Memores Domini

For about a dozen years, I have been pondering, with intuitive awe but cognitive dissonance, the vocation of my daughter, Margaret Rose, in the Memores Domini. This vocation to live "the memory of the Lord" is fascinating, but does not fit our received Catholic categories. It is a life of the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity and obedience) as a lay person in the world. I explain it incoherently to others: "She is like a nun, but not a nun." Or more accurately for the informed: "It is close to a secular institute, but not exactly."  They accentuate their lay or secular character by avoiding religious terminology like "vow" and "consecration" and yet their lives are given over totally to Christ in the literal practice of these three evangelical counsels, within community, yet much in the world.

Giussani and St. Benedict: the Incarnation

In the current Communio ("Memores Domini: Living the Lord's Memory in a Post-Christian World," Summer 2023), Father Antonio Lopez, a Communion and Liberation priest-theologian deeply involved with this community, has shed a great deal of light. Within a deeper meditation on "memory of the Lord," Father Antonio describes the life as distinct from, but enriching of the married, clerical and religious lives. The life is a total, nuptial, virginal surrender to Christ the Bridegroom in the profession of poverty, chastity and obedience. It is entirely lay as non-clerical, removed from the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is Not in any way an official representation of the Church. It is also lay as distinct from the traditional religious life, understood as removal from the world into an alternative monastic, itinerant or even active religious life. 

This life is a specific expression of the broader charism received by Monsignor Luigi Giussani and carried by the Communion and Liberation movement. Lopez helpfully compares Giussani with St. Benedict and the monastic vocation. Stress is placed on the primacy of the Incarnation. The entrance of the Logos into the world has, in fact, consecrated all of life to God. The presence of God, after the coming of Christ, permeates the entirety of life. And so we find in Giussani a pronounced positivity. This positivity flows, of course, from the original goodness of Creation; from the Incarnation; from the redemption by Jesus on the cross, the resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit. This positivity flows from engagement with Christ within the Church, the historical, flawed, hierarchical, magisterial, sacramental Church. But the world, even as separated from God by sin, is itself a desperate hunger for God. And so, the Christian, overflowing with the graces of baptism/confirmation, nourished by the Eucharist and the Word and the community, moves in the world with sublime confidence, joy and vigor. A distinctive theme in Giussani is the primal goodness of desire, even when disordered, as a longing for God.

The obvious difference between Benedict's monk and Giussani's memores is, of course,  that the former moves away from the world into the monastery; the latter moves into the world, confident that the world, even as sinful, is thirsting for this Word of Life. It is a retrieval, in a sense, of the primal evangelical energies of the original, persecuted Church that did not yet know the "states of life" (clerical, religious) that Catholic history was to delineate.

Engagement with, Detachment from "the World": Secular Institute?

We can trace a pattern in the history of Catholic spirituality. The desert fathers/mothers fled a post-Constantine society viewed as sinful to build an alternative. In the middle ages, the mendicants maintained a distinct "consecrated" life as they penetrated directly, evangelically, into the world. This tendency was carried along into the modern era with the vigorous active orders which entailed consecration (as separation from the world in community, dress, vows, etc.) but vigorous service within society as in missions, education, and acts of mercy. 

The Secular Institute, recognized by the Church after WWII, presents a new form: "consecration, secularity and mission." They are consecrated to Christ, by the vows, in a life of secularity, in the world, bringing the light of the  Gospel to every aspect of society, without the traditional trappings of the religious life. 

The Memores Domini, as I understand it, is really a form of the Secular Institute but distinct in that there is no public vow, received canonically by the bishop. Rather, Lopez explains, it is a private association, approved and guided by the hierarchy, but not officially associated and representative of it. We might see this "private" rather than "public" profession as an accentuation of the lay or secular quality of the community. They are a secular institute but more secular.  There is a distance from the canonical, hierarchical Church. This can be a loss, but also a gain. Distance suggests a lack of closeness or intimacy with the bishop and hierarchy. But also a freedom of movement as there is no public identification with the hierarchy. 

Holiness of Secular Work

Similar to the secular institute, there is a pronounced sense of the sacredness of lay work. As they make their evangelical "profession," so most are strongly dedicated to a career "profession" as an arena of service which often entails education, certification and lifelong dedication. It is understood, Fr. Lopez explains, as a now-redeemed participation in God's creation: in stewardship of the earth and Adam's primal "naming" of the creatures as an evocation of their inherent goodness. In this they resemble Opus Dei. In this they contrast with the Neocatechumenal Way which accentuates strong community and family life with an apparent diminishment of the relative value of career and service in the public arena. 

Giussani and Kiko (founder of the Neocatechumenal Way) also strongly differ in their view of the world: Giussani's Italian, Renaissance-like confidence and positivity contrasts sharply with Kiko's apocalyptic, dystopian view of Western society and even (implicitly) of the institutional Church. Kiko's is a sharper sense of sin: if Giussani lives in Christmas, with an eye towards the Paschal Mystery, Kiko lives in Holy Week, remembering the Nativity. At its worst, CL fails to make clear, decisive judgments against a world turned away from God and so abstains from the Culture War; at its worst, "the Way" is suspicious, defensive, and in flight from a threatening world. As extremes, they represent the perennial tension within the broader, always inclusive Catholicism as engaged in a world created good, redeemed, and remaining largely in bondage to sin and the demonic.

Vows? Promises? Profession?

Their "profession" of virginity (along with poverty and obedience) is a total gift and therefore subjectively or interiorly a "vow" in the classic sense. But exteriorly, it is not canonically accepted. Therefore, should the memores have a radical change of mind, there is no impediment to marriage. The transition back into normal lay life of marriage, freedom and ownership is not hindered by any ecclesial barrier. 

It would seem, likewise, that the memores is free to initiate (business, organization, association) and advocate (policy, politics) as there is distance from the official Church. This calls to mind the voluntary laicization of Monsignor Ivan Illich in the late 1960s. An influential, controversial clergyman, he voluntarily relinquished his clerical prerogatives for the freedom to advocate controversial social policy. He remained faithful to his vows of celibacy and the daily prayer of the Church. He returned to the lay state in terms of his activism, but remained interiorly consecrated to virginity and daily prayer. His state was similar to that of the memores, although he retained, of course, the indelible character of ordination.

Privacy of Profession 

The evangelical promises or profession,  are interiorly intended as final, total and binding, but are not so externally or canonically.  They are made in private, with the association; even immediate  family do not participate. This was, for my wife and I, a strange thing when we accompanied Margaret to northern Italy for this life-defining event. In our experience, marriage, ordination and solemn vows are all occasions for family participation, not exclusion. We did not, and do not, entirely understand the purpose of the privacy. We peacefully accepted it, of course, and immensely enjoyed the entire trip, including visits to families of the movement, as an extended celebration of her profession. 

In considering this privacy or distance, I do see some meaning. There is an inviolable privacy to every person's vocation in Christ. For example, the marriage is public, before the assembly, but the consummation is, obviously, private and secretive. It is holy, like the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple which only the High Priest could enter. But even in marriage each spouse retains an interior solitude or privacy which is accessed only by Christ himself. So our distance from Margaret in her profession was itself symbolic of an interior movement of her...away from embedment within our family, into a new family or community,  to her mission within the Church and the world, and into intimacy with Christ. It is analogous, then, to the departure of the child to the spouse and into a new family; or of the priest/religious who leaves the family for a new life and community. And so, Margaret Rose has been very close to us with regular phone calls and periodic visits and maintains a steadfast sense that she is our same daughter; and yet there is a mysterious, indescribable detachment as she has gone away, almost like the Irish monk who embraces a "white" and probably "red" martyrdom by departing Ireland for pagan Germany in the 6th century or the Maryknoll missioner who in 1930 goes to China, possibly never to come home.

A Durable, Perennial Form?

Margaret is thriving, joyous and vigorous in her life form. Her own personality and temperament are remarkably consonant with the positivity of Giussani, CL and Memores Domini. I have no doubt that she will live out her live quite gloriously in this vocation. This brings me great joy. And yet, I wonder, beyond her life: is this a durable form within the Church? Is it a perennial, like the monastic or mendicant or active religious orders? Or is it an annual, which blooms beautifully for this season, but then fades with the passing of time? Only time will tell of course. There remains an obscurity about the life.

There is a superficial resemblance to what we might call the "modern nun." Many religious sisters, after the Council, abandoned the apparatus of the religious life (habits, convents, etc.) and adopted a lay style, even as they retained their evangelical vows, prayer life, communion with others, and service to the poor. I have known so many. They live admirable lives. But the form is not durable. There are no new vocations to this religious form which is clearly not a perennial. It does not procreate itself. 

The essay from Fr. Lopez is a major contribution toward a clarity of definition of this vocation. It flows from a spirituality of the Incarnation which rivals in positivity those of Benedict, Francis, Dominic and others. It is a total self-giving in nuptial intimacy with the Bridegroom (poverty, chastity, obedience) as it is starkly secular or lay in its immersion in the world and work in immense confidence and positivity. Perhaps it will take up what is best in the life form of the "modern nun" and crystalize it into a hard, distinctive, durable form of Catholic life.

I am left, after reading this essay, with a more lucid understanding of this vocation as evangelical, virginal and lay. Evangelical in the sense, primarily, that it flows from intimacy with the person of Jesus and secondarily that it is an urgency to share this love with others. It is virginal as a total gift of self, to the Bridegroom, surrendering marriage-freedom-ownership, in total, mystical, mutual- possessiveness of the Beloved and unrestrained service to the Church and world, within a community of the same. It is lay as immersed in a graced but flawed world, and in communion with but clearly detached from the hierarchy and traditional religious life.

They benefit from an evangelical "rule of life." This has been lacking in the style of the "modern nun" who abandoned traditional convent protocols but was left without a hard form, aside from the subjective but fragile intentions for prayer, community and service. Such were vulnerable to fashionable, progressive ideologies including  feminism and leftwing social activism. Their rule includes community prayer, silence, the sacramental life of the laity, regular direction and instruction from leadership.

 Context Within the Broader Communion and Liberation Movement

Memores Domini is intelligible only within the broader organism, Communion and Liberation. Birthed in the 1960s, out of a charism granted to Monsignor Giussani, it was in part a response to the secular liberation movements of the time. Deliberately, it self-identifies as a "movement" unlike other ecclesial associations. That era, and the entire post-war period, the lifetime of our boomer generation, has seen a parade of movements come and go: worker priests, Cana, civil rights, peace movement, hippies, farm workers, ecumenism, liberation theology, feminism, gay liberation, moral majority, and so many more. Most of these left deep influences on the society and Church but not an enduring form. 

And so, the obvious question: Is CL (and Memories Domini) a passing movement or a durable form, an annual or a perennial in the life of the Church?

The perplexity is that, for better or for worse, it is a soft, not a hard form. It is similar to the charismatic renewal or the peace movement rather than Opus Dei, Regnum Christi or the Neocatechumenate. Participants gather fluidly, enthusiastically in "schools of community" around the writings of Giussani and the NY Encounter, an annual, eclectic gathering that fairly explodes with youthful, contagious positivity. But organic life requires as well a skeletal, muscular stability as well as fluidity and flexibility. 

The lucid, profound theological presentation by Fr. Lopez is a marvelous step towards clarity and permanence. It remains to be seen if the movement and the particular association will develop practical forms to preserve, protect and advance this splendid charism. 

  

Currents of Healing, Liberation and Vitality in a Catholic Life

 August 1973, my wife Mary Lynn and I are walking the beach near Portland, Maine. We are on a heavenly vacation, married over two years, radiant with enthusiasm after our Cursillo and then participation in the Charismatic Renewal a few months earlier. It was during this time we conceived our first child. With  fervor I share my urgent longing to engage our faith in Christ in the healing of psychological suffering. Mary Lynn is entirely in accord with this purpose. In an informal, quiet manner, we ascent to a kind of a covenant, an oath to pursue that. 

Fifty years later: neither of us are psychologists. But two daughters are; as well as almost ten nieces/nephews or their spouses; healing is strong in our family culture. But we have been drawn to currents of healing, liberation and vitality, many outside of professional psychology, within the Catholic culture of our time. Some are listed below.

1. Listening. Father Charles A. Curran (psychologist, not moral theologian of same era) in the 1960-70s developed the non-directive counseling of Carl Rogers into a therapeutic praxis of "listening" but  grounded it in a solid Catholic spirituality. He applied this to education as "counselearning." As a young, struggling teacher myself, I was deeply moved when he explained the power that the student has over the teacher: the power to listen or not, to receive or reject. The teacher is powerless, vulnerable before the student. He explained the parable of the seed sown: Jesus was articulating his own frustration and pain as the Word he spoke was rejected in different ways. For me, he contrasted with the popular, often superficial Rogerian fad exemplified in (ex-Maryknoll-priest) Eugene Kennedy who taught at my college-seminary. Kennedy left the priesthood to marry and lead many others in dissent from Catholic traditions. He had a cult following at time, especially among his students; but he awoke in me (and apparently in no one else a profound aversion. (May he rest in peace.) From Curran I learned the immense power of listening.

2. Affirmation. Conrad Baars, survivor of a concentration camp, developed a Catholic therapy of "affirmation" which accentuated the positive declaration of the worth, goodness and lovableness of the person. This was proposed as the antidote to what he called "emotional deprivation." This approach, for me, clearly identified a fundamental healing practice: to see and acknowledge the truth, goodness and beauty of the person before me, suffering deprivation or not. His daughter Suzanne Baars continues this legacy. Affirmation, aligned with the deep listening of Curran, provide a solid basis for healing relationships.

3. Gentleness. Adrian van Kaam, a Dutch priest, developed at Duquesne University a strong program in spirituality. Like Baars, he suffered heroically in World War II, risking his life to bring food to Jews. He studied under Carl Rogers and Eric Ericson and wrote his doctoral disseration on "The Experience of Really Being Understood by a Person." He married Catholic spirituality, solid psychology and phenomenological approach to develop a school of spirituality that greatly influenced the Church after the Council. His book on "Gentleness" deeply impressed me. He explained that one must be gentle with oneself, including anger, anxiety, depression, in order to bring such gentleness to others. He is very much in the stream of Baars and Curran but brings an enriching emphasis.

4. Psychology as Religion (subtitle: the cult of self-worship) is a 1977 groundbreaking work by Paul Vitz. Coming of age in the late 1960s and early 70s, I was, with the culture and our Church, swept into a euphoria about the salvific efficacy of psychology. Vitz, a cognitive psychologist convert to Catholicism, unveils the pretensions and errors of what he calls "Selfism." He takes on the titanic idols of the time (Eric Fromm, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May, Jung) and shows that we have here an alternate religion masquerading as science. He opened my eyes to the illusions I had entertained in my own enthusiasm for these theories. He continued to make major contributions in works like Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, and The Christian Unconscious of Sigmund Freud,  in which he sheds the light of genuine psychology on the disguised pathologies of the giants of the discipline. He has developed a profound Catholic-inspired psychology of the enthroned Self, fatherhood and masculinity/femininity. He directed my daughter's doctoral dissertation on "The Role of the Experience of Beauty in Healing." 

5. Release of the Holy Spirit, within the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, was a dramatic, life-changing event. By a miraculous liberation, I was at once relieved of my liberal-do-gooder-guilt-complex and released into a joyful, trusting receptivity to the movements of the Holy Spirit. This Counselor became an agent, a guide, a strengthener, a stability in my life. Scripture took on meaning, practical guidance a reality, prayer of praise a joy. In the gift of tongues my heart and spirit surrendered to a song of adoration that moved beyond the restrains of social approval and cognitive deliberation. It seemed that my rigid, defensive ego defenses collapsed before an inflowing of heavenly love. Within a lively communion of prayer we delighted in reception of the Word, liturgy, vigorous hymns, and fraternity. This also opened my spirit to new dimensions of our Catholic legacy.

6. Healing of Memories was a specific Pentecostal ministry developed by Ruth Carter Stapleton. For those suffering the consequences of hurtful, even traumatic memories, she would gently guide into a remembrance of the event and then invoke and imagine the concrete presence of Jesus. This was Jesus-focused and psychology-based and gentle in style. The participant would rest quietly and await the movement of the imagination, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and receive the action or words of Jesus. I practiced this upon personal memories and enjoyed healing, consolation and new strength.

7. Deliverance from Evil Spirits, another fruit of the Charismatic Renewal, was developed by Neal Lozano into a prayerful, user-friendly, Jesus-centered, gentle, psychology-based exercise in liberation from obsessive, supernatural demons. First, one listens attentively to the story of the one bound in regard to the specific sufferings (anxiety, anger, lust, resentment, victim-complex, etc.) and then the story of one's family, childhood, history of trauma and emotion. In openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, specific areas of hurt and sin are identified. Then a five-step prayer is exercised: repentance as turning away from sin and to Jesus as Savior; forgiveness (in the name of Jesus) of anyone who has done harm; renunciation, clearly and in name of Jesus, of the specific spirit that has inhabited the heart and soul (anger, lust, etc.); command by the helper which strengthens the renunciation of the partipant; and a blessing to invoke the Holy Spirit to replace the expelled demon (trust in place of anxiety, pardon in place of anger, etc.) The practice is unapologetically supernatural, acknowledging the real activity of demons, as it is simple, faithful, and quietly efficacious.

8. 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous is the incomparable antidote to compulsion, addiction and whatever exercises control over one's life. It is simple yet profound and complex: acceptance of powerlessness, surrender to Higher Power, moral inventory, making of amends, fellowship in accountability and brutal honesty, sharing of the program. Applying it to areas of personal powerlessness I found a new freedom, including a surprising release from a lifelong, unrecognized, low level fear. Additionally, I learned from the Al Anon program to life serenely with the compulsions of those around me. This opened a door of liberation previously closed to me.

9. Scrutinies of the Neocatechumenal Way This is a practice I observed with great respect and astonishment. An integral step in this extraordinary itinerary of faith, it involves a review of one's life and then direction, from the catechists, into a task that directly addresses a crucial area of personal bondage. It has resemblances to deliverance, healing of memories and the 12 steps but is quite distinct. Often it involves forgiveness, asking of pardon, and reconciliation with an alienated family member. It is entirely particular to the person. The catechists I observed were entirely unprofessional but seemed to be guided by the Holy Spirit to identify and then address an underlying spiritual dysfunction. It is largely unknown outside of this movement. It is suspect within clerical circles. I see it as another miracle from God.

10. Recovery Self-Help Program  of psychiatrist Dr. Abraham Lowe was developed back in 1937 as a group process by which those suffering nervous conditions and anxiety assist each other in what we now call cognitive therapy. It is contemporaneous with AA of Bill W. and Doctor Bob as a self-help program but focuses on thoughts. Participants share anxious experiences and then offer each other "spottings" which are positive, encouraging thoughts to replace the negative ones. Examples: "This is distressing but not dangerous." "Anger is my worst enemy; humor my best friends." "My inner feelings are not transparent to others." "Just move the muscles." It is a communal strengthening of the intellect and will. Amazing! How happy I was to share this with family members suffering anxieties.

11. Gratitude Litany.  In a doctor's office waiting room 25 years ago the Oprah Winfrey show offered celebrities witnessing the transformation in their lives, from sadness to joy, when they started their nightly gratitude journal. Nightly, they journaled five things of the day for which they were grateful. It effected a remarkable change for the better in their mood and attitude. As I practiced this, I found the same result. When I am feeling down, I go into my gratitude list, naming things large (my family, faith) and small (sneakers, white hair), and I find joy always returns.

12. Praise in All Things is close to gratitude but accentuates praise in bad things. Sharply described in Merlyn Carothers "Power in Praise," this practice accepts literally that "all things work to the good for those who love God." So it is precisely in bad, even evil things...sickness, death, suffering, sin, frustration, disappointment, failure...that one praises God, trusting in Divine Providence to bring good out of bad. I found, for example, that when I got a red light when running late (my baseline) that instead of cursing I could turn in praise to God and my attitude changed immediately. In "Turn Your Back on the Problem" Malcolm Smith recommends exactly that. A conscientious, social-justice, charismatic Anglican pastor he struggled fiercely against poverty and deprivation until he was exhausted and burnt out. He gave up. Went into his library, knelt down,  and started a serious routine of praise and prayer over scripture. This started to influence his preaching and suddenly the Holy Spirit took over and there was major revival, followed by remarkable service of the poor. 

13. Flight from Woman, by psychiatrist Karl Stern (1965) considers the male/female polarity and finds in the creators of modernity (Descartes, Sartre, etc.) a profound disconnect from the maternal. This important book appeared at the very time a militant feminism was deconstructing the very idea of the feminine as well as the masculine. It highlighted that the dynamism of marriage...the spousal, filial, maternal and paternal...is the core of culture, thought and the entire social order. It is part of a body of literature, essential but out of fashion, that sees the iconic nature of the masculine/feminine.

14. Reparative Therapy, developed by Joseph Nicolosi, Elizabeth Moberly, and others, is a Catholic-friendly attention to psychological wounds often underlying homosexuality, especially in its compulsive expressions. It is widely maligned as "conversion therapy," an attempt to change an alleged "orientation" from one direction to another.  Rather, it is offered to those who feel trapped by their sexual proclivities and addresses root causes: body image, father problems, insecurity with male peers, sexual abuse, failure to detach from mother, and others. I welcomed this approach as it helped me identify the roots of my own particular "concupiscence tendencies" and heal the causes thus bringing freedom and enhanced virility.

15. Theology of the Body of St. John Paul, along with the anthropology developed by Edith Stein, Dietric von Hildebrand and others elaborated the dignity, beauty, and generosity of gender/sexuality as expressive of the boundless graciousness of the Triune God. This represented for me the most important development in Catholic thought in the 20th century and has immense psychological and emotional consequences when engaged. 

16. Mimesis Anthropology of Rene Girard, especially as elaborated by his protege Gil Baile, unveils the imitative nature of the human person: we are who we imitate. This deconstructs the illusion of the isolated, imperial Self. It explains wide areas of human behavior and culture. It unveils the person as created to image Another, the Holy Trinity.

17. Dramatics of Hans Urs von Balthasar For this mystic, theological genius, Being and all life, even the immanent life of the Trinity, is the eventful engagement of Freedoms. Every aspect of my own life, however minor, becomes Eventful, a dramatic engagement of my Freedom...heart, intellect will...with The Great Freedom of God (who created and then redeemed me out of total gratuity) and that of my brother and sister Freedoms. This is an exhilarating, joyous vision of life!

Each of the above are powerful cultural, spiritual, psychological currents which feed into a wide river of freedom, joy and love. They are like distinct melodies or tunes which harmonize into a greater symphony of order, beauty and hope. I am immensely grateful for being blessed by all of them.  

A Synodal Scrutiny for Our Holy Father

He didn't ask me, but I am offering advice, some spiritual direction, a personalized scrutiny for Pope Francis.

In this synodal year of listening, dear Holy Father, set aside a day every week, we can call it "Synodal Saturday," for you to listen...attentively, receptively, trustingly, fondly, reverently...to specific groups that have been marginalized. These will include:

1. Start with basics: a personal tutorial on the role of metaphysics/philosophy in theology in the Tradition, the nature and value of doctrine, the concept of a "deposit of faith." I recommend my friend Monsignor Tom Guarino who is experienced in instructing seminarians, many challenged like Pope Francis in metaphysical skills. (For an example of fraternal correction, not overcorrection, see his: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/11/what-pope-francis-could-learn-from-fides-et-ratio.) There are others: Cardinal Mueller, Father Weinardy, D.C. Schindler. (The latter would have to dumb down his thinking considerably. There is no evidence that the young Bergoglio mastered the material of Fundamental Theology 101.) His teaching suggests an affinity for existentialism and populist liberation thought along with an allergy to classic Catholic thought. Perhaps he could also reread Romano Guardino, whom he favored earlier in his life, and would nicely rebalance and center him.

2. A good session with the "dubia" Cardinals. Of course Cardinals Fernandez, Ouellet, Schonborn and others could participate.

3. Cardinal Zen, survivors of the martyred, underground Church, and some Uyghurs.

4. Young families attached to the Latin Mass.

5. Professors fired from the John Paul Institute for Marriage and Family in Rome. Focus on Theology of the Body. This will be reparation for Francis' disrespect for the legacy of his two predecessors.

6. The half dozen most generous, affluent American donors to the Church. They could share their love for their Catholic faith and why they give so graciously.

7. Conservative, lay Catholics from the USA including people like Reno, Arroyo, R. Martin, Royal, Simmons, Vree, Esolen, Weigel and others.

8. Consider Catholic engagement with Islam by a close reading of Benedict's Regensburg Address and meeting  with family of the martyred in Nigeria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and across the globe.

9. Reconsider the dissonant papal fiat on capital punishment by listening to non-Catholic families who have lost innocents to violence with attention to Jews (Oct. 7), Yasidis in Iraq, and victims of serial, psychotic killers. 

10. Listen to participants from Courage, the self-help for Catholics suffering same-sex longing for growth in chastity. This could be followed up by sessions with the religious sisters victimized by his friend Fr. Rubnik. 

This is a good beginning. There are others. The Holy Father might complement this penitential practice by light asceticism in an abstinence, a pause so to speak, in public meeting  with first world progressive celebrities he prefers: Nancy Pelosi, Fr. Jim Martin, climate activists, many of his cardinals, Zuckerberg, Biden, the alphabetical sexual liberationists. 

It would be an inspiring exemplar of a wholesome synodality were our Holy Father to embrace such an itinerary. I am moved to ask myself: how can I do the same? Maybe I will start by listening to Richard Rohr podcasts, re-subscribing to American magazine after a separation of so many years, and reading up on global warming. I am due for a good "examen of conscience" a la St. Ignatius of Loyola: Who is that I really don't want to listen to? That is exactly to whom I will listen!

Reverence for the Indelible, Priestly Character (Seal) of the "Ex-Priest"

 "Ex-Priest" is in quotes because there is no such thing; it is an oxymoron: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Once a priest, always a priest. Holy Orders (of deacon, priest, bishop) give an indelible character or seal that permanently marks the priest. It can never be removed. Laicization canonically allows the priest to function like a lay person: marry and so forth. It removes clerical obligations (celibacy, daily prayer of the Church), permissions (to administer the sacraments); but the interior charism, seal and power remain...forever.  The soul, the interiority, of the man is configured to Christ, to represent him in a privileged manner as bridegroom of the Church.

The poet Peguy has God saying of himself: "When you have been a father, you can only be a father." This can be read on many levels, including the priesthood. But by analogy, consider natural paternity and maternity. Fathering or mothering a child permanently, decisively changes the interior person, even more substantially (in my view) than does marriage itself. This is a mystery that cannot be elucidated or explained, but is intuitive to every mother and father. Every relationship I have is structured by my paternity; I see it even more clearly in the mother of our children. Likewise, if we encounter a woman who is widow, mother, grandmother...we encounter a distinctive mystery, an inner character, spiritual although not entirely sacramental, which we revere. Likewise, in a virgin we sense a privation that is positive as purity, innocence, promise.

Another analogy: a veteran, especially one who has deployed as in Vietnam or Iraq. This person has an invisible badge of honor: we give our thanks for the service. Such enjoy among each other a distinctive camaraderie. We grant them a specific respect. Something similar is granted one who has been mayor, governor, Olympian, Nobel or Oscar winner. In the Church we have consecrated religious, hermits, missionaries. Even as the achievement or engagement is in the past tense, there endures a moral, spiritual, psychological badge of honor.

In our time, however, we have faced a sensitive dilemma in regard to the laicized priest as well as the religious dispensed from solemn vows. As my (boomer) generation entered our early adulthood, there was a flood of those leaving priesthood and religious life. Some were licitly laicized or dispensed, some not. But the thing was widespread and accepted quietly. An unspoken taboo was instituted: we don't talk about this. It is secretive. Very sensitive. Just ignore the indelible character and the solemn vow. So we pretend it is not there. We relate to the ex-priest and ex-religious as if they are normal. But they are really not interiorly lay people, they carry an interior character. (The vow is distinct from the sacramental seal which we treat here.) They cannot be lay anymore than a mother can be virgin (excepting Mary), or an Olympian an ordinary athlete, or a veteran an ordinary civilian.

And so, for the last half century, we have lived with this fact without ever talking about it, (except with my spouse.) So maybe it is time for us all to come out of the closet. 

This priestly character has no empirical signs. All variety of (only) men carry it. It entails the power to administer the sacraments of Eucharist and Penance. In an emergency, death, the ex-priest has permission to validly and licitly hear confession and give absolution. Otherwise, he has the power, but not the permission, to confect the Eucharist. My friend, ex-Catholic-priest who now is an Episcopalian priest, presides over an Anglican Eucharist that is valid, but not licit. Complicated!

Father Benedict Groeschel once said that the priestly seal brings grace, charism, power but also a responsibility so that the sinful priest incurs deeper guilt. That is not a pleasant thought, but it does highlight the gravity of this interior seal.

What is this seal? It is a configuration to Christ as priest, prophet and king. This person carries, anonymously, a resemblance to Christ, interiorly, that cannot be erased. It is like your resemblance to your parents that is indelible. And so, this man carries, mysteriously, even beyond the baptism/confirmation character, an extraordinary power to bring others to God and God to others, to speak a Word from heaven, to govern with heavenly grace. We cannot empirically define this. It is mysterious. But it is real. And in truth we acknowledge and revere it.t

In my own life I cherish two family members and four dear friends with this character. They vary greatly: three married, one a father, two (I think) laicized, one an Episcopalian priest, two quietly and humbly practicing the Catholic faith as proscribed, one extraordinarily fruitful in ministry to the mentally ill and homeless, two fierce 12-steppers, one a serious student of theology and conversation partner, two serving the suffering in psychology and social work. All are dear to me. All are admirable in different ways. All are charming, intelligent, generous, flawed, spiritually deep, fun and funny. 

There is an undeniable element of sorrow, for a Catholic, in the "loss of a priestly vocation." The priesthood is so precious to the Church that we do grieve when a priest leaves. Unfortunately, we have no "wake service." We have no ritual to communally process the loss. This must be especially difficult for brother priests. 

Yet, God's ways are mysterious. It is clear so often that God wills the man to move on into a lay life of holiness and service. But even here...in marriage, fatherhood, career, controversy...the man brings a particular depth of resemblance to Christ. 

I have pondered this reality for many years. More recently, anticipating this blog essay, I have been considering these six men: so different, so fascinating, so deep, so puzzling, so admirable, so endearing. I have initiated a new mini-litany ( I love my litanies) after my prayer for priests I know, I also pray for these six intriguing icons of Christ.

Bishop Strickland: Our Martyr, Our Hero

He is not flawless, but he is our hero. Pope Francis has, foolishly, given our Resistance a martyr to rally our spirits.

Alone among our American bishops (except for Cardinal Burke of course), he has spoken clearly, fiercely, relentlessly, fearlessly against the synodol nonsense of the Vatican. It is such a refreshment for the mind and soul! Someone is saying: "The Emperor has no clothes!"

A serious mistake, in my view, was the lecture in Rome in late October in which he quoted, favorably, from a friend's letter which referred to our Pontiff as a "usurper" and referred to the "cowards gathered in Rome for the Synod." They were not his words but he was clearly in agreement. That language was inflammatory, disrespectful, extreme, and not befitting a bishop.  In a show with Raymond Arroyo,  recorded Wednesday (Nov. 15), a week after his dismissal, he did not retract. He explained (as he has repeatedly) that he is not a "sedevacantist;" that he accepts the authority of the pope. What he meant by the word "usurper" is that Pope Francis is using his (genuine, legitimate) authority to undermine our legacy of faith. He explained that the letter was very personal for him, challenging him to speak the Truth boldly, setting aside fear of man.

That particular speech was not greatly relevant, however, since his removal was pretty certainly already determined by the Vatican.

It was enlightening for me to observe the bishop on the Arroyo show, just a week after the hatchet fell. He was calm, serene, confident, clear. He passionately protested his love for the Church and loyalty to Rome. He again encouraged everyone to persevere in prayer, the pursuit of holiness, and fidelity to our received Faith. No shrill indignation, anger, victimization, narcissism, hero complex. He explained that he was asked to not attend the bishops' conference and he complied. He gathered with others outside of the meeting, kneeling on the asphalt to pray the rosary. I found that edifying. I found him charming.

He is clearly an intense, conscientious man. I know the type as I am in the club. He cannot help himself: he cannot not speak the Truth as he receives it. He is a no-nonsense guy; no people pleaser; not a "nice guy." He is a strong leader. He is the man you want leading the troops up the hill. He has an abrasive edge to him. He is not real sensitive and open to the other side of the argument.

In sharp contrast to the rest of the episcopacy, his passion for truth is not balanced by the Catholic intuition for unity, diplomacy, discretion, compromise, and tolerance. That is probably his weakness as a bishop. Apparently, about 5 years ago he cleaned house in his Tyler diocese, clearing out those pulling in the opposite direction. That kind of decisiveness is a strength and a weakness.  Catholic life, especially for the hierarchy, is the tension between speaking the Truth clearly, and an openness to disagreement, an accompaniment of those weak in insight and faith, an acceptance of intellectual dissonance on behalf of a deeper union in the Spirit. The bishop is challenged, with every disciple, to "speak the Truth in Love." Most of us tend to fail in truth or in love. Strickland  gets A++ on Truth. On Love not so good. His own subjective intentions are pure. He is not feeling hate or indifference. But much of his language is in fact offensive and polarizing. But I love him because the remainder of the American episcopacy seem to be overly compliant, codependent, enabling of a dysfunctional papacy. I have been heartened to hear recently how unhappy Francis and his delegate Cardinal Pierre are with what they see as a resistant American Church. My perception has been that the strong resistance is from laymen: Reno, Arroyo, Royal, Martin, Chapp, and others. I do not see the episcopal resistance but I am glad that it is being felt in Rome.

The diocese underwent a visitation a few months ago and there are allegations of administrative problems. But on the show Strickland candidly shared what he was told: lack of fraternal closeness with other bishops (meaning he sees things differently), failure to implement repression of the Latin Mass, his aggressive social media presence including his opposition to the synod. It has been pointed out by many, including Cardinal Mueller, that dismissal of a bishop requires a serious canonical crime or real emergency. The theological argument is far from that bar. The dismissal was an insult to the episcopacy. 

Were I a bishop, I would want to be as clear and courageous as Strickland. But temperamentally I am more congenial and irenic. My intellect is like his; my heart is more conciliatory, less combative. Let's recall two 20th century ecclesial heroes with qualities that might complement and purify those of Bishop Strickland.

Regarding the firm Vatican repression of the modernist movement in the 1900s, the name of Baron von Hugel is mentioned after Loisy and Tyrell as a leading light. The later two were excommunicated. By contrast, von Hugel complied; re-directed his energies into the study of mysticism; and developed a rich understanding of the distinct dimensions of our faith as intellectual, institutional and mystical. He patiently suffered the discipline of the hierarchy; and humbly deferred to the intellectual rebuke as he surrendered more deeply to the life of prayer. He is an excellent example for Bishop Strickland and all of us in the Resistance; the intellectual confusion and institutional chaos cannot inhibit us in our love for Christ and his Church. Strickland understands this: thus his serenity.

A few decades later Henri de Lubac, the Jesuit theologian, was silenced by the Vatican. He also complied. He also wrote a masterpiece about Catholicism in which he elaborated his profound understanding of and love for the Church.  He lived to see, a few decades later, his vindication in Vatican II. His witness of humble, obedient, hopeful silence is also a lesson for all of us.

The bishop has shared that he received a locution from the Queen of Martyrs, directing him to prepare for martyrdom. Is that from the Holy Spirit? Or his own psyche? Or even from the devil, causing dissension and conflict in the Church?  On this, I go with the Holy Spirit. The content is solid! Martyrdom, understood first as witness to Christ and his Truth and secondly to willingness to suffer for it, is essential to discipleship. It was normative for early Christianity: baptism brought with it a readiness to die for Christ. The "form of martyrdom" is imprinted on our soul with baptism, confirmation and orders. Across the Church, for example within the Charismatic Renewal and the Neocatechumenal Way, this word is being spoken. It comes from heaven. That is not to say that everything the bishop has done is an expression of this Word. Speaking of "usurper of the chair" and "cowards" is clearly not from the Holy Spirit. So we find here, as with all things human, a dense combination of the good and the bad.

Bishop Strickland at the moment has no plans. He seems hopeful, humble, serene, and yet resolute to be faithful to his duty as bishop to announce the truth. May he, with the rest of us, grow in holiness, wisdom and love. And we, the Resistance, pray the same for Pope Francis and his lieutenants, our antagonists!

Hatred of The Jew, Love of the Jew

Who is The Jew?

Jewish identity is complex, fascinating, contradictory. It is ethnic, received with the mother's blood; religious, practiced in diverse manners; sometimes political; richly cultural and historic. As there are contrasting Jewish identities, so also we see distinct hatreds for the Jew. Ordinarily one is born Jewish, but it is a religion into which a gentile can convert. Conversion of a Jew to Christianity obviates the Jewish identity; but atheistic hatred (Freud, Marx) of religion and Judaism does not. In such things of the spirit, there is no simple logic at work. 

This essay will contrast three distinct forms:  antisemitism, anti-Judaism, anti-Zionism and their varieties; and our relation to this as Catholics. We will see that the first intends genocide (elimination of the people), the second ethnocide (destruction of the culture/religion), and the last politicide (crushing of a state or political body.) They are entirely distinct forms, as they  often merge with and feed into each other.

For us Catholics, "The Jew" is the Beloved of God, the Chosen, the Elect. "The Jew" is Jesus himself. He is the chosen from among the chosen. He is the epitome of the Hebrew, the Jew, the Israelite. Close to him: Mary, Joseph, his apostles and disciples, Paul and others. We are ourselves "second level" or "adopted" Jews,  "Messianic Jews," eschatological Jews, or even  "Uber Jews," in contrast to classical or first order Jews, those today blood descended from the patriarchs and prophets (even the non-believing) as well as those who observe the first Covenant. If we are adopted or "grafted into" (St. Paul) the tree and tribe of Israel, than every Jew, whether by blood or practice, is our spiritual cousin. We are distinct branches, but of the same vine. We belong to each other. 

Hatred of the Jew, then, is essentially hatred of Jesus, and secondarily of all of us baptized into Him. Monsignor John Osterreicher, renowned convert from Judaism into Catholicism, and in large part author of the transformative Vatican II declaration on the Jews, saw that the purest, deepest antisemitism, that of Hitler, goes beyond politics, culture and blood and is unconsciously a contempt for what this people represents: the Word given by God, to Israel, through Moses, on Mount Sinai. So hatred of the Jew is profoundly hatred of God, of the moral order, of those chosen, and of the "least."

Antisemitism.

In its pure form, as in Nazism, this is a racism that despises the Jew by virtue of his blood. So, one could be a cloistered Carmelite nun (Edith Stein) or a scientific genius (Einstein) but a mere fraction of  Jewish blood absolutely contaminates and condemns. Stated so clearly, it is to our ears ridiculous and nauseating. But it easily takes a vague, populist, crude form in language, humor, and practice that disparages Jewishness. 

Throughout the centuries, hatred of the Jew has been the single most shameful, horrific sin of us, Catholics and Christians. If I were Pope and allowed one apology I would ask forgiveness of the Jews, as our recent popes have done. 

To be clear, however, antisemitism, in contrast to anti-Judaism,  has never been Catholic teaching. The intention of the Church has never been to destroy the Jews, but to convert them (along with all peoples) to salvation in Christ. Viral, violent antisemitism has often been fiercely resisted by the official Church, notably popes and bishops.  Too frequently local clergy were drawn into the vicious, populist scapegoating. Catholicism has harbored a form of anti-Judaism.

Muslim/Arab Antisemitism

This global sympathy for the Palestinians and antipathy to the state of Israel is in part an anti-Zionism, a political view that is not irrational. But the intensity of hatred indicates that it is far more than that, that it has become a Hitleresque hatred of the Jew as Jew. 

Recall that the Arabs, just prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948, in WWII, worked closely with the Nazi empire and seem to have imbibed this hatred.

Prior to the modern period, the relationship of Islam to Judaism is complex and scholars dispute the degree of hatred of Jews and their religion. But in general it appears that Jews were treated similarly to Christians and other "lessor" peoples. Islam lacked the Christian narrative of "deicide" and betrayal and therefore persecuted them less than did medieval Christendom. For example, Jews did much better in Islamic than in Catholic Spain. This is cause of regret for us Catholics!

My view is that the visceral hatred, not just of the state but of the people, not merely politicide, but also ethnocide and even genocide....is a perfect storm of diabolical forces.  The word diabolical here intends two meanings: the theological, as literally coming from Lucifer and his hell; and the etymological as a "tearing apart." There is, first of all, the Jihadist violence and irrationality (of a voluntarist, mon-God) that is intrinsic to Islam, as brilliantly highlighted by Pope Benedict in his Regensburg address. This violence/irrationality warmly welcomed the Nazi contempt for the Jew, even before the state of Israel. The displacement of the Palestinians then inflamed this hatred with the spirit of victimhood across the Muslim world which suffered many weaknesses culturally, politically, morally. Add to that a scapegoating dynamic that funneled all the frustrations and sufferings of this world against the Jew, the quintessential "goat." The result: a global hatred that mimics that of Hitler!

Anti-Judaism.

This is probably more pervasive than pure antisemitism, with which it is confused. The confusion is understandable as they (along with anti-Zionism) feed into each other. From the viewpoint of the victim, the Jew, they are all hatred and hostility so the distinctions may lack meaning. We will consider the Catholic and the secular, often Jewish, versions.

Jewish Anti-Judaism

By definition, the non-observant, secular Jew has rejected Judaism as a way of life. We can take from E. Michael Jones (who advocates an extreme Catholic anti-Judaism) the distinction between the Talmud (Orthodox, Hasidic) and the Woody Allen (secular, liberal) Jew. Sigmund Freud was firm and fierce in his Jewish identity, but despised Judaism as a religion. He forbade his wife to practice her faith. Karl Marx not only rejected Judaism in his atheism but in his economic theory identified capitalism as "Judaic" and thus identified the Jew with the Capitalist. In this he agreed with the virile antisemitism of the Right, Hitler, in stereotyping the Jew as greedy, wealthy, unjust, and powerful. This hateful stereotype pervades our culture, on the right and on the left. So we find among secular, Woody Allen Jews, a fierce anti-Judaism, in favor of  secular, atheistic Jewishness. Jews excel in culture, literature, media, philosophy, law and politics. This is no doubt due to their rich history of immersion in study of the Torah and Talmud. As such, in modernity, they are inordinately influential in the progressive movements of Marxist politics and the cultural liberalism indebted to Freud. They have been a powerful presence in labor, socialism, the Democratic party, psychoanalysis, pornography industry, Hollywood, the New Left of the 60s, liberation of sex from the moral order, and the identity politics which assumes always the oppressor/oppressed paradigm.

A fascinating dynamic of the current progressive protests against Israel is that it brings immense dissonance to the liberal Jew who now finds himself and his state as the oppressor in this paradigm. We may now be witnessing a second flow of liberal Jews from the Left to the Right as occurred in the 1970s when influential figures moved right as "Neo-Conservatives" in reaction to liberal softness on crime, the cold war, and the moral order of the family. 

Traditional Catholic Anti-Judaism.  Since we accept the Jewish scriptures as divinely revealed; we recognize the ancient, sacred, privileged closeness of God to the people of Israel; we find the origins of our religion in the Judaism of Jesus and his apostles...Catholic anti-Judaism can never be absolute, as in the heresy of Marcion who set the "harsh" God of Israel against the merciful one of St. Paul. The mainstream, moderate form was that of "supersession" which held that the covenant with Israel  has been replaced, superseeded, and displaced. This view saw little of value in the religion of Rabbinic or Pharisaic Judaism. In this view, the loving action toward the Jews was to proselytize, convert them to the full salvation in Christ. This view is quite different from the vigorous Judaism of Jesus and even Paul.

From the Jewish point of view, such Christian anti-Judaism is not genocide, the killing of all Jews, but ethnocide, the destruction of their culture and religion. They are accurate: the Catholic intention to convert all Jews would eliminate traditional Rabbinic or Pharisaic Judaism. So we see the deep wound that anti-Judaism has left. We begin to understand why conversion to Christianity destroys one's Jewish identity in a way atheism does not, because it threatens the very existence of Judaism as a religion, a culture, a people. And we see how our Church since the Holocaust, and particularly since Vatican II, takes a gentle approach to the dialogue with Judaism, avoiding explicit or aggressive proselytism. 

The famous Edgardo Mortara case is fascinating. In 1857 the Vatican heard that this six-year old Jewish boy, as an infant in danger of death,  had been secretly baptized by a Catholic servant. He was kidnapped and held to be raised Catholic for the salvation of his soul. The family sued but Pope Pius IX did not relent. The young boy went on to become a priest and died at the age of 88 in 1940. He cherished his vocation and Catholicism. We see here at work a philo-Semetic anti-Judaism.

Contrast that with a drama 90 years later in Poland after WWII. A Catholic family had accepted a Jewish baby as the Nazis invaded, promising to return the child to whatever family survived the war. The parents died but there were relatives in Canada. The Poles loved the child and wanted to raise it as their own Catholic child. They consulted their parish priest: Father Karol Wojytyla, St. John Paul II. He directed them to perform the promise, give the child to his Jewish family.  We see here that Fr. Karol was positive in his view of Judaism and demonstrated this throughout his life. The Catholic Church has accepted this viewpoint. (Sidebar: When I told this story to an Orthodox Jewish friend he was delighted. He told me it was well known among the Jews that many of their orphans were left after the war in orphanages to be raised Catholic but a famous Rabbi would visit such and, while the children were at meal, join them and sing Jewish songs. If any children joined in the singing from memory, he would know they were Jewish and would rescue/kidnap them and return them to the Jewish community.) 

The change to a philo-Judaism within the Catholic Church, shown in Fr. Karol and Monsignor John Osterreicher after WWII, was arguably the most drastic change in Catholic theology in twentieth century. For example, the idea of  Jewish "deicide." that as a people they were guilty of the death of Christ, an extreme anti-Judaic idea that moves easily into real antisemitism, was definitively renounced at the Council. New clarity was given to the dogma that it was the sins of all of us, not of some group, that crucified Christ. "The ground is level at the foot of the cross." This was a clear reversal of  the "succession" model that Judaism was antiquated and useless. It was at the same time, however, a return to the factual Judaism of Jesus, Peter and Paul. It retrieved the Jewish identity intrinsic, from the beginning, to Christianity. It was a grace-filled move to reconciliation and an immense enhancement of our own identity in the Jewish Christ.

Conservative Resentment of the Woody Allen Jew

The ferocity of the secular Jew, Marxist and sexually liberational, has provoked, understandably, a degree of resentment from the Catholic/Evangelical moral Right. This is straight Culture War stuff, neither anti-Zionist nor antisemitic. In this battle the Christians find allies in the Orthodox and more Conservative Jewish communities. It remains mild as Evangelicals and Catholics both have strong sympathies for Israel and Judaism and an aversion to clear antisemitism. Nevertheless it is an aspect of the ongoing Culture War between progressive and conservative.

Liberal, Black Resentment of the Talmud Jew

The more Orthodox, especially Hasidic, communities (very present in my NY/NJ area) elicit an entirely different resentment, from mainstream, liberal middle class as well as the black community. This strict Judaism is "thick": blatantly counterculture in distinguishing itself from the broader society. They are systemically distant and detached; aggressive in pursuing their own interests. They disengage from the wider society and fiercely advance their interests without concern for disadvantaged minorities. They have very large families. They cleverly work politics and bureaucracy to their advantage in ways that are legal but obnoxious to outsiders. In the largely black/mixed Jersey City area in which I have lived and worked for half a century there is a mild resentment. Such is stronger in the bourgeois liberalism of the suburbs. These Jews are, as they have been throughout the history of Christendom, different,   in dress, diet, belief, and overall lifestyle. In their indifference to gentiles, outsiders, they offend the unwritten bourgeois rule to be "nice" to everyone. They labor under no Christian imperative to serve the poor, except among their own. Theirs is a more primal, tribal loyalty to precisely their own. And so they are obnoxious to the Christian conscious in its inclusion of everyone and the liberal who exults in DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) but despises something so different. They practice hardball politics. 

The resentment of other ethnic groups, poor and affluent, is understandable. But I do not find their praxis to be unethical. It lacks the Gospel inclusivity that I personally cherish. But I do not judge them by the standard of a Gospel they have renounced. As a Catholic, I myself favor a thicker religiosity, be that the Latin mass or the Catholic Worker, and am allergic to the mediocre, dull homogeneity of bourgeois, "nice" liberalism. I respect the integrity, ferocity, and persistence of their way of life (surely flawed) in a world, largely Christian, that has been hostile for millennia.

Jesus' Fights with the Pharisees

Jesus says more bad things about the Pharisees, the fathers of today's non-temple, Rabbinic Judaism, than anyone else. In the gospels, they are legalistic, arrogant, superior, and lacking in compassion. It is small wonder that our religion took a turn against the Jewish religion. 

One piece of this puzzle is the historic context in which the gospels were being shaped and written: at the time Synagogue and Church were fighting and mutually expelling each other. This was a different situation than that of Jesus himself who participated in synagogue and temple worship and even of Peter and Paul who did the same. Surely this influenced the gospels.

But there is no doubt that Jesus himself was in a Culture War with these adversaries. He seems to have nothing bad to say about the Romans who oppressed his people and actually executed him; or the Zealots who wanted to overcome them militarily; or the Essenes who lived monastically in the dessert; or even the Sadducees who themselves fought the Pharisees and conducted temple worship. Does he pick on them because they were SO bad? It would seem that way! The word "Pharisee" has come down to us as the epitome of pride, superiority, and self-righteousness. Were they that bad?

No. They were the equivalent of our lay renewal movements: zealous about worship of God and purity of life. They were that day's "holy rollers" or evangelicals or "daily mass and rosary types." (Sidebar: my best friend John and my son John have referred to me as "Laracy the Pharisee." Not intended as a compliment. Maybe this has something to do with the contrarian, revisionist understanding of them I am presenting here! 😀) Recall that some of Jesus closest disciples were Pharisees: Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethia. Jesus was very close to them in dogmatic belief: especially about the afterlife, angels, and revelation. In other words, they were the closest of the groups to Jesus in theology and piety. Because of this intimacy, Jesus gets so mad at them. 

We get mad at our own brothers and sisters and good friends, not so much at those distant from us. For example, there are fierce battles among us Conservative Catholic who agree with each other on 95% of our faith: charismatics, Neo-Cats, Thomists, Latin Mass, Communio theologians, Republican Neo-Conservatives, Paleocons, the New Catholic Right and others can get heated with each other because they are so close that disagreement matters much. So Jesus did not react much to gentiles, Romans or zealots, but he did to the Pharisees, because he was close to them and loved them. 

And so the renewed love we have for the Jews is a return to our roots, our sources. At the same time, there remains an immense difference between us about the identity of Jesus. As our dialogue develops, my hope is that our side become more candid and honest as I have noticed an imbalance: Catholics, remorseful about our history and the fact of the Holocaust, tend to be deferential and unassertive. 

Anti-Zionism

This is political opposition to the Jewish state of Israel. It is not hatred of the Jew as Jew. Earlier, prior to the establishment of the state (1948) the Zionist aspiration  it was opposed by many Orthodox Jews. With time however, it seems that the state has come to be accepted by almost all Jews as a protection of their people, even as many are critical of particular policies of the state and actions by aggressive settlers and others.

The displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs into congested areas was an injustice. So the fierce anti-Zionism of Palestinian and other Moslems and Arabs is understandable. One could be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. The two are quite distinct in form or inner essence. 

In fact however, the visceral resentment, the feeling of victimhood, and the rage across the Muslim world moves this political position into hatred of the Jew as such. And so, we have the depraved event of October 7 and the celebration across the globe of the cruelty. 

In the USA and Europe, we have been shocked by the protests against Israel and in favor of Palestine. This, in my view, is not pure antisemitism, but a crude anti-Zionism inflated by the progressive-Marxist lens of oppressor/oppressed. The hard left sees in Israel what they saw in the George Floyd death, what they see everywhere: white oppression of the victim. It is male/female, straight/gay, cis/transgendered, and so forth. In this case, we have two Semites, Arab and Jew, in conflict: neither of them European white not African black. But the "oppressor paradigm" only sees the Jew as oppressor, the Palestinian as victim. Therefore there is an immense rage at Israel as the quintessential villain, the Palestinian as innocent victim. Systemically the innocence and violation of the Jews is denied; and Israel, imagined as pure evil, is condemned. This Marx-based anti-Zionism, if not formally hatred of the Jew as such, moves easily into the cruder form of hate and feeds it. It is surely received by the Jew as hatred. Given the history, the Jew is not safe anywhere, except within their own state of Israel.

I can imagine, however, the Left turning to a protectiveness of the Jew in the following thought experiment. Historically the Right is prone to antisemitism. Trump is himself strongly supportive of Israel as his own daughter has converted and raising her children with her husband as Jews. Additionally a strong current within Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism is theological supportive of Israel as a preparation for the coming of Christ. But we can imagine a populist, demagogic, "Christian Nationalist" resentment of the Jew in various aspects: the secular, liberal "Woody Allen" Jew as hostile to Christian values; the detachment, aggressiveness and legalism of the "Talmudic" Jew as unchristian and anti-American. Were there to be such a "white" hostility to the Jews, we can easily imagine the Left embracing the later as victims. 

Catholic Love of the Jew

Even prior to theological and historical considerations, my personal experience of Jews is very striking and clear. Living in the NY area, I have engaged them frequently, including in friendship, over the years: religious and secular, rich and poor, educated and unschooled, liberal and conservative, assimilated and countercultural. I am unfailingly struck by a mysterious charism: an openness, a warmth of affection, a striking intelligence that can be bookish or practical, a charming energy, a spiritual radiance. My explanation is simple: they are God's beloved. Even with their sins and failings, they have basked in the faithful, divine love for many centuries. Over all this time, they have thrived. This is true even of the secular Jew, the atheist who hates religion and denies God. Even this one, Freud or Marx, is the recipient of a legacy of graces that cannot be repressed. 

And so this Catholic is in awe of the Jew. Of the gifts, even now flourishing. Of the history of persecution and perserverence. Of the holiness, the patriarchs and prophets, the Holy Family and the apostles. The erudition and Wisdom. 

This love, as that one has for a brother or spouse, does not preclude criticism and disagreement. Upholding the state of Israel does not mean endorsement of every decision and action taken or permitted, such as the displacement of Palestinians by aggressive settlers. Our reverence for Judaism does not deny our profound difference in belief, especially about Jesus and the Trinity. Jews are, like all of us gentiles, sinners in need of God's mercy; their culture is prone to systemic evils, whether that be the observant Talmud-Jew community or the secular, Woody-Allen Jew community. So we do well to confront and scrutinize them candidly in a dialogue of mutual contrition and pardon.

And we pray for the Peace of Jerusalem!

Why is Celibacy Mandatory for the Catholic Priest?

It is all about the Eucharist. Catholic priesthood is entirely in service of the Love Encounter of Christ the Bridegroom with his Bridal Church in the Eucharist.

The priesthood is entirely deferential to the Eucharist, as Event, Covenant-Communion, Presence, Destiny.

The spousal love of Christ for his Church, so clear in St. Paul, is the core of Catholic life and belief. To minimize or dismiss this stark image is to eviscerate Catholicism of its heart and soul.

Everything...Everything...Everything in Catholic life flows out of and into that tiny, quiet, tasteless, humble host that is offered, sacrificed, transubstantiated, received and remains for us in the tabernacle as permanent presence.

In the mass, the personality of the particular priest disappears. He becomes an icon, a representative of Christ present, speaking the Gospel, delighting in his people, offering his life, giving us of his body and blood to consume. We can see how narcissism in a priest, specifically in the liturgy, is a detriment.

Consider Holy Thursday when we celebrate three gestures: the last supper as first Eucharist, the establishment of the priesthood, and the washing of the feet as expressive of love of each other. Of the three which is Prime? Without doubt: the Eucharist. Priesthood is here to give us Christ in the Eucharist. The love of the brethren flows intrinsically from Christ grasping us in this engagement. I have been annoyed by priests who have given primacy on this night to the priesthood; speaking about it; requiring that males have their feet washed to be clear on the male priesthood. The cart here is before the horse. I know also of Catholic communities who celebrate the washing, but not the Eucharist. This is a loss as well!

Everything in the life of the priest serves as icon, sacramental, manifestation of the bridal love: his education, erudition, masculinity, celibacy, holiness, demeanor, style, charm, gifts and deficits, failures and sufferings. 

Celibacy is not absolutely necessary for the priesthood. Masculinity is. Erudition, intelligence, sobriety, emotional maturity, charm, temperance, chastity, temperance, prudence...are not absolutely necessary for the priesthood. But all those qualities are appropriate and enhance our cult of the Eucharist. Not cult of the priesthood, but cult of the Eucharist. A parish whose pastor lacks intelligence, charm, sobriety, chastity, prudence, celibacy, humor, maturity...will still have the Eucharist. But our engagement with it will be  diminished, maybe entirely destroyed.

On the contrary, a priest who is virile, humble, chaste, temperate, prudent, charming, mature, light hearted, sober...enhances the love encounter of the Groom with the Bride.

It is not possible for the Church to ordain women. It is possible to ordain married men. But to do so, to dispense with celibacy as mandatory, would...I firmly believe...diminish our love of Christ in the Sacrament. Were we to emulate the two-tiered priesthood of the Eastern churches in making celibacy optional, pervasive social and personal pressures would marginalize the minority of celibate priests. We gain quantity, but lose quality. Our Eucharistic depth, intensity, and devotion will be diminished.

Analogously, we could ordain men without a college degree and training in theology. One can imagine a situation or culture where this could work, but not in our developed world. We could ordain men with low intelligence, emotional instability, immaturity, addictions, very bad hygiene, lack of common sense, incapacity for paternity, compulsive misogyny or homosexuality. Perhaps we could fill our empty rectories with such. This would entirely desecrate our sacred liturgy. We could automatically ordain all men at confirmation so that every household could technically confect the Eucharist. This would be a vile sacrilege. 

In Holy Orders, the man surrenders his personality, intellect, will, virility, sexuality, longings, paternity to Christ who accepts the offering and transfigures him into an "alter Christus," another Christ. The urgency for intimacy so fundamental for each of us is captured by Christ who draws the man into his own heart and then sends him to bring that heart to the Bride. His natural, good urges, energies, defects, longings all are inflamed in the Holy Spirit.

Diocesan priests, unlike the religious orders, make the evangelical vow of celibacy, but technically not those of obedience and poverty. They do vow obedience to the bishop in regard to their ministry, but not technically beyond that. However, since their vocation is comprehensive of their entire person, unlike a job or even a career, this becomes in effect an exhaustive obedience. In practice equivalent of that of the religious and of the fidelity of the spouses in marriage.

Regarding poverty, some priests benefit from the affluence of their families and so become a source of resentment and envy with expensive cars or elite golf clubs. First of all, there is nothing wrong with those things in themselves: there is no vow broken, no injustice committed. Even, for example, if an generous, holy, humble priest splurges now and then on red shoes at his favorite lace shop, we do well to adopt a "live and let live" and "who am I to judge?" attitude. The financial scandals we hear about in the Vatican and local levels are  garden variety greed and part of the flawed nature we all share from original sin. My own view is that "it is just money." Personally, I detest a single mortal sin against charity or chastity to theft of millions of dollars from some fund. (Is that an eccentricity of mine? Or a gospel viewpoint? I leave that judgement to you dear Reader!) But in fact most priests live in frugality, not only of spirit but actually. The salary of a priest is miniscule. On their day off they may have nowhere of their own for retreat. Many are generous with their resources. Their actual poverty may exceed that of the religious in a secure, tasteful monastery and rival that of the underclass family raising children while working for Uber or Walmart. Such is a quiet, anonymous poverty rarely recognized by a bourgeois laity prone to resentment and envy.

In the Catholic economy, spousal fidelity and celibacy/virginity complementarily enrich each other. Marriage cannot itself endure or fructify without infusion of the heavenly, eschatological elements of sacrifice and transcendence so manifest in the priest and religious. The happy, wholesome Catholic family is absolutely under the influence of humble, holy priests. The marginalization of priestly celibacy will further weaken the family.

Let us consider the involuntary celibacy suffered passively by (I dare to say) most of us: the disabled emotionally or physically, divorced, married but alienated, widowed, homosexual, and those who randomly fail to meet the right person. These share, mystically if not canonically, (in my view) in the virginal/celibate state of life. Lacking spousal intimacy, they are thrown more desperately into the life of prayer. Bereft of their own family, they find themselves serving the children of other families. They share mystically in the charism, vocation, joy and suffering of celibacy and virginity. To marginalize priestly celibacy will add insult to injury for these who pray, suffer, and serve humbly and heroically.

It is not widely discussed among the laity that the priest makes another vow along with celibacy: to daily practice of the "prayer of the Church," formerly know as the "office" (not the TV show) or the "breviary." Such has been called "the wife of the priest." This is not a sweet sentiment. Rather, it is a deeply spousal reality: along with the entire Church (especially the monastic and increasingly much of the laity) the priest surrenders himself into the Word (psalms, gospels, mediations, songs) as the Bride receives the Groom. Here the priest and the Church are bridal as they receive the seed of life from the Bridegroom, as they receive the fleshly seed of life in communion. The priest here is receptive, hyper-feminine, in reception of Christ. This prepares him to act in the person of Christ in the liturgy and the apostolate. 

Celibacy is a moral act, a vow of heroic dimensions as it is lived out in a long drama of quiet humility. But this human agency, as with all things creaturely, is respective of and responsive to the greater, primal agency of Divine Freedom: it is Christ, in the Trinity, who elects this specific man, with his inadequacies and sins;  inflicts upon him a lifelong deprivation of emotional intimacy; and gradually configures him to himself. He missions him a spiritual father, spouse, servant of his bridal/maternal Church.

Celibacy is unnatural. It is not normal or itself wholesome as such. It is supernatural: a communion with Christ in heaven. It is, like virginity, already a privileged participation in heaven on earth. It is a foretaste of where we are all going, where there will be no giving and taking in marriage.

Rare, graced is the man capable of this life. It is, first of all, a call from heaven. Miraculous. Defying of the laws of nature. But grace builds on nature so every good priest is a unique synthesis of standard dynamics: a deep prayer life; an indefinable interior, if imperfect, psychological integrity; a congeniality with solitude; a gift for friendship; a humility in his failings; a delight in the challenges and ;fruits of the apostolate, a joy in being SO loved, and an tender urgency to respond in praise of the Lover and service of those He loves.

Christ loves us, in the Eucharist, intimately and reverently, celibately. This love encounter is manifest in the priest himself...his own holiness, chastity, humility, tenderness, intelligence, generosity, sacrifice, and joy. The union with Christ is mediated in the sacrament, in the proclamation of the Gospel...and also in the purified, sanctified personality of the priest.

The intuitive reception of the priest by the Catholic is sensitive to the two defining dynamics of his life and celibacy: he belongs to Christ alone; and he belongs to us. As in our reception of a consecrated religious, we stand in awe: this one is set apart, sacred, belongs to heaven. We address "father" or "sister" or "brother" or "mother." At the same time, however, we ourselves make a claim upon this person: he is my, our father, mother, brother, sister. As a Catholic, I own  every single priest, sister, brother and vowed person. The married person belongs first and foremost exclusively to the spouse, children and family. The celibate and virgin does not. He/she belongs first to Christ. And then to us. 

For example, if I am in desperate need of the sacraments, for example close to death or worse, the death of mortal sin, I do not hesitate to call the priest. He belongs to me. He is mine. He belongs to no other, except Christ, who has designated him as mine, as ours. If he is on his day off on his way to the mountains, I do not care because he is my father, my brother, my spouse. I cannot make that claim upon a married person, even if ordained. He belongs to his spouse and children primarily.

I speak for my own family and so many others.

We have known and loved, been loved by, so many fine priests...gifted, generous, delightful, heroic, chaste, humble, persevering, holy.

The vicious, demonic, slander, disparagement, and assault upon the priesthood is to be renounced by our loyalty, affection, esteem and prayer.

Yes they are flawed, imperfect and vulnerable before these attacks from hell. All the more do we pledge our allegiance and love.

May our Lord, his Mother, and the saints protect them from evil, bless their work, and give them the "hundredfold" promised.

Grant us more vocations...to priesthood and evangelical life.

Inflame us with Eucharist hearts in love with our priests! 

A Sober Look at the George Floyd Death

This death, globalized by the nauseating video of his last moments with his neck under the knee of Derek Chavin, interpreted through the lens of an alleged systemic, white, especially police racism, ignited the BLM movement with monumental consequences. George became an icon of innocence violated; Derek the face of "The Oppressor."

Since that 2020 event, crime has surged in poor, black, urban areas; police departments are depleted by retirements, discouraged and passive before crime; racial resentment is heightened; polarization intensified; and, worst of all, the masculine self-esteem of the black male is diminished further.  Liberal Democrat urban leaders who called for "defunding of police" are now begging for money for more officers. With the dust somewhat settled; with the fruits of that BLM/CRT narrative now obvious; it is time to soberly review the facts.

Recently, documents in an unrelated legal case (alleging sexual discrimination in Minneapolis law enforcement) unveiled that the original medical examination found no evidence of damage to the neck area and no sign of death by asphyxiation. Later, however, under immense pressure from the prosecution and explosive popular hysteria, the document was changed to find such evidence. It was a falsification. He had a very bad heart. At the time of his crime and resistance to arrest his body had three times the amount of fentanyl needed to kill a human. He admitted to stuffing fentanyl in his mouth to avoid detection by police. Before Chauvin even arrived, he was handcuffed in the police car, screaming that he could not breathe. The police removed him from the car to keep him from harming himself. He died by a confluence of bad heart, drug overdose, and hysteria due to resisting arrest. Cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest, a heart attack. That he was strangulated to death, murder by knee, is not clear from the facts. 

Of the three officers who assisted Chauvin, one was black, one Asian, one white. This was NOT "white on black" violence.

Chauvin was a seasoned officer designated to train rookies in the chock hold he used on Floyd. The NAACP previously had requested that the police department discontinue that practice. They declined. They had a video and manual. Chauvin apparently applied it according to protocol. I take it that this is a disputed practice in law enforcement with pros and cons. It is not a racial matter, but it is understandable that the criminal and vulnerable classes would renounce it as dangerous and police with their family and friends might favor it as protective.

The previous police history of Chauvin is troubling. In almost 20 years of service he had received 18 complaints, with two resulting in letters of reprimand for misconduct; was involved with three police shootings, one fatal; and received two medals of valor and two commendations, all for aggressive action against criminal threats. He is, for sure, an aggressive man, probably violent. A number of the complaints came from blacks, but not all. Evidence for racial bias is not strong, but the propensity to an excess of violence is clear. This incident would exemplify systemic problems in police work: not racial bias but the appeal of the work to violent, even sociopathic men as well as the "blue wall of silence" which is the loyalty of police to each other, regardless of race/ethnicity and even in wrongdoing. 

Lastly, a reconsideration of the context of the confrontation and death. The racist narrative is simple: racist white cop viciously murders innocent black man. Race may not be the issue here. The context was an alleged crime and resistance to arrest. Any resistance to arrest is inherently a life-and-death struggle as the officer carries gun and taser so that his life is at stake should the resistor prevail. Besides these lethal weapons, however, physical combat between strong men is already life-and-death combat. This is amplified of course by the strength and intoxication of a man like Floyd. The progressives, and especially many women, who were horrified by the video may not have identified this context if they have not ever observed a serious fight. Such is not Jason Bourne or Rocky going 12 rounds or John Wayne and Victor McLaughlin stumbling across the Irish hillside. It is a vicious, destructive, murderous thing. Any resistance to arrest is already a movement toward a killing, of officer or the arrested. Indeed, one  of the many evil consequences of the "racism narrative" of this death is that it fuel the indignation of other young blacks and indirectly cause imitation of the resistance and more deaths, of both parties.

This is not to "blame" Floyd, who was obviously innocent, subjectively, by virtue of his intoxication. But it is to acknowledge the objective menace he was, by his strength. Nor is this to excuse the nauseating negligence, surely manslaughter, of Chauvin and his fellows. But it is to put in perspective the dilemma our police face in confronting such situations. 

Such a disastrous, negligent misjudgment requires proportional punishment. But 47 years in prison is overkill for what this officer actually did. It is not an exaggeration to see a "lynch mob" dynamic at work here, in the overall hysteria and specifically in the falsification of the medical examination.

His death is emblematic of a police propensity to violence that is endemic to the work. This requires our vigilance, regardless of race or ethnicity. But these officers risk their own lives daily to keep us safe. We do well to avoid rash, especially blanket, judgment.

George Floyd is himself iconic and exemplary, not as an innocent martyr, but as a man who struggled valiantly against his own weaknesses and addictions, and tried valiantly to give to his community. He died in his addiction. A failure in that sense. But a gentle soul, aware of God's mercy and eager to share that with others like himself. I picture him looking kindly, tenderly upon Derek, another violent, suffering soul in need of God's mercy.

May they both...George in his purgatory above and Derek in his here on earth...in this November of the souls...be blessed by the Divine Mercy!   

I thank my Minneapolis lawyer friend Tim Regan for much of the above information.

Afterthought: This being November, let us put this death in a clear Catholic context by raising a great theological question: Can the the souls in purgatory (the "Church suffering") pray for us on earth (the "Church militant")? We don't know for sure. It is not clear from Divine Revelation, Scripture and Tradition. The magisterium has not spoken clearly to it. Earlier traditions had the suffering souls incapable of such prayer and dependent upon our intercession. More recent traditions grant them this agency. I am myself old school. I doubt it. But we know with clarity and certainty: Derek can pray for George; we can pray for them both. I am confident that George, if he can, is praying for Derek. I have absolute certainty that George, when he has done his time in purgatory, will be praying from heaven for Derek and for us. I have a good feeling that George will finish his time before the 47 years that Derek is doing. But, on the bright side, if Derek accepts his sentence with patience, contrition, humility, gratitude and generosity, his time in purgatory will be very short!       Don't ever forget: as Catholics, we play the long game...eternal life. We don't sweat the small stuff.

 

Jesuit Prep Schools, the Crisis in Masculinity, and Catholic Virility in Christ

 All-boy, Jesuit prep schools are a precious, invaluable asset to our Church in the USA. I am personally indebted to them for the education received by two sons, a son-in-law, and a grandson. I taught in one for a short period. The ones I know are probably typical: they provide a solid academic program but more importantly a wholesome, positive, stimulating environment in which the young man can mature. This includes athletics and other activities as well as an overall "cura personalis," attention to the person of the student. Well endowed financially, they have successfully handed leadership over to competent, motivated laity. I am unaware of any schools I would prefer for our young men.

They are perfectly positioned to address the crisis of virility that this blog has repeatedly identified as the defining catastrophe of our time. Unfortunately, however, very specific systemic defects, theological and spiritual, inhibit them from successfully engaging this cultural tragedy. This essay will describe a wholesome Catholic virility in Christ and then identify the pertinent underlying defects in Jesuit secondary education.

 Catholic Virility in Christ

1. Virility.  Virtue or goodness in manliness we will understand as paternity: the capacity to give life, to provide and protect, generously and heroically. As such it contrasts synergistically with femininity as maternity. It entails, first and foremost, virtues of: humility, chastity, fortitude, sobriety, prudence and justice. 

2. In Christ. For us, such virtuous masculinity flows not from virtue training or moral effort, but from a mystical communion with the Divine/Human Person of Jesus Christ. By virtue of original sin, every man inherits a toxic masculinity...inclinations to cowardice, violence, pride, lust, self-indulgence, injustice...which are only healed in the ongoing, dramatic relationship with the crucified/risen Christ in his Church.

3, Catholic. Life in Christ is never individualistic, but always personal and corporate. It is at once communion with the entire Mystical Body of Christ, in heaven and on earth, present-past-future: the sacramental life rooted in Eucharist, the commandments as well as the precepts of the Church, the evangelical gifts of poverty-chastity-obedience, identification with the poor, purity of heart and chastity of the body, devotion to Mary and saints, prayer, corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and the entire symphony of Catholic tradition and life.

4. Specific Manly Virtues. These are foundational of the masculine mission and also address the core vices of toxic masculinity. First of all, humility as "being loved" deflates the expansive, frail male ego and frees the man of compulsive selfishness to contemplate and serve the other. Secondly, sexual chastity liberates from the many compulsions of concupiscence and give the freedom to give the self to the other. Third, fortitude is the prime virtue of strength, courage, perseverence, ferocity and fearlessness in the service of the other. Forth, sobriety is freedom from the fog of inebriation, of substance abuse, lust, fear, anxiety, narcissism, and such. It allows for calm, prudent consideration of reality. Fifth, prudence flows from sobriety and temperance and enables clarity and accuracy in practical judgment. Sixth, justice gives to every participant what is properly owed.

Systemic Defects in Jesuit Secondary Education

1. Denial of the Form of Virility.  Inhaling a soft feminism, there is an implicit denial of the distinctive form of virility, in contrast to femininity, to overcome the allegation of chauvinism and male superiority. The equality-as-uniformity of 60s feminism is embraced so that women must be treated identically as men in all things. The vile "separate but equal" slogan that justified racial segregation is identified with any meaningful contrast of the two sexes. This is not so much articulated as assumed. The rich Jesuit heritage of heroic masculinity is unconsciously replaced by a dull, leveling, androgyny of the now-neutered individual. And so, to speak of "virility" at all is shunned as somehow contemptuous of women. A traditional, Catholic and Jesuit approach would be to dig deeper into masculinity as the strong-gentle gift to the bride and children. But what has happened, since the 60s, is that "virility" has become the "null curriculum" of the schools: it dare not be even mentioned. There is irony here: the single sex school tradition continues, out of intuitive wisdom, but cannot be fully developed because of the cultural progressivism.

2. Non-Evangelical, Low Christology.  The person of Jesus is honored as a moral model, a "man for others." To be Christian is to emulate Jesus in care for others. He is not presented as Savior from sin because there is little sense of sin. Underneath, there is an optimistic evaluation of the human person as inherently good and capable of virtue, without divine intervention. This is already a soft secularism. Jesus is seen in his humanity, but not so much in his divinity. The Gospel, the evangelical proclamation of Jesus, God become man to save us from sin, is not clearly proclaimed. There is a sense of prayer, of gratitude, and a strong moral concern for the poor and suffering. But it is largely a moralistic, therapeutic, deistic religion. Jesus as in love with his Father within the Trinity is not adequately communicated.

3. Weakened Catholicism.  A diluted, thin,  "Spirit of Vatican II" prevails: disconnect with traditions (precepts of Church, stations of cross, adoration of Blessed Sacraments, confession of sin, concupiscence, rosary, cult of saints, belief in last things of heaven-hell-purgatory-death-judgement; more informal liturgy of meal rather than solemnity of sacrifice and silence.) There is a preference for a spirituality acceptable to non-Catholics in an ecumenism that fails to value what is specific to Catholicism.

4. Chastity.  This most difficult and essential virtue for the adolescent male is ignored. The pandemic of pornography/masturbation is not confronted. The confession of sexual sin, so urgent for the growing male, would be disparaged if openly advocated. Here we see an accommodation to the sexual revolution in a largely indeliberate mimesis of cultural liberalism. This is catastrophic for the chaste virility of the growing adolescent.

5. Social Justice.  The primary aim of the "prep school" is to advance aspirational middle class students to better colleges, closer to the Ivies the better, and onto bourgeois security, comfort, and status. Implicitly, it is supportive of the social order: meritocratic, technocratic, bureaucratic, and viciously divided between the upper, educated, affluent class and the lower, uneducated, poor class.   There is an awareness of this and an admirable, compensating emphasis upon immersion trips, service projects, and care for the poor. However those activities are sidelines: the main purpose of the school is to get into a good college. Additionally, there is a distraction from the class structure of injustice into progressive causes including identity politics, BLM/CRT and collaboration with the crusade to legitimate homosexual and other transgressive life styles through LGBTQ clubs. We find here the type of the "limousine liberal": sequestered from the poor; enjoying bourgeois privilege; championing homosexuality as a rationalization for the license of contraception-pornography-cohabitation-divorce; and righteously protective of racial, gendered and sexual minorities. Actual injustice against the underclass, of all ethnicities, is thereby ignored.

I Have a Dream...

That every Catholic school student:

Encounter, in the proclamation of the Gospel, the Divine/Human person of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior from sin.

Engage the entire Catholic heritage of prayer, liturgy, doctrine, and way of life.

Aspire to sexual chastity in preparation for fidelity to a state of life, marriage or religious life/priesthood.

Identity with the poor, suffering and disenfranchised and develop an accurate, sophisticated critique of bourgeois modernity free of  progressive fashions.

Jesuit schools have a clear mission here...as they become free of the contagions unleashed in the 1960s Cultural Revolution and return to the authentic Jesuit legacy of heroic, chaste virility in Christ within his Church.

Pray for us...you virile, holy, chaste, humble, wise Jesuits...Ignatius, Xavier, Ricci, Jogues, Brebeuf, Campion, Pro, Delp, Bellarmine, Colombiere, Miki, DeLubac, Danielou, Dulles, Whelan, Dougherty,  Azzarto, Wrynn, Ciszek, Dougherty and Companions.

Pray for Jesuit and all Catholic schools, educators and students!