Neocatechumenal Way and the Eucharist

(On use of the phrase "The Way." For me, Jesus Christ alone is The Way; and The Way to Him is the Catholic Church. However constant repetition of "The Neocatechumenal Way" will become tiresome. So, in deference to Kiko's own self-description, I will refer to this movement, this renewal, this itinerary as The Way, even as I myself see it more modestly as "a way...to Christ in His Church.")

The Neocatechumenal Way is the most vigorous, creative, zealous renewal movement in the Church. It is an authentically novel and yet genuine expression of Catholic orthodoxy. Fiercerly counter-cultural, it is a retrieval and synthesis of some of the richest treasures of the ancient and contemporary Church. Many of it elements, even standing on their own, are pregnant with promise: the music, icons, scrutinies, practice of penance, profound engagement with the Word, candid confrontation with Death and Resurrection, eagerness to ask forgiveness and admit judgment, and many others. Its singular, significant weakness is its understanding and practice of the Eucharist. To be sure, their doctrine is orthodox and their loyalty to hierarchy and magisterium is fierce. Furthermore, their zealous practice of the Liturgy of the Word, with the admonitions and echoes, is a marvelous advance beyond late Tridentine and even Vatican II practice. The problem is a weakened sense of the Liturgy of the Eucharist as sacrifice and abiding substance and consequently a distance from regular parish live. Developed at the time of the Council, their liturgy represents problematic aspects of the liturgical renewal at that time: a focus upon the Eucharist as celebration and (Passover) meal and an aversion to sacrifice, substance and corollaries of silence, adoration and kneeling. Because the Eucharist is the very heart and soul of our Catholic faith, a weakness here can have grave consequences and must be considered.

1. Their catechesis (as I received it over 10 years ago) clearly contrasts the Eucharist with sacrifice, understood as pagan, sinful man's attempt to manipulate the Divine. Correctly, they understand Eucharist as the New Passover Meal whereby the Lord passes over us and brings us from Death into Life. This is in itself unobjectionable if understood correctly. But the Catholic tradition has always seen the mass as a sacrifice, the ultimate and final sacrifice of Christ by Christ, in line with  Old Testament temple sacrifice which was itself a valid communion with God. Their more reductive understanding of sacrifice in its negative aspect has the effect of breaking the continuity between the sacrifices of the two covenants and implies a quasi-Marcionite disparagement of Judaism, at least in its temple sacrifice. This is all the more striking in that Kiko has a rich, deep appreciation of the Jewish roots of our faith in many ways. His view of sacrifice and liturgy is an exception and a blind spot. When I myself walked The Camino ("The Way") to Santiago de Compestela, I spent time reading Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, canonical works largely ignored today, and became aware of the Judaic fascination with sacrifice. This appreciation of the positive face of sacrifice is missing from "The Way."

2.  Liturgical reform in the 1960s emphasized liturgy as encounter and event but downplayed it as substantial presence. The important concept of "transubstantiation" fell into disfavor among fashionable liturgists. (The entire ontological vocabulary of substance, form, essence and act was disparaged in the anti-metaphysical emotivism that is still with us!) Tridentine Catholicism organized itself around the persisting, substantial presence of Jesus' very self in the small, modest host. Surely it needed and received in the Council a push beyond individualistic "Jesus and Me" piety and a retrieval of the communal and eventful reality of the Eucharistic Act itself.  The practice and teaching of the post-Council dual-pontificate clearly, forcefully, magisterially maintained  a synthesis of these realities: Eucharist as event-encounter and Eucharist as abiding-substantial-presence; as personal and communal union; as meal and sacrifice; as solemn and celebrative. The mystical-sacramental intuition of God's distinctive, physical, continuous presence in the reserved Eucharist is hardly denied, but is very weak in the Way. This expresses itself in practical, consequential ways: noisiness in Church, inattention to the tabernacle, absence of silence and kneeling, heightened attention to the real-meal wine and bread with a diminshed sense of sacredness or "difference." To be sure, the pastor at a local neo-cat parish labors to silence the congregation in the Eucharistic presence but with little success because the overall culture and catechesis is largely indifferent. Those of us who came of age before the Council were forcefully punished for disrespect in Church; we knew that the best day of our life was the day we received our first holy communion; we practiced adoration, "visits" and 40-hour-devotion. Think of St. Elizabeth Seton on the eve of her conversion, sitting in an Episcopalian Church and praying to the Eucharist housed across the street. By contrast, I attended a neo-cat convenience at an Eastern Church monastery which had an exquisite chapel adjacent to our meeting room. The catechists were unaware or indifferent as they made no reference to it and issued no encouragement to visit, rest and pray in The Presence. From what I can see, the ongoing physical presence in the Host is part of the "null curriculum" of The Way.

3.  Catholic life organizes itself around its center: the Eucharist, particularly the Sunday mass but also daily mass and the constant tabernacle presence. And so, the establishment of an "alternate Eucharistic rite" is consequential. Such a move carries an implicit schismatic tendency. What Sunday morning liturgy does for the parish and the normal Catholic the Saturday evening worship does for the communities of The Way. We have, in fact, two distinct worshiping communities. This split takes an extreme form in the Easter Vigil which is literally an all-night vigil separated off from the parish. That the two communities celebrate the Resurrection in separation represents a "schism in worship."

4.  The liturgical separation is related to a broader, more pervasive aversion to traditional, parochial Catholic institution and history. Like many reforms, this Way looks back to the origins and tends to devalue "ordinary" Catholic practice and habit as developed over the centuries. This is more implied than stated. The Way is developing an alternate culture, in opposition to Western modernity in crisis, and understandably views the regular Church as weak and compromised. It is ironic that Kiko, who shows a genius for appreciating and incorporating sundry elements of Christian life into his itinerary, has created a program that is tight, rigid and tends to close in on itself. Imagine that at a single large retreat center, a variety of different groups are holding meetings: Evangelicals, Charismatic Catholics, Catholic Workers, Knights of Columbis, Communion and Liberation and Neo-Cats. The first five might find each other interesting and spend time together in dialogue; their leaders might even encourage such. This would hardly occur to the catechists who are focused intensely on their agenda and inattentive to anything else. It is unlikely that they would participate in a diocesan men's rally or something like that. Of course every renewal tends to enthusiasm and separation but a balanced Catholic with solid formation or a good priest can synthesize the "institutional" with the "charismatic." But most who participate in The Way lack formation: the very purpose of the itinerary is formation for the baptized but un-evangelized and un-catechized. Notwithstanding the respect for priesthood and sacrament, the catechetical program is lay-based, highly structured and immune to clerical intervention (for better and for worse.) The parochial Church, weak and compromised as it is, is in desperate need of the invigorating resources offered by The Way; but the separation in worship is an obstacle. It is like a marriage in which husband-wife love each other, but sleep in separate beds and never visit each other: they have to get together once in while...no?

5.  My understanding is that about 10 years ago the Vatican directed that those walking in The Way attend the normal parish liturgy at least monthly. My impression is that leadership assented verbally but has basically ignored this directive. The communal liturgies still happen every single Saturday evening and I suspect that few attend parish mass, even monthly. (Perhaps I am wrong: maybe those more advanced on the Journey have developed a Eucharist hunger that brings them to daily mass and even adoration. I hope so! If my judgement is rash, I will rush to ask forgiveness!) Again, to my knowledge, Kiko and Carmen are obstinate in maintenance of  a separate rite that is total and extrinsic to parish worship. (If this judgment is rash, I will rush to ask forgiveness!) This Way has probably aroused more resentment from our clergy than all the other lay renewal movements put together. This may  be that they are Christ-like victims persecuted by a jealous, controlling, Spirit-resisting clergy. But more likely it is  because their liturgy directly competes with the clergy over what is most sacred to them: the very Eucharist itself. The rite of Kiko/Carmen is in its own way reverent, vibrant, engaging and beautiful even as it restores lost dimensions of worship from the early Church and Scripture. It has much to offer the broader Church. The Eucharist in its very simplicity finds a rich diversity of expressions: Latin mass, charismatic, guitar or high mass, and (my favorite) the simple, no-frills 25-minute-daily-mass-with-3-minute homily. The Way is and will be an immense enrichment of the Church as it overcomes this separateness.

6.  I am hopeful that this centrifugal impetus to schism-in-worship will be overcome by stronger, centripetal, Catholic forces. First, Kiko and his companions remain fiercely, refreshingly loyal to the hierarchy/magisterium and are good example for mainstream priests. Secondly, Kiko is right that the parochial Church is weak in the face of a modernity that is hostile and formidable and so is in desperate need of renewal. Thirdly, the rich resources in The Way are an immense, precious gift to the Church. The forth source of hope is practical and institutional. This Way is sending many men into the priesthood. By a happy arrangement, these seminarians follow a double path of formation: spiritually they are groomed in their own residences under the charism of Kiko; but intellectually they learn their theology in local diocesan seminaries. The institution of the seminary, which is often criticized, is a most stable, reliable pillar of the Catholic edifice: wherever in the world you go, in spite of diversities of personality, culture and ideology, you will reliably find, at Sunday morning mass, a reasonably accurate presentation of our Faith. This is amazing and surely a sign that our Lord is with His Church. Furthermore, after ordination, these priests serve in regular parishes, even as they may be made available eventually for service of The Way. So, these young priests who are carrying the charism of The Way, are also under the influence of reliable theological faculties and diocesan priests in all their flawed, mundane splendor, While The Way's founders and their generation remain resistant and defensive of their understanding of the integrity of their charism, the emergent generation of priests may well, patiently and gradually, reconcile the two communities of worship, the charism of the Way and the valid, parochial concerns of the clergy. Why couldn't the communities celebrate every other Saturday night and join the parish on the other weekends. Why couldn't the communities celebrate the 2-3 hour Easter vigil in union with the parish and then continue (welcoming others) through the evening with music, praise, readings, echoes and celebration? The Way and the Church is a marriage-made-in-heaven, but it is a troubled marriage. Hopefully both sides will recognize unacknowledged presumption and judgment, ask for forgiveness and be united! Husband and wife will be joined together in the conjugal bed...at least some of the time!

My Masculine Disassociation Disorder; or My Walter Mitty Syndrome

My condition, until now not diagnosed, explains my life. I have wondered why my childhood/adolescent memories are few and unremarkable. My life was consistently peaceful, mildly pleasant, safe, bland, steady, often dull. This applies to my family life, play/friends, schooling, and religion. My Catholic faith was like the air I breathed or the food I ate: normal, plain, unexceptional. I had a quiet, steady sense of being safe, loved, blessed and an implicit sense of gratitude which blossomed into a compassionate urge to help those I came to see as not as fortunate as myself. But I was always fundamentally unsatisfied with my life and especially my self. I was, after all, too skinny, weak, and devoid of sex appeal. I yearned, always, for something greater, more exciting and dramatic, more beautiful and challenging. And so, I disassociated from myself and my life and found satisfaction in fantasy, in alternate realities and identities. I was at different times: Zorro, Davy Crockett, Atticus Finch. I was Gary Cooper with Grace Kelly in High Noon, Charlton Heston with Sophia Loren in Ben Hur, John Wayne with Maureen O'Hara in The Quiet Man or any number of other pictures. I became something much bigger and better than myself.  Always my script entailed heroism, courage and strength in battle and a beauty waiting to welcome me. More than in movies, I lost my mundane, boring self in books: fiction and non-fiction, history, psychology and theology. For brief periods I found satisfaction vicariously in sports: Mantle and Maris of the Yankees in the late 50s, Nick Workman in Seton Hall U. basketball in the early 60s; but I was so challenged as an athlete that that identification could not stick. In late adolescence this transformed into a more modulated form of disassociation: intellectual study and thinking. I became enamored of ideas, explanations, theories. Such abstractions fascinated me and represented a half-disassociation. And so, in the late 60s I buried myself in the library and feasted on philosophy, theology, and the social sciences. By anyone's reckoning, I should have pursued a career in academics but I seem to have intuited that my fascination with academics was substantially pathological. Providentially, I proceeded to fall passionately in love with a Beauty was fascinating but no fantasy: Mary Lynn still is real, concrete, earthy, and entirely here-and-now. The subsequent, happy challenge of raising children and providing for them through work served its purpose of re-associating me with my identity and my reality. But I continued to be dissatisfied with myself and yearned for something bigger and better and I continued to find comfort in fantasy. But two other things happened. I took on roles that were bigger and better than myself: husband, father, teacher, UPS driver,  and supervisor. My son Paul once observed that he loved to be in uniform: EMT, soldier, lawyer. This clearly is constitutive of the masculine psyche: the desire to take on a role, an identity, that is bigger and better, that involves heroic combat, drama and love. And so it becomes clear that the male, in contrast to the female, lacks interior integrity and needs to be "in-formed" by an exterior role or identity. For example, a man who becomes a priest takes on an entirely new identity that is largely extrinsic: he acts "in persona Christi" and must grow into the role, like a layman becomes a biological father. A woman is inappropriate for such a role because she has her own personality, integrity and identity and does not have the pronounced lack, craving, void that comes with masculinity. Secondly, my faith showed me that Christ our Lord came to fill this longing: to dwell within me and make me into the New Man: courageous, generous, pure, free, truthful, magnanimous. Ignatius of Loyola is a good example of the masculine psyche at work: laying in monotony and pain he rotated back and forth: his romances in which he was a heroic knight and a courtly lover; and then he was one of the saints, humble, generous, faith-filled. Back-and-forth he swung, from the one fantasy to the other. Eventually he was captivated by the more Beautiful, more Courageous, more True, more Noble and Heroic. May all of us who suffer this Walter Mitty Syndrome find the same cure!

Good Decisions, Bad Consequences; Bad Decisions, Good Consequences

In a recent Blue Bloods,Jaime and partner witness a carjacking and think (mistakenly) that a child is in the car. They jump in their car, a high-speed chase (greatly discouraged, but not absolutely forbidden by NYPD) ensues with disastrous results as the car being chased hits another car, injuring a 7-year old. Defending himself before the Judge, Jaime says: "Based on what we knew, it was a good decision. Good decisions can have bad consequences." How True! And bad decisions can have good consequences! There is high irony here! You can see I have contempt for "consequentialism" as a moral philosophy.  I personally have a keen sense of this irony because in my business career, inevitably,when I most applied my energy, stamina, good will and thought to my work I had disastrous results, due to circumstances beyond my control; but when I was most laid back, easy going and relaxed in my performance, I often received accolades and compliments, due to circumstances beyond my control.  Life is entirely unpredictable, surprising, uncontrollable. "No good deed goes unpunished" is another corollary of the utter chaos, risk and unreliability of life. One day, (I was about 16 years old) the paranoid caddy master Bill left his candy store open and everyone...with one exception, my friend Web...helped themselves. Guess who Billy blamed for the theft? Yes: Web, the one who would not steal! But what is a "good decision" if it is not one with good consequences? A decision has to be good in two dimensions: the intention or motivation (will) and the thorough, accurate evaluation of available information (deliberation, practical intellect). Human motivation is complex, dense and multi-valent, but a moderately wholesome conscience recognizes when the intention is evil or good. The information piece is more problematic because as finite knowers we deliberate and decide under conditions of uncertainty, confusion, and fallibility. So the question in that regard is: Have we gathered all available information? Have we evaluated it as thoroughly as possible using all available resources within the time allowed? In the arenas of politics and diplomacy things become infinitely more complex: the decider (legislator, executor, voter) sorts through his own complicated/contradictory motives; responds to those of many others; anticipates consequences with endless uncertainty; but also receives disparate, inadequate, contradictory, erroneous and even mendaciously falacious information. Jimmy Carter was surely one of the best-motivated, intelligent (and detail-oriented) of our presidents. His presidency was not remarkable. The invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush did not satisfy my own high-bar criteria for a Just War, but was not such a bad decision. His intention is some combination of these: prevent development and use of weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian intervention, encourage democracy and thus stability in the Middle East, and protect supply of oil for developed economies. Those motivations are unobjectionable. The problem with the decision was the lack of information: Sadaam Hussein effectively bluffed everyone into thinking he had the WMDs and so the decision was based on defective information. Moving forward: Donald Trump, in regard to character (will, intention) and competence (deliberation over information) is almost certainly our worst president in history. It is hard to imagine a combination of such shallowness and incompetence. Even the great psychotic megalomanics of history (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc.) were markedly more evil in intent but showed great political competency. But again, irony upon irony, it seems increasingly possible...and greatly to be hoped for, in my view...that his dysfunctionality will bring good results deiplomatically and economically. (I give him full credit for a fine decision on Judge Gorsch.) This crazy, convoluted, irrational world of ours may very well benefit from his blatant egoism and mind-boggling incompetene! I'll drink to that! I'll pray for that!

A Catholic Feminism?

With his usual clear, down-to-earth common sense, David Carlin distinguishes five types of feminism (https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/06/30/five-kinds-of-feminism/): egalitarian which demands equal rights, opportunities, pay (accepted by over 99% of us); career-first which places primacy there and marginalizes marriage and family as secondary options; sexual liberation which rejects traditional chastity and champions abortion; anti-male feminism which sees oppressive patriarchy everywhere; and religious feminism which develops an entire belief system ("God as She") and way of life. Strangely, he fails to mention the approach, implicit in much emerging psychology and developed by Edith Stein, John Paul II and others, which contemplates and champions the distinctive genius of femininity. This approach sees that women, naturally ("nature" related to nativity and natality is not a favored idea of mainstream feminism), are greatly endowed with emotional intelligence, spiritual docility, psychological integrity, empathy, intuition, multi-tasking capability, synthetic thinking, psychological resilience, relational strength, longevity, and nurturing skills. Men, again by nature, are inferior in all these areas but have compensating strengths: upper body strength and body mass, engineering and math skills, single-minded focus, abstract thinking related to a certain disconnect (not entirely admirable) between thought and feeling. Women are more vulnerable to anxiety and hysteria; men more prone to anger, violence, discouragement and lust. Our post-Protestant society rewards qualities more common to men: ambition, aggression, and indifference to the suffering of others. A healthy society will cherish and cultivate what is best in each sex. A wise culture recognizes there is an actual interior form, a gestalt,  soul of femininity and masculinity that is not reducible to physical or psychological stereotype. Because the feminine is superior in certain important arenas, such as the family, a compensating deference is needed by the male for him to contribute his gifts: for example, since the mother is usually closer to the children, she needs to pay obvious respect to father to empower him to protect and guide the children. Absent such support from Mom, Dad remains distant and impotent even if that is not his desire. And so, the woman because of her sublime gifts and mission has rights denied to the man: she has a right to be supported when she gives birth and cares for children, she has a right to reverence because she embodies all that is good/true/beautiful, she has a right to protection and privilege because of her sublime combination of fragility and resilient strength. The woman is God's last and greatest creation, his masterpiece of generosisity, goodness and beauty. THAT is a genuine feminism!

Elisabeth Leseur: Sensitivity to Sensibility; Sensitivity to Souls

In my conversations about faith and religion I have become much aware of peoples' "sensibility." By this word I mean a sensitivity or tendency to appreciation and aversion that is less intellectual than emotional, physical, intuitive , aesthetic, moral and spiritual. People respond passionately, viscerally, to spiritual things in a way that is less cerebral than psychological, more from the heart than from the head. And so it is crucial that in the desire to share our faith we are attuned to the sensibility of our conversation partner. Consider Pope Francis: he is not so much a comprehensive thinker as a man of passion and emotion. He loves the underprivileged, the suffering, the marginalized and those who feel far from the Church. He would rather talk to an atheist in despair than the the College of Cardinals or the Grand Knight of Malta. He despises any hint of clerical privilege, of ostentation in piety, of moralism among culture warriors, of a capitalism that lacks compassion, of Catholic complacency, superiority, coldness. He is pronounced in his feelings and unrestrained in their expression. Regardless of his theological teaching, he is widely popular because he is felt to be kind, flexible, generous, and approachable in contrast to his Church which is felt to be the exact opposite. On the other hand, he is offensive to many who are most loyal to the papacy and feel his contempt. These in their turn, hurt and angry, become offensive to Francis' admirers. When I was thinking these thoughts I had the good fortune of reading the journals of Elisabeth Leseur who is my patron saint of "sensitivity to souls." A woman of unusual saintliness, charm and kindness, she wrote of her excruciating pain that she could not share her faith with those around her, especially her husband Felix, then a hardcore atheist. But she prayed unceasingly for those she loved and asked God to give her "sensitivity to souls." She never preached, moralized or argued about religion. She rarely mentioned it. But many people, largely agnostics and atheists, loved her dearly; they visited her often, especially in the later years when she suffered so physically, and came away refreshed by her warmth, joy, acceptance and quiet wisdom. She spoke, like other saints including her contemporary St. Therese of Lisieux, about "hungering for souls."  She longed to bring those she loved to the God she so loved. But she did so courteously, quietly, delicately. When she died, her husband read her journals and was converted immediately, becoming a Dominican priest. She frequently asked God for "sensitivity to souls" so that she would say the right thing, never anything that would offend, even unknowingly. She wrote that "the battle of minds does nothing." And yet she valued learning and  reading, praying for a wisdom so as to help others, but never in a didactic manner. During her lifetime and afterwards through her journals she influenced many, always in sweetness, charm, delight and delight. May we, with Elisabeth, yearn for those we love to be drawn to God! May we, with her, receive each person with joy, warmth, tenderness and reverence! May we, like her, radiate such gentleness, humility, and holiness!

If My Son Were Homosexual, I Would...

Love him more. For many reasons. First, men with such attractions are generally, in my experience, unusually sensitive, intelligent, humorous, artistic, spiritual, compassionate, endearing, interesting, The attractions come connected with wonderful gifts. Secondly, it comes also with suffering. A dear college, roommate friend, before he died of AIDS, softly told me "The gay life is a sad one." I did not, and still do not entirely understand what he meant. There is surely the social stigma that must be excruciating. But more deeply, even in gay-friendly societies like Scandanavia or San Francisco, there is a deeper sadness, a dissonance, an insatiable longing that must be suffered. Thirdly, this raw yearning carries also a vulnerability to a lifestyle that is sterile, futile and toxic for body, heart, mind and soul. Lastly, within our Church this attraction comes with a call to heroic sanctity: sexual continence, sobriety, and self-restrain that generates a moral/psychological fraternity and spiritual paternity/fruitfulness.  Remember the myriads of men and women who have served our society and Church...carrying their cross quietly, anonymously, generously... as priest, religious or single layperson. I am personally grateful to have loved and been loved by such dear friends. It is such a tender, virile, chaste, reverent, brotherly love that they...and I...deeply need and crave!

A Church in Schism? Engaging Modernity! My Granddaughter in Manhattan!

Our Church may be approaching a serious schism like nothing in recent memory. Divisions within the Church are normal; but an actual schism is very serious. The current division is about communion for the divorced-and-remarried-without-an-annulment. In Germany this is allowed; across the border in Poland it is not. Such a stark divide, within the episcopacy, is unknown in recent Catholic history. The underlying source of division as in most controversies of recent memory, is the confrontation with modernity: the post-enlightenment legacy of liberalism, science, individualism, technology, democracy and global capitalism. The conservative impulse within Catholicism, passionate in its love for the legacy of faith, is averse and anti-modern: pious, clerical, Marian, sometimes triumphalist, often defensive, and counter-cultural. The progressive impulse is eager to embrace all that is wholesome and promising in the emergent cultures. One might be described (to use the imagery of Richard Niebuhr) as Christ-against-Culture and as the other Christ-in-Culture. A third approach (described below) is a more sophisticated, nuanced separation of what is good from what is bad in modernity. The present division was preceded, in recent memory, by two similar divides: the small, clear and defined split by anti-modern groups that rejected the Vatican Council. The other was a hidden, covert but widespread schism from progressives who rejected Humanae Vitae's proscription of contraception. In the half century prior to the Council (1910-1960) the Catholic Church was solidly, institutionally consistent in its anti-modernity stance. The late Tridentine Church built its own separate philosophy and a network of strong institutions, all unified in opposition to Protestantism and the "isms" (secularism, atheism, communism, agnosticism, etc.) that flourished into the 20th century. Below the surface, however, quietly and modestly, intelligent and open-minded Catholic thinkers were in dialogue with the contemporary world and harvesting all that is best therein. This hidden current of thought and conversation flowered in the Vatican Council which can be understood as a turn in direction: an enthusiastic embrace of all in modernity that is consistent with the legacy of Christ and his Church. The post-Council Church was euphoric and sometimes uncritical in the 15 years following and so the more fervently anti-modern groups rejected the Council, declared the papacy to be vacant, and went into full schism. It was a small but significant group. The defining event, however, of this period was the decision of Pope Paul VI to reject the advice of his theological and episcopal commissions and affirm the traditional prohibition of contraception. This decision was rejected or ignored by the critical mass of laypeople, priests and theologians in Europe and America. The bishops acquiesed, without fervor, to the decision. The Vatican and its allies in the episcopacy made a crucial decision: rather than provoke a blatant schism, they took a soft, tolerant approach and allowed the dissent to flourish without discipline. The Church remained united in its public facade, but underneath there was a schism on this crucial issue which related to a host of others (women priests, gay sex, tolerance of abortion, etc.) which modernity hurled at the Church. The dual papacy of John Paul/Benedict is often seen as a revival of the conservative, anti-modern impulse, but it really represents a third, compromising approach. Both were brilliant scholars, entirely at home in the modern academy; both participated in the Council and were recognized for their gifts; both fully accepted the Council even as they interpreted it in continuity with prior tradition; both were gifted with the inclination and the ability to distinguish what is good from what is bad in the complexity and density of modernity. In regard to current culture, they practiced what the tradition calls the "spoiling of Egypt." This pregnant phrase recalls that when the Israelites left Egypt, they took with them all that was best from that society. And so, throughout its history, the Church has been eager to embrace what is best, but reject what is worst in each culture. Which brings us to my precious granddaughter Brigid. She is happily attending a fine Catholic girls academy in Manhattan. Passionate and thoughtful in her Catholic faith, she is nevertheless breathing in the air of that city: exciting, creative, controversial, wild, exuberant, cosmopolitan, sophisticated, diverse, challenging, thought-provoking, boundary-crossing,  She is...bright, inquisitive, passionate...at the age of 14 emblematic of the Church engaged with modernity. With St. John Paul and Pope-Emeritus Benedict, may she absorb what is best and reject what is worst. I am proud of her, excited for her, and gleefully hopeful for her...and her generation!

No Communion For the Divorced-Without-Annulment: Is the Church Unkind?

How cruel, rigid, and legalistic to deny Holy Communion to decent, wonderful people who are living generous lives! Pope Francis' move to change this seems sensible and kind.  But consider:

1.  The "Bond" is the thing. The Church is required to protect the bond of marriage. A valid, sacramental marriage establishes an invisible, spiritual bond that cannot be dissolved by anyone. It resembles the seal of the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Orders that cannot be removed by any power in heaven or on earth. A decade ago I was reproached by a fellow teacher: "What is this nonsense you are teaching our girls? They tell me you said it is alright if you abuse your wife, cheat on her or abandon her!" It took me a moment to understand: I had told them that since mine was surely a valid marriage, then if I fell to pieces and became addicted, adulterous, abusive, and abandoned my wife of 40 years (or 40 days), that would not nullify our spousal bond. Nothing and no one...not me or my wife, not the Pope or the Supreme Court...can "break asunder what God has bound."  This kind of absolute, inviolate connection is not intelligible to the contemporary, liberal mind. My students simply could not get it: "People fall in love and fall out of love." "He is not the man I married." "Irreconcilable differences!" This is an objective, spiritual reality that is not related to subjective psychology and feelings. This concept is simply unintelligible to a secular, liberal mindset that knows only emotional transience and flux.

2.  Who benefits from protection of the Bond? Women and children! Over the long term, the Bond is an impediment against the polygamous, promiscuous propensities of rich, powerful, irresponsible males. Think Henry VIII or Donald Trump! It is usually the male who becomes infatuated with a younger woman and wants to turn his wife in like a used car. Everyone knows the meaning of bigamy ("two-women") and polygamy ("many women"). Who knows about bi-andry ("two men") or polyandry ("many men"). The culture of easy divorce, serial polygamy, and non-marital co-habitation is destructive for women and children. The single biggest cause of poverty is women with children without a father/husband. In its strict view of the Bond, the Church is protective of the vulnerable against the preferences of the powerful and privileged (male).

3. A certain humility and deference is due to an unbroken tradition of over 2,000 years since Jesus himself spoke against the easy Pharisaic practice of divorce. Think of the martyrs in England after Henry VIII split with Rome because he wanted a new wife: many suffered brutal torture rather than comply with his adultery. Think of the legion of the faithful who have suffered broken marriages and sacrificially obeyed the law...and do so even today! The change proposed by Pope Francis sends the message: "The Church has been wrong, overly rigid, unkind! Your intentions were good, but all your suffering was mistaken!" Additionally, if the Church has been wrong, so insistently for so long about something so important, why trust Her about other things:  Maybe the priest can't forgive sins! Maybe there is no purgatory or hell or heaven or angels or devils! Why trust such an unkind, inflexible institution?

4.  The absolutely essential distinction in this (and all moral thought) is between the objective and the subjective. No one...not the Pope or priest or bishop...can judge the soul of another! No one! The interior moral and spiritual guilt and innocence is a sacrosanct temple into which none by the Holy Spirit can enter. Indeed, we cannot confidently judge even ourselves in regard to guilt and innocence because the human psyche/spirit is so boundlessly deep, dense, complex and subtle. We can only confess as best we can, relish our sense of innocence, but implore the Spirit to enlighten us and deliver us from the subtle deceptions of self and Satan. For practical purposes (in court, confession, etc.) authorities make judgments but these primarily involve the external, objective and allow for an unknowable Mystery surrounding the conscience of every person. I can judge that you lied or stole or committed adultery. But it is for God and yourself, not for me, to judge that you are a liar, thief or adulterer. So, for numerous reasons communion is refused to people: the non-baptized, those too young, the inebriated, those in irregular marriages, those who ate or drank withing the preparatory fast period and so forth. These are not judgments about the person:  You are a bad person and you are condemned and you are going to hell! No:  they are objective rules to protect the sanctity of the sacrament. It is a simple objective principle:  you just drank a six-pack and ate a whole pizza with pepperoni, you cannot receive right now! You are remarried without an annulment, you cannot receive right now! Nothing personal! In light of this, consider the impossible burden Pope Francis and his lieutenants would place upon a priest: he must judge the interior of a supplicant and subjectively decide whether she/he is worthy to receive! How can he presume to say Yes to these three and No to those four?  Such is unspeakably presumptuous! The Church provides us with rules, guidance and boundaries; She does not judge the soul!

5.  Let's attend now to the actual person: victim of a broken marriage and possibly a cruel spouse, she is now happily remarried and striving generously to live a Catholic life of faith and love. She loves the Church. She feels distant, condemned,  and lonely in the communion ban. These feelings are real, painful and entirely understandable. But they are inaccurate. The truth is that the Church is not judging, condemning and excluding, even if it feels that way. That is the devil whispering in her ear since he wants you to feel distant and alone.  The Church loves her and longs to hold her close! The Church is constrained to protect the Ban and so to require her to abstain from communion. It  is not personal! It is objective! Imagine your school has a strict policy on tardiness so that anyone late does a detention...absolutely NO exceptions! Friday morning you leave late because you are washing and feeding your sick grandmother; on the way you see a young child drowning in the river so you jump in to rescue and get her to safety; then you see a teen being mugged by a gang of thugs and you call the police and then rush in to save him. You arrive at school three minutes late. You explain what happened to the Dean. He is a fine man and congratulates you for your generosity and heroism, but explains that he cannot exempt you from the detention. At this point you can whine and moan in self-pity: "Not fair! I don't deserve a detention! This is a stupid rule and a stupid school and a stupid Dean!" Or you can say:  "I understand Dean. You have to do what you have to do. I will serve the detention. No problem!" All that generosity and heroism is that much increased by this humility.

6. Lastly, what are the options in this situation. First, of course, is an annulment which declares the first marriage null and opens the path for a genuine, sacramental marriage in the present. The grounds for annulment are surprisingly wide, especially in regard to the consent, which must be free and knowledgeable. Failing that, two good options remain. First, the Church allows reception of the sacraments if the man and woman live as brother-and-sister, in what is sometimes called a "Josephite Marriage" (in imitation of Mary and Joseph) in that they would sleep separately and abstain from intercourse. To our sex-saturated culture, this is cruel and unthinkable. Our society believes that sex is a NEED, so that deprivation will lead to pathology. This is sheer nonsense! No one dies from continence! No one rushes to the emergency from abstaining too long! This theory reminds me of my son who in forth grade got in trouble for too much flatulence and told us that he had learned  from his cousin that if you hold in the gas you get sick. The truth is: almost all of us are abstinent almost all of the time for a million reasons. Even in marriage: sickness, schedule, nervousness, marital spats, and so forth. For the better part of 20 years I worked nights at UPS. Thousands of us returned home to an empty bed for day rest. We never complained, never filed for disability, never felt sorry for ourselves. If we could abstain to get the packages delivered, perhaps some can do so to remain in sacramental union with Christ. Nevertheless, there may be situations where such continence would be truly onerous for one or both spouses. In that case, if the conscience is at peace in the irregular situation, the Catholic can maintain spiritual communion with the Church, while abstaining from physical communion. Here is where the "spiritual communion" occurs: the communicant asks Christ for such invisible union since the visible is not available. My saintly aunt practiced this, along with myriads of others, as she declined in heath and could not get to mass. When I see someone at mass, daily or Sunday, who abstains I am always inspired: "There is someone who loves our Eucharistic Lord so much that she comes here even as she cannot receive, for whatever reason. That is real love! That might the the holiest person in this Church!"

"I Just Want You To Hold Me"

A dear friend participated in the event and told me about it. Some years ago, it was a gathering of those, mostly men, who struggle with same-sex desire and compulsion to live sober, chaste lives and support each other in the 12-step traditions of honesty, accountability and reliance on Higher Power and the fellowship in recovery. A man shared his story. He was away on a business trip, lonely in his hotel room when he called for a male prostitute. When the young man arrived, he told him: "You will think this is weird. Don't worry, I will pay you the normal fees. I just want you to hold me. Nothing else. Just stay a while and hold me." The young man replied: "I don't think that is weird. I get that from you guys all the time." A silence fell upon the circle of perhaps 70 or 80 people. This quiet remained. There were soft sounds of weeping. Soon everyone in the room was weeping freely.

The story hit a raw, tender nerve for everyone in the room. It unveiled the profound craving underlying this attraction and compulsion: the longings for a love that is virile, sober, warm, strong, chaste, fraternal, protective, paternal and accepting.

May all of us men, whatever our own cravings and attractions, receive and share just such a holy, masculine love!

What's Wrong With Same-Sex Romance?

Two young women love each other...tenderly and respectfully...in a romantic/sexual relationship. Why would there be something wrong with that? The answer depends upon the meaning, purpose and truth of romance and sexuality.

Let us consider contrasting viewpoints: that of the Catholic faith and that of the prevailing cultural liberalism or "expressive, romantic individualism." For the first view the lesbian relationship is dangerous and destructive; for the second something wholesome and beautiful. Both views see sexuality as expressive of intimacy within an exclusive relationship. But they differ greatly regarding: permanence, fruitfulness, gender distinction, sacramentality, sacrifice vs. fulfillment, and the gravity and sanctity of it all.

Liberalism sees sex as expressive of a unique, intimate and exclusive relationship. Fidelity is valued greatly; polygamy, promiscuity and infidelity are condemned. Permanence is an ideal and an aspiration but realism requires the acceptance of divorce, breaking-up and moving on to another relationship. Serial polygamy is normal and accepted if not ideal. By contrast, for a Catholic the spousal covenant, expressed formally/publicly and consummated by intercourse, creates a permanent spiritual bond. "What God has bound together, let no man break asunder" is the way Jesus put it. Interestingly, he asserted this radical stance against the permissive Pharisees who allowed divorce.  Today, those who adhere to this stricter view are maligned as "pharisaical" when it was actually the Pharisees who resisted Jesus' hard word. For the Catholic, the conjugal bond is essentially, constitutionally, efficaciously and unbreakably final and permanent.

For the liberal sex is essentially sterile although fertility is an option when desired. Every other culture in human history understood sexuality to be fruitful but the catastrophic contraceptive revolution of the 60s turned this view on its head. In this view, sex is basically sterile, contra-ceptive, and merely expressive of affection.By contrast, the Catholic view is that sexuality is essentially, in its very nature, oriented to new life.  This is not to say that every single act leads to new life, but that every such act is oriented in purpose in that direction. Couples may rightly make love during infertile times but may not intervene actively to prevent conception lest they destroy the meaning of the engagement.

Regarding gender: for the liberal feminist, man and woman are equal, identical, and interchangeable in regard to rights and responsibilities.  Career, childcare and home management are matters for negotiation with each holding identical hands in what can become a competition of wills. For the Catholic, there is a dense, mysterious, creative and utterly unique complementarity and asymetry between bride and groom: the woman is mysteriously endowed with gifts, sufferings and graces that are endlessly fascinating and appealing to the man. And viceversa! And so, the couple do a privileged, confidential dance as they learn from and about each other, free of stereotypes but also of a flat homogeneity.

For the sacramental Catholic conscience, the marriage event marks a firm, inviolate boundary: one is either married or not. There is no gray area, no spectrum, no ambiguity. Prior to this sacred and public proclamation, sexual intercourse is proscribed; afterwards, it is joyous, hopeful, and sacred. No such clarity and objectivity apply to the liberal view of romance and sex: as long as there are some (however vague, emotional or sentimental) "feelings" between the two, as long as it is "consensual" (a loaded term if there ever was one!) and no obvious harm is done, the couple can happily jump into bed as in every romantic comedy. As a sacrament, marriage is an encounter, an event, a vow between the spouses; but it includes a third Person, God's very self, who also promises to be with the lovers forever, sealing and blessing their union.

Next we have contrast between sacrifice and fulfillment. Arguably the most pervasive, pernicious and catastrophic falsehood in our society is the "Romantic Myth" which teaches that everlasting happiness will be found in the arms of Mr. or Miss "Right." This is the theme running through endless movies, articles, dramas and narratives. Real love, to the cruciform Catholic mind, this side of heaven brings frustration, sacrifice, disappointment and suffering. We know that we crucify those we love...those closest to us...especially the spouse. So spousal love essentially means the willingness to apologize for wrongs done, to forgive for wrongs received, to patiently (with God's grace) bear betrayal, disappointment and even heartbreak.

Lastly, the two views differ on the gravity or sanctity of romantic/sexual love. The liberal, especially the feminine mind, despises infidelity. Other than that, however, a lighthearted approach applies: casual encounters, involving neither infidelity nor coercion, are accepted since sex is often seen as a "need" that is better satisfied than repressed. And so we see that the blatant, really obscene dalliances of Clinton and Trump are dismissed by their backers as relatively trivial and marginal. For the Church, on the other hand, sexuality is inexpressibly precious and sacred and therefore surrounded by reverence, awe, modesty. It is, first of all, the plan God designed to create every eternal soul. Secondly, the merging of bodies is not an accidental, extrinsic thing, but actually a union of intellect, heart and soul. In the sexual encounter, the souls themselves merge. Within marriage this is a splendid, holy event, with God participating and blessing it, in all its physical and emotional exhilaration. Outside of marriage, in whatever form, it is sad, futile and mutually destructive. This guidance applies to everyone, married and single, gay and straight, young and old: if sexuality is (as the Church has taught since the time of Jesus) inherently exclusive, permanent, fruitful, sacrificial and sacramental than misuse is a sad, dangerous tragedy.

It is like a lively fire in a cold, dry forest at night: properly directed within a strong fireplace it provides warmth, light, cooked food and beauty as family and friends gather to talk, eat, sing and pray; uncontrolled it becomes a forest fire that destroys everything in its path.

In summary we might consider the two views as "symbolic" and "diabolic" in the precise etymological sense: "symbolic" means to "join together" while "diabolic" means to "tear apart." The classic, symbolic Catholic understanding is that the erotic encounter brings together, in the flow from and to God, all the splendor of romance, new life, commitment, stability of life, and the interplay of sacrifice and joy. Spousal communion,with all its trials, is already an expression of Heaven-on-Earth! Expressive individualism is diabolical in the exact etymological sense: it tears sexuality and romance away from new life, permanence, and the fascination of the masculine/feminine encounter. One is sterile, the other fruitful; one transitory, the other ensures permanence and stability of life; one promises an illusion of romantic fulfillment, the other a path to Joy through mutual sacrifice, contrition and forgiveness; the one is androgynous and homogenous, the other enthralled by the Mysteries of femininity/masculinity, maternity/paternity, fraternity/sorority; the one prone to emotional confusion fluidity, and ambiguity while the other is sacred, vivid, objective and clear in its sacramentality.

How then, does a Catholic relate to an actively gay or lesbian friend? With anxiety, condescension, condemnation or emotional distance? Certainly Not! With a tender, reverent, warm silence! With sensitivity to the deep desires, for intimacy and love, that are taking an unfortunate path! With prayer and concern about the inevitable loneliness, heartbreak and hopelessness that accompany such misdirected affection! And with the offer of a generous, sober, chaste same-sex friendship which is in large part the solution to the craving that motivates such affection!

Best Responses to School Gun Violence

1. Pass strong gun control legislation while respecting gun rights: background checks, ban on assault weapons, higher age limitations, etc.

2. Renounce an hysteria of fear and resentment (heightened by media, internet, and mob dynamics) in favor of sober, thoughtful purposefulness. Social movements motivated by anxiety and resentment accomplish little or nothing: Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Deeper movements that change society are rooted in moral, spiritual goodness and truth: think King and Chavez!

3.  Respect the "gun culture" and even the NRA, despite their extreme positions. A calmer tone on the part of gun-controllers may elicit less resistance from them. A wholesome diversity will tolerate their affection for guns. Understand: their fear of an expansive and increasingly controlling central government is hardly irrational. Consider: these "deplorables" (Hillary) who "cling to their guns and religion" (Obama) and are viewed with contempt by our coastal, liberal elites are our best allies in the Culture War that matters to us regarding defenseless, innocent life (unborn, elderly, disabled),  family and liberty.

4.  Do Not Stigmatize the mentally ill! Violence is not about mental illness. By and large, I am as safe or safer with those who suffer anxiety, depression, and the entire range of mood and thinking disorders as I am with "normals" (whatever that means!) Mental illness is more often accompanied by meekness than violence.

5.  Recognize that violence of any sort flows from spiritual and moral roots that cannot be entirely resolved by legislation and enhanced mental health services. Sin! Systemic social disorder including fatherless sons and broken families! Weakness of the flesh! The Devil!

6.  Realistically and soberly realize that even the best legislation cannot "socially engineer" the disappearance of school, or any, violence. Part of the anger motivating the gun control surge is a naive faith that legislation would have prevented the violence. This is rooted in a faith in technology and human ingenuity. So there is anger at the NRA and Marco Rubio and others. Many of those who proclaim the futility of the "war on drugs" presume that the "war on guns" will prevail. More likely, a prosperous black market will compensate as it did in the Prohibition. Sound gun control legislation can help but will hardly solve the problem.

7.  Do not blame law enforcement for missing clues about these shooters! Realistically, given their resources, they cannot track every potential threat nor can they violate the rights of potential shooters. Again, a naive trust in technology/bureaucracy expects the impossible of our police and FBI.

8.  A school district in Pennsylvania is empowering students to defend against a shooter with rocks. This is a great idea. Drills and practices could instill a sense of agency and strength rather than the victim complex. Boys particularly would benefit from a kind of virility enhancement. This is a pressing need in a society in which mega-technology has left a widespread feeling of impotence. The low-tech approach (stones, bow and arrows, sling shots, etc.) would be a refreshing change of pace from reliance always on bureaucracy and technology. 8th graders could defend 2nd graders. Death of attacker by stoning would revive an ancient biblical practice, serve as an effective deterrent and avoid costly legal and prison procedures (JUST KIDDING!)

9.  Students and teachers can be encouraged to be sensitive to those who are lonely, alienated and depressed and befriend them. Realistically, we know this will not always succeed. But it must be attempted. (Thanks to Brendan Roth and Ally Baez for this idea.)

10.  Realize, from a faith perspective, that the innocent who die from school shootings are in communion with the Holy Innocents (of Bethlehem) and all who suffer violently and with Jesus our Lord, the Icon of innocent, but triumphant suffering. We can confidently hope they are into Eternal Life. I imagine that at the very mini-moment of death they meet Christ and are offered the opportunity to forgive the shooter and then enter immediately into Heaven. This suggests that our prayer and concern needs to be more for the shooter who may already be in the state of hell.