super powers, they have supernatural power: they forgive sin and feed us the bread of eternal life, in the Word and in the Flesh. They are specially chosen: must be intelligent, male, psychologically healthy, morally exemplary and capable of providing intellectual-spiritual leadership. They receive an extended education in a protected, specialized environment. They receive immense reverence from the faithful because of who they represent (Christ himself) and what they do (give us eternal life.) And so, Catholicism essentially entails a distinctive clerical caste, culture, garb, education, and complex system of abilities, virtues, and attitudes. Fundamentally,since it is essential for the Church, clericalism is a good thing. But like all such good but human things (democracy, capitalism, marriage, government, and patriarch-properly-understood), it is subject to abuse and corruption. And so we have a negative type of clericalism: arrogance, distance from the laity, misogyny, formalism, moralism, and so forth. This, of course, breeds a reactive anti-clericalism, which is not necessarily a bad thing. A certain lighthearted, mellow, affectionate anti-clericalism is necessary for a wholesome Catholic life as it corrects and balances the tendency to treat our priests as privileged princes. When I was studying in a college-seminary, a wise man warned me that the laity systematically spoil seminarians and priests by treating them with unusual respect and engendering a quiet, unrecognized pride and arrogance. I was being innoculated with a mild, salutary "anti-clericalism" in order to strengthen in me a more humble priestly identity: it is not me, but Christ in me! I recommend that we view our new pontiff in this light: he has a personal allergy to clerical privilege, careerism, and arrogance; he has an urgent longing to be close to the poor, the alienated, the lost sheep. As a Jesuit, he is already steeped in a non-clerical, if not anti-clerical, tradition: Ignatius did not want his disciples to climb a career ladder into the hierarchy; Jesuits endure an extended time of formation, education and ministry, specifically as Jesuits, long before they are ordained. Their charism involves a muted anti-clericalism which is meant to enhance their priesthood, as a service to the baptized by de-emphasizing the caste dimension. A similar dynamic is at work in a group like the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal who embrace a blatantly, even aggressively religious and evangelical identity with priesthood a option to be considered later. The Jesuits develop, of course, their own elite, intellectual caste which is a clericalism of another sort. The liberal theology that flourished in the university and seminary after the Council entailed a hostile anti-clericalism, as the efficacy of sacrament and word was disparaged; but ironically, it was displaced by counterfeit, corrupted clericalism as priests assumed roles as self-designated "prophets" in regard to social justice and psychology became invested with salvific powers. The sexual abuses by priests were not rooted in clericalism, but in the weakness of the flesh, the sexual revolution, and the lies of Satan. But the cover-up by the bishops and their collaborators was, for many, more scandalous that the actual abuses. This scandal is rooted in clericalism: an anxiety for the reputation of the institutional Church, an exaggerated loyalty to fellow clerics, a distance from and distrust of the victims and their families, a failure to realistically evaluate the evil in clerical circles, and a failure of humility and contrition. Recent developments in our clerical culture are complex; there is a return to the sacramental, and a retreat from the political-psychological secular clericalism; later vocations mean priests with better developed personal identities already as adult laymen and therefore less vulnerable to immature types of clericalism; aspirants generally have a "thicker" appreciation of Catholicism in its counter-cultural aspects and are therefore more clerical in the classic Catholic sense; the scandal has depleted the Catholic priesthood of social status, has humiliated it and hopefully humbled it. Which brings us back to our three prototypical popes. John Paul was larger than clericalism. His identity was formed as an actor, a nationalist, a poet, a scholar, a culture-warrior, a mystic, and an activist...before his priesthood. Even his seminary training took place in hiding in Nazi-occupied Poland: hardly a cozy place of clerical privilege. He was a leader, a saint, a hero, a titan of a man...and miraculously transcended both clericalism and anti-clericalsm. Benedict, by contrast, is clerical from head to toe, in a most beautiful and exemplary way: he dresses, speaks, prays and lives a most priestly life. He does this with a most quiet humility...in contrast to the vaunted humility of Francis which is, in contrast, showy, aggressive, harsh, cocky and judgmental. His taste is classical, refined, baroque and a masterful blend of high culture, erudition and holiness. Francis is different. (Note: I have shifted to a "first-name" basis, expressing my own non-clericalism!) His is an almost Maoist identification with the poor and a hatred for privilege: in the clergy, in capitalists, and in cultural warriors who come across as preachy, superior, and moralistic. This can all be disheartening for our priests, hard working entrepreneurs, and champions of marriage and the unborn. But I prefer to take it in a more positive light: as a correction of our inevitable tendencies to pride; as a purification; as a call to humility. Let us all...priests, conservatives, businessmen...enter our plea: "We are guilty as charged, as charged by our scrutinizing pope!!! We are not humble, not in love with the poor, not generous enough!!!We repent!!!" If we place the three pontiffs in union with each other...in a hermeneutic of continuity...we see Catholic clericalism in all its mystery, depth and richness...its sinfulness and weakness, its splendor and truth, and its transcendence, sanctification and illumination by the humble high priest, our Lord Jesus Christ.