Fear of the Lord (Letter 52 to Grands)

In today's Gospel (Matt 10:28), Jesus tells us "Do not be afraid." He repeats it later. This mantra resounds throughout all the scriptures. But then he contradicts himself: "Fear only he who can destroy body and soul in Gehenna." So actually we are to fear...the one who can destroy our body and soul

Who is this? God or Satan? 

And does not John tell us "...love casts out fear; perfect love casts out all fear"?

Too many contradictions!

Such contraries are intrinsic to the mysteries of the spiritual life.

My thoughts follow.

Jesus is directing us into two fears, which indwell each other: fear of the Lord and fear of our own freedom as vulnerable to the world, the flesh and the devil.

Fear of the Lord is not servile, timid, cowering. It is an extreme awe and reverence before His holiness. Extreme! His holiness, goodness, justice and mercy is so overwhelming that we describe our response as fear.

Intrinsic to this holiness is Mercy, but also Justice and Wrath. He is not all kindness, acceptance, and unconditional love. He is flamingly fierce in his Wrath against evil. He does not tolerate evil and sin. He exterminates them. He loves the sinner; but he hates the sin. He destroys the sin...eventually. In his mercy he waits, invites us to repent, he appeals to our freedom.

So we rightly fear His justice and wrath. They are terrible.

And that brings us to our secondary fear: of our own freedom. We are capable of dishonoring and rejecting God. Not only are we capable of such, but we are inclined to it by virtue of original sin and the concupiscence that remains with us even after baptism. Not only are we inclined to it, but we are fiercely drawn into it by the world and the devil.

God has taken a huge GAMBLE. He has rolled the dice. He created us free to accept or reject his proposal of eternal love. Reckless!

On our own, in combat with the world, the flesh and the devil, our chances of victory are slim to none.

But opening our hearts to the blood and water flowing from his side on Calvary we are drawn from our sin into the strength and joy of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ we prevail. We move forward in confidence, expectancy, and joy.

But intrinsic to our faith is an abiding "fear of the Lord."

Presumption of a Church of Cheap Mercy

The saints exhibited great fear of the Lord. They constantly ask for prayer. Mother Theresa of Calcutta was exorcised toward the end of here life. Padre Pio responded to a man who did not believe in hell: "You will when you get there." In his youth he had a vision: to one side, radiant figures in light (saints) and to the other dark figures (devils) and before him a huge monster which he had to fight. With trepidation he did so. And triumphed. His entire life was relentless combat with Satan.

In our Church, in this pontificate of Francis, fear of the Lord has been replaced with the presumption of cheap mercy. Our Lord is stripped of his holiness, wrath, justice, terror, ferocity. He is kind, nice, accepting, welcoming, affirming...unconditionally. Any wholesome virile qualities including law, retribution of punishment and reward, truth, chastity, and loyalty are diminished in favor of an indulgent, cheapened, smothering motherhood.

This past weekend we had in NYC and northern NJ Catholic "pride" masses. The clear message: "don't worry about sin. Relax, stay in your sin. We love you. That is all that matters." Just as bad is the now widespread acceptance of young couples cohabiting/contracepting together without marriage. This is serious sin. For me as father of 5 daughters it is specifically abuse of the woman, even if consensual. This is intolerable. Yet it is calmly tolerated. 

Conclusion

In heaven it is true that perfect love will cast out all fear. "Fear of the Lord" will be pure awe and joy; it will be purged of that real dimension of fear. But on earth our love for God and each other is purified by a necessary fear. A trepidation before the Holiness of God in all its transcendence, extravagance, depth and ferocity.  A hatred and fear of sin. An indifference to death, sickness, failure, losses of all sorts. Awareness of the ferocity of our enemies in spiritual combat: the world, the flesh and the devil.

Lord,

Free us from the illusion, the softness, the indulgence of presumption and cheap mercy!

Inflame us with Holy Fear! Deep awe before your Holiness! Realism and respect for the darkness of sin, the wiles of the world, the weakness of the flesh, and the plan of Lucifer for our damnation!

Fill us with confidence in your Mercy, in all its Truth and Justice!

  

Top 10 Greatest Saints of the 20th Century

 Is this a silly or irreverent question? I think not! If we can name the greatest athletes, world leaders, or scientists than we can talk about the saints.

We do so with humility. Only God can judge these things; He does not do "top ten lists."  But there are degrees of holiness. We can however observe, within our limitations, two phenomena to judge:

1. The evident holiness of life. This is shown in works of mercy, quality of holiness, sacrificial suffering including death by martyrdom, miracles and mystical phenomena (stigmata, revelations, etc.).

2. Influence on others through direct contact, heavenly messages, inspired writings, and broad, indirect influence.

This is not a science. It is not measurable like the fastest mile ever run. It is more playful. It is prayerful as a grateful, praise-filled acknowledgement to God for his works in these marvelous people.

10. Father Solanus Casey. This humble doorman touched countless people through his humble, prayerful faith. 

9. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross: she gets extra points for being martyred, as a Jewess who converted to Catholicism, and for her brilliance in philosophy and spiritual doctrine.

8. Maximillian Kolbe is known for his heroic, sacrificial death but had huge influence even before that.

7. Elizabeth of the Trinity in her spiritual writing on the Trinity rivaled even Theresa of Lisieux (who died just before the turn of the century).

6. Gemma Galgani is an extraordinary mystic. Probably the most physically beautiful saint, she had no concern with that but lived closely with supernatural things.

5. Maria Gioretti died heroically, in chastity, while forgiving her assailant. She is the patron saint of our youth.

4. Faustina received the revelations of Divine Mercy which changed our world.

3. John Paul II was a marvel of holiness, wisdom, virility, charm and global influence.

2. Padre Pio was a monumental figure, an extraordinary mystic engaged in relentless combat with Satan, and enormously influential.

1. Mother Theresa of Calcutta is number one, even over Padre Pio, because of her works of mercy but also her many decades in the dark night of the soul.

Four of the top ten are men; six women; no misogyny here! The men are all priests. Four of the women are religious; two lay. No lay men. My favorites did not make the cut: Charles de Focault, Miguel Pro, Brother Andre, Father Leopoldo. These are so humble they would not mind. 

How blessed are we who shared in this century with these miraculous brothers and sisters in the Mystical Body of Christ! 

Dear Reader! Did I miss anyone? Overrate or underrate? 

A Personal, Catholic Consideration of Same Sex Attraction (3) (Letter 50 to Grands)

My many SSA friends love me, and I love them.  Gay-denying, homophile Fleckinstein

We are drawn to each other. We like, respect, enjoy each other. Perhaps 20 percent of my best friends over the years have been SSA. Since the homosexual demographic is estimated at 3 to 4 percent, I clearly have a friendship preference for them. Why they like me they will have to say. But I know why I like them. There is nothing erotic or romantic here...on their part or mine. I enjoy wholesome, chaste friendships with them in their rich virility. Homosexual men are frequently sensitive, empathetic, intelligent, informative, fun, funny, clever, sarcastic, cynical, tender, affectionate, vulnerable, kind, generous, religious, aesthetic, artistic, and appreciative. You see why I am such a homophile! Yes, even those who self-identify as "gay" I find interesting, fun, delightful and admirable (in some ways).

Homosexual is Not Gay

These two words are NOT synonyms. The homosexual attraction can take at least four paths, only one of which is "gay."

The traditional Catholic way is chastity as abstinence from sexual intercourse and marriage. The single man, religious or priest here satisfies his emotional yearnings in friendships, family, service to Church/community, and prayer intimacy with the Lord. Our lives have been immensely enriched by these quiet, humble, anonymous heroes. I am sure there is a special Medal of Honor in heaven for them in their silent, sacrificial self-giving.

The second path is the double life: the married man or priest acts out in secret. This produces, obviously, a split psyche/spirit, toxic levels of hypocrisy/deception, a more or less persistent state of anxiety, shame, guilt and tension. This is a sin of the flesh, not so much of the intellect. The secrecy, arguably, witnesses to moral truth. So, for example the famed clerical and even Vatican "purple mafia" acknowledges the moral truth of sexuality by its hiddenness.

By contrast, the third path, the "gay" option, renounces the moral order and approves these acts. The attraction here is inflated into an identity, an ideology, a cult, a movement, an idolatry. The classic identification of sex with marriage, children, and fidelity is disparaged as homophobic and hateful. The gay movement is inherently anti-Catholic as Catholicism is anti-Gay, although loving of the homosexual and therefore homophilic. Gay-affirmation is incompatible with Catholicism properly understood.

A final, unheralded path is one I have noticed in my circles. Here we have same-sex couples living together openly but quietly, without all the "pride." I have family and friends that live such. We all know about it. But we don't discuss it. They surely know and seem to respect my own Catholic viewpoint. If they did "marry" in some ceremony they might not invite me or at least not take offense in my declining to participate. This is a certain "live and let live" or "don't ask don't tell." They would not insist that Catholic adoption agencies place children with gay couples or that florists be compelled by the state to serve their marriages. 

If the second path of secrecy is destructive, and the first and third are opposed to each other, this last path suggests a way to peace. Unlike abortion which entails a hard binary, this way may diminish the hostilities of the Culture War.

In three of the paths homosexuality finds a way to live with Catholicism: the first in purity, the second in duplicity, the last in an ambiguous anonymity. The "gay" path, however, in all its faux-sacramental paraphenalia of parades, rainbows and "coming out" rituals is aggressive, transgressive, narcissistic, and histrionic in its contempt for the Catholic cult of chastity and fecundity.

Fourth Path: "Gay" or Just Homosexual?

Do we understand the couple living quietly together, without social activism, as "gay" or just homosexual? I strongly believe it is a slander to describe anyone as "gay" unless they themselves publicly identify as such. A same-sex couple living together may or may not be sexually active; we don't know unless they tell us. They may be "just friends" as we know in our Catholic tradition of many, especially women, even nuns, who live together as sisters. They may be trying to live chastely and confessing when they act out. Especially our younger generation throws the word "gay" around freely. My own view is that it is a vile slander to say anyone is gay or even SSA unless that is shared by the person.

 Homosexual Priests?

No...and Yes.  The pertinent Church ruling is that men with "deep seated" homosexual inclinations are not to be admitted to the priesthood. The meaning of this key phrase "deep seated" is not specified. But a common sense understanding would rule out: those with current or recent history of acting out; compulsivity or obsession including porn and masturbation; affirmation of the gay agenda; rejection of the Church's teaching on chastity and the unitive/creative meaning of sexuality as taught in Humanae Vitae and the catechesis on the human body of John Paul; difficulties with authority, accepting or exercising it; narcissistic or histrionic traits; weakness in masculine self-confidence; and low capacity for spiritual paternity.

By this logic, a man attracted to men could be considered for the priesthood if his attraction is mild; he easily lives chastity; his inclination is counterbalanced by masculine maturity and confidence, paternal competence, acceptance of Church teaching, wholesome relationships with men and women, and a robust intimacy with our Lord in prayer.

However the bar for sexual society for the SSA candidate should be high in light of the condition of our Church. The priest sex scandal was overwhelmingly one of homosexual predation upon adolescent men. The litany of homosexual abuse (Maciel, McCarrick, etc) and the increasingly credible "purple mafia" of the clergy and Vatican continues to scourge our Church.

Widespread Acceptance of Gay Sexuality

The radical shift in popular opinion about active homosexuality over the last 20 years is unprecedented. Just two decades ago, leading progressives like Obama were opposed to gay marriage. Such a position today is considered extreme. Some of this is due to the judicial activism of the Supreme Court. It is especially strong upon the young who now view gay sex as normal. This enormous sea change is the result of deeper cultural currents set loose in the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and now bearing fruit after 50 years.

The core of that revolution was the emergence of an isolating individualism, detached from God and the eternal, history, tradition, and authority. This included:

1. The sterilization of sex in contraception, its detachment from spousal fidelity/fecundity, and its reconfiguration as romance, fulfillment and mutual satisfaction.

2. The deconstruction of masculinity as paternity and femininity as maternity.

3. An unrecognized pandemic of sexual addictions starting with pornography, masturbation, cohabitation and contraception.

4. The triumph of the "therapeutic" as personal fulfillment, defined now by psychology, replaced the traditional ethos of selflessness, sacrifice, and loyalty to institutions that transcend the individual.

5. Prevalence of narcissism across a celebrity culture.

6. A cult of  "victimhood" which grants moral status to the oppressed in identity politics, especially critical race theory and the LGBTQ project.

7. Suspicion of all authority as oppressive power due to the eclipse of the eternal and transcendent.

8. Breakdown of the family, Church, and the small/intermediate communities/organizations which flow into and out of them. In their place we have the hegemony of an expanded state and global corporate order: mega-institutions and the isolated individual.

9. Vast expansion of sex as a need and glorification of sexual license as liberation.

10. The pervasive, delusional "Romantic" myth that happiness will be found in the arms of a "soul mate."

And so the gay project is the culmination and epitome of delusions around the liberated-because-now-isolated individual that structure liberalism and progressive modernity.

Conclusion

Same sex attraction in itself is a sadness, a suffering, a cross. It becomes a badge of honor, however unheralded, when it is carried quietly, humbly, patiently, chastely and generously. 

Its origins remain obscure but it certainly entails an interchange between a predisposition of sensitivity and sensibility and a range of environmental dynamics.

It is often accompanied by extraordinary gifts of empathy, intuition, intelligence, and appreciation. It can also be accompanied by a range of pathologies involving masculine confidence, authority, paternity, fraternity and others.

The "gay" project is something else! It epitomizes the worst toxicities of the Sexual Revolution: self-indulgence, narcissism, histrionics, rage at authority, self-pity as a "victim class," arrogance, and individualism. 

It is for us as Catholic to welcome these, our brothers and sisters, including those who fall into the gay delusion, in tenderness, reverence...and truth.

A Personal, Catholic Consideration of Same Sex Attraction (2) (Letter 49 to Grands)

Late 1990s, at an International Sexaholics Anonymous Conference, in a breakout meeting for those with same sex attraction (SSA), a middle aged businessman shared a story. He was out of town, depressed, in his hotel room where he called for a male prostitute. When the young man arrived, he assured him "I will pay you your normal fees but I don't want all your services. I only want one thing. I want you to hold me." The young man responded "Sure. I get that a lot." At that moment a silence fell upon the group of about 75, mostly men. The silence continued. Slowly quiet weeping was heard. This increased. Soon the entire group was crying. There was not a dry eye in the room. 

Yearning for Masculine Affection

This story unveils the second interpretive key for understanding male SSA: the longing for masculine affection. 

For human persons, sex is never only about sex. It is about our deepest cravings, wounds, emotional needs,  moral and spiritual intentions and aspirations. 

Sex is not a human need. It is a drive, not a need. Most of us, most of the time, are abstinent from sexual activity. No one misses a day of work or goes to the emergency room because of a lack of sexual activity. If it becomes a pressing need, a compulsion, than the pathology of sexual addiction has taken hold, as in pornography and masturbation.

What we do need, all of us, is intimacy, attention, affection, tenderness. This is absolutely a human need. A man who is attracted to men does not "need" to have sex with them. He needs, as do all of us, loving, chaste, intimate connection with paternal and fraternal friends. What happens is that such genuine male longings can  become sexualized, unconsciously and involuntarily,  in puberty so the adolescent discovers himself attracted to men, sexually and romantically.

Born that Way? No.

A false binary is often proposed about the cause of this attraction: choice or genetics. This is ridiculous on the face of it. None of us deliberately choose our attractions, or any of our emotions. We discover them. We receive them. What we do with our passions and feelings is a choice; as is our attitude or philosophy about them. But when it comes to the romantic or erotic desire itself, there is no choice. It comes upon us unsolicited, often with frightful violence. The idea that one wakes up one day and says "Let's see which option I want: I think I'll go homo; and now have eggs over easy with bacon" is comical.

On the other hand, humans, unlike animals, are not born with prefixed sexual instincts. All of our experiences and learning in the 10-12 years preceding puberty influence our sexuality. First and foremost, of course, is our engagement with mother-father figures; then with peers; and notably incidents of abuse. So that the eruption of sexual feelings at that point occur within a boundlessly deep and complex personality: social, emotional, moral, spiritual, intellectual as well as physical. 

Famously, there has been no discovery of "the gay gene" or a clear natal source for this attraction. A study of almost half a million people, in Scientific American of 2019 concluded that genes may account for 8 to 25 percent of the attraction. Another encyclopedic survey about that time estimated about 30 percent due to nature rather than nurture. This later was led by a prominent gay activist and elicited anger in the movement. 

The "born that way" thesis is entirely unscientific. It is a dogma of the ideology intended to gain sympathy and affirmation from the public. It is not really coherent however. Imagine: if some biological cause (DNA, or hormones, or neural patterns?) were found than the possibility of scientific engineering to change it would raise more pressingly the moral and social questions about it.

This scientific evidence confirms a common sense intuition: as with so many human patterns, there is a given, temperamental predisposition that then is or is not triggered and developed by social interactions. In general, we don't apply the "born that way" to Nobel prize winners, scientific geniuses, or mafioso hit men.

Experiential Contributors to the Attraction

There is a coherent body of research and experience that shows a network of patterns that often, but not always, contribute to the attraction. This study is anathema to gay ideology and viciously cancelled as in woke mainstream psychology as homophobic. This is not to claim that all fall under one pattern. I can think of someone close to me that seems to be free of almost all of them. Every person is unique. An imagined stereotype is to be rejected. Nevertheless, frequently the male (I lack familiarity with the female attraction and lesbian identity which I take to be quite distinct) attraction to men is identified with:

1. Poor connection with father or father-figures and weak masculine self-confidence.

2. Insecure relations with boy peers including disinclination or incapacity to compete athletically ("sports wound") and establish solid friendships.

3. Poor body self-image: too skinny, too small, too fat.

4. Smothering mother or failure to accomplish the oedipal passage from maternal enclosure to identification with masculine father figure.

5. Sexual abuse by a man or older boy.

We can easily imagine that a boy temperamentally sensitive, disinclined to competitive physical play, inclined to music, art, and conversation might find himself detached from masculine  connections, closer to Mom and girls, and be triggered by some combination of the above into the subconscious channeling of his longing for male connection into erotic/romantic desire at puberty. 

The root causes of the attraction are not in an alleged "inborn sexual orientation" but an isolation from the masculine and a longing to connect.

Sexual Orientation? No Such Thing!

The word "orientation" (from "orient" or "east") indicates a direction, a purpose, an intentionality. One might speak of a career orientation (to law, health care, education) or a political orientation; but not a sexual orientation. If one accepts some sexual attraction to define identity, purpose and destiny than he is in the grip of a delusion, an idolatry, a compulsion. The idea of "sexual orientation" was fabricated as a faux-dogma, a myth to justify the cult of "gay" sexuality. The term was popularized about 50 years ago by the notorious John Money known for his "experimental" sex abuse of small children and his heralded early sex-trans-operation which led to the suicide of his victim. The expression was not part of the world in which I was raised.

The alleged binary of "hetero-homo" orientation is a fabrication. It has been extended to bisexual and asexual. And then we have bisexuals who like men and women but not trans-men-or-women and so are trans-phobic-bi-sexuals. This becomes an alphabetic collage of incoherence and confusion.

Each of us, in our romantic-erotic cravings, is a boundless universe of desire, loneliness, tenderness, generosity, resentment, heroism, despair, hope, trust, suspicion, and the entire gamut of human passions and emotions. To take some attraction, such as SSA, and inflate it into one's "life orientation" is blatant foolishness.

Regarding sexuality, there are two fundamental orientations: to God and to the darkness of sin. This is a simple, hard binary. Sexual expression is intended by our Creator for the spousal union: exclusive, permanent, free, fruitful, faithful, generous, generative, chaste. Sexual engagement outside of that context is sinful and evil: adultery, polygamy, pornography, cohabitation, contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, and the rest. This is simple. This is the moral order of creation.

In our Catholic world, we have the two states of life: marriage and priesthood/religious life. The first is structured by chastity and fidelity to the one spouse (present or future). The second by chastity as abstention and sublimation of the longing for intimacy into friendships, family, service of the Church/community and above all a privileged closeness to the Lord Jesus in prayer. 

The expression "sexual orientation" is an incoherence; it has no place in the glossary of Catholic life.

No Labels! Please!

I hate to label people! I deal with paranoia and psychosis on a daily basis but I refuse to label my dear friends: "She is A Schizophrenic". Yes, she has this condition. But it does not define her. It is not her identity. 

Recently, an ornery character, with whom I have exchanged unpleasant words about him parking and blocking our Magnificat Home driveway, told my manager: "I don't want to deal with that white guy." I do NOT accept that designation. I am not a "white guy." Just as I am not "heterosexual" or "cis-gendered." I reject the entire white/black binary as itself racist; as I reject the false definitions of sexual liberation. I would not object if he called me "that sardine eater" or "the tall, distinguished good-looking guy" or "that Uber-Catholic." But I will NOT be labeled according to color of skin or sexual feelings.

In my youth, I despised words like "queer" or "faggot" as expressions of contempt for a man in his virility. I have already made clear my absolute rejection of the word "gay" as a labeling in sexual identity. I even avoid use of the word "homosexual" as a noun as in "he is a homosexual." As an adjective the word itself is neutral and objective: "homosexual inclinations.". As I would not label one with bi-polarity a "maniac" so I refuse to identify anyone, even if they so self-identify, as "gay" or as "a homosexual."

Conclusion

Sexual and romantic attractions spring from the mysterious depths of the human heart...in its loneliness, woundedness, concupiscence, nobility, tenderness and generativity. It is a huge mistake to exaggerate an attraction such as SSA into an identity, a "born-that-way-orientation," an ideology and culture. We do well to recognize the underlying, entirely human hunger for connection and seek to satisfy it in ways that are chaste, sober and wholesome.

A Personal, Catholic Consideration of Same Sex Attraction (1) (Letter 48 to Grands)

Suffering, Sadness, Loneliness

"The gay life is a very, very sad one."  

Words spoken to me by my dear friend George Lissandrello, 1970, East Greenwich Village, of the community and lifestyle George had accepted. He died a few years later of AIDS.

These solemn words have stayed with me my entire life and given me the interpretive key to understanding this attraction and the entire "gay" project.

The attraction is a cross, a badge of honor when suffered patiently-soberly-generously, an affliction that is deep, complex, and multi-layered.

1. The first, most obvious layer is the social shame and stigma traditionally associated with it.  A defining goal of the gay liberation movement is to bring freedom from such shame. This is a goal the Catholic can share. The demons of self-hatred, contempt, shame and fear that have culturally accompanied the attraction are to be renounced, firmly, and directed back to their source in hell. 

But genuine liberation, for the Catholic, is a more profound and challenging thing: a lifestyle of sobriety, chastity, restraint, fidelity, and life-giving generosity. Same-sex intercourse is incoherent as it is neither unitive nor fruitful. In that sense "gay liberation" is an oxymoron, a contradiction as it affirms as liberational actions that are self-destructive and sad, not gay or happy.

What we see in social settings wherein homosexuality has become socially acceptable (Scandinavia, Greenwich Village, San Francisco) it that removal of social stigma leaves undiminished the extreme rates of substance abuse, depression, and suicide among those immersed in gay culture. The fashionable  optimism of gay affirmation will become increasingly questioned in time as the underlying sadness becomes more pronounced in the now gay-friendly culture. 

2. The truer, deeper loneliness of this attraction, when deep-seated, is loss of the normal path to a flourishing, purposeful life: spousal union and paternity/maternity. This loneliness increases with age, when ordinarily joy in ones offspring compensates for the diminishments of health, stamina, romance, career and sex. The "gay life" is doomed to despair. 

By contrast, the homosexual Catholic will find in this attraction a charism, a vocation to share in the suffering of Jesus, including his celibacy/virginity, a suffering that borne in love bears fruit. We have always been blessed by uncles and aunts, priests and religious, who selflessly love in family and community, in quiet humility. Theirs is a special badge of honor. Entirely unrecognized. 

3. Lastly, this attraction, when indulged in unchastity, draws one into the darkness of of sin: sterility, futility, and quiet despair. Lust and romantic covetousness are accompanied by colleague demons: low gender esteem, incapacity for paternity/maternity, difficulties with authority, histrionic narcissism, identity of victimhood, sexual compulsivity, promiscuity, jealousy, and resentment.  This is not to suggest, of course, that all those who self-identify as "gay" fall into these patterns. But their prevalence in the gay way of life is obvious to anyone who has not invested faith in the gay project. 

And so, compassion requires attention to the suffering of the attraction itself, but also to the deeper isolation and sadness of "gay identity." Gay affirmation is well-intended. The goal is to reduce suffering and enhance esteem and happiness. In reality, however, such affirmation is enabling of the one in error. It is not truth-in-love, but sentimentality. The problem is not in the will; it is in the intellect. It is a huge mistake. Neither the attraction nor the life are "gay" as happy. The word "gay" competes with "choice" and "reproductive rights" as the most vile, mendacious, delusional words out of the glossary from hell that grasped our society in the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

A genuine love for our brothers and sisters who suffer this attraction and those who succumb to the deception requires, not the sentimentality of "gay affirmation," but empathy, reverence, and truth.  

 

A Tragedy: The Collapse into Solipsism of Will Storr

A Reflection Upon Reading "The Science of Storytelling" by Will Storr.

This is a sad story. A tragedy. The drama of Will Storr. The collapse of a gifted, intelligent man into loneliness, isolation, radical skepticism and solipsism.

What is solipsism? It is the most dire, vacuous, desolate of philosophies. The conviction that the self is enclosed within its very self; is incapable of knowing anything exterior, anything objective, anything real. The conviction that thought, feeling, decision, purpose, communion and devotion are nothing else than electrical firings of neural paths, hallucinations, a closed futile purposeless process.

We cannot know exactly when or why. But at some point a rupture occurred...between this person, Will Storr, and reality. He fell into loneliness, isolation, suspicion. He broke with reality and defined himself, catastrophically, as imprisoned and alone on the desolate island of himself. A psychic Robinson Caruso! He described his parents as Roman Catholics, with a negative tone. He described himself as a difficult child, in their eyes. Was he colicy? Hyperactive? Defiant? Were they anxious? Addicted? Angry? We don't know. We do know that he disconnected...from trust and faith, from realism, from knowledge and love of the real.

He writes: "each of us is ultimately alone in our black vault, wandering our singular neural paths..." The word hallucination occurs hundreds times in this book. For him, all knowing is hallucinogenic. Each of us is confabulating a private, fictional world...without real connection with each other or a real world beyond ourselves. In the real world, we know the difference between hallucinations, as happens in schizophrenia, and real knowledge. But he dissolves that distinction and defines all knowing, all conversation, all of reality as hallucinogenic. 

His life and work contradict this view of course: why write a 300 page book when all you are writing is your particular confabulation? Why should we be together here discussing it when each of us is alone, caught in a closed privacy of  neural paths?

Here an irony arises. Storr is an excellent investigative journalist. What is investigative journalism? It is the depth study of an event or development in order to unveil what REALLY happened. The emphasis here is on REALLY! Such study assumes that something did happen, in reality, not just in someone's neural paths. It assumes that thorough research will reveal, with some degree of clarity and certainty, even if limited and always imperfect, the contours of what happened.

Storr is gifted with a fine intellect. He exercises it fruitfully in his research and writing. But he denies the very nature of "intellect." "Intellect" comes from the Latin, "inter" and "legere" which is to read into, to see into, to penetrate into the nature of a reality. Storr would see myself and the entire Western and Catholic traditions as "naive realists"...we believe that reality is real, that it was created by a supernatural intelligence, and given as gift to us, for our intellects to understand and our hearts to appreciate and love and for our wills to revere, cherish and protect. Yes we are realists. If naive means innocent and trusting, so be it. If naive means ignorant and lacking intelligence...well wait...for Storr there is no such thing as intellect or intelligence. There is only futile, closed off confabulation and hallucination. 

So we see that Storr's work and study dramatize the purposefulness of the human intellect in its passionate hunger to know the real. I see this, so happily, in the voracious, aquisitive appetities of my grandchildren in their eagerness to know and learn. Already by 1 year old their minds are sponges, soaking up knowledge of the world around them. They are NOT just manufacturing their own private hallucinations, they are taking in, trustingly, what is outside them. For example, they so quickly learn language which is specifically not solipsistic but a communion with others in the exploration of the splendors of shared created reality.

There is a second irony whereby Storr proves the opposite of his solipsistic proposal. His thesis is about story: that the human mind instinctively creates stories to shape reality and provide meaning and direction. He finds in story a kind of salvation, of transcendence or escape from the enclosed solipsistic Self. He writes: "In dramatic story we discover ourselves in acts, decisions, often surprises. We find out: Who am I?" Further he writes: "By a story we are transported out of our live, so that we can return to them changed." "Stories connect us, across tribal barriers." He writes that "the gift of story is wisdom?" But you have to wonder: what is wisdom if all knowing is hallucination? Clearly, he does not really believe what he articulates. He is in fact himself enchanted and fascinated by the real, the good, the true and the beautiful.

Something inside of him is wounded, sad, hopeless. So he cannot surrender cognitively to the very values he lives: the search for truth. The dramatic conflict of good and evil.  The beautiful.

He writes: "...in life, unlike in story, the dramatic question of who we are never has a truly satisfying answer." He does not know who he is. Or where he came from. Or where he is going. He is confused,  isolated, unhinged, despairing.

This is normal...in the state of sin. Of separation from God. Of disbelief in the person and event of Jesus Christ. 

But I have high hopes for Will Storr. His fine intellect, with its profound yearning for Truth, will finally allow him to receive Truth. His sense of the dramatic, of the collisions and collusions of freedoms, will eventually lead him to consider the Great Drama that is Creation and our Salvation and our combat with the world, the flesh and the devil. 

The Faith That Has Grasped Me (Letter 47 to My Grands)

 How rich, deep, fascinating, fierce, enlivening, enchanting and encouraging is this faith that possesses me! May it grasp you, my grandchildren, with even greater ferocity. These "C" characteristics are prominent.

1. Christ. It is all about Jesus: the event, the encounter, the challenge, the companionship, the agonistic struggle, the pardon for our sins, the strength in our weakness, the communion in a peace that surpasses understanding. Everything flows from Jesus, to the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Everything!

2. Catholic. The total package, the real deal, the symphonic and synergistic extravagance that flows from the Trinity into our world and history. Everything: the liturgy, ethics, art, style, dogmas. This is NOT Catholic Lite, or cafeteria/cultural Catholicism, or some relevant progressivism. We are talking about hardcore, undiluted, high octane, red meat, straight-up, counter-cultural, non-bourgeois Uber-Catholicism. 

3. Charismatic. The Holy Spirit, with all the charisms and fruits, infills our spirits, enflames us with love, fortifies us, protects us from evil and guides us in all wisdom. The Holy Spirit brings us to Jesus and to the Father. Our constant companion! He works in a marvelous abundance of communities,  movements, practices and traditions within the Church. He works in each of us in an utterly unique, unrepeatable manner. Come Holy Spirit! 

4. Compassionate. May our hearts, often hard and cold, become tender, attentive, responsive to the suffering of others, especially the poor, in this month (June) of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

5. Communio. Perhaps the greatest blessing upon the Church of my lifetime is the theological vision,  received through Popes John Paul and Benedict, as well as theologians such as Balthasar, who in mid-and-late-20th-century, unveiled in fresh yet traditional ways, the mystery of our "communio" with God in Christ and all that means for our lives.

6. Cultural Warrior. In the face of the demonic assault of the Sexual Revolution, may we be steadfast, fierce, fearless, courageous and clear in the affirmation of all we hold holy, true, good and beautiful.

May our hearts, intellects, wills and spirits be ever responsive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit drawing us ever deeper into communion with Jesus, our Triune God who has taken flesh and dwells with us.

Significant Events of 20th Century Catholicism

 Ten significant events and developments in the Catholic Church of the 20th century.

10. An extraordinary line of wise, holy popes, starting with Pius X and within recent memory Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul, and Benedict.

9. As in every age, witness of saints like Padre Pio, Maria Gioretti, Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Theresa, John Paul and others.

8. Mary's presence in our devotional life and appearances, particularly Fatima.

7. Social doctrine of the Church as a fluid, flexible system of principles, including solidarity and subsidiarity, in contrast to oppressive ideologies including fascism, communism and capitalist libertarianism.

6. The living out of this social vision in varieties of way including: the labor movement, civil rights, pro-life movement, Catholic Worker, Madonna House, L'Arche, Polish Solidarity and others.

5. Multiple streams of Catholic philosophy and theology which retrieved treasures of the past and expressed them in contemporary idioms. These included: Resourcement Theology (DeLubac, Bouyer, Danielou), Neo-Thomism (Maritain, Gilson), phenomenology (Stein, von Hildebrandt), and others. These found quintessential expression in Vatican II and flowered further in the "communio theology" of Balthasar, John Paul and Benedict.

4. Vatican II as the culmination and synthesis of currents of renewal including: ecumenism, liturgy, scripture study, social justice, relationship with other Churches and religions, religious liberty and engagement with society.

3. The catechesis on the human body of John Paul and the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI as the definitive Catholic response to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s in the West.

2. The movements of the Holy Spirit in the new evangelical, ecclesial movements and communities, largely lay, including charismatic renewal, Communion and Liberation, and the Neocatechumenal Way.

1. The manifestation of the Divine Mercy as revealed to St. Faustina, manifested in saints like Kolbe and Gioretti, and developed by John Paul.

This is hardly an exhaustive or definitive list but it gives a sense of the marvelous symphony of Catholic life, orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, in recent memory.

Catholic Tradition and Capital Punishment (3 of 3) (Letter 46 to the Grands)

The previous two essays considered the death penalty within the traditional pragmatic thinking of the Catholic Church; but it failed to confront the basic thrust of the papal  change in the Catechism:  the articulation of a new moral absolute. 

THE DEATH PENALTY IS INADMISSIBLE AS IT IS A  DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE INVIOLABILITY AND DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON.

On the face of it, this is a new moral absolute, a radical development of doctrine. It is not argued or demonstrated from natural law, or Church tradition. It is presented as self-evident, dogmatically, beyond discussion. Disagreement is cancelled. This is declared by Pope Francis unilaterally, without any public consultation with bishops or episcopal consensus. Nor has there been a "synodal-type" process, involving law enforcement professionals and scholars and possibly inclusive of others beyond our Church such as Jews and other genocide-survivors, Islamists, Communists and possibly Nietzchean nihilists!

 Why and when did this become such a clear, absolute moral principle? For example, the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, within historical memory, executed 12 of the Nazi leaders responsible for the world war and genocide of the Jews. Virtually unanimous agreement on the justice of that action has prevailed since then. There is little argument about it. Is that now to be seen as a "direct assault on the dignity of the human person?" Or has something changed since then?

Historical Change?

As we have established, this new teaching is a direct contradiction of accepted teaching and practice. Catholic doctrine always develops organically, in continuity with the past, unveiling aspects previously more obscure but never reversing or contradicting teaching. Therefore, the Pope could not suddenly define a new "intrinsic evil" without undermining the entirety of Catholic moral teaching. And so a change in historical circumstances is alleged by Pope Francis:

"Today, however, there is increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. 

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but at the same time do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. 

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."  Pope Francis address Oct. 13, 2017

The word "today" is key. With this word, a continuity of moral teaching is affirmed but a change in circumstances is alleged. What is this change? Let us consider:

"...there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes." This is a strange argument. I have never heard or read in the tradition that "the dignity of a person is lost after a crime." The entire Catholic moral tradition maintains the continuing dignity of the person even in grave sin as well as the offer of mercy when there is contrition. Prazini did not lose his dignity in the eyes of St. Therese after his murder; Serenelli did not lose his dignity in the eyes of St. Maria Gioretti or the Church that heard his testimony in her canonization process.  We all know Jesus words "This very day you will be with me in paradise." This statement is frankly offensive, an insult to our tradition.

"...a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state."  Really? Okay, what is this new understanding? It is not explained. There has apparently been some invisible, unarticulated change in our communal consciousness that everyone is supposed to intuit. I will venture my guess what has changed: the value of retribution is no longer upheld as an aspect of legal punishment. This was present even in Pope John Paul and Benedict in that they did not address the question. It is the null curriculum; it is systemically avoided. It is not discussed. It is cancelled. But it is an enduring reality that cannot be avoided so casually!

...systems of detention have been developed which protect citizens but do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption..."  The adequacy of our prisons is a pragmatic argument that is not entirely persuasive. But the "redemption" piece is more problematic. Clearly, rehabilitation to a decent life in this world is foreclosed by execution; but repentance from sin in preparation for the next is possibly enhanced by confrontation with a definite death sentence.

An Emotive, Sentimental Intuition

This judgment of "a direct assault upon human dignity" is an emotional, sentimental statement, not a reasoned, principled development of moral thought in line with tradition. It is a feeling. A feeling of moral repulsion. It is understandable: there is a nauseating odor to the sight of the powerful, secular state using all its power to execute a single, lonely criminal. I share the aesthetic! But we need to think!

The new moral dogma of Francis is in some ways a continuation of the thought of Popes John Paul and Benedict. Both opposed the death penalty on prudential grounds, alleging the adequacy of our prison systems. Neither of them clearly addressed the issue of retribution. Without full explanation (to my knowledge!), they seemed to dismiss it, leaving final justice to the afterlife, and rejecting execution except in rare cases. They clearly shared the moral intuition of moral repulsion, but they did not elevate it to an absolute as did Francis. Theoretically, at least, they remained within the tradition, allowing for dissent on prudential grounds. They did not change the teaching as did Francis.

Pope Francis is anti-intellectual, emotive and sentimental. This is not good for a pope. He told mafia bosses that they were going to hell if they didn't repent, but then told his agnostic friend that God would never send anyone to hell. He told a group of adolescents, on a Disney documentary, that the Church's teaching on sexuality was "still in diapers" thus dishonoring our tradition. His blanket condemnation of the death penalty is consistent with such emotivism. 

I do not share this intuition. It is not clear to me that psychopaths like Hitler, Putin or those who torture innocent children are "violated" in their dignity by being executed. Execution of such seems to me to be a minimal, modest, reasoned retribution; an affirmation of the dignity of the victims and the community. It enhances their dignity and gives them time before the execution to turn to God in repentance. I do not find this intuition in the thinking of the doctors, fathers, saints or popes.

Spiritual Roots of this Moral Intuition 

The pragmatic arguments against the practice are on the whole convincing, but not overwhelmingly so. The real issue is this intuition of the "assault on human dignity." What has changed, since say Nuremberg in 1946, beside improvements in prisons? 

A diminished sense of the supernatural...in three crucial dimensions.

1. While in the USA large majorities believe in heaven, we are largely removed from death; we live comfortable and secure; and have in our day-to-day lives little awareness of the Judgement awaiting us. Even the pious among us live as seculars; we do not vividly anticipate our destiny; we live for today. And so, the idea of depriving one of life-on-earth seems to be the greatest evil.

2. Underestimation of Evil, Sin, Lucifer and Hell. In our bourgeois comfort, we may cognitively affirm these beliefs but we remove ourselves from the brutalities of spiritual combat. We psychologize and politicize human suffering. We lessen our sense of the Sacred; of sacrilege; of holiness and evil. And so we naively hope to rehabilitate, protect and deter without recourse to the harsh love of retribution.

3. Suspicion of authority. A secular, quasi-Marxist viewpoint fails to see any divine dimension in human authority (parents, Church, state) and sees always the raw exercise of human power. There is, of course, some truth in that all human actors and institutions are sinful and prone to evil. (See 2 above.) But authority in itself comes from heaven and is itself good. And so, retribution for evil can be a good and even heavenly exercise. The modern mind cannot conceive of this.

Respect Due the Church and Pope?

The Catechism teaching on this issue is not infallible, but is authoritative. As such we Catholics owe it attention and respect. If it does not make sense to us, we are required to wait and pray...either for our own enlightenment or that of the Church. It is not impossible that that Catechism correction was itself a mistake. Active dissent would normally be disloyal. So why this fierce argument?

It is that the Church, specifically the hierarchy, today is in a crisis of truth. We face sex and financial scandals, polarization and confusion coming even from the Vatican. As a lay person I have a responsibility to witness to the truth, even when that is dissonant with the teaching of the pope. In a dysfunctional family, a parent who is alcoholic, abusive or adulterous, it is not helpful to deny or enable the situation. Rather, love in truth will require honest confrontation. That is the position today of those of us who love our tradition.

Witness of St. John Paul and Pope Benedict

I realize I am picking a theological fight here, not only with Pope Francis and most of the contemporary Church, but with my two heroes, St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. My reverence for their holiness, wisdom, erudition and life experience is immense. They lived through and confronted Nazism, Communism, Cultural Liberalism of the West and Islamic violence. In almost everything theological, I defer to their authority and competence. 

Their formulation on capital punishment avoided the absolutism of Pope Francis and allowed some discussion on prudential grounds. But I see that their dismissal of retribution is a real theological difference I have with them. This is the only fault I find. But I trust their combined theological insight more than my own. 

Therefore, all the argument I have given above I place under suspicion, in probation, in testing. I doubt that I am right and they are both wrong. Perhaps you my grandchildren or someone in the family will correct me. So I will wait, and pray... for humility and wisdom...for myself and for the Church. 

In the meantime, to get you into a more retribution mood, listen to Johnny Cash sing "The Man Comes Around."

 

Catholic Tradition on Capital Punishment (2 of 3) (Letter 45 to the Grands)

 Purposes of Capital Punishment 

Classically, we see four purposes for punishment in general: protection, deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution. Briefly we will consider each of these in regard to the death penalty.

Protection

The most obvious purpose is to protect society from aggressors. We can imagine, for example, in the "wild west" of the 19th century, without decent prisons and police systems, prompt execution of murderers was a necessity. Pope Francis, in his correction of the Catholic Catechism, echoes the views of his two predecessors that our modern prison systems are adequate to protect society. This prudential judgement is not at all obvious to me. As mentioned earlier, violence (rape, murder, gangs) is widespread in our prisons and worse in other countries. We must reckon with the reality of Hannibal-Lector-type psychopaths who are a threat to human life, even in prison. A solution to this is solitary confinement for the worst of them. But this is itself, for many people, a form of torture. Arguably, a more merciful approach is execution than prolonged torture.

Scenario: Imagine a country in which organized crime is very powerful, reaching into government, police and jails by bribery and threats to the families of those who enforce rule of law. They have now moved into the kidnapping of the children of the affluent, torturing them on video even to death to extort money. Would it be just to execute those who intentionally torture such children? I think so! In any case the discussion is not to be foreclosed by premature cancelation. 

Deterrence

Here we execute aggressors to prevent future attacks on the innocent. A problem here is that deterrence works best when it is highly predictable. The gravity of a punishment is less effective if it is less probable. The death penalty is less effective if it is rarely inflicted. In modern society, even where it is legal,  juries are disinclined to inflict it. So in current circumstances it is not effective.

As in our consideration of protection, this is a strong, but not a determining factor. We know there have been documented cases, for example, in which burglars are surprised by the presence of a child who could identify them but the little one was spared because one of the criminals feared the death penalty. It is impossible to accurately measure the effectiveness of this deterrence. But let's imagine that in a place like Texas there are 10 executions annually. If we had reason to believe 5 innocents were spared murder, would the practice be justified? We can disagree about this. I would say yes! 

Rehabilitation

Execution forecloses rehabilitation for this life. From a supernatural perspective, however, we know that our purpose on this earth is to prepare for heaven...or hell. We know of many death row conversions. St. Therese of Lisieux prayed for the famous murderer Pranzini. Avery Cardinal Dulles not long ago echoed the traditional view that confrontation with certain death can provoke a life examin and last minute conversion in the manner of the good thief at Calvary. Seen in this perspective, a death penalty can be an act of mercy. This perspective is ridiculous, of course, to the secular mind. It is therefore not intelligible to the modern consensus, but not to the Catholic intellect. As with the prior two considerations, a discussion is warranted and not to be prematurely cancelled.

Retribution

Here we face the most profound, sensitive and entirely ignored element. Retribution is widely confused with revenge. It is the opposite. Revenge is personal, subjective hatred and the compulsion to harm the offender. Retribution is social, objective intention to reward the good and punish the evil. We Catholics believe that at our death, we will face our particular judgement: reward for our good (even if purgatory is required) or penalty in hell for evil. In truth, justice, and mercy God "retributes" (etymologically meaning "assign back") us for what we have done with our freedom. 

Earthly retribution is to resemble heavenly justice: good is rewarded and bad punished. Intuitively, our conscience recognizes this. We want evil punished and good rewarded. This is not just emotional revenge. Our laws, judiciary, prosecutors, judges and juries are functions of justice, not revenge. Retribution is a good thing, not an evil one.

Scenario: Imagine that Russia is defeated in the Ukraine and Putin and his cohort are brought to an international tribunal. What would be a just punishment? In my view, a fair treatment would be long, slow torture. But in mercy we might simply give painless capital punishment. Such would NOT be an affront to human dignity; but an affirmation of it.

My View on Capital Punishment

I am not myself an advocate of it. I am about 60-40 against it. In the state of NJ the last execution was 60 years ago. I would not vote to reinstitute it; for a number of contingent reasons, no one of which is determinative:

1. Errors are often made and the innocent wrongly killed. Developments in DNA and other law enforcement protocols can reduce this but it remains today a factor.

2.In the past  Afro-Americans and today the underclass  unfairly receive the death verdict while the wealthy/powerful avoid it. This is not just. Theoretically this could be overcome; but it is not likely given our class structure.

3. Deterrence is not effective because its use is rare and unreliable. 

4. Our prison system is broadly adequate, although not entirely so.

5. Our current manner of execution is a long, costly and therefore tortuous, inhumane process.  Again, this could be overcome by more expeditious procedures but that is unlikely.

In another place and time I might prudentially favor this penalty.

Freedom of the Catholic Conscience

Framed within Catholic tradition, the blanket condemnation by Pope Francis in the Catechism is here seen as a contingent, prudential judgement which allows for disagreement by Catholics of good faith. This is important in principle and in practice for the Catholic laity. A Catholic cannot coherently support abortion or genocide. But a Catholic prosecutor, judge, legislator or jury member in the 27 states in the USA with the death penalty can in good conscience participate in its implementation if their conscience allows. Were I myself a jury member in such a state, although I would vote against it as a legislator, I would not have a problem implementing it as a jury member since I would defer to the decision of the legislature as allowable morally although not persuasive. I would have a moral reluctance, but not an absolute resistance. The many who agree with Pope Francis would coherently have to excuse themselves from serving in the process.

A New Moral Absolute?

Pope Francis, in his condemnation, does not primarily argue on prudential grounds, although he does mention the adequacy of our protective measures without execution. He declares that execution is itself "a direct assault on the dignity of the human person."

This is a novel, deeply emotional, and radical statement, without any roots in our tradition. We will consider it in our next and last essay on this topic. 

Catholic Tradition on Capital Punishment (1 of 3) (Letter 44 to Grands)

 Does the Catholic Church Accept the Death Penalty?

Yes, she does. This will come as a surprise to many of you as you have been catechized in the fashionable opinion, even inserted by Pope Francis into the Catholic Catechism, that it is "no longer admissible." This will take some explaining.

Church Teaching on the Use of Lethal Force by the State

For centuries, the Catholic teaching is that the State may and must use lethal force, when necessary, in war, police work or capital punishment, to protect the innocent, the common good, the peace and justice of society. The killing of a human being, by the state, when it is reasonable, required, protective and proportionate, is not an evil act. It is a just act. It is protective of life against evil actors. The Catholic Church is not and never will be pacifist. On the contrary, we honor our police and military who are willing to give their own lives, and yes take the lives of aggressors, to protect our community.

Scenario:  a sniper is on the roof of a building overlooking a schoolyard in which several hundred children are gathered. With his automatic rifle, he is shooting the innocents and will be able to kill all of them within a few minutes, before they can escape. A squat team member is positioned and directed to shoot the sniper. He does so. What he did was not violence understood as the violation of a person and his good. What he did was a just act, a proper use of lethal force, under obedience to an authoritative order of the state, to protect several hundred innocent children and the community.

Intrinsically Evil Acts vs. Prudential Judgement Acts

A bedrock foundation of Catholic ethics is that certain actions are always and everywhere, intrinsically evil and can never be done...NEVER! Such actions, whatever the subjective intention or the circumstances or the consequences, cannot be done because they are in themselves inherently evil. Such include: deliberate killing of the innocent, torture, abortion, adultery, pedophilia, and sexual engagement outside of marriage. 

By contrast, other actions are not intrinsically evil but may be so because of the intention, circumstances or consequences. For example, lying is not absolutely wrong: the German in 1943, hiding a Jewish family in the attic, lies to the Gestapo that there is no one there. That is a good act. The father whose family is starving steals a loaf of bread from his neighbor who has so much that he discards hundreds of loaves daily. That is a good act. To kill someone in self-defense or to protect the family is a just act. 

Such actions demand a prudential decision, a calculation of the risks and consequences of the alternatives, such as restrain or use of force. Often such deliberations occur in confusion, complexity and uncertainty. In such areas no one is infallible, least of all the clergy. We do our best. Later we may realize that we made a mistake of judgement. But if there was no evil intent, but an honest error of the intellect rather than bad will, there is no sin. 

In public policy and politics, most areas involve prudential judgements about which Catholics of high intelligence and good will  differ. In Ukraine, should we withhold arms to provoke a peace conference? or keep our current path of aid? or give even more help to the Ukrainians including jets and even advisors or troops on the ground? There is no clear, Catholic or revealed answer to this. Other similar prudential judgments include: border policy, health care, taxation, guns, climate and regulations and rules of all sorts.

But some political practices are inherently evil: legalized abortion, the atom bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Putin's invasion of the Ukraine, the genocide in Rwanda. 

Capital punishment is not inherently evil. Therefore, it is a prudential judgment: if not necessary to protect life and order, it obviously should not be used. This is a judgement about which we Catholics can disagree; not so with genocide and abortion. There is no moral equivalence between abortion and the death penalty.

Competence of the Pope, Bishops and Magisterium

As Catholic we believe that the Holy Spirit guides us, reliably, through our Pope and Bishops in matters of faith and morals. By "morals" of course we mean the principles of right and wrong and about intrinsic evils, but not the practicalities of prudential judgements. Outside of that area, they have no authority or competence, for example, in determining: tax plans, border policy, warfare, climate measures, the death penalty and such.

On such prudential matters, the pope and bishops, like everyone else, have a right to their own opinion and to voicing it. We do well to listen to them, not in filial obedience, but with an open but not uncritical mind. First of all they do have good moral principles, the very best. They are generally intelligent and informed. They often, especially the pope, transcend narrow national or ideological prejudices and have concern for a "catholic" or wide range of populations. But they have no real expertise. As a matter of fact, in areas of culture and politics the laity are more expert and responsible. Our elected officials and their informed advisors are really competent about and responsible for these. 

So if the pope or a bishop or conference of bishops voice an opinion on a prudential matter, we listen to it, critically. They have no special authority or competence. Like the rest of us, they have their own confusions, prejudices and blindness. 

There is a "clericalist" temptation for such clergy to invest their practical opinions with an aura of authority or certainty. The Church has a long, unhappy history of involvement in politics, often "consecrating" a particular polity. For centuries the Catholic Church was wedded, adulterously, to the status quo powers-powers-that-be in Latin American, Spain, Italy and other countries. Where we live, blue-state NJ, it is more common to hear a priest in the pulpit advocating a liberal view and cloaking it in the sanctity of the Church. This is a big mistake! Our pastor in Jersey City, a personal friend, would relentlessly preach against warfare and the military every July 4 and Memorial Day. My military son found it necessary to attend mass in another parish so offensive was this sanctimonious progressivism. Such is a creeping clericalism whereby the hierarchy assumes an authority where they have none.

Unfortunately, Pope Francis himself has this tendency. He is cavalier or even derogatory about dogma and morals, in which he is ordained with authority, but enamored of his own prudential views about immigration, death penalty and related issues. So he has presented himself as chaplain to a cosmopolitan, Western, liberal vision of society in opposition to populist, nationalist movements of Trump and others. He so doing he dilutes and ignores his real responsibility to teach on faith and morals and polarizes the Church rather than unifying those with different policy viewpoints.

Unfortunately, his decision to change the wording of the Catholic Catechism to declare unconditionally that capital punishment is "no longer admissible" is just such an overreach. He did not change Catholic teaching; he cannot do so, even as Pope. What he actually declared was his practical evaluation that it is no longer required in our world. 

The first thing to notice is that this is a practical, policy decision about which he has no unusual competence. I myself have been in American prisons perhaps 15 to 20 times in my adult life, visiting friends or in prayer ministry. I have read about our prisons over the years.  I am confident I, a layman, know more about American prisons than our Holy Father. I know that they are rife with violence: rape, gang activity, organized crime. The determination that our prisons are adequate for the protection of our society is a problematic one to be sure. 

The second thing to notice is the unconditional, absolute wording: "is no longer admissible." He speaks an absolute that presumes to apply everywhere and forever. This is a brazen overreach. 

Competence of the Laity

Clearly than, the prudential judgment about capital punishment is the expertise of the laity, not the hierarchy. It is the specific responsibility of our elected officials, our professionals (prison, law enforcement, prosecutors, scholars of criminal law, etc.) and broadly of us the concerned, informed laity. As a Catholic, you are responsible to educate yourself and make an informed decision about the necessity of the death penalty.

In the next essay, #2, we will consider criteria to make this judgement.