Detach with Love

This good Word came to me around Ash Wednesday and has been my guiding star through Lent. It came by way of my godson-nephew, priest-psychologist, companion in recovery, partner in powerlessness and penance, mentor-protege, sometime Ratzingerian-Baltasarian-Woytijan ally, more recently my Rohrian-Tobinian-Bergoglian (but always genial and charming) antagonist. DETACH WITH LOVE! This has served me well. With a gentle act of the will, I deliberately distance myself from any attachments that I sense are disordered. This has been very freeing. Specifically, I have prayed this mantra: "Jesus, I surrender myself to You. Take care of everything." This helps in every arena of my life. In personal relationships, if co-dependency tendencies...desire, resentment, jealousy, anxiety...assert themselves I detach, attach to our Lord, and reset myself to a free, pure relationship. Regarding my work concerns, I surrender EVERYTHING into God's Providence, I sigh with relief, and relax as I focus calmly on what is in front of me. If I feel separated from those dear to me, I recognize such as a wholesome, fruitful adjustment to a deeper, truer friendship. It has helped especially with my political interests: national power is now in the hands of those hostile to my religious freedom and my most cherished values; but I distance myself, concentrate on more local engagements, and enjoy an interior freedom. This exercise is most challenging for me in relation to the betrayal of our core beliefs from within the Church. This is rough. What does Michael Corleone do about Fredo? What does Jesus do about Judas? A good start is: detach; attach more deeply to our Lord and all He provides; reset towards the betrayer. This is a marvelous practice: every loss, disappointment, hurt becomes an occasion for a deeping in love...of our Lord and all those dear to us.

The Sorcerer Supreme and The Immaculate: a Contrast

Last night I enjoyed watching the movie "Dr. Strange: the Sorcerer Supreme" with my two grandsons. I enjoyed even more our theological conversation this morning. Luke (12) and James (10) are bright, inquisitive and fascinated by mathmatics, science, politics, religion, fantasy, history and just about everything. So we agreed that this genre of magic and socerery (Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.) enjoyed as pure fiction/fantasy as distinct from reality, can be fun and harmless. But I was eager to contrast our Catholic worldview with that underlying these movies. First of all, we contrasted magic and genuine Mystery. They are opposites of each other. Magic, even what is alleged to be "white" and benign, gives the practicioner super powers; it enhances control and power to an extreme. By contrast, surrender to the Mystery of God is a yielding to powerlessness, to littleness, to humility and a willingness to be guided, strengthened and sanctified by a Higher Power. For example, for Catholics the Eucharist is not magic, it is a Mystery, a Miracle by which bread-and-wine become the Body-and-Blood of Jesus and we in receiving become as well His Body-and-Blood. In the early stages of Dr. Strange's training in sorcery he is told to "forget everything you know." He is to be freed from his imprisioning Ego; his propensity to control; his unconscious fear of death; his self-centeredness and arrogance. But that journey doesn't go very far. He does master higher powers and makes some moral improvement but remains the same Dr. Strange. Certainly no growth in holiness. But "holiness" is not a reality in this world because there is no God, no Holy One. Rather, this is neo-pagan universe, with various super-powers, energies, forces which compete violently with each other; but there is no transcendent, all-powerful, all-good, Creator who watches lovingly over a good Creation. And so, theirs is a dualistic universe, with good-and-evil in constant competition and tension without any final victory of one over the other. Everyone is good and bad; it is a matter of degree. Dr. Strange as the hero-protagonist is neither appealing or inspiring even as he is moving in the right direction. But more significant still is The Ancient One, Ther Sorcerer Supreme, the most powerful opponent of the dark underworld. Played by Tilda Swinton, this figure is gender-ambiguous. The exquisite femininity of the actress radiates in spite of her baldness, her fierce militancy and unflinching authority. She (for me this is she, even as she is referred to as Sorcerer not Sorceress; the movie leans to a "woke" deflation of sexual difference) strongly resembles the eerie, bald, androgynous Satan who tormened Christ in the garden of Gethsemane in Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. The sexual dysphoria of the demon-figure is manifestly perverse and evil. By contrast, the Sorcerer Supreme, also called The Ancient One, appears as good, appealing and gentle. But later in the story Dr. Strange comes to discover that her power and longevity are due to her drawing powers from the dark sides. She is NOT an unequivocally good figure, more complex, confused and ambiguous. She, like the rest, is a fluid mixture of good and bad. Here we might contrast her with another fictional icon: Lord of the Rings' Galadriel as played by the mesmerizing Cate Blanchett. Tolkien presents here a perfect image of our Blessed Mother Mary in her purity, goodness and efficacy. She is breath-takingly lovely. She is gentle, healing, protective. She is innocent, free of any stain of impurity. She is an invincible, triumphant opponent of the Dark Powers. She is not a goddess but she is supernaturally graced to convey the good and repel the bad. She is an image of Mary. Perhaps here we see the striking contrast of the two worldviews: The Ancient One remains forever trapped in ambiguity, indecision, vulnerability in a neopagan, dualistic universe of eternal conflict and chaos; Mary, vulnerable-finite-limited as a creature, is perfectly humble, surrendered, and collaborative with God; she is a final, definitive and victorious NO to Satan. The two could not be more oppossed. How happy that we live in a Catholic, not a neo-pagan, Reality!

Race is Overrated; Ethnicity Underrated

How tired, annoying, redundant and senseless is the relentless drivel about Race. "Race" is a shallow, incoherent, arbitrary, subjective, unscientific, irrational and really useless concept! If I were allowed to banish one word from our language it would be "race." For starters: what race am I? I have nothing to do with the region of the Caucuses so please don't call me Caucasian! I am referred to as "white": I am not by any means white, I am a bashful, sandy pinkish-beige-salmon-coral-peach-camel-taupe. To stereotype me as "white" is itself a racist construction. A person's "race" tells you absolutely nothing about the person. Barack Obama is, for us, a black; in Haiti he would immediately be identified as "blanc" or white. It is less intelligent than identifying people as skinny or short or nice...entirely subjective and largely useless. "Ethnicity" on the other hand is a rich, profound, nuanced, complex reality that combines history, place, religion, culture, blood and practices to help illuminate a persons actual identity and relationship to others around. If I meet a person I need to immediately know their sex; secondly, I want to know their ethnicity and personal identity. The "race" thing is useless. The real conflict and tension is always between ethnic groups. Yesterday I spoke with a middle-aged Chinese (no not Asian or Oriental or Yellow!) who told me her grandmother died during the Japanese occupation and said she could not marry a Japanese man. Interesting, I thought: I was born a few years after the Pearl Harbor invasion but I have experience over my 73 years almost no prejudice against Japanese or even Asians (I use that reluctantly.) In my lifetime we have seen genocide in Rwanda involving Tutis and Hutus; violence between Shiites and Sunni, structured and persistent animosity between Israelis (White? Semites?) and Arabs (Whites? Semites?), massacre in Yugoslavia involving Moslems (Whites? Semites? Browns) and Serbs and Croats (whites?). The wars never involve race (since there is no such thing!) as such. Okay: a few centuries of European hegemony over the other continents did leave a residual resentment against "white dominance." That is fair enough. But it is long overdue for us to move on with our lives. I recently spoke with an highly educated, elegant Spaniard who was aware and proud of his Visigoth and Moorish roots. What do we make of Hispanics: most are some combination of European, African and American. We know from the new testing that most of us combine surprising combinations of blood lines. There is one race: the human race. We are a fascinating, marvelous tapestry of histories and cultures and our coloration, insignificant as it is, is a scale of browns from darker to lighter. Let's lighten up about Race!

Don't Call St Joseph a Foster Father

Ok, he is not Jesus' biological father, but Joseph is not a foster father either. He is more than a biological father, much more than a foster father, or even worse a stepfather. He is really a father; he is the greatest human father ever. Let's consider four analogues of fatherhood. Jesus is very clear: there is only one father, our heavenly Father. Only God the Father creates us from nothing; only He is the absolute and final sourse of life. All other fatherhoods are secondary, derivative, represenational. (Aside: femininity and maternity, by contrast are their own created, integral substance, status, reality; virility in all its truth is always submissive to and iconic of the Uber-Mega-Ultra-Paternity of God.) Biological fatherhood is obvious: effortless, indeliberate, random, uncontrollable, indescriably pleasureable and often euphoric.It can be conjoined tragically with lust, violence, infidelity, contempt, inebriation; and more happily with fidelity, tenderness, reverence, conjugality, and Joy. In many ways biological fathering is chaotic, irrational, absurd, comical, erratic, ridiculous and serendipious! "Personal fatherhood" will refer to the entire canoply of love provided by a real father: protection and provision (for mom and baby), guidance, correction, affirmation of identity and dignity, good example, stability, tradition-legacy-memory, authority, boundaries and law, encouragement, sense of reverence, sacred, awe. "Spiritual fatherhood" is the deepest, truest fatherhood: it is the mystery by which the father introduces his child to God the Father. It occurs intuitively, spontaneously, inexorably because the father is truly a son of The Father. It is an Event whereby the father is diminished in the exercise and agency of his own Ego and reflects the Tenderness, Strength, Compassion and Love of the Absolute Father. It can occur even and especially in the father's weakness, failure, inadequacy...if there is a leavaning humility by which the greater love of the Father visits the father/son encounter-in-poverty. It occurs when the goodness of the father is seen as a reflection of a greater, deeper, broader goodness. It happens when the father's deepest identity, son in the Son of the Father, is unveiled. St. Joseph was not biological father; he was the quintessential personal father; but he was the greatest spiritual father, to Jesus in his humanity. He was an incomparable reflection of the gentleness, wisdom, strength and quiet of our heavenly Father. And so he was more truly and deeply father than any other man has been or will be; even as he was not biological father. His "poverty" or diminishment in this aspect was obviously accepted by him, humbly, and only enhanced his transparency to the Father's love This train of thought is especially encouraging for our generation as we move deeper into old age, distancing ourself from biological and even personal fatherhood, but hopefully more deeply into spiritual fatherhood.

The Betrayal of the Catholic Liberal

Engagement in Culture War is normative for every generation of Catholics. In recent history we have engaged Communists and Nazis as well as American anti-Papism in mainstream WASP Protestantism, the KKK, Fundamentalism, puritanical prohibionists, and even our masonic founding fathers. The defining conflict of the last 50 years (my adulthood) is over the value of innocent, powerless humans and the meaning of sexuality, gender, family. The most challenging development in this drama has been the betrayal of the Catholic Liberal. Our battle with atheistic Jews, secularizing Anglicans, the greedy rich class, bible-belt fundamentalist, socialist union organizers...all of this is cut-and-dry, garden variety culture war stuff. We are against the bad guys. It is exciting, clear, energizing. Our current conflict is far more troubling: the Trojan Horse is withing our city gates, we are arrayed against each other. "A house divided against itself shall not stand." So I refer to the "Catholic Liberal" and not the "Liberal Catholic" because the defining concept is "Liberal" in the sense that this party has rejected fundamental Catholic positions on powerless life, sexuality and procreation. They have gone anti-Catholic as much or more than the KKK, prohibitionists or our masonic founding fathers. But...and this is the problem...they present themselves not just as Catholics, but as more enlightened Catholics: as more anti-racist, woman-friendly, climate-caring and so forth. We see it currently in the blatant divide within our bishops with prominient Francis-proteges like Cupich and Joseph Tobin coming to the defense of the pro-abortion Biden. This presents a profound spiritual challenge: yes we are to forgive our enemies, but what if the enemy is your very brother who has betrayed the family? What does Michael do about Fredo? This is not easy! But then again: at the end of the day, Jesus had his betrayer, his denier and 10 other cowardly, disloyal disciples. We can expect no better; even as we might hesitate to idetify ourselves righteously with Mary and John and the women at the foot of the cross. Well, a couple of steps are obvious. We are, as mentioned, to forgive and pray for our enemies, especially those close at hand. We are, of course, to work our own inventory, considering our own sins rather than sitting in judgment. We are to consider the goodness in the other, which can coexist and does coexist with non-goodness. And lastly, I find myself practicing a a certain detachment from politics. This is, for me freeing. I ownand am owned by neither Biden nor Trump. THerefore I can befriend partisans of each. In my childhood we owned JFK and the Democrats as our party; later in life I watched as some Catholics owned Ronald Regan. But my own adulthood has been a steady distancing from politics as both parties have degenerated, although in asymetric manners. Increasingly, I myself identify with neither party, but with my Catholic ancestors: the Republican pary is about as congenial to me as were the prohibitionists, masons, or union communists to my fathers; the DNC is something like the KKK or the nativist lynch mobs. As Catholic I am a stranger in a strange land. I detach with love. And I reconcile with Fredo.

The Church of John Paul or of Francis

My friend Tim wonders about the clergy, bishops, cardinals of the future: will they follow John Paul or Francis? Great question! For me the answer is obvious: it will be both of course. Francis as a man, a Christian and a priest is dense, complex, admirable, probably holy, passionately in love with the poor. He is, for me, fascinating: a maverick and a mystic, a free man. But as Pope he is a catastrophe. In his appoinments and decisions he is the Anti-John-Paul. He will be known in church history as the Great Accomadationist: he is Chamberlain at Munick to John Paul's Churchill. He has an unconscious compulsion to befriend his enemies: the Chinese Communists and the Western Secular Elites. He has destroyed the John Paul Institute in Rome, reconfigued the death penalty from a prudential consideration to an incoherent "quasi-immutable" moral verity, elevated politial initiative (climate, immigration) into a Neo-Catholic Global Ideology, and abandoned defense of the powerless innocents and of the dignity of the sexual, gendered person. The Church of St. John Paul the Great will prevail because: the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Risen Christ in the efficacious, infallible and Eucharistic Body of Christ. Also, because the legacy of John Paul and Benedict is so deep, and true and good; and it has already possessed the hearts/souls/minds of the most generous and passionate of our younger priests, religious and lay leaders. But the Church of Francis will endure because the compulsion to comply, to collaborate, to befriend the hegemonic powers and principalities will be powerfully operative until Christ returns. But the Church of John Paul will be overwhelming as it surrenders not only to Truth, but to Love and to Holiness of Life. Paradoxically, however, the Church of Francis, even as it waters down our precious legacy, is not immune to the quiet movement of that same Spirit of Love and Holiness. So we pray for this complicated, conflicted Body of Christ, so filled with saints like John Paul and flawed-struggling-sincere leaders like Francis.

Portraits of Misery: Cuomo, Trump, Biden

He reminds me of our Lord in Holy Week: Palm Sunday he is the king; Good Friday he is the goat. Last year Andrew Cuomo was the anti-Covid El Cid, the Not-Trump; now everyone, including his own, have turned on him. Since I like the underdog I will defend him. I can't fault him on the nursing home deaths: we were all flying blind at the time. Okay he fudged the numbers about deaths: they are only numbers, it is not like he was living in sin with his girlfriend or something. He seems to be more than a flirt: at best an aggressor, at worst a predator. He deserves his day in court. But even if the worst is true he is not in a league with Clinton, Trump, MLK and JFK...all of whom are widely lauded to this day. If we are to throw Andrew to the curb with the "me-too" lynch mob then we might consider reconfiguring MLK Day to "Black Women Matter Day?" Andrew is a crank, a bully, a fornicator but above all he is a genocidal sociopath: after passing his extreme abortion law, he lit up the skyline of Manhattan to celebrate. This is Herod the Great on steroids: Imagine him lighting up Bethlehem with Chrismas lights when the last of the under-2-year-old boys were slaughtered! HAis best trait is that he is genuine, sincere, transparent: he is a thoroughly miserable person. When he was being lauded last year for his covid conferences I was mesmerized by his face: frozen, sad, despairing. A blatantly, absolutely miserable man! Ironically, he shares this defining quality with his antagonist, The Donald. Both are utterly free of hypocrisy and pretense in their undisguised, shameless moral depravity. Neither make any pretense of virtue or goodness. Both are utterly bereft of humour, smiles, laughter, levity, self-depreciation, irony. Both are trapped in an impregnable, imprisioning EGO. OUr bishops have no worry about communion for Cuomo: he will not present himself. He is like the mob hit man questioned by his daughter on her first communion day as to why he did not receive. He answered: "Because I know who I am and I know where I am going." He is Tom Hanks in "The Road to Perdition" or the spiritually-dead Michael Corleone after he has destroyed his marriage and killed his brother Fredo. It is not that he is going to hell: it is that he is in hell, right now. That frozen face is empirial proof of the existence NOW of hell here on earth. But his autheniticity and consistency is so satisfying. He is like Darth Vadar when he make his first appearance in Star Wars: the music, the face, the voice, the physique, the costume...EVERYONE knew...this is a bad, bad, bad guy. Later however, in the prequel, we meet a far more troubling moral figure: Lord Papatine. On first appearance he is a pleasant, positive defender of democracy and peace. Actually, however, he is Lord Sidious, the Emperor, a morally evil actor far more depraved than his protege Vadar. It is his hypocricy, his deceit, his prension to virtue which is so winsome and deeply troubling. Here we face the contemporary reality of McCarrick, Maciel, Vanier, and more to our point...Joe Biden. In sharpest contrast to the Cuomo/Trump phenomemon, Biden is warm, smiling, charming, down-to-earth, pious, working class, social justice advocating. But underneath, he may exceed Cuomo in his abortion agenda. He is Herod the Great on the global level. But he is SO likeable. Unlike Sidous however, he seems to be indeliberate, clueless about himself. He thinks of himself as a good Catholic as he presents himself every Sunday for communion. He is self-deceived at a most profound level. And 50% of our Catholics have bought into that self-deception. It is a great sadness. I prefer the straightforward evil of Andrew Cuomo. Like Darth Vadar, there is some hope for him as he is so genuine and honest. Papatine and Biden are complete opposites in one way: the Sith Lord is preternaturally, really supernaturally intelligent and powerful; Biden is unnaturally stupid and obviously feeble. But he is SO annoying!

Generation of Innocents

This morning we buried 92-year-old Monsignor Jim Finnerty, a happy, holy, wholesome priest; a man of boundless good will, Irish humour, generosity, intelligence, stability, competence and prudence. His friend Monsignor Bill Rielly (who is cut from the same cloth) preached at Evening Prayer: "This year we lost giants: Monsignors Kleisler, Ivory and now Finnerty. These were men who came of age and were ordained before the Council but embraced the changes enthusiastically." I thought to myself: that is exactly right! I have known many of this cohort in our Archdioces of Newark, Maryknoll and the Jesuits. They were firmly grounded in the faith of their fathers and never lost their way; but they intelligently and energetially accepted all that was best in that turbulent era of the 60s. We think of the Council as a change in the Church but in fact all the ideas, energies, movements and theologies that the Council expressed were percolating already in the 50s and earlier. That 1962-5 Council is best understood as the culmination, summation and conclusion of the post-war Church: open-minded, positive, optimistic, egalitarian, dialogic. The documents were not a shock to this cohort: they exquisitely expressed what they were already believing and living. 1965, the triumph of Vatican II and Civil Rights, was the epitome, the high point of the "camelot" post-war Church. These men, then in their 30s and 40s, were fully formed and moving into leadership in a Church and world in rapid change. They exuded confidence, stability, intelligence, magnanimity. Impeccably, they combined conservative intuitions and practices with an openness to legitimate change. They were characterized, above all, by positivity; but also concern for the poor and marginalized, dignity of women, ecumenical dialogue, empowerment of the laity, and more. They read Rahner, Lonergan, Chardin, Merton, and such. They came of age just before the sexual-cultural revolution of the late 60s and well before the Culture War erupted in the 70s with Roe. They abstained from that conflict: they stayed neutral, fighting for neither side. They neither condoned nor condemned contraception, legal abortion or the masculine priesthood. This was, in a way, a blessing, since they preserved a certain innocence, lightness, positivity and openness to all. Their "boycott" of the Culture War has several causes. With their elders ("Great Generation") they maintained a modest and mute chastity that was singularly ill-equipped to engage in the conflicts over sex, abortion and gender. They were already fully formed when the war erupted. Their positivity lead them to turn away from the darkness descending and maintain focus on the positives of service and dialogue. Although intelligent and erudite, they were relatively superficial in their failure to percieive the descending doom in the way that Ratzinger and others did. Pope Francis can be understood as part of this generation: he seems to have a rock solid Catholic piety in many respects; he clearly has a passion for the poor and an urgency to dialogue with others; but he seems oblivious of the Culture War even as he systematically appoints Warriors of the Left to positons of power. Many in today's Church try to preserve this legacy but it is untenable: the pressures are inexorable. The agression of the Cultural Left is so strong that if you do not resist it you inevitably collaborate with it. That is the story with our Pontiff. A sadness is that, due to the rapid changes in the world, this cohort was unable to father another generation of priests in its own image. Their positive, expansive, open paradigm was no longer tenable. The imperialism of the Cultural Left became so overwhelming that it either co-opted the guilible or elicited a reaction prone to defensiveness, insecurity, arrogance and anger. The younge generation of priest tend to emulate John paul and Benedict or traditionalism in a counter-cultural stance. At its worst, this younger generation is detestable to the older group. This is a sadness for both groups and for the Church. At its best, however, as with Monsignor Jim, this cohort is open and magnanimous. They were a splendid expression of the "camelot" American Church of the post-war period. They combined tradition with creativity; loyalty with compassion; stability with fluidity. They will be missed. As an expression of the post-war, Vatican II American Church this group had about it a camelot quality, a certin perfection, a delightful balance of past/future. We grieve their loss.
Postscript: Three more important considerations: 1. The men now aging and dying are the survivors of the Great Exodus from the priesthood of the 60s and 70s...the holy remnant, the "poor of Yahweh." I am confident that the majority of those ordained between 1950-65 left, with some of them losing their Catholic moorings. This was a clerical loss unprecedented except for the Reformation. The ones who stayed are the cream of the crop, those who persevered. Often they remained loyal to their friends as well as their Church. They have suffered through and been purified by the Great Priest Sex Scandal and remained loyal. 2. Most I know were in Jersey City or Maryknoll during my student days. These are men whose hearts drew them to serve the poor and marginalized. In this again, they are the cream of the crop. This passion for the poor characterized the clergy and Church of the 60s. It is not as evident in the younger generations of priests. These emulate, not so much John Paul who was iconically a man of the poor, as Benedict who excelled in theology, liturgy, and a (holy, wholesome) clericalism. 3. Lastly, these men were classmates and friends to many who abused male adolescents. The question cannot be avoided: how did they live with (tolerate?) this scandal.This is a huge issue. For me, a key aspect is their very innocence: they did not know about it; did not suspect it; probably could not even conceive of it. The lavender mafia is expert in camouflaging their operations from the wholesome and the upright. So strange: two churches existed right next to each other. Monsignor Jim Finnerty was Vicar for Priests in when the abuse was occuring, I believe during the McCarrick years in Newark. He would have had some contact with the abuse. I gently probed one day in conversation and this extremely talkative man was mum. I see two explanations which actually complement each other: First, he really didn't know much because it was still undercover. Secondly, what he did know was under a seal of confidentiality and not to be discussed. Either scenario is again a testament to his discretion, innocence, humility and chastity. He exemplified this admirable cohort of priests. We stand on the sholders of giants. May we who follow them become worthy of them!

Black Church/White Church? Catholic Church

Recently I have been hearing a lot about the Black Church - White Church divide. It is part of the recent conversation about systemic racism. Several thoughts.

On the face of it, this divide makes as much sense as the Fat-Skinny Church distinction or the Blonde-Brunette-Redhead Church divide. It is nonsensical. Skin color makes about as much difference as the thickness of one's ear lobe; or the muscle structure around the elbow. Nevertheless it is a historical fact that after 250 years of black slavery and 100 of Jim Crow we do have such a divide. It is a complex, rich reality with distinctive gifts as well as pathologies. It is fundamentally Protestant as the America of the time was Protestant. It is not Catholic. ("catholic" itself means universal.)

Secondly, separation or segregation into distinct ethnic/cultural groups is not in itself immoral or dysfunctional. The immigrant American Catholic Church was characterized by just such segregation: Italians, Irish, Polish and later the Hispanics enjoy their own priests, language, customs and so forth. But it always was One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and everyone knows that. To this day I enjoy mass at Christ the King, Jersey City, an Afro-American non-geographic parish where I am completely comfortable or Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Bayonne, a breathtakingly beautiful Polish Church where the daily lector is a young black woman. It has been lamented that Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America. I do not lament. Thanksgiving and Christmas are similar: sometimes, particularly in worship, we want to be with a group to which we belong. This is not racism. I customarily frequent black and hispanic barbershops in Jersey City but I am not normal: barbershops seem to be quite segregated. That is not racism.

Thirdly: I grew up in the prosperous, liberal, working class Church of the 1960s. We were reading America, Maryknoll, NY Times and even John Osteriecher's The Bridge on the semitic roots of Christianity. My own family (father was a UAW union organizer) was passionately open to the poor and the international scene, but this typlified the broader Church...the parishes and schools I attended. The Church...indeed the entire world including politics, religion, academia, entertainment, athletics, media, business...opened its heart and mind, happily and generously, to the challenge of civil rights. In retrospect, I see in the mainsteam, liberal Catholicism of the time a blind spot, a passion for justice for blacks (itself entirely correct) but a harsh judgment to what were legitimate concerns of other working class ethnicities. I recall our senior retreat, 1965, at the Loyola Retreat House in Morristown NJ. The priest was condemning systematic racism as an inherent evil. I was in accord. An Italian kid from Newark respectfully agreed but added that his father, a barber, could not service blacks because it would jeopradize the business which provided for his family. The priest insisted that that was precisely what he meant by the evil of systematic injustice. The boy defended his dad. The priest would not back down. It almost came to fisticups. Even at the time as a 17-year-old I thought: life is more complex, nuanced and difficult than Father is allowing! Give the kid a break! Already by 1965 the Catholic Church...all the mainstream Churches...and the entirety of respectful not to say elite society...was vigorously, sometimes eccessively, anti-racist.

Lastly: the Eucharist. When we consume the Body and Blood of Christ we become the Body of Christ. We become One with all other Catholics...really, ontologically, completely. Color of skin is of absolutely no importance. This is what I have always learned; always believed; always tried to practice. God bless the Body of Christ on earth...in all its fragrant, colorful, thrilling diversity!