In Praise of the Pharisee

Underrated or Overrated:  the Pharisee? Underrated, by far! The Pharisee gets a very bad wrap. It is Jesus fault: He was very, very hard on them. My argument is that He was so hard on them because He was SO close to them; that He loved them so much; and if we are close to Jesus we have to love and admire the Pharisee. And that we cannot grant ourselves the license to speak of them as Jesus did.

Let us distinguish: the actual, historical, concrete Pharisee, the contemporary and sometimes adversary (and sometimes ally) of Jesus... from the expression "Pharisee" as a derogatory moral metaphor. Jesus viciously attacked them as arrogant, superior, pride-filled, legalistic, moralistic, hypocritical, selfish and lacking in compassion. It doesn't get much worse than that; and from the Son of God Himself! But I will argue that they were as bad as He said; but no worse than the rest of us. So we can't look down on them and we shouldn't use this word as an insult.

There are three important things about the historical, actual Pharisees: they were a vigorous, wholesome religious movement (in many ways); they were very close to Jesus; and they are the forefathers of the Rabbinic Judaism of the last two millennia.

Good People  The Pharisee Movement was a vigorous, enthusiastic effort to imbue day-to-day life with devotion to God. It was the equivalent of our lay renewal movements. It was "lay" led in contrast to the temple priests, the Sadducees, who maintained sacrificial ritual and were collaborative with the Roman oppressor. Their goal was that of all authentic renewal movements: live ordinary life in communion with God. They were probably outstanding people: on the whole more dedicated, generous, pious that most.

Close to Jesus Jesus was certainly closer to the Pharisees than the competing factions. The Essenes were a radical, counter-cultural monastic community that had retreated to the desert to flee the Roman influence and the temple cult. Jesus doesn't show any awareness of them in the gospel accounts we have received. He was no Essene.

The Zealots were militant, nationalist revolutionaries who planned to overflow the Roman invasion by violent force. Some of Jesus' followers apparently were such; He didn't ban them. But Jesus was no Zealot.

The Sadducees, temple priests and collaborators with Rome, differed dogmatically from the Pharisees: they did not believe in the Resurrection of the Dead and they limited their legal code to the original Mosaic code, without the elaboration that the Pharisees accepted. Jesus was no Sadducee: He (to say the least) believed in the Resurrection (hello! He is the Resurrection and the Life!). He respected the holiness of the Temple, but his cleansing of it made him the temple priests' worst nightmare.

So we can see that dogmatically Jesus favored them; and he shared their primary purpose, communion with God in daily life. Because of this closeness, He is very tough on them. Imagine a football coach whose son plays on the team: it would not be unusual for him to be toughest on his own son. Consider the conflicts that sometimes arise among conservative Catholics: not unusually they are tougher on each other than on the liberal opposition. It is the closeness that makes the argument so fierce. We all know that one might criticize his own family member; but if another said the same thing there would be a fistfight. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimethia, and Paul of Tarsus were all of this party. So, we see Jesus as very, very close to the Pharisee. You don't say those kind of tough things about someone you don't specially love, especially if you are the Son of God.

Ancestors of Rabbinic Judaism  Within a few decades of Jesus death, the Sadducees, the Zealots and the Essenes were past-tense history. But the Pharisee movement developed into the various expressions of Rabbinic Judaism. So there is a problem here: if we use the word "Pharisee"  as a pejorative for religiosity at its worst (pride, condescension, legalism, etc.) we are disparaging the entire history of Judaism. This is NOT a good idea. Just as we finally renounced the "deicide" charge that our God was murdered by "the Jews" at Vatican II, it is time that we renounce the expression "Pharisee" as anti-Judaic and antisemitic.

Jesus' Charge  Jesus identified a rot at the heart of his friend/enemy, the Pharisee: pride, arrogance, superiority, self-righteousness, exclusiveness, "us-versus-them-ism,"  indifference, legalism, hypocrisy, moral-ism, and lack of compassion. This temptation, I suggest, is at the heart of every vigorous, serious spiritual movement...every single solitary one! It is almost inevitable, a result of original sin. When someone has a powerful religious experience, a life-transforming encounter, there normally follows an extravagant euphoria that comes with a newfound sense of righteousness and superiority. To use just one example: after I experienced the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal I was elated with the ecstasy of speaking in tongues, group praise, inspiration directly from scripture, deliverance from evil spirits, spiritual headship, holy laughter, resting in the Spirit and a litany of overwhelming experiences. I could not help but look down upon ordinary, garden-variety-Catholicism as a lesser species of the faith. My apology to family, friends and the Church in general. Yet, I continue to value the charismatic dimension of my faith. If you experience any breakthrough of grace, you have to be over-excited about it: 12-steps, NeoCatechumenal Way, Focolare, or whatever

Change of Expression If an ordinary person gets serious about God, prayer and spirituality, they are almost certain to become somewhat arrogant. It is a developmental stage. But we have to come up with a different expression. We could call it "purisee" because there is a sense of cultic purity; or "perfectisee" because there is a newfound sense of perfection; or "lawisee" because there is a specific "law" or network of principles and practices that ensures sanctity. I prefer this last: "Lawisee" as it identifies the underlying problem: that there is some practice, endeavor, and initiative that brings holiness. Perhaps I like that term because it rhymes with my name. I have been called "Laracy the Pharisee" (usually in the heat of battle) by people very close to me who know me very well.  My dear friend John, of happy memory, one who called me "Laracy the Pharisee," also taught me, in the face of criticism, to plea "guilty as charged." This brings us to a key point.

We Are All of Us Hypocrites To be a Christian is to be hypocritical: we profess a code of conduct which we blatantly fail to live out. Hypocrisy is intrinsic to Catholicism and Christianity because we are sinful and fail to live up to our standards. Additionally, as noted above, it is very strong in people who become serious about their spirituality but are early in the journey up the mountain. Therefore we do well to "plead guilty as charged."

Danger in Calling Others Hypocrites  There is a particular danger in identifying the hypocrisy, the "lawiseeism" of others. Let me explain. I have noticed that Pope Francis has a bad habit of accusing his theological opponents (conservatives!) of legalism, hypocrisy and arrogance. Well, as noted above, he is probably right. But, on my part, I see his very attacks as arrogant, self-righteous, and legalistic. And I am quite confident I am right. But here is the rub: in my (entirely rational) judgment of him, I myself fall into arrogance and rash judgment! We are caught in an unending spiral of mutual accusation.

What are we to do? All I know is to come, trustingly, before the crucified-Risen Jesus: confess our own arrogance, and pray for our enemies! Let your mercy be upon us as we place our trust in you!

Scrutinizing My Pope Francis Aversion

Charming Brie Stoner (colleague of Fr. Richard Rohr, my "new best friend" LOL!) offers this:  "...negative emotions are to be gently welcomed, questioned, listened to..." Good advice this: not to surrender to them; not to deny, condemn or flee them; but to welcome them softly like a dear friend. So, here I welcome and question my hatred of Pope Francis.

To be clear, it is a love/hate thing: deep ambivalence, swings of emotion. (By "hate" I intend here the emotion of disgust, not the spiritual/moral vice of willing evil for another.) Today I love him, tomorrow I hate him. For weeks, after his sound response to the wacky Amazon Synod,  I liked him; but I simply loved him during his iconic "Ex Orbi et Urbi" blessing. He walked through desolate St. Peter's square in the rain, without an umbrella, alone, slow, aged and tired; he seemed burdened, sad, and expressive in his precious, fragile person of the very suffering of a world in pandemic. Finally, (I exulted!) I again love my pontiff! But then...not one but two friends sent me his interview in Commonweal with  hagiographer Austin Ivereigh. Instinctively I cast both aside; but then questioned myself "Perhaps I should open my mind and heart." Bad move! The interview was Francis at his worst! Back to hating him again. And feeling bad about it. He is, after all, a compassionate, bold, interesting, liberated spirit; he is our Catholic Father and center of our unity; he has drawn many of the disillusioned back to an interest in the Church. So why this deep, passionate, ever-recurring aversion?

I have identified three key roots: his advocacy for the poor, his "emotivist-irrationalist" theology, and his posture on sexuality and the Culture War. Here I want to consider primarily his advocacy for the poor.

That this bothers me is puzzling because I have always shared this solicitude for the poor, the suffering and those on the margins. What bothers me in Pope Francis is: his blaming, scolding tone; and the politicization of his concern.

Very often he is scolding the wealthy, the powerful, those who build walls  and weapons but care little for the poor. This tone is not one I find in the great Catholic figures (most recently Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul) and is repulsive to me personally.

In regard to my work providing a home for low-income women, I often receive "blaming" comments like: "Why don't the families of the women care for them?" "You mean the Archdiocese is not helping you financially?" "I can't believe you receive no governmental assistance!" Now it happens that: the families do what they can; the Archdiocese has been supportive (Cardinal Tobin sent two generous checks unsolicited); and I appreciate that most of our residents benefit from social security disability and a generous medicaid/medicare network. But that is not the point: the thing is that were I to indulge in this "blame game" I would rob myself of the inexpressible Joy of my work. I appreciate the support that comes from many sources and I find immense delight in my work. I consider it a special gift, a charism from heaven to be involved with these women who are so interesting, and precious, and tender. Not everyone is blessed with this delectable call; it is very special. Were I to criticize others I would fall into arrogance and ingratitude. It is like the vow of celibacy; or "praying in tongues'; or the monastic life...these are special gifts. Some receive a special portion. Surely all are called to chastity, prayer, communal worship, and care for the poor in some way; but some are specially blessed.

Just a few days after the installation of Pope Francis I noticed a problem: on the street he greeted a Cardinal who was waiting for his chauffeur. He asked him:  "Why don't you just take a bus?" Now the fact that Cardinal Bergoglio took buses is charming and endearing. He is, clearly, a special man. But the suggestion that aging Cardinals, weighted down with responsibility, should be waiting on street corners for the next bus is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever entertained. The Cardinal in question was providing a job for a worker; he may have shared a mutual, intimate, holy friendship with the driver; and most of all, he received some rest and peace so badly needed by our Princes.

My second problem is that he too often politicizes his love for the poor. Almost 20 years ago, my nephew graduated college and went to Haiti for a year of service. I wrote him a heartfelt letter cautioning him that exposure to poverty and suffering can be traumatizing and scandalizing and lead to bitterness, indignation, anger, and judgmental moralism against the rich, the powerful and the "System." Leftist ideology! Or, it can wed itself to love for Christ and the Church and the blessedness of the poor. Happily, he spent time with the poor and time before the Eucharist and returned greatly deepened in wisdom, inner peace and love (in my humble opinion!)

Pope Francis sees himself as a sociopolitical leader, leading the world to enlightened positions on global warming, borders, death penalty, weapons, and so forth. This represents a "clericalism" as these issues are outside of his competence; they need to be addressed by political bodies, processes and leaders. His is a voice of confusion and polarization when he presents his personal opinions under the mantle of papal authority. It is odious. My father liked to say: "We don't have to like anyone; we have to love everyone." I love Pope Francis; (a lot of the time) I don't like him.

The other two issues (theology, sexuality) are best left to another blog essay. For now, I feel better getting that out of my system and will reinvigorate my loyalty to and prayer for this fascinating, admirable, eccentric and o-so-annoying Vicar of Christ.

Dear Bishops and Priests: Open the Churches; Give Us the Sacraments; Get Your Sword and Get Into the Battle

A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but this is not that day!
An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day!
This day we fight!
By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!

                       Aragon, at the Black Gate, rousing his men for battle.

In this hour, we hold in highest esteem our health care workers, police, and all on the front line who are charging into the danger zone to save lives. By contrast, where is our Church and our priests? They are self-isolating, as if they were ordinary civilians. Churches are closed; the sacraments are banned; the dying are without the last rites, sinners deprived of absolution, and the dead without a reverent burial. Our faith is considered "non-essential"...something we can do without for a few months during the crisis...something possibly worthwhile but not necessary. "We can do without the sacraments for a while" we hear said cavalierly, very close to presumption.

In this age of McCarrick, is the image of the priest...systemic cover--ups of the abuse of adolescent boys...now to become even worse? How many people in twenty years will recall:  I was in the hospital on life support for two weeks; I never saw a priest! My mother died without the last rites; there was no priest! Then she was buried without family and friends; denied dignity! I was struggling with mortal sin, but without access to confession!

If dollar stores, liquor stores construction sites, corner bodegas and a host of institutions can function in the crisis, do you tell me that Catholic pastors are not to be trusted? Has our confidence in our pastors declined so abysmally that they are best left isolated behind locked doors in their rectories, live-streaming daily liturgies and active on social media?

I cannot accept that there are not ways to worship together and to access the sacraments in ways that are compliant with public health...hand hygiene, social distancing, masks, and so forth. If dollar store managers can do it; certainly our pastors can. I do not know of a more responsible, reliable group in this world. A man does not become pastor in the Catholic Church without years of formal education and decades of experience in the trenches. They are the equivalent of admirals in the navy. It is a sacrilege to imprison them in locked rectories.

Have we lost a vigorous, expectant faith in the healing, sanctifying, transforming powers of our sacraments that they can be dispensed with in difficult times, just when we need them the most?

Imagine if our nurses and doctors were directed by the state to abandon the sick and dying. They would calmly and courageously defy  and proceed to care for them. What about our priests? Where is the zeal for souls, the missionary fervor, the passion for communion in the Holy? Where is the spirit of Pope Francis...the field hospital, the smell of the flock, the push to the peripheries...when we need it?

Our parish is blessed by a marvelous young priest: wholesome, athletic, energetic, highly intelligent, and deeply spiritual. Young and healthy, he told me he would gladly don the correct PPE and go into the hospitals and nursing homes and all the battle zones, exercising his priestly mission, always using correct protective protocols. He was a baseball player; he wants to get his glove and get in the game! He is being restrained by a policy of timidity.

Perhaps the decision to lock down the Church was appropriate for a few weeks at the start of this pandemic, to bend the curve and highlight the gravity. But the time of caution is now past. In an atmosphere of pervasive anxiety panic, we do not need our Church to be timid, defensive, passive, isolated. It is a time for boldness, vigor, magnanimity, resoluteness, confidence. Let our priests, especially the young and the healthy, stand with Aragon at Black Gate:

"There may come a day when the shepherds abandon their flock and shelter in place in their rectories; when churches are locked; when the sacraments are banned; when the sick, the dying and the sinful are without the sacraments! But this is NOT that day!" 

Disclaimer: The above should be taken with some discretion as the author has been diagnosed with multiple psychological morbidities. He shows paranoid tendencies: is convinced that there is a supernatural power, an actual diabolic spirit, that desires to destroy him. He obsesses about what he calls "The Cultural Revolution" which he thinks has destroyed the fabric of the family and society. He has a melodramatic propensity: he imagines everything in terms of an ongoing spiritual combat of good and bad forces. He sees even the most mundane events in a binary lens: obsessing about God and the devil, heaven and hell, good and bad. He is blatantly heteronormative in his fascination with masculinity and femininity. Fortunately, he is not homophobic as he has a preferential affection for homosexuals whom he stereotypes as intelligent, compassionate, witty, sensitive and unusually gifted; but there is a mild machoophobia evident in his disdain for jock culture and toxic masculinity. He does not disguise his superstitiousness: he believes in bi-location, demonic possession, plenary indulgences for what he calls "the souls in purgatory." He has a tempered trust in science but prefers to pray for miraculous healing. He seems to suffer intrusive "victim syndrome" thoughts: he attributes enormous evil consequences...break-up of family, deaths by despair, polarization of society, crisis in masculinity...to contraception. He is known to fly into violent temper tantrums if he hears the conjunction of two words:  "contraception"  and "mandate."  He displays a classic "warrior-hero" complex: note his fascination with Aragon. He seems to want to be a hero. Add to that that he thinks he is supposed to be a "saint" and you have a particularly grave co-morbidity. His guilt complex is evident in his rush to confession on virtually a weekly basis.