Filial Gratitude to the Past

These reflections were inspired by reading Helen Edward's "Boomers: the Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster" This year I myself, happily and gratefully, celebrate 50 years of marriage and 50 years in my recovery as a Boomer. I write this on May 31, 2021: as Americans we celebrate Memorial Day and our gratitude to those who have given their lives for us; as Catholics we celebrate the Visitation of Mary to her cousin Elizabeth and their surging Joy. It doesnt get any better than this!

The heart of Catholicism is the conservative instinct: gratitude, trust, reverence, reception, celebration of and loyalty to the PAST. The past, which is to say memory and history, is brimming over, even exploding with the Good and the True and the Beautiful. For Christians, the salvific Event of Jesus Christ permeates and animates the drama of human history: it was preceded by the Divine Romance with Israel over milenia and followed by the Spousal Drama, still in play, of Jesus with his Bride, which is also his Body, an ecclesial person, centered in Mary and the saints, and continuous-alive-fruitful-effervesent through history. And so, we turn daily, gratefully and expectantly, to the past: pondering in Scripture and Tradition the wondrous works of God as they continue daily in seamless continuity.

The past is not something separated from the present, but fully alive and present in concrete, specific ways: Scripture, the sacraments, Church authority and the ever-new movements of the Holy Spirit. As such it is ever new, fresh and creative: moving us with passionate expectancy into a rich future, a future which ever startles us by its continuity with and fidelity to the past and its genuine novelty, freshness and youth.

The polar opposite of this filial gratitude: ingratitude, resentment, disparagement and an arrogant sense of superiority towards the past.This attitude is the heart of anti-Catholicism and is the inner form of the great disruptions of history: the Reformation as rejection of authority and the past and the Enlightenment as elevation of reason and rejection of faith and tradition. The very word "modernity" implies a rupture with the past: the "modern" is of course enlightened, scientific, inevitably progressive and evolutionary, technologically in control, evolving always to peace and health. By this logic the past is obviously ignorant, superstitous, reactionary, trapped in tribal violence and bigotry. The "post-modern" is of course even worse: it unmasks the delusions and pretensions of modernity as control, reason and peace to reveal that all is will-to-power, domination, and the war of all against all. It falls into the dark nihilism of Nietzche, Satre and Foucault...into despair, unending battle, resentment and jealousy.

This spirit of ingratitude, resentment and arrogance erupted feverishly in the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. The Civil Rights Movement was an exception: that was a revival of traditional Christian love and justice which energized the amazing Evangelical Black Community and elicited a gracious response from the white mainstream, still enjoying its own post-war revival under the likes of Billy Graham and Fulton Sheen. But the Sexual Revolution even more than a liberation of sexuality from fidelity and fecundity was a renouncing of tradition and its presence in the present as authority. The Boomer generation (I know since I am a member) fundamentally rejected the past as authoritative in favor of the present as a self-choice project, including obviously the slaughter of the innocents. The amorphous "Spirit of Vatican II", unrooted in the actual documents, is the license to reject the Past in a "hermeneutic of discontinuity. The "great awokement" with its racist and transgressive fascinations is the most current, intense and rabid eruption of this hatred of the past. To be "woke" is to be viscerally anti-Catholic.

By contrast, the great moments in Catholic history are always returns to the past that explode in fresh, creative fruitfulness: the Renaissance as return to the ancients; the Counter-Reformation as solidification of centuries of development; the 4th century monastics; the 13th century mendicants; the explosive missionary waves from 1500 onward. In my lifetime I would identify the Resourcement or Communio theology (DeLubac, etc) that guided the Council and its interpretation by John Paul and Benedict as well as the renewal movements (often lay) that complemented and enfleshed that theology.Both ae retrievals even as they are eruptions of creativity and fecundity.

So, the stereoptype of Catholics having tons of children is accurate. Standing upon a glorious past ("we stand on the sholders of giants") we anticipate a magnificant future and want to share it generously. By contrast, the modern, standing on the fragile delusions of technological control and progress, is contraceptive and sterile; while the post-modern, drowning in the swamp of resentment, suspicion and despair, goes preverse and suicidal.

Currently, we see the vacuous, empty Modern and Post-Modern universes disintegrating and self-destructing in front of us. But we live in a present that is not constituted by this chaos and lunacy, but by the efficacious, infallible, ineffable and invincible yet concrete presence of a Past that contains the Eternal, the Infinite, the Divine. We can never be adequately grateful, trusting, hopeful!

Dr. Anthony Fauci: High Priest of Secular, "Scientific" Safety. Moses or Pharaoh?

With the demise of The Donald (Grant it O Lord!)Tony Fauci is arguably the most polarizing figure in the Culture War: adored by the Left as a Moses leading us through the Red Sea of Covid, despised by the right as a Pharaoh controlling and oppressing us. How can this happen to such a good guy? He is a dedicated humanitarian giving his life to protect us from disease; he is smart, competent, informed; he is sober, calm, steady in the chaos; he is charming, confident, non-defensive, unassuming; he (apparently) transcends partisan politics for the higher cause and amazingly succeeded in correcting the Trumpster without being fired. In many ways an admirable and exceptional man!

It is not the person of Fauci that provokes, but his caste, position, ideology, culture, religion...he is secular, "scientific" (snear quotes intentional) and safety-health obsessed.

SecularHe is a fallen-away Catholic. He has lost his faith. This is a sadness and a tragedy. He has replaced it with secular humanism: as passion for this-worldly health and safety and a reliance upon science and expertise to lead the way. He is hardly value-neutral but has a strong, hard philosophy, world view and belief system. As so often with ex-Catholics and even Liberal Catholics, he has a thinly disguised contempt for Catholicism straight and pure. For example, in late Spring 2020 as the Churchs started to open, he warned against reception of Holy Communion as too dangerous. At the same time he was easy on the BLM protestors. He had no statistics on covid reception at the altar rail and immunity at the protests. His warning was a value judgment. An honest Hindu, Jew, Muslim or Atheist may have hesitated to weigh into the dense thicket of Catholic liturgical practice but he did not flinch: he knows intimately and has rejected Catholic irrationality.

"Scientific"Clearly he is a serious scientist, but the Fauci we came to know in 2020 was functioning not as a sober researcher, but as a Public Health Administrator. He was managing social behavior and hysteria in a major pandemic. This had to be done by someone. He did it well...I think. He operated in the midst of uncertainty and he made sober decisions about policy. As in so many human decisions, especially those in authority, he made value-laden, "common sense" judgment calls on the basis of inadequate, changing, contradictory and fallible informtion. All that is unavoidable. The problem is: he and his cohort clothed his pronouncements in the sanctimonious infallibity of "Science." Follow the science. Follow the facts. Well the fact is the entire pandemic was saturated with uncertainty and still is: Where did it originate? How long does the immunity last? Can the vaccinated carry it? What does the vaccine do you the young in the long term? For example, early in the pandemic when there was a shortage of masks we were told the public did not need them. Later we were advised to wear two masks. The six-feet dogma now seems to be three-feet. Washing of surfaces a waste of time. I do not begrudge him any of these decisions: I would have done no better. But I would not have assumed the arrogance of scientific infallibility and efficacy.

SafetyOkay: here I become personal. In my careers as teacher, UPS supervisor and boarding home director I never hated anything as much as being in charge of the Safety Committee. The word "safety" is to me what "Niagra Falls" was to Abbot and Costello in that famous skit. Don't get me started! If anyone again sends me off with "Be Safe" I may beat him up! I want to say: "Screw that! I will NOT be safe! I will roll the dice...live on edge...go wild!" Why don't they say something like: "Be steadfast!" or simply "Courage!" or "Live boldly, magnanimously, exhuberantly!" or even "Protect your serentiy, your sobriety, your integrity!" The root cause of this obsession with safety is monotonous secularism: a loss of the splendor and delight of God, of supernatural realities, of the spiritual combat, of (capital H) Hope, of contrition, of infinite desire. It is SO boring: to be safe! This is why I am SO done with covid, and Fauci and safety! Any good, confirmed Catholic knows that " be safe" is SO pre-Pentecoste: it is the cowardly, wimpy apostles gathered in fear in the upper room afraid of the Jews and the Romans. After Pentecost, we have nothing to fear!

So: is Fauci Moses or Pharaoh? THe answer is clear. One of his first tasks in the Biden administration was to rejoin the World Health Organization and proclaim the Glad Tidings: the Mexico City policy was being reversed...Millions of USA tax dollars would be flowing over the world to kill innocent, powerless unborn. Fauci is not so much Pharaoh as a fallen-away Hebrew who is implementing Pharaoh's slaughter of the innocent. He never got to Pentecost! We need to pray for Anthony Fauci!

The Surge of Lesbianism

The rapid change in public attitude about homosexuality has been remarkable, especially among the young.In 2007 the public rejected gay marriage by a margin of about 70-30, by 2019 those number were inverted to favorability of 70-30%.

Such a monumental shift in public attitude is not without precedent. Between 1960-5 the Civil Rights Movement drastically changed societal attitudes towards race: within a few years all major cultural institutions as well as public opinion decisively renounced Jim Crow segregation in the South. A few years later global corporations did the same in their push for diversity and inclusion. The USA had become systematically anti-racist in all major instituions, with residual holdouts, especially in the South, of course. In the late 60s there was an immense change in Catholic practice and attiude in the wake of the Council. During those very same years the Sexual Revolution exploded, with the availability of contraception: sexual mores were relaxed, sex was unbound from marriage and fertility, authority and tradition largely dismissed, and feminism demanded equality in the work place along with "reproductive freedom."

This recent change about homosexuality has strangely been more pronounced among young women. For instance,a recent poll shows that from 2011 to 2017 the percentage of Catholic males who reported a sexual attraction only to women declined from 94 to 93%, an insignificant change. By contrast the percentage of Catholic females reporting exclusive heterosexual attraction declined from 87 to 77%, quite substantial in such a short period. More striking still, among young females with no religious affiliation the decline was from 70 to 48%. Startling: a majority of young, non-religious women report some same-sex attraction! What is happening?

First, a summary of the root causes of lesbian attraction. The 2019 Scientific American report (authored by some gay activists) found a lack of scientific evidence for genetic/biological causes of the attraction and thereby cast doubt on the "born-that-way" doctine and led credence to psychological roots. These involve a wound to feminine-self-worth that comes from a variety of sources:
1. abuse, neglect or betrayal by men may leave distrust and a transfer of the need for affection and intimacy to women.
2. a negative body image can leave a sense of unworthiness that can urge one to physical intimacy with a more feminine person.
3. poor connection with the mother can inhibit the interiorization of a sense of innate femininity and again awaken a need for intimacy with a woman.
4. poor connection with a father can leave a girl with an inadequate sense of her own worth in her femininity as well as an incapacity for trust in and intimacy with men.
5. Failure to form strong, deep friendships with women can leave a hunger that becomes physicalized.

But: why the sudden change among our young women in something so deep and basic?One explanation would be that there is not such a significant change but with broader acceptance more women are honestly reporting feelings that have been present all along but not admitted because of social stigma. There may be something to that; but I doubt it explains the change fully. A number of factors come to mind.
1. The Demise of Masculinity. Our young men have been deprived of the "itinerary of formation into virility" and are increasingly incapable of commitment, stability, fatherhood as their own male identity is fragile. The culture of promiscuity and pornography have heightened this crisis.
2. The Decline of Fatherhood. This relates to the prior factor but refers to the previous generation: with so many young women deprived of a close, strong paternal relationship their sense of their own femininity as well as their trust and understanding of men is wounded.
3. Culture of Contraception. This development is a delayed but inevitable result of the culture of sexual sterility and recreation that flooded us in the 1960s and 70s. If sex if merely romantic/recreational and not spousal/fecund, why not experiment with the same sex?
4. Fluidity of Feminine Sexuality. Woman's sexuality is less hardwired biologically and more emotional and therefore more fluid. It is sensitive and responsive and therefore reactive to the traumas that are described here. It also seems easier for women to move in and out of both kinds of intimate relationships.
5. Mimetic imitation. Notoriously among adolescent females, the dynamics of mimetic contagion can be overwhelming. The human being as such is mimetic: 99% of us are mimetic 99% of the time. But the young woman seems to be especially vulnerable. So we see plagues of eating disorders, cutting, promiscuity, and such. The omnipresence of social media heighten this tendency as we see that entertainment and the elite culture vigorously normalizing homosexuality So lesbianism has become trendy, fashionable: it seems edgy, creative, unconventional, even it has the full blessing of the Woke Established Religion.
6. Loss of God. As noted above, young women NONEs (without religious affiliation) are more inclined to the lesbian attraction. This suggests that lack of rooting in a faith tradition pushes in this direction. This would also apply, obviously to those who retain a religious affiliation but are weak in practice and belief and in facting increasing secular in style of life.
7. The Demise of Femininity as Form. As virility has declined as a form, an ideal, a norm, so has femininity. Mainstream femininism sought to deconstruct gender to reconstruct the human person as a de-gendered, androgynous monad. It required equality as sameness with masculinity, in the work world and sexual playground (therefore "reproductive rights") and largely disparaged femininity as maternity and compassion/generosity not to mention chastity and virginity. Since 1970 women are indoctrinated in a million ways to believe: you are only of worth if you are either attractive-popular-sexy or you are successful. Otherwise you have no inherent worth as a woman!

Finally, how are we as Catholics to respond to all this? I will speak for myself. I have had close, enduring friendships with many homosexual and gay men, but few with Lesbians so they are a mystery to me. But I feel a tenderness for them. I certainly am not phobic, nor hateful, not really displeased by them. Puzzled? yes! Interested? Yes! Mostly I am sad. The wound to one's sexuality is the deepest, most tender, sensitive and sacred of sufferings. For me lesbian women are above all women...precious, worthy, delightful, admirable in their very selves...and deserving of nothing but reverence and tenderness.

Revenge, Retribution, Retaliation, Restitution

Misunderstanding about these four "re...s" underlies much of the confusion surrounding capital punishment, mercy and a range of issues in Church and society. In common usage they are often used interchangeably as all indicate a not-offer-the-other-cheek response to violence and injustice. But their interior forms (as I will use these words) are distinct, even contradictory of each other. Revenge is a form of hatred: a desire to hurt the other due to having been hurt by him. Retribution, by contrast, is an expression of justice, the intention to right or balance a wrong, which may or may not be accompanied by righteous anger or sinful vengeange. Revenge goes beyond anger into a spiritual sin of hatred and the active desire to harm another. A person might be burning with anger against a wrong but not slip into vengeange. In revenge the victim responds to violence emotionally, with similar or greater intensity. By contast, retribution as justice is a more sober, rational judgment, seeking to balance or correct the wrongdoing. For example, a judge/jury handing down a verdict/punishment are seeking retribtuion, but not ordinarily revenge. A judge or jury member with vengeange would be incapable of rendering proper retribution. Traditional religion, not only Catholicism, believes in divine retribution after death: the good are rewarded, the bad punished. Indeed one of the proofs for God and afterlife is the aching awareness of a healthy conscience that there must be such afterlife because of the horrific disparity evident in this life where often the evil flourish and the innocent suffer violence. So revenge and retribution are entirely different and even contradictory of each other. Similarly, retaliation can be understood as an expression of revenge. It can be such but need not be; it can be a protective, sober, just act as in deterrence. Imagine a boy, a new freshman in high school, is being bullied by an older boy: each time they pass in the hall, he gets pushed. It may be a good idea for him to retaliate: the next time he is pushed, he pushes back, harder with both arms, so as to land the aggressor on the floor. Additionally he yells for all to hear: "That is the LAST time you push me!" The act needs to be modulated: not so strong as to harm but strong enough to deter. He may get beaten up; he may get in trouble with the Dean. But it would be a heroic, just act: rightly defending his own dignity, as well as that of other victims of this bully, and may teach the agressor a badly needed lesson. As I type, Israel is retaliating against Hamas attacks: this has nothing to do with hatred but everything to do with protecting the innocent and deterring further aggression. Lastly, resitution is entirely different: it is the full restoration of peace and justice, but is well beyond the provence of law and punishment. Full amends requires: the agressor acknowledges wrong, asks for forgiveness and offers amends; the victim accepts the apology and the penance and in turn gives pardon. This is a rich, mysterious moral-spiritual-moral drama and cannot be effected by law and punishment. At the end, as in a family or friendship fight, the solidarity and peace will be even stronger and deeper by way of the contrition and mercy. The easy dismissal of capital punishment by Pope Francis and even by his two predecessors seems rooted in a lack of attention to the form of retribution. All three seem to dismiss it as revenge, which is of course not allowed the Christian. It suggests a neglect of natural law which does not depend upon acceptance of the Gospel but rather on objective, intelligent moral principles accessible to all who have good faith. It is part of a culture that despises the specifically masculine, in this case justice as retribution and retaliation, and a world view that is pollyanish, demasculinized, and impotent. It is part of a weakened, softened, sentimental and emotional doctrine of mercy that has come to prevail under Pope Francis.

The Death Penalty Conundrum

In "changing?" the Church's teaching on capital punishment, Pope Francis has confused us: is this an inherent evil, not to be contemplated ever, or a prudential consideration, contingent on circumstances, intentions and consequences. Traditional Catholic teaching for milennia: the state has the responsibility to use deadly force when necessary to protect the innocent and the common good when necessary...as in police action, just war and capital punishment. Killing is not inherently evil: murder of the innocent is always evil, but lethal force against an aggressor is sometimes required and actually a virtuous action. Both John Paul and Benedict argued on pragmatic grounds that capital punishment was no longer necessary, almost all the time, because our prison system is adequate protection. But they maintained the traditional logic by implicitly acknowledging that if it is necessary, it may and must be used. So it is not inherently evil. The new wording Pope Francis put into our Catechism must be the most confusing statement in Church history. It includes three statements: 1. Capital punishment is inadmissable because it is an assault on the dignity and inviolability of the human person. 2. It is inadmissable because of a change in the understanding of punishment. 3. That it is inadmissable because our prisons are adequate protection for society. He is saying three contradictiory things here. First, that it is inherently an assault on human dignity and therefore always wrong. Second there was a change in understanding so it was right 25 years ago but is not right now. Third, that a good prison system eliminates the death penalty, but that implies that a bad prison system brings back the need for it. The statement is stunning in its vacuity, illogic and vagueness. Submitted in a college ethics course this would merit a F for failure. If the first statement about "assault on dignity" holds than any such letal force is evil: the assasination of Osama Ben Laden? Every use of lethal force by police? Have we become then an absolutely pacifist Church? Then no Catholic could serve in the military or police as currently constituted. This is ridiculous on the face of it. If the second holds, there has been a change in the understanding of the nature and goals of punishment. OK, than: What is this change? How were we mistaken in the past? What is the new revelaton or enlightenment? This would require an entire encyclical and more. It would be an immense work requiring theological and episcopal consultation. No explanation is given: it is simply stated as a given. The lack of intelligence, the arbitrariness, the subjective emotiveness...is breathtaking from a Catholic pope. Finally, the reliance on an efficacious prison system advances a contingent argument and logically undercuts the apparent assertion of implicit evil. It opens the door to another change if prison systems weaken. This exaggerated trust in contemporary prisons was shared by John Paul and Benedict both and may be the single weakness in their otherwise splendid corpus. My understanding of prisons in the USA and elsewhere is that there is rampant violence including murder and rape and widespread gang activity. I suspect that in many countries the situation is worse. To change a milennia-old moral teaching because our prisons are great is simply crazy. The prison situation concerns the issue of protection of society which is one of four aims of punishment. The others: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. Each of these would require extensive treatment. But we return to the three Catechism statements and the question: is capital punishment inherently evil or a contingent, prudential judgment? The statement should be read in continuity with prior tradition which leads to this conclusion: it remains a prudential decision to be determined by a universe of concrete considerations. John Paul and Benedict both seemed to be 97% confident it was unnecessary. Francis goes to an absolute 100%. I myself oppose the death penalty with about 72% certainty. But I allow that more intelligent, better-intended Catholics than myself may reach different conclusions. Attorney General Bill Barr reinstated the death penalty just a few years ago: this does not make him a bad Catholic. Bishops will not be thinking about denying him communion. Death penalty is NOT "against Church teaching" in the way that abortion is. On this, some humility and open-mindedness on the part of our Holy Father is needed.

The Particular Judgment

God's Gamble: the Gravitational Power of Crucified Love, a most insightful, inspiring and delightful piece of theology from Gil Baile, offers us a fresh integration of (what I take to be) the three great breakthroughs in Catholic theology in the second half of the 20th century: John Paul on erotic love, Gil Baile on mimetic anthropology, and Balthasar on Holy Saturday. This last is especially thrilling as Baile offers a new understanding of what we always called "the particular judgment" in light of Balthasar's understanding of the descent into hell. Traditionally we know that immediately after our particular death we encounter our Lord Jesus and are judged, according to our life, and assigned to hell, heaven, or purgatory as a preliminary to heaven. Normally, the emphasis is upon our good and bad works in accord with Jesus' famous parable of the sheep and goats:  what you have done to the least you have done unto me. Baile points out that there is something missing in this analogy: most of us fit neatly into neither category, we are neither sheep nor goat but somewhere in the middle. The doctrine of purgatory is a partial, but not fully satisfying solution. Baile envisions a quite different, comforting but also sobering, vision of this postmortem encounter. It is connected with the Baltasarian understanding of the descent into hell on Holy Saturday by which Jesus entered into the deepest place of hell, not a final and eternal damnation, but a godforsakeness, desolation and loneliness deeper than that of the most miserable sinner that ever lived. Because of his love of the Father, Jesus suffered far greater agony and desolation than any sinner could. He did this to offer his love and mercy to that very sinner. And so, by virtue of this descent into hell, Baile imagines this ad-mortem or postmortem encounter as a true event: something new and surprising! Each of us meets Jesus our Lord as he shows us his wounds and suffering and offers Mercy! In that mini-micro-moment each of us, saint and sinner, experiences the freedom to accept or reject the offer of Love. This does NOT mean everyone goes to heaven and that there is no hell! There is the availability of hell because there is freedom. Baile draws upon Baltasar's sobering, even frightening, awareness that Jesus, source of all that is Good and True and Beautiful, is absolutely attractive; but He also provokes a violent reaction of rejection from the arrogant, the unrepentent, the resentful. And so it is not predetermined that each will accept: God has gambled on us, by giving us freedom, and granting us the power to reject Him and choose hell. This is an awesome and terrifying reality! Implied here is that our entire life is a preparation for this surpassing Event. There is high drama here! Consider, a good narrative leads to a climax which resolves the conflict driving the plot. By this telling, the real climax is immediately post-life, and yet this life is not without consequence since it prepares us for the Climax. And so, even the greatest sinner is offered Mercy: the victim of suicide or overdose, the terrorist, the psychopath, Judas and Hitler. The greatest sinner, right to the last moment, has some Hope, and is spared final despair. The greatest saint is not assured of final victory: so he is spared presumption and becomes even more vigilant and urgent in his journey into holiness. This is a thrilling, encouraging and motivating destiny!

The Decline of Catholicism

Is there anything as dismal, discouraging and depressing as the downward tragectory of Catholic practice over the last half century? I think not! This is a big deal: the world in which I was raised (1947-65)...vigorous, prosperous, confident, expansive, fecund, urban, ethnic American Catholicism...has been in steady, inexorable decline for over 50 years. That marvelous world has died...is still dying...will die. Very sad! I entertain at least four distinct, interacting and competing responses to this catastrophic development. First, I grieve. I am absolutely and unapologetically nostalgic about that Camelot period. It was a marvelous time to be Catholic, American, young. Persons and communities do enjoy such "Camelot periods": classically, the few years of the Kennedy presidency; my wife's childhood at The Lake; myfirst years of marriage; my last two years of college seminary; the earhy years of Catholic charismatic renewal; our family trip to Ireland; my Camino in Spain. I could go on. Liberals will allege that those years were not so good for non-white, non-males, etc. That is not my view. Economically the black family was strong and stable in that period, compared with consequent development, and economically rising steadily, despite the persistance of Jim Crow and racial barriers. The women in my world were serene and happy raising large families; some not so happy worked as single women, but they didn't rage against the glass ceiling! Down-to-earth working class, they rejoiced to be happily out of the Depression and the War, calmly accepted the sadness that men who would have married them had died in the war, enjoyed their faith and nephews/nieces, and breathed serenely free of the ambitions, pressures and pretensions of careerism, meritocracy and affluence that afflicted suceeding femininist generations. Well...it was a wonderful time! Not perfect; but solid and happy. It must be grieved. Jesus promised that our grief would turn to joy but he does not shortcircuit the grief. I am well into about four decades of processing the grief. I am better now. About 20 years ago I developed a habit of visiting Maryknoll NY where I would see the photos of ordinations classes 1950-65 of 40-50 men; pictures of socceer fields and handball courts overflowing with athletic, energetic men in their 20. Recent ordination classes: sometimes one, sometimes none. A sad nostalgia would fill me. That is lessened; but returns when I read about Ireland. Secondly, I offer myself a consoling counternarrtive: maybe it is not as bad as it looks. We cannot trust numbers after all, especially in regard to the hidden things of the spirit. I recall a conversation about 40 years ago in the heyday of the charismatic movement and my friend Vic was waxing eloquently in his "witness": how bad he had been, what happened to him, and how much better he became. A seasoned 12-step pastor, Fr. John O'Brien quietly suggested: "Maybe you were not as bad as you think; maybe you are not as good as you think." The thought has always remained with me. So: maybe we were not as good as I recall and as the numbers suggest; maybe we are not as bad as it seems. One study indicated that in any given generation about one fifth are ardent in the faith; the rest largely indifferent, whether or not they are going through the steps. So, Catholic faith in 2021 may be as good or better that 50 years earlier: more sincere, less hypocricy, and so forth. Furthermore, the genuine good of the 50s cannot have vanished overnight in the turmult of the late 50s; and the disorder of that period did not come out of nowhere but was already percolating, if less overtly.Thirdly, I do not believe in any linear progression through history. I never liked Teihard's evolutionarism and I warmly embraced Raymond Nogar's dramatic alternative. Nor do I believe in the secularization theory by which society progresses to become more and more secular. Harvey Cox's Secular City, fabulously popular in 1965 was rejected by Cox himself just a few years later in light of the flourishing of all forms of religiosity. So, the health of religion is more nuanced and complicated than the numbers might suggest. The flourishing of various renewal movements is particularly heartening. Lastly: the dramatic nature of the present. Comparisons with past and future are not as significant as confronting the "dramatic now"...the challenge of the eventful present. Every generation, every era, every person and every day brings a dramatic crisis, an opportunity and a danger, a challenge to heroism and a temptation to cowardice. This is the intuition of Von Balthasar's Theology of Drama. Ralph Martin, otherwise a harsh critic of the great Swiss theologian, has remarked that the Bible anticipates two events before the second coming of Christ: the great apostasy and the release of the power of evil. Ralph properly says that he does not know when the second coming will be but that we are currently facing the drama of a great apostasy within Christianity and an explosion of evil in so many dimensions. Nostalgia for the 50s does not help us to fact the eventful present. Ours is to embrace the grace of God at work; renounce the evil present; and live in Hope. What was best in the 50s will live forever. This is a cause of joy.

Cute

The word cute is wholly inadequate for the dense, rich, splendid reality I will describe; but I don't have a better one. Words fail! Synonyms close to this reality are equally off the mark: precious, adorable, lovable, lovely, endearing, childlike, delightful...each has a rather specific and different meaning from the inner form, the profound reality that we refer to as cute. In common usage cute means pleasing, pretty, childlike in a petite way. The word has a sweet, sentimental, superficial and maternal flavor to it (bunny rabbits, Disney critters). This essay will describe a metaphysical, masculine and mystical phenomenology of cute in its depth and splendor. Metaphysical What we encounter in an adorable child, an endearing old person, a precious woman is a coalescence of: the True as smallness, fragility, vulnerability, and weakness; the Beautiful as pleasantness, harmony, proportion; and the Good as innocence, freshness, purity and childlikeness. Being, as True-Good-Beautiful self-presents, enchants, and captivates in an extraordinary, really heavenly manner. All created being is fragile and finite; all created being is inherently and deeply good, without deliberation, choice, effort or agency; all created being is delightful. But The Cute is the quintessence of creatureliness in its contingency, fragility, smallness and vulnerability. God is not cute, but He created us cute and sees us as cute: delightful, needy, not threatening. God of course became cute in the infant Jesus, but that was gratuitous on his part; cuteness as we experience it is not inherent to Divinity. Masculine The word is used more frequently by women. A normal woman can hardly see an infant, crying or laughing, without gushing "O how cute!" The masculine perception is quite different. I have always viewed the infant, for most of the first year, as ugly, distasteful, awkward, distressingly fragile and pathetic. Above all the infant is boring: lacking in intelligence, intensity, attention, enthusiasm. You cannot even do "this little piggy" or "roundy ball" or other fun things with her. My oxytocin does not kick in until the first birthday. I recall my Grandaughter Maggie who was (and always will be) a beautiful creatue but did not greatly interest me until one day around her first birthday I looked into her eyes and I saw...intelligence. I could see in her eyes that she was exquisitely aware. I was infatuated: she seemed so amazing, so fascinating. Exactly one moment later I saw a new radiance in her eye and face: she loved me. I could feel, intuitively but definitely, the affection she had for me. It was a transcendent, a mystical moment...unforgetably deep, peaceful, joyous. That moment will live forever. I have powerfully experienced some version of that with all my children and grands and sometimes of other's children. Male engagement with cute involves play, teasing, humour, laughter, intensity, attention, competition and mutual fascination. All this requires intelligence: above all I delight in the emergent intelligence of the toddler. At least since adolescence I have enjoyed an exquisite sensitivity to the cute. When I was in high school my two youngest sisters were 2-5 years old: the highpoint of cuteness. They were "to die for cute"...and I mean that literally. My freshman year at college seminary I was homesick and would sit in the darkness of the chapel alone at night and if I thought of Margaret and Anne my eyes would flow like a faucet with tears. Now I am not a weepy guy; if anything I am probably insensitive: from the age of 20 to 50 I could count with my fingers the number of times I have shed a tear. But they were both... to die for cute. The masculine response to the cute...which includes this dimension of intelligence that is so lacking in the infant...is delight, fascination and a profound urgency to hold, tease, interact, protect and provide. In other words, engaged with the cute, all the wild masculine energy, strenght and agressiveness becomes tender, humble, grateful, gentle, generous as well as heroic and magnanimous. There is another way in which the cute operates differently in femininity and masculinty. As I noted in a prior essay ("The Trifecta of Feminine Charm"), vulnerability and petiteness are intrinsic to feminine charm, but not to virility. Yet, a woman will refer to a man as cute. It is a complement: he is attractive, appealing, pleasing. It is physcial and romantic, but not quite the same as "sexy" as it is more gentle and tender. It has a maternal flavor and can diminish virility as strength. So to the masculine ear it is not entirely flattering. Cute entails smallness, weakness and vulnerability; but virility requires stedfastness, fortitude, gravitas, and virtuous character. The two are not absolutely contradictory, but the energies are in opposed directions and entail tension. Okay: Brad, Leonardo, Cruise and Walberg are all cute, yet manly. They are special. Would an earlier generation called John Wayne, Yul Brenner, Burt Lancaster or Jimmy Cagney cute? Although James Dean, Sinatra and the young Brando were all cute but manly. This cute stuff is quite mysterious: defies clear, logical analysis! Mystical The Cute is a transcendent experience, it is a taste here on earth of the heavenly and the eternal. It is an ineffable, efficacious sign of God's existence. In the cute we transcend ourselves in ecstatic delight at the innocent, the lovely, the fragile. We are lifted above mortality, finitude, suffering, longing, guilt and anxiety. We are, for a moment, actually in heaven...in perfect delight...in eternal life. Contrast it with sex, which is SO overrated! Sex is: frustrated almost all of the time; is transitory as we are attracted one moment and repulsed the next; when satisfied it exhausts itself and relaxes into a death-like quiet; ofter awakens guilt, shame, fear; diminshes with time but retains toxic elements. By contrast, delight in the cute is: innately and permanently satisfying; persisting in memory; opens out to a stable future of enhanced delight; never exhausts itself but is self-enhancing; diminishes anxiety and fear and leaves serenity and stability; gets better, deeper, stronger with time. It has been asserted, erroneously, that "cleanliness is close to Godliness." A stronger case is made here for: "cuteness is next to Godliness." Or, to be more metaphysically precise: "Cuteness, as creatureliess in its smallness and not-Godness is, paradoxically and mysteriously, a Godliness, but of course not univocally or equivocally, but analogically." Etymology and History A secondary current use of the word means: clever, facetious, manipulative, devious...as in "don't be cute with me" or "he is too cute for me." This usage suggests intentional or contrived cuteness. Essential to cuteness is innocence, transparency and candor: any effort completely ruins the reality and becomes repugnant. For example, most presentations of children on TV comedies are so contrived as to be repellent. Historically, however, the early etymology of the word comes from the word "acute" as shrewd or clever. Our usage as pretty-appealing developed later in the 1830s. This essay has possibly brought unprecedented ontological density to the word. It is hard to believe that, say, Balthasar never addressed the form, but maybe he didn't spend much time with toddlers or darling young women. Life Cycle of Cute Happily there is a cycle to cuteness. The peak years are 2-6 (but 0-2 apparently for women). Adult men are not cute. But we return to cuteness in old age. I haven't been cute for about 60 years. But my baby pictures are clear that I was cute. My oldest daughter Mary wanted a copy of my high school photo because she says I was cute: I wish I knew it at the time. But lately I am getting cuter. As I approached and moved into my 80th decade of life, I have been pleasantly pleased that attractive women of child-bearing age smile spontaneously at me. That may be because I have lost my shyness and inhibitions but increased my appreciation for women so I am probably smiling at them first. But also, I think they see me as harmless, innocent and more vulnerable than powerful. I enjoy the affection as a compensation as I grieve the diminshment of my romantic, erotic, procreative prowess. My hope for the remainder of my life: that as my strength diminshes I may increace in cuteness and enjoy this affection.

A Third Letter, on Politics, to Grandchildren: Inherent Evil vs. Prudential Judgement

An important distinction must be made: things that are inherently, always evil; and other things that are practical, prudential decisions about which we can disagree. For a Catholic there are actions and practices that are always and everywhere evil: adultery, abortion, sacrilige, suicide, torture, genocide and so forth. Such actions can NEVER be even considered... whatever the circumstances, intentions or consequences. In politics, for example, Nazism with its racist hatred of Jews is inherently evil: a Catholic cannot be a Nazi; the Church would have to deny Communion to a declared Nazi. The same for Communism with its hatred of God and Church; and Jihadism with its contempt for Christianity. Any direct, intended destruction of innocent human life is inherently evil: bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA, abortion, embryonic research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and so forth. By contrast to these inherent issues are a host of issues about which we can differ: immigration policy, gun control, mandating of vaccines and masks during covid, global warming, increased taxes on the wealthy or minimum wage, the building of a wall on the border and so forth. These policy or political issues do not involve an inherent evil but a universe of contingent, practical circumstances, intentions and consequences which entail a prudential judgment. Such issues are open to a range of judgments. One's decision will depend upon one's situatuional and communal position, values and personal history. We need to educate ourselves and develop our views responsibly but realize our limitations and that others of greater intelligence and better intentions will come to opposing views. The Church itself must avoid sanctifying any particular view on such practical issues. The pope and the Church are authoritative on moral questions regarding inherent actions but have no competence in the area of social policy. Therefore if a pope, bishop or priest offers an opinion on a contingent, prudential matter they do so without special authority. As a matter, of fact, competence in political, not purely moral, matters belongs more to the laity who deal with such matters and develop expertise and need to apply Christian judgement. So, for example an episcopal or papal statement on a given war or economic policy or health program is to be received respectfully but realistically as open to criticism and disagreement. To summarize, as Catholics we need to be united in our renunciation of pure evil (genocide, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) but be free to disagree respectfully on issues of prudential judgment involving complex considerations of policy. The American bishops are now arguing about whether to deny Communion to President Biden because of his position on the value of innocent unborn life. A majority apparently favor denying him. The Vatican just recently urged caution and patience on the matter: they want to avoid a schism among the bishops. This is not essentially a prudential political or policy matter as much as a moral reality of pure evil. My own strongly held view is that giving Communion to pro-abortion advocates is a sacrilege against the Body of Christ and the bodies of the little innocent ones as well as a scandal to the Church. It is scandal in that it causes shock to our faith; and also scandal in that it divides us. Not all agree. We await their decision. Already a few bishops have acted on their own, directing such politicians to refrain from receiving. It is possible that the body of bishops will issue a weak statement and that individual bishops will make different decisions. So a politician might be welcome to receive Communion in Newark but not in New York City, across the river. This is not good! But it is a binary decision: it is YES or NO! (Next letter will apply this crucial distinction (inherent evil vs. prudential judgement) to the death penalty.

A Second Letter, on Politics, to Grandchildren: Subsidiarity

Since you are now learning and thinking about politics, I want to share some important Catholic principles with you. (One of SO many things I love about being a Grandfather.) Subsidiarity. This tricky word means: the smallest community possible should take care of the problem. More central authority should be "subsidiary" or "helpful" for the more primary units. If Grandma is sick, hopefully she will be taken care of by the immediate family, or the extended family, or the community...not the federal government, certainly not the United Nations! Another good example: police reform. This should be done first of all at the local level of each city. If that does not suffice then the state or federal government may intervene...but only as necessary. Small is better...generally, and when possible. Sometimes this doesn't work: classically, the Jim Crow segregation in the South was so strong in the 1960s that the federal government had to step in. But ideally, the localities and states would have taken care of it. So let's get back to socailism and capitalism: the problem with both is that they tend to be large, impersonal systems, without a tender face. We cannot get away from government and free markets and these can always be levened by charity. My own experience: 25 years in UPS, a quintessential capitalist enterprise, were a blessing in providing for our need, working in solidarity with others, meeting challenges, serving the society and much more. There are dysfunctions in such organizations, but it is mostly to the good. At Magnificat Home we interact always with governmental bureaucratic inspectors as well as police, medics and fire department...they are overwhelmingly helpful, respectful, collaborative. So, I have very positive experiences of state and market. But, a major problem in our world today is the expansion of huge global corporations and of the state that together tend to dissolve smaller, local, concrete communites and institutions. What we desperately need are more "intermediate organizations" by which we interact with and care for each other. For almost 100 years we have seen the concentration of power in the hands of the federal government and immense, global corporations. This makes for technological advancement and many economic efficiecies, but is catastrophic for the smaller communities and organizations. With power concentrated in Washington and corporate management we ordinary folks lose a sense of agency, freedom and initiative; we can feel powerless, victimized, impotent. So for so many reasons it is essential that we build stronger small and intermediate organizations and communities in which we exercise our freedom and face a tender, human face. (If you learn a new word you need to use it three times to really remember it. Challenge: use "subsidiarity" three times. See if you can sneak it into conversation with your friends and family!)

Letter, on Politics, to Matt, Tommy and Luke...and Other Grandchildren

I was happy to hear you guys were arguing about capitalism vs. socialism at Peter's first communion party Saturday: great issue! I wish I could have heard it. As grandfather, I will not sell you on either system, but on some (2 for today) fundamental Catholic principles about politics. FIRST "Catholic" means "universal" so that the Catholic Church welcomes all that is good, true and beautiful in all things. This includes politics: the socialist's passion to care for the suffering and for justice; the capitalist's respect for freedom/initiative; the pacifist's passion for non-violent resolution of conflict; the anarchist's preference for liberation from oppressive systems and for the local, the small, the personal; even the monarchist's reverence for tradition, continuity, and the nation. So the good news: a Catholic can be capitalist, socialist, anarchist, monarchist, libertarian or a hundred other "ists." The Church cannot endorse any system, policy, party or politician. So beautiful: at the Eucharist we join with all nationalities, races, ethnicities and political views. All are welcome. We celebrate our unity in Christ and we put aside our disagreements about politics. So it is a big mistake for a priest to advocate his political views at mass: it offends and alientates those who think differently, it polarizes and divides. Just this year, an older priest (who is quite charming and pious, but overly political) was removed from offering mass in our parish because he would ALWAYS launch into a political tirade. (He is saying mass now in St. Vincents's Bayonne I hear.) When my Bernadette was getting ready for confirmation I was in charge of the preparation. At the time, no less than five candidates for councilman in our area were fathers of her classmates. I knew for certain, that in my role as catechist I could never mount a sign on my lawn endorsing any of them: it would tarnish my catechesis for the other four. SECOND Secondly, Solidarity...is at the heart of Catholic social doctrine...that we belong to each other...and the suffering of anyone, anywhere requires our response...the homeless, hungry, refugees, and all marginalized. We can differ on how to do this. A big difference is: how much should government do? Liberals favor strong government action; conservatives prefer small government and more personal and local action. When your Uncle Paul lived in Alabama he noticed the people were strongly conservative in their preference for low taxes and small government but Christian in that local Churches offered meals and comfort for the poor. Neither approach is inherently right or wrong: it is a prudential decision, meaning we use our judgment about the best means to the end. So...there's two thoughts for you: First, Catholic ("universal") affirms all that is good but cannot sanctify any policy, party or politician as perfect; second, by Solidarity we belong to each other and care for each; about the best way to do so we can disagree. This material will NOT be on the test; but a thoughtful response, agreeing or questioning or critiquing, will get you 10 points of extra credit! LOL

Pervious

Pervious: allowing water to pass through; permeable. My new favorite word: Pervious. It came into my life because we are replacing our stone driveway/backyard at Bradley Beach with pavers and the town requires that 40% of our land be PERVIOUS. Good news: that does not include the houses, so we are fine. But the word is fascinating. Asphalt and cement are impervious; grass is pervious as it allows water to flow through into the ground. Analogically the word is rich. The thought strikes me: the person, in heart and intellect, is created to be pervious, to be receptive to the Creator and His creation, it all its splendor, all its boundless Truth, Beauty and Love. To be alive...is to welcome what is given, to receive it, to take it in, to allow it to flow into us, through us, and to others. Such it was in the garden of Eden. It was sin that has made us impervious: hard, not allowing the passage, resistant, indifferent, unaffected, non-vulnerable. It is pride, suspicion, anger, and fear that close us to the Given. In last nights episode of "The Last Kingdom" the beautiful Ethlefled confides to her admirer, the fierce but chivalrous Viking warrior Eric, that her abusive husband "does not see me." He is insecure, envious, prideful, fearful and vicious; he is incapable of "taking in" her nobility, beauty, intelligence, charm and heroism. Happily, Eric is pervious to her feminine splendor; and he dies to rescue her. So for us men, the takeaway: it is not for us to repress or diminish our attraction to and delight in womanly beauty; it is for us to deepen and purify it, that we become more pervious, more receptive, more tender and reverent before it. And so: we want to become more pervious...to all that is beautiful, true and good. This is not to store it up or hoard it, but to let it flow through us an out to others. The more we receive, the more we share; the more we share the more capacity we have to receive. So we become an ever-expanding river of the Good. We long for it. We receive it, in trust and vulnerability. We allow it to flow. We become fluent, fruitful, free. We receive ever more. We acknowledge our imperviousness and repent. Why did Satan target Eve and get to Adam through her? Because she, as woman, is more pervious: to the true, but also to the false; to the good but also to the bad; to the beautiful but also to the disordered. And Adam, as a man,is pervious to the influence of Eve as woman. His strategy was flawless. Finally, with Mary we have the perfection of perviousness to the Good and imperviousness to the bad. And so with St. Joseph and all the saints. And so with us. We become branches on the Vine (in today's Gospel), receiving the life-giving juices of nutrition and bearing fruit. We become the good soil, receiving seed, water, sunshine...in endless flow. May our hearts and minds be ever more receptive, sensitive, responsive and generous!