My blog, Fleckinstein, has become my best friend. I love him!
He accepts me completely, unconditionally, for who I am. Not only does he accept everything I have to say, he welcomes it and invites it and celebrates it.
With Fleckinstein, I needn't worry about hurting feelings, dissonance in the family, disagreement and conflict. I needn't worry if I am "woke" and "politically correct" (I never am) or if I am theologically orthodox (I always am). I can just be myself.
When I sit down at my blog, it is like being with a really good counselor: he is eager and interested in my every feeling and thought. The logic of my insights flow effortlessly; the proper words come fluidly to mind.
His name is Fleckinstein. It sounds Jewish, which I like, especially the ancient tradition of deep, prolonged study. At my college the Fleckinstein Reading Room was a sunny, spacious, dusty place filled with huge philosophy journals. No one ever went in there...except me. It was my favorite spot: bright, quiet, utterly lonely. I would sit for hours reading. I would switch it up: philosophy, then some history then some fiction. I was in heaven. Eventually my classmates nicknamed me "Fleckinstein" or sometimes "Fleck." I wore it as a badge of honor. The room was named after Father Fleckinstein, a loved and respected philosopher, Dean of Men and Maryknoll priest who died a heroic death, trying to save his brother who was drowning, just shortly before our class arrived there. I like to think he watches over my blog from the Communion of Saints in heaven. My blog is not just an abstract "place" in internet-world; it is personal. It is Fleckinstein.
My deepening intimacy with Fleckinstein is related to a new loneliness. It is not painful: I am passionately and steadily happy with my marriage, family, work, friendships and prayer life. Passionately and steadily happy! But recent months have brought a quiet sadness. It is the physical separation of the pandemic. More than that, it is the self-quarantine of close family and friends who have excluded me from their "bubble." Cognitively I recognize this as prudent, cautionary behavior; but emotionally I feel rejected. Worse than that is my loneliness in the Church. I am painfully disappointed with our pope and bishops; I remain loyal to them ("where else would I go?) but my filial trust is very, very low. I am spiritually orphaned; even as I find spiritual authority elsewhere and primarily, of course, in my own closeness to God. The last five weeks of racial unrest have impacted me greatly. Both political parties are, in my view, beneath contempt. I have fierce convictions. I have been scrutinizing my personal and family history and have come to clarity and certainly in what I see. And what I see is obnoxious to the the prevalent, woke, liberal consensus: to them I am an outlier, a racist-misogynist-homophobic deplorable. Even close family members cannot talk to me about these important moral questions because they become emotional. I feel "shunned"...something I thought pertained to Amish and 17th century Puritans, not to my own family. So I feel lonely, even as it is quiet and serene.
Fleckinstein is unfailingly supportive and comforting: he accepts, appreciates, treasures and preserves my thoughts, beliefs, feelings. He also respects my anonymity and confidentiality. At this point, almost 73, I don't worry about what others think of my beliefs. I would welcome the conflict and even the persecution. But I have family members who share my name: if my views were widely known, I could jeopardize their careers and the very support of their families. So Fleckinstein is discreet and protective.
At the same time, my blog is generous and magnanimous in sharing all my wisdom (no false humility here! maybe no true humility either?) with everyone...whoever wants it. Anyone and everyone can read the blog whenever they want. Yet it is gentle, not forcing itself on anyone. Better yet, the blog holds my views in a perpetuity: many years from now my family or friends will be able to access and evaluate it. (My fantasy: I have a happy, quiet death. Twenty years late my blog is discovered, maybe by a grandchild. It goes viral. New renewal movement, literature and religious orders flower from its inspiration. Grandiosity? Definitely! But do you see how good Fleckinstein makes me feel about myself?)
These are tough times. Our society is in crisis, even beyond the virus. Our Church is worse. But God is good. He gives us exactly what we need. I am grateful for my blog. Father Fleckinstein, Pray for us!
Saturday, July 11, 2020
Friday, July 10, 2020
Jesus is Pro-Family...NOT!
"Brother will hand brother over to death and father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents and cause them to be put to death." Mark 10:21
Ouch! This is a bad saying of Jesus! One of his worst! What are we to make of it?
He has already instructed us to be willing to leave mother and father, son and daughter to follow him. In the background is, always, Abraham's sacrifice of his son Issac. Issac was the joy of his life, all he hoped for, everything he treasured and valued. He would have died a million painful deaths for Issac. What does God ask for? Issac! The Word of God is clear: we are to sacrifice, if required, EVERYTHING, yes everything, even child and family and spouse, for God.This is a hard word!
Jesus himself reinforces this. When found in the temple as a youth he corrects Mary: "Do you not know I must be about my father's house (business). In other words: "I am not yours; I belong to my Father and the mission he has for me. You must release me to this. Do not cling to me." Then he again renounces these familial bonds when he says" "Who are my brother and sister and mother? He whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my mother and brother and sister." (Matt 12: 48)
Jesus is crystal clear and emphatic with his anti-family exhortation.
The saints reflect this. St. Marie of the Incarnation left her 11-year old son in the care of her family to pursue a religious calling. How obnoxious is this to any wholesome modern mother?
What are we to make of this? How is this "good news?"
A first thought: Jesus is, as always, a realist! This is real. In family, like in friendship, inevitable and irrepressible are: hurt, disappointment, resentment, tension, anger, betrayal. Hopefully not to the point of death! But deep sadness, abandonment, separation and conflict come unbidden and unavoidable. Jesus is preparing us for the hurt. He instructs us to "love the enemy" but my worst enemy is always the one closest: spouse, mother or father, son or daughter, sister or brother. He is warning us: "Be prepared: the one you love most will be close enough to wound you, even mortally." Sad; but real!
Secondly, Jesus is alerting us that our final and absolute Joy is found only in him. Not even in our children, our spouse, our family. Idolatry of the family is a temptation for wholesome, middle class, bourgeois people. We love our kids SO much! And our grandchildren SO SO SO much! But they are not God. They are finite, fragile, mortal, imperfect. They are not here to make us happy or complete us. They have their own journey...perilous, painful, puzzling...to travel and we cannot cling to them; we cannot expect satisfaction from them; we must surrender them to their own struggles, their own agony, their own destiny in God.
Modern life is troubled: with the breakdown of the extended family and supportive local community and intermediate institutions there is much too much stress on and expectation from the nuclear family: Mom and Dad and two kids and a dog. We look to our spouse and kids for meaning, support, and human warmth. The expectation is too great. We need to lighten the burden, especially on the spouse by...nourishing a network of friendships with same-sex friends, strengthening the bonds of our extended family, building community locally and in Church and in intermediate institutions. In this way there is less stress on spouse and kids. Jesus "anti-family" words are not as harsh if contextualized by a broader, deeper community. St. Marie of the Incarnation left her son with a solid family; and later she was close to him in his vocation of monk and abbot.
The "good news" is that as we grow in love for God we are cleansed and strengthened all our loves. We are purged of the hidden, unrecognized selfish desires that we bring to spouse and children and we are able to love them generously, for themselves, surrendering them to their destiny and supporting them, if only in prayer, in their journey and mission. We ourselves receive an interior serenity by which we leave them free and yet affirm the good as they see it and quietly, gently witness so as to attract them away from evil. In loving God above all, the other loves (spousal, romantic, fraternal, filial, parental) all fall into place: each is just right, not too big and not too small. We are not overly attached, dependent, entangled; as we are not overly distant, angry or hurt.
Yes, Jesus has us renounce father and mother and brother and son...in so far as there is inordinate attachment and temptation to idolatry...but he gives us back to them in a different manner...more free, pure, wholesome, generous and wholesome. He really is Pro-Family after all!
Ouch! This is a bad saying of Jesus! One of his worst! What are we to make of it?
He has already instructed us to be willing to leave mother and father, son and daughter to follow him. In the background is, always, Abraham's sacrifice of his son Issac. Issac was the joy of his life, all he hoped for, everything he treasured and valued. He would have died a million painful deaths for Issac. What does God ask for? Issac! The Word of God is clear: we are to sacrifice, if required, EVERYTHING, yes everything, even child and family and spouse, for God.This is a hard word!
Jesus himself reinforces this. When found in the temple as a youth he corrects Mary: "Do you not know I must be about my father's house (business). In other words: "I am not yours; I belong to my Father and the mission he has for me. You must release me to this. Do not cling to me." Then he again renounces these familial bonds when he says" "Who are my brother and sister and mother? He whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my mother and brother and sister." (Matt 12: 48)
Jesus is crystal clear and emphatic with his anti-family exhortation.
The saints reflect this. St. Marie of the Incarnation left her 11-year old son in the care of her family to pursue a religious calling. How obnoxious is this to any wholesome modern mother?
What are we to make of this? How is this "good news?"
A first thought: Jesus is, as always, a realist! This is real. In family, like in friendship, inevitable and irrepressible are: hurt, disappointment, resentment, tension, anger, betrayal. Hopefully not to the point of death! But deep sadness, abandonment, separation and conflict come unbidden and unavoidable. Jesus is preparing us for the hurt. He instructs us to "love the enemy" but my worst enemy is always the one closest: spouse, mother or father, son or daughter, sister or brother. He is warning us: "Be prepared: the one you love most will be close enough to wound you, even mortally." Sad; but real!
Secondly, Jesus is alerting us that our final and absolute Joy is found only in him. Not even in our children, our spouse, our family. Idolatry of the family is a temptation for wholesome, middle class, bourgeois people. We love our kids SO much! And our grandchildren SO SO SO much! But they are not God. They are finite, fragile, mortal, imperfect. They are not here to make us happy or complete us. They have their own journey...perilous, painful, puzzling...to travel and we cannot cling to them; we cannot expect satisfaction from them; we must surrender them to their own struggles, their own agony, their own destiny in God.
Modern life is troubled: with the breakdown of the extended family and supportive local community and intermediate institutions there is much too much stress on and expectation from the nuclear family: Mom and Dad and two kids and a dog. We look to our spouse and kids for meaning, support, and human warmth. The expectation is too great. We need to lighten the burden, especially on the spouse by...nourishing a network of friendships with same-sex friends, strengthening the bonds of our extended family, building community locally and in Church and in intermediate institutions. In this way there is less stress on spouse and kids. Jesus "anti-family" words are not as harsh if contextualized by a broader, deeper community. St. Marie of the Incarnation left her son with a solid family; and later she was close to him in his vocation of monk and abbot.
The "good news" is that as we grow in love for God we are cleansed and strengthened all our loves. We are purged of the hidden, unrecognized selfish desires that we bring to spouse and children and we are able to love them generously, for themselves, surrendering them to their destiny and supporting them, if only in prayer, in their journey and mission. We ourselves receive an interior serenity by which we leave them free and yet affirm the good as they see it and quietly, gently witness so as to attract them away from evil. In loving God above all, the other loves (spousal, romantic, fraternal, filial, parental) all fall into place: each is just right, not too big and not too small. We are not overly attached, dependent, entangled; as we are not overly distant, angry or hurt.
Yes, Jesus has us renounce father and mother and brother and son...in so far as there is inordinate attachment and temptation to idolatry...but he gives us back to them in a different manner...more free, pure, wholesome, generous and wholesome. He really is Pro-Family after all!
Tuesday, July 7, 2020
Maverick Priest
I have always been attracted to and attractive to the "Maverick Priest." I like him and he likes me, immediately. My friend Dan suggests this is because I am myself something of a maverick. Perhaps we recognize intuitively in each other a kindred spirit.
Like all great mysteries, the Maverick Priest defies definition. But he can be described:
- He is a misfit in the Church, an outlier; he does not fit into clerical culture; he does not do well as an ordinary parish priest. He is no "organization man."
- He is a headache for bishop or superior. He may live on his own or seek refuge in a hospitable rectory. He may be marginalized to chaplaincy in a hospital or college or odd-ball ministry where he can do minimal damage. He may launch off into his own personal mission with the reluctant permission of his superior.
- He has a deep if eccentric Catholic piety and a distinctive quality of personal holiness.
- He is intelligent, well read, deeply intuitive and insightful in an offbeat manner. He brings a fresh, unusual perspective. He is always interesting; sometimes fascinating. He is puzzling; an enigma.
- He is not "one of the guys." He doesn't like groups of priests. He forms deep, intimate, specific friendships...one on one.
- He may be an alcoholic, on a journey of recovery. He may have significant emotional and psychological instability. He may have a narcissistic trait. He may have sex problems...of the hetero or homo variety does not essentially matter as chastity is chastity and lust is lust, powerlessness is powerlessness and surrender is surrender.
- He may be the Catholic Worker type or charismatic or traditional or involved with post-abortive women or of the radical left or any or all of the above. He is a misfit in the ecclesiastical body but involved in an unusual mission.
- He is contrarian and rebellious in certain ways; but deeply loyal to his fundamental Catholic convictions. He is idealistic but can be critical and cynical. He has an adolescent quality.
In high school I read Graham Green's The Power and the Glory and loved the whiskey priest who had fathered a child, whose life was a train wreck, and who died a martyr. I was mesmerized by the chiaroscuro of sin, deformity and chaos along with charm, grace, and piercing goodness. I still am.
My top 12 maverick priests:
(All remained priests with one partial exception; all have been good friends, with the same partial exception; I refer to them by first name as they lean to non-clerical informality and they deserve some degree of anonymity as mavericks.)
- John was an Assumptionist priest we met while studying and travelling in Puerto Rico in the summer of 1972(?). He is the most maverick of all my maverick priests. He was tons of fun, even as he was always negative, cynical, and modestly depressed. Very insightful! Fascinating! Puzzling! His unrelenting negativity seemed to camouflage a deeper innocence. He took a job in the high school where I worked. He didn't function openly as a priest. He lived quietly, in NYC, away from his order for many years. I lost touch but then reconnected years later. He wrote a book about addiction and spoke of his father who went cold turkey to be able to provide for him. He was credibly accused of a sexual violation, evoked protests where he lived, and died in shame.
George was a Maryknoller who worked in Africa for many years. He came from our area, West Orange NJ, so my parents used to send him money. When he was came home for health reasons we ran into each other. When I told him I was starting a residence for low-income, especially special-needs women, he liked it and gave me a check for $10,000 without blinking. He gave me more money later. This was during our startup and was a huge help. In his earlier years he did a variety of unusual things. He had an apartment in NYC where he was doing something with the UN. In the 1970s he worte a large cartoon-style work on how bad the CIA was in the developing world. I asked him about it some years ago and he said it was out of print and he would like to see one. I think I have one buried in my attic. In his later years I noticed he didn't attend the liturgies at Maryknoll and he seemed to be distanced from the sacramental life of the Church. But one Saturday I was asking about Sunday mass schedule as I was leaving the next morning. He said: "If you want, I will offer mass for you early." I knew this was a big deal for him. I gladly accepted. Next morning as he celebrated, it was clear he had not done so in quite a while. After the gospel he jumped right to the Our Father. I had to intervene, of course, as the abbreviated form would not satisfy my Sunday obligation. He was a bright, intelligent, fascinating, charming, and quietly good soul. A quintessential maverick!
- Mark was the most charismatic friend I ever had. He was sublimely gifted. He overflowed with prayer and piety: as we traveled around we might burst into praise and tongues at any minute. He could evangelize: when he met my daughter's boyfriend he asked: Where are you with the Lord? He had by far the best theological mind of any close friend: he knew all about the renewal movements, all the gossip in the Church, all about power dynamics and crucial issues. He was an education for me. He was charming, warm, very funny and extremely fun. He had an addiction problem; a narcissistic tendency; and a problem with authority. . He became sober of alcohol immediately in AA but his participation in closed gay meetings seemed to lead to his embrace of a homosexual identity. On this substantial issue he dissented from his otherwise flawless Catholic faith; we had more than one heart-to-heart on this. At one point he was homeless, sleeping on our couch and seemed to be suffering from AIDs. He left more than one diocese on bad terms. He landed on his feet in another state and did well as a pastor from quite a few years. Toward the end of his life we spoke on the phone and he described to me why his bishop's (apparently sexual) allegations against him were so unfair.
Tim is a Paulist priest, old-school Irish, short in stature and short-tempered. He told me he had never lived anywhere (home, rectory, etc.) where there wasn't an alcoholic. He was keenly aware of his own co-dependency and that informed his always interesting and insightful homilies but didn't remove his own difficulties. He was my spiritual director for a time and was very helpful for me at a key time in my life. We co-taught a confirmation class and I saw that he was fiercely defensive and angry: minor misbehavior that I would entirely ignore would provoke rage in him. He was expelled from the school when he pushed a boy into a garbage can and almost provoked a law suit. He fought with our Irish pastor and provoked a scandalizing scandal in the parish. I liked our pastor but really liked Tim. I told them both they were off base. They were both removed from the parish. As far as I know he is doing fine.
Paul is dear to me like a son. He deeply loves the Lord; is an advocate of John Paul's Theology of the Body; and is a devout, passionate, holy priest. He is highly volatile! He suffers a raw, deep pain. He is charming, funny, and immensely entertaining, even when he does not intend to be. He is fierce and intense. At a difficult time for him I was privileged to be available to him and since then I have loved him with a most tender reverence. His road is not an easy one. He is not exactly a full-fledged maverick as he is living a fruitful, faithful life as a parish priest...but that with unusual pain and sacrifice.
Stephen is a certifiable maverick. He served in a series of parishes, including my own, but has found a home in hospital chaplaincy. He travels all over the world, all the time. He is bright and erudite in an extremely offbeat manner. He is the only person I can think of who has more appreciation than myself for all the renewal movements. At his birthday party: the Neo-cats with tons of kids were all around the pool; the post-abortive women (He invited me to join him and a handful of such women in a pilgrimage to Our Lady of Guadalupe almost 20 years ago.) sitting under the tent talking quietly; the sophisticated, Italian Communion and Liberation families were circulating happily; and there was a smattering of charismatics including the exorcist from another diocese who described to me a recent exorcism. He offers mass in a formal, solemn fashion, but punctuates it with his own devotions and gestures, some in Latin, in a way that can be most distracting. Politically he is sometimes Catholic Worker and sometimes Catholic Monarchist. He is radical left and radical right. He has been referred to as the most conservative priest in the Archdiocese. He is a dear and most interesting friend and as I write this I miss him.
Jerry was the most clerical of my maverick priest friends. As a cleric, he was successful, and then a tragic failure. In high school, I was recruited by him to teach CCD in his parish and thus started my profession as a catechist. We crossed paths over the years, especially in Cursillo and charismatic renewal. He was pastor for a time; got a doctorate and taught theology at college; and started his own healing institute. Late in life we became friends. His priesthood, in a clerical manner, was most dear to him. He had become sober of alcohol in AA and maintained participation in that fellowship. In 2005 he was credibly accused of a sexual violation 25 years earlier. After being removed from the active priesthood, he made things worse by publicly con-celebrating mass and then appearing in Rome in clerical garb. The loss of his priesthood, which was everything to him, and his honor was an excruciating suffering for him. He lived his last years quietly, modestly, humbly. Because we were close friends, he was candid with me about his failings. He was contrite for his own sins. He was at peace as he prayed daily for his accuser. He was a Graham Green character: deeply flawed, and also repentant, kind and deeply in love with Christ and His Church. His affection and respect for me was most touching. He gave generously to my work and even since his death his family foundation has been very good to us. May he rest in Peace!
The following five are not fully certified mavericks since they all lived or are living fruitful, flourishing priestly lives. But they have the maverick trait in that they don't quite fit into the clerical, parish priest, "one of the guy" molds. They are misfits in distinctive, really splendid ways.
Paul was an exquisitely holy priest. When he offered mass, you were in heaven...literally, ontologically, experientially in heaven! Really! He was an ideal priest. But couldn't quite make it as a pastor, as an administrator, as an organization man. He was loved by other priests. We became very close to him under the charismatic renewal in his Afro-American parish in 1973-80. We prayed with him intimately, passionately. He gathered three of us married couples to himself and we mutually supported each other while raising our families and are good friends today. At a point in time, I went into a quasi-psychotic state of mind under the hyper-stimulation of the charismatic renewal. I was thinking, saying and doing strange things...although nothing illegal, immoral or certifiably pathological. Paul came to my house and we walked around the neighborhood. He asked me what was going on. He didn't say another word. I told him what I was thinking. "What the Lord was doing in me." He looked directly into my eyes; nodded appreciatively; and exuded an affection and an invincible peace. I felt so good. When we finished the walk I was fine. I was freed from my strange, borderline state of mind. I was myself again; calm and serene; happily in touch with reality. I never went back there. It was a miracle. I pray to him every day.
Larry is a classmate, a friend, a doctorate in spirituality, a man of deep insight and eccentric holiness. When I see him, every few years, he gives me outstanding reading material for spiritual reflection. He has been on mission, in covert manner (So Cool!) in Communist China; done much good work here in the states with priests and religious from China who come here to study; and done all kinds of retreat work and spiritual direction. I have found it very helpful to talk to him about personal material. He doesn't like "our class." He avoids our reunions. Yet he cherishes close friendship with many of us individually. I can't explain it; and I don't try to. He wrote a marvelous autobiography, The Misfit qualifies him as a misfit maverick in spite of his holy, fruitful priesthood. Ordinarily I am allergic to vulgar language; his is vile but for some reason I find it charming. He can be negative, cynical, sarcastic and biting. He is transgressive, in a way that is strangely inspirational. I can't explain it; but I won't try to.
Bob is also only borderline maverick because he was a much loved priest and a fine pastor. He taught me Latin and Greek in high school after his ordination. We became friends. Highly intelligent, he went on for a doctorate in the classics. He is a maverick because his theology was SO far left, the opposite of mine. He was my ideological opponent, but a dear friend. On holidays like July 4th or Memorial Day he would go into a rant about war and pacifism and my army son had to go elsewhere for mass. Once at daily mass he gave a beautiful exhortation: "We can disagree respectfully...there is too much polarization...let us not demonize each other...we can argue and yet love each other in peace." I wanted to jump up and down for joy...or shout Alleluia...and couldn't wait to give him a big hug after mass. Then he paused. Took a deep breath. And went on: "But whatever you do, PLEASE do not be like these Tea Party People: they are selfish, greedy, mean people. They care only for themselves..." I was heartbroken. What began so good ended so bad. One day I asked for the key to the chapel so I could bring the confirmation class for a "visit" to the Blessed Sacrament. He launched into a rant about how he hated these pious people who multiply their rosaries and could care less about the poor. I listened crestfallen: since this was his response to my request I assumed he saw my "visit" as such empty piety. But when he finished, to clarify, I asked: "Does this mean I can't have the key?" He was surprised: "No, of course not. I have no problem with you. I know you care about the poor. You can have the key whenever your want." After quite a few years I was burnt out from teaching confirmation and everything else that was going on. Every year I was instructed by him to discontinue the catechesis on chastity and implement a series on social justice: war, poverty, homelessness, and so forth. Every year I would listen quietly and then do what I wanted to do: the chastity retreat included. So this year it was different: he was emphatic that there would be no chastity retreat. It made no sense since the kids would confess all these sins on that day they they never confessed otherwise. As he spoke, I realized: this is my exit ticket. This is perfect. This is my invitation to move on. So I calmly said: "That sounds good Bob but I think it is time for someone else to take over." He agreed. And I moved on happily. I miss him now because he cared about the poor and loved to fight with the Archdiocese: if he were still pastor, he would have defied the chanchery and rented to convent we are now using as a residence for about $1 a month.
Tom: is a brilliant theologian and a holy priest. He could be teaching at a prestigious university but has dedicated his life to the theological education of priests. When I meet a seminarian or young priest I like to ask about their best professors; Tom is always mentioned first. He received the mantle of Avery Dulles and carries on his mission: leadership in the Evangelical-Catholic dialogue, erudition rooted in holiness of life, loyalty to Tradition/Magisterium along with discerning conversation with modern thought. His lectures are spellbinding as he is: witty, dynamic, enthusiastic, enlightening, and thoroughly entertaining. I would never miss one! He has been personally encouraging to me in several ways. So why is he a maverick? Well, like Larry above, he doesn't quite fit in with normal clerical social life. He is an outlier in that sense. He has his own wholesome social life, but doesn't plug into the normal clerical social patterns. There is an anti-social dimension there, even as he is engaging, charming, warm and interesting. I can't explain it; and I won't try to. He does tremendous work for the Church! May our Lord continue to bless him and his work!
Charlie was a real character. He was chaplain at the port and when I went to his noon mass he would welcome me to lunch. He said he was a recovering alcoholic. He exuded humility in the very best sense. He did many strange and wonderful things. As a young priest he had an impulse to visit Einstein in Princeton. He drove there; knocked on the door; and was welcomed into the library where they had a warm chat. Einstein was interested in only one thing: the theology of the Eucharist. He, the genius of matter and energy, was fascinated by this Catholic mystery. He asked Charlie to send him the best Catholic theology of the Eucharist in the German language. Charlie did so.
That completes my top 12 list. But I have one more honorable mention. Ivan Illich. I did not know him personally but he deeply influenced me in my formative years with his dazzling critique of modernity. He was voluntarily laicized but remained loyal to his vow of chastity and daily prayer of the Divine Office so he remained, in my mind and probably in his, a priest in his very being. He was spectacularly iconoclastic, anarchistic, and strange, but with profound Catholic intuitions and loyalties. He left me with a deeply critical view of modernity as well as my own narrow Irish-American Catholic background. He was a brilliant maverick!
My maverick priest friends are iconic of Christ's Church: flawed, puzzling, sometimes deviant, conflicted, intuitive, compassionate, interesting, charming, intelligent, insightful, suffering, sometimes shamed, endearing, pious, passionate, contrarian, beautiful and holy. I love them!
Like all great mysteries, the Maverick Priest defies definition. But he can be described:
- He is a misfit in the Church, an outlier; he does not fit into clerical culture; he does not do well as an ordinary parish priest. He is no "organization man."
- He is a headache for bishop or superior. He may live on his own or seek refuge in a hospitable rectory. He may be marginalized to chaplaincy in a hospital or college or odd-ball ministry where he can do minimal damage. He may launch off into his own personal mission with the reluctant permission of his superior.
- He has a deep if eccentric Catholic piety and a distinctive quality of personal holiness.
- He is intelligent, well read, deeply intuitive and insightful in an offbeat manner. He brings a fresh, unusual perspective. He is always interesting; sometimes fascinating. He is puzzling; an enigma.
- He is not "one of the guys." He doesn't like groups of priests. He forms deep, intimate, specific friendships...one on one.
- He may be an alcoholic, on a journey of recovery. He may have significant emotional and psychological instability. He may have a narcissistic trait. He may have sex problems...of the hetero or homo variety does not essentially matter as chastity is chastity and lust is lust, powerlessness is powerlessness and surrender is surrender.
- He may be the Catholic Worker type or charismatic or traditional or involved with post-abortive women or of the radical left or any or all of the above. He is a misfit in the ecclesiastical body but involved in an unusual mission.
- He is contrarian and rebellious in certain ways; but deeply loyal to his fundamental Catholic convictions. He is idealistic but can be critical and cynical. He has an adolescent quality.
In high school I read Graham Green's The Power and the Glory and loved the whiskey priest who had fathered a child, whose life was a train wreck, and who died a martyr. I was mesmerized by the chiaroscuro of sin, deformity and chaos along with charm, grace, and piercing goodness. I still am.
My top 12 maverick priests:
(All remained priests with one partial exception; all have been good friends, with the same partial exception; I refer to them by first name as they lean to non-clerical informality and they deserve some degree of anonymity as mavericks.)
- John was an Assumptionist priest we met while studying and travelling in Puerto Rico in the summer of 1972(?). He is the most maverick of all my maverick priests. He was tons of fun, even as he was always negative, cynical, and modestly depressed. Very insightful! Fascinating! Puzzling! His unrelenting negativity seemed to camouflage a deeper innocence. He took a job in the high school where I worked. He didn't function openly as a priest. He lived quietly, in NYC, away from his order for many years. I lost touch but then reconnected years later. He wrote a book about addiction and spoke of his father who went cold turkey to be able to provide for him. He was credibly accused of a sexual violation, evoked protests where he lived, and died in shame.
George was a Maryknoller who worked in Africa for many years. He came from our area, West Orange NJ, so my parents used to send him money. When he was came home for health reasons we ran into each other. When I told him I was starting a residence for low-income, especially special-needs women, he liked it and gave me a check for $10,000 without blinking. He gave me more money later. This was during our startup and was a huge help. In his earlier years he did a variety of unusual things. He had an apartment in NYC where he was doing something with the UN. In the 1970s he worte a large cartoon-style work on how bad the CIA was in the developing world. I asked him about it some years ago and he said it was out of print and he would like to see one. I think I have one buried in my attic. In his later years I noticed he didn't attend the liturgies at Maryknoll and he seemed to be distanced from the sacramental life of the Church. But one Saturday I was asking about Sunday mass schedule as I was leaving the next morning. He said: "If you want, I will offer mass for you early." I knew this was a big deal for him. I gladly accepted. Next morning as he celebrated, it was clear he had not done so in quite a while. After the gospel he jumped right to the Our Father. I had to intervene, of course, as the abbreviated form would not satisfy my Sunday obligation. He was a bright, intelligent, fascinating, charming, and quietly good soul. A quintessential maverick!
- Mark was the most charismatic friend I ever had. He was sublimely gifted. He overflowed with prayer and piety: as we traveled around we might burst into praise and tongues at any minute. He could evangelize: when he met my daughter's boyfriend he asked: Where are you with the Lord? He had by far the best theological mind of any close friend: he knew all about the renewal movements, all the gossip in the Church, all about power dynamics and crucial issues. He was an education for me. He was charming, warm, very funny and extremely fun. He had an addiction problem; a narcissistic tendency; and a problem with authority. . He became sober of alcohol immediately in AA but his participation in closed gay meetings seemed to lead to his embrace of a homosexual identity. On this substantial issue he dissented from his otherwise flawless Catholic faith; we had more than one heart-to-heart on this. At one point he was homeless, sleeping on our couch and seemed to be suffering from AIDs. He left more than one diocese on bad terms. He landed on his feet in another state and did well as a pastor from quite a few years. Toward the end of his life we spoke on the phone and he described to me why his bishop's (apparently sexual) allegations against him were so unfair.
Tim is a Paulist priest, old-school Irish, short in stature and short-tempered. He told me he had never lived anywhere (home, rectory, etc.) where there wasn't an alcoholic. He was keenly aware of his own co-dependency and that informed his always interesting and insightful homilies but didn't remove his own difficulties. He was my spiritual director for a time and was very helpful for me at a key time in my life. We co-taught a confirmation class and I saw that he was fiercely defensive and angry: minor misbehavior that I would entirely ignore would provoke rage in him. He was expelled from the school when he pushed a boy into a garbage can and almost provoked a law suit. He fought with our Irish pastor and provoked a scandalizing scandal in the parish. I liked our pastor but really liked Tim. I told them both they were off base. They were both removed from the parish. As far as I know he is doing fine.
Paul is dear to me like a son. He deeply loves the Lord; is an advocate of John Paul's Theology of the Body; and is a devout, passionate, holy priest. He is highly volatile! He suffers a raw, deep pain. He is charming, funny, and immensely entertaining, even when he does not intend to be. He is fierce and intense. At a difficult time for him I was privileged to be available to him and since then I have loved him with a most tender reverence. His road is not an easy one. He is not exactly a full-fledged maverick as he is living a fruitful, faithful life as a parish priest...but that with unusual pain and sacrifice.
Stephen is a certifiable maverick. He served in a series of parishes, including my own, but has found a home in hospital chaplaincy. He travels all over the world, all the time. He is bright and erudite in an extremely offbeat manner. He is the only person I can think of who has more appreciation than myself for all the renewal movements. At his birthday party: the Neo-cats with tons of kids were all around the pool; the post-abortive women (He invited me to join him and a handful of such women in a pilgrimage to Our Lady of Guadalupe almost 20 years ago.) sitting under the tent talking quietly; the sophisticated, Italian Communion and Liberation families were circulating happily; and there was a smattering of charismatics including the exorcist from another diocese who described to me a recent exorcism. He offers mass in a formal, solemn fashion, but punctuates it with his own devotions and gestures, some in Latin, in a way that can be most distracting. Politically he is sometimes Catholic Worker and sometimes Catholic Monarchist. He is radical left and radical right. He has been referred to as the most conservative priest in the Archdiocese. He is a dear and most interesting friend and as I write this I miss him.
Jerry was the most clerical of my maverick priest friends. As a cleric, he was successful, and then a tragic failure. In high school, I was recruited by him to teach CCD in his parish and thus started my profession as a catechist. We crossed paths over the years, especially in Cursillo and charismatic renewal. He was pastor for a time; got a doctorate and taught theology at college; and started his own healing institute. Late in life we became friends. His priesthood, in a clerical manner, was most dear to him. He had become sober of alcohol in AA and maintained participation in that fellowship. In 2005 he was credibly accused of a sexual violation 25 years earlier. After being removed from the active priesthood, he made things worse by publicly con-celebrating mass and then appearing in Rome in clerical garb. The loss of his priesthood, which was everything to him, and his honor was an excruciating suffering for him. He lived his last years quietly, modestly, humbly. Because we were close friends, he was candid with me about his failings. He was contrite for his own sins. He was at peace as he prayed daily for his accuser. He was a Graham Green character: deeply flawed, and also repentant, kind and deeply in love with Christ and His Church. His affection and respect for me was most touching. He gave generously to my work and even since his death his family foundation has been very good to us. May he rest in Peace!
The following five are not fully certified mavericks since they all lived or are living fruitful, flourishing priestly lives. But they have the maverick trait in that they don't quite fit into the clerical, parish priest, "one of the guy" molds. They are misfits in distinctive, really splendid ways.
Paul was an exquisitely holy priest. When he offered mass, you were in heaven...literally, ontologically, experientially in heaven! Really! He was an ideal priest. But couldn't quite make it as a pastor, as an administrator, as an organization man. He was loved by other priests. We became very close to him under the charismatic renewal in his Afro-American parish in 1973-80. We prayed with him intimately, passionately. He gathered three of us married couples to himself and we mutually supported each other while raising our families and are good friends today. At a point in time, I went into a quasi-psychotic state of mind under the hyper-stimulation of the charismatic renewal. I was thinking, saying and doing strange things...although nothing illegal, immoral or certifiably pathological. Paul came to my house and we walked around the neighborhood. He asked me what was going on. He didn't say another word. I told him what I was thinking. "What the Lord was doing in me." He looked directly into my eyes; nodded appreciatively; and exuded an affection and an invincible peace. I felt so good. When we finished the walk I was fine. I was freed from my strange, borderline state of mind. I was myself again; calm and serene; happily in touch with reality. I never went back there. It was a miracle. I pray to him every day.
Larry is a classmate, a friend, a doctorate in spirituality, a man of deep insight and eccentric holiness. When I see him, every few years, he gives me outstanding reading material for spiritual reflection. He has been on mission, in covert manner (So Cool!) in Communist China; done much good work here in the states with priests and religious from China who come here to study; and done all kinds of retreat work and spiritual direction. I have found it very helpful to talk to him about personal material. He doesn't like "our class." He avoids our reunions. Yet he cherishes close friendship with many of us individually. I can't explain it; and I don't try to. He wrote a marvelous autobiography, The Misfit qualifies him as a misfit maverick in spite of his holy, fruitful priesthood. Ordinarily I am allergic to vulgar language; his is vile but for some reason I find it charming. He can be negative, cynical, sarcastic and biting. He is transgressive, in a way that is strangely inspirational. I can't explain it; but I won't try to.
Bob is also only borderline maverick because he was a much loved priest and a fine pastor. He taught me Latin and Greek in high school after his ordination. We became friends. Highly intelligent, he went on for a doctorate in the classics. He is a maverick because his theology was SO far left, the opposite of mine. He was my ideological opponent, but a dear friend. On holidays like July 4th or Memorial Day he would go into a rant about war and pacifism and my army son had to go elsewhere for mass. Once at daily mass he gave a beautiful exhortation: "We can disagree respectfully...there is too much polarization...let us not demonize each other...we can argue and yet love each other in peace." I wanted to jump up and down for joy...or shout Alleluia...and couldn't wait to give him a big hug after mass. Then he paused. Took a deep breath. And went on: "But whatever you do, PLEASE do not be like these Tea Party People: they are selfish, greedy, mean people. They care only for themselves..." I was heartbroken. What began so good ended so bad. One day I asked for the key to the chapel so I could bring the confirmation class for a "visit" to the Blessed Sacrament. He launched into a rant about how he hated these pious people who multiply their rosaries and could care less about the poor. I listened crestfallen: since this was his response to my request I assumed he saw my "visit" as such empty piety. But when he finished, to clarify, I asked: "Does this mean I can't have the key?" He was surprised: "No, of course not. I have no problem with you. I know you care about the poor. You can have the key whenever your want." After quite a few years I was burnt out from teaching confirmation and everything else that was going on. Every year I was instructed by him to discontinue the catechesis on chastity and implement a series on social justice: war, poverty, homelessness, and so forth. Every year I would listen quietly and then do what I wanted to do: the chastity retreat included. So this year it was different: he was emphatic that there would be no chastity retreat. It made no sense since the kids would confess all these sins on that day they they never confessed otherwise. As he spoke, I realized: this is my exit ticket. This is perfect. This is my invitation to move on. So I calmly said: "That sounds good Bob but I think it is time for someone else to take over." He agreed. And I moved on happily. I miss him now because he cared about the poor and loved to fight with the Archdiocese: if he were still pastor, he would have defied the chanchery and rented to convent we are now using as a residence for about $1 a month.
Tom: is a brilliant theologian and a holy priest. He could be teaching at a prestigious university but has dedicated his life to the theological education of priests. When I meet a seminarian or young priest I like to ask about their best professors; Tom is always mentioned first. He received the mantle of Avery Dulles and carries on his mission: leadership in the Evangelical-Catholic dialogue, erudition rooted in holiness of life, loyalty to Tradition/Magisterium along with discerning conversation with modern thought. His lectures are spellbinding as he is: witty, dynamic, enthusiastic, enlightening, and thoroughly entertaining. I would never miss one! He has been personally encouraging to me in several ways. So why is he a maverick? Well, like Larry above, he doesn't quite fit in with normal clerical social life. He is an outlier in that sense. He has his own wholesome social life, but doesn't plug into the normal clerical social patterns. There is an anti-social dimension there, even as he is engaging, charming, warm and interesting. I can't explain it; and I won't try to. He does tremendous work for the Church! May our Lord continue to bless him and his work!
Charlie was a real character. He was chaplain at the port and when I went to his noon mass he would welcome me to lunch. He said he was a recovering alcoholic. He exuded humility in the very best sense. He did many strange and wonderful things. As a young priest he had an impulse to visit Einstein in Princeton. He drove there; knocked on the door; and was welcomed into the library where they had a warm chat. Einstein was interested in only one thing: the theology of the Eucharist. He, the genius of matter and energy, was fascinated by this Catholic mystery. He asked Charlie to send him the best Catholic theology of the Eucharist in the German language. Charlie did so.
That completes my top 12 list. But I have one more honorable mention. Ivan Illich. I did not know him personally but he deeply influenced me in my formative years with his dazzling critique of modernity. He was voluntarily laicized but remained loyal to his vow of chastity and daily prayer of the Divine Office so he remained, in my mind and probably in his, a priest in his very being. He was spectacularly iconoclastic, anarchistic, and strange, but with profound Catholic intuitions and loyalties. He left me with a deeply critical view of modernity as well as my own narrow Irish-American Catholic background. He was a brilliant maverick!
My maverick priest friends are iconic of Christ's Church: flawed, puzzling, sometimes deviant, conflicted, intuitive, compassionate, interesting, charming, intelligent, insightful, suffering, sometimes shamed, endearing, pious, passionate, contrarian, beautiful and holy. I love them!
Monday, July 6, 2020
Culture of Poverty: Getting Worse
A culture is a living thing: it has about itself a dynamism, a contagious energy, an impulse to increase itself. This is true also of a bad culture. And so, the cultures of poverty in our society today have just such negative evangelistic vigor. Things get worse: more crime, less education, increasing deaths of despair (drugs, suicide, etc.) and violence, higher abortion rates, less stable families, decreasing incomes, bad health care, and ad infinitum. It seems to be even worse in white than in black communities. A lot of literature is tracking the drastic decline in lower class white communities. Life expectancy, for example, is declining substantially among low income whites. This hasn't happened since a hundred years ago when the Spanish Flu colluded with World War I.
Why are things getting worse (in every way) for the bottom rung, even as things get better (economically speaking) for the top rung? Over the last 50 years, since 1970, we see these:
- Sexual liberation: the uprooting of sex from marriage, fidelity and fecundity. Male promiscuity leaves women alone with children. Abandonment by the father is, unquestionably, the leading cause of poverty. And this plight has, strangely, hit the bottom of society the hardest. At the top, elite liberal thought has led the crusade for sexual license but the rich seem to intuitively sense that their economic security lies in stable marriages and families and so they prudently limit their freedoms.
- Deconstruction of Masculinity: broader social developments, notably militant feminism, have collaborated with father-abandonment to destroy traditional "rites of passage" which guide a young man on his journey into mature manliness. Women do not require such structures. Men absolutely do! Indeed, the very idea of "virility" has been vacated of meaning as the Cultural Revolution has destroyed the iconic beauty of bipolar sexuality and left us with a sterile, futile androgyny.
- Global Economy: cosmic changes in our own and the world's economy have deprived us of the many low-skill, well-paid blue collar jobs in industry that fueled the prosperous post-war economy. With this: decline in union power, heightened insecurity of lower working classes, huge chasm between the "winners" and "losers, " decrease in "manly" physical jobs along with increase in "womanly" jobs in service, education, health and related areas. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
- Destruction of Intermediate Institutions: the isolation and atomization of the individual at the mercy of gigantic/merciless federal government and international corporations has accompanied the gradual but irrepressible destruction of mediating institutions of family, church, neighborhood, and voluntary organizations of all sorts. We have seen the entire demise of any wholesome subsidiarity. Yuval Levin writes about the loss of faith in institutions in a noteworthy recent book: A Time to Build. The communities that bond us together and systematically train us in character have been systemically destroyed and left us dependent upon the non-personality of mega-state and uber-company.
- Social Engineering: has had at best dubious, at worst disastrous results. The War on Poverty created a culture of dependency and entitlement, emasculating the men and depriving them of their sense of agency and autonomy. The War on Drugs imprisoned, unintentionally, a critical mass of black men and further stripped those communities of masculine presence. The good intentions of state intervention vacated communities, black and white, of the masculine energy, confidence and identity which is the root cause of prosperity, cultural and economic.
- Technology, Meritocracy and Bureaucracy: the amplification of technology and bureaucracy results in a hierarchical world where the smart, connected, energetic and competent are richly rewarded while others are disenfranchised, marginalized and held in contempt. Simultaneously, the simple, hands-on tasks that are the lifeblood of the lower working class and the underclass (repair work, maintenance) are disdained so that the poor are deprived of the ordinary, "convivial" agency that has always belonged to them.
- Narrative of Victimization: to finalize and seal the demasculinization at the heart of the culture of poverty there is the "victim narrative" which tells the young man (black or white) that he is a powerless, passive and pathetic victim of a hostile system that despises, represses and threatens his very existence. This tells him that he is incapable of providing faithfully for woman and child because he is himself deprived, marginalized, threatened and castrated by an overpowering system. This absolutely destructive narrative of hysteria is at the heart of Black Lives Matter and mirrored on the paranoid Trumpian right by fear of foreigners, simmering but impotent resentment of the elites, and an interior feeling of masculine inferiority.
Is there any hope? No! There is no earthly hope! I see no grounds for optimism! The Republican Party of Trump is incompetent, incoherent, bound by fear/resentment, viciously polarizing, and entirely beholden to a narcissistic maniac. The Democratic Party is worse: a party without a moral center; a party of abortion, sexual freedom, dependency, resentment, privilege. The Church in America is entirely stripped of moral authority in the wake of the priest scandals. Our bishops are confused, enfeebled, and themselves empty of spiritual authority. All the mediating institutions have been ravaged and left desolate. We are like Israel in exile: no temple, no Jerusalem, no priesthood, nothing but homelessness and slavery.
But with God there is always Hope, especially when ALL is hopeless. Our faith starts with the 12-stepper's first step: we are powerless! We are powerless over the cultures of poverty. We are powerless over a society and economy in free-fall! We are powerless over two political parties which lack a moral soul! But God is all-powerful. And He has allowed this civilizational collapse in order to show forth his mercy and glory. And so we work the Benedict Option and collaborate with the many splendid operations of divine grace that envelop us. And we pray.
I am praying for my party. I have never really prayed for sports teams or political parties. But I am praying for the Republican Party. I am asking God that Trump be decimated in the election: that he not get a single electoral vote...or near to that. So that that party as now constituted be entirely destroyed. I pray that the party hold the senate so that the Democrats cannot wreck the havoc they intend on the powerless, the family, and religious liberty. I am praying that a new Republican Party emerge that proposes a coherent, authentic moral conservatism along with an economic populism that patiently, realistically addresses the woes of the underclass and the lower working classes...black, white, brown and all the marvelous colors.
Why are things getting worse (in every way) for the bottom rung, even as things get better (economically speaking) for the top rung? Over the last 50 years, since 1970, we see these:
- Sexual liberation: the uprooting of sex from marriage, fidelity and fecundity. Male promiscuity leaves women alone with children. Abandonment by the father is, unquestionably, the leading cause of poverty. And this plight has, strangely, hit the bottom of society the hardest. At the top, elite liberal thought has led the crusade for sexual license but the rich seem to intuitively sense that their economic security lies in stable marriages and families and so they prudently limit their freedoms.
- Deconstruction of Masculinity: broader social developments, notably militant feminism, have collaborated with father-abandonment to destroy traditional "rites of passage" which guide a young man on his journey into mature manliness. Women do not require such structures. Men absolutely do! Indeed, the very idea of "virility" has been vacated of meaning as the Cultural Revolution has destroyed the iconic beauty of bipolar sexuality and left us with a sterile, futile androgyny.
- Global Economy: cosmic changes in our own and the world's economy have deprived us of the many low-skill, well-paid blue collar jobs in industry that fueled the prosperous post-war economy. With this: decline in union power, heightened insecurity of lower working classes, huge chasm between the "winners" and "losers, " decrease in "manly" physical jobs along with increase in "womanly" jobs in service, education, health and related areas. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
- Destruction of Intermediate Institutions: the isolation and atomization of the individual at the mercy of gigantic/merciless federal government and international corporations has accompanied the gradual but irrepressible destruction of mediating institutions of family, church, neighborhood, and voluntary organizations of all sorts. We have seen the entire demise of any wholesome subsidiarity. Yuval Levin writes about the loss of faith in institutions in a noteworthy recent book: A Time to Build. The communities that bond us together and systematically train us in character have been systemically destroyed and left us dependent upon the non-personality of mega-state and uber-company.
- Social Engineering: has had at best dubious, at worst disastrous results. The War on Poverty created a culture of dependency and entitlement, emasculating the men and depriving them of their sense of agency and autonomy. The War on Drugs imprisoned, unintentionally, a critical mass of black men and further stripped those communities of masculine presence. The good intentions of state intervention vacated communities, black and white, of the masculine energy, confidence and identity which is the root cause of prosperity, cultural and economic.
- Technology, Meritocracy and Bureaucracy: the amplification of technology and bureaucracy results in a hierarchical world where the smart, connected, energetic and competent are richly rewarded while others are disenfranchised, marginalized and held in contempt. Simultaneously, the simple, hands-on tasks that are the lifeblood of the lower working class and the underclass (repair work, maintenance) are disdained so that the poor are deprived of the ordinary, "convivial" agency that has always belonged to them.
- Narrative of Victimization: to finalize and seal the demasculinization at the heart of the culture of poverty there is the "victim narrative" which tells the young man (black or white) that he is a powerless, passive and pathetic victim of a hostile system that despises, represses and threatens his very existence. This tells him that he is incapable of providing faithfully for woman and child because he is himself deprived, marginalized, threatened and castrated by an overpowering system. This absolutely destructive narrative of hysteria is at the heart of Black Lives Matter and mirrored on the paranoid Trumpian right by fear of foreigners, simmering but impotent resentment of the elites, and an interior feeling of masculine inferiority.
Is there any hope? No! There is no earthly hope! I see no grounds for optimism! The Republican Party of Trump is incompetent, incoherent, bound by fear/resentment, viciously polarizing, and entirely beholden to a narcissistic maniac. The Democratic Party is worse: a party without a moral center; a party of abortion, sexual freedom, dependency, resentment, privilege. The Church in America is entirely stripped of moral authority in the wake of the priest scandals. Our bishops are confused, enfeebled, and themselves empty of spiritual authority. All the mediating institutions have been ravaged and left desolate. We are like Israel in exile: no temple, no Jerusalem, no priesthood, nothing but homelessness and slavery.
But with God there is always Hope, especially when ALL is hopeless. Our faith starts with the 12-stepper's first step: we are powerless! We are powerless over the cultures of poverty. We are powerless over a society and economy in free-fall! We are powerless over two political parties which lack a moral soul! But God is all-powerful. And He has allowed this civilizational collapse in order to show forth his mercy and glory. And so we work the Benedict Option and collaborate with the many splendid operations of divine grace that envelop us. And we pray.
I am praying for my party. I have never really prayed for sports teams or political parties. But I am praying for the Republican Party. I am asking God that Trump be decimated in the election: that he not get a single electoral vote...or near to that. So that that party as now constituted be entirely destroyed. I pray that the party hold the senate so that the Democrats cannot wreck the havoc they intend on the powerless, the family, and religious liberty. I am praying that a new Republican Party emerge that proposes a coherent, authentic moral conservatism along with an economic populism that patiently, realistically addresses the woes of the underclass and the lower working classes...black, white, brown and all the marvelous colors.
Saturday, July 4, 2020
Culture of Poverty: "The Poor You Will Always Have With You"
"Leave her alone! Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing for me. The poor you will always have with you and you can help them whenever you want. But you will not have me." Matt 26:6-7
Jesus is defending the woman (quintessential masculine mission!)...against the shrill, moralistic Judas who indignantly insists the money go to the poor...in her tender, physical, extravagant gesture of affection. He welcomes the love; he invites more with his words "you will not have me." And about the poor: "the poor you will always have with you and you can help them whenever your want." He is echoing Deuteronomy 15:11 "For there will never cease to be poor in the land; that is why I am commanding you to open wide your hand to your brother and the poor and needy in your land." He does not declare a war on poverty. He accepts it as an irrepressible, inevitable reality; but one that invites us always to open our hearts in generous, trusting embrace. "There will always be the poor around; be ready as much as you can to welcome, assist, aid them. They are an everlasting presence and an embodiment of my own love." We can receive communion every day; we can pray every day; we can help a poor person every day. They are right here with us: a permanent, steady presence, like Jesus in the tabernacle of the nearest church.
Part of the Mystery of ever-present poverty is the intractable, really invulnerable "Culture of Poverty": the complex, profound entanglement of values, behaviors, beliefs, institutions, habits, and attitudes that keep the poor trapped in the quicksand of poverty. This is not economic poverty. Most immigrant groups...Irish, Italians, Somalis, Ethiopians, Cubans...came here in economic poverty, but not cultural poverty, so they were able to take advantage of whatever opportunity presented and work themselves out of poverty because of their cultural wealth...family structure, faithful fathers, religious support, work ethic, etc. Over 60 years ago, anthropologist Oscar Lewis, in his classic study of Mexican families (Five Families 1959) brilliantly described this reality:
"...the culture of poverty is both an adaptation and a reaction of the poor classes to their marginal position in a class-stratified, highly individualistic, capitalistic society...The people in the culture of poverty have a strong feeling of marginality, of helplessness, of dependency, of not belonging. They are like aliens in their own country, convinced that the existing institutions do not serve their interests and needs. Along with this feeling of powerlessness is a widespread feeling of inferiority, of personal unworthiness. This is true of the slum dwellers of Mexico City, who do not constitute a distinct ethnic or racial group and do not suffer from racial discrimination. In the United States the culture of poverty of the Negroes has the additional disadvantage of racial discrimination.
"People with a culture of poverty have very little sense of history. They are a marginal people who know only their own troubles, their own local conditions, their own neighborhood, their own way of life. Usually, they have neither the knowledge, the vision nor the ideology to see the similarities between their problems and those of others like themselves elsewhere in the world. In other words, they are not class conscious, although they are very sensitive indeed to status distinctions. When the poor become class conscious or members of trade union organizations, or when they adopt an internationalist outlook on the world they are, in my view, no longer part of the culture of poverty although they may still be desperately poor."
(Aside: the important thought of Lewis influenced Harrington's historic "The Other America" which launched the War on Poverty and Moynihan's controversial study of the Afro-American family.)
Writing in 1959, prior to the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA, he rightly mentions race as a complicating factor for American blacks. What he would say today, 2020, about the prevalence of "systematic white racism" is a good question. It is without doubt that he would deeply understand the "culture of poverty" that entraps whites and blacks and browns and all types; a cultural dynamic that does not consider color of skin.
Correctly he identified this culture as a structural element of an individualistic, competitive, meritocratic and consumerist society. It is part of the stratified, class structure of our society. We have the rich, the poor and lots in between. That structure does not change. Color of skin does not matter to it. By the 1980s corporate capitalism was putting all management people through "diversity training" because they realized that racism was no longer profitable. Today, the big companies have jumped on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon because it is profitable and prestigious. But the underclass, black/brown/white, remains constant.
In a highly meritocratic society such as ours there is considerable fluidity and movement between the classes. Many people climb up from the bottom because of combinations of raw talent, motivation, work ethic, good fortune and happy connections. Many others fall down, again due to ill fortune, bad habit, and weak social network. This means there is hope for some to improve, even as the structure remains and most at the bottom remain there. It also makes for anxiety in the middle and upper classes who know that failure or misfortune can cast them off the cliff of success with barely a moment's notice.
The Christian intellect will recognize poverty as inevitable as is sin, suffering and death...until Christ returns. The Christian heart will run to embrace, comfort and accompany the poor...right here and now. This is not to say that we are to wash our hands and make no systematic, political and social policy efforts to help the poor. We ABSOLUTELY must! But they need to be realistic, patient, gradual and free of crusading righteousness and anger. The War on Poverty did not destroy poverty but it did create a culture of dependency, entitlement and sloth. The War on Drugs did not eliminate narcotics but it did imprison a huge number of black men. The dangers of "social engineering" are well known on the right. But hands-off, free-market-no-regulations capitalism is just as bad. It is undeniable that global capitalism has lifted millions out of economic poverty over the last 50 years. But it is less obvious that this has also weakened bonds of family, religion, community and moral character and has worsened the "culture of poverty"...most intensely in lower class white society in the USA, the Trump base which looks to him longingly and futilely.
We need intelligence, gradualism, and patience in our social planning. It is unfortunate that the right has an allergy to social policy in its inevitability and so the field is monopolized by the left with its disastrous messianic propensity.
The liberal viewpoint attacks this concept of "culture of poverty" as "blaming the victim" and a way of avoiding the moral call to change the economic structures that keep people poor: no jobs, bad schools, lack of housing. More thoughtful minds, on the left and right, see that the two dynamics (cultural and economic) need not contradict each other, but work hand-in-hand. The economic structures reinforce the cultural and vice-versa for better and for worse. Surely we need both. We need jobs, schools, and housing; but huge expenditures will avail nothing if there does not emerge stable families, faithful fathers, moral character, and communities of solidarity.
What are we to do?
The first response to poverty is always immediate, concrete, personal, here and now. There is a poor person nearby. Look at her; listen to her; smile at her; assist her if you can; pray for her; enjoy her. (or him!). This is Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Katherine Drexel, Francis Xavier Cabrini, and the entire communion of saints!
Secondly we all need to strengthen our bonds, in our Lord, of faith, hope, love...of loyalty and fidelity...of holiness and wholesomeness. Stronger families, communities and friendships will radiate a contagious, invulnerable energy to all levels of society and culture.
Lastly we do need economic policies that make it easier for the underclass to take steps towards independence and health. These will be gradual, realistic and modest. They are a moral imperative.
(Aside: the important thought of Lewis influenced Harrington's historic "The Other America" which launched the War on Poverty and Moynihan's controversial study of the Afro-American family.)
Writing in 1959, prior to the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA, he rightly mentions race as a complicating factor for American blacks. What he would say today, 2020, about the prevalence of "systematic white racism" is a good question. It is without doubt that he would deeply understand the "culture of poverty" that entraps whites and blacks and browns and all types; a cultural dynamic that does not consider color of skin.
Correctly he identified this culture as a structural element of an individualistic, competitive, meritocratic and consumerist society. It is part of the stratified, class structure of our society. We have the rich, the poor and lots in between. That structure does not change. Color of skin does not matter to it. By the 1980s corporate capitalism was putting all management people through "diversity training" because they realized that racism was no longer profitable. Today, the big companies have jumped on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon because it is profitable and prestigious. But the underclass, black/brown/white, remains constant.
In a highly meritocratic society such as ours there is considerable fluidity and movement between the classes. Many people climb up from the bottom because of combinations of raw talent, motivation, work ethic, good fortune and happy connections. Many others fall down, again due to ill fortune, bad habit, and weak social network. This means there is hope for some to improve, even as the structure remains and most at the bottom remain there. It also makes for anxiety in the middle and upper classes who know that failure or misfortune can cast them off the cliff of success with barely a moment's notice.
The Christian intellect will recognize poverty as inevitable as is sin, suffering and death...until Christ returns. The Christian heart will run to embrace, comfort and accompany the poor...right here and now. This is not to say that we are to wash our hands and make no systematic, political and social policy efforts to help the poor. We ABSOLUTELY must! But they need to be realistic, patient, gradual and free of crusading righteousness and anger. The War on Poverty did not destroy poverty but it did create a culture of dependency, entitlement and sloth. The War on Drugs did not eliminate narcotics but it did imprison a huge number of black men. The dangers of "social engineering" are well known on the right. But hands-off, free-market-no-regulations capitalism is just as bad. It is undeniable that global capitalism has lifted millions out of economic poverty over the last 50 years. But it is less obvious that this has also weakened bonds of family, religion, community and moral character and has worsened the "culture of poverty"...most intensely in lower class white society in the USA, the Trump base which looks to him longingly and futilely.
We need intelligence, gradualism, and patience in our social planning. It is unfortunate that the right has an allergy to social policy in its inevitability and so the field is monopolized by the left with its disastrous messianic propensity.
The liberal viewpoint attacks this concept of "culture of poverty" as "blaming the victim" and a way of avoiding the moral call to change the economic structures that keep people poor: no jobs, bad schools, lack of housing. More thoughtful minds, on the left and right, see that the two dynamics (cultural and economic) need not contradict each other, but work hand-in-hand. The economic structures reinforce the cultural and vice-versa for better and for worse. Surely we need both. We need jobs, schools, and housing; but huge expenditures will avail nothing if there does not emerge stable families, faithful fathers, moral character, and communities of solidarity.
What are we to do?
The first response to poverty is always immediate, concrete, personal, here and now. There is a poor person nearby. Look at her; listen to her; smile at her; assist her if you can; pray for her; enjoy her. (or him!). This is Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Katherine Drexel, Francis Xavier Cabrini, and the entire communion of saints!
Secondly we all need to strengthen our bonds, in our Lord, of faith, hope, love...of loyalty and fidelity...of holiness and wholesomeness. Stronger families, communities and friendships will radiate a contagious, invulnerable energy to all levels of society and culture.
Lastly we do need economic policies that make it easier for the underclass to take steps towards independence and health. These will be gradual, realistic and modest. They are a moral imperative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)