The Resilient Heroines and Deplorable Men of the Misogynist Dystopia of Netflix 2021

Weekends, as we wound down 2021, we binge-watched Netflix. Four of the last things we watched ("The Maid," "Alias Grace," "Unforgiven," and "Unbelievable") had the same underlying narrative: a vulnerable woman is viciously abused by a systemic social misogyny but eventually prevails and triumphs, against impossible odds, due to qualities of courage, persistence, intelligence, long-suffering and impressive resiliency.

These are not the invincible, georgeous, hyper-intelligent superwomen of "Hunger Games," "Alias" or "Covert Affairs." These women are fallible, vulnerable, and devastated by abuse, rape, betrayal, disbelief. Two involve imprisonment for murder. One serious mental illness. The actresses are lovely but their raw physical beauty is camouflouged by the horror of their suffering as well as the focus on the intelligence and moral character that shines through the darkness and allows the final victories, however imperfect. u

I found them to be realistic: misogyny is the most systemic, persistent, profound, and finally catastrophic evil across our globe. In our world, the renunciation of the chauvinist dimensions of traditional patriarchy has resulted in a more subtle, sophisticated and disguised attack against the very form of femininity by the Cultural Liberalism of "reproductive rights," careerism, individualism, pornography, contraception, and a faux femininism that mimics the worst of toxic masculinity. The broad brush rejection of authority-paternity-tradition eviserated both masculinity and femininity of inner form: leaving us fatherless as motherhood is mercilessly abused. It is of interest that the most impressive, admirable character in these movies, Detective Karen Duvall in "Unbelievable" is portrayed powerfully by a radiant Merritt Wever who was herself fathered (so says google) by a sperm donation to a femininist activist mother. Art copies life: giving us a fatherless world.

The male characters fall easily into three types. The worst are the vicious, sadistic psychopaths who rape, abuse, despise the woman in her vulnerability. Secondly, most are not so despicable, but simply clueless and insensitive. They exercise their under-developed male intellect and psyche with decent intentions but are so oblivious to the feminine reality that they indeliberately inflict grave, on-going harm. The best example would be the male detectives in "Unbelievable" who find no objective evidence of the rape and conclude, after learning that the victim had recently been attention-seeking, that it was a false accusation. This is not an unreasonable conclusion; but they proceed to pressure and manipulate her, in their righteous self-confidence, in a manner that is indeliberate but horrific. These may be taken as protypical of the universe portrayed in all four movies: the violence against innocent, vulnerable, powerless women is unbearable even as it is systemic, pervasive, and in part not consciously intentional. The third and best type of male in these movies is the supportive, decent, kind-hearted guy (typically, the two husbands of the marvelous protagonist female detectives in "Unbelievable") who are however entirely marginal and removed from the dramatic action. They have no influence or effect. They are on the sidelines. They are nice but, regarding the conflict, impotent. Each woman is largely on her own with some support from other women, but the men are at best useless. This is a world without real men, without fathers.

Its not easy to be a man, these days...to be a real man...strong but gentle...a gracious, protective, life-giving presence. As a Catholic man how do I respond to this fatherless, misogynist, realistic universe.

First, it is salutary for us men to contemplate a woman's agony. Women suffer more than men: they are more sensitive, less crude; they are empathetic and open to the pain of another; they are instinctively generous and make themselves vulnerable. By nature the man is more isolated, thick-skinned, selfish, indifferent to the other. The male has greater physical and social power. The undeveloped male psyche is clueless and insensitive about the female heart, intellect and soul. The mission of the man is to cherish, protect, revere, and provide for the woman (with child, elderly, sick, etc.) but the disordered orientation of the sinful male soul is to lust, power, and contempt for feminine "weakness." In this Christmas season, as Catholics we ponder the words of Simeon to Mary, that "a sword would pierce her heart." They are not spoken to Joseph nor to Jesus. So as we consider Our Lady of Sorrows and our Lady of Mercy, we men need to dilate and soften our closed, hardened hearts.

Secondly, it is humbling to see how marginal and weak we men can be, but that can also lead to humility. Humility is the primary masculine virtue (in my view, even prior to chastity and courage) as it allows us to represent Another, our heavenly Father. Dependence upon our own agency, virtue and autonomy is catastrophic. Here our model is, of course, St. Joseph. He himself is marginal to the Christmas story. He never says a word. He doesn't initiate but he obeys. His silence, his responsivness allow the working of God's providence. This should encourage us men, not to be assertive or aggressive, but to be docile, responsive, trusting, and allow the Holy Spirit to work through us in all gentleness and strength.

Third, it is good for us to consider women in their interiority of truth, goodness, beauty. We men are easily distracted, even mesmerized by physical feminine beauty. But contemplation of radiant inner femininity does not come without a long internship of restrain, prayer, listening and glancing more deeply at her. It is an inspiring, even sanctifying exercise to consider the generosity, courage, resilience and intelligence of women around us, even on Netflix.

Moving through the Christmas season and into the New Year...may we draw closer to the Holy Family, to the fatherly Joseph and the motherly Mary...bring some light to this dark misogynist dystopia...as we allow ourselves to be renewed in our own femininity and masculinity!

The Pivot from Homosexual to "Gay"

They are not synonyms: they have different meanings.

A recent survey of research has 3.5% of our population identifying as LGBTQ; but 11% experience same-sex attraction while 8% have practiced such intercourse. So, for every self-identified "gay" there are 2-to-3 times more who experience the attraction and practice it who do not self-identify as gay.

(BTW a majority of the 3.5% who do identify as LGBTQ are bi-sexual by attraction; this is even more prounounced among women. This suggests that the hard, dogmatic "born-that-way" straight-gay binary is untenable and that there is a high fluidity, plasticity and vulnerability to our sexuality.)

Homosexual (same sex) simply describes a type of sexual-romantic attraction as well as a kind of sexual activity. So the word itself has a certain neutrality, a clinical objectivity to it. However it does have powerful historical associations.

Within Judaism and Christianity its active practice has always been seen as sinful since it violates (along with a litany including adultery, fornication, masturbation, etc.) the spousal (fruitful, unitive) purpose of sexuality.

Quite distinct from this is the genuinely homophobic use of disparaging expressions to shame and emasculate men perceived as effeminate. Such is a grave sin against charity.

Psychologically, a body of research associates the attraction with dysfunctions such as weak masculine identity, poor connection with father and peers, fear of women, negative body image, and incapacity to surrender to or yield authority. This discussion is entirely canceled by gay militance. My own observation is that the research deserves attention: there is strong association here but not direct causation or neccessary/essential connection. There are those who combine same-sex attraction with wholesome personalities, sterling character and even holy lives. The research should not be repressed: let the Truth manifest itself freely.

If the word "homosexual" is straightforward, true, corresponding to a reality; the word "gay" is not: it is ironic, transgressive, defiant, performative. The word deliberately misconstures, as happy, light, fresh and hopeful an attraction-action-lifestyle that(if not sublimated by chastity/charity) is intrinsically fraught with frustration, futility, sadness and despair. It is a falsehood, a manipulation, a false witness, a gesture of psychic-moral-spiritual violence.

Moral Orientations

Same-sex attraction is NOT an orientation. Orientation means direction, especially the moral trajectory of ones life. If I am driving from NJ to Canada my geographic orientation is northward. Attractions...feelings, emotions, passions...do not determine one's orientation. If I am attracted to petite Japanese women but I marry a big-boned Eskimo... what is my orientation? Hopefully, I am oriented monogamously, faithfully to my spouse, whatever my emotions and attractions.

For one with same-sex attractions, there are at least four orientations, moral paths, that present themselves. The first two are the traditional "don't ask, don't tell" programs of discretion; the second two are more recent, and contradictory of each other.

First is the decision to quietly endure the frustration of the condition and strive to live chastely, celibately, always ready to return to this path in case of failure.

Second is the choice to actively practice it, with a single person or many partners, with or without guilt, but abstaining from any moral crusade. This practice, by concealing itself, implicitly affirms the moral standard, by its discretion.

Third is a very small contingent which is dissatisfied with the attraction and hopeful for a traditional marriage. Such identify a sexual compulsivity rooted in wounds and so they seek reparative therapy as a healing of misconnections with father, mother, peers as well as sexual abuse. The intention here is not "conversion of orientation" but reparation of damage suffered, a release from compulsivity, and possibly a new gestalt in sexual/romantic tendencies. Reparative therapy is very marginal; popular in strong Catholic circles; and available only to those seeking it and not imposed coercively on anyone, certainly not youth. Unfortunately, it is confused with "conversion therapy," popular among more fundametalist evangelical groups, which can be coercive, oppressive, moralistic. It is not surprising that, in light of its toxicity and coerciveness, it has been largely banned. But the more gentle, consensual, psychologically sophisticated reparative therapy has enjoyed success. Its suppression by a woke resentment is not just or true.

Lastly, the gay position or decision, inflates the attraction into an orientation, an identity, a moral crusade, a way of life. The "coming out as gay" is a performative act, a vow of sorts, an acclamation of identity, values, belief. It proclaims: 1. My attraction is strong and significant and, at least in part, constitutes my identity. 2. I want to be known as such. 3. I renounce the shame inflicted by social homophobia. 4. I reject the traditional religious reservation of sexuality to spousality as restrictive, oppressive, and actually if not deliberately harmful and unjust.

The Gay Proclamation

"Coming out" to a Catholic family is a drama, a very real event. It requires a response. This can be implicitly framed as: "Accept me as gay; or reject me as gay." This translates as: "retain your Catholic belief and reject me; or reject your faith to love me as I am." This binary is invalid as is disallows a third response that is loving, truthful and Catholic: "I love you as you are, but I just don't buy the gay thing."

"Gay" is best understood as a mistake in self-identification. Mistakes in self-identification are common: if a friend tells me he is a member of the master race, or the revolutionary vanguard of the arc of history, or victim of "whiteness," or Napoleon, or a Winner (because he has so much money) or a Loser (because he has so little money), or being monitored by the FBI from the fire alarm system...I quietly register it as a mistake in self-identity.

In my world, "gayness" is not real; it lacks ontological substance; it is a fabrication, a myth, a misinterpretation. Earlier societies created such fictions: ghosts, lebrechauns, limbo, dragons. Modernity is replete with them: reproductive rights, whiteness, the arc of history, dialectic of the oppressor/oppressed, enviornmental psychology, critical race theory and LGBTQ identity.

I respect the subjectivity of the self-identifier in its sincerity, intensity, and integrity. The experience is itself real and powerful, but is informed by an intellectual error. The oppression of "whiteness" or the hope of "the arc of history" are both real experiences, but erroroneous. My love for you as a person is not contradicted, but rather enhanced by my renunciation of your misjudgement. To renounce a friend's moral-intellectual judgment is not to renounce the friend. Honest intellectual disagreement is part of any real relationship. Genuine love requires intellectual honesty and truth, however uncomfortable.

Why the Pivot to Gay?

Why the decision to self-identify as Gay? Sexual attractions are not chosen but received, passively. We are "afflicted" with our sexual/romantic longings. But self-identity is chosen. I have been pondering: Why do some with same-sex attraction (maybe about 1/3?) take that moral, intellectual, volutional position? I have not heard or read any discusion of this. I am eager for such. But it seems to me some of the following is at work. First, the attraction must be intense, persistent, deep-seated and inexorable. Second, there is an urge to be known as such; a impulse to transparency; a desire for the identity. Third, a moral outrage at the shame experienced. Fourth, a rejection of the classic restriction of sex to marriage as heterosexual, fruitful, exclusive, faithful.

Coming out as gay is in part a moral crusade against shaming, bullying, and disrespect. In that it is in part a good thing. It is a blessing of the Gay Movement that the stigma and shame associated have been diminished.

It is at the same time a contradiction of the Catholic view of sexuality, pure and simple. If the traditional teaching on sex is true, than a degree of disapproval and associated stigma is unavoidable and proper.

Additionally, there is a histrionic flavor to it which undermines the classic reverent reticence surrounding sexuality. Sharing intimate knowledge about ones sexuality is traditionally reserved for the spouse alone. A natural, salutary shyness surrounds the Mystery of sexuality. The Sexual Revolution tore away this veil of privacy and made sex something public, cheapened and vulgar. The gay movement has been expecially violent towards this childlike innocence as it parades its "pride" aggressively and has now overwhelmed all our major institutions, including the Church in the current papacy and much of the episcopacy.

It is worth noting the contrast between the gay movement in its histrionics and the spread of co-habitation among heterosexuals. The later is equivalent to the former as a clear violation of our time-honored code: but it has been widely implemented in a quiet, anonymous almost covert manner. No crusade, no parades, no "coming out." All of a sudden, everyone of the milenial generation is co-habitating: no argument, no culture war, no fuss. Something that was shameful a few generations ago has all of a sudden become commonplace. Our children, cousins, grandchildren...are all living together outside of marriage...apparently unembarassed and feeling no conflict with their proclaimed Catholicism. It is a close cousin of the gay movement, but so distinct in style. The widespread acceptance of non-spousal, contracepted sexuality and cohabitation by heterosexuals underlies, obviously, the widespread approval of the gay movement. The failure of the Church to confront cohabitation underlies its impotence before the demonstrative, aggressive gay movement.

Don't Ever Say "He is gay."

1. Because gayness is not effeminate behavior, nor sexual attraction, nor a kind of sexual activity, it is moral posture, a statement of belief and value, a social crusade. The four things are quite distinct: to call someone gay because of mannerism or sexual attraction or even sexual activity is a slander, a false judgment a violation of "thou shall not bear false witness."

2. One's sexuality is private and precious, something sacred and not to be casually discussed.

3. If someone self-identifies as gay, that is his privilege. He is free to do so. But we are also free to disagree; to refuse to endorse that judgment; to see him through a lens that is different from the one he has chosen. To confirm or encourage one we love in a gay identity is neither true nor just.

It is simple enough: I love you, cherish you, revere you, delight in you, care for you...but I do not see you as gay. Homosexual attraction is not an issue: we all suffer concupiscence in some form. Homosexual acts are sinful and serious. We can disagree.

Dear Bishops...

You did not ask me. But here is my advice:

It is time for you to man up: find your courage and virility, exercise your charism and authority, become a true father...clear, strong, gentle, confident, protective of the Truth and of your flock!

1. Be Father to your brother priests. Reverse the Dallas Chapter which is so unfair. Be just! Be defensive of the victims! But also protective of your own priests who have been made so vulnerable to false accusation. Read the scathing criticism of Monsignor Tom Guarino! Draw your brother-son priests to yourself...always in Truth!

2. Be Father to the traditionalists. Quietly ignore the vicious crackdown on that solemn, ancient rite by our pontiff. Do not collaborate in an evil act. Sure there are extremists and eccentrics among them; but for the most part they are desperately hungry for the holy. They are isolated and hurt; they need a Father to draw close, comfort and guide, strengthen and encourage them.

3.Be Father to your pro-abortion politicians. Quietly meet with them to correct and instruct, with a gentle and loving heart. Direct them to refrain from communion as long as they persist in this atrocity. Publically announce that those actively, publically advocating abortion are not welcome to receive.

4.Be a Father as protector of the Truth, Tradition, Authority. Abandon the facade of unity our national body of bishops recently presented with a statement on the Eucharist. We are NOT a united Church. We are a dysfunctional family; bitterly polarized about what is true and good. Speak the Truth clearly, boldly, confidently...challenge even the Bishop of Rome when he is wrong. Be Paul confronting Peter in Jerusalem!

5. Be Father, protector and teacher and guide, to the sexually afflicted and confused. Renounce the legacy of McCarrick! Acclaim the heritage of John Paul and Benedict, of Chaput-George-O'Connor! Challenge Pope Francis on his destruction of the John Paul Instituer for the Family in Rome and consider such a fine organization, more modest, in your own diocese. Lead a crusade against pornography. Encourage the homosexual in his identity as man and father; guide him in chastity, fidelity, paternity. Detach from the "gay" agenda!

6. Be a Father, not a CEO! Consider ways to disestablish the Church; to hand over the bureaucracies and institutions into lay hands; to encourage a lightened, powerless, liberated (institutional) Church.

7. Be a Father: give us strong meat, a wholesome diet, not junk food. Ignore "synodality." It is a confusion, a distraction, a waste of time, a "misdirection" that conceals an underlying bad agenda. Instead throw your energy and influence behind the good stuff: whatever is true, honorable, holy, pure.

I write as your brother-in-Christ, drawing upon my own baptism-confirmation-endowed-authority. I write as your spiritual son who has been deeply saddened by the state of the episcopcy, the failure in paternity, in this time. But you have my sympathy. Yours is the hardest job in the world. You are as a group exceptional men...capable, intelligent, kind, educated, holy. But the "holy" part is inhibited because your are buried under an avalance of responsibility for this huge bureacracy.

You are yourselves an elite and you stand next to "The Elite" of our society and you are understandably, unavoidably vulnerable to influence from hegemonic Cultural Liberalism. We need you to be the "Counter Elite."

Your instincts are strongly towards unity, accomadation, cooperation...to a fault! My suggestions will be viscerally repugnant to you. But you need to mortify your Chamberlain-esque compulsions and become a Churchill for the Church as we endure this demonic Blitz on our Church. It is time now for a virile, strong, clear, fatherly and TRUTHFUL love!

I exhort you: Courage! Surrender to the Holy Spirit given to you with the laying on of hands! Be bold, fearless, calm, clear, confident, and loving in announcing the Truth!

An Introvert at Mass

I go to mass as an introvert: craving silence, solitude, peace.

This is a problem, I know, since the Eucharist is a communal event, a banquet, a celebration. It is not an exercise in personal, but in corporate prayer. At the same time it is sacred, solemn, sacrificial. It warrents silence, contemplation, worship, kneeling...an atmosphere of awe and reverence.

The liturgical wars of the last 75 years can be understood, in part, as the tension between the introvert and the extrovert, the banquet and the sacrifice, the intimate and the holy. The personal and the communal intermingle...with more or less emphasis on each.

My mother said that when she was raising the nine of us the single hour she had to herself all week was her Sunday morning 10 minute walk to Church, the silence of the mass, and the 10 minute walk home. She was the most extroverted, sociable and gregarious of creatures; but the number of personal interactions she had in a week (crying babies, dirty diapers, lunchs made...) numbered in the thousands. But Sunday mass was for her to enjoy a moment of quiet, solitude, alone-with-God. I identify.

I a myself an introvert, but not a pronounced one. I value my alone time: reading, walking, praying. The world I inhabit in this, my 75th year is one I have chosen and largely shaped...my work, family, friends...and within it I am active, outgoing, gregarious. But I am still an introvert. On a given day, my personal interactions...conversations, phone calls, emails, texts...may number 60 to 70 or even more. Far more than I need as an introvert.

We live in a world of relentless, totalitarian noise...loud, constant, dissonant. In the gym, doctor's office, elevator...every where we are subjected to the idiocy, the oppression of senseless, superficial noice!There is a lack of peace, quiet, serentity, solitude, contemplation. If we find ourselves suddenly free of external noise, the inner cacophony of compulsive-obessive thought patterns kicks in and genuine peace eludes us. Desperately we need training in quiet, in tranquity, in rest.

So, please:

No cheery "Good Morning" from the priest! We get those all morning. Go quietly into the sign of the cross!

No chatter in Church...allow the silence. We are in the Holy Presence!

Don't sit next to me unless you are my immediate family. Give me about 10 yards if possible. At least six feet. This is not about germs or viruses. I just need my space.

No hugs at the sign of peace! No wandering around the Church!So glad the Covid put an end to that.

No applause...Please...no matter how good the choir, the sermon, the ushers or the altar servers! Please!

After communion let's sit quietly for 5 minutes...yes 5 full minutes. Cut back on the sermon if you are rushed.

Do not...I repeat...Do not...insist tyranically that the people in the back seats move up to the front for that warm-and-fuzy, comfy feeling. For God's sake, leave them alone in their solitude. God is with them. They need God...not the warm, fuzzy feeling!

You can understand that my sympathies are with the Latin Mass communities. They are often eccentrics and introverts, desperate for a taste of the sacred, the silent, the solemn. Let them be! Pope Francis' attack on them is a violence of the extrovert, the congenial, the gregarious against the introvert, the solemn, the solitary.

A weakness of the new (50 years old), ordinary rite is: too many words! Too much articulation! Too little silence, repose, contemplation. The older traditions...silence, icons and images,kneeling, incense, a strange language...facilitated a relaxation of the cognitive, verbal brain and a gentle move into the receptive, contemplative,and the mystical. Standard liturgical practice apes our crude, noisy culture as it attempts to satisfy the craving for sensory stimulation but it fails miserably since it cannot compete with Netflix.

Please...give us a little peace, a little silence, a little solemnity at mass!

Catholic Theology: Weak in Faith, Weak in Reason

"Fides et Ratio" ("Faith and Reason")is John Paul's brilliant, inspiring, monumental exclamation of the happy marriage in Catholic thought and life between faith and reason, Jerusalem and Athens, heart and intellect, revelation and intellectual reflection. The pontificate of his collaborator and successor was even more focused upon this symphonic synthesis. It is a retrieval of what is great in the Catholic Tradition over two millenia. Unhappily, mainstream Catholic theology since the Council, with exceptions, has not emulated this example, but is feeble in both faith and reason.

By faith I here mean surrender of will, intellect, heart, soul and entire personality in the encounter with the person of Jesus Christ. At the core of our faith is this personal event; everything else (dogma, ethics, liturgy) flows from it. Lacking clarity, depth and intensity in this core lends us to confusion, weakness, error, misdirection. The evangelical encounter becomes communal, ethical, liturgical, intellectual.

It is not that our theologians completely lack faith, but that their faith is not solidly Christ-centered, not evangelical, not Trinitarian, not personal, concrete, scriptural, communal, traditional. It is a faith that grasps and appreciates aspects of the Gospel, but not the heart and soul of that Gospel...the very person of Jesus, Son of God. And so we we do not find (what Balthasar called) a "kneeling theology"...reflection flowing out of the encounter with God in personal prayer and corporate liturgy. There is shift of focus: away from loving God with all your thought and all your mind and all your strength; toward subordinate themes such as psychological healing, justice for the poor and oppressed, and others.

By reason I here mean rigorous philosophical reflection grounded in a clear metaphysics of reality, of Being, of the good-true-beautiful. Theology is based in metaphysics. To not do metaphysics is impossible (as it is impossible not to do ethics, politics, religion); to "not do metaphysics" is to do bad metaphysics. So, what occurred immediately after the Council was the widespread turn from philosophy, as the handmaid of theology, to the social sciences, especially psychology and politial science, to Freud and Marx. And so we saw a drift downward into ecclectic, vague, incoherent philosophical ideas drawn from Jung, Whitehead, Chardin, Cambell, and various schools of psychology and politics. We witnessed on a large scale abandonment of the Tradition of "faith and reason."

A case in point: Pope Francis. He certainly has a lively, passionate faith. He loves Christ; he prays; he is fierce and fearless in his devotion to the poor and marginalized. But regarding reason he is severely challenged. He is incapable of deep, coherent, grounded theology. He is a man of emotion, not of thought. He is not merely non-intellectual; he is an anti-intellectual in that he resents dogma, sustained reflection, and the authority of Tradition and Magisterium. He may or may not be a saint; but he is a catastrophe of a theologian, and a weak, weak pope.

Question: were things better in the pre-Council Church. Well...sort of!

We shared a widespread culture of faith, but it was neither evangelical nor deeply intellectual. It was the ethnic, immigrant faith of the unschooled, purified by suffering: immigration-prejudice-poverty, the Depression, and World War II. It was not strongly Christological. But there was reverence, trust, gratitude and obedience toward God; a rich banquet of devotions to Mary, the saints, the sacraments and hierarchy; an acceptance, at least in thought, of the moral law; an openess to the supernatural; a culture that encouraged virtue and family life. Intellectually there was a failure to engage with the broader culture and a formal, manualist theology lacking in depth. But there was a simplicity and coherence to the theology and its relation to the ethnic culture. It was an ethnic religion, solid and coherent, but lacking a firm evangelical core and intellectual depth. This is why after the Council the culture crashed so catastrophically.

In that post-War period, however, there was a Catholic renaissance of true depth. The flourishing of religious orders, parishes and Catholic institutions of all sorts was not only a superficial flourishing of newfound Catholic bourgeois affluence; although it was that. Alongside of such materialism, there were deeper currents flourishing: resourcement theology as return to the sources (scripture and the fathers), engagment with the best in contemporary thought, renewal movements including the liturgical, Cursillo and similar retreat movements, and a wearied post-war enchantment with the supernatural. These currents were not spectacular statistically; but influential and significant.

The Good News: those often small, humble currents of genuine renewal did not disappear. They inspired the Council itself and continued in the renewal movements, in Communio theology, the Great-Dual-Pontificate and in a million quiet currents of prayer and goodness.

Notwithstanding the travails of the current Church, the Great Catholic Tradition experienced a renaissance in the run up to the Council, in that Event itself, and the dual papacy of Faith-and-Reason. We are blessed to live out of that majestic current of grace!

Let's Revive the Parishes! Let's Renew the Church!....Actually, Let's Not!

We need to reform the Church!..........BAD IDEA!

My buddies are older than me: pushing 80. They are arch-conservative, uber-Catholic Culture Warriors, like me, maybe worse! Their idea: "Let's get together, us Knights of Columbus, and pray to the Holy Spirit and work to revive our parishes!" I laughed spontaneously at the youthful idealism and enthusiasm. I responded positively and I meant it: "Any time anyone gets together and prays to the Holy Spirit it is a win-win-win!" But I also thought: "Really? At this stage, we old white guys are going to renew the Church?" I wondered: "What are you taking? I could use some!" More cynically, I considered: "Can this be early-onset, hypo-manic, grandiose senility?"

The reformer impulse, of Luther and Calvin and others, to reform the Church is always a bad idea. It is very Protestant, extremely anti-Catholic! It is not for us to reform the Church: not by our enlightened theology, not by synodality, not by institutional reform, not even by our favorite renewal movements!

The Church Herself, in her interiority, nothwithstanding the glaring corruption of her members, is never in need of reform. In her soul, her interior form. she is perfect! She is the Bride of Christ, cleansed, immaculate, purified. She is the Body of Christ, whatever infrections and wounds present. She is our Mother, however flawed.

It is you and I who have to be reformed, not the Church. We need ourselves to be reformed, renewed, converted by the Church because She is the visible, incarnate presence of Christ on earth. Christ is present:

Physicaly, ontologically in the Euharist

Efficaciously in all the sacraments.

Infallible in the Magisterium. Wherever the Word is proclaimed.

Radiantly, extravagantly, anonymously, eventfull in the lives of the holy ones...not only the great ones, but the little, humble, grateful ones.

The Catholic respose to the Church is always gratitude, obedience, surrender, participation, consent.

My uncle Billy (whom we all adored as a decorated WWII hero, lifelong convert operative for military intelligence, brilliant and charming eccentric, voracious reader, golfer, fisherman, dysfunctional businessman, Graham-Greene-type-Catholic) once told me: "I hate do-gooders!" I laughed because I was by most standards a "do-gooder" but I also knew he told my mother, his sister, that I was his best friend. But I know what he meant. Reformers, social activists, do-gooders...it is the self-righteousness, the moralism, the indignation! Sorry, a Catholic is NOT a reformer, an activist, or a do-gooder.

What a relief it was, in mid-life, to discover the 12-step approach: work my own inventory, tend my own garden, sweep my own side of the street.

More recently, in old age, I happily recall what we learned in parochial school: my first concern is the salvation of my own soul. And it is not my doing, but God's. And as I allow the Holy Spirit to sanctify me, this mysterious influence spreads to those around me, and even beyond to the entire Creation.

Now THAT is a Good Idea!

Jesus, the Devil and the Passion

A first: I today surrender this blog to a guest essay. Dan Pellegrin is a dear friend for over 50 years, since our college days. He is a lawyer who defends the rights of the mentally ill; an ordained, now retired, always maverick deacon in the Catholic Church. He has a ton of kids and grandchildren. He was, in my opinion the smartest guy in our class; he vigorously disagrees. He is oftentimes my theological adversary; but even when he is dizzyingly, brilliantly convoluted in his logic, he is unfailingly gracious, congenial, endearing and charming. This piece is a gem!

Jesus, the Devil and The Passion

“Scourge him” -- these are the words we know Pilate used.

The Roman soldiers seized the rope binding His wrists and led him out to the scourging pillar. As the burly soldier laid on the lash, Lucifer the Evil One whispered on Jesus’ ear: “Your people led you to this. How could they?! This is so unfair! You did nothing to deserve this!” Whip. “This is their fault. They don’t love you. They must hate you! Save yourself! We know you can. Summon that sniveling Michael, your angel” Whip … “He’ll make short work of these beasts.” “End this pain. Abandon this plan. People will never understand you or your Father.” Whip. “I’ve been right all along. You know I have been. Stop this!”

Jesus said nothing.

And wearing a crown of piercing torns, He was half-led, half dragged back to Pilate. Pilate was afraid now, and asked Jesus in a half-choked, hoarse whisper: “Where are you from?” Jesus made no reply.

Pilate: “You refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?”

Jesus: “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.”

Lucifer screamed for only Jesus to hear: “Your cursed Father is doing this to you! He’s letting this happen! Damn him!”

The Chief Priests: “If you relerase this man, you are no friend of Caesar.”

With a hand gesture, made in frustration, disgust, fear, ambition, and denial, Pilate gave the order to the soldiers -- take him away. Crucify him.

The cross’ crosspiece was heaved on Jesus’ shoulder, with splinters and edge that cut into him. As he struggled to begin the way of the cross, Lucifer was at his ear: “How that hurts I know. It’s so wrong! You did nothing to deserve this. Your message was peace” (and with a sneer) “and love. Love! These swine know nothing. They can’t. Stop this madness! Rise up! Çurse them all as only you can! Love? Love yourself! Take the power! Crucify them! Them! Crucify all these gaping apes!”

Jesus grimaced with pain and said nothing.

Lucifer was there when Jesus fell the first time. “”Don’t get up.” And the second. “Stay down!!” And the third, each time screaming his hate and vengeance in Jesus’ ears.

Lucifer: “You know what’s ahead? They’re going to drive nails into your hands and feet. You’re going to have to stand on those piercing nails! The pain!”

Jesus looked at Lucifer then. What was in His eyes? Lucifer saw no hate there. Was it pity?

They reached Golgatha.

Lucifer: “Jesus, listen to me. Do you know what’s going to happen? You’re going to be nailed to that cross. Breathing will get harder and harder. Pain will rack you. You won’t be able to breathe. You know what then? You’ll DIE!! DIE!!! For what?” With scorn: “For them?!” Jesus didn’t look at him as the cross was shoved into place.

Lucifer was next seen on a grey-black shaggy rock outcrop, disconsolate, gazing at The Scene. Demons danced around him in a frenzy of ectasy as they lookd on the Son of God, bloody, humiliated, exposed, dying. A few pathetic, powerless humans weeping at the bottom of the cross.

Gleeful howls from the demons.

Lucifer shifted his gaze from the God-man to the demons. He fixed them with a hateful gaze, and said,

“You stupid, stupid deluded wastes. What do you see here? A crucified God? No, no -- you see our defeat. Our utter, forever, unchangeable defeat.

“Is any one of you willing to be beaten, whipped, scorned, sentenced with no iota of justice? CRUCIFIED? To win our war for the humans? I am NOT. And neither is one of you.

“No, Jesus has won. He has forever won. He has defeaetd us, utterly. Completely. Forever. This is his testament. His love for these sacks of sticking flesh has no measure. Surely no answer from us.’

“I have lost. Forever.”

The Agony of It All: Sexual Suffering and Romantic Misery

Why did no one tell us about it? It would be nice to know!

Sexual satisfaction and romantic happiness...insanely overrated! Sexual suffering and romantic misery...vastly underrated!

Let's face it: sexual desire is frustrated about 99.9999% of the time! Same for romantic longing! Even in the best case scenario, where "they live happily ever after", there is an endless parade of frustration, hurt, disappointment, annoyance, anger...endless! In the best case scenario, these afflictions are suffered, in God's grace, with some degree of forgiveness/contrition and patience, and slowly give birth to a love that is deeper, stronger, truer and purer than the volatility of sex and romance.

Disclosure: I speak, as always, as a man, and (I presume) for men as I am (as best I can tell) typical, not exceptional. I cannot speak for women who are strange, mysterious, fascinating and inscrutable for me.

Mother Church in her wisdom has taught us mostly what is important to know, but not everything. She has been mute about the agony of it all. We learn: of the sacredness of sexuality, gender, spousality, paternity and maternity; of the beauty of chastity and fidelity; of the grave destructiveness of it outside of very clear boundaries; of our constitutional weakness in this area and drastic need for prayer, support, conversion, sacramental grace, accountability and brutal honesty. But She is strangely silent about the suffering underlying it all! And so: She can sound moralistic and negative.

The credo of Cultural Liberalism is that sex/romance is simple, fun, recreational, satisfying, and trouble-free once the negativities of religion are discarded. A pure lie from the Father of Lies! This falsehood pervades our culture and influences all of us as we long delusionally for Mr. or Miss Wonderful! It is good to know!

Well, actually, as I think about it, someone did tell us about it!

A priest in confession once told me that I would be afflicted like this, I would be fighting this battle until my body is cold in its grave four days! It is good to know!

Perhaps 20 years ago, already in my 50s, I was enjoying a whiskey in a cosy tavern on the lower east side of Manhatten with John Rapinich, my best friend, my little-big brother, brilliant autodidact, poet, artist, friend of Jack Kerouac and the Beats, hard-core Catholic convert, charismatic, Neo-Cat, delightful eccentric. I was aware of the generations of workers, ethnic immigrants, gangsters, activists, artists, politicians, alcoholics, and others who had enjoyed such a whiskey in such a warm ambience with such congenial company. Mystically, I felt united with the Communion of Saints-and-Sinners. The gentle, warm euphoria that comes around the third or forth sip of whiskey was descending upon me. It occurred to me to share with this wise, loving friend about my struggles with unchastity. I did so. I don't know what I expected but my trust in him was strong so I knew he would only be helpful. He seemed to sigh quietly and then... calmly, solemnly voiced two words: "The suffering!" I was stunned! This made no sense at all: a complete non-sequitur ("does not follow")! I was not talking about suffering! I was talking about a psychological weakness, a defect in character, a moral failure, an insobriety and a sin! Not suffering! I was quiet. He was quiet. For quite a time. It was as if I had traveled into the Egyptian desert in the third century to receive a Word...a single Word...a Word from the Lord...from St. Anthony of the Desert. This Word was not something to be questioned, analyzed, discussed. It was Holy! It was from Above! It was to be gratefully, reverently, humbly received...and cherished. And I have so cherished it ever since! It is good to know!

Not too long after that I was in a holy place, a friary, with a wise young friar and I similarly shared a tormenting obsession. He gently responded: "Some things just must be suffered." Again...that word...suffer! It is good to know!

It is good to know we are suffering. It is a first step on the road to beatitude. It is a curse to suffer and not even be aware of it. Recently I interviewed a woman who was looking to move out of a good apartment which she was convinced was being broken into. Her anxiety was palpable. Her psychosis obvious. When I mentioned the anxiety she responded: "What anxiety? I am not anxious!" For me one of the great tragedies is the failure of middle aged men to recognize and articulate their depression and so commit suicide. It is good to know you are suffering. And it is good when another, a friend or counselor or confessor, acknowledges your suffering.

It is even better when you find a purpose for your suffering. When it has meaning. Like the mother giving birth. Like the long distance runner breathing heavy in the later stage of the marathon. The suffering is lessened, is backgrounded and marginalized but not eliminated, when some purpose is in the foreground. For example, I have found consistent relief when I simply pray for the woman who arouses sexual or romantic passion: you would not believe how many prayers I have offered for Ingrid Bergman, Sophia Loren, Halle Berry, Penelope Cruz and a litany of other beauties. I hope the prayers help them but they certainly do help me!

It is good to know that we are suffering! It is good to do some little positive thing with our suffering!

You are formally notified, dear Reader! You are suffering...You have suffered...and You will suffer...the Agony of sexual and romantic yearnings! Until Jesus comes!

Come Lord Jesus!

Pro-Motherhood

Words matter! In the enflamed abortion wars this week as the Court considered Dobbs we hear as always: pro-choice, pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-choice, women's rights, etc. I suggest an improvement: Pro-Motherhood.

Here we privilege neither the life of the fetus nor a woman's privacy/autonomy against each other: rather, the larger reality of mother-and-child. Mother-and-Child is the most precious, sacred, vulnerable, beautiful reality in Creation. It is the honor and joy of the Man to protect and provide, to cherish, enjoy and even adore the Mother-and-Child.

They belong together and define each other, similar to the Trinity in which the Father and Son in the Spirit constitute each other as three-in-one. What would a mother be without a child? Not a mother! What a child without a mother? An impoverishment!

The father-husband is an outsider to this privileged intimacy. At childbirth he in a sense loses his closeness to the wife and defers to the needs of the vulnerable mother and infant. He protects and provides. He stands alone, in God's grace, in the joy of caring for these two precious creatures, in a sense a singular reality, entrusted to his care.

The State is an extension of the paternal mission in its task of protecting the vulnerable from violation and ensuring peace and justice. Therefore, foremost in the agenda of any government is protection of the mother and child.

With such clarity of purpose very concrete consequences follow:

1. The life of the fetus is sacrosanct.

2. The safety, peace, protection of the mother is equally sacrosanct. Her rights, needs, vulnerability become a primary concern of the social order. This means economic security, health care, emotional-social-spiritual support.

3. The mother could never be criminalized in the event of an abortion since she is herself the victim in her motherhood. Rather, the abortionist is liable; additionally any men (boyfriend, husband, father) who coerce the woman into abortion will see prison.

4. Men who father children are held accountable for support of the child as well as the mother in her dependent condition.

Such an approach deepens and broadens the pro-life perspective beyond a narrow focus on the fetus to include the mother; even as it expands into a genuine feminism which reverences motherhood as the pinacle of femininity. It also gives focus and purpose to the energies of virility which tend to violence/chaos or atrophy if not directed to the protection and care of the vulnerable.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph ... pray for us!