Red River, the Son-Father Agon, and Our Pope Francis Dilemma

Red River

Howard Hawks classic Red River is my favorite Western/John Wayne movie and a top ten of my best films. It is not in the league of John Ford's masterpiece The Searchers but it is so powerful because the dramatic core is the "Agon," the conflict or struggle, between son and father. 

Wayne's Tom Dunston, a tough Texas cattleman, leads a dangerous, high-risk cattle drive, just after the Civil War, across the Chisom Trail. At the start of the drive, Dunston sternly cautions his men: "You don't have to come; you may stay here; no problem; there are great dangers and there will be rewards. But...(grave, momentous pause)...once you start, there is no turning back." THERE IS NO TURNING BACK!  Frequently I have recalled that phrase! It's vow-like quality: that is the nature of life...there is no turning back. That is the nature of vocation, of mission, of marriage and family, of any substantial friendship or task. You have set out...and there is no turning back. And so they set out and face Indians, stampedes, marauding thieves, confusion and conflict. Meanwhile the dark side of Dunston emerges: he is in pain, is drinking heavy, becomes tyrannical and paranoid. His adopted son, protege and lieutenant, Montgomery Cliff's Matt Garth, remains unfailingly loyal to him. Until....Three men desert. They are tracked down. Knowing his mind, they tell Dunston: "Okay. Go ahead and shoot us." He responds: "I'm not going to shoot you. I'm going to hang you." Everyone is silent, dumbstruck. But the voice of Matt, calm and clear: "No you're not." Dunston responds with Waynesque macho arrogance: "Who is going to stop me?" The response from Matt, again calm and clear and firm: "I am."  It is a cowboy Caine Mutiny. The loyal subordinate is forced to dethrone the Captain. Matt tells Tom: "I will get your cattle to Abilene." Wayne, now wounded replies: "I will follow you. I'm going to kill you." He means it!

That short interchange is the dramatic core of the story: "Who is going to stop me?"  "I am." The son, in loyalty to his own identity, destiny, integrity and mission, and to that of his now-deranged father, is forced to engage him in combat. They have no choice but to fight, wound and maybe kill each other.

The Son Father Agon

From the Greek, "agon" means competition, as in athletics, or conflict between characters in a dramatic plot. So the Son-Father agon is primal and powerful because it defines the masculine identity. I suspect women are constitutionally incapable of understanding this dynamic. The feminine psyche flows seamlessly in a continuity of relationship, primarily with the mother in a bond is never (normatively) fractured. Ideally, a distinct but similarly continuous and fluid bond abides between daughter and father.

Not so for the male. From birth, he is recognized by his mother as different, as male to her female, so already the helpless newborn is defined as separate, as different, as eventually and implicitly distant and alone. As he develops, hormonally-neurologically-emotionally-socially-spiritually, his inner form or soul drives him to distinguish himself as separate, from Mom and Dad and his peer competitors. The masculine recipe for relationship contrasts sharply from the feminine:  boundaries are sharp and defined, the ego is fragile and aggressive-defensive, the isolation is pronounced, the relational distance is definitive. 

And so, inevitably, the son must wrestle with his father. Even where there remains deep and mutual affection, reverence, loyalty and delight, there is required a contest of psyches.  This for many reasons.

First, every human father is fundamentally flawed and the son must engage with that weakness. This is the theme so masterfully presented in Red River.  I cannot quite imagine how this played out between Jesus and Joseph, but we do have the firm correction from Jesus when Mary speaks for Joseph as well as herself  "Your father and I have been looking for you." With Jesus' response of a few words he definitively distanced himself from mother and father on behalf of his masculine-yet-Godly destiny.

Secondly, even in a basically perfect relationship in which the son continues the father's faith, mission and purposes, the son must distinguish and individuate himself. He cannot be a carbon copy, a mimic of his father. To faithfully, fruitfully, creatively "echo" the deepest values received he must re-present them in his own unique person and circumstances. And so, there is the inevitable tension, conflict, distance and differentiation.

Thirdly, as noted the masculine psyche is inherently competitive, adversarial, and aggressive. For example, how do adolescent males establish and maintain intimacy (the little bit for which they are capable!)? By competing. In sports. In fist fights. In arguments. This is how men relate. Women simply cannot understand this, especially mothers, but also sisters and girl friends and wives. (Sidebar: why is it that the few who regularly read this Fleckinstein blog are all men? Possibly because it is largely an argumentative, agonistic and basically masculine endeavor.)

Consider that Jesus' engagement with us and with his Father took the form of agony. We tend to understand this term as passivity and victimhood in suffering. But this cannot be right. He was NOT a passive victim. He was engaged in a fight to the death! He aggressively attacked all the powers of evil, of death, of guilt, of sin, of the world, and of the Evil One. He triumphed, at the end. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail and he demonstrated that his Love conquered that dark empire. In some mysterious way, he engaged agonistically even his Father whose will was that he suffer and die.

Our Pope Francis Dilemma

In our Catholic Church today, we have our own Tom Dunston, our own Commander Queeg (Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny). However unintentionally, in his confusion of thought, our Holy Father has led us to the brink of  schism as the Flemish and German bishops openly defy him and contradict our traditions. The "synodal" process is a perfect recipe for intensified confusion, conflict and chaos.

The word "dilemma" indicates a choice between alternatives that are each unacceptable. So our pontiff presents a true dilemma: Do we defy him in disobedience? Or do we obey like loyal sheep as he leads us off the cliff of contradictions and confusions?

Red River, including its ending, may offer some help.

Red River's Corny Gender-Comedic Conclusion

Hawks himself admitted that his conclusion was corny. It is a drastic shift in tone, entirely" deus-ex-machina,"  feel-good to the point of silly, a sudden and unexpected shift from the tragic to the comedic, entirely dissonant with the drama's mood and logic. It is the film's defining weakness. Yet it seems Hawks did this deliberately, with a wink, ironically, laughing at the end with shameless, uninhibited inconsistency.

Let's contrast this with  Ford-Wayne's masterpiece  The Searchers.  These two films (both set in post-Civil War Texas) are surely Wayne's greatest performances. The characters are similar: both have deep, dark, mysterious sides to them which threaten tragedy. The one will kill his (adopted) son, the other his niece. A deep dread and tension pervades both films. Both present a dilemma: logically the ending must be tragic, but there is some vague hope for salvation. 

The Ford ending is superior. It entails a sudden, illogical "deus-ex-machina" change of heart by the dark protagonist. But after that "happy ending," we see the lonely, tragic Ethan, inarticulately carrying a profound wound of loneliness, walk into the desolate West, away from his family and civilization, into an indescribable masculine solitude. Brilliantly, a happy ending prevails (with some lapse of dramatic logic) but the tragic mood of the protagonist that controlled the drama remains. 

The Hawks' ending is entirely different. Dunston, enflamed with an infernal rage, finds his son and demands a fight. He fires his gun around the younger man who serenely refuses to pull his gun on his father. The older man repeatedly punches his son. Finally, the younger man's anger is aroused and a full scale fist fight erupts. The much larger Wayne character is wounded by a gun wound so it is an even fight and they pummel each other. 

Suddenly, out of nowhere, the sweet, pretty romantic interest of Matt jumps in, firing a gun, and screaming her fury and incomprehension of why these two men would want to kill each other. The men, and the onlookers, are stunned and frozen by the eruption of feminine fury. Dunston, miraculously freed from his rage and paranoia, is like a man just released from a spell. He says "Son, you must marry that woman." and they reconcile happily. 

So corny! So dramatically illogical!

It is gender comedy. The vicious, toxic masculinity of the raging Dunston is miraculously dismissed by the eruption of empathetic, kind femininity. So stereotypical! So 1950s! We imagine Hawks laughing: we men like to fight and argue, but at the end of the day things will be okay because the feminine influence will prevail.

Conclusion

How does this movie ending help us with our papal dilemma? I am going to be as feel-good and corny as Howard Hawks. We men have to take on our leader in his disorders. We have to engage him: argue, fight, resist him. We have no choice. Our identity and integrity require this. But in the back of our mind, we want to remember that these fights are not the final word. We have in our Church a distinct, more powerful influence. Our mother Mary. She is our Queen. She is the one who stamped the head of the serpent. She is our hope and joy!

I Don't Clap in Church

 I love my new parish in Bradley Beach, NJ, but they clap too much: for a good sermon, for the music, once (if I didn't dream it) we clapped for ourselves for being at Church!

Mass is not an Affirmation Exercise, not the Academy Awards, not a Mutual Admiration Society. I do not go to Church for fellowship and fraternity, for affection and affirmation. In my everyday life I have more community than I need! When there is clapping in Church I am defiant: I fold my arms rigidly and grimace my face disapprovingly and groan just loud enough for my wife at my side to hear.

Mass is where Jesus Christ, Incarnate-Crucified-Risen-Exalted, draws us to himself in adoration. Adoration is not easy. It is not natural. It is not possible. Except for the grace of God. Except for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

But "grace builds on nature" and we have to do our best to provide commonsense supports for worship: an ambience of deep silence, beautiful surroundings of icons and sacramentals, habitual deportment of reverence. Liturgically, I am a no-frills, somewhat low-Church Irish Catholic. I don't need incense, chant, and impressive vestments. I appreciate the Vatican II intention to strip down the liturgy and expose the simple core: reception of the Word and communion in the Sacrifice. I prefer the 25-minute daily mass to Sunday's more elaborate 60 minutes. But when I do get to a Latin Mass I see what they get right: the REVERENCE! And yes, the chant and Latin and incense and elaborate performance all do help move me into prayer.

What we don't need is silly, superficial distractions. Please!  If any priest is reading this:  Do NOT start mass by saying  "Good Morning." I do not need another good morning! Please! Go right into: "In the name of the Father..." That is what we are there for. When the priest says "good morning" it is like he is hitting me on the head with a hammer. Even worse: "turn to your neighbor and introduce yourself!" And Please!  No holding hands with strangers during the Our Father. Please! No running round the Church to give hugs and kisses in those few moments when Jesus is present physically on the altar!

In practice, the Vatican II mass is too casual, informal, relaxed...lacking in reverence. At the end of mass everyone is chatting in Church! Can't they wait to leave the Church like the sisters taught those of us of a certain age? It is like short pants in Church. Where I go to Sunday mass, all the men wear shorts. It is a uniform. I feel like a weirdo in my long khakis! I am if anything too casual myself but at least I don't wear my dirty-work khakis. (My wife organizes my khakis into three groups: dirty work, normal-everyday, and go-to-Church.)  Who wants to see men's legs in Church?

Our American bishops have us in the early stage of a three-year Eucharistic Revival. I don't know how to engage with this. Of course we all need to grow more in love with our Lord in the Eucharist. But how to do that? Our bishops elicit a minimum of allegiance from me in light of their closing of the Churches during the pandemic and their double sacrilege against the body of Christ and the bodies of the unborn by welcoming the abortion mafia to the communion rail. Our pastor's comments about this campaign this past week were humorous, lighthearted, and casual. No depth or passion of zeal there! I am afraid their campaign, like "synodality," smells like a futile, wasteful exercise in bureaucratic silliness!

I know I would do well to arrive early and stay after mass. I don't. Part of it is that unfailingly my wife or I or both of us need the bathroom just as we are leaving for mass. Is this the work of Satan? Or is it just the weakness of the flesh? After mass I am nervous and jerky and want to move around. Am I suffering a nervous condition?

Currently I am reading Jean-Jacque Antier's inspiring biography of St. Charles De Focauld. Now that was a man enflamed with love for the Eucharist! Charles followed the standard "form" of Catholic sanctity: love for the Eucharist, confession of sin, devotion to Mary, obedience to the Church, and service of the least. That is good enough for me!

The Humility of Science, the Modesty of Policy, the Arrogance of Techno-Scientism, and the Problem of Anthony Fauci

Science 

Of its very nature, science is humble, tentative, uncertain, and exploratory. It is embracive of correction, contradiction, development, complexity, ambiguity, doubt, and questioning. The idea of "settled science" is contradictory: while there certainly is a body of accepted truths, the nature of scientific knowing is to be unsettled, searching, exploring, reaching beyond, and questioning of accustomed knowledge. In a prior life in which I religiously read the weekly NY Times Science section, the recurrent theme was:  Science has changed its mind: we believed abc but now see def. This is the very nature of science: always in change, development, conflict and contradiction. Furthermore, each science, body of knowledge, is limited in its sphere of knowledge. For example, the contagious disease scientists who advised us throughout the coronavirus pandemic offered no guidance on the mental health effect of various policies on youth and children, or the economy, and so forth. So, science at its best is always modest, meek, and deferential. Furthermore, as an exploration of the truth/beauty of Creation, it moves the explorer to adoration of the Creator.

Scientism

Scientism is the idolatry of science, an exaggerated confidence in the salvific efficacy of science and technology. "Just follow the science" is the mantra. The dogmatic certainty is that science will free us from our suffering, fragility and finitude. It flows from disbelief in a God of mercy and power and an inordinate dependence on human knowing and expertise. It is evident, for example, when one affirms on the basis of science that there is no God. This is, of course, patently ridiculous, since the nature of God, as mysterious, transcendent and spiritual, is that he cannot be known by empirical science, he cannot be verified or falsified, he is "unknowable." In that sense, an agnostic or "unknowing" stance is intellectually coherent: as God is "unknowable" to the unaided human intellect there is a sense in which the act of faith includes within it an "unknowing" even as it is a deeper and higher form of knowledge

Policy

Another form of human knowledge and practice, policy similarly has an inherent modesty, humility, uncertainty and skepticism about it. This is because any social policy entails boundless, complex and contradictory, intended and unanticipated, consequences. This became blatantly evident during the coronavirus. The policies designed to mitigate the virus and relieve its effects had immense consequences that were not intended: mental health of children, inflation. disincentives to work, decline in religious practice, and so many more. 

This suggests that we handle policy always with some lightness, skepticism, ambivalence and sobriety. Most proposed policies are neither salvific nor demonic, but a trade-off of positives and negatives. Oftentimes, especially in foreign policy, we have no "good" options, but a choice among bad, worse and worst. This is true today in the Ukraine where we can surrender the sovereign country to Putin, support their war with all its horrific carnage, or increase our aid to ensure a victory but risk a nuclear strike or expanded war. The three are all bad. We must chose the "least worst." But we do well never to consecrate any policy.

Ideology

Political ideology flows, like scientism, from a detachment from God and an inordinate, exaggerated attachment to a set of political principles and policies. It is another idolatry. So it absolutizes the goodness or evil of a given policy. On any issue (that does not involve an inherent evil, as abortion, euthanasia, etc.)...war, immigration, health, guns, crime, education...there are a range of policy options, all of which have positives and negatives. Obviously the goal is to enhance the positives, diminish the negatives, and negotiate to a compromise all sides can accept. 

But the ideologue consecrates a given policy as sacrosanct and necessarily demonizes opponents. This became evident in the virus hysteria when opponents of lockdowns, mandatory masking or vaccines were despised as enemies of the common good. It became unthinkable to so many that there might be another approach to the problem.

Anthony Fauci

A gifted, intelligent, dedicated humanitarian, Anthony Fauci was a reassuring figure in the early, frightening days of the virus. Along with Deborah Birx, he made us feel that all would be okay because Daddy and Mommy are so calm, intelligent, and certain. If we do what they say we will be fine. Very impressive people!

With the passage of time, however, Birx exited the scene and a darker side of Fauci emerged, making him our country's most polarizing figure (except for Trump of course.) He prizes his Jesuit education but has clearly rejected the practice and beliefs of his Catholic background. He is a full-fledged secular humanitarian and a cultural liberal. He is older than us boomers (born 1940) but is iconic of the "new man" who ascended to dominance in the 1960s. His creed:  no God, no sin, no salvation in Jesus Christ, no need for Church or sacraments. Science is infallible, sexuality is liberated from procreation and family, progressive social policy is salvific. He is scientistic, ideological, and sexually liberational. 

He is of course, like all of us, entitled to his beliefs and values. God gave us all freedom. This is a free country. The problem, however, is a fundamental falsehood about his entire public persona. His mantra is "follow the science." He poses as an objective, almost abstract and transcendent, scientist, soberly receiving empirical findings and translating them into efficacious policy. He robes himself in the infallibility of scientism. There are so many falsehoods here.

1. He is not a research scientist, following the data, but a policy maker. He makes decisions and issues practical guidelines. Now these are of course guided by scientific findings. But all practical, and especially policy, decisions are determined by a host of forces aside from science. Science is on the whole a small part of the overall calculus. For example, early in the crisis, with a shortage of masks, we were told that we did not need masks in order to keep them for the doctors and nurses who really needed them. This is a commonsense consideration that most would accept. But it should not be falsified with the "follow the science" mantra of infallibility. Just tell the truth: we need masks right now for the medical professionals.

2. Especially about this virus the science has been from the beginning weak, uncertain, confused. We just don't know much about it. Additionally, the virus is mutating into different varieties so that what is true in May 2020 is not true in Aug 2022. The scientists really did not know much. But Fauci presents always a posture of confidence and certainty: science indicates.....! He simply has not been truthful. How many false negatives and positives have we seen in the tests. Early on I thought I might have had the virus as I was exposed to it but tested negative for the antibodies. My own doctor said I probably had it but the threshold measured by the test was high so that it didn't register my reaction. Even that was untrustworthy. The problem is that the policies advanced were dictated with such certitude and force: you cannot stand within 6 feet, you must wear a mask, etc. These were arguably prudent policies but they were uncertain and prudential and should not pose as infallible.

3. The origin of the virus remains unknown to us. The Communist government knows but will not tell us. People I trust see it as more probable that it was an accidental lab leak. But Fauci from the beginning has been fiercely resistant to this theory. Why? He has a number of non-scientific motives. He has a strong belief in gain-of-function research and does not want that to get a bad reputation. It seems that he may have given money to the Chinese to pursue this. He values his collaboration with the World Health Organization and the Chinese and he does not want to harm that connection. It is clear he has political, ideological motives for denying the lab leak theory. He is hardly following the science. Again, he is free to favor this research and even collaboration with the Chinese, but he needs to be transparent about it. He is not trustworthy or truthful.

4. Currently we have the monkeypox outbreak. Fauci himself said that 99% of the cases to date come from male-to-male sex. He then hastens to add that we will treat the condition but not shame the person with homophobia. The science here is simple: this act leads to this condition. But he imports his own value scheme: we DARE not suggest homosexuals abstain. Clearly his religion dictates that these acts are precious, sacred and beyond critique.  Imagine that I developed a joint condition such that walking 5 miles a day aggravates it. My doctor would simply give me the science: if you want to lessen the pain and improve the condition, give up the long walks. You can replace it with swimming, biking or the gym. But imagine he has a religious fetish about walking as sacrosanct and dare not advise abstinence: he would increase my pain meds. This is nuts. This is Dr. Fauci. Like all of us, he does not function objectively out of science, but out of what he values. We saw this in the summer of 2020 when we shut down our Churches and even our parks but then allowed the crowded BLM demonstrations. This was not good science.

Publicly his persona is that of an expert, an elite leader whose intelligence, dedication, and inherent goodness allow him to lead us messianically through the pandemic. This is, however, a Wizard of Oz screen: behind that expertise is a gifted and well-intended humanitarian, a disbeliever with a disordered sense of his own importance and the nature of science and policy.

 

Is The World Going to Hell? Letter (11) to Teen Grandchildren

It looks that way! All the news is bad. The world is going to hell. That's the bad news!

But we on the road, together, to heaven. That's the good news!

Looking at the world today and reviewing the 75 years of my life, I see: things are getting worse. Not better.

I was born and raised in a three-part world: Our world, we called the "free world", was The West, Europe and USA and allies, prosperous and strong, enjoying the freedoms of markets, speech, religion, assembly, rule of law and democracy. The second world was Communism, flowing from the USSR. The "third world" was the poor countries, undeveloped, suffering great poverty. "Our world" was confident, expansive, innovative, vibrant. Scientific advancement, flourishing churches, large families, immense influence overseas, fiercely competitive with the communist system. There was a deep sense of national unity, having prevailed in WWII, we were united in opposing Communism. Notwithstanding tensions and competition, there was an underlying unity between Republicans and Democrats, Protestants/Catholics/Jews, capital and labor, ethnicities and races. Afro-Americans, after the war, made immense strides that culminated in the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Graduating high school in 1965 at the age of 18, I aspired to become a Maryknoll missionary and help people in the "third world" by bringing them a combination of the Catholic faith and American ingenuity/prosperity.

On the world scene, things are now worse than they have been since the defeat of Hitler, 1945: an expansive, powerful, totalitarian China; aggressive, imperial Russia  waging war in the Ukraine; terrorism; global warming; irrational populisms; widespread hunger; crime and gun violence surging in our cities; coronavirus; and an unstable global economy.

But within our own United States the trajectory is even worse: life expectancy declining, polarized politics, epidemics of addiction, deaths of despair, mental illness, pornography, urban crime, broken families, the dissolution of intermediate communities...to name a few.

I hope I am wrong about things getting worse. But if I am right, how are you to navigate a world becoming like a Gotham without Batman? I offer you three Catholic dualities that might help:

1. The World as God's Splendid Creation and the World as Systemic Opposition to God

The World as God's creation in the Splendor of its Truth-Beauty-Goodness is in sharpest contrast to the World, now fallen, opposed to God, corrupt, deceptive, evil. Everything that is, is created by God, and is radiant with Splendor. And so an attitude that is Catholic/catholic will welcome and appreciate anything that is true and good and beautiful. At the very same time, we live in a world  distant from and even opposed to God and pulling us away from Christ and his gospel. And so we are always involved in a creative, fascinating two-way drama: receiving and celebrating what is Given; and renouncing the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil that pull us from God.

2. Heaven: Our Destiny and Our Path

 You are created for heaven, an eternity of bliss, not for this earth which is temporary and passing. But heaven does not begin at death; it begins here on earth. When you are in the state of grace, in communion with God, even while still a sinner, you are already participating in heaven, even as you are moving towards it. Every genuine prayer, act of thanks and praise, kindness, forgiveness, apology for wrong-doing, confession of sin, and virtuous action is already a little bit of heaven here on earth. You need not worry about others; but to the extent that you are surrendering to God's presence, you will be, by a mysterious and wonderous dispensation, invisibly pulling others along with you. Baptism gets you into heaven (its beginning) and confirmation strengthens you to help others in. You need not focus on changing anyone, but only keep your eyes on Jesus. He will work through you and draw others to himself as you become a transparent icon of his holiness.

3. Benedict Option and A Christian Strategy

 Lastly, two political strategies that are deeply Catholic and contrasting but complementary.

The Benedict Option of Rod Dreher recalls the fall of the Roman Empire and the response of St. Benedict. He did not reform that doomed system, but went off quietly to pray with others in monasteries. His movement of retreat spread across that darkening continent and slowly the Benedictine monasteries became the nucleus for a new civilization: medieval Christendom. So, Dreher is very negative about the overall direction of our society and calls us to largely (but of course not absolutely) withdraw from mainstream institutions to focus our attention and energy on our immediate families, faith communities, and the concrete, small institutions that flow into and out of them. We might recall that only two human organizations were created by God: marriage and the family were created in the Garden of Eden and the Church was born at the foot of the cross and on Pentecost. All other institutions are passing. So we do well always strengthen and deepen these two and the cultural web that surrounds and protects them.

"A Christian Strategy" was proposed by Harvard law professor and integralist Adrian Vermule. He recalls the great Old Testament figures (Joseph, Daniel, Judith) who served their people by strategically serving the enslaving empire, Egyptian or Babylonian, by prudently serving those in power to protect their people and at the same time advance what was truly best for the Empire. Vermule advises that we not align ourselves too closely with any political party or partisan ideology but remain free to collaborate with various parties in pursuit of what is true, good and just. 

These two are like our respiration: we breath in and then we breath out. And so, the Benedict Option has us withdraw to breath in the grace and strength of God as the Christian Strategy has us engage, wisely, with the broader society in advancing all that is good. The two movements make for a wholesome and catholic, Catholic politics.

Conclusion

What does the future hold for our society and our globe? Are we heading for a catastrophe? Or for steady decline and eventual domination by Communism, Jihadism, populist fascism and the technocratic secularism of Cultural Liberalism?

I do not believe in any inexorable "arc of history." There is no evolutionary or progressive logic by which we moving to some secular utopia, whether socialist, or scientific-technological-enlightenment, or sexually liberated from a repressive past. Nor is our decline inevitable. 

Societies rise and fall constantly. The Roman Empire fell. The Pax Americana of 1945-2000 is disintegrating. But history is surprising, serendipitous, ironic, random, tragic and delightful. Above all human history, personal or communal or global, is  dramatic. It is the interplay of Freedoms! Every human person is an agent of freedom. As is every community. And this world is the arena in which the conflict between heaven and hell is waged, in every human heart and community.

Life on earth is an absolute binary: we are moving into the Kingdom of God or the Realm of the Deceiver. That is what matters. And the chiaroscoro (the contrast of light/darkness in great Renaissance art) of life is such that the light of Christ shines all the more brightly in the darkness of evil...as in the witness of the martyrs. 

And so we return to our question: Is the world going to hell? Yes! Absolutely! Much of this fallen world is entrapped in sin, moving more deeply in that direction, and on the road to perdition. 

But we who have been grasped by Jesus Christ are on an entirely different itinerary. Of course we share the weakness and sinfulness common to our race. But that is not the definitive word for us. Rather, we are destined for eternal glory in Jesus, in the Father, in the Holy Spirit and with Mary, Joseph and all the saints and angels. And our path there is already a participation in that Joy.

So, I exhort you: Be not distressed by our politics, news and current events!  Courage!  Christ is present with us, bringing us always vitality, strength, hope and courage. He is always making all things New! Draw always closer to your faith, your Church, your family and the entire network that supports that! Be not timid in taking your place in the broader world and witnessing to the Truth you have received! 

And in all things give thanks in Jesus our Lord!