The Emergent Femininity

Divergent gave us Tris and the Hunger games Katnis and now the Star Wars galaxy, up to now entirely dominated by masculine Jedi and Sith, gives us Rey, an intuitive, invincible, natural and effortless female Jedi. Each is more noble, selfless, powerful, intelligent and brave than anyone in their respective universes. Each is a “perfect creature.” I am enamored, delighted, captivated! I would like my granddaughters to emulate them… I think. But there are problems. Big problems for us men especially! What is the place and purpose of us men in a world that gives birth to such feminine/masculine perfection in a single woman? Such a woman does not need a man. She is a perfect creature (Is such possible?) And by comparison, all the men in these films are weak and insignificant…at best. Unhappily, our cinema is reflecting the emergent ethos of our age: women are surpassing men in the important arenas (which do NOT include salary) and masculinity is in decline. Men, particularly young men, are discouraged, indecisive, and bereft of confidence and purpose. A second problem with this model of femininity is that it is unrealistic. In real life, excluding some supernatural intervention (St. Joan of Arc), the decision in favor martial fierceness almost certainly will harm or diminish the distinctive virtues that constitute real feminine strength: sensitivity, compassion, receptivity, humility. Let’s face it: for real flesh-and-blood women it is virtually if not absolutely impossible to combine the ferocity with the tenderness of a Tris, a Katnis or a Rey. Consider real life warriors like Hilary Clinton or Carly Fiorino: they equal men in assertiveness but they lose something mysterious and indescribable in the deal. Lastly, and most significantly, there is a most profound ontological problem with such womanly perfection: such a heroine is independently strong and good; she does not need a man but she doesn’t really even need God. Let us contrast this emergent model with the one creature who was perfect, perfectly feminine, which is to say perfectly strong in her humility, receptivity, gratitude, dependency, compassion, trust, vulnerability and generosity. Mary depended entirely, not on herself, but on her heavenly Father. She needed a man, Joseph, to protect and provide. She subordinated herself to a man: her Son. Her real strength was in relationship! This gives us a key to a new and refreshing model of femininity and masculinity: relationship! We men are desperately in need of a new vision of masculinity as we cannot return to the imitation of John Wayne! We are made for each other…to serve each other…to receive from each other. Even before sin we were created, male and female, to need each other, to equally give and receive, to own our particular strengths and weaknesses, and to be in relationship! And, so we can enjoy Katnis, Rey and Tris as harmless, entertaining fantasy, but this model is as empty as male fantasies like James Bond or Jason Bourne. The reality is that we are made, male and female, to be in a relationship of dependency, vulnerability, generosity and receptivity…with each other and with God….just like our Blessed Mother.

Our Eccentric Pope

Pope Francis is an eccentric. I like eccentrics and always have.But I don't like an eccentric as Pope. They are interesting; they are off-center but often insightful and passionate in an unusual way; they are prophetic, artistic, surprising; they offer a clear window into some mystery of life even as they do not get the whole picture. Many of my dearest friends have been eccentrics. From my youth I was drawn to extremist, fascinating characters (e.g.Ivan Illich) who immensely enriched my world and broadened my intellectual vision. But an eccentric really can't be pope because the pope has to be "catholic" as inclusive of the big picture, spiritual father to all of us, and privileged teacher of the Faith and the Truth in its entirety. Traditionally a pope buries his individuality to represent the Church. John Paul II, blessed with an extraodinarilly deep and rich personality happily broke that mode and infused his pontificate with all the personal gifts he had received from the Holy Spirit. He was not even slightly eccentric but perfectly centered in the love and truth of Christ and infused EVERYTHING he touched with the gentle but powerful Wisdom from on high. Francis is not so blessed. Yet he is immodest and unrestrained in bringing his own imbalances into the exercise of his office: he loves the poor but hates the rich; he sees all the problems with capitalism but none of the strengths; he is a man of prayer but disparaging of traditions of solemn worship (the Latin mass); he extols Mercy but is viciously condemnatory of those he sees as powerful, indifferent, arrogant, moralistic (but who these are is not clear; they seem to be a figment of his rich imagination.) His homilies are creative, provocative, challenging and entertaining; but he lacks clarity, precision, depth and nuance. He is viciously contemptuous and judgmental of what he views as clerical privilege. He is passionate in his anti-moralism but becomes emotional and personal in his own form of moralism. He is strangely inarticulate about the gospel of chastity and marital fidelity which is the genuine key to happiness and holiness for all of us, rich and poor. He is father to those on the margins, but he has left many of us abandoned, fatherless, orphaned...sheep without a shepherd. Those of us who love John Paul's Theology of the Body or the Latin mass or the fruitfulness of free markets or the honors and pomp of the Church...many of us who most love the Church feel there is no one at the rudder of the Church. What are to do? That's easy! Renew are awareness that we are all of us, from the Pope on down, sinners...desperately in need of the Mercy of Christ. And Francis is solidly on board with that! We have to forgive him his failings, love him as a person, and renew our loyalty to him as our Vicar of Christ. We need to dig more and more deeply into the precious theological legacy of the dual-pontificate of John Paul and Benedict. We need to let ourselves be fed by those bishops and priests who get the big picture. And we need to let ourselves be inspired by Francis in his eccentricity, in his strength, in his passion to bring Christ's Mercy to those at the margins. And in this Year of Mercy, we need to be merciful to our weak, fallible (except you know when), endearing, disappointing and inspiring Papa!

What Constitutes the Church?

What Constitutes the Church? In his customarily creative, intuitive, suggestive, provocative but vague and confusing fashion, Pope Francis last week spoke of “synodicality” as constitutive of the Church. The suggestion seems unhelpful to me as it is tied to a limited, juridical institution, the synod. A broader, deeper concept is that of “collegiality” which properly understood is far broader and deeper than the judicial structures of the synod or even the hierarchy but derives from the “communio” reality of union with the Trinity in Christ as it permeates every reality of ecclesial and human existence: the family and sexuality, friendship, economics, politics and culture as well as the visible, sacramental Church. But his comment did provoke me to wonder: What does constitute the Church? The Church, bride of Christ, is constituted by the Bridegroom’s loving action upon herself. But this infinitely dense, profound, fecund and symphonic mystery has several dimensions, dynamics, currents or movements that cannot be separated because they mutually infuse each other but can be distinguished so we can marvel with clarity of vision at the SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH. Seven such currents are clear: four are primary or fundamental in that they will continue after this life and history itself into eternity; three are essential but secondary in that they will disappear with this life and this world. The primary movements that create the Church in the love of Christ are: the work of the Holy Spirit (pneumatic); the Word of God which is the person and event of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, as infallibly articulated in Scripture and Tradition within the Church (evangelical); the life of worship and prayer (the liturgical); the holiness of life perfectly expressed in the body and soul of Mary and those in communion with her, especially the consecrated (Marian); and the community of love in all its fecundity, richness and variety (Johannine) as evident in family, ecclesial community, friendship and all wholesome, holy expressions of human communion. The three movements which are essential in this life but temporary are: office or hierarchy, sinfulness and consequent contrition/repentance and pardon/mercy, the missionary impulse and concrete actions of mercy. The hierarchical Church will prevail until the end of history; but not afterwards. It is infallible in teaching and efficacious in the sacramental bestowal of sanctifying grace, but is subservient to and expressive of the pneumatic, evangelical, marian and johaninne. Likewise sinfulness pervades every human dimension of the Church: each person, community and institution including the Pope and the holiest among us. And so, confession, repentance and reparation as well as forgiveness and patience (with self as well as others) is constitutive of the Church in time, but not in eternity. And so also with the missionary and agapic or active dimension of the Church: it defines the Church in history, in flesh and time, but not in heaven. There is a temptation to elevate these three subordinate, if definitive, but penultimate dimensions to a position of dominance over the higher four. The result can be clericalism (office), activism (mission and works of charity), and pessimism (a Calvinist or Jansenist obsession with sin). This understanding of the dynamics of movements infusing the Church incorporates the breath and catholicity evidence by the "models" approach of Cardinal Dulles while overcoming that approach's extrinsic, Kantian tendency to define the dynamics against each other rather than indwelling each other mutually. Finally, we might see that the Church of history is quintessentially constituted by the Eucharist in which Christ's conjugal love for His bride, at once spiritual and physical, temporal and eternal, perfectly expresses every dimension: the pneumatic, the evangelical, the liturgical, the marian, the hierarchical, the penitential/confessional, the missional/activist.

One and a Half Cheers for Free Markets; One and a Half Cheers for Government

In an insightful piece cleverly titled "Two Cheers for Capitalism" (NY Times, Friday, July 31, 2015), David Brooks identifies the emerging left/right debate: the former moving beyond re-distribution and enhanced social services to a deeper critique of the inequality and irrationality of unchecked capitalism while the later remains enamored of the vitality of market freedom and the deadening effect of state control. Locating myself just to the left of Brooks and dead center on the political spectrum, I give one and a half cheers for both the free market and the state: both have vitality and purpose; both are inclined to disfunction. Both have become too large and complicated; both are cancerous in their over-growth; both need to be viewed with a delicate balance of confidence and skepticism.

List of the Greatest Saints

Who are the greatest saints? Is this a stupid question? I think not; I think it is interesting and worth pondering! The Church does not rank its saints but it doesn't prevent me from doing so. So here goes: 1. Excepting our Blessed Mother who is exceptional as Queen of Angels and Saints, primacy of place must go to St. Joseph because of his intimacy with Jesus and Mary. This is an easy choice! 2. John the Baptist is my number 2 even though Jesus said he is less then the least in the Kingdom of God. We know Jesus had a habit of exagerating things to make a point. John was cousin of Jesus and since Jesus had no siblings, he must have really loved his cousin; he was the first believer (after Mary of course) with his leap of Joy; he was the culmination of the Old Testament; the first celibate, first martyr, last prophet; he is an icon of Joy, austerity, penance, courage, and truthfulness. He is unique and unequaled. And he was not worthy to lace the sandals of his Lord! 3. Next we must go with Peter, Paul, John and the Apostles who are the foundation of the Church. Peter and Paul are favorites also because their sins were so blatant; John for the opposite reason that he was so close to Jesus, even at the cross, in his innocence. 4. John draws us back to those who prepared the way and first place here goes to Moses, the meekest man on earth, the one who spoke face-to-face with God. Second here is Abraham, father of our faith. And third I go with Elijah who stands for all the prophets as he did at the Transfiguration. 5. King David has a special place of honor because he was such a blatant sinner, especially with women. But his repentance (Psalm 51) was so fervent, his Joy and Loyalty so fierce, that he is a favorite. He is surely a patron saint for those of us who struggle with chastity! 6. Now it gets more subjective and difficult. I am going with Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas because they were holy and wise and their teaching is the basis for what we believe, at least in the Western Church. (I show my intellectualist bias here!) 7. Next I see those handful that received such a strong charism that it still flourishes through the centuries in religious orders: Saints Francis, Benedict, Dominic and Ignatius are prominent among them. 8. Eigth place goes to the great and extraordinary mystics: St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Theresa of Lisieux. 9. Ninth place goes to a select group who manifested holiness, a striking mission/charism, and an appealing humanity: St. Fancis deSales, St.John Bosco, St. John Vianney, St. Vincent De Paul, Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, and St. John Paul II. 10. Tenth place goes to all martyrs who consciously accept torture and death for their faith in Christ. Within that large group, however, pride of place goes to virgin martyrs who gave their femininity in spousal intimacy and surrendered their bodily selves doubly, in consecration and in death. 11. My next choice may be controversial: those Christian, non-Catholic martyrs who were violated by the Catholic Church. For example, we Catholic honor the martyrs in Elizabethan England but in that era the Church also persecuted holy Protestants so we need to grieve and honor them in awareness of the fallibility of the Church in her human dimension. 12. Lastly I will honor all Jews who were killed for their Jewishness because I see in this their identification with the Crucified Jew, even if they were not conscious of this identification. Queen of this group, of course, is St. Theresa Benedicata of the Cross, who was a Jew (agnostic for much of her life), a virgin, a doctor of the Church, and a martyr. She has a very, very, very special place. She is also a leader of the contingent of holy 20th century women: St. Faustina, St.Maria Goretti, Dorothy Day, Mother Theresa, Catherine Dougherty, Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, Elizabeth Eliot, and Adrienne von Speyr! This list is, of course, intended to be playful and provocative and invites response: who have I ignored, underrated, overrated?

Four Loves: Another Version

I have long found C.S. Lewis's famous four loves (affection, friendship, agape and eros) a rich source of illumination into the unfathomable, inexhaustible and fascinating Mystery of Love. Lately, however, I have been considering a different model, rooted in the logos or structure of the family, which always entails four quite distinct, if interrelated loves: filial, paternal/maternal, fraternal-sororial, and spousal. For us as creatures, the primal love is filial: receptive, trusting, respectful, obedient and grateful. This is the love of child for father and mother, and of course for God. It is love as needy, poor, endearing and precious. This love, also known as piety or pietas, expresses itself as loyalty and affection to country, Church, family, the boss, older friends and siblings, priests and a variety of superiors and communities. The obverse of this love is paternal or maternal love as: generous, delighted, nurturing, protective, and tender. This is love as gentle strength. It finds expression far beyond biological parenthood in a myriad of spiritual, emotional and social relationships: boss, teacher, coach, priest, leader, and so forth. This love can be understood as a fusion of elements of what Lewis called affection and agape. Fraternal love is thelove of equals, brothers and sisters, who share the bond of blood and family, and cooperate and compete with each other accordingly. Normally, of course, one sibling is older and therefore a filial and parental dimension presents itself. But this love is essentially "philia" or friendship as understood by Lewis and entails a sharing of interests, values, and intentions and essentially an equality of status before the shared good. Lastly, spousal love as the love of husband and wife includes but is not exhausted by eros, desire for intimate union with the beloved. Spousal love, alone among these familial loves, includes sexual communion, but is much more also. As faithful and loyal love it is informed by agape as sacrificial and generous love. Spousal love is at once agape and eros: without agape it is fickle and self-destructing, without eros is becomes dry, sterile and joyless. Every love relationship is a mix of all four in an infinitely delightful diversity of surprise and delight. For example, the spousal relationship needs to be friendship more than eros, but at times either husband or wife properly become filial or parental towards the other. Likewise, every rich and thrilling friendship will partake, at times, of the filial, parental or spousal. Clearly, however there is an abiding structure to the family as it arises (as God intended) from the sexual union of the spouses and all other relationships are preserved in uncompromising chastity. These loves, in contrast to those of Lewis, are more real, concrete and less abstract. In this year of the Synod of the Family and the Supreme Court's deconstruction of family, these loves deserve our deepest reflection.

Priorities

With his usual insight, David Brooks of the NY Times last week contrasted two conservative reactions to the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage: Rod Dreher and similar "traditional radicals" call for a retreat into our own communities of faith and family while Robert George and kindred spirits associated with First Things urge us to continue the fight as we have with the abortion war. Brooks admits he is to the left of us on these cultural issues but identifies with conservatives and advocates a third option: engage with those who are most hurting in the restoration of family life and wholesome moral and communal values. My opinion is that the Church has to do all three...and at the same time. And people will be called to focus on different concerns. But given the limitations of energy and stamina, we need to set priorities. From where I stand, Dreher and the "trad-rads" are right: first and foremost we must strengthen and thicken our Catholic identity and solidarity in the face of an increasingly hostile society. Secondly, we need to follow the leadership of Pope Francis in going out to the peripheries and reach out to share our (spiritual, moral, emotional, social, intellectual) wealth with the needy (including the most needy...the 1 percent!). Isolation like the Amish is not possible for the Catholic Church. Actually the Mormon paradign (despite its narrow "Americanist" focus) is more helpful. At this point, it is probably good for us to divert energies from the Culture War and enter into a "cold war" phase in which there are less heated, inflamatory clashes even as we stand firm in our own beliefs. We will persevere in the culture war but in more covert, subtle and subversive fashion, much like the way St. John Paul II fought the Nazis, the Communists and later the Cultural Liberals. Focusing more on micro than macro-politics, we must be modest about how much we can directly impact the broader society as we avoid the twin ideological temptations to attribute saving efficacy to the state (the left) or free markets and individual freedom (the right). Regarding Church policy, we must avoid setting our current pontiff against his two predecessors. Rather, let us cherish the JP-Benedict heritage even while we follow Francis to the margins of society. They need not be in conflict. A genuinely CATHOLIC ethos will include both in a mutual enrichment.

Homosexual Marriage

While hardly a fan of Jesuit Tom Reese, I largely agree with his view (NCR July 2,2015) on the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage. He is right: we will learn to live with this as we have with other now-commonplace misguided practices like divorce-and-remarriage, cohabitation and so forth. Homosexual practice is basically in the same boat as premarital sex, pornography/masturbation, contraception in marriage and other varieties of sterile, non-unitive, extrinsic and mutually manipulative interplay. It is no better and no worse! The sin of Sodom is essentially the same as that of Onan. My own view is that intercourse between two men in a faithful, tender and generous relationship is a thousand times less disordered than the Clinton/Lewinski dalliance which was at once a desecration of his marriage, a predatory violation of a young woman who could be his daughter and abuse of his unbounded presidential, which is to say paternal status and power. The court's ruling is not an unmitigated evil and it is helpful to look on the positives: some may well benefit from a faithful and sanctioned relationship; many young people may experience enhanced self-esteem with the lifting of the social stigma; and lastly, the development is itself a strange and confused witness to the deep appeal of marriage. Perhaps because I am aging, aware of the limitations of my energy, and less the cultural warrior I was 20 years ago, I see that we must marshal and use our stamina in positive ways. As a "communio" Catholic and protege of St. John Paul II and Benedict, I see our first priority as deepening our own spiritual union with Christ our Bridegroom. Secondly, we need to strengthen our own marriages, vows, families and communities of faith, including our service of the least. Thirdly, we must remind ourselves that very few have been give the grace to understand the deepest, sacred and iconic meaning of sexuality and marriage and so we grow in gratitude and surrender to this blessing. Forth, we are free to appreciate those we love who experience and live out this attraction, as we deepen our own allegiance to what we know to be true. Lastly, we are clearly moving towards a more counter-cultural position as the society becomes actively hostile to the gospel vision of sexuality. Our disappointment and even alienation from the mainstream must surrender to our deeper Joy in our communion with Christ in His Church, our families and communities.

Masculine Loneliness

Loneliness and solitude, it seems to me, structure the masculine psyche in a most pronounced manner. I am only a man and know the feminine psyche only from a distance so my thoughts are tentative. Perhaps some women will enlighten me! Consider these three: First, paternity, in contrast to maternity, involves greater distance from the strange, fascinating and discomforting little creature. Intrinsically, naturally, the father lacks the enveloping intimacy the mother shares in the womb, on the breast, with the overflow of oxytoxin, and the entire maternal endowment (physical, social, emotional and spiritual). Secondly, the baby boy of necessity needs to break this profound bonding, already by the age of two or so, in order to develop a masculine identity. The female, by contrast, maintains a more integral, unfractured communion with Mom. Last, partially as a result of the previous two, the male psyche is characterized by enhanced independence and autonomy and an inclination to separation, solitude, and competition in contrast to woman's propensity for cooperation, inclusion, and communion...in friendship, family, work and all relationships. This male loneliness can finally be eased in a twofold manner: communion with God and a plurality of wholesome relationships including friends, family, and spouse-or-celibacy/virginity. Being-in-love with God and with others are distinct but mutually infuse each other: without the one, the other will be insufficient and defective. A man loves Mom first, then Dad, then brothers and sisters and friends, then mentors, and then spouse (or sublimated spouse which is Christ and His bridal-Church) and then children and spiritual children. But at some point (or actually, at many points) the man goes into the desert, and faces loneliness and sadness, and confronts the devil and his own poverty, and surrenders in love to our heavenly Father. When this surrender in love to God and friend is incomplete, the male faces one of two contrasting temptations: towards weakness and passivity or towards violence. Those of a weaker constitution will be drawn to regress to the breast and womb in things like lust, pornography, inebriation through chemical substances, laziness, inaction, isolation, and general discouragement (lack of courage, lack of strength, lack of spirit!) Those endowed with excessive testostronic energies will seek release in the opposite direction: aggression, violence, dominance, high-risk behavior like gambling, workaholism and reckless and irrational activism. On the one hand, the man is demasculinized and impotent, on the other he is disordered and destructive in a bogus machismo. The path to authentic masculinity...to gentle, loving, tender, paternal and Christ-like strength...is the cultivation of wholesome relationships of all sorts. But particularly, the man must own his loneliness, his sadness, his isolation...and bring this into a trusting intimacy with our Lord and our heavenly Father in the Holy Spirit.

Is There a Problem with Harry Potter?

Dedicated to Brigid. Catholic Catechism (2015-2016) on sins against the first commandment, “Thou shall not have false gods before me”: “Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone...All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.” Is there a problem with our children reading Harry Potter? Catholics are divided: some (e.g. Michael O’Brien) see it as gravely evil; others as harmless, even educational entertainment. Some years ago, Monsignor Fleetwood (sounds like a character out of the series!!!) of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council of Culture praised the Harry Potter series. Later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became pope, in a letter wrote: “It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.” If Vatican heavy weights can publicly disagree, then so can the rest of us. After watching the first Harry Potter movie, my view is that it is somewhere in between these: not entirely evil but certainly not harmless either. But what are the “subtle seductions” against which the then-Cardinal (our own real, actual Dumbledore) warned? The underlying problem can be approached from two perspectives: the plot line of the series and the attitude of the author and many who view the series positively. The plot line is an ongoing conflict between dark magic and good magic, with the appealing and in many ways admirable protagonist wizard Harry eventually prevailing. The problem is, as the Catechism clearly states: in the real spiritual world, there is no white or good magic. ALL magic, sorcery or recourse to preternatural or supernatural powers is deeply dangerous, evil and sinful…even if used “for good purposes” such as to heal or defend against dark powers. J.K. Rowling has said that she does not believe in magic, that it is not real. The sophisticated, enlightened view agrees with her: the series is harmless because magic is not real. But this is NOT the Catholic view. We believe there really are dark powers, demons, Satan and his cohort…and they are powerful, super-intelligent and ravenous to draw us from God into hell. And a major tool of theirs is magic, sorcery and divination in all its forms. This includes Ouija boards, palm reading and fortune telling…things that are innocuous to the secular or liberal mentality. In other words: Magic is real! The Dark World is real; and the answer is not white magic but conversion, prayer and the sacraments! How is Potter different from Lord of the Rings and Narnia and other mythical fictions avidly appreciated by many critics of Rowling’s work? An insightful post, Harry Potter vs. Gandalf, (http://decentfilms.com/new/articles/magic) contrasted the classical literature of enchantment (Tolkien and Lewis) with the popular but pernicious modern genre of magic (think Buffy the Vampire-Slayer or The Craft). He noted that the staunchly Christian English authors built seven literary characteristics or “hedges” into their stories which vigorously protect against the idealization of sorcery. For example, the protagonists themselves are not wizards; the wizards are usually non-human and of a different species from us (think white-bearded Gandalf); the story takes place clearly in a mythical world, outside of our space and time, and without direct relationship to our actual realities of damnation, sin and salvation; and the magic powers are powerful and dangerous (the fate of Frodo!). By contrast, Buffy is current, very appealing, free from the evils of magic, and very much the protagonist. What 14-year old girl would not like to be Sarah Michelle Geller? Now: is Harry more like Gandalf or Buffy? That is what makes it so interesting: it is somewhere in the middle…not as good as Gandalf and not as bad as Buffy! Unfortunately, the heroes are wizards and are located in our world (England to be specific). Rowling lacks the “hedges” of Lewis and Tolkien. But fortunately, it is silly and corny enough (flying on broomsticks!) that the 12-year olds obsessed with it are unlikely to emulate it literally. It is ambiguous enough to be interesting! That is why Fleetwood and Ratzinger could disagree! That is why there is no “Catholic” position on Harry Potter. I would not forbid my children from reading it. But nor would I lightly dismiss the concerns! So much of modern culture…especially movies and books…is fascinating, thrilling, valuable, and dangerous. Our children need to learn how to navigate this wondrous but perilous world and to renounce the bad and embrace the good. That’s what it means to be catholic and Catholic! Hollywood is especially adept at romanticizing things that are gravely evil: romantic sexual intimacy outside of marriage, revenge action movies, and the list goes on. These books and movies are like rock-climbing, mountain biking, traveling in Israel…thrilling, enriching, worthwhile activities…but dangerous…and you MUST be trained, prepared and vigilant! We raised our seven children in a dangerous neighborhood of Jersey City. They weren’t sheltered or taxied to school and activities. Our boys were mugged; they had bikes and basketballs stolen. They had to learn to be street-smart and vigilant and travel in groups. They are the better off for it! I would encourage my children to read and enjoy Harry Potter. But I would equip them to unveil its dangers, deceptions and untruths…and distinguish the good from the bad!

Christian Zen?

A dear friend says she found her way back to the Church through the practice of Christian Zen so I listened respectfully and attentively to “Jesus and Buddha: Practicing across Traditions,” a DVD of presentations by Fr. Robert Kennedy, SJ, Chung Hyun Kyung, and Paul Knitter. My reservations about Christian Zen were intensified. The claim, of course, is that Zen is itself compatible with our faith because it is not itself a competing system of dogma; rather, it is a practice and a way of seeing and knowing that is beyond our theological or cognitive thoughts. What I heard, however, was surely mysticism but by no means an irrationalism; rather an affirmation of a coherent system of interlocking truths…in other words, a real philosophy of life or religion. And these I found to be alternatives to and incompatible with Christian beliefs…albeit in a gentle, non-direct manner. Questions for Christian Zen: 1. Do you have the faith of a child? Christian faith, in the persons of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is first of all childlike: profoundly analogous to the trust of a child in a good father. A common refrain of the practitioners was the disparagement of “a Santa Clause figure” or “god as a being up in the sky next to other beings.” The sense conveyed by the presenters is that each had lost childish faith, been in some way “scandalized,” but not been graced with a mature but childlike faith in the person(s) of God in the way of our saints. 2. Creator/creature? The doctrine of creation is absolutely the foundation of our faith. We know, first of all, with 12-steppers, that “there is a God and it’s not me!” This is basic! I am not God; but I am created and later redeemed and destined for eternal glory by a God out of His generous, abundant love. In Zen there is no talk of God; He is their “null curriculum.” Instead, there is talk of being “one with all being.” To me it is clearly pantheism, even if they refuse to acknowledge it. By neglect if not by assertion, there is a denial of a transcendent God and a re-direction to seek release from the false self and union with “all” as the enlightened path. 3. Time and history? Christianity is all about remembering and hope. The present, paradigmatically in the Eucharist, is always a remembering of the past actions of God, in time and history, and a hope in God, eventually an eternity in heaven. Zen seems to have no use for the past or the future but seeks abandon to the “NOW.” With John Lennon they prefer to “imagine there’s no heaven.” Again: there is no explicit rejection of Christian eschatology; rather an intentional glance away into a mystified “NOW.” Again, the “null curriculum,” although politely and graciously. 4. What’s the problem: sin or delusion? For the Christian THE problem is sin: a deliberate, decisive decision of the will to prefer something to God. Sin is personal above all else: a rejection of God’s overtures of love, like the spurning of a Lover. It is distrust and unbelief; the refusal to receive, surrender, and obey; the decision to take control of life and become my own god. Zen seems indifferent to sin. Rather it identifies false consciousness as the problem and enlightenment as the solution. This enlightenment is a mystical state of union with Being, a release from the illusions of the “false self” into a state of peace. 5. Who is Jesus Christ? The Zen practitioner speaks of Christ but this seems not to be the actual man Jesus who agonized and was tortured and murdered on that cross on that hill. “Christ” becomes a word suggesting a state of enlightenment, peace and release. For us, on the other hand, Jesus Christ is the man on the cross. And we all stand level before Him: we are either killing Him, again and again, or we are repenting. Zen does not deal with repentance and conversion, but with enlightenment; and they are NOT the same thing. 6. Word and words. Ours is a religion of The Word: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Pope Benedict is one of many who have helped us to see that the Hellenic concept of “logos” as reason, reality, truth was providentially available for St. John and the Fathers as they understood the Mystery of Christ as Logos, combining the Hellenic wonder before Truth with the Hebraic sense of God’s Word as dynamic, creative, powerful, fruitful, and merciful. For us then, all our words and thoughts and theories need to somehow lead to and spring from our communion with The Word. By contrast, Zen seems tired of words as empty, ephemeral, and deceptive. And so, rather than seeking to be penetrated by the Word and all words that flow from Him, they seek release into “wordlessness.” 7. Prayer or Meditation? For us prayer is always an interchange with a Person: some kind of dialogue between the I and the Thou, be it petition, intercession, thanksgiving, praise, meditation or the silent and loving glance of contemplation. Christian meditation (for example, many of the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola) is attention to a specific text or scene/drama from salvation history in order to pierce beneath the concrete details to the deeper Mystery manifest in the word or actions or image. Zen seems to mean something different: a technique to empty the mind of images and distractions to arrive at a state of peaceful emptiness. What that is I don’t know! It sounds more iconoclastic than iconic! 8. The eternal soul or the real self? Our belief is simple and clear: each of us is created out of nothing as an eternal (bodied) soul destined for an eternity of participation in the life of the Trinity. Zen talks about the false self (egotism, anger, desires, etc) in contrast with the True Self but what the latter is remains obscure. It is a state of peace, of dissolution of the false self, and of union with All but not God as we understand. 9. What is desire? Zen seeks release from desire as delusion and the root of suffering. For us it is different: we are created to desire…to desire God and to desire all that is true and good and beautiful. For us the problem is not desire: our very substance is the Eros desire for God; and (again Pope Benedict instructs us) God Himself is Eros as desire for us (understood with all the safeguards of analogy). We seek to direct, sublimate and eventually sanctify our desire. 10. Holiness? Zen has a pronounced sense of reverence for life and for Mystery. But this is not “holiness” as we know it. Holiness applies only to God Himself and by extension to the things of God: Moses before the burning bush; Jesus transfigured, talking with Moses and Elijah before Peter, James and John. Holiness is a Mystery of “otherness”…of goodness beyond goodness as we know it in reality as we know it. And so, to become holy is to be set aside, to separate from life as we know it in order to be in union with a higher life, supernatural life. Zen seems to have no use for the supernatural or for holiness in this sense. Yet, it is the heart of our faith. 11. What about the basics like the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit? Perhaps the worst aspect of Christian Zen is that it uses words precious to us with a different meaning. For example, there is much talk about the Spirit in a way that sounds like Christianity. But for us the Holy Spirit is the one that affirms that God has come in the flesh and is the Spirit of Love between the Father and the Son. Zen has no mention of “in the flesh” or the Trinity except in that they are redefined as alternate, pantheistic realities. 12. Esoteric? With this we return to our first concern: the Gospel is for the childlike, the simple, and especially the poor. Notice that Marian apparitions are always to poor children. Zen, as practiced in our culture, seems to be the practice of an elite, mostly highly educated and sophisticated people who are searching for truth and meaning because they lack the “faith of children.” Zen is gentle and passive. Unlike other versions of liberal Christianity that draw from feminism, Marx, Freud or Nietzsche, it can coexist in Catholicism because it lacks the fierce aggressiveness against our faith. On the down side it therefore lacks martial, passionate, masculine zeal. I am not a professional theologian but I have spent a lifetime trying to hear the voice of Christ in His Church. What I heard in these presentations was reverent, gentle, gracious, and peaceful…admirable in many ways. But I did not hear the voice of my Lord.

Draw Me to Yourself, Lord

Lord, Draw me to Yourself; fill me with your love. Draw me to Yourself; cleanse me of my sins. May my weaknesses, longings, sadness, mistakes, failures and sins draw me to You. Safeguard my heart in peace, purity, poverty of spirit and prudence. Strengthen me by the indwelling of Your Holy Spirit. Make me humble, holy, loving and pure. Make me quiet, still, peaceful, calm, attentive, alert, watchful, and vigilant. Make me receptive, docile, pliable, “disponible”, responsive, obedient, and thankful. Make me patient, painstaking, long-suffering, persistent and persevering. Make me sensitive, compassionate, kind, generous, merciful, magnanimous, joyous, zealous, fierce, and fearless. Make me steadfast. Make me trustworthy as I place all my trust in You. Let me sing Your praises forever!

James Foley: Catholic Martyr or Apostate? The Two Faces of Islam and the Unfathonable Mystery of the Human Heart!

Sunday NY Times (Feb.22, 2015) featured a fascinating piece on James Foley, the photo-journalist who was brutally executed by Isis: while he was being honored as a Catholic martyr, word was spreading from fellow captives that he had converted to Islam in captivity. His family offered a window of insight: in an earlier captivity in Libya he had taken to praying with Muslims and he later described his ambivalence. He was aware of the tension of his prayer to Jesus and theirs to Allah and yet he felt a certain union with them in prayer. After the Libyan captivity, he spoke at Marquette, (his Jesuit Alma Mater where he would likely have imbibed a positive attitude to Islam): "So, from then on out I prayed with them five times a day. It was so powerful, and it was something I needed to do to commune with these guys who were relying on their faith in Allah. But it was difficult. I was thinking, 'Jesus, am I praying to Allah? Am I violating my belief in you?' I don't have an answer to that. I just know that I was authentically with them, and I was authentically praying to Jesus. I don't know theologically. But I thought I was being authentic." And so, it seems that later, in his fatal captivity, he also "converted" probably for practical reasons to be free of beatings and have peace to pray five times a day. He seems to have intimately engaged with the two faces of Islam: the dark and the light. He suffered torture and execution. At the same time, he bonded with his fellow captives in shared prayer. One of his fellows latter said he was most interested in the Koran and understanding Islam. I imagine he was in a life-and-death struggle of "discerning" in that ancient tradition what would be good for his still-Christian soul and what bad. Islam is in large part an acceptance of Divine Revelation: monotheism, creation, the Torah. But, much like Mormonism and other "Christian" cults, it deviates in profound ways: basically Arian, it explicitly rejects the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, it reverts to primitive and pre-Christian acceptance of polygamy and therefore misogyny, and it rejects Jesus' mysticism of forgiveness in favor of violence. As Pope Benedict pointed out in his brilliant Regensburg Address, it is also irrational in its dismissal of reason and truth in favor of a willful deity. While we can abstractly parse out the demonic from the angelic in the religion, when we meet a Muslim we face a far deeper Mystery, a person with a heart and intellect and spirit! The weeds and wheat flourish together and practically they cannot be disengaged this side of the Parousia. This ambiguity calls to mind one of the very few theological disagreements between the Great Popes, John Paul and Benedict: the prayer with the religions at Assisi. St. John Paul was quite comfortable in this communion; but Benedict feared confusion. Perhaps the first was more fervent in his hunger for the good, for communion, for reconciliation; and the later more passionate about the truth and the right. Perhaps both were "right" in complementary ways: so catholic and broad is the Church! Foley seems to have been closer to St. John Paul. I consider him a saint, although one who probably won't be canonized. May he pray for us and for peace with our Muslim brothers and sisters!

A Marian Take on "50 Shades of Grey"

The fascination with Fifty Shades of Grey and its masochism has been perceptively related to the overload on women in a post-feminist world: they are stressed with pressures from the marketplace of work/career and that of popularity/appeal, they are overachieving in industry and academy even as they are taking care of the kids, the home and the parents. They are so active, so in control and in charge of so much...the logic goes...that they welcome retreat into a fantasy of passivity, inertia, and submission. This is probably accurate. If the "feminine" includes a dynamic of reception, than it will re-assert itself, in an unfortunate form, if repressed by a hyper-masculine culture of unbalanced agency, achievement and control. The problem goes beyond women: men also are drawn to masochism. The same-sex male act is defined by domination...an ugly reality entirely avoided by those who so cavalierly legitimate the act. The theme of the female dominatrix has wide appeal, even in softer forms as the pornographic classic Lolita in which the weak, older man is overcome by the underage female aggressor. This "submission" theme, in conjunction with its complement "domination," suggest an underlying privation: an obsession with control, action and achievement and an aversion to reception, contemplation, and "the feminine." As creatures, gratuitously brought into being by a generous, loving God, we are always first and foremost in the posture of reception: we receive existence as well as this particular mother and father, family, time in history, DNA, and so on. And if we are created to love we are first loved...by family, and others, and God...long before we can ever love even in the slightest. And so, the appeal of masochism suggests that so many of us have not been loved, have not received, have not learned to surrender to love... be that in family or romance or friendship or religion. It suggests we need to learn to open our hearts to the wholesome, ennobling, freeing and strengthening love that comes, in so many marvelous manners, from the God who created and saved and loves us!

Katniss Everdeen: Icon of the Feminine as Fierce

As portrayed by Jennifer Lawrence, Katniss (Hunger Games)is a refreshing, inspiring image of woman as a warrior...courageous, fierce, and resilient...but yet feminine and maternal. As such, she retrieves Catholic traditions of a fierce, fearless femininity. We think of our Blessed Mother as gentle, quiet, almost passive...but recall that she is the one who crushes the head of the serpent, Satan. As such, she is the penultimate warrior, fearless and reckless in defense of her children. This is Katniss: gracious, gentle, but relentless in defense of the victimized. Think of St. Catherine of Sienna rebuking kings and popes; of Joan of Ark leading her troups. Think of the many virgin-martyrs who sprang up spontaneously in the fertile soil of early Christianity: in a Roman culture where women were the possessions of men, they asserted an independence, an interior strength, a courage, an invincible determination. Their courage and strength of course were wed to their purity and chastity. Katniss models this as well. She is more than capable of eros love. Indeed, she loves and is loved passionately by two young men. Interestingly, she herself is confused in her feelings for her two lovers but what is clear to all is that these romantic loves must defer to a deeper, truer, more passionate love...her devotion to her family and people. While not explicitly Christ-centered, this celibate, chaste commitment reflects a heroic, transcendent, sacrificial and agapic love. Her vigorous, natural longing for companionship and intimacy surrenders itself on behalf of a more generous, selfless, heroic love. Katniss, like every celibate and virgin, shows us that romantic love never fulfills itself but needs to be poured into the deeper agapic love for God, family and community. This is the pattern of the virgin martyrs, of our Lady, of Joan and Catherine. Femininity is at once generous, tender, pure and fierce!

The Seductive Nihilism of "The Wire"

Like many, when exposed to the TV series, The Wire, I became fascinated, obsessed,addicted...watching 2 or 3 episodes, recklessly, late in to the night, well past my bedtime. Just thinking about the next episode made me high...But, I wondered: Why the vague guilt and quiet sadness? Everyone agrees: "The writing is excellent; the acting superb; the characters are fascinating as each is a mixture of good and bad; and it is so realistic!" The problem with the series is precisely the unrelenting moral ambiguity of the characters and a fundamental unreality about the show's world view. The series prides itself on its realism about dysfunctional urban cultures and there is a certainly a powerful taste of reality to the show. But The Universe of The Wire is relentlessly, fundamentally dismal, hopeless, closed and nihilistic. More specifically, this world is devoid of the three fundamental realities of the world I know: the presence of strong, good women; the possibility of moral heroism; and an openness to a transcendent, supernatural realm. First: the absence of the feminine: as presented, the world of the Baltimore projects, police and docks is harshly, stereotypically macho in the worst fashion. It is all men...and brutalized women. No one (with the exception of Omar and his grandmother) seems to have a good wife, an admirable sister, a dear daughter, or an inspiring girlfriend! No one! Consider by contrast the classic femme fatale of film noir in which the woman is fascinatingly and ambiguously femme (her beauty intimating consolation, happiness, satisfaction) and fatale and oftentimes one must wait for the final scene to see if the femme or the fatale prevails. In The Wire, there are no genuinely womanly characters...seductive or inspirational. Kima, the endearing lesbian policewoman, is distinguished by her aggressiveness. In one scene, a young black thug punches an older policeman and the other cops pile on to give him the beating of his life. Kima stops what she is doing to jump into the action. I expected that her black identity and maternal instinct drove her to protect the young man; but she jumped in to pummel him further! Rhonda, the bright and beautiful prosecuting attorney, casts herself from one adulterous relationship to another, seemingly oblivious of her own dignity or that of marriage. DeAngelo's mother (Avon's sister) absolutely entrusts her family to a life of crime and talks her own son out of seeking a new path. Any thriving, vibrant culture rotates around the strong mother: you name it...Irish Catholic, Jewish and most of all Afro-American. The demise of the maternal, the resilient, the nourishing, the womanly...is a harbinger of cultural catastrophe. The Wire portrays just such a world-without-women. Secondly, The Wire is absolutely cynical about the possibility of genuine, consistent moral goodness. Every character is enclosed in a narrow world and enslaved to personal vices and none have a possibility of escape. This is especially heart-breaking in regard to the young drug dealers; but no less true of the cops, who are entrapped more by interior than external shackles. McNulty is the epitome of this: charming, handsome, intelligent, and zealous about his work, he is also a bad drunk, a compulsive adulterer, a workaholic, an irresponsible father-husband. He is a man without a center; a moral catastrophe! He shows not an iota of contrition or awareness of his desperate conditions(s) or a hope for a better way. At least DeAngelo and Striker are seeking a new life...albeit futilely. Indeed, it is this sense of futility, of despair, of a closed, imprisoning universe that hangs over the series like one of Bunk or Jimmy's hangovers. To use classic Catholic terms: the world and the flesh are invincible...the devil is in hiding but in control...there is no hope of escape. This is the third and final and fatal aspect of the series: there is no Hope and no real hope...whether you are a Polish dock worker, an Irish cop, or a black drug dealer. There seems to be a dark, voyeuristic appeal to this world. It is not real except perhaps in the sense that it accurately portrays the 1% of the worst of the worst. It presents a Gotham-type, Jungian or Gnostic world in which good and evil are evenly matched so that the good never triumphs and evil, by default, wins by a tie. Having spent my adult life in Jersey City, a city not unlike Baltimore, I am certain that every police department, housing project and blue-collar workplace is teaming with good, even heroic women and men. There are strong, generous, resilient women; there is the possibility of heroism for us men; our world does open up and is enclosed in a greater, better reality. The Wire is NOT realistic!