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.