It Ain't Me Babe!......Abraham's Indecent Proposal

Go away from my window, Leave at your own chosen speed I'm not the one you want, babe I'm not the one you need You say you're lookin' for someone Who's never weak but always strong To protect you an' defend you Whether you are right or wrong Someone to open each and every door But it ain't me, babe No, no, no, it ain't me, babe It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe. Bob Dylan One of the very worst of the many distressing stories in Scripture is the sojourn of Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (Gen. 12). Sarah is so beautiful that Abraham is sure the Pharoh will kill him to have her. So he proposes: Let's pretend you are my sister so they don't kill me, although they will surely take you. Sarah goes along with it and she finds herself as a concubine in Pharoh's harem. This is pretty disgusting: a husband who pimps his wife out to save his own skin! But even worse: this is Abraham we are talking about! Abraham, the prime and greatest of the patriarchs! Abraham the father in faith of many nations! Abraham whose faith was tested by the sacrifice of his son Issac in which he passed stupendously! Abraham...no combination of prophets or priests or kings or judges equal him in greatness. Moses alone, the great lawgiver, is in his league. How could the great Abraham do this? Pragmatically his calculation is reasonable: if they know she is his wife, they kill him and get her. If they think she is his sister, they get her but spare him. By a practical calculus his decision is sensible. But it is still vile! It isn't clear in Scripture that she slept with the Pharoh but that seems likely given what happens next. God punishes Pharoh, not Abraham, for taking this married woman. He punishes Pharoh! Pharoh is subjectively innocent since he thought she was single. If anyone deserves punishment it should be Abraham for the deceit and for intentionally sending his wife into adultery. It gets more crazy: not only is Abraham not punished, but Pharoh sends him off with his wife and with many possessions as well. Wow! This is crazy stuff! And inspired Scripture at that! The story bothered me. But then it hit me! Abraham is paradigmatic for all us husbands: at the end of the day, in one way or another, we disappoint and betray our beautiful wives. We fail to protect and provide, to tender and reverence them as they deserve. But the good news: God comes to the rescue. He delivers Sarah from concubinage; He saves the marriage; he protects the family, the legacy, and the patriarchy of Abraham even though he doesn't deserve it! The takeaway: as a bridegroom and husband, I (and all of us) am fundamentally flawed, inadequate and unfaithful in the care and protection of my bride and wife. In one way or another, I fail her. I betray her. If she looks to me to fulfill her deepest longings, to unfailingly provide and protect her, to fondly attend to her...she will will be heartbroken, in one way or another. There is One, however, who fondly, faithfully, powerfully attends to her...that is God and specifially Jesus Christ the Great Bridegroom Himself. As Sarah was rescued by God, so is my own wife...and by analogy all women I befriend. I lack within myself the resources...emotional, spiritual...to fulfill the desires of any woman. What I can do is humble myself before the Great Bridegroom, ask for His mercy for the woman I love, and surrender myself to Him in a mimetic reenactment of his extravagant, virile, sensitive, attentive generosity.

Notes from Christendom: Urban, Blue-State, Underclass Christendom

Disclaimer: Those who know me well allege that I am not merely an optimist, but a cockeyed optimist. This essay will strengthen that allegation. I have been living in Christendom now for over 73 years. I will die in Christendom. This statement is sociologically and theologically incorrect: everyone knows that we are now in a post-Christian society. Christendom is extinct: a thing of the past, it peaked in the 13th century, was dealt a blow by the Reformation and Enlightenment and left us in a disenchanted, secular, neo-pagan society. I myself have been soaking myself in this literature since Harvey Cox's The Secular City of 1965. Except that is simply NOT my reality. I live in a Christian society. I have always lived in Christendom: a weakened, shallow, confused, wounded, marginalized, disparaged, often discouraged and even despairing Christendom, but Christendom nevertheless. Christendom is alive!It is in critical condition, but is NOT dead! What is Christendom? Simply: a Christian soicety and culture in which Christian ideals reign, aspirationally if not often actually. It is not that everyone practices these ideals: they are too difficult for us. It is that almost no one practices them consistently and fervently; but almost everyone implicitly aspires to them and admires them. To be clear: my argument is that Christendom is alive, weakened but alive, in the underclasses. In affluent, elite circles (academy, entertainment, law, media, etc.) it is a thing of the past and has been replaced by neo-pagan cultural liberalism. But it survives, underground and wounded and vulnerable, in urban evangelical black communities, in the rural Trumpian heartland, and in what remains of ethnic Catholicism that is still ethnic and still Catholic. Here are three foundational Christian principles which, I argue, are broadly honored, if not very well practiced: prayer, marital fidelity, care for the poor. Well over 95% of people I know and associate with very clearly value these. Prayer is simply personal access to a God who is powerful, close to us and kind to us. We all don't pray consistently and fervently, but pretty much all of us appreciate prayer. In my world, this is quite common: someone is telling me about his father's cancer; I respond that I will remember him in prayer; he thanks me. That is Christendom. Marital fidelity is trickier. The Cultural Revolution of the 60s frontally assaulted the entire edifice of traditional family life: pre-marital abstinence, the unitive/procreative meaning of sexuality, the ideal of chastity, "heteronormativity", the essentiality and intentionality of femininity and masculinity. So, Cultural Liberalism has prevailed in elite culture but not so clearly in the lower classes. Ironically, it has had its most devestating effects on low-income and low-status groups. Nevertheless, my experience is that the ideals of fidelity, monogamy, and chastity are still reverenced, even if not very well practiced, by the working and poor classes. Lastly, care for the poor: in my work in providing homes for low-income women, I continually receive generous support from our donors, some of whom have serious money, but also from volunteers as well as firefighters, police, health care workers, inspectors and others. I don't know of a nefarious "deep state"...the bureaucrats who engage us are almost always reasonable and supportive. Ironically: I live in Jersey City, hyper-blue part of a hyper-blue State. It went 75% for Biden. I am myself the redest red-blooded, red-meat, red-fire-engined, reactionary registered Republican on the cultural-moral issues. The DNC: I despise, renounce, execrate, defy, disparage, detest it! It is the structural, systemic-systematic, institutional enactment of religious toltalitarianism, genocide of the helpless, moral chaos and spiritual despair. But democrats are something else. I know them well. They vote for Biden for reasons such as: compassion for immigrants, care for the environment, health care for the needy, greater economic equality, decrease in gun violence and similiar concerns. These are all of them solid, Christian motivations. Ironic: the viciously anti-Catholic DNC is largely fueled by wholesome, well-intended Catholic motivations. Tragically, these good intentions are paving the path to hell: a grave moral misjudgement is operative here. The vote for Biden objectively advances grave systematic evil. Nevertheless, the subjective motivations are largely worthy. Christendom, in a confused, convoluted form, is still alive. I encounter this in its two basic expressions: traditional Catholic pro-union, strong-government liberalism and Black, evangelical liberalism. Both are rooted deeply in Christian values. Both vote compulsively, ignorantly for the Agenda of Death. A mirror image of my Christendom is, of course, the right wing, white, evangelical Trumpism of the heartland, the South and the Midwest. Here again, fierce Christian energies have been enflamed by Trump against the neo-pagan elite hegemony on behalf of religious liberty, religious authority, traditions involving gender/sexuality/marriage and the preciousness of innocent, incompetent life. But again, a grave moral misjudgment is operative in the support of a man whose personal example is so scandalous. Again: Christendom is alive, but weak, fractured into two opposing political camps, mislead by serious moral error, shallow, and under vicious assault from the Cultural Liberalism of the elite.I do worry, mostly, about our young. The neo-pagan dynamics of the upper class are strengthened by social and other media, technology,the atomization of the individual, breakdown of a essential family-church-community networks, and the cancerous growth of big state and corporation. A good example would be the Black Lives Matter movement. I don't encounter it in Jersey City, but when I drive through affluent suburban Essex county where homes are worth over half a million at least there is a sign on every third lawn. The motivation, from what I can tell, is largely compassion for the inordinate poverty, sickness, imprisionment, of black communities. But it predominates among the affluent and educated. While the motives seem pure, as a moral judgment it is worse than erroneous, it is catastrophic. It is: simplistic, polarizing, police-scapegoating, black-male-emasculating, virtue-signaling, anti-white racist, black-racisim-and-resentment enflaming, violence-encouraging, authority-suspecting, community destroying and victimizing of the black identity. But the widespread support is largely a Christian empathy gone sentimental and confused. My adulthood has been spent in diverse, working class Jersey City, teaching in small scale Catholic schools, running boarding homes for low income women and working for 25 years in blue color UPS. In my cosmos, I don't know any Nietzcheans, or Marxists, or Freudians. I have known a Jungian and a Darwinian or two but those would be psychologists or professors, members of the elite who are under the influence of the Empire. IT is like the Rebel Alliance in the Star Wars saga: in hiding, oppressed, marginalized, in constant danger of being destroyed. But we all know that the energies, the solidarity, and the "Force" are waiting patiently for the decisive, surprising strike against the Death Star. And so it is with our Culture War: the elite institutions are oppressive of our faith but we wait, in the underclasses, quiet, anonymous, calm. The Benedict Option takes on a different form in this perspective: given the weakness of Christendom in its distinct expressions and the violence and power of "The Empire of Cultural Liberalism" we definitely need to bond together in smaller, intense communities of faith, especially to fruitfully pass it on to our young. The survival and revival of Christendom depends upon the vigor and vitality of just such communities. Without them, the Empire will prevail over the Alliance. However, there are grounds for great hope: the residual energies of Christendom are substanital if not ostentatious. Allied with revival communities, Christendom will arise!

Sal Left Us: to Bring Joy to Jesus

Yesterday I was blessed to attend the funeral mass for Sal Cassaro at the magnificent Basilica-like Church of St. Aeden's in Jersey City. Fr. Rocco S.J. presided with his dramatic, Italian touch: I enjoyed it and was touched by it. The Church was full, several hundred, for a weekay, Covid-time service. Sal and I taught together 45 years ago for a year or two at St. Mary's H.S. downtown Jersey City. We liked each other in a light, effortless way. Our paths crossed occasionally over the years, ususally because his Michele and my Clare were best friends from high school on. Through the girls our families had a fierce mutual affection for each other. He liked me; I liked him. I didn't realize how much I liked, no...how much I loved him... until his death. Sal was rock-solid, salt-of-the-earth Jersey City: gentle, sweet, good-natured, fun, funny, light-hearted. Affectionate. Did not take himself seriously. Always with a smile on his face. Rotund in a way that heightened his jollity. He taught math in Catholic high schools for many years: this (I know) to be a low-income, low-status, challenging often frustrating work. He coached track: the long hours, the almost-no-pay, the (for me at least) monotony of the thing; you cannot do this except as a labor of love, love of the kids and the sport. For many years, to pay tuition and expenses he worked managing a hotel nights after teaching and coaching all day. As I prepared for the funeral, I was recalling the affection, lightness and delight I would always feel in his presence. Then a strange thought struck me: Sal is in heaven, being greeted by Jesus, who is welcoming him with great joy! Sal is bringing Jesus joy. zYes: that's right, Jesus is the happy one. It makes sense: Sal always made me happy in a quiet, almost unremarkable way: how much more must Jesus enjoy him. This thought gave me great joy. At funerals we entertain a number of thoughts and feelings: the loss of the family; the suffering (if there was sickness) is over; purgatory has begun so we add our prayers and masses to help; and eternal happiness has begun, for the good. But I myself never thought about the Joy enjoyed by Jesus himself, not to mention the entire Trinity and the Communion of Saints. This makes God capable of receiving Joy...from us. That means that today... as I trust, surrender, receive mercy and all good gifts, forgive, apologizie, care for another...as I do any of these, I give joy to the Creator of the Universe. Even more, when I die I will go to give him joy since we will be closer than ever on this earth. Today I received, in the memory of Sal, an actual grace of hope and joy. His memory delights me and inspires me to emulate his quiet, happy, humble way and fills me with hope!

The Reckless, Crazy, God-Intended Extravagance of Eros

If I understood his dense essay ("Nature of Original Sin" in Communio Spring 2020) correctly, Gustav Siewerth suggested that God, in creating the human person, even before the Fall, intended Eros, Passion and Desire to vastly excell human reason and will in power. This is quite a thought! Traditional Catholic anthropology finds the "image of God" specifically in our intellect and will: our spiritual capacities to know the True and to choose the Good. The passions, including sex and the rest, are meant to be subordinate to reason and will. By virtue of sin and concupiscence, the passions are out of control and must, with the help of grace, be brought back into submission to reason and will. The thought I developed from Siewerth (I may be misinterpreting him!) suggest something quite different. Without denying the reality of sin and concupiscence, the idea is: already in the state of grace and harmony, God intended our desire, delight and appreciation, even for created good, to surge in depth and intensity beyond our powers of thought, deliberation and volition. By this logic, our longing for communion, to surrender ourselve to the Good-True-Beautiful, to possess and be possessed, to hold and be held, to see and be seen, to give and to receive...all of this an echo of the eternal giving-and-receiving within the Trinity... is extravagant, excessive, profound and intense beyond the more limited abilities of thought and will. St. John Paul has already suggested that we image God in our conjugal mystery of reception, surrender, and self-gift. In this he includes intellect and will within the gift-of-self which itself is knowing and willed. But this new thought seems to go a step further: the very excess of desire and longing is itself an image of God and an impetus towards God. By any account, it is clear that in paradise, before sin, there was perfect harmony within the person in regard to intellect, will, desire and passions. This was due to the communion with God which flooded our first parents with interior peace, strength and harmony such that all dimensions rested and moved in harmony. But my image of this harmony was that will and intellect are in charge and the passions and desires fall in line: spirit in at the top of the hierarchy, flesh at the bottom. But the suggestion here is that already in the garden Adam and Eve would have customarily be grasped by ecstacy, intoxication, and mystical delight that overwhelmed the deliberative, cognitive functions. This would have been ordinary, normal, entirely non-pathological. Consider Adam's first response to Eve: "This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." That is an intelligent statement, but far more than that. It appears to flow from a deeper, poetic and even mystical engagement: a profound sense of communion, of delight, of longing, of satisfaction. His first response was thus an ecstacy of extravagant delight which would have silenced his cognition and deliberation. His first response was the innocent, reverent and tender gaze of contemplation, of surrender to indescribable loveliness, goodness, and dignity. Eros is prior to thought and will. Thought experiment: place is the garden of Eden; time is shortly before dinner, well before the Fall. Eve is preparing dinner (delicious vegetarian!). Adam is gathering fruit and vegetables, singing with the birds, and enjoying the bunnies and chipmunks. Into the garden walks Sophia Loren at age 20. Recall: this is before the Fall so they are both naked without shame. They are immune to embarassment, lust, covetousness, envy. Now: how does Adam react? Obviously, he is blown away! He is dizzy with intoxication, wonder, awe! His breathing is heavy as he needs more oxygen for the intensity of his reaction! His hormones...testosterone, oxytoxin, seratonin, endorphins, and the rest...are inflamed into a white heat! His cortical nerve system is heated up to full strength! His virility, in its propensity for intimacy-and-fecundity is fiercely aroused, erect and exclamatory! He is in a mystical-emotional-physical ecstacy, for which he was created! All this without privation, toxicity or indecency. Sophia (means "wisdom") cheerfully says: "Hi! You must be Adam. I am Sophia." When Adam hears these words the spell of the charm is diminished, but not entirely as he remains euphoric, so that his verbal and deliberative faculties are restored and responds: "Yes, I am Adam. Welcome, Sophia, to our garden. God be praised for all His goodness: You are a singular masterpiece of womanly loveliness! My Eve will love you! Please come and dine with us." Adam, happily in the state of grace, in communion with the Trinity, enjoys an unbounded flow of peace, strength, joy and gratitude. So, his ecstacy, while momentarily unhinged from reason and will, is entirely innocent and wholesome. It is an excess of appreciation, tenderness and reverence. It is not unintelligible as much as super-intelligible. This is good news. This should bring some release from shame and restoration of wholesome, appreciative, liberated Eros desire and energy. This, again, is not to deny the malignant, even demonic fury of lust...of sexual desire disordered by isolation, anger, self-hatred. But it is to recognize that even under the distressing disguise of sin, the fundamental Eros longing of the human heart is for the Good, for God as the ultimate Good, and the Good in all its symphonic splendor. And so, as we deal with the extravagance, exuberance and chaos of Eros, we do well to remember three truths: 1. Such desire is ususally a cross, a suffering, an ache and frustration that God allows. He actually does "lead us into temptation" (although Pope Francis does not think so) in order that we be purified and sanctified by purgation. We need to endure this. 2. In so far as the desire is oriented to evil, as in adultery and fornication, it must be decisively renounced, in the power of the Holy Spirit and in the name of the chaste Bridegroom. 3. At its heart, however, this burning desire, however misdirected, is a longing for the Good, the True and the Beautiful, and ultimately a craving for God. The path to purity: penance and conversion; patience and endurance; but most importantly possession by the passon for God. The cure for disordered Eros is a purged, inflamed, extravagant Eros!

Internal Family Systems: Good Psychology, Good Therapy; Not a Theology, not a Spirituality

In a delightful podcast, Jenna Riemersma is interviewed by a woman like herself: both are believers, enthusiastic about IFS as a path of healing, and they fairly sparkle with joy, conviction, faith, zeal and feminine charm. THey place the IFS (Ingternal Family Systems) model of therapy within a Christian perspective. In this view, the person is composed, like a family, of different "parts" which have valid functions but can become dysfunctional but must be accepted, respected and listened to. There is the Deep Self, the true and good self, peaceful and open. But the Self becomes wounded, hurt and traumatized in all kinds of ways. So, the pain arouses two key parts of the Self. The managers strive to contain the suffering and maintain control, order, and a minimum of conflict and pain. By contrast the fire fighters are hyperactive in putting out the fire whatever it takes. This can be compulsions and addictions such as anger, alcholism, pornorgapry and so forth. The system can become dysfunctional if the fire fighters are out of control and encurr the anger of the managers so that you have a split, fragmented psyche. The solution is for the deep, peaceful, real Self to welcome and dialogue the with the various parts who are all trying to do their job to protect and comfort. This is a helpful model: it does not moralize or pathologize but seeks to understand the underyling dynamics of tension and conflict. The managers clearly resemble the Freudian superego and the firefighters the id; but the deep self resembles the Jungian concept of self. It seems especially helpful for helping seriously religious people, such as conservative Catholics, who are strong in their belief but are often suffering from overactive managers who are suppressing anxiety, although unconsciously, through moralism, legalism, dogmatism and an elusive coldness and resentment. It also seems helpful for identifying the addiction cycle whereby the firefighters overwhelm the fire but then retreat, leaving the Self trapped in shame and guilt as the managers reassert their control. Another strength of the presentation was what Jenna, asked for her response to believing Christians who have reservations about the model, responded that she herself welcomes such reservations, since they have value and need to be received with respect. Great answer! Not defensive, open. In that spirit I offer this. It is promising as therapy but best not to inflate this into a spirituality. For example, she goes into the theological concept of sin and offers her model, the Self as fragmented and polarized, as an improvement over a view, which she considers typical of Christianity, of sin as impurity as if we pour coloring into liquid and thus polute or contaminate it. Surely her view is better than the contrast, but that contrast is a gross mistatement of sin in our tradition. She has moved out of therapy and is doing bad theology. She understands the Self to be "imago Dei" or the image of God, again moving into theology. This sounds like classical Jungian thought which develops a dazzlying, convoluted understanding of the Self as a world onto itself, but unrelated to a God that is Other. Rather, divinity becomes a dimension, a depth of the Self. THis is not Christianity but Gnosticism. When she ventures into use of Christian terminogly for these psychological realities she is risking the gnosticism that flooded the churches in the 60s and 70. The temptation of psychology is to inflate itself into spirituality. Jung is the best example, but consider the humanistic psychology of Rogers as sanctified by Eugene Kennedy; the helpful insights of Richard Rohr which become bad dogma when exaggerated into religion. Authentic Christian spirituality always draws us to the person of Jesus Christ, not to our own deep self, but to Another Self, who loves us and brings us to become our true, deep self. Such spirituality looks to Jesus on the cross dying for our sins, as well as all his works and teachings, and his rising and ascending and sending of the Holy Spirit. Listening to these two women one senses deep Christian faith, both seem to know Jesus very well. But taken as theology, their language could be confusing. It is best they this model present itself as therapy and psychology with particular importance for religiousity in its toxic aspects and for addicts. I was most happy to hear the podcast and am applying it already to my "issues!"

The Donald Reality

In a brilliant piece, (https://theweek.com/articles/951933/how-camp-explains-trump), Matt Walther nails the entire Trump performance of the last four years as "camp." He draws upon Susan Sontag's subtle treatment of the illusive phenomenon. The piece confirmed my intuitions about The Donald: he is not a governor, not even a politician; he is an entertainer, a celebrity pure and simple; and a brilliant and entertaining one at that. His presidency was entirely a show, a performance: he tortured the woke elite, winking all the time; he aroused his base into a marathon pep rally; he championed (ironically, given his blatant personal immorality) the religious right and became almost a messiah. It is all pure showbiz, performance and high camp.

Walther does not address my question: to what degree is he deliberate, intentional and self-conscious in his camp performance? If he is entirely self-conscious and therefore self-transcending, he is a sheer genius. But I doubt that he is. He is trapped in his own subconscious narcissistic needs and basically unreflective. But, intuitively he is brilliant in his ability to identify the weaknesses of his enemies, the passions of his base, the incongruity of it all.

But this leads to another question: if Donald is unaware of the irony, is he himself practicing camp? Clearly not! The strange reality of camp: a high-brow, sophisticated, even arrogant condescension  as if to say: "This is so cheesy! So corny! How fun to covertly make fun of it!" Sontag described it:  "banality, mediocrity, artifice, (and) ostentation...so extreme as to amuse or have a perversely sophisticated appeal." Is Donald himself tongue-in-cheek? Quietly laughing at himself and all those he is torturing or arousing? No way! He does this unconsciously, spontaneously, instinctively...as in everything he does. He is the performer but not the writer, director or producer of the script.

He takes himself as seriously as do his fans and his despisers. They are all wholly involved in the farce and unable to enjoy it. Who gets the campiness of it all? Very few of us. Matt Walther is one. I am honored to be another. In order to see and enjoy the immense irony and incongruity it is necessary to have some emotional disinterest or liberty: to view him from a distance. The entire left, unhinged by Trump-derangement-syndrome, is entirely incapable of this perception. Likewise the serious never-Trumps, the Romneys and Bushes, who take offense in another way. Nor is his adoring fan club able to see him ironically. It helps to be, like me, a no-vote or a write-in or a third-party-vote! Without a dog in the fight, the fight becomes comical and entertaining. 

Perhaps the more accurate, down-to-earth and low brow explanation is the one I have ascribed to since he took office: he is like the wise guy we all knew in high school. He is hilarious! He is a jerk and no one really likes him or wants to be his friend. (Deep down he is sad and lonely and angry.) But he is shameless, unfiltered, utterly impertinent and inappropriate! He is fiercely disruptive of the monotony, control, staleness of classroom decorum. So relieving! So much fun!

The performative nature of his behavior explains his absolute indifference to facts and truth: he is not dealing with reality, he is always in a performance so all his speech is oriented to enhance the story line. This perspective lends a lightness to the entire drama: it is comedy. But there are deeper, serious dimensions. 

First of all, there was the very real danger that his self-focused myopia would result in disaster, for example war with North Korea. The marvelous fact that we avoided this, and enjoyed relative world peace at that, testifies to two realities. First, notwithstanding the pathology of his condition, he is not psychotic but remains in touch with reality and at the end of the day defers to it. For example, it is taking time but he is accepting the election. Indeed, his denial pales in comparison to the 4-year hissy fit we endured from Hilary and the entire liberal establishment in their delusion of Russian-stolen election. Secondly, it is a credit to his aides: though they could not control him, they mitigated the dangers by keeping him restrained. His despicable "tweet habit" was, perhaps in retrospect, a blessing in that he was able to vent his passions in relatively harmless fashion as the business of government carried on. Kuddos to Pence, Mattis, McMasters, Pompeo, Barr and company as well as the judiciary and the entire "deep state."

Secondly, more seriously, underlying this camp performance is a deeply wounded, sad and troubled soul. He clearly does not know his worth as a person. He has not experienced the love he needed. He is lonely, isolated, and quietly despairing. Is this not the case with so many comedians who brighten our lives with laughter?

I suggest that this complex personality can best be captured by four narratives, all true.

First, the liberal view...he is a diabolical figure: tearing children from their immigrant families, pitting one class against another, selfishly striking out against anyone who opposes him like a child in a tantrum, objectifying women in shameless and conspicuous fashion, disparaging immigrants, and denigrating all arenas of expertise in furious pursuit of his ego needs. This narrative is accurate; and why I could never vote for him.

Second, the Trumpian view...he is a Messiah: notwithstanding his flaws, he defends the underdog including the unborn, champions religious liberty, stands up to imperialistic China and Iran, stimulates the economy, defies and ridicules the arrogant, totalitarian pretensions of the woke, liberal elites. This narrative is entirely accurate. It is in tension with, but not contradictory of the previous story line.

Thirdly, Walther is on point: he is irony, camp, performance, comedy, and high humor. Fabulously entertaining!

Lastly, I offer my view: he is childlike, but mostly childish. There is a childlike innocence and positivity about him when his ego needs are met: he is grateful, appreciative, and generous. But mostly he is childish. His basic level of development is infantile so that when his ego needs are frustrated he bursts into tantrums of rage. In this he is a sad figure. He is funny, but he is not enjoying his own humor. He takes it as seriously as his opponents and supporters. He NEVER smiles or laughs. Life for him is deadly serious because deep down he feels he is worthless. He needs to achieve worth by winning and performing. Fortunately, he is good at performing: he has drawn the oxygen out of the global atmosphere for four years in a spectacular fashion. But he has no joy.

So, I find myself praying for him, and his long-suffering, beautiful wife, and his family. He is a sad child who has been neglected and maybe abused and is hurting. 

I am grateful: for the good he has done including championing of the lowly against the mighty,  defense of life and liberty, court justices, and strength in the face of Iran and China. I am grateful that the system has held despite his narcissistic assaults: our judiciary, elections system, legislature, and the "deep state" (which I see as "deep" in a mostly good way) have all held. I am grateful that he has punctured the arrogance of our upper class. I am grateful for the entertainment and laughs he has given us. I will miss him and wish him well.

To Be...or Not to Be...a Creature

 What matters most: that you know that you are a CREATURE!  You are not a random, senseless nothing! You are not some necessity, part of a greater whole! You are an utterly unique, precious person, created out of boundless love by an infinite intelligence. If you grasp that you are a creature, you understand you origin, identity, mission, destiny and place in the greater whole.

It is a Big Mistake to:

- Forget you are a creature.

- To be agnostic: maybe I am; and maybe I am not.

- Think you are a senseless amalgam of brute matter.

- Think you are an impersonal, "useful" part of some greater apparatus.

- Think you are a tortured abyss of futile desire, agony, anxiety and despair.

Yes, you are a body, male or female, and you are united and directed by a soul that is intelligent, decisive, free!

Yes, you are a person in communion with family, friends, community and God!

Yes, you suffer ravishing desire and agony, which is destined to be suffered and then satisfied beyond your greatest imaginings!

To be a creature is to be:

- Receptive: of your very existence; of who you are in body, DNA, place and time, sex, hormones, family, vocation, air, ground and sky. To receive love: of family and friend, of creation and Creator.

- Contingent: once you were not. Some day you may not be. But dependent upon Another's gratuity.

- Gifted: to be a gift yourself; to be given away to others joyfully, freely, spontaneously, abundantly.

- In wonder, awe, marvel...at the sheer generosity of Beauty-Goodness-Truth that inflows, surrounds and surprises us!

- Not-God; Not-Creator. To be humble, grateful, receptive, trusting, hopeful, dependent!

- Converted: from sins of ingratitude; of not-receiving; of envy; of suspicion and disbelief; of grasping; of autonomy; of isolation; of despair.

- Open and trusting of the Person of Jesus who died for us, offers us Mercy and Eternal Life.

- Hopeful: of our destiny in heaven and expansive with hopes for our journey here on earth.

In all we do, our choice is: be a creature, or a non-creature. The primordial Luciferian Option: to be non-creature; to be "I am god;" to grasp, envy, resent, control; to be ungrateful, ungenerous, autonomous. Satan, the greatest creature ever, and his cohort decided against the Creator; and their Kingdom is powerful among us today.

The contrary of Lucifer is Mary, the most creaturely of creatures: humble, trusting, content, obedient, hopeful, faithful, obedient, joyous! Let us renounce the lies of Satan and embrace the Truth of our creaturehood presented to us in this humble, simple maiden!

The Global, Liberal, Sentimental, Moralistic Theo-Politics of Pope Francis

He is preaching to his choir! Yesterday Pope Francis used the NY Times Sunday Op-ed Page to announce the gospel of Western Liberalism to its liberal readers. It has become a truism that each of us inhabits a bubble. Pope Francis' bubble is clearly defined: he meets (as Larry Chapp observed) with woke, millionaire NBA players to discuss BLM, but not with the "dubia" Cardinals or the esteemed Cardinal Zen. He thus protects himself from cognitive dissonance: the dubia challenge his theological clarity and orthodoxy; Zen challenges his romantic flirtation with Chinese Communism. He has self-designated himself as "Chaplain to Western Liberalism" and "Good Will Ambassador to Chinese Communism." Does this mission conflict with his role as Catholic Pope? I think so!

He starts the piece by telling how much he feels the pain of those suffering this Covid. This seems right. But I can't identify: I feel mostly annoyance...with masks, restrictions, control; and resentment...against governors and bishops who close Churches and teachers unions that close schools. But further along the pontiff will clarify that I am among the selfish, unkind ones. But as I read I wonder: when one talks about his pain for others, is that sentimental narcissism or Christlike charity? I get confused. I always get confused with Pope Francis. 

Then he narrates a fascinating anecdote from his youth. As a young man he was deathly, painfully sick, but his life was saved by two nurses who disobeyed the doctors' orders to give him greater dosages of anti-biotic and pain killer. Then with studied ambiguity he praises science but encourages the freedom to disregard protocol and authority. Wow! I myself, as a student of Illich/Schumacher/Ellul, have an iconoclastic-anarchistic bent and advocate "flexibility" with regard to the empire of regulations, rules and protocol that drown us. But it is more than a little weird that the world's premier moral authority casually advocates a license for obedience that borders on antinomianism. My wife just retired as a nurse: in today's medical field USA it is almost inconceivable that a nurse would autonomously order extra pain and anti-biotic medicine: the lawsuits, the liability, the millions of dollars, the reputation! This anecdote would elicit a lively conversation in, lets say, a college ethics class: when is obedience to rules dispensable? But as a throw-away story in an op-ed piece by the world's moral authority? Strange! But stranger still is what follows.

He goes on next to give an absolute, unmodified endorsement to the global lockdowns which he says are required to save lives. He stigmatizes those who question masks and lockdowns as selfishly seeking their own personal interests. The logic: if you don't like schools and churches closing, you are selfish, you are bad, you are naughty! No sense here at all of competing values and viewpoints: freedom of religion, the psycho-social needs of children who are quarantined, the economic cost for so many businesses! 

Wait a minute! I am confused! You just said we should follow conscience and disobey protocols like doctors' orders; but then you say we are bad if we want to open our gyms, schools and churches! Whatever happened to intellectual coherence?

Clearly he is chaplain to the liberal Western elite. He won't christen national armaments, but he gives absolute sanctification to their oppressive policies and shames those who disagree. The "deplorables!" It makes for a neat binary universe: masks are good; rallies are bad. Biden good; Trump bad. NBA millionaires good; Cardinal Burke bad. Walls, death penalty, global warming...all bad. But...a plague of unchastity, pornography, infidelity, and anti-virility? "Let's not be judgmental!" Well...it finally shows that Pope Francis has as much resentment and annoyance as do I...but it is directed to folks like me.

 If Archbishop Vigano, his antagonist, is unhinged in a paranoia about global conspiracies and an imminent apocalypse, then Pope Francis is equally intemperate in his infatuation with elite liberalism.

And then it gets worse. He uses the pandemic as a metaphor...soft, vague, sentimental...and alleges that hunger, war, unemployment and such are also pandemics. He doesn't acknowledge the objective reality of the pandemic: a fierce biological virus that was released by an irresponsible communist regime. He shifts to the theme of selfishness and alleges (not that the communists were selfish!)  that hunger, war and unemployment are rooted in selfishness: the selfishness of those who resist lockdowns and insist on freedom to worship, the selfishness of those who lack the sentiments of compassion and kindness that he is conspicuously modeling for us. 

Wow! He thinks that if everyone gets to be like him...feeling the pain of the suffering...then war and hunger and Covid will quickly vanish!

What is this guy smoking? Is it just me? Or is this unadulterated romantic, sentimental moralism? This cool aid is so sweet, so saccharine, so sickening, so non-nourishing! But readers of the Times will love it! "See" they will reassure themselves "even the Pope thinks like us!" 

Still, he is our Pope. He is our father, albeit a dysfunctional father. This is a dark time for our Church! For our society! We just need to pray...for Pope Francis. And for ourselves. For the Biden administration and the Supreme Court and the Congress...for  the salvation of Donald and Melania. What else can I say? 

Ex-Maryknollers of 1965, Our Lost Generation: the Catastrophic Confluence of the Council and the Cultural Revolution

 Karl Barth:  "Vatican II opened the window to let in some fresh air. What came in was a hurricane."

Theological premise: I accept the actual Council as inspired by the Holy Spirit and definitively interpreted later by the young theological geniuses who participated in it as bishop and peritus: Wojtyla  and Ratzinger. The "Spirit of Vatican II" is something else: the urge to accommodate the Church to the foundational premises of the Cultural Liberalism that exploded in Western culture just as the Council was concluding in 1965. The singular failing of the Council was a naive, unrealistic, optimistic view of the broader culture as benign, open to the Gospel, and pregnant with positive values. The Council adapted this posture at the precise moment when Western culture turned to the dark side and embraced Cultural Liberalism in all its anti-Catholic dogmatism. Imagine: Yoda, Obi-Wan and the Jedi council adapt a relaxed, inclusive, welcoming attitude...renouncing vigilance and suspicion...just as Darth Sidious and the Sith are achieving their peak in power. The dark side! 

Maryknoll Alumni 2011 was the centenary of the Maryknoll Fathers and there was a celebratory gathering of a distinctive cohort: "Maryknoll Alumni," understood as any who had spent some time as seminarians, priests or brothers. While some current Maryknoll priests participated, it was overwhelmingly those who had left that life to pursue secular careers and family life. The group was distinctive in two ways: 

Time frame: most had entered Maryknoll in the peak period of American Catholicism: 1955-65. Most had left seminary or priesthood during the collapse of 1965-75 or so. In the decade preceding 1965, the end of the Council, there was an immense inflow of seminarians everywhere, as the Church was expansively, robustly confident and missionary. Almost immediately after the Council the entire system imploded and there was an unprecedented exodus from the priesthood and religious life. Simple enough: 1955-65 mass inflow; 1965-75 mass exodus. What happened?

A self-selected cohort. We were (I boast!) the best and the brightest! Well...not really! But we were exceptional in our idealism, altruism, adventurous spirit, internationalism, sense of confidence and agency. At the age of 18 we were ready to dedicate ourselves in chastity, obedience and poverty  to the Church in her service of the poor overseas. We brought all this youthful enthusiasm and energy to each other just as the Church was surrendering in a Dionysian embrace of the (rapidly secularizing) world. Like America and her Catholic Church we were, for the most part: practical, not pious; activist, not contemplative. We reflected the spiritual/intellectual shallowness of the broader Church. In a mimetic, contagious "perfect storm" we threw ourselves into humanist psychology, ecumenical dialogue, political advocacy, prophetic criticism of the established Church and the military-industrial-capitalist-imperialist system. 

1965-9 (my own college seminary years) the Church fell in love with the modern, now-disenchanted world. I know because I was under the spell of enchantment. It was thrilling: every week another book, lecture, political or psychological theory, cultural critique. I drank far more than my own share of the cool-aid. 

Root Problem Like the Church that birthed us, we had not clearly heard and been grasped by the Gospel: the love of God in the person of Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord and Brother. We knew the words, but we had not encountered the Mystery...the Event...the Rebirth. We had been moralized (about helping the poor, about sex), sacramentalized and theologized in an abstract fashion. But we had not personally, experientially entered mystically into the reality of Christ. The genius of Vatican II and its interpretation by John Paul and Benedict, was exactly the centrality of the person of Jesus.  So: as the old system crashed, we put together a new, "Spirit of Vatican II" progressive Catholicism, untethered to Christ and disparaging of our tradition, which retained crucial moral-cultural elements from the past but syncretized them with premises of anti-Catholic Cultural Liberalism. The Church of our childhood was confident, prosperous, expansive; but spiritually and intellectually shallow. It was entirely unprepared for the Cultural-Sexual Revolution. So our "best and brightest," untethered to Christ and shallow philosophically, jettisoned the old paradigm and happily constructed a new one, liberal and progressive and and enlightened. 

Back to the Maryknoll Alumni  It was a heady experience this Alumni Celebration of 2011. I was privileged to be on the planning committee. I was an outlier: by far the most conservative in the group. I simply loved these guys who were just like my own classmates: bright, energetic, warm, compassionate, funny, generous, fun, confident, affectionate and respectful to in me, the token traditionalist. The key speakers at the event were indicative of the reigning ideology. Miguel Diaz, Ambassador to the Vatican for the Obama administration was a theologian of liberation. I didn't approve of the political/partisan nature of the choice but I deferred because I have a sympathy and respect for liberation theology which is the hallmark of Maryknoll's  own Orbis Books. But the keynote was delivered by Eugene Kennedy, ex-Maryknoll priest, guru-psychologist, and my nemesis.

He taught us psychology from 1960-71, the very years of the Revolution. He became a rock star of "Spirit of Vatican II" Catholicism and one of the most influential purveyors of it. He was widely respected by the most students and adored by a faction, many of whom went on to emulate him as psychologists. I felt alone in my distaste and distrust of him. He delivered the keynote, in a wheel chair, still a brilliant wordsmith, drooling with contempt for traditional Catholicism. He blasphemed the Eucharist as "cookie worship." (I wanted to strangle him on the spot like what Judas Maccabeus did to the unfaithful Jews but that view would fare poorly in the "blue" NY judiciary!). I don't know that it bothered anyone else.  He was the rock star.

Progressive Catholicism is a distinctive new religion of non-evangelized (just do not know Jesus personally) Catholics that exploded as the old Church collapsed and that embraced the following premises of Cultural Liberalism:

- Separation of sexuality from fecundity: contraception.

- Deconstruction of gender: disgust for the male priesthood.

- Rejection of the tradition (past) as authoritative and a trusting orientation to future breakthroughs in science and human development.

- Overall a disbelief in or indifference to the supernatural (God, angels, devils, heaven and hell) in favor of the natural in a soft secularism, often agnostic rather than militantly atheistic.

- Rejection of the  efficacy of the sacramental system which becomes a kind of human celebration.

- Substitution of psychology/therapy for traditional prayer disciplines.

- Strong leaning to leftwing politics, a soft neo-Marxist critical theory path of liberation for the poor and oppressed.

This viewpoint is resurging under the papacy of Francis. 

Back to My Cohort, Maryknoll Alumni of Mid-20th Century, the Lost Generation

Back to this amazing, historically distinct cohort. They came of age in the robust Catholicism of a post-war America flush with confidence, having survived a Depression, defeated the dual tyrannies, and facing down a militant Communism as it reached out to heal a wounded Europe and assist the underdeveloped world. They exercised each other in a brotherhood of idealism and altruism in an age of cataclysmic change: Church renewal, civil rights, antiwar movement, and the Cultural Revolution. They were already self-selected by virtue of their internationalist interest, enthusiasm, confidence, determination, youthfulness, and elevated moral aspirations. They left the seminary or priesthood but retained the ethos and values of their young adulthood and sustained a comradarie through the following decades as they pursued successful careers, often in the helping professions, enjoyed happy marriages and raised wholesome, charming, confident, generous children.

Are they a lost generation? Yes and No! They lost the Catholic ethos of their childhood: respect for authority, tradition, the fertility of sexuality, the sacredness of gender, sacramental efficacy, the holy and the demonic, silence, worship and prayer. On the other hand, they never really received the core of the faith, the encounter with this Person, so they didn't have that to lose. In their actual lives they are exemplary: marital tenderness and fidelity, fierce paternity, passionate concern for the poor and suffering, a welcoming but critical attitude to other views. On the whole they are an admirable, noble and entirely wholesome cohort, exceptional in generosity, compassion, confidence and positive energy. They became leaders, in the best sense, in whatever arenas they participated. I am not afraid they are going to hell.

I worry more about their children; and even more about their grandchildren. Their "Spirit of Vatican II" progressivism inclines them to accommodate to the reigning liberal elite hegemony as they value what they see as best in it. But it also makes them vulnerable to the dark side of modernity as they have abandoned the boundaries and protections of traditional Catholicism. My peers themselves benefited, if unconsciously, from the wholesome post-war Catholic culture: family centered, generous, expansive, industrious, optimistic, and morally rigorous. But that world is gone and each generation, uprooted from Church and faith, is more vulnerable to the isolation, loneliness, fragmentation, political polarization, and deaths of despair in a decadent society. I don't grieve my friends, I grieve their grandchildren.

Conclusion

This cohort is now in their 70s and 80s and will soon be dying off. I have immense admiration and affection for them, the "Eugene Kennedy generation." I relish their gifts, energy, generosity, and charm. But I grieve the loss of Catholic roots and the failure to encounter Christ.  The irony:  At age 18 we were ready to give our lives to bring our Catholic faith to a suffering world. Within a decade we had discarded that Catholicism in favor of an enlightened liberalism. Sad that we ourselves had never heard, and never been grasped by the Gospel! 

Yes I am nostalgic for the 1950s. How could I not yearn, in this society of anger, anxiety, division and despair, for that seamless communion of family, parish, union, party and nation; for that privileged and prosperous expression of late Christendom; for that Camelot? But we can't dial ourselves back to that time as in Pleasantville or the Steford Wives. We can only move forward!

The genius of John Paul and Benedict in leading us out of the Council and into the third millennium is that they maintained continuity with all that is best in our Catholic traditions, without being stuck in a museum rigidity,  centered everything in Christ, but moved on to embrace all that is best in modernity: the primacy of freedom (always as oriented to truth), openness to dialogue, an unavoidable and wholesome diversity, an aversion to coercion, a preferential love for the poor and oppressed, the dignity of women, the fertile marriage of faith and reason, and the inviolable worth of every single human life.

My take-away from this reflection: to pray. To pray for my cohort and their children. To pray for Eugene Kennedy, who may be surprised to face heavy purgatory (a theme he never developed in his many writings) time and will have to repair for the toxic influence he had on his proteges. Pray for myself...and repent of my judgment, resentment and hatred against Kennedy. I will not receive Mercy if I don't grant it. May God have Mercy on Kennedy, myself, my friends, and our children!

Afterthought  By no means has our entire cohort followed this route like a homogenous herd. There is variety. But surely a majority, the critical mass of our "best and brightest," were swept along mimetically by the cultural wave of our youth and are now certifiable BLM-sympathizing, woman-priest-advocating, death-penalty-despising,  gun-controlling, contraception-approving, Trump-hating, global-warming-worrying, purgatory-doubting, abortion-approving, gay-liberating, immigrant-welcoming, Obama-loving, therapy-seeking, confession-avoiding, "woke" proteges of Eugene Kennedy. "Deplorables" they ain't! A small group has continued to practice the Catholic faith of our youth in a serene, continuous manner with minor adjustments without serious engagement in the Culture War on either side. Some are on the scale, somewhere in between the competing viewpoints. We have two married deacons: one leans more liberal the other more conservative. We have marvelous outliers, anomalies, exceptions. Steve, my dear friend, lost his faith in God in college but fiercely defends his Catholic legacy and passionately advocates a rightwing libertarianism in defiance of the group. John H., the undisputed leader of our class, unsurpassed in charism, charm and character, left leadership in the Society, founded his life solidly on practice of the 12-steps and fathered an extraordinary family of healing for the broken and addicted. Bob left the Catholic Church, received Christ as his Savior, and redirected the Catholic missionary passion of his childhood into Evangelical zeal; he grieves for the salvation of his classmates. Tim R, a successful lawyer, became a protege of John Paul and Benedict and thinks like me. The handful who became missionary priests are fascinating. Fr. John, loved and admired by us all, is theologian-emeritus and poster-boy for the lost generation. Scott, a gifted surgeon-doctor-missionary-priest, seems deeply rooted in the faith and yet open to liberation on many fronts. Fr. Larry, a delightful, insightful eccentric, avoids all group gatherings, curses like a sailor, has written his memoirs of his upbringing and  priestly work in an enchanting book entitled Misfit. He is a spiritual director deeply rooted in his faith, yet refreshingly creative and liberating. Fr. Jim is the one and only one who has spent his entire adult life doing what we all ambitioned 55 years ago: as a classic, missionary priest, in Korea and then China, announcing the Word and administering the sacraments. He is currently researching for the canonization of Bishop Walsh and Father Price. He is even more Catholic than me. . He wins the "outlier prize."

 

My Rudy Giuliani Dream

 Last week Rudy Giuliani was all over TV, ranting and raving about widespread election fraud, dark hair dye dripping down his face, epitomizing the hysterical lunacy that has now gripped the political right almost as bad as it has, for four years, infantilized the left. That night I had this dream:

20 years of so , I hold an entry level job at an office where the boss is Rudy. I am desperately involved in a frustrating task of securing elastic bands around loose papers around a rock-type item...this is the kind of thing my Grandson Philip daily sends me, random objects gift-wrapped in paper with tons of tape. After much effort and annoyance I succeed, breath a sigh of relief, and look up to see that I am in a meeting run by Rudy. Silence. Rudy scowls at me menacingly and then asks, of his mafia-type partner to his right, rhetorically and slowly a la Brando in The Godfather: "Tell me something...why is it...that every time I say anything in the meeting...Matty there...(Notice the diminutive which is faintly affectionate as it diminishes me to a childlike stature)... is either looking out the window daydreaming or talking with his buddy or playing with that stupid contraption of his?" Silence. I am quiet, not anxious but aware I am in big trouble and silently I say to myself "Choose your words carefully." So calmly I say "You are right...I got distracted...I apologize for that." I feel a momentary confidence that I had answered correctly, neither too much nor too little. Silence. Then I see that my burly buddy to my left is laughing compulsively, hysterically, head down, trying futilly to control himself. I myself erupt involuntarily into spasms of laughter as I realize this is the worst thing I could do. Rudy turns to his friend and they discuss how to punish me, deciding that since I had plans to go out that night they would keep me working through the night. 

At that exact moment I awaken and I am shaking in my bed with laughter. I wonder if I am waking up my wife who is sleeping soundly. I keep laughing, with immense delight, as I creep slowly to the bathroom.

Interpretation The lunacy of our politics, on left and right, deserves just such a spontaneous, fulsome belly laugh with all its ecstasy of delight, transcendence and relief. 

State of Life, the Strange Case of Adrienne von Speyr, and Other Anomalies

 One of many things that sets Hans Urs von Balthasar aside in 20th century Catholic theology is his clarity and focus on "state in life": the notion that one's original baptismal communion with Christ normally urges the giving away of one's life to Christ, concretely, in one of two vows: marriage or the evangelical life. Clearly, this simple, stable binary model structures classic Catholic culture and undergirds the stability of family, Church and society. Awareness of these two vocations distinguishes Catholic culture. But, in real life, there are so many exceptions and anomalies: it seems that the norm is exceptional and exceptions are the rule.

None are as strange as the case of his intimate collaborator mystic Adrienne von Speyr. She was married twice, suffered three miscarriages in the first marriage, and raised no children. Her second marriage was "Josephite": it was continent and unconsummated by sexual intercourse. During that marriage she established an extraordinary spiritual relationship with Fr. Balthasar who was her confessor, instructor and spiritual director even as she had an immense influence, by way of mysticism, on him. For twelve years the priest lived with her and her husband. He had been directed by St. Ignatius of Loyola, through immediate communication with Adrienne, to leave the Jesuits to work with her in formation of a new community.  For much of that time he was separated from the order but not incardinated into any diocese. He was an uprooted, free-wheeling, maverick priest from 1950-6, a highly unusual position at that time  for a priest otherwise in good standing with the Church. Von Speyr and Balthasar, certainly chaste physically and emotionally, developed a degree of spiritual intimacy unprecedented in the Church: far more profound and comprehensive than classic relationships like Francis/Clare or Vincent/Louise.  He relates that her physical virginity...yes biological, not moral or spiritual virginity...was restored to her. For one who experiences bi-location, the stigmata, the descent of Christ into hell, clear and continuous communication from heaven, and myriad of miracles, the physical restoration of virginity is small change. But, the question arises: Why? Why this restoration? Clearly it is a graphic image of Mary's virginity/maternity, but still: Why? This is an extremely puzzling case: she is married twice, conceived three times, is restored to virginity, and enters into a mystical-conjugal relationship with her confessor in giving birth (maternity) to a new community in the Church. Her actual, sacramental marriages seem entirely subordinate to her alleged virginity, spiritual and physical, and her relationship with the ex-Jesuit and  mothering of a new community. 

Rose Hawthorne is another challenging, provocative case. Recently Patricia Snow mounted a detailed, passionate defense in First Things of her leaving  husband to pursue her service of dying cancer patients. On the surface it seems a clear case of abandonment of her marriage for a work of service: a violation of the standard binary vow mode, loyalty to spouse is always primary. It doesn't help that her husband seems not to have happily consented to the decision  and that he suffered sickness and died sadly in her absence.

Our tradition is full of those, especially women, who combine both states of life but usually in sequence: they marry, raise children, become widows, and dedicate themselves to the evangelical life of chastity and service. In these there is no confusion of vows. Another tradition, unknown in our world, is for the couple to freely separate to pursue the evangelical life, before or after having children. This is strange to the modern sensibility but suggests that a deeper Catholic sense would hold less strictly to the binary paradigm.

Consider also the many martyrs who have abandoned spouse and offspring to give their lives in witness to Truth: Thomas Moore, Franz Jagerstatter, the martyr mother of seven sons in Maccabees, and countless others. The insistence of priest and bishop to Franz that his death violated his marriage vow resonates with our own common sense and suggests that the real Catholic doctrine is more profound, nuanced, complex and mysterious. Consider even the Apostles, the very source of our faith, who were (excepting John) married and apparently abandoned their families to preach the gospel.

Dorothy Day, now up for sainthood, is a favorite anomaly. Never vowed to spouse or religion, she nevertheless had a series of flaming romances, an abortion, a child out of wedlock, remained loyal to her daughter and grandchildren, as she lived a celibate life of poverty and exceptional service to the poor. Later she retained a residual-spousal friendship with her lover and father of her child as they both remained faithful to the offspring of their love. Her life weaves together in a unique and splendid tapestry aspects of virginal, spousal and maternal love.

I am currently reading a biography of John F Kennedy and I marvel at the reckless infidelity of patriarch Joseph (and his offspring) that somehow co-existed with a fierce fatherly love, strong family loyalty and an apparent mutuality in acceptance between Joe and Rose. This is not to accept the adultery, but to acknowledge complexity and the co-existence of sin and grace, weeds and wheat, to an exceptional degree in this family.

Currently, my favored spiritual mentors are Brennan Manning and Heather King. Brennan was a vowed religious and ordained priest but renounced both to marry, invalidly, and then divorce later. He lived and died in his addiction to alcohol. But to the end he proclaimed the gospel truth that possessed him: "God loves you as you are, not as you ought to be." This eternal, invincible truth prevailed even in the face of his intractable compulsions. Heather was a wildly promiscuous drunk who had three abortions. She got sober; married and then divorced; became red-blood, hard-core Catholic, madly in love with her Eucharistic Christ. She is a free spirit, wholly unjudgmental, who loves everyone...perverts, misfits, psychos, criminals...with the extravagance and recklessness of her Lord. In terms of their vows, they are wrecks; and yet, each in eccentric, serendipitous ways radiate fidelity, purity, consistency.

It appears that in the drama of actual life, the mysteries of virginity, fidelity, conjugality, and fecundity  weave themselves in splendid, serendipitous, eccentric and miraculous ways that cannot be accounted for by a simple binary model.  

In this strange world of today we have: second marriages, invalid in the eyes of the Church, which are fruitful, faithful, and resonate with love even as there is charity between the broken families; large numbers of vowed and ordained who have left that state in life, married or single, and live holy, wholesome lives, even as the sacramental seal and residual vow surely characterizes their lives; so many cohabitating without marriage and yet are faithful, loving and often fruitful. Again the norm (faithful marriage or religious life) has become exceptional and the exceptions are normal and  while "objectively objectionable" seem  in real life to be fertile soil for grace, tenderness and faithfulness.

Many who are happily married struggle with the tension between marriage/family and work. Dorothy Day's life (as shown in the touching  biography by granddaughter Kate Hennessey) suffered this. Many men, in my view, are constitutionally bigamous in their divided loyalties to work/vocation/mission/avocation and wife/family. More normally the woman spontaneously prioritizes family/marriage, for the benefit of all. But not in all cases. My own reality is that my work with the poor has been blessed as a direct fruit of my marriage and specifically my wife's generous endurance of frustration and inattention as I blissfully pursue what comes naturally and painlessly to me. The quiet consensus in the family is that she is heroic and saintly and I am the most annoying of husbands.

The contrasting vows...marriage and the evangelical life...remain the dual pillars of Catholic life. Yet actual life shows a dazzling symphony of variations as virginity and purity, fidelity and conjugality, fecundity and heroism spring forth serendipitously in thrilling, unexpected flowerings, often in the strangest circumstances.

The Joy of My No-Vote

 I enjoyed a distinctive elation throughout this ugly election because of my "No-Vote."

First of all, I distanced myself from the competing systemic evils: the truth-denying, person-disrespecting, narcissistic, polarizing, incompetent moral degenerate on the one side; and the embryo-murdering, liberty-denying, sexuality-desecrating, "woke" totalitarianism on the other side.

Secondly, I was removed from the rancor, anger, indignation, anxiety, and self-righteousness of both sides.

Thirdly, from this position of liberty and transcendence I have been able to fervently embrace all that is good and true on both sides: I celebrate Justice Amy, the protection of innocent life, religious liberty, the nature of marriage and family, and resistance to the "PC" hegemony. With the other side I renounce the self-centered idiocy as I share concern for immigrants, health care, global warming, and an adequate safety net. 

Fourthly, building on the prior point, I experience within my own heart and intellect a principle of unity: while I renounce the blatant evil of both sides, I embrace the pronounced good of both sides. Subjectively I emphasize the positive so that I feel a unity with both sides. I myself am unified in the good; and with all those who share that good.

Fifthly, I am delighted with the election results:

First and foremost: Our Supreme Court is solid. We are finally rid of the Tyrannical,  Imperial Court that has dictatorially imposed on us, without democratic agreement, a series of catastrophes. The modesty of Justice Amy and her colleagues will prevail and we can fight the Culture War fairly, in elections. This eventful development cannot be overstated.

We are rid of the nutcase.

There was no blue wave as the Senate probably remains Red and the Democrats lost some in the House. I view this election as a win/win for my viewpoint: both enemies were defeated. Trump lost. But given the pandemic, the economy and his lunacy, there should have been a huge blue wave. Clearly the electorate rejected both Trump and the progressives. It is as if the two neighborhood bullies bloodied each other so much that they will not be able to bother the rest of us for quite a while. Harmless, nice-guy Joe is in place and he is firmly restrained by the Senate and a prudent Supreme Court.

I am very proud of my family and friends who "could not vote for either." Some did a write in or voted for the Catholic-inspired American Solidarity Party. In my immediate family nine out of fifteen took this position; we had two Trump votes and possibly as much as four votes for Biden. In my own extended family I suspect as much as fifty out of eighty voted Biden, with the remainder split between no-vote and Trump. 

I am more sympathetic to the Trump vote. The most puzzling political reality of my adult life: the continued Catholic support for the Party of Death, now that we are 50 years into the Culture War. Most of my family, intelligent-decent-devout Catholics, have never voted for a politician who didn't support legal abortion and all the grotesqueries that come with it. St. Paul marveled that his people, the Jews, rejected Christ. I marvel that my people, Catholics, have (at almost exactly 50 percent) collaborated with the betrayal of our Catholic values for now half a century. These are well-intended, informed people. As in Romans,  there is mysterious cloud of ignorance that has descended. It seems to be invincible. It is more than tribal hatred of the perceived greed, arrogance and power of the rich Republicans. It has deeper, diabolic roots. We are not dealing here with flesh and blood only, but with the principalities and powers. Voting, argument, advocacy and activism all have their proper place; but in face of the darkness, the depravity that have descended, they avail little or nothing. What will prevail? Prayer, holiness of life, witness to truth, chastity and fidelity, and love...love of the sinner, love of the enemy, love of the poor and suffering, and love of the Holy Trinity.

Why the Church Sleeps: Francis is to John Paul what Chamberlain was to Churchill

 Why England Slept (1940), the senior thesis of John F. Kennedy at Harvard, an immediate best-seller, was an amazing accomplishment for a 22 year old. His father Joseph, then US Ambassador to England, was a militant isolationist, a supporter of Chamberlain's appeasement, a despiser of Churchill. He preferred a Europe under Hitler to a war with him. In the summer of 1938 as a rising senior John travelled Europe, speaking with politicians, diplomats, taxi-drivers, hitchhikers and every one he could. He decided his father was wrong about Hitler. He returned to Harvard, devoured all available literature  including diplomatic documents not available to anyone else. He produced a historic document. He went from there to become a war hero in the Pacific. His courage and stamina, even as he was very sickly, were admired by all who served with him. He became a voice entirely contradictory of his own  father: for a generous, expansive even militant American internationalism. Later he became a fierce Cold Warrior, facing down Russian Communism with steadiness, confidence, intelligence. and resolution. He was not a perfect man. But he (along with Martin Luther King and maybe Ceasar Chavez) stands as an icon of the nobility of the USA at mid-20th-century. USA was not then, is not now, a perfect country. But it victoriously defended human liberty and dignity against the Japanese, Nazi and Communist totalitarianisms. 

On the global scene they stand beside Churchill and DeGaulle but all of them are surpassed by another figure: John Paul II as a youth faced Nazism, as a bishop Communism, and as a pope Cultural Liberalism. He is the essential 20th century icon of human freedom and dignity. He is the quintessential Culture Warrior. 

JFK's thesis describes the urgent longing for peace and disarmament that gripped England (and the United States as well) after WWI. That passivity, naivete and pollyannish optimism enabled Hitler's armament and led to Munich. Churchill, by sharpest contrast, represents the heroic, militant response to tyranny that eventually engaged FDR, JFK and that entire generation. 

In the 1960 election, JFK rivalled Nixon as a Cold Warrior. He was fierce, confident and determined to defeat the imperialist Soviet Union. Later, Ronald Regan carried that torch and Russian communism collapsed of its own weight under the pressure of a militant USA and a morally heroic Pope. 

The contrast between the isolationism of Chamberlain (and Joe Kennedy, Charles Lindberg and most of England and the USA) and the defiance of Churchill (young JFK and his generation, our fathers, the Great Generation) finds an analogy in today's Church and world. The two fiercest enemies of human dignity and liberty today are: Western Cultural Liberalism and Chinese Communism. Pope Francis is alive with the spirit of Munich as he strives to accommodate to sexual liberation and to Red China. He defers to fashionable European liberalism and to the Communist Chinese government in vain hope that they will be won over to his good-will. He offers no resistance to the degradation of human dignity advancing rapidly in the West and in China. He channels his energy against the death penalty and global warming but stands by passively in the face of the more massive and blatant violations of human life and freedom.

Contrast John Paul: heroically he resisted Hitler, then Stalin, and then the desecration of sexuality, innocent life, marriage and human dignity. 

Well: the Culture War continues. It shows no sign of abating. We Catholics have a simple choice before us: follow Francis or follow John Paul. 

The Severability of Chastity from Catholic Life: the McCarrick-Maciel Syndrome; the Francis-Tobin-Barron-Martin Doctrine

It boggles the human mind that the high-profile, perverse-homosexual-predatory clerics Maciel and McCarrick were able to sever their sexual depravity from their enormously successful ecclesiastical lives. It is surely the outstanding Church disaster of our time. There seems to have been an absolute splitting off of their sexuality from the rest of their careers, prayer, friendships and outstanding achievements. Additionally, they successfully shielded their lust life from the entire Church and so many who trusted them deeply. It boggles the mind! 

It is even more astounding that an analogous and related "severing" of chastity from Catholic faith is being advanced at this time at the highest, most powerful levels of the Church. And this in the immediate aftermath of the McCarrick scandal! 

Fr. James Martin S.J. is probably the most well-known, well-liked and influential Catholic figure in our country. He touches 300,000 through social media. He is a rock star. Too shrewd to directly contradict longstanding Church teaching, he has victoriously implemented a brilliant strategy: "sever" chastity from Catholic life, marginalize and minimize it, focus on other more important issues. He stresses love for the homosexual...love understood as acceptance and affirmation, free of moral judgment...and pushes the moral questions to the side. In this re-gestalt, he entirely inverts the tradition such that any clear, strong affirmation on the sacred, grave nature of sexuality as unitive-fruitful is construed as homophobic, judgmental, legalistic and hateful. This is theological Jiu-Jitsu at its very highest level.

As an ecclesiastical and cultural operator, he is may surpass Maciel and McCarrick. He has the full support of Pope Francis. He has an avid collaborators in Cardinals Tobin, Cupich and others. And now, a powerful ally in Bishop Robert Barron, surely the most popular, respected and influential bishop in USA 2020. Barron has written a book blurb for Martin's new book on prayer. He describes Martin as a "winsome guide to the spiritual life." On a recent Bishop Barron podcast he responds to a question from Fr. Martin: "How do we respond to someone who engages deeply with the Catholic faith in all aspects except the sexual?" The bishop responds that we have made too much of sex (the Francis effect) and that we need to refocus on more significant realities: the Trinity, prayer, the sacraments, service of the poor and such. In short: lets sever sexuality; lets push it aside; let's not worry about it!

It is not reassuring that the Bishop chooses the word "winsome" to praise the Jesuit. The word means: charming, attractive, appealing, and pleasing. In normal usage it would imply romantic energy: in a man's world we don't often refer to each other as "winsome"...even in the more refined arenas of  religion and academia. To be fair: Barron is the premier evangelist, catechist and bishop-theologian of this time, our own Fulton Sheen. His particular gift is to engage Beauty as the iconic passage to the Divine. He surely used this expression in the way he might describe the prose of  Newman or Ratzinger as "winsome." Furthermore, Barron's sound pastoral, Catholic-catholic instinct is to affirm all that is good-true-beautiful. My impression of Fr. Martin: he is  intelligent, gracious, refined, accommodating, and no doubt winsome. I don't doubt that the book in question...standing by itself... is brilliant  inspiring, and again winsome. But it doesn't stand by itself! Recall: the writings from the likes of Maciel, McCarrick, Vanier, and so many others have been treated as spiritual classics...until we knew about the part of their lives that had been severed and shielded. Whatever his grace, intelligence and gifts, Martin is known for one thing: the moral normalization of homosexuality in the Church, the severing of chastity from Catholic life.

He has a huge following. He has, with Francis, accommodated Catholicism to Cultural Liberalism. Like Chamberlain in Munich, he has formed an alliance: we will not bother you about chastity; lets work together on global warming, economic equality, immigration and the death penalty. And so the Church in our time has made peace with the two diabolic global principalities: Chinese Communism and Western Cultural Liberalism.

This "severing of chastity" is widely supported in society and the Church well beyond the militant liberators: there is (normally commendable) modesty and reticence, among many Catholics, especially older ones, about things sexual. They hold chastity dear to their heart but don't want to talk about it...and surely don't want to publicly advocate it. And so, fully half of American Catholics sever their vote from  issues of tax-payer-funded abortion, mandatory contraception coverage, compulsory placement of children with gay couples...and righteously vote for ecology, health care, immigrants, et.al. 

We are a beleaguered minority, those of us who hold clearly, confidently, passionately, calmly to the sacral nature of sex as unitive and procreative. We are despised as hateful and ignorant when we assert that violations of the sixth and ninth commandment are not minor, but gravely sinful...that they destroy the soul of the actor, the family and community, the Church and the nation, and gravely offend God Himself. 

However the Truth is Inevitable. The nature of reality will assert itself...in the long run. In the short run, the uprooting of sexuality from its source, meaning, nature and purpose will prevail, surely in elite Western culture. It may eventually destroy the entire understructure of society. Or we may see resurgence(s) of fruitful chastity across society. For sure, however, the severing of chastity from Catholic life will not succeed. This "Francis moment" is passing. Sexual purity, the integrity of the family, fidelity and fecundity of life...these are iconic of God's very self and constitutive of the Church in her bridal splendor and her maternal extravagance. The sad sagas of Maciel, McCarrick, Martin and the rest are a contamination of the Church, but the love affair between the Divine Bridegroom and his Bride is indissoluble. 

Let's Talk About Hell

November, month of the "last things" (death, judgment, heaven, hell), is the perfect time to talk about hell and specifically Ralph Martin's fierce attack on Balthasar's teaching on it.

Full disclosure: for about 45 years I have been a huge fan, follower and contributor to Ralph Martin and his outstanding synthesis of traditional Catholic spirituality and the charismatic renewal with a strong influence of St. John Paul II. For about 45 years I have been a bigger fan of Hans Urs Von Balthasar, for me one of the very greatest Catholic theologians (only Thomas and Augustine surpass him in depth, breath and authenticity.) So: I have two dogs in this fight. And the one (Martin) is tearing the other apart. What do I make of this?

I think they are both right! And they are both a little off as well. They need each other's voices to maintain a balanced, solid Catholic position. The issue of a populated hell is not binary: not yes or no. Because we simply do not know about the population of hell. That there is a hell is certain. That it is populated by demons is certain. But the Church has never taught definitively on the population of hell nor do we know with certainty that any particular person, not Judas and not Hitler, is in hell. 

In a typically magisterial piece in First Things many years ago Avery Dulles summarized the history of Catholic thought on the issue: he stressed that earlier generations were convinced of a heavily populated hell as our age is certain of a sparsely populated one. He allowed that it was an open question for Catholic theology. Sagely, he opined that God in his wisdom purposefully did not reveal the answer to this question: if we knew that most go to hell, we might despair; if we knew that most go to heaven, we might presume.

Presumption is the target of Martin's attack. He is spot on: our culture believes in "cheap mercy" and assumes that God is merciful and that, excepting the usual suspects like Hitler and Stalin, he will forgive all our sins. To the degree that Balthasar can be interpreted to validate that presumption Martin is correct. Our world and Church have lost all sense of evil, holiness, spiritual warfare, the demonic, repentance, and the finality of heaven and hell. Martin's clear, constant voice is deeply prophetic and desperately needed. 

His treatment of Balthasar is persuasive, but not entirely fair. I see him as a balance, not a contradiction. Martin favorably quotes Balthasar on the two contrasting streams that run throughout Scripture: God's inclusive, passionate desire that all be saved; and the immense danger that in our freedom we choose against God and for hell. Martin agrees with the great Swiss that both truths need to be held in tension but finds that he exaggerates mercy and underestimates judgement, wrath and evil. He is right, but...

Balthasar quotes Edith Stein (St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross) who stated that we cannot rule out the possibility that a soul would reject God, if face to face with his mercy and love, but that it was "infinitely improbable." She suggested that God's love would finally "outwit" our freedom. Her language here is dazzlingly suggestive and provocative. She allows for hell, the possibility of human damnation. But she presses so powerfully on God's mercy that she seems to virtually erase the tension, the unpredictability, the drama (a favorite term for Balthasar). 

Martin raises the question: to the ordinary lay mind: how does "infinite improbability" differ from certainty or at least virtual certainty? That is an excellent question. Balthasar is the quintessential theologian; but Martin is a fine catechist. I fancy myself a catechist and here my sympathy is with Martin. I instinctively question any theological view: how is this translated to catechesis of an ordinary, lay, low-to-moderately intelligent adult. Balthasar's speculations on hell are problematic in this regard. They too easily are misunderstood as: "Don't worry about sin. God is merciful." Presumption!

And yet, Balthasar properly understood has an exceptionally strong doctrine of hell. Hell is all too real for him as he observed his intimate companion descend into that experience every Holy Saturday. Hell as complete separation from God, what Jesus experienced on the cross, is at the very heart of his theology. Serious study of Balthasar will bring hell most powerfully into ones mind and heart. His speculations, his urgency that we all hope that all be saved, his trust in Adrienne's mysticism are all, in my view, profound enrichments for our Church. But he does go a little too far in the one direction so that the "gamble" nature, the "drama" of God's choice is dimmed. 

I lean in the direction of exaggerating God's mercy, but I appreciate Martin as a corrective, a balance, a tonic especially needed at this time. Remember: Hans came of age theologically at a time when the "presumption" was of widespread damnation and the Mercy of  Christ obscured by residues of populist Jansenism. Yet there is a negative edge to Martin's style that I cannot entirely emulate. I am comfortable at my mediating position because I read John Paul and Benedict that way: both revered the brilliant theologian but neither went so far in entertaining the speculation of an unpopulated hell.

The best defense of Balthasar against Martin came from Nicholas Healy Jr. in Communio (2014) where he emphasized the communal nature of salvation: that we are saved, not as discrete, autonomous souls, but always as a people, a community, even as a cosmos. Mind experiment: Imagine I learn that my wife, myself and five of my seven children will make heaven; two will go to hell. How would I receive word of my salvation? I would be devastated! Inconsolable! Furious! I would bargain fiercely: How about if all nine of us go to the deepest pit of purgatory for a billion to the billionth power milennia but we all make it at the end? My personal salvation is useless to me if it does not bring with it all I love. 

Gil Baile's brilliant "God's Gamble" is a development of Balthasar that manages to maintain the risk, the uncertainty, the tension. He argues that every person faces Christ, in all his woundedness and love, at death and has a final choice for or against. This assures hope for each person, but not presumption, since the possibility of damnation is maintained. In reflecting upon this, my own response was not to relax about sin and await my final "Dismas moment," but to sober up and become vigilant and prepare diligently for victory at that final moment. 

I just read in Heather King's "Fools for Christ: Fifty Divine Eccentric Artists Martyrs Stigmatists and Unsung Saints" about Maria Yudina, the brilliant pianist, wacky and holy and wonderful woman whose music touched the heart of Stalin in his last, darkest days when he heard her perform on the radio. He gratuitously sent her 20,000 rubles. She wrote back (I paraphrase): "Thank you for your aid to me...I will pray for you every day and night that God will forgive you for your many sins. He will forgive you because He is merciful." When Stalin read the note, his aides were shocked that he not raise his eyebrow, his casual manner of ordering an assassination. I read elsewhere that he died listening to her music. 

Scripture, Tradition and all the saints believe in hell but much more in mercy: think Fatima, St. Therese, St. Maria Gioretti, St. Faustina. My own favorite passage about hell is when Jesus says: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church." My traditional Catholic imagination had always misunderstood this saying as "the storms of hell shall not prevail against the Church whose gates are strong." But Jesus actually said the opposite: Hell is on defense sequestered behind its gates, Christ and the Church are on offence, and the defense will not hold. The best defense is a strong offense. Hell is real. Hell is present here and now and so many are entrapped. Perhaps speculation about the "population of hell" is not so helpful since we are in the middle of the fray. We need courage, trust, confidence, assertiveness, fierceness, fearlessness, recklessness...like Maria Yudina...to storm the gates of hell and rescue those entrapped, even Stalin. 

Praying for Politicians

 Tomorrow is election day. I will not vote. I am serene and confident that this is the right thing.

Today I am praying for politicians. I like to pray for them from time to time. Pray for them as persons, as souls. Disregarding, temporarily, their policies and politics, their status and public facade. I imagine each as just another person, like myself, standing needy before the Mercy of God. I pray for their spouses and marriages. Donald and Melania, Joe and Jill, Barack and Michelle, George and Laura, Bill and Hillary. 

I expect that this does something for them. A little something. I believe in the efficacy of prayer. I am not wasting my time.

But it does a lot for me. I see them reduced in stature: they lose their diabolic grandiosity. They become vulnerable, finite, fleshly, needy, fallible, weak. I become tender to them. I step away from the fury, indignation, hysteria, self-righteousness, anxiety, and envy that has come to possess politics. I become myself, just another person, like each of them, needy and weak but precious in God's eyes. 

This election will come tomorrow and be gone the next day. It is not Armageddon. It is not the end of the world. It is not the beginning of a new era. My life will continue on the same path. And they, hopefully, will be freed of illusions of grandeur and come to know the tender love of our God. 

Critical Race/Gender Theory: Systemic Confusion, Purificatory Inefficacy amidst Good Intentions

James Lindsay, nerdy mathematician and insightful political commentator, is helpful in understanding  critical race/gender theory, "wokeness" and their immense influence on our culture.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE8p-mcFdNg) It's core conviction is that human life is a relentless power struggle in which the strong oppress and dominate the weak: the oppressor and the oppressed. Critical theory's purpose is to arouse awareness of this dynamic, awaken the anger and agency of the underdog and the conscience of the over-dog in this dog-eat-dog world. It is rooted in the Frankfurt School of Marxists in the 1930s who moved beyond the simple economic model of capital/labor into deep, dense cultural areas, with a heavy influence from Freud. It percolated for decades in academia and bohemia but really took off in the 1970s. Today, it is pervasive: firmly in control of elite culture including universities, entertainment, corporations, law and even religion and athletics. It is not an exaggeration to say it is taking over our culture.

In 1971, newly married and  euphorically cocooned in our honeymoon apartment, my wife Mary Lynn returned from her first "woman's consciousness raising meetings" which were all the rage. "How was the meeting" I asked. "Good. I learned that you are oppressing me. That's what men do to women." "Oh! How am I oppressing you?" I asked with interest. She replied:  "I don't know. I just know that you are oppressing me." That is the logic of critical theory.

At that time I was studying theology at Union Theological Seminary. Browsing their marvelous bookstore, I noted that there were three sections: traditional theology, Marx and Freud. Critical Theory, the marriage of Freud and Marx, was cooking away at Union.

Systemic Suspicion

Marx, Freud and Nietzsche, the "architects of  modernity," are also called the "Masters of Suspicion." In correct dosage, their suspicion can be salutary: it can revive the classic vigilance against the temptations and deceptions of the "world" and the "flesh." (About the devil they have no clue!) But they go deeper: theirs is a dark, dismal view of life as unending violence, deception and warfare. Specifically, they are suspicious of any scent of authority, tradition, transcendence, and ontological truth. They deny any communion with God; any connection with the Holy through past events, current authority or tradition; they deny hope in the heavenly. To be sure, not all advocates of critical theory are militant atheists; it prevails in liberal Christian theology. But the underlying core purpose remains liberation from past patterns of oppression by a thoroughgoing critique of authority and a break with the past.

Systematic vs. Systemic

Both these terms refer to the workings of systems, but there is a deep difference. "Systematic" refers to a deliberate, intentional method or procedure. It is premediated, sequential and observable. For example: when I do my homework I do the hardest first which is math, then science, then literature and then religion. "Systemic" a term dear to critical theorists is a system that works organically, holistically but not necessarily consciously: think of your respiratory or digestive systems which operate largely without deliberate intention or decision. Think of a cancer that is "systemic" throughout your body, operative and effective in a pervasive and powerful way without any conscious subject in charge. 

So, a systematic racism would be clear and definite: blacks to the back of the bus, Irish need not apply, Jews are to wear the Star of David in public! But systemic racism may be largely unconscious: habits of privilege, entitlement, prejudice, and preference which are spontaneous, socialized and largely indeliberate. 

Case Study

I offer my wake up routine as a case study. I wake up, brush my teeth, get my coffee, say my prayers and read the Magnificat. But look deeper: my cozy warm home, imported coffee and sugar,  comfortable chair all come to me by way of low-paid, almost slave labor by people of color which extravagantly profits the investor, financial, technical class. My prayers are to a male figure (in his late 70s) with long white hair, white beard, white skin, and long white robes. (Think Gandalf the White!) My prayers are to "Our Father" (patriarchy) and include "Make my soul white like the freshly fallen snow" and "Bring me out of darkness into the light." My sheets, underwear, toothpaste, milk, sugar, and bread are all white. I may have slept in a "master bedroom" on a "king-sized bed." In short, my every routine, indeliberate morning action is embedded in a massive, systemic network of "whiteness" oppressing "people of color."

The Appeal of Critical Theory

Two points:

The core moral impulse of critical theory, inherited from its father Marxism, is to rescue the oppressed from suffering and injustice. This in itself is an entirely wholesome, indeed Christian, motive. It is what gives it such power and influence today. It is compassion for the horrific, blatant suffering of blacks, women, homosexuals and all the victim groups. 

Secondly, there is very much truth to this theory. In our post-paradise condition of sin, it is sadly true that power-dominance dynamics are indeed operative all the time in a diversity of ways. Indeed, there is  racism, misogyny, sexism, homophobia and all the other moral pathologies. So it is easy to see how one might make the jump into critical race/gender theory: it is not ridiculous. 

What is Their Solution?

Liberation in this worldview does not come from repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Savior or acknowledgement of powerlessness and surrender to Higher Power. It comes through "awakening," a moral-political enlightenment: the oppressed rises up in anger and agency to claim their just rights. The privileged likewise become "woke"...they admit and then renounce their privilege and power.

The Problem

While plausible and often well-intended, this diagnosis is shallow, confused, misguided and eventually catastrophic in its consequences. It is as if a doctor misdiagnosed an infection or a virus as a cancer and implemented intense chemotherapy. The doctor is well-intended; he accurately identifies some symptoms; but his treatment will kill you.

The root cause is far deeper: sin, the disconnect from God. Not only does critical theory fail to grasp this, but avoids and implicitly disparages such piety. We are created to live in joyous communion, forever, with the Trinity and with each other. This philosophy rejects that proposal.

In regard to current race relations in the USA, the systemic racism diagnosis is blind to the actual causes of current black suffering: culture and class. These are far more dense, complex and intractable than the simplistic rejection of alleged unconscious racism. The culture of poverty is a bottomless abyss of negative forces: family structure, work ethic, male promiscuity and infidelity, breakdown of Church and mediating institutions, inequalities of income, employment, education, housing and healthcare. This structure of injustice stands upon a history of racism, to be sure. Be the current social dynamics are far more intractable and difficult than the alleged white racism.

It is class, not race, that defines our unjust society. Oprah, Barack, and LeBron (first names suffices here) are at the peak of the pinnacle of privilege, power, and wealth in our meritocratic-celebrity-technocratic hierarchy. To hear them preaching about "white privilege" is beyond ridiculous. Indeed, their darker pigmentation only enhances their glamour and influence.

Deeper Appeal: Ritual of Purification

The deeper appeal is its relief from guilt. There are no BLM signs in the neighborhoods of Jersey City where I spend my time. The demographics here: a plurality of Afro-Americans, a large majority of "people of color" and a minority of whites. There are no BLM signs. When I drive in the affluent, upper class neighborhoods of suburban Essex County I see such signs in every third yard. Why is that?

Here is offered an alternative psychodynamic interpretation. Because it is a purification ritual. Upper class America suffers a dual pandemic: an exaggerated affluence in a world with immense poverty and suffering;  an an invisible scourge of pornography and male unchastity that dare not speak its name. The two fester subconsciously with no help of relief as our post-Protestant society long ago discarded the efficacy of the sacramental system, especially confession. Unawares, people are desperate to relieve this unrecognized guilt. The anti-racist religion does the job! They acknowledge and renounce their privilege; they put out their BLM sign; they vote Democrat. They get to blame the racists, Republicans and Trump for the world's suffering. They are declared innocent. And it doesn't cost them a cent or in any way diminish their real privilege. It does really nothing to restructure the class structure or attack the cultures of poverty.

To be sure, not everyone who accepts critical theory is awash in affluence and drowning in lust. Many, as noted above, are well-intended: they grieve the suffering and want to help. But critical theory is a diversion, a distraction, and an enormous waste of moral energy.

Conclusion 

Finally, without succumbing to its systemic moral confusion, we do well to receive the truth in Critical Theory. It can help us to examine our personal and social consciences with an eye to the often-invisible biases and the unconscious power dynamics that operate beneath our sense of righteousness. Perhaps no one needs this more than aging, confident, white, middle class, males like myself. May God have mercy on us all!