How to Get to "Gay": Two Narratives

The first narrative...liberal, gay-friendly, now dominant...is stunning in its simplicity: one is born that way. Or, more accurately, conceived that way. This assumes a hard, defining binary: "...straight and gay He created them, in God's own image He created them." There is little or no fluidity in human sexual attraction, it is hard-wired from inception. Like the instincts of an animal: some are carnivores, some are not. So, some are heterosexual, some are not. Like your height or the color of your hair, Nature; not Nurture.

This belief is held with absolute certainty by the gay and gay-friendly. It is as simple as the smile on your face. Of course it is equally incoherent to one from any traditional culture. It is intelligible only to a post-contraceptive culture which has severed sex from marriage/family/children. So it is a cultural conviction, self-evident to anyone fully socialized into the assumptions and perceptions of that culture. It is similar to: the inferiority of Africans to Europeans to a white in Alabama in 1830; the vile imperialism of the Israeli state to Palestinian youth today; the decadence of Jews to Nazi youth in 1933; the collusion of Trump with Russia to liberals in 2016; the theft of the 2020 election to conservatives; the Real Presence for Catholics.

From science we have hard chromosomal evidence of the male/female binary of human gender. Biologically there is no third or fourth gender; there is no in-between; although there are endless permutations, deprivations and elaborations on that duality. For Catholics we have certainty, from Revelation (more Tradition and magisterium than Scripture), that Mary was conceived immaculate while the rest of us were conceived in the state of sin. That is a hard binary that we hold with serene certainty from Faith. The gay/straight binary has no evidence from science: go gay gene, or hormonal combination or neurological pattern.  It is more like a religious conviction, central to the entire way of life of cultural liberalism. It is an unquestioned, "intuitive" but really socialized dogma.

Interestingly, the emergent transgender ideology is contradictory of this gay belief. The later is premised upon both the sexual and the gender binary: a gay man is a man attracted to men; he is not a woman; not a third gender. But the transgender critique deconstructs gender itself so that it becomes fluid and masculinity/femininity become themselves fungible and self-constructed. Transgenderism is a contradiction of gay and feminist viewpoints.

So, by this narrative one is essentially, constitutively, inherently, naturally, innocently gay or straight. A homophobic society and Church, however, shame you as perverted so you repress your true self and your deepest longings for intimacy and sexual satisfaction. This is toxic and pathological. Liberation comes when you acknowledge your true identity; you renounce homophobia; you publicly declare your true identity; you renounce shame; you move out of loneliness; you declare the liberation of sex from marriage and the  moral equivalence of homo and hetero practice; and you join a community of value/ belief in which you find dignity.

In this view, the greatest, most powerful and enduring homophobe is the Catholic Church which insists on anchoring sex in fruitful marriage. And the worst of the worst is John Paul II with his Theology of the Body. Pope Francis is appreciated as gay-friendly in his elevation of James Martin and a series of similar thinking cardinals and bishops; but he is a huge disappointment in that he has left unchanged the Church's teaching.

The second narrative, more congenial to the traditional mind, is less simple, more dense, obscure, mysterious and psychological. It sees human sexuality, (in contrast to the fixed instincts of animals) emerging in puberty after a dozen years of life experience, as fluid, malleable  and influenced by nurture, personal history, formation and culture. 

The Catholic Catechism is properly agnostic and humble on the origins of homosexuality: "its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." But it is not like we know nothing of the environmental factors that contribute to it. A significant survey of research published a few years ago made a big impact because it was headed by a gay activist but concluded that nature accounts for about 30% and nurture the other 70% of homosexuality. This troubled the gay community and damaged the "born that way" doctrine.

In this view sexuality, like so many human activities and propensities, is rooted in a biological tendency but elaborated by experience, formation, and habit. For example, addictions (such as alcohol) have a biological base but must be triggered and then developed by environmental factors. One is not "born a drunk" but clearly a prior natural tendency is there. Furthermore, in the human, sex is not a stand alone impulse but intrinsically enmeshed with emotional, social, intellectual, moral, and spiritual dynamics. Sex can be infused by anger, fear, detachment, loneliness, affection, reverence, and an entire universe of cognitive, moral and religious values. 

Consider the range of human sexuality, from the sublime to the ridiculous: faithful monogamy, sadism/masochism, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy/polyandry, consecrated virginity, priestly celibacy, pornography/masturbation. To say one is born with these conditions is ridiculous on the face of it. Clearly nurture contributes to all of them. It is remarkable that only "gay" is posited as a fixed "orientation" (a word appropriate for the first, not the second narrative). A number of circumstances contribute to same-sex attraction: smothering or distant parent, troubled peer relations, abuse, poor body image, sexual abuse, and low gender self-esteem. Some or all of these can be present as there is great diversity and no rigid model.

And so there are two stages in this journey: first into homosexuality and later into gay identity. At adolescence the youth discovers (does not chose) sexual attractions. These are obscure to him but are clearly influenced by his unique personal history. These attractions vary in depth and intensity. They are part of a vastly complex, dense personality of emotions, beliefs, values, habits, longings, needs and aspirations. They operate also within a complex web of communal/social relationships. The reception of ones sexual inclinations is just that: receptive. But then they find a place in the unique and symphonic life pattern of the individual.

The attainment of a gay identity, however, is an entirely separate operation. This is a choice: an intellectual and moral judgment, a determination of personal identity, an event, and a participation in a community of meaning and value (actually, a religion.)

There being a broad variety of ways of expressing/restraining homosexuality, the "gay" option is quite specific and entirely distinctive as an aspect of post-contraceptive cultural liberalism. To become gay the homosexual: asserts the moral goodness of sterile, non-unitive sex and the separation of sexuality from fruitfulness; decides to deeply, personally identify with gay actions, relationships and culture; renounce shame associated with it; publicly proclaim this view to renounce the homosexuality of society and the Catholic Church; and join a community of value and a moral/social crusade. 

The attainment of gay  identity is not an indeliberate unfolding of sexual feelings as occurs in adolescence; nor is it the final liberation of the always-gay victim from homophobic repression. No! It is an event; a decision; a choice of identity, purpose, and community.

Case Study

Bud, 50 years old, modestly successful, comfortable financially, practicing Catholic, father of four  grown children is apparently happy in a marriage of 25 years. He comes out as gay, leaves his wife, and takes an amorous partner. What happened? 

By the first narrative he finally accepted who he really was all along; he broke free from the repression of internalized homophobia; freed himself from guilt; and was liberated to be himself at last. 

By the second narrative, it is less clear, more mysterious, quite dramatic. Prior to this he was homosexual but not gay. He may have been chaste, or indulged in periodic encounters, or lived a double life. He may have suffered a sexual addiction as a result of habitual pornography or anonymous sex or ongoing relationships. The thing is this: at the age of 50 the "interior form" of his life, in all its complexity (family, sex, career, friends, hobbies, faith, solitude) has fallen apart. He has "converted" to another pattern of life. 

This move is not a final liberation of what has been repressed all these years; it is not an  inevitable and conclusive culmination. Rather, it is a drastic change of life. Clearly he has suffered a crisis, possibly in this case the famed midlife crisis. The meanings, habits, intentions and comforts that held him together have fallen apart. This may have been building incrementally for many years: loss of interest in career, dryness in marriage, monotony in prayer, distant friendship, and an empty nest that diminishes his paternal mission. It is not just the inexorability of his sexual impulses; it is much more and much deeper. It is a pervasive loneliness that nothing seems to touch. It is an internal unrest, an agitation, a perpetual and inexpressible sadness. 

To make this conversion he needs the availability of a gay community, if only virtually by the internet.  By  participating in this group he feels a sense of belonging he has long lacked; he anticipates an intimacy, physical but mostly emotional, that he has long craved; he expects a sense of honor to replace the shame and guilt that has plagued him quietly. 

His becoming gay, at the age of 50 or 15, is like when someone becomes a gang member, or monk, or communist, or Islamic terrorist. It is a move into identity, intimacy, purpose, meaning and community. It is a desperate surge into a new life to relieve the shame and loneliness and find belonging, meaning and intimacy.

Conclusion

Homosexuality flows from emotional agony. It is an unwelcome affliction, a severe cross, and if endured patiently and generously is an occasion of holiness. The gay posture is a rejection of shame and loneliness; it is a desperate, but sadly futile, grasping for intimacy, belonging and meaning. 

Confession of a Quietist

At the age of 75 I am finally acknowledging and accepting what I have always been...I am out of the closet...I am a Quietest.

Quietism was condemned by the Catholic Church just before 1700 as an unbalanced preference for contemplation over meditation, for the prayer of quiet over vocal prayer, and an excessive passivity in neglect of acts of piety and charity. It may have been something of a strawman as no serious Catholic thinker was so excessive in advocating passivity. But it can be understood as a tendency in spirituality and seen in opposition to activism. We might imagine a scale in which the 0 is the passivity of a rock and 10 a workaholic mania of hyperactivity. I am probably a 3. 

I am far from a certifiably heretical quietist. My contemplative dimension is real but not nearly as deep as I would like. I am drawn to meditation, theological reflection-conversation-argument, the performance of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and fierce loyalty to institutions of family, Church, school, and other. 

But I am not an activist. More than that: I am an anti-activist. I detest social justice campaigns in their messianic pretensions:  end war, inequality, hunger, racism, bullying, tribal hatreds. I dislike do-gooders, crusaders, and reformers in their traits of indignation, righteousness, and moral superiority.

Philosophically I believe evil and suffering are intractably constructive of reality after the Fall. Yes we must renounce it, resist it, overcome it with good...but we also must endure it. We cannot remove it. Christ will do that when he returns. Until then our greatest weapon is not human agency but prayer, trust, endurance, patience, forgiveness, and deep serenity. "Only the dead have seen the end of war." I too believe that the dividing line between good and evil goes through every human heart.

Psychologically I have always had a relatively low sense of agency. When graduation speakers tell the young they can do whatever they want and become whatever they desire I want to vomit. As a teacher I often felt out of control in the classroom. In my personal life I have an entire thought and emotion world I have never fully controlled. In my management career I developed the "Laracy Law of Inverse Consequences": the greater your effort, the worse the consequences; the better the consequence, the less was your effort," I was not until midlife that I really discovered the 12 steps and I was elated with the very first: "Admitted I was powerless over my -------." For me the first step into sanity and sobriety is the acknowledgment of powerlessness and the need for help from Higher Power and the brothers and sisters.

Temperamentally I am inclined to reception, waiting and trust more than to action. We hear much of the "fight or flight" responses. I am different, I am an opossum: faced with danger, crisis, confusion and violence I do not fly and I do not fight! Rather, by instinct rather than deliberation, I become internally quiet, still, sober, attentive, reflective. I have actually surprised myself, especially in my work career: "This is weird: things are SO chaotic and I am so calm." This has served me well but I do not recommend it to others, especially when swift action is required.

A jogger in the Rockies was attacked by a ferocious grizzly bear. He was being slashed brutally and decided to strike at the bea'rs nose as he understood that might shock him. But it aroused the bear all the more. He than decided to go passive and inert, like an opossum, and fall to the ground. As he hit the ground there was a noise in the nearby bushes. The bear was startled and ran away. The jogger, an evangelical, believed the noise was angelic activity. I agree. I also agreed with his second strategy.

Action, agency, achievement, effort...OVERRATED!

 Reception, gratitude, surrender, trust...UNDERRATED!

Many agree with the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I go further:  "If it is broke, don't fix it. Leave it alone and it will probably fix itself." I have found that an old water pipe that is leaking will, if left alone for a while, fix itself somehow. Yes, this does work, if not all the time.

In my work with women in our residences I may receive 10 complaints a day: Karen is off her meds; Jane walked on the wet floor; Mary took my sub sandwich; someone is getting into my room and rearranging my underwear; we are out of milk; the dishwasher is broken; and so forth. My approach: I systemically ignore them all. I look the complainant kindly in the eyes; slowly nod my head; sincerely affirm their feelings and concern; and assure them I will address it. And then I forget about it. Like the priest forgets your sins after you leave the confessional. My experience: at least 9 of the 10 go away on their own. When I get the same complaint a third time, I decide to address it...the next day.

This works very well. You conserve your energy and attention. You maintain a serenity that becomes contagious. Nine of the ten self-resolve and you eventually get to that tenth with enough time to avert disaster.

You can see why I have an aversion to the entirely of modernity as technological control, as social engineering, as public policy, as bureaucracy. In my 25 years in supervision at UPS, the "brown machine", the very epitome of industrial engineering, I was a complete misfit. It was a miracle I survived. A co-worker once described me as the most undervalued supervisor.

 I was and I am a stranger in a strange land. Being a quietest in the world of activists is worse than being an introvert in a world of extroverts, or a Catholic among pagans. You are an outlier, an reject, a pariah. You are the most undervalued, ignored and marginalized of victims.

In "confessing" my quietism I am acknowledging a weakness, a disinclination to swift action, an inordinate passivity, often enough, in the face of challenges. But honestly, I am not really ashamed. Among my very favorite spiritual guides  are St Francis de Sales and de Caussade, who lean heavily in the direction of quietism. I am more emphatically "confessing" my belief in the salvific efficacy of God's action, the primacy of receptivity and contemplation, of trust and abandonment, and the more modest and humble role of human agency.

 

Neocatechumenate: A Movement? The Way? A Way? An Itinerary of Formation? An Association? An Institutional Revolution?

 What is this strange, fascinating, powerful thing? It is unlike anything we have seen in our Church. It is not a parish, not a religious order, not monastic or mendicant, not the Knights of  Columbus. It self describes as "an itinerary of formation" imitating the original catechumenate. This is accurate, but not complete. 

A Movement?

Famously, Carmen Hernandez interrupted and corrected Pope John Paul when he described them as a movement: "We are not a movement, we are a Way!" The Pope responded: "You are a movement. You move. You are living. You are a movement." Carmen may have had a point! I would define a social or religious movement as the organized activities  of various actors to influence society in accord with a coherent set of values and beliefs. Coming of age in the 60s, these were the very air we breathed: civil rights, peace, women, labor, farmworkers, the hippie counterculture. Even more so in the Church! Vatican II, the defining Catholic event of our age, was fed by a symphony of movements: ecumenical, biblical, liturgical, social justice, return to the sources, and the entire dialogue with modernity. The Council itself bore fruit in a rich collage of new religious orders and movement, including that of Kiko and Carmen. 

Such movements have two dimensions lacking in this Way: they spring from disparate actors rather than a central, authoritative source; and they seek to influence the broader society rather than build an alternate community. So, this Way flowered from a singular source: the catechesis and communities of Kiko and Carmen. Furthermore, their objective was not to influence the broader society but to create within it a counter, alternative, even a competing society based upon the Gospel. If social/religious movements are centrifugal by intention, pushing out to change the world, then this Way is centripetal, pulling others into the orbit of their alternate world. The one is pushing outward, although from many points; the other is pulling inward, into a new society. If movements spring from a diversity of sources; this Way sprang from a single one. Carmen is right: they are not a movement in that sense.

The Way? A Way?

Internal to the community, participation is described as "walking in the Way." This probably refers to the pilgrimage walk or "Camino" to Santiago de Compostela in Spain. But it also resonates with the early Christian reference to their new life in Christ as "the Way." This usage is offensive to non-participating Catholics and tends to confirm the worst suspicion of their critics. That suspicion is: that this is superior form of Catholicism, a return to Church's pristine apostolic origins, in contrast to an inferior religion fundamentally corrupted by the Constantinian compromise.

A Catholic sees "the Way" as communion with Christ in the Church. However there are many ways to live this: a banquet of orders, associations, spiritualities. From this viewpoint, the Neocatechumenate is "a way"...indeed a very powerful and privileged way...but not for everyone and hardly "THE way."

An Itinerary of Formation?

As self-described in its statutes, it is indeed an "itinerary of formation" recalling the ancient, primitive catechumenate. It is a remarkable journey: long, patient, detailed, arduous. It can take around 25 years for the community, together, to pass all the steps. It is a creative, novel protocol even as it draws deeply from Christian roots. The entire process has about it the mark of grace and genius. It is not merely an itinerary, however, since that suggests the end is deeper immersion in one's baptism and participation in the contemporary, actual Church. A mere itinerary suggests a temporary and terminal process, however long, which returns the participant to ordinary Church life with enriched, deepened faith.  But that is not what happens. The actual end game is more than that: it is to create a new association which will eventually effect an institutional revolution of the parish and Church.

Association?

The statues are insistent that this is an itinerary, a Way, and NOT an association. Yet, it clearly is, in common sense terms, an association. It is not clear to me why they so resist this word. It is understandable that they would resist being juridically identified as a formal association of the faithful as that would entail ecclesiastical regulation and supervision. They prefer their independence as well as an informal, organic, natural and non-institutionalized style.  An association is merely the organization of people for a common purpose. Here we clearly see such. And the goal includes such an itinerary but goes well beyond that. The goal is to create permanent communities, or associations, in a shared life of faith around the tripod of Word, Eucharist and fellowship. This is decidedly not a temporary, terminal period of education or formation as in a school or internship. It is perpetual. The participant remain in association with each other in their shared religious practices for their lifetimes. 

It is a distinct,  but dependent organization with its own form, goals, and leadership. It is distinct from the broader Church, but enclosed within its sacramental economy and theological self-understanding.

Contrast: Spanish and Italian Associations/Movements

Compare it with two other important Spanish (one by way of Mexico) associations: Opus Dei and the Legionnaires of Christ. All three show identical traits of Spanish spirituality. They are militantly reactionary against a broader culture viewed as hostile to the Gospel. They spring from charismatic founders. They are deeply conservative and orthodox theologically. They display an exceptional vigor, energy and passion. They are centripetal rather than centrifugal: not seeking to change the world as much as to develop and expand their own alternate society.  

This Way contrasts sharply from the other two which very closely resemble each other. Demographically it draws from people on the margins, the poor, those in crisis. By contrast the other two appeal to more affluent, educated and well-socialized Catholics. More significantly, the other two are basically rearrangements of entirely standard, mainline Tridentine Catholicism. The Way is something different: a novel, creative gestalt of various Catholic elements into something deeply Catholic but quite distinctive.

Nevertheless, the three share the intensity,  fire, passion, and rigor that we know from Ignatius, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, the Inquisition, and the fratricidal war. 

Let us contrast them, with a broad brush, the influential movement/associations our of Italy. Communion and Liberation, Focolare and  differ among themselves but share an Italian quality different from their Spanish cousins. Far from being defensive, adverse, suspicious of the broader culture, they radiate a Renaissance-like confidence, even superiority, in regard to culture, art and morals. Recall: Italy gave us Dante, Michelangelo, the Vatican itself. These Italians are comfortable in the world, openminded, permeable, dialogic, trusting. Their energies are largely centrifugal, reaching out to those beyond their boundaries. This contrasts with the centripetal, counter-culture, Christ-against-culture dynamics of the Spanish associations.

Institutional Revolution

It's Spanish siblings, Opus Dei and the Legionnaires, construct an association within the Church but along the side of the ordinary parish/diocese paradigm. They do not directly challenge that model, but operate separately in their own realm. This Way is quite different. It works only with the permission and collaboration of the bishop and pastor so it is not a separate organization. But its end game is breath-takingly radical even if concealed: the creation of a new institutional Church as a "community of small communities." Implicit in its practice is a new, disestablished, fluid, prophetic Church of small communities like the pre-Constantinian Church. It does not, of course, state this publicly. It deliberately disguises itself as no more than an itinerary of formation as if it were preparing active laymen to serve the current Church. But it is really revolutionary. Our mainline clergy are not stupid: they sense that this is an emergent Church in competition with the establishment that they serve and so they understandably resent it. 

Flawlessly orthodox theologically and deferential to episcopal authority, this Way is arguably the most revolutionary movement in the Church. It anticipates a post-Christendom society, a Church that could function and flourish, resiliently, in poverty and persecution, in a dystopian world like Communist China or pagan Rome. 

Conclusion

This powerful, promising, fascinating phenomenon is not a movement as its dynamics are centripetal rather than centrifugal. It is a Way, but not THE Way. It is an impressive, patient, profound itinerary of formation and yet so much more. It clearly is an association, in the common sense of the term, if it resists a canonical, juridical definition as such. It is a radical, new model of Church as small and counter-cultural, preparing for a world gone dystopian. It lives in tense, troubled union with the Church it hopes to renew and redeem if our world continues on its road to peridition.

 

Guns and Holy Innocents

In a New York minute I would approve a ban on assault weapons, lifting of legal age for purchase, red flag laws, stronger screening for license, crackdown on illegal sales...and a litany of similar measures. I am pro gun-control. On this I am a blue state liberal. 

I am a product of my culture. Our country has a gun culture and a no-gun culture. I am a member of the later. I have never shot or even held a gun. I never will. I do not like them. Guns are for police, soldiers, mobsters, terrorists and cowboys. I see them in the movies. Not part of my lived world. 

But for me this is not a religiously-held, absolute moral dogma. It is merely a prudential policy calculation. We Catholics have more moral absolutes than anyone: abortion, torture, contraception, targeting of civilians and so on. Guns is not one of them. Gun law is a pragmatic calculation of consequences: like tax rates, health policy, immigration law, or capital punishment. We can calmly disagree on this one. My faith does not rule on this one.

In our late-Protestant USA two opposing groups are doctrinaire, fanatical, religious on guns. Progressives are absolutist on the messianic role of the State in controlling guns and violence. They see the gun lobby as pure evil. On the other side, of course, are the 2nd Amendment fanatics for whom the right to bear arms  is absolutely sacred, the very foundation of personal autonomy and identity. Much like the abortion issue, both sides have maybe 20% of our population with the remainder at some level of ambivalence. Their exaggerated passions mutually inflame each other so there is no place for negotiation or compromise: it is like Eastern Ukraine right now...a standoff with neither winning and neither capitulating. As a Catholic I will not choose to die on this hill...for either side.

Good control measures will save lives, but will not solve the problem. Perhaps they would eliminate 20% of gun deaths. They are a significant part of the solution, but not full salvation. There are deeper problems: an overall violent culture, un-fathered and therefore unhinged young men, social media, breakdown  of families and communities, political extremism, and Yes...a falling away from faith, Church and God.

Many of the proposals, from the left and the right both, would help: control measures, as well as efforts to harden our schools against assault. In red communities it might help to allow a handful of the school staff to carry pistols if they have grown up with guns; that makes less sense in Newark or Jersey City. But we make little progress even in common sense measures because the two opposed "gun religions" so inflame each other. I blame the progressives as much as the NRA: when our President comes out attacking and demonizing the gun lobby he makes matters worse.

In the face of pure evil, unbearable suffering and tragedy like the recent Texas suffering, what do we all do? We turn to our deepest religious convictions. This is multiplied when the tragedy involves the little ones, the innocents. Our fierce paternal and maternal instincts are set afire. When one group clings to guns for security/identity and the other insists that the state legislate to protect us, we have a calamity.

The blame game is the worst thing. How futile it is to blame Texas gun laws, the police reaction, the failure to detect the psychotic killer, the faulty school security system. The power of evil...pervasive, perpetual, inexorable...will endure until our Lord returns in glory.

Just as bad is to respond with a political crusade. We know that important decisions should never be made in a state of high emotion: anger, grief, anxiety, sorrow. It is best to wait. To be still. To patiently gather information. To resist the impulse to control, to engineer, to save through our weak efforts.  

As mentioned above, I myself am blue on this issue, but not in a religious way. I am sober and cerebral about it. I am passionate, and fire-engine red, on the issues that engage me: the innocent and powerless unborn, our religious freedoms, and the nature of sex-marriage-family. Who are my allies in this fight? The gun-toting, Nascar-watching, pick-up-driving, Jesus-preaching rednecks! I am not certifiably a "deplorable" (cannot vote for the Donald), but I am their best friend on what matters. I become a split personality: in my intellect blue, in my heart flaming red.

Before the slaughter of the Texas innocents, I am disinclined to rally for or against guns. Immune to the activist compulsion, the urge "to do something", I become calm and collapse into my Catholic faith.

- With everyone, I grieve for the families in their inconceivable pain.

- I ponder that human life is so fragile, so uncontrollable, so destined for death

- I surrender the little ones and their families to the Providence of God.

- I ponder the Mystery of the Holy Innocents, those tiny babes in Bethlehem whose absurd death at the hands of Herod was part of the Father's plan for our redemption by his Son. I ponder all the Innocents throughout history who were slaughtered by violent hands. This includes the unborn. I recall that they have passed the test that is this life and live eternally in the Trinity.

- I am quiet and I remember:  "Be still and know that I am God." 

 

The Admirable, Perplexing and Revolutionary Eucharistic Practice of the Neocatechumenate

 Admirable

The Neocatechumenal Way organizes its entire week around the Eucharist. They celebrate in small communities weekly on Saturday evening, the vigil mass. This is a deeply counter-cultural practice. Consider: in our society Saturday evening is the fun night: for dinner out, party with family or friends, movie time.  Not for the Neocats: they gather to worship, they dress for the occasion, they give the entire evening. Additionally they prepare throughout the week. A small group will gather to "prepare the Word,"  traveling, sometimes a real distance, to ponder the scriptural readings and compose short admonitions or exhortations to introduce the readings. These may be a few sentences: an immense exertion of energy for a very small, but precious product, that hardly meets our American standards for efficiency. Others prepare by baking the bread (no simple task), purchasing wine and flowers for the altar. A lot of time and energy go into preparation. 

I admire this zeal and attention, but was unable to participate as it is  discordant with my own traditional Eucharistic sensibility. For me the Eucharist is a sacred event, prepared for me by the Church, in which I join in a receptive mode. It is NOT something I do; it is not my activity; it is my receptivity. This is not dull passivity, but an eagerness to listen, surrender, receive, respond. I walk into a sacred space and time and I absorb the grace. So I found within myself a powerful disinclination to prepare in any way. 

Perplexing

The understanding and practice of this Eucharist is discordant with Catholic tradition in two striking ways: sacrifice and the abiding physical Eucharistic presence.

Sacrifice.  I vividly recall our catechist saying the Eucharist is NOT a sacrifice. I questioned it because it is a clear contradiction of Catholic teaching. But I understand what they meant. In Kiko's catechesis, religion and sacrifice are understood in the Barthian sense of an effort to manipulate the deity. Given that understanding, of course, the mass is not our effort to control God, but His gracious intervention in saving us. In that context the statement is acceptable. But that is not the Catholic understanding of the word sacrifice. We have always used the term, not in contrast to pagan ritual, but in continuity with Old Testament temple sacrifice as received from Moses and a genuine communion with God. Temple sacrifice was itself a valid ritual, but preparatory for the perfect sacrifice on Calvary. Indeed, the renunciation of ritual sacrifice was a major part of the Protestant Reformation.

And so, there is a blind spot here. In other ways, Kiko has pierced deeply into the Hebraic roots of our faith. But here we see a Marcionite tendency, a failure to see Christ already in the many Old Testament passages about sacrifice. I understand that this liturgical approach was more the work of Carmen Hernandez, the co-founder, than Kiko himself. It lacks the spiritual depth, spark and precision that distinguishes Kiko in his music, icons, catechesis, and entire itinerary of formation. 

Carmen was herself trained in theology unlike Kiko, an artist, musician, and spiritual genius. Their liturgical practice reflects the fashion of their time, Vatican II, with the shift away from sacrifice, solemnity, silence, Latin, and the sacred towards a model of the Passover Seder, a meal, more informal and fraternal and familial, with some distance from the Temple ritual. 

So what we find is: a reverent but more relaxed, informal, fraternal atmosphere; no silence at all; no kneeling at all; location outside of consecrated Church and the perpetual Eucharistic presence; altar (of sacrifice) is replaced by the (banquet) table; sitting replaces kneeling/standing as posture of reception of communion.  To be sure there is, here, faith, devotion, worship, energy and love for Christ. But it is a different form: a loss of the sacrificial, the solemn, the sacred, the contemplative. It is a more active rite, with admonitions, echoes, lively songs, but a diminishment of the quiet, the receptive, the mysterious. It reflects, in short, the problematic tendencies of the post-Vatican II liturgical movement.

Enduring Physical Presence.  The historical direction of Catholic Eucharistic devotion has been an increased devotion to the presence of Christ, body and soul, humanity and divinity, in the physical Eucharist, in the tabernacle after the liturgical celebration. Along with devotion to Mary/saints and docility to the Magisterium,  this is THE distinguishing dimension of Catholic worship. It characterizes virtually all the saints, doctors and magisterial teaching. It informed in an essential manner baroque, counter-reformation and recent Catholicism. 

This sensibility is markedly absent from this new Way. Genuflection toward the tabernacle is largely absent when they do gather in Church. The tabernacle itself, and the Church itself as a sacred place, is entirely foreign to their normal liturgies which occur in smaller rooms around the parish complex. On the rare occasions that the communities gather together in the Church there is a loud, carnival atmosphere: children roaming around, adults talking together, a dim of noise, lots of commotion. This is not the sacred space so treasured in Catholic practice. Practice of quiet adoration or benediction of the Blessed Sacrament does not seem to be a common practice. 

Although this is not articulated theologically, their liturgical practice implies a non-Catholic, Lutheran approach whereby Christ is seen as really, not just symbolically or even spiritually present, during the celebration from the consecration through communion but then disembodies from the species afterwards. There is no enduring, actual presence. To my knowledge they do not repose the unconsumed Body. The nature of the bread used (a large, dry, crumbly loaf) requires full consumption and and hardly lends itself to reposition or adoration. Within the logic of their liturgy, there would never be reposition of the sacrament, adoration, benediction or a durable presence.

Recently I was reading some of St. Charles de Focauld, a huge influence on Kiko and his immersion with the Gypsies and was struck by the intense, profound devotion of Charles to the Eucharistic presence. I am surprised that that is not reflected in any consistent or insistent manner in Kiko's catechesis. 

They self-describe as "The Way." This seems to be a reference both to the early Christian self-description and the famous "Camino" or "way" of pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostella in Spain. This important word suggests the Christian life as a pilgrimage, a constant movement forward into the Kingdom of God. This is of course entirely valid, but it needs to be complemented by another element essential to Catholic life: that of stability, continuity, permanence. The Eucharistic presence, as physical and enduring, in every parish Church, is the heart and soul of Catholic life. That sacred building becomes the center of life that flows out of and into it. Each Catholic, anywhere in the world, normally situates himself in a posture towards the local, parochial Church. This is normal Catholicism. The practice of this Way is an implicit but clear rejection of this model. As in so many reforms, we find here the desire to return to the pre-Constantinian Church which was fluid, mobile, pilgrim-like, and not established in a permanent, geographical manner. 

Kiko, though not as explicitly as some reformers, leans to an "originalism" that looks negatively on Church developments from Constantine on. And so their convivences often are held in hotels or centers rather than the parish itself. The Church  building itself is incidental as the tripod of Eucharist-Word-community does not depend upon it. It seems to be the model for a Church that is entirely disestablished and repressed, as in ancient Rome or China today. So it is strikingly discordant with classical Catholicism as we have received it.

Revolutionary

The Novus Ordo, the current shape of Catholic Eucharist, is a development out of the Tridentine rite. The Neocat liturgy is a revolution, a drastic transformation, really a new form or gestalt.

The core shape of the Eucharist is simple: the "take...eat...in memory of me." This in adoration of Christ's incarnation in his body and blood. This in context of reception of the Word. Eucharist is at once a meal, founded in the Last Super, echoing the Passover Seder, as it is a fulfillment of the temple sacrifice. It is both. The Tridentine ritual emphasizes the sacred, sacrificial, solemn nature of the act. The Novus Ordo was a step toward the meal aspect. But with this Way we find an extreme expression of the meal model with no remnant of the sacrificial-sacred-formal. It is a revolution!

This Way is flawlessly orthodox in its theology: there is here no denial of transubstantiation. But in restoring the banquet dimension and thoroughly abandoning the sacrificial-sacral or "temple" aspect it is startlingly discontinuous with centuries of Catholic worship. 

In the sumptuous smorgasboard  that is Catholic worship there are a wide variety of forms: ordinary parish mass, the Lain rite, the new "Anglican" ordinariate, high solemn mass with incense and chant...not to mentions Eastern rites and even the Coptic and Orthodox that are recognized as valid sacramentally. Since the Vatican has approved this new form, I accept that it is orthodox, valid and licit. But it is revolutionary!

The Problem

An authentic, orthodox, and fervent expression of Catholic faith, this Way operates, nevertheless,  practically and institutionally, in separation from normal, actual Catholic life. It is not a cult; but it is cult-like. It operates within its own structures with little interaction with the broader Church. It is a self-enclosed universe of cultic practices...study of the Word, Eucharist, convivences, pilgrimages (which often do connect with the broader Church as at World Youth Days), and an itinerary of steps over several decades...that draw upon Catholic resources but largely ignore the actual, institutional, mostly parochial Church of the present. 

This is a headache for the clergy and episcopacy. The unity of the Church is rooted in participation in the Eucharist. If you have within the one Church different groups with distinct liturgical practices you have in effect different Churches. In my location (Jersey City) you might have the parish, and a Neocat community and a Latin mass group. Particularly sensitive is the issue of the Easter Vigil. The two alternate communities greatly treasure their distinctive celebrations of this high point of the liturgical year; but the pastor rightly intends for this central event to unite the entire parish. This is a problem! Clearly there is a need to integrate this movement into the broader Church in a way that preserves its charism.

It is noteworthy that Pope Francis has suppressed the Latin community but indulges this Way. To be consistent he should be sterner with the later which is more dissonant with the Novus Ordo. There are several reasons for this. There is  mutual distrust and much disgust between this pontiff and the Latin community which is highly critical of him theologically. He views them as exemplary of the rigidity, clericalism and formalism he so despises; in contrast to the creativity and innovation of Kiko. Even more important, this Way is energetic in reaching out to the margins, the poor, and those in crisis. In general the lay renewal movements attract the educated, affluent and well-connected: Opus Dei, Legionnaires, Communion and Liberation, and Charismatic Renewal. Kiko started with the Gypsies and has an urgent love for the low--status, low-brow, low-income folk. It should be added that Kiko's charm, charism, filial loyalty and shrewd diplomacy have ingratiated himself with the Vatican, in strongest contrast with the embattled Latins.

In 2005 Cardinal Arinze, on behalf of Pope Benedict, gave the Kiko and Carmen specific directions to pull their practice closer to the norm. In particular, they directed that once monthly they join the ordinary parish mass on a Sunday. This struck me at the time as a prudent, moderate step towards the needed integration practice. Apparently this directive has been entirely ignored: neither retracted nor implemented. I have been told that their Saturday night liturgies are open to the parish so this requirement is somehow satisfied. In fact, the liturgies are of their nature inclusive and self-enclosed and it is highly improbable that any non-participant parishioner would attend or feel comfortable in doing so. This  has struck me as an mistaken obstinance in a separatist direction.

The Future

Two inevitable and relatively immanent developments on our horizon promise to effect the relationship between this association and the broader Church: the death of Kiko and the increasing influence of Neocat priests within the diocese.

Kiko, now aged 83, will not be here forever. His electric charisma places him, in my view, with the very greatest, most creative, influential saints like Francis, Ignatius, Benedict and Dominic. The power flows directly from him, through his responsibles and catechists into the communities. With his eventual demise there will be no one to fill his shoes and his movement will be institutionalized. Due to his extraordinary influence, this Way has been a lay movement, with clergy sidelined regarding teaching but available always for the sacraments. This may change: without Kiko the lay leaders may cede more influence to the priests.

This is even more likely since these same priests will be exercising greater influence within each diocese. This Saturday our Archdiocese of Newark will ordain 5 men, 4 of them from this Way. In recent years, they have probably averaged close to 50% of our ordinations. Clearly they are destined for much influence in the Archdiocese.  Interestingly, they are trained theologically in our diocesan seminary but receive their personal/spiritual formation in their own seminaries. So they have a foot in both worlds: their Way and the broader Church. Given their mainstream theological training, their pastoral responsibility for the broader institutional Church, and their solidarity with other priests, they should be motivated to reconcile the two poles. 

Conclusion

The sect-like tendency of this liturgy springs from deeper spiritual roots: Kiko/Carmen show an extreme, unbalanced negativity in regard to: First, natural religion which is viewed as a sinful effort to manipulate God, void of good values. Thus their rejection of sacrifice. Second, the post-Constantinian Church which they see, as did the Reformers, as a corruption of the original, innocent simplicity of the apostolic Church. Third, our society/culture is seen as a godless kingdom of darkness, bereft of redeeming values. This is a striking contrast with the more positive attitude of Vatican II and the mainline Church since WWII. And lastly, the current institutional Church, including the parish as we know it,  is seen as historically corrupted and inadequately renunciatory of the world. 

(Aside: this pronounced negativity may have personal roots: Kiko experienced in his youth a fall into disbelief and a nihilistic temptation to despair and suicide; Carmen seems to have been traumatized by a rejection from an order of missionary sisters.)

Notwithstanding this weakness, this Way is the most powerful, promising stream of Catholic renewal due to it's engagement with the Word, it's patient and extended itinerary of formation, its strong communal life, its probing spiritual exercises, and its fierce spirit. It's singular weakness is its Eucharistic practice with its separatist propensity and its discontinuity with Catholic practice and understanding. It is in need of renewal in these last two dimensions. 

It strongly resembles in main form the Charismatic Renewal: centering in the personal encounter with Jesus Christ, profound engagement with the Word, evocation of the Holy Spirit, strong communities of spiritual intimacy, heightened sense of the viciousness of the world and the devil and the weakness of the flesh, basic fidelity to the Church, a rich and novel variety of spiritual exercises and activities, a receptivity to what is best in the Protestant traditions, and a lively spirit of song-filled praise. This Way is if anything even more rigorous, intense and sustained. But the Charismatic Renewal did not make the mistake of tampering with the Eucharist. Their liturgy is that of the mainstream Church, with the addition of praise-and-worship music, more passionate preaching, and sometimes words of prophesy after communion. Their distinctive practice is the prayer meeting which demonstrates the same strengths as does Kiko's Way:  passionate praise especially in lively music, eager reception of the Word, personal witness and testimonies, and fellowship. It would be promising if this Way could  reconfigure their strong elements, around the Tripod, with a more vigorously Catholic practice of the Eucharist.

Let us pray that this Way continue to flourish, within the Church, in the Spirit of the Spanish mystics, with all its spiritual gifts, priestly vocations, large families, countercultural witness, and lives of quiet, humble, Nazareth-like adoration! And that their practice of the Eucharist may  draw even more deeply from its historic Catholic roots and engage synergistically with the broader Church.

Ascension Thursday

No thanks, NJ bishops, with all due respect: I will NOT be celebrating Ascension Thursday on Sunday. To do so is an incoherence. For 75 years I have thought, practiced and taught the beautiful liturgical pattern: Easter season as 50 days, 40 of Resurrection appearances, 10 day wait for Pentecost. You want to change it to 43 and 7? No thanks!

This Thursday I will attend a Tridentine Latin mass for the Ascension. I will find a valid, licit way to continue this tradition: in another diocese, or an Eastern rite church, or something.

This is another capitulation of our hierarchy to the soft, bourgeois, indulgent, secularizing, workaholic-consumerist Spirit of the Age. In the compulsion to  accommodate, our bishops dilute, sweeten, and finally spoil our faith, making it a thin, anemic, insipid compromise.

This is not the worst decision of our apostolic shepherds in the age of  Francis. Actually it does not make the top ten of my most disheartening, saddening actions. Here is my list:

10. Closing of the Churches and suspension of the sacraments in a hysteria over the Virus and submission to the bio-techno-state.

9. Unbalanced, partisan advocacy by our "populist" Pope for the values of the Western elites (borders, global warming) along with a contempt for countervailing values of emergent populist movements including the pro-life alliance in the USA of Evangelicals-Catholics.

8. Relentless, obsessive harangue by the Vatican against clericalism, formalism and rigidity in a Church and a world desperately in need of continuity, rigor and form.

7. Continued tolerance for episcopal sexual predators, especially allowance of McCarrick's high public profile after his censure by Pope Benedict.

6.The weakness of our American bishops in confronting pro-abortion Catholic politicians exemplified in McCarrick's distortion of the famous Ratzinger letter on refusing communion to the obstinate. 

5. Suppression of the Latin mass.

4. Vatican encouragement of the LGBTQ agenda by elevation of James Martin S.J. and appointment of cardinals like Joseph Tobin and Blase Cupich.

3. Heavy-handed intrusion into the Catechism of an absolute ban on the death penalty without episcopal consultation and in defiance of a clear, ancient, natural law teaching that it is a prudential decision.

2. Renunciation of the teaching of John Paul II on sexuality shown in the destruction of the John Paul II Institute on the Family in Rome.

1. Abandoning the persecuted Chinese Church into the hands of the Communists. 

If you told me ten years ago about the imminent decline of the hierarchy into confusion and polarization I would have said you were hallucinating. If the pontificate of John Paul was the joyous mysteries, then that of Benedict was the luminous; and Francis the sorrowful; so we wait for the glorious.

What do I do as I find myself in a Church with leadership that is enfeebled and disoriented? Leave the Church? I could more easily live on the moon! Go to synodality listening sessions and agitate on behalf of my views? Not a chance!

Maintaining a correct filial obedience and loyalty, but a diminished trust and affection, I find it necessary to "detach with love" from this episcopacy and papacy. I will double down on the Catholic values they are disregarding. I will pray for Cardinal Zen and the persecuted Church in China; and against the Communist persecutors and the collaboration of Cardinal Parolin. I will deepen and intensify my pursuit of chastity and encourage others in the same. I will try to support the Latin mass community,  priests and those who sustain  a balanced  traditionalism. I will cling more passionately to what has been handed down and is now despised. I will avoid indignation and discouragement. I will take strength and joy, invoking the Holy Spirit, confident that the ruler of this world has been condemned and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church!

  

Letter To Teenage Grandchildren: Brigid, Matthew, Catherine, Maggie, Marie, Tommy, Luke: (1) On Sexuality and Chastity,

It being the joy, privilege and duty of a grandfather to hand on his faith,  I will share about several pressing issues. This first letter deals with the Catholic understanding of sexuality and chastity. This may be well known to you in your Catholic education; but it bears repeating. There are so many voices today; many confused, cacophonous, false. May mine...in dialogue with your family, friends and others...echo the voice of Christ in his Church.

Sexual chastity is a most significant, precious virtue for your happiness and holiness; yet it is widely underrated, ignored, misunderstood, and even disparaged. Especially for adolescent men, nothing pulls so many away from closeness to God and the Church as failings in chastity, a habit that is very difficult for men. Women for their part have immense influence as modesty in dress, manner, speech and action inspires in men the desire for purity of heart.

(Anecdote: I was speaking on a Jersey City corner with three men and got to talking about Dave O'Brien who came every year to talk to our confirmation class about "being chaste." A black guy from the streets of Newark was intrigued and asked: "Really? Being chased? Cool! You mean being chased by the police or what?") In our culture, chastity is a word that is not used and hardly intelligible. Chastity is simply reverence for your own self in your sexuality and for that of others. It is part of fidelity to your future spouse or vocation. It is the root of moral integrity and courage. It is the path to intimacy with God.

A bit of history may help. In the 1960s, when I was myself a teen, the most profound change in human history (after Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ himself) occurred: the birth control pill was perfected and sex became torn away from having children and marriage/family. It is my view that no other invention or technology has ever changed human life so drastically! (Not the internet, not the atom bomb, not guns, not fire!) Within 10 years, over 90% of child-bearing-age women went on the pill. The sexual revolution exploded and Cultural Liberalism, as liberation of sex from marriage, very quickly became the prevailing way of life. The word "diabolic" means demonic, but etymologically means "to tear apart." In both senses, the sundering of sex from new life was profoundly diabolic.

In the midst of the turbulence, 1968, Saint Pope Paul VI restated, in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Catholic tradition on sexuality and specifically contraception. One of the great prophetic teachings in the history of the Church! The statement was explosively controversial and split the Church into two parts: those who accepted it I will call Traditional Catholics and those who rejected it I will call Catholic Liberals. In the 54 years since then the Church has seen a fierce cultural, civil war on the meaning of sexuality. Popes John Paul and Benedict were both very clear and firm in upholding the teaching of Pope Paul; Pope Francis, despite his liberal sympathies, has upheld the traditional teaching and so disappointed the expectations of liberals.

You will have to decide for yourself which view you accept.

Saint Pope Paul said that contraception ("against conception"), the act to frustrate the life-giving meaning of the sexual act, is intrinsically and always a disorder/sin because it contradicts the conjugal meaning of sexuality. "Conjugal" refers to the mystery of Marriage: that God created us male-and-female in order that we could cling to each other as one flesh. So, sex is one dimension of a Great Masterpiece, a union of man and woman that is exclusive (only one person), permanent (for ever), free (not forced in any way), and fruitful (directed to having children and other life-giving activities.). This union is so much more as well: natural, in accord with the biological order; sacramental as an encounter with Christ; prayerful as the couple open themselves together to God's presence; a "small church" and a piece of heaven on earth; a vocation that defines man and woman more than any career or profession;  a historical connection with two families going back in time and with many families still to come;  a harbor that welcomes others who are lonely and abandoned; a school in generosity, sacrifice and self-gift. The physical  act of love between a married man and woman is sacred in that it expresses this holy, wholesome union in all its dimensions (natural, sacramental, exclusive, free, permanent, life-giving, prayerful, heavenly, ecclesial, welcoming, communion with the past and future, sacrificial.)

So sex is holy and precious, even as it is fragile and dangerous. Its essential meaning is twofold: union of man/woman and open to new life. The two interpenetrate each other and enrich each other. In the joyful, generous embrace of bride and bridegroom the family is born, with God's grace, and the very foundation of society is laid. 

If this sacredness is disrespected, the result is toxicity, violence and severe damage to all involved. A good image: sexuality is like a roaring fire outside on a frigid day. If it is properly contained by an enclosing fireplace wall, it gives warmth and light to all around it. But if the boundaries are not kept, it can escape and spread widely into a forest fire and destroy everyone and everything around it. Marriage is the fireplace; sex is the fire!

So every sin of unchastity is serious, mortal. For three reasons: First it touches the mystery of the creation of new life, of an eternal soul, and so is awesome. Second, it touches the other person deeply: unlike a mere assault, a sexual violation penetrates deeply to the heart and soul of the other. It sanctifies in marriage, but desecrates outside of it, even when consensual and affectionate. Thirdly, sexuality itself is the person, male or female, in the depths of the heart and soul so that any sin there penetrates with a profound corruption.

Saint  Pope Paul predicted in Humanae Vitae that acceptance of contraception would result in great evils: disrespect for women, pornography, divorce, abortion, breakdown of the family, and a culture of promiscuity. He was exactly right: in the following decades all these evils increased immensely. This is the world you inhabit now: a contra (against)-conceptive (life-giving) society. It is not talked about, but is assumed like the air we breathe. The backup for failed contraception is, of course, abortion. This is why Biden and the Democrats insist that the Little Sisters of the Poor provide contraception and abortion: these are now seen as human rights in the new order of sex without children.

By contrast the Catholic understanding of sex as precious, beautiful and sacred,  is strict and demanding. It is such for everyone! Sex is reserved for marriage, the married are obliged to fidelity to the spouse for ever, the unmarried are called to chastity and abstinence until the actual marriage ceremony. In addition to vowed priests and religious, those who do not or cannot marry are called to practice permanent celibacy and restrain.  Needless to say, in today's society this Catholic view is widely despised.

Traditional Catholics accept this teaching; Catholic Liberals reject it. They would liberate (thus "liberal" here) sexuality from a strict connection, in every act, with procreation (new life) and would allow for intervention into the act to prevent conception for proper purposes. So, for example, a couple with a large family would be allowed birth control in light of the generous nature of their marriage. Every act need not be open to life. They argue: in fact not every such act produces life  as we know that post-menopausal women are no longer fertile, many individuals are naturally sterile, and the monthly period provides infertile periods.

The Church offers  Natural Family Planning by which a couple abstains in fertile periods to postpone childbirth in a way that does not interfere with the meaning of the act. This is based on very precise scientific information about the fertility cycle; it requires communication and mutual restrain of both spouses. It maintains the sacredness of the act of intercourse in every case. We might compare: one seeking to lose weight might exercise and diet; but it would be toxic and wrong to overeat and then purge to induce vomiting. The second of these is a violent, unnatural practice with grave addictive, toxic consequences. So it is with contraception.

As teens, there are other issues closer to your life. The liberal acceptance of contraception and tearing of sex from fruitfulness opens the door to:  sex and cohabitation before marriage,  pornography/ masturbation, homosexual activity and gay marriage.  These are all around us in the culture. You may be facing them personally now or will be soon. In a few years you may see that all your friends are living together without marriage. You may come under pressure to do the same, even from the very one you love. You will feel the widespread contempt for the Church as homophobic, condemnatory, misogynist, and hateful because of its sexual code.  Already in high school, and especially in college, you will decide for yourself if you want to follow the Traditional or the Liberal path. 

So we see a clear contradiction between the Traditional Catholic and the Catholic Liberal, precisely on the issue of sex as fruitful. The Catholic ethos, in its reverence, is challenging and demanding, for everyone, as it is ennobling. It reserves the precious gift for the holy communion in marriage of a man and woman, open to new life as God determines. The Liberal sees this view as mistaken and worse...as archaic, judgmental, condemnatory, guilt-inducing and homophobic. The liberal view leads one to a contempt of what the Church has taught for centuries: restrain, sacrifice and chastity as the roots of fidelity.

We are taught to "hate the sin, love the sinner." We judge no one. But we must judge right from wrong.   It is not kind, charitable or truthful to accept, encourage or accompany others into unchastity. A  injustice occurs when Catholic Liberals advocate the LGBTQ agenda, or coerce support of contraception, or minimize the consequences of porn/masturbation. Such is not love in truth!

It is not for us to preach to or condemn others. We do well to pray, with clear minds and tender hearts, for those who fall into habits of unchastity. Often they lack understanding of the Truth/Beauty/Goodness of sex; they are blinded by fashionable falsehoods and confused by their deep longing for love; they fail to deliberate; they do not fully consent to the wrong that seduces them. It is for us to be clear in our own understanding; to pray for the grace of chastity and fidelity; to be an example to others; and to offer always compassion and pardon in the manner of Christ himself.

With Joy I commend you, my dear grandchildren, to the influence of St. Joseph, our Blessed Mother Mary, all the saints and Jesus himself!

With much love and prayers.......Paca 

St. Charles de Foucauld: My Patron Saint of Cousins

Yesterday Charles de Foucauld was canonized by Pope Francis in the Vatican. Good day!

He is my third favorite saint. My first is St. Joseph; my second is St. John Paul II. Third is a tie: Foucauld, Solanus Casey, Mother Theresa, Elizabeth of the Trinity, and some others depending upon my mood.

Charles was a dashing, handsome Frenchmen who lost his Catholic faith, fought with the Foreign Legion, was lover and beloved of many women, and lived on the wild side.  His conversion was a big one: he threw all that intensity and passion into love of Christ and the very least. He served humbly as a manual worker and buried himself with the Bedouins of the Sahara before he was murdered. He was unknown at his death...entirely anonymous...but later his writings, when discovered, greatly influenced a number of new religious orders and notably Kiko Arguello who emulated him by living among the Gypsies of Spain.

His conversion has been attributed to his cousin Marie, a holy woman who prayed for him and eventually influenced him in his movement back to God. So I have personally designated Charles, but even more his otherwise unknown cousin Marie, as patron saints for my own cousins. 

I have 11 first cousins who are dear to me; two are deceased; their spouses number 11 also. Their children, my first-cousins-once-removed, number 36. I have one family of second cousins with whom we were close in our youth and for whom I retain an affection. 

None of my cousins are nearly as bad as Charles was in his day. So...if the prayers of cousin Marie brought him around, the prayers of Charles and Marie in heaven with my modest contribution should do marvelous things!

I Don't Like Parish Mission Statements

 They are SO annoying!

They say things like: "here injustice is overcome" or "all are welcome" or "peace, healing, kindness is found" or "the environment is protected."'

 When I see a parish mission statement I need not read it, I already know there is a weakened Catholic identity. THE GREAT THING about every single Catholic parish is that it is exactly the same, essentially, as every other one. It is the physical presence of Jesus Christ: in the tabernacle, in the Eucharistic worship, in the communion in holiness with Mary and the saints, in the sacraments,  in the reception of the Word, in fellowship and the life of charity. Go randomly into any parish and you know exactly what you will find. The differences are accidental, insignificant: the sameness is the presence of Christ. If you are Catholic you will never need a parish mission statement because you know the identity and purpose of every parish intuitively.

So what is a parish mission statement? It is: an exercise in organizational bureaucracy, agency, engineering; a marketing strategy; a feel-good, warm-and-fuzzy sentimentality; too many words; a reduction of Mystery to a fashionable formula; a gesture of bourgeois futility.

So, kind Reader, if you have a parish mission statement I don't want to talk about it.

I know I am a cranky, cantankerous, contrarian conservative! Since I am almost 75 I am allowed to be such.

Let's just get back to ordinary, garden-variety Catholicism: red-meat, high octane, undiluted, thick, unabashed, jubilant love for Christ...in His sacraments, priesthood, doctrine, commandments (including 6 and 9), liturgy, Word, truth and splendor! And his local parish with all its flaws, and without a mission statement!

The Jewish Genius and the Broadway Musical: Songs of Joy

Our tormentors demanded songs of joy:  "Sing us your songs of Zion."  Psalm 137.

Joyous songs of Zion. This phrase struck me after watching a documentary (Netflix: Broadway Musicals: a Jewish Legacy) about the amazing influence of Jewish musical geniuses on mid-twentieth century music and especially the Broadway musical.

Growing up in a working class, Catholic family in the 1950s,  our home was always alive with the Broadway music of that period: light-hearted, humorous, optimistic, catchy, affectionate, sentimental, joyful. On a tight budget for a family of nine children, my parents would nevertheless splurge at Christmas to bring us to Broadway. That music was  the air we breathed. 

I always considered myself at best a middle-brow, culturally, in many ways, especially regarding music. I don't go to the ballet or opera; don't really listen to classical music; can't even remember the names of musicians and groups (except for Sinatra, Elvis and the Beatles.) I've had a closeted inferiority complex about my taste: the musicals, glory and praise, some Gregorian/Church,  folk, and pop music like Whitney, Barbara and Cher.  But after watching the documentary, I happily realized that I have good taste: the Jewish-American corpus is populist but brilliant, wholesome, inspiring and inspired. 

George and Ira Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, George Cohan, Rogers and Hammerstein, Leonard Bernstein, Stephen Sondheim and a litany of others! Geniuses each and every one of them. Marvelously, they drew upon a rich tradition of Yiddish theatre and music as they developed a distinctively American corpus of music, integrating black gospel, jazz, blues, folk, elements of classical and a delicious buffet of sources. It was at once both Jewish and American. Cole Porter, a singular gentile outlier, allegedly determined to "write Jewish tunes" and afterwards became successful.

Much of this music was written during the Great Depression, World War II, and the genocide of the Jews. Things could hardly be worse! Yet the music is impeccably happy, radiantly  hopeful. How is this possible? I attribute it to the deep, residual Jewish faith God. 

To be sure, these Jewish composers were hardly observant Orthodox Jews: they were for the most part  assimilated, secular , and agnostic. But they were close to their Jewish roots. While they detached from religious practice and cognitive belief, their lives and music drew upon the bottomless fount of centuries of Jewish worship, suffering, faith, endurance, erudition, culture, and family life. In other words, their music in those dark times drew from the same fountain of Joy that inspired the songs that so impressed their Babylonian captors 2500 years ago. 

It is mysterious, but undeniable, that the Jewish people carry in their cultural DNA an extraordinary gift for culture: study, entertainment, finance, education, law, medicine, comedy, music, psychology, and politics. They carry a zest for life, an esprit de corps, a sense of humor, a sharpness of intellect. I guess that's what happens when you spend a few millennia in friendship with G-D.

Taking the High Road in the Culture War

"Facing the current challenges, let us take the high road."  Monsignor Desmond, homily on Saturday May 7, 2022, Ascension Church, Avon, NJ   (Anticipating the disruptions, protesting the Alito opinion,  at Churches on Mother's Day.)

Fifty years into the Culture War: it is getting worse. With the release of the Alito opinion this week, a violent hysteria has shaken the left. Many of us anticipated that the eventual demise of Roe would relocate the abortion debate to the states and bring a national calm. It doesn't look that way. Nevertheless, we do well to heed the wise words of Monsignor Desmond. Winning this war is not as important as how we wage it: with honor, dignity, respect, clarity, compassion, humility and holiness. Here is our strategy.

1. Light-hearted. We can relax. Renounce anxiety, defensiveness, heaviness! The Culture War is a big deal but not the most important thing in the world. What is more important? Our relationship with God. That is number 1. And as I grow closer to God...in gratitude, trust, joy, hope, humility, compassion, charity...I bring others with me. God is with us and we abide in him.

2. Confidence, calm, quiet strength, certainty. Whatever our failures, defeats, disappointments, we can stand in the Truth and be certain that our God is with us. The first, fundamental gift of the Risen Christ to us is Peace. This peace is super-abundant, overflowing, extravagant, inexorable, impregnable, almighty.

3. Keep moving.  I loved that phrase: Keep moving. A friend with some interest in but little knowledge of Catholicism said "What I like about your Church is that you keep moving." I don't know what she was thinking. But what I thought of is that with God we are always moving, in a steady manner, into the New: a fresh day, unexpected joys, surprising challenges, marvelous relationships, fascinating dramas.  But also: the liturgy. Every day is a new feast day; the seasons move along at a steady, measured, reassuring pace; the dance of sorrow and joy and glory and luminousness; the balance of the routine and the eventful.  So even setbacks in the Culture War can be occasions of joy and grace as we receive them in tranquil, trusting surrender to the Divine Mercy.

4. Reverence: especially for the adversary. This is perhaps the greatest moral failing of the theological and political right: the propensity to ridicule, demean, belittle the opposition. This is a strong temptation because so many of their views are simply ridiculous. But we distinguish the viewpoint from the person: the later is always received with respect. This includes the "catholic" impulse to recognize and appreciate whatever is good, true, beautiful in the position of my opponent.

5. Compassion. At my last confession my penance was: "See the wounds." I took this to mean for me to see the hurt, the suffering of those around me. Marvelous penance: maybe the best I ever received! All around me there are aching wounds. This also means seeing the wound that is expressed by the adversary, even in the mode of confusion, hysteria, anger, error, accusation. And so, when the Left speaks about misogyny, homophobia, racism, transphobia, dominance and oppression...there is real, genuine suffering there. These are real things. And the suffering is intense. Perhaps prior to engagement on the cerebral, intellectual, diagnostic level we must be sure that we receive and recognize the real suffering. 

6. Clarity.  Sober, prayerful, contemplative reflection. Empathy for the victim does not mean we must endorse his self-diagnosis. My nauseous friend is convinced he has cancer: I cannot confirm his evaluation. My anxious friend is certain he is being monitored by the FBI from our sprinkler system: his pain is real but his analysis faulty. We always return to: Hate the sin; Love the sinner. This must be also complemented by: Comfort the suffering. It is a challenging task to do all three at once. The teenage girl with an unwanted pregnancy; the young homosexual suffering shame and loneliness; the depressed executive in midlife crisis yearning for a new, younger woman; the pornography addict...These and countless others  are suffering deeply. But it is not genuine love to endorse them in sin. 

This is a marvelous time to be Catholic. Our challenges are huge. The Culture War is intensifying and will continue for decades if not centuries. We need not worry about winning this war. We need to wage it honorably, humbly, truthfully, reverently, joyfully, light-heartedly and compassionately. We need to love each other, always in truth.

Why Didn't the Disciples Recognize Jesus in His Resurrection Appearances?

 Great question! Well we really don't know. Neither Scripture nor the Church tells us. Clearly this is the kind of thing we are meant to ponder and puzzle over, open to insights from the Holy Spirit.

In this kind of a non-recognition, there may be a blockage by the disciples and/or a masking by our Lord. It is likely both. Several themes, however, spring out of the texts.

- Grief, sorrow, disappointment are all  very deep. The crucifixion was traumatizing; the disciples and women are all in emotional chaos. In a state of shock, they were incapable of "emotional or spiritual availability." Jesus would have understood that and, patiently and gently, gave them some time and space to process their grief.

-Back to "normality": Peter and the apostles went back to fishing; the disciples on the road to Emmaus were on their way...back to normality? And so, routine, habit and custom may not prepare us well to receive the unexpected.

-Disbelief. This is mentioned several times: "they did not believe." Jesus himself rebukes them for their disbelief. Even after the earthquake, the angels, the empty tomb...they persist in unbelief. Thomas is a striking example: he is resentful, angry: "I will believe only when I put my hands in his wounds." Clearly unbelief here is a rigid, resistant, aggressive force.

-Love opens eyes. It is the Beloved, John, who first believes at the empty tomb, even before an appearance. It is he who recognizes Jesus from the boat after the great net of fish. It is the Lover who sees the Beloved.

-An event, an action, a gesture opens the eyes of the disciples. The word "Mary" spoken; the blessing and breaking of the bread; the catch of fish; the bestowing of peace and offering of the wounds. At the precise moment, Jesus does the slightest gesture that unveils Him to his followers.

Let's consider the dynamics in a strong, intimate relationship...friendship, courtship or family. There is a delicate, sensitive, creative dance of disclosure and restrain in which we sense the receptivity of the other, her trust and readiness as we risk disclosure. Surely something like that is involved with our on-going love affair with the Lord as he waits patiently for us to be ready to receive all his Love.