Political Contempt: How Are We To Live With It?

I heard from a marriage counselor that a marriage with some resilience, help and God's grace can overcome almost any obstacle, even abuse, adultery and addiction. But not every obstacle: there is one condition that, if present, efficaciously destroys a marriage: contempt. If the spouses view each other with contempt, there is no hope: the marriage is dead.

Our country is like such a couple: the two sides view each other with deep contempt. There is a profound, possibly unbridgeable abyss of disgust between the two. This is far more serious than a clash of views or a fight over how to divide the economic pie.

What is contempt? It is deeper and darker than anger, rage, fury, hurt, betrayal, disappointment. It is not merely the absence of respect and affection. It is an intense response of disgust to what is encountered as vile, despicable, nauseating. It is analogous to the visceral, somatic response, largely through the sense of smell, to what is violently sickening: a dead animal, rotten meat, human or animal waste. 

Like its opposites, love and reverence, it is a feeling but far more. Initially it is an involuntary emotion; but it then moves into a judgement of the intellect, that the offender is indeed worthless and even deserving of condemnation; and finally it settles into an attitude, a permanent viewpoint, out of which proceed a series of hostile thoughts, words and deeds. 

As a powerful, overwhelming emotion, contempt is irrepressible: it cannot be dismissed by an act of the will or intellect. It has an immense power behind it. But as with all emotion, it is capable of being directed, guided, channeled by the intellect and will. So, if we cannot merely dismiss the contempt we have for each other, how do we direct it in a fruitful, wholesome manner?

The contempt of the Left for the entire Trump phenomenon is evident: "deplorables" is the word made famous by Hillary Clinton in reference to about 50% of the voting population. The disdain is reciprocated by the Right: in large part the vote for Trump was not for his person or agenda but a renunciation of the Biden/Harris legacy and the DNC. This recent election was less a positive mandate for a specific alternative than a clash between two systems of contempt and disgust.

How are we to live together with such contempt?

Answer: detach the contempt from the person; aim it at the values as distinct from the person. Engage the person, not  oblivious to that which is disdained, but as someone far greater-deeper-denser than that which offends.

Maximilian Kolbe, shortly before he was arrested and eventually killed for his crusade against Nazism, was visited by a contingent of Gestapo agents. He received them into his monastery with impeccable courtesy and dignity. He did not personalize his contempt: he did not associate it with these specific men in front of him. Nor did he back down from his resistance to that system.

We are able to do this with analogous conditions. In relating to someone in a psychotic or addictive state, we hold the person in reverence even as we clearly, if quietly renounce the delusional and compulsive dynamics at work. Similarly, if one self-presents as "gay" or "trans," I defer courteously to the dignity of that subjectivity, however erroneous, and receive him in the dignity of his entirety, resisting the stereotype of a misleading label. When the 12-stepper introduces himself with "Hi! I am Bill, an alcoholic" he is admitting to a condition over which he is powerless; but he is also saying, if in Hope, I am more than that condition, which does not essentially define who I am.

We come back, as always, to: "hate the sin, love the sinner."

So, yes I despise contraception, Nazism, Communism, pornography, adultery. But I don't have a big problem with contraceptors, Nazis, Communists, porn users, or adulterers. Hey: we are all sinners, right? At the foot of the cross, the ground is level.

It helps always to remember that politics is not everything. It is not nothing. Especially to those of us (like my family) who take it seriously. But it is NOT everything. There is faith and religion. Family. Friends. Sports. Study. Music, cinema, dance, and culture in all its splendor. We do well to respect the autonomy of all these areas: no kneeling at football games; no political tirades, PLEASE, at the academy awards!

It is good to pray for all our political leaders, as St. Paul advises, even our political antagonists.

I like to pray for the families, marriages and souls of political figures...detached from their politics...the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, Bidens, Trumps...that they all be drawn closer to God and into genuine love for each other. This is a salutary exercise. An excellent way of minimizing the toxic consequences of contempt.

David Brooks on Faith

In a Christmas meditation (NY Times, 12/22/24), David Brooks reflects upon his own faith journey. It is worth reading, touching and inspiring in many ways, as he shows his customary insight, intelligence, fluency, sensitivity and transparency. At the same time, since he is widely received as a moral teacher, moderate-balanced-profound, by moderates who lean left and right, it is worth scrutinizing carefully exactly what he is offering. 

He is clearly a seeker, admirable in that dimension, and articulate in his desire for the Good, the True and the Beautiful. He is an aesthetic, attuned to the beautiful, but I will suggest that his grasp upon the true and the good is tenuous and confused in serious ways, from the viewpoint of a Christianity that is either Catholic or Evangelical or both.

The True: Faith, Belief and the Sentimentality of Theological Liberalism

Immediately he is clear: he is a man of faith, not belief. He strongly contrasts the two: his is a mysticism of longing and experience, not a form of knowledge of the real. Implicitly, he diminishes cognitive or conceptual belief as he highly values his own experience of and longing for the transcendent, the luminous, which he implies is ungraspable by human concepts. 

He assumes, with all of modernity, a Kantian epistemology that the human mind constructs "models" of knowledge that explain and predict "phenomena" (the appearances) but cannot access the "noumenal" (the actual, the real, the ultimate) which is unavailable to us intellectually, but only mystically or emotionally.)  More specifically, he follows Schleiermacher, the father of Protestant theological liberalism, who defined religion as experience, emotion, sentiment...of wonder, awe, transcendence, depth...as subjectivity, void of cognitive access to the real beyond the self. He positively quotes Tillich, the epitome of contemporary Protestant liberalism, He is clearly at home in the Jungian universe in which religion is a dimension of the Sovereign Self, not connection of the little self to the Absolute.

Traditionally, faith is the engagement of the entire self...or more precisely, the grasping, by God, of the entire self: emotions, intellect, will, spirit, memory, intentionality, body, community, culture. Scripturally, faith is acceptance of the truth claims of Jesus: that he is the only Son of the living God, that he came to baptize us in the Holy Spirit, that he died to forgive our sins and bring us to heaven. The Evangelical and the Catholic are both clear on this.

The Catholic goes well beyond this: faith is acceptance of the Revelation, by God of his very self, through the inspiration by the Holy Spirit of the Church, originally the apostles, then of the Scriptures, and historically in the Church, especially the doctors, fathers, saints, martyrs, magisterium and theologians. While God is supernatural and inaccessible to the unaided human intellect, he makes himself manifest to us as he created us with a mysterious capacity to  know him, he became incarnate to communicate to us, and continues his concrete presence among us through the Holy Spirit and the entire sacramental, magisterial and mystical life of the Church.

And so, in the Christian world, although not the liberal branch thereof, belief is essential to faith, but one dimension, co-inhering with the mystical, liturgical, moral, and social-cultural. We see than that with regard to the Truth, as revealed in Christianity, Brooks remains an agnostic, a seeker, a journeyer: a charming, insightful, authentic soul, but trapped in the sentimentality of theological liberalism. He is hardly a guide for those seeking to grow in Wisdom from on high.

The Good: Indecision, Ambiguity, Confusion, Capitulation

In the context of PBS and NY Times, Brooks is the conservative. He considers himself a "Burkean" conservative, dismissive of radicalism of the right and left, moderate and balanced with a strong taste for tradition and community. He has described himself as on the conservative side of the liberal Democratic consensus. This is accurate. On the conservative/progressive divide, he falls into the later, despite his sympathies, his piercing critiques of the elites, his openness. On the decisive, apocalyptic issue of the time, he is pro-choice. He has the state support the mother in the killing of her unborn. His heart and intellect and will and soul and blood is blue. He has gushed with enthusiasm for Clinton, Obama, and Biden. He despises Trump. He is a strong intellectual in that he sees the multiple complexities, nuances and contradictions of many social policies. But on core decisions about Good and Evil, he becomes ambivalent, indecisive and finally surrenders to the worldly powers of darkness.

Individualism

To my knowledge, he has not pledged allegiance to any Church or corporate embodiment of faith. He wanders in a no man's land, as an itinerant: part Jewish and part Christian, admiring the best wherever he sees it, but keeping himself distant, uncommitted, autonomous. In this he embodies, however graciously-charmingly-intelligently, the very pathology of modernity he identifies: isolation, loss of community, autonomy, rupture with tradition, and refusal to surrender in humility and obedience. He is not part of something greater than himself. The essence of Christianity in any of its authentic expressions (Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, Pentecostal, etc.) is personal communion with Christ in his Body. Brooks remains, with many other admirable souls (Simone Weil, Jordan Peterson, Albert Camus, Ernest Becker), at the very boundary of faith, as ecclesial communion, but outside of it. He is modern man...therapeutic, moralistic, deistic. He is not a man of faith, in any traditional sense. He is a searcher, exquisitely appreciative of the lovely, the other person, the depth and the transcendent as experienced, the splendor of moral goodness. But he remains the Sovereign Self...with Schleiermacher, Tillich, Jung...unhinged, adrift, lonely, confused. But about the True and the Good, as received by Judaism and Christianity, he is confused, indecisive, and confusing. 

I will continue myself to read, with appreciation and profit, the gifted David Brooks. Perhaps, in the light of these reflections I will include a short prayer that, in his search, he be drawn by God's grace decisively into the True and the Good.

Spiritual Exercises

These are different from those of St. Ignatius of Loyola.

They are what I do every other Thursday, at 10 AM, when I am privileged-honored-delighted to host an hour of such exercises as volunteer chaplain at the psychiatric floor of our local hospital. 

I introduce myself as volunteer, not a professional or ordained chaplain. The group of 8 to 12 (out of a population of perhaps 40) come voluntarily: they may be religious or spiritual or curious. They respond very well when they learn I direct a residence for low income women, many coming from just such mental health programs. I compare our activities to those of a physical trainer: whatever type of body...big/little, old/young, athletic/disabled, etc...we share the basic human form and can all benefit from basic exercises like stretching, walking, light weight resistance, etc. So, while we have different religious beliefs and practices, there are basic spiritual exercises that benefit all of us.

Gratitude 

I ask what they are grateful for about being in this hospital. Many acknowledge support from staff and peers. I ask what they are grateful for about their childhood. Great variety here: friends, sports, grandparents. Not so much mention of mother or father. I relate the episode of Oprah Winfrey in which a number of celebrities shared how their lives were transformed after they started their nightly "gratitude journal" in which they would list five things of the day about which they were grateful, however minor or trivial. Each related: decline of anxiety, depression, jealousy, resentment, regret and increase of serenity, confidence, hope, energy. I share my practice when I unexpectedly feel low I number on my fingers 10 things for which I am grateful and it works like magic: I feel better immediately. I explain the habit I have developed over the years, especially if I bang my head (I am tall and awkward) or hammer my finger, of going directly into thanksgiving and praise. The pain does not disappear by it is reduced by maybe 80%. This makes sense psychologically: if you are not focused on the pain, not cursing it, but focused elsewhere, it retreats into the background and decreases immensely. They were impressed with my recent auto accident in which my car was totaled: immediately upon impact I started my habit of thanks/praise: a few seconds later I rejoiced to realize I was feeling only moderate pain in my chest but otherwise entirely normal; I registered where I was and that I did have the right of way, that the other driver was walking around, that I would not have to go to work today with my head cold, and that I would soon be the recipient of tons of attention from police and medics. I encourage the exercise of gratitude as the gateway to serenity, hope, generosity, and strength.

Powerlessness

This is, of course, the first of the famous 12 steps, with which some of them are familiar. They are happy to hear I have attended EA meetings: Emotions Anonymous. They nod agreement that we all have things over which we are powerless: addictions, but also feelings of anxiety, depression, anger, regret, jealousy and so forth. I ask that they quietly inventory their own issues. I suggest surrender...but of a very specific sort. Not despairing surrender to the affliction; but acknowledgment of it, simultaneous with an act of trust that a "higher power" (of whatever name) can mercifully assist. As we are a mile from the ocean, I recall that caught in a riptide we do not swim against it, but swim with it temporarily as we wave for assistance and wait chance to swim out of it. I share my training in skid control in my career at UPS with truck drivers: the instinctive reaction to a skid is to slam the brakes and turn the wheel out of the skid. This is the worst thing to do: the brakes and tires both freeze and you continue in the skid. The correct practice is counterintuitive: you pump, but do not slam, the brakes to gradually regain traction as you steer, at first, into the skid. With traction established, you steer out of the skid. But first, there is a certain surrender. And so, the path to freedom is first an acceptance of powerlessness, along with trust in something greater than ourselves.

We also discuss another powerlessness: over those around us, especially close family and friends. Here we draw from ALANON and ACOA. We all live with people who are out of control...in some dimension. If we do not acknowledge our powerlessness we can be caught in illusion of our control or codependent/enabling compulsions. I knew an Irish Catholic priest who told me he had never lived anywhere, family or seminary or rectory, where there were not alcoholics. I explain how the surrender of control frees us to merely love, but not enable, and pray for the one close to us.

Support System

Normally, the residents on that floor are out within a week, hopefully back to their ordinary life. And so I ask them to reflect on their support network: those who encourage them, whom they trust, with whom they are safe, who elicit the best of them....even a single person. Earlier, at introduction, in explaining our residence for women, I had emphasized our amazing network of support: family, friends, contributors, volunteers. I insist that whatever goodness we reflect is an echo of goodness we have received. I refer to the "mimetic" character of human life: we imitate what we see and so what we look to and associate is determinative. I encourage them to appreciate their network...family, friends, church-synagogue-temple, support group, doctor and therapist...and deepen it, strengthen it, expand it, and pray for it.

Final Thoughts

I have considered other, move rigorous spiritual exercises, but see that they are demanding, delicate, and dangerous for those in a fragile psychic state. For example: the making of amends to those we have harmed, including asking for forgiveness. Likewise the other side of the coin: forgiving those who have harmed us. These are miraculous healing actions but delve deeply into suffering and wounds. Such are appropriate in a more long term, stable setting such as spiritual/pastoral direction, 12-step  and fellowship groups. That would be like putting folks in recovery from a disability into a strenuous program of heavy weight lifting and long distance running!  By contrast, I am confident about the positive, wholesome influence of these three simple activities.

My wife and I have been surprised and delighted by our experience as voluntary chaplains in the hospital. People of all classes and faiths are pleasantly welcoming. Those in hospital beds, facing suffering, sickness and medical procedures are, of course, stripped of the superficial and face-to-face with the ultimate. Christians of all stipes, and (strikingly) Jews more observant and secular, but also agnostics, Muslims, Hindus...rich and poor...liberal and conservative...are naked in their neediness and longing, if not explicit belief, for healing, for Mercy, for grace from above. 

We have been mentored by an amazing chaplain, Reverend Cindy Wilcox, who exudes a heavenly radiance of faith, hope and love without the trappings of any religion or system. Benefiting from that as well as my acquaintance with the 12-step tradition, I feel comfortable with a spirituality that expresses so much of my own Catholic faith but in a way available to almost everyone. Catholics make up almost half of the hospital population and with those I move easily into the regulars: Our Father, Hail Mary, and (as appropriate) reception of Holy Communion. With the others, there is a delicate and fascinating dance as I listen and they somehow always manifest their history and their heart and we join in bringing their pain and desires to God (aka "higher power" aka Jesus aka Allah)! There is the sense that entering each hospital room...with fear and trepidation...we are on the threshold of heaven!

Conversion of a "Never-Trumper"

Free of Trump-Derangement-Syndrome, I was nevertheless sworn (a simple, not solemn vow) to never vote for him. I came to enlightenment sooner than Bret Stephens (NY Times Op Ed, Dec. 17, 2024): on Holy Thursday, March 28, 2024, we were watching Bret Baer at 6 PM. (Yes, we are proud members of the Fox family! What family does not have their Sean Hannity's? If it helps: I also regularly read the NY Times!) On that day, Biden and Trump were both in NYC: the former for a fundraiser with millionaires; the later went to the wake of a policeman killed on duty. Of course I realize that fundraising is standard for all politicians; and the wake was, as with all things Trump, performative-histrionic-political. Nevertheless, for me it was a tipping point: upper class vs. lower class. It was the culmination of over three years of Biden. I vowed to vote for Trump. I renewed my lifetime oath to resist the systemic-absolute-contagious decadence-hypocrisy-cowardice-genocidal-lunacy of the Democratic Party. 

Upper Class Contempt for the "Low Life"

Conservative Never-Trumper's (Brooks, Stephens, French, Cheny) are as visceral in their disgust for Trump as Leftists. This is in part upper class snobbery: an issue of style, taste, aesthetics. In some degree, Trump-disgust is a matter of class/culture/taste. We can distinguish, but not separate, in Trump his public policies, his private morality, and his personal style and taste. They mutually infuse each other, of course. But it is his "low class" style/manner/taste that disgusts the elite, conservative and liberal. Standard conservatives renounce his economics; religious conservatives his personal behavior; but upper class and aspirational groups (used to be called "lace curtain Irish") are repulsed by his vulgarity.

I am working-middle class, with high aspirations, especially around education,  but there are many "low class" things I despise: dog fights, rap music, worldwide wrestling, tatoos, body piercing, chewing-and-spitting-tobacco, guns and hunting, nascar racing, purple hair on women, scraggily beard and hair on men,  heavy makeup and Donald Trump. None of these are, by my Catholic principles, sinful or immoral. They are questions of taste, entertainment, aesthetics. In my youth we adored John F. Kennedy: it was his politics, his (apparent) morality, and especially his style...the way he talked, walked, smiled, posed with family, played football, joked.

Like everyone else, I knew of DJT long before he ran for office. I held him in contempt. Part of that was his morality; but much of it was his style. In that I am a snob-in-recovery. The lower class love the guy. They love his style: tough, crude, vulgar, authentic, aggressive. It took quite a while, but I have shed my upper class pretensions and learned, not only to accept the guy, but to enjoy him. He is a cartoon character, but extremely entertaining. He is entirely transgressive of progressive-puritanism. He is SO refreshing in his absolute freedom from hypocrisy. Think of him pumping his fist when he was shot, serving McDonalds, driving a garbage truck! He is a Flanner O'Connor character: a distorted, deprived, empty, selfish, greedy, disrespectful low-life...and a refreshing contrast to the righteous, hypocritical, affluent, educated, pretentious, arrogant, progressive elite.

DJT as a Warrior Judge/King:  Private and Public Morality

"How can you vote for Trump? That is like telling your grandsons that they can be like him and still become president of the United States?" This was shortly after the election. She was speaking for all six of my sisters who are horrified that their three brothers voted for Trump. In no family (not even Maureen Dowd's) is the "gender-divide" so pronounced as in ours!

Fortunately my grandsons are smart enough to distinguish a political decision from a personal endorsement. But I agree with the logic. It is why I was a Never-Trumper for over 8 years. I believe strongly that private and public ethics cannot be absolutely separated. By virtue of the mimetic nature of the human person, we are...all of us...all the time...role models; but especially those in positions of authority and prominence. Even Charles Barkley! I believe the tolerance of the Clinton/Lewinski incident marked a steep descent in our moral culture. I recall at that time talking with a fine man, a plumber, a Democrat and devout Catholic, who said: "It is like a shoemaker: you don't like his behavior, but he does a good job on your shoes." I did not argue but thought quietly: "If you can't trust him with your daughter, can you trust him with your shoes?" Fellow boomers, Clinton leads to Trump. 

I have not changed my mind about the moral vacuity of Trump or the importance of personal modelling in public life. But during the Biden years the world around us changed dramatically and so has my view of it. 

Weakness...moral, military, economic, diplomatic, domestic...has been the form, the interior, the nature of the Biden administration. Consider his lieutenants: Blinken, Garland, Buttigieg, Mayorkas...all  thoughtful, intelligent, prudent...but also indecisive, hesitant, cautious, and anxious. Weak! Harris is different: she is a lioness...fierce, aggressive, passionate...but about one thing only: killing of the unborn. In her campaign she was vague, indecisive, giddy, and inarticulate...until she spoke about "reproductive rights" and she became a different person: a raging, fanatic, zealous, indignant, self-righteous warrior! With Biden/Harris we have Hansel and Gretel's worst nightmare: the father impotent, infirm, passive and self-delusional; the evil stepmother furious,  powerful and determined to devour her children. The emasculated father; the dark mother!

New World Order. We no longer live in the stable bi-polar world of the cold war; nor in the triumphant uni-polar world in the years after 1989. In the early years of this third millennium we transitioned into a dangerous, unstable, multipolar world more like that of the 1930-40s. The Christian order, present since Constantine, is embattled on four fronts: the civil war, for more than half a century, at home with Cultural Liberalism; the Communist Party in China (and North Korea, Cuba); Jihadism in its Shiite (Iran) and Sunni (Al Queda); and the imperialism of Russia.

What we need now in the face of these violent foes (at the moment united in Ukraine) is a strong man, a tough guy, a war lord. We need Winston Churchill, El Cid, Michael Correlone, George Patton or Benjamin Netanyahu. What we do NOT need is Neville Chamberlain. We need DJT pumping his fists as blood flows out of his ear lobe. 

It is ironic that such an ignoble character has become the champion of religious freedom, the unborn, and traditional values. In his personal morals he is a train wreck, but he does call to mind an ancient model:

Warrior Judge and King. Samson was arguably the greatest of the Judges of Israel: from his childhood the Spirit of the Lord flowed upon him. He triumphed against their enemies. But he is a poor role model: he sinned gravely with Delilah with catastrophic consequences. Even more pronounced is the greatest King of Israel, David, arguably with the patriarchs one of the most important figures in the Old Testament. He likewise sinned gravely with Bathsheba, killing her husband Uriah in cowardly fashion, and going on to wreck havoc upon his legacy by siring many children with many women. Bad role model; great leader of the people. 

More recently, we continue to honor JFK and MLK. Both great public figures. Both honored as paragons of liberalism and civil rights. Both horrific in their treatment of women. Credible sources allege that MLK participated in orgies with fellow clergymen in which women were raped. Where is MeToo when we need it? Consider the hypocrisy: King an ordained man of God, rising to the altar Sunday morning after his Saturday night orgy; the Kennedy name synonymous with support for feminism, particularly reproductive rights, while many of their powerful men are sexual compulsives and predators. 

How refreshing by contrast is DJT in his honesty and authenticity: no pretense to being a righteous paragon of virtue, evangelical or progressive!

Appeal to the Lower Class. This authenticity is part of his appeal to the lower echelons of society. It is the strangest thing: despite his privilege and wealth, he somehow connects with the lowly. It is notable that many historical leaders span different cultures: Moses was Hebrew and Egyptian; Paul was Jewish and Roman; Hawkeye was colonial and Mohegan; Tarzan was ape and human. The Trump triumph is many things: rebellion of the lower class, resurgence of a masculinity that has been castrated by effeminate progressivism, and resistance by the religious against a secular totalitarianism. It is a visceral disgust for the progressive elite in their condescension, arrogance, superiority and certainty. The Harris voter, snug and smug within the liberal echo chambers, confident-judgmental-and-dismissive of the "deplorables" as ignorant-racist-homophobic, is clueless but largely incurious about the appeal of Trump: void of empathy or understanding. 

A Modest Catholic Proposal  

Our world has become dark and ominous. We Catholics are like Tolkien's Hobbits engaged with Morgoth, Sauron, and the hellish powers of Middle-earth. We are like the infant born in Revelation: but there is not one dragon waiting to devour, but a flock of them: Cultural Liberalism, Communism, Jihadism, and National Fascism. Unlike Pope Francis, I do not see that the Church has a prominent, messianic, secular mission to rid the world of global warming, warfare, capital punishment, economic inequality, arms race,  gun violence, racism, immigrant suffering or homophobia. 

Our mission is small, humble, fragile. With St. Terese of Lisieux, Rod Dreher, Joseph Ratzinger, and Kiko Arguello...I see "the little way," the Benedict Option, the path of the monks at the fall of ancient civilization, of the friars in the 13th century, of generations of hermits, cloistered religious and quietly pious lay people. The quiet, hidden life of praise and thanksgiving, communion in Sacrament and Word, gentle service and mutuality in tender-reverent love. 

To pursue this life, we need protection: like the Knight Templars, El Cid, Aragon. We need a strongman who is not intimidated by our four dragons; who is not deluded by an emasculated, pacifist, lets-all-just-get-along progressivism. DJT has shown ferocity against Cultural Liberalism (Supreme Court), China and Iran. Not so much Russia. We hope and pray that, in all his flaws, inadequacies and policy randomness, he will be the  strongman we need in this dangerous world. May God bless him in this work! 

The Moral Dilema of "Gone, Baby, Gone"

 I invite you, Dear Reader, to see the movie "Gone Baby, Gone" available now on Prime Video. It is a standard investigative mystery about a missing child but, like every great movie, raises that genre to a new level. The plot unravels with surprises that are, retrospectively, coherent with the entire narrative. Marvelously directed by first-time Ben Affleck, it is dominated by the superb performance of his brother Casey as protagonist, tough, young Irish Catholic private investigator in gritty, corrupt, brutal Catholic Boston area. The ensemble cast is extraordinary: Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris, Amy Ryan, a lovely Michele Monahan, and strong supporting performances including a short, electrifying scene with the magnificent Michael Williams (of happy memory who played Omar Little in The Wire.)

The protagonist rises to the level of a classic hero: courageous, smart, calm, persistent. He is a man of honor: wearing a cross and medal, he refers more than once to advice given him by a priest. He is entirely at home in the violence and decadence of the ambiance. He is no saint: he lives with his partner/lover: but with Michele Monahan can you blame him? At one point he surrenders to rage and murders a pedophile/murderer. Emotionally everyone would approve, but his conscience torments him; again he refers back to his Catholic faith. 

But what sets the movie apart is the excruciating moral dilemma at the conclusion. I will not be a spoiler. Please watch it! Does Patrick McKenzie do the right thing? Or is his girlfriend right?  Please watch with your spouse, sibling or friend of the opposite sex: I am guessing there will be a gender divide on this one. We learned from feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan that the female moral conscience is more relational, concrete, compassionate than the moral-principle-and-order-based masculine psyche. Another way of viewing it is the divide between the consequentialist (used to be called "situation ethics") and the "essentialist" perspectives. The protagonist, you will see, is strongly masculine and essentialist, which is to say Catholic.

To illuminate the dilemma consider another, similar: a historical one. At the end of World War II, a devout Catholic Polish family faced a crisis: when the Nazis took control of Poland, their Jewish neighbors entrusted to them their baby with the understanding that later the little one would be returned to them or their family in Canada. The Jewish family perished in the Holocaust. The Catholic family now loved the little one. Additionally, they would of course have believed the eternal salvation of the soul would be more certain within Catholic devotional and sacramental life than in a Judaism that continues to deny the claims of Christ. They consulted their parish priest. Surprisingly, for that Catholic time and place, the priest said they were morally obliged to return the child to the biological Jewish family. 

In this he affirmed three truths: first, the binding nature of a moral promise; secondly, the sacred nature of the biological family; thirdly, a trust that God's salvific action is effective beyond the explicit boundaries of the Catholic Church, specifically in a Rabbinic Judaism that continues after millennia to renounce the messianic claims of Jesus Christ. He was startlingly "liberal" in the classic sense: open-minded, free-spirited, affirmative of all that is good and true and beautiful. 

That priest became John Paul II. Already in 1945 he was thinking with Vatican II (1962-5). I can think of no one who manifests a consciousness that is at once virile, essentialist, Catholic and yet classically liberal and influenced by the feminine, especially the Marian.

As you ponder the conclusion of "Gone Baby Gone," recall this significant incident!

Please let me know your thoughts!

A Prayer

This prayer is best read and said after and before listening to Matt Mahr's "Lord, I Need You"

Lord, I need you...desperately!

 I want YOU...and all things only in you!

 I choose you...and renounce all that is not of you.

I receive You!

I thank you.

I trust you.

I love you.

I adore you.

I serve you.

Jesuits, Frenemies, Dear Friends and Worthy Adversaries: A Love Story

The Society of Jesus has been a strong, consistent, salutory influence for my entire life. I grew up with America Magazine. My maternal grandfather was reading it back in the 1930s; my mother introduced my father to it. More recently, my granddaughter has worked and written for it as an intern. As a union leader, my father participated in the 1950s in the JesuitfSt. Peter's Labor Institute, Jersey City, which brought together leadership from industry and labor to share Catholic social doctrine. The Waterfront Priest was visible in our house; the book represented the Church and Union, the two institution which structured our world; and inclined me to cherish the movie On The Waterfront, which gets my vote as best movie ever made. I did not attend Jesuit prep school or college; but my two sons, son-in-law, and grandson did both; and I have delighted to see them receive such a fine education. On approaching my own high school graduation, I was drawn to the Jesuits and Maryknoll; the attraction of service of the poor and adventure overseas won out.

For the two years (1969-71) after graduation from Maryknoll College Seminary, during which we wed, I studied theology at Union Theological Seminary and Woodstock Theologate in NYC. At the former I engaged the finest minds in liberal Protestant theology of the time. But at the later I encountered two mentor/teachers who deeply influenced my faith and thought. Fr. (later Cardinal) Avery Dulles SJ was unequaled, in American Catholic theology of the second half of the 20th century, for his orthodoxy, balance, influence, humility, depth and breath of thought. He looked and presented himself like one of my uncles: long, lean, lanky, precise, thoughtful, awkward, self-effacing. He represented for me the ideal theologian! Even more personally influential was Father Joe Whelan SJ, the most holy man I ever knew. He rooted solid theology in the mystical, the life of prayer, deep within the heart of the Church. He introduced me to Balthasar's classic "Sanctity and Theology" and his "kneeling theology." He had written his thesis on Baron Freidrich von Hugel, himself a mystic, a one time "modernist" who sublimely integrated an organic Catholic conservatism with a wholesome, liberal openness to the best of modernity.

At this same time I taught religion at Xavier H.S. NYC and befriended my department chair, Fr. Neil Doherty SJ who became for me a spiritual director. Prayerful, erudite, gentle and humble in spirit, he was a true son of St. Ignatius. In the same mode was Fr. John Wrynn SJ, historian at St. Peter's College, who was spiritual director and friend to me for close to 40 years.

Our children were deeply influenced by the Jesuits of St. Peter's Prep and (then) College in Jersey City of the 1990s and afterwards. At "Prep" my sons and son-in-law were deeply touched by the famed Tony Azzarto, Browning, Keenan and others.  My oldest grandson also benefited from Jesuit secondary and now university education. My son-in-law has given himself over to the mission of Ignatian secondary education. 

At many levels Jesuit high schools provide an excellent education. Academically without a doubt. More importantly is the "care of the person": a wholesome environment in which young men thrive, good role models, solid values, strong extracurricular and athletic programs. In catechesis, there is a weakness: while not as drastic as that in the colleges, cultural/political progressivism has a strong, pervasive influence, especially in my NY/NJ blue location. There is more likelihood of a LGBTQ than a prolife club; more probable to hear in religion class about Critical Race Theory than John Paul's theology of the body. The leaning is to present as  Catholic the progressive viewpoint on prudential issues about which we can disagree for example on immigration, climate, warfare, systemic racism and capital punishment.  I was myself, nevertheless, satisfied that the positives overcame the deficits, which I as parent worked strenuously to overcome, personally and with the help of a range of more traditional-evangelical-charismatic involvements. 

At "The College" there was my friend Wrynn, Kennedy, Ruane, Buckley, Lynch, Sheridan, Majewski. These were a clear and distinct cohort: the quiet generation, mostly of Irish descent, they came of age in the thriving, confident post-War Catholicism of the 1950s. They were young priests at the time of the Council (1962-5) and deeply inhaled the positivity, hopefulness, ecumenism, open-mindedness, and confidence that permeated the air we breathed. When the Cultural-Sexual Revolution exploded a few years later, their persons and philosophies were set in place; they neither participated nor resisted; they abstained and remained detached, neutral for the remainder of their lives. They were intelligent, erudite, low key, good natured, reserved, devout in a low key, connosieurs of quality alcohol and food, prayerful men of the Church. In sexuality as in piety, they were reserved,  quiet, shy: virile, chaste, reverent and affectionate towards women, gentlemanly in the best old-fashioned manner. Our Church and world today would benefit from measured dosage of that residual Irish Jansenism they carried! Outstanding educators, devoted to the Ignatian "cura persona," they provided a rich environment for our young people to thrive. A deep debt of gratitude is due!" 

I maintain strong connection to Maryknoll from my college seminary days; I have worked happily in schools with Lodi Felicians, Caldwell Dominicans, and  Convent Station charities; and in recent years our family has become close to the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, certainly a contrasting flavor with the Jesuits. But our family and I myself have always benefited from our friendship with the Jesuits. The Society retains, even in the light of recent history, our affection, gratitude and respect.

The Authentic Ignatian Legacy

The Jesuit Order I, with the entire Tridentine Church (1540-1960), so esteemed...of Francis Xavier, Robert Bellarmine, Edmund Campion,  Isaac Jogues, Mateo Ricci, Miguel Pro, John Corridan (waterfront priest), Walter Ciszek, and so many others...was militantly Catholic, theologically orthodox, fierce-fearless-virile, agonistically engaged with Protestants, communists, paganism, and union gangs. It was comfortable in argument because it was clear, certain, passionate. It took a special \vow of fidelity to the Pope. It was the "navy seals" of the Catholic Church: combative and forceful against anything that threatened the Church.

Transformation of the Jesuits in the 1960s: Three Paths

The Society underwent a profound transformation in the late 1960s. Perhaps more than any other Catholic group, it suffered the catastrophic convergence the two defining events of the time, one providential, the other diabolical: Vatican II opened the Church to the world in a posture of welcome, inclusion, affirmation and positivity; just as that world exploded in the Cultural Revolution. And so, the Jesuit Order, with the entire Church, found itself engaged, both accommodated and resisting,  a godless, increasingly totalitarian modernity now sexually liberational, deconstructive of gender/family, militantly progressive, hype-technological, destructive of organic/intermediate organizations, culturally Marxist (identity politics, CRT), in worship of the isolated Sovereign Self, individualized and isolated, subservient to the mega-State and malignant corporate globalism.

Three aspects of the order, previously so combatively-counterculturally, thickly, militantly Catholic, inclined it to accommodate to modernity: its striking individualism (for example the Spiritual Exercises) and weakened communal bonds (compared to monastic and mendicant orders); it's strong academic orientation which made it vulnerable to an intellectual world going secular; and its goal to "find God in all things" which on a superficial level tends to affirm and accept current, worldly fashion. And so in the 1960s, with the Church's "opening to the world," in the middle of the Cultural-Sexual Revolution, we find three distinct pathways emerging: Progressive, Organic Conservative and Moderate.

Progressives

Four pivotal figures of the 1960s clearly represent  post-Vatican II Catholic Progressivism:  Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, Bernard Lonergan, and Pedro Arrupe together represent the turn to the political, evolutionary progress, fascination with subjectivity, and the sterilization of sexuality.

Teilhard articulated a Darwinian (not Hegelian/Marxist) vison of evolutionary progress  as an inevitable dynamic, like the development of a plant or animal. This inclines to a progressivism that is looking to move always beyond a past viewed as deficient. This is at  least in tension with a Catholicism that looks always back to a final, definitive, incomparable Revelation in Jesus Christ and his engagement with the primitive, apostolic Church. At the heart of progressivism is a constant overcoming of the past viewed condescendingly as ignorant and deficient; at the heart of Catholicism is a retrieval and renewal of a superabundant Revelation which has been given-handed down-received, even as it develops organically and finds fresh expressions. Teilhard is himself not as fashionable and influential as he was in the 1970s; but his faith in progress is a foundation of modernity.

Lonergan and Rahner are rightly associated with each other as "transcendental Thomists" in their intention to translate Thomas into the Kantian universe with its centering of the constructive human intellect, in contrast to the receptive/contemplative intellect in the classical tradition. With Lonergan, we might highlight his concern, much like Teilhard, with historicity. Rightly understood, this awareness is an admirable and salutary development of the contemporary mind. However, divorced from a classical Thomistic ontology and epistemology, it can degrade into a "historicity" which removes stable philosophical foundations and abandons all belief and practice to change, relativism and cultural construction. And so followers of Lonergan typically discard the Greek metaphysics of Plato/Aristotle in favor of a Parmenedian elevation of change over permanence, whether in Darwinian, Hegelian or Nietezchian form.

Rahner, along with Lonergan,  attempts a reconstruction of Catholicism in light of the Kantian Self, focusing on human longings, thinking, judging and deciding. There is a shift away from the vertical, objective visitation from heaven of the eternal, now incarnate Logos in the specific concrete of Jesus Christ. As with history, the turn to the personal and interpersonal is a welcome development in contemporary thought, but if imbalanced leads to solipsism, relativism, and individualism.

Arrupe, Superior General of the order in this tumultuous time 1965-83, was surely the most influential Jesuit of the time. His personal holiness is clear. He responded to his traumatic experience of the Hiroshima bombing with a turn to the political. He is credited/discredited with the embrace of social justice by the society. This was hardly a rejection of the supernatural, but surely a new emphasis on the secular and especially leftist politics. And so we have  Daniel Berrigan, Robert Drinan, the brothers Cardenal in Nicaragua, liberations theologians like Sobrino and Segundo, and the embrace of leftist political ideology by the entirety of  Jesuit higher education in the USA. In this he allowed if he did not encourage the politicization of the order.

Less known about him is a letter to the Society he wrote in 1968 in which he strongly, eloquently endorsed Humanae Vitae. He fiercely recalled the original Ignatian charism of fidelity to the papacy and called for thoughtful, prayerful, filial submission to the controversial encyclical. In this essential matter he reflects an organic conservatism alongside of his political liberalism. This splendid expression of fidelity to Catholic tradition was not widely emulated within the society. Rather, the embrace of contraception, the rejection of Humanae Vitae, notably by Teilhard-Rahner-Lonergan, set the tone for elite leadership, especially in higher education.

These four figures were admirable in their erudition, grounding in tradition, outstanding character and personal piety. The canonization process for Arrupe is proceeding smoothly: a 10,000 page document was submitted by the diocese to the Vatican. However, these seemingly minor theoretical errors, when handed down to the their proteges, in chaos of the Cultural Revolution, had disastrous consequences. It can be compared to the launch of a satellite to outer space: a small error can result in a large miss.

Organic Conservatism

Prominent Jesuits Balthasar, DeLubac, Danielou and others developed the Resourcement theology which largely guided the Vatican Council and developed out of that event into the Communio school. They looked to the past, Scripture and the Church fathers/doctors, to retrieve and then develop Tradition in an organic, consistent, fluid manner, in conversation with the best of modernity. Crucially, they articulated the classical Catholic understanding of sexuality as conjugal (unitive, procreative, sacred) in fresh expressions, notablyin John Paul's Theology of the Body. Unfortunately, with exceptions (Fessio, Baker, Schall, Oakes and of course the esteemed Dulles) this thought was ignored by Jesuit theology, when it was not explicitly rejected (for example by  James Martin.)

They were accused (and still are) of modernism by more strict Thomists, often Dominicans, like Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange and Cardinal Ottaviani; as they were rejected as reactionary by the progressives. Their avoided the  extremes of a progressivism, contemptuous of the past,  and rigid traditionalism. It found authoritative expression in the pontificates of John Paul and Benedict.

Moderates

The majority of Jesuits (like most priests and laity)(and notably the quiet generation), in my experience, are neither progressive nor conservative, but moderate. They abstain from the Culture War. They could not/would not deliver a clear, firm sermon for/or/against the masculine priesthood, contraception, gay marriage or IVF. They are men of good character, fine scholars, loyal to the Church, balanced and prudent. Their neutrality is in part  pastoral sensitivity to the opposing  interests in the Church. It can also be seen as modest patience in waiting for the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The problem is, however, that these are hard binary choices: if women can be priests, the Church is and has been misogynist. Additionally, given the dynamic power of change and "progress," there is no real ground of neutrality: to tolerate the attack on traditional Catholic beliefs is itself to enable it. It is like a security guard who decides to stay neutral when the bank is robbed. It suggests a deficiency in virile clarity-courage-decisiveness, the very hallmarks of the classical Ignatian legacy.

This condition is quite pronounced in our Jesuit Pope Francis. He has failed to present a clear, coherent vision; he implicitly rejects the legacy of his two predecessors; he has not delivered a clear liberal program; he has plunged the Church into confusion and polarization with his crusade for vague "synodality;" and so he has frustrated both conservatives and progressives. 

Triumph of the Progressives

With the majority of Jesuits ambivalent/undecided and a smaller, critical mass on both sides of the divide, we see the outcome: clear  victory of the liberals in all the elite Jesuit institutions, specifically the universities and America Magazine. This reflects, of course, a similar result across Catholicism and the entire range of elite, secular society. And so we have the widespread view, among conservatives, of Jesuits as Marxists, heretics and libertines. This is unfair to the majority of Jesuits; but is not without basis in the actual Culture War of our time.

Sense of Betrayal

Much that is most precious to us as Catholics...the conjugal nature of sexuality, the iconic sacredness of masculinity/femininity, the virility of our priesthood as expressive of the Bridegroom's love for his Bride, our filial loyalty to Tradition, reverence for the Magisterium...is despised by Cultural Progressivism as misogynist, homophobic, reactionary, authoritarian, clericalist, irrational, and rooted in fear, hatred and ignorance. In this context, the accommodation of our prestigious Jesuit institutions to modernity can only be felt as betrayal. It is because we love the Jesuits, because we esteem them so, because they have traditionally so encouraged and inspired us, that the betrayal is so wounding.

Enemies: A Love Story

Truth, as received within the Church, is worth fighting and dying for. The Jesuit order is remarkable precisely for the heroes and martyrs who did just that: in Elizabethan England, China/Japan, Canada and South America, Masonic Mexico, Spain of the 1930s, the Soviet Gulag. on NJ docks...around the world and through the centuries. This is a hill upon which we will die.

And so, it is an excruciating irony that in our time it is the elite Jesuit institutions (not by any means all Jesuits) who have turned against fundamentals of our Catholic faith. In the genuine Ignatian tradition of the centuries, even reflected in the Arrupe letter of 1968, we are impelled to contradict these errors, these untruths, in defense of our faith as received.

However, as we hate the sin but love the sinner, so we reject the error but not the erroneous one. Our communion within the Church is founded upon Truth. But that is not all. Dogma and morals is NOT everything. Within our families and communities we may disagree in theology and politics, but other bonds unite us: mutual affection and reverence, our life of worship, shared concern with the poor, social justice, delight in culture/art/beauty, and a shared desire for the True, the Good and the Beautiful. Fierce, passionate, intelligent, informed argumentation is part of the Jesuit legacy. And so we engage our antagonists combatively, but respectfully. They are themselves men of sincerity, honor, deep faith,  intelligence, erudition, character and considerable charm. They are worthy adversaries. They are deserve our respect. 

I cherish and revere my Catholic liberal friends and family, Jesuit and otherwise. It is like a healthy married couple that has learned to fight fairly and respectfully, if emotionally. The passion, clarity, certitude of my argument with the dominant progressive wing of the Jesuit society does not diminish my affection and respect. The two enhance and heighten each other. This is a love affair; if combative and passionate!

The Mercy of God

 Dives in Misericordia (Rich in Mercy), which I read shortly after it was issued by John Paul in 1980, influenced me more than any other book. By a providential grace, I read it just before the heartbreaking death, by suicide, of my wife's brother Al...the singular, incomparable tragedy of our shared life. Al was endearing and admirable in a million ways: gentle, kind, intelligent, athletic, handsome, inquisitive, charming. He suffered emotional distress gravely and heroically for many years. He fought it with all the resources available to him: psychology, "Recovery" self-help groups which he led, healing through prayer, exercise, a beautiful relationship with a lovely woman who loved him dearly. There was nothing that he could have done that he didn't do to overcome his distress. Before his (apparently) final act, he lit a candle...surely a gesture of hope and prayer. Before that he assisted his elderly stepfather in taking off his boots. 

His wake and funeral were extraordinary. There is nothing like a young death from a big family to bring out huge numbers of grievers/comforters. The kindness, compassion and love of all these people was overwhelming. A single thought gripped my mind:  "If all these people are so merciful, how much more so is God, who is full of mercy, the source of all mercy."

At that point, the Mercy of God, became the defining reality of my life. Everything else came to be seen in the light of this.

What is Mercy?

Mercy is the response to sin and suffering by goodness, generosity, abundance, compassion, strength, and love.

Without sin or suffering, you do not have mercy. So, in the Garden of Eden and after the second coming of Christ there is no mercy. Within God's very self, there is no mercy, as he has neither sin nor suffering. So, we may say that mercy is the defining form of God's relationship to us in this life, finite-dependent-sinful creatures that we are. It will have no place after this life in the eternity of heaven. And it had no place in the life of God prior to creation. The exercise of freedom by us, his creatures, in choosing evil and the consequential suffering  is what elicited from his infinite goodness the reality of Mercy.

Imagine a joyous wedding party where everyone is happy, thriving, celebrating:  the bride and groom are ecstatic, the parents and family overflowing with joy, all the guests are dressed up, satisfied and euphoric. At this moment there is love, joy, hope, generosity...but no real mercy, because there is evident here no sin or suffering. And so heaven we are told is like a wedding feast.

 Mercy in Context and Relationship

 In the teaching of John Paul, following the revelations to St. Faustina, Mercy is not a monotone; it is held in tension with truth, justice and holy wrath. This is fully in accord with the clear teaching of Jesus himself as well as that of the saints and the Church throughout the ages. 

The mass readings during this month of November are from Revelation and the gospels and deal with the end times: descriptions of terror, wrath, punishment on Babylon, the great serpent and all evil. They are fierce and frightening. We are directed this month, ending the liturgical year, to consider the Last Things: death, judgement, heaven and hell. Clearly, God's Mercy is not a dismissal of judgement, Truth, punishment and wrath. Rather, it remains in tension with these dimensions of God's relation to sin, error and evil. 

We might say that the Catholic Church, in our age, since WWII, has shifted its theological gestalt to highlight more clearly, especially in light of St. Faustina's revelations, the victory of God's Mercy. For example, we now grant funeral masses for victims of suicide. This is probably due to the enhanced grasp of God's goodness as well as a development in anthropology/psychology and our understanding of the forces that diminish freedom and therefore culpability. However, with the Church of the ages, we kneel in awe of a Holy God, powerful in Mercy but also in truth, justice and wrath.

Disordering, Exaggeration, and Cheapening of Mercy

A troubling development during the pontificate of Pope Francis is presentation of Mercy as a monopolistic absolute, uprooted from its connections with other realities of the Divine. And so we read that Mercy defines the very essence of God, as if there is mercy within the Divine, even before the exercise of creaturely freedom. And so there is dismissal of the reality of hell, accountability and judgement. Mercy as kindness and acceptance dominates as to dismiss or diminish Truth.  Moral absolutes, around sexuality especially, are minimized on behalf of a soft love and a cheap mercy. Mention of moral absolutes, punishment, chastity, Lucifer, hell, law, spiritual warfare...all of this, essential to our legacy, is reconfigured as legalism, dogmatism, rigidity, clericalism, and so forth.  

The result is a cheapened, soft, effete kind of mercy as unconditional acceptance and affirmation, void of masculine virtues of fortitude, purity,  zeal, and fear of the Lord.

Real Mercy

The real deal, that we learn from St. Faustina and John Paul and the entire tradition: Mercy is even more magnificent in relation to the holiness, the justice, the wrath of God. It triumphs, not by dismissing or diminishing those mysteries, but by miraculously encompassing them. This is not something we can understand. We can only kneel and adore before it.

A Populist Authoritarian? Or Progressive Totalitarianism? What's a Catholic to Do? Or: Why I Voted for a Morally Repugnant Wannabe Dictator

Dedicated to Dr. Wilbur Puhr PhD who came to Maryknoll College Seminary from the University of Chicago to teach us political science and introduced us to the magnificent thought of Hannah Arendt, including her pivotal distinction between the authoritarian and the totalitarian in the classic Origins of Totalitarianism  (a must-read to think politically after 1945.) And a fond memory of dinner and drinks with him in Ivan Illich's marvelous Cuernavaca, summer of 1968, in the midst of all the social and ecclesial uproar.

What's the Difference Between Authoritarian and Totalitarian?

The former demands complete political control and will crush any opposition or political pluralism, including freedom of speech. But if you do not challenge his political control, he can be a good neighbor and friend. He will live easily with cultural and societal pluralism: religious activities, evangelization, private enterprise, various schools, non-profits, art and such.

The later is a far darker, deeper nemesis. Flowing from a total, quasi-religious fanaticism, it seeks to control all of human life: religion, family, education, economics, culture and art. This we might call "radical evil"...a real visitation from hell on earth. A far, far deeper evil than routine dictatorship.

Portugal's Salazar, Spain's Franco, and (arguably) Italy's Mussolini were authoritarians; Hitler, Stalin and Mao were totalitarians. Contrast: 1930s Spain of Franco and the Popular Front; Vietnam under Diem and the Viet Cong; Iran under the Shah and the Mullahs; Nicaragua under Somoza and the Sandinistas; Cuba under Batista and Castro; Russia and Eastern Europe after and before 1989.

Totalitarianism flows from an ideology, a total, but reductive view of the person and uses violence to destroy anything that resists this: Nazism (racial), Communism (economic), Sharia Islam (religous), and Cultural Progressivism (sexual).

 Trump: Incompetent, Aspiring Dictator

As a person, Trump epitomizes and aggravates the moral depravity of our age: post-Sexual-Revolution-of-1960s. He is an entertainer, a celebrity, a flaming narcissist who demands attention. He is not a power broker. He did not consolidate power in his first term. His defiance of the  2020 election was futile, ridiculous, and pathetic. His current crusade for Matt Gaetz as Attorney General is a case in point: a self-defeating waste of energy out of his obsessional resentment against a Department of Justice that targeted him in four prosecutions that were poorly founded, political and finally self-defeating . His insistence will elicit resistance from a critical mass of moderate Republicans or eventually (if he achieves recess appointments) from a Supreme Court. While he has consolidated control over the RNC, he is erroneously presuming a huge mandate out of an election that was a virtual tie. He is riding for a fall. Traditional Republicanism is in decline, but has not disappeared. More importantly, failing that guardrail, we have a Supreme Court that is conservative, but not mechanically so. A recent NY Times article enumerated the many cases in which Justice Barrett resisted the "conservative" position out of  rigorous legal reasoning. She is not alone: Roberts rescued the Affordable Care Act and Gorsuch infamously installed gay marriage as law of the land. Alito and Kavanaugh are also capable of surprisingly independent thought. I am optimistic about the strength and resilience of our political institutions. My liberal family and friends disagree; but they hope that I am right.

A Modest Catholic Proposal

The USA of 1970 was entirely different from that of 1960. We might understand it as the Invasion of the Body Snatchers: same body but now indwelt by an alien spirit. The 1960 reality was exuberantly Christian, Ecumenically-Protestant-and-Catholic-Friendly, after victory in WWII and united in opposition to the communist USSR. A single technology, in the 1960s, along with a perfect storm of developments, transformed our culture: Contraception. Sex was torn from marriage, children, fidelity, chastity; abortion became an absolute necessity; divorce and cohabitation became the new norm; pornography an epidemic; religion declined; the family was broken along with all the smaller/intermediate institutions that nourished it; Big Government and Big Business took control in service of the sovereign-indulgent-unhinged-isolated Self. Some of us were slower than others (many are still stuck cognitively in a euphoric 1960), but sometime in the 1970s, certainly by the time John Paul became pope in 1978, the Catholic found himself a stranger in a strange Brave-New-Progressive-Catholic-Despising-World. Classic Catholicism was suddenly reconfigured by Progressivism as misogynist, homophobic, reactionary, authoritarian and later transphobic and often racist, greedy and even fascist.

In this context, we Catholics do not ambition to transform society: to eliminate abortion, global warming, gun violence, social inequality, warfare, birth control, adultery and crime. No! Our primary goal is simple and modest: to live our faith. We aspire to freedom to live our way of life, raise our children in it, and share it with others who desire it. But we must fight fiercely for that liberty. It is at risk in a Progressive, totalitarian world hostile to it. 

And so, for example, we will insist that our own hospitals, doctors and nurses, tax and insurance money will NOT be used to kill the unborn, to make and freeze embryos, to reconfigure the gendered human body. It is true that two thirds of black babies conceived in NYC are destroyed in the womb; that Afro-Americans continue to vote pro-choice in large numbers. There is little we can do for those babies as that is  the overwhelming consensus of that demographic. However we will fight fiercely to protect our own way of life. We will NOT cooperate with abortion, IFV, or trans-surgery.

Progressive Totalitarianism

- Kamala Harris insisted that there would be no religious exemptions  regarding her sacred "reproductive rights." The religious dare not resist the absolute, unconditional right to kill the unborn; additionally they will be required to cooperate with it. For good reason did she boycott the Alfred Smith dinner in NYC: she realizes her agenda is hostile to that of the Church.

- Catholic agencies across the country have closed their adoption services as they are required to place little girls and boys with homosexual couples.

- The Little Sisters of the Poor, who sacrificially serve the poor and elderly, have been forced to court repeatedly to resist state coercion to support contraception and abortion as regulated under the Affordable Care Act.

- In the Covid crisis, Churches (with the compliance of bishops who are most to blame for this) were closed across the nation, depriving all of us, including the dying and dead, of the sacraments. Meanwhile large BLM rallies were tolerated and liquor stores, gyms, and mainstream institutions remained open.

- Trans-females, biological males who prefer another gender, are granted "constitutional" (???) rights to use female bathrooms and compete in woman's sports.

- Believers who do not accept "gay marriage" are coerced, against their inner convictions, to bake cakes and take pictures at these events.

- In vitro fertilization, an artificial, expensive and unnatural practice, which freezes millions of small human beings (what else are they?) is widely, unthinkingly embraced across the society, including by the ignorant Trump and much of the RNC.

- Mainstream Catholics (Knights of Columbus, Latin mass folks, Pro-life centers) are targeted by FBI memos, Senate hearings for justices, and widespread vandalism that goes unaddressed by liberal prosecutors.

The pattern is consistent, assertive and systemic: the Progressive State cannot tolerate the Catholic way of life. In that it agrees with Nazism, Communism, and Sharia law. But not on behalf of the master race, the working class, or the Koran; but on behalf of the Sovereign Self.

Global Culture Wars

On the international level, the Christian order is engaged in agonistic struggle with three and a half totalitarianisms. The "half," and in the long term least threatening, is Putin whose racial/cultural imperialism makes him more than your ordinary dictator but less than full scale totalitarianism. The communism of China, North Korea and Cuba is totalitarianism pure and simple; but now more technologically potent than that of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Likewise, Sharia law is classical totalitarianism, but it is divided against itself in its Sunni/Shiite forms, Iran and international terrorism, and therefore less powerful. The most insidious, camouflaged, and close at hand is Cultural Progressivism. It presents as liberational in its crusade for the isolated, rootless, sovereign Self as it systemically destroys the bonds (especially the most sacred, father-mother-child) that bind us to each  other. The enemy close at hand is worse than that overseas.

We find ourselves in complex, contradictory conflicts and shifting alliances. Currently, Iran, China and North Korea are aligned in the Ukraine, while a fragile Nato consensus faces the Trumpian intention to detach and make peace. In the Culture War however, Putin himself supports Christian tradition against Cultural Progressivism. So we see that his endorsement by Archbishop Vigano is not entirely crazy (but only 90% crazy!) Recall also that John Paul's struggle against the abortion imperialism of the West in the Cairo and Peking conferences found its best allies in the Islamic countries. 

We defeated Hitler in partnership with Stalin. In the "real politique" of the Cold War we supported many dictatorships as the lessor evil than the imperialistic, totalitarian order. And so now, in the new, violent, multi-polar order, we do well to follow the "Christian Strategy" of Adrian Vermulle: position ourselves pragmatically but not absolutely with those parties who advance and protect our concerns. 

Conclusion

Yes, Trump entertains authoritarian impulses: he imagines himself as John Gotti on a global level. I am confident that our political institutions are resilient and will resist his chaos. He is a world class demagogue, a flaming narcissist, a product of the sexual revolution, a low-class and crude American, a xenophobe, a moral counter-exemplar, a cartoon character, a buffoon. He has become the voice of the underclass, the marginalized, those despised (as ignorant, racist, homophobic) by the liberal elite. He has championed our religious freedom, the nature of the gendered-sexual person and family, and the inviolate value of  every person, however small or powerless. Given the choice between a real, camouflaged but pervasive Progressive totalitarianism and our aspiring,  often entertainingly transgressive (against dogmatic "wokism") strong man... the choice is easy.  He is a jerk, but he is our jerk. He is the enemy of our enemy; so he is a friend.

 

The Feminine Voice and Intellect: Confessions of a Catholic Philogynist

There is nothing like a dame...nothing in the world...there is nothing you can name...that is anything like a dame.          Rogers and Hammerstein, "South Pacific"

I fell into a burning ring of fire.     Johnny Cash

It will not surprise you, dear Reader, that your Fleckinstein has been accused of being "patriarchal" and so, however unintentionally, misogynist. The reality is entirely different: an extreme love of women, even approaching adoration. Why such intense attraction? Admiration? Delight? Obsession? Desire? Tenderness? It is in part temperamental: we see in many young ones a pronounced attachment to the mother or father, to women or men. But most responsibility goes to my own mother, a woman of exceptional beauty, inner and outer, and generosity. She mothered me wonderfully. Additionally, I have been very loved by very many very good women. And so, in every encounter with a woman, (not excluding psychopaths, borderlines, criminals) I have zero capacity for sustained suspicion, resentment or malice as I resonate with radiant positivity, quiet euphoria, serenity, trust and impulsive generosity. Eve's sin I personally blame on the passivity and neglect of Adam. And so you see here the root of my boundless contempt for Cultural Progressivism: it denies the iconic loveliness of the feminine as well as the heroic nobility of genuine virility. Granted I have suffered more than my share of toxic gynephilia, understood here as disordered attraction to women, rooted in concupiscence, that is needy-selfish-lustful-covetous-sterile-ungenerous. But one of the joys of aging within the sacramental embrace of our maternal Church is the slow but steady diminishment of those disordered cravings and the purification and intensification of wholesome philogyny as generous, fraternal, paternal, free and fruitful. 

Whitney Houston, Barbara Streisand, Maria Callas, Julie Andrews, Cher, Amy Grant, Taylor Swift, Joan Baez, Celine Dion...What is it about a woman's voice? Indescribable! Delightful, abundant, generous, resonant with emotion, at once earthly and heavenly, inspiring, mystical and miraculous, down-to-earth, heartbreaking, lucid, iconic, comforting, inebriating and yet sobering.

Similarly, in these my "golden years," I clearly prefer woman writers and thinkers, in all my areas of interest: spirituality, theology, psychology, philosophy, culture and even politics. My favorites:

Contemporary: Heather King, Tracey Rowlands, Mary Anne Glendon, Mary Harrington, Patricia Snow, Abigail Favale, Mary Eberstadt, Mary Healy, Rhonda Chevrin, 

Late 20th Century:  Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, Catherine de Hueck Doherty, Adrienne von Speyr, Madaleine Del Brell, Caryll Houselander, Elizabeth Anscombe, Elizabeth Moberly, 

Early 20th Century:  Edith Stein, St. Faustina, St. Elizabeth of the Trinity, Elizabeth Leseur, Flannery O'Connor, Etty Hellison, Sigrid Undset, Hannah Arendt, Simone Weil.

My own intellect is very masculine: abstract, detached, clear, certain, prosaic, sober, authoritative, transcendent of emotion, comprehensive, assertive, combative, philosophical. So it needs the balance of the feminine intellect which is: contemplative, receptive, intuitive, sensitive, engaged, corporeal, synthetic, compassionate, artistic, fluid, organic, inclusive, refined, conciliatory.

 In accord with nature and Providence, the paternal and maternal complement and complete each other. The tragedy of our society is that we are both fatherless and motherless. Certainly we are not "patriarchy" in the sense of ruled by fathers. Rather, our culture is permeated by a disordered, toxic, diminished "masculinity" of technological control-abstraction-detachment, devoid of the feminine as natural, organic, receptive, communal and contemplative. And so, for example, mainstream feminism itself is a flight from the feminine in its competitive, jealous mimicry of disordered masculinity as sexual license, careerism, power-status envy, and individualism.

We find something entirely different in the internal life of the Marian, which is to say maternal, Catholic Church. Balthasar has taught us that the Marian (feminine, receptive, contemplative, unitive) influence is superior to the Petrine (masculine, hierarchical, apostolic).  And so, virile, priestly, apostolic authority that is authentically Catholic is never a mimicry of the power dynamics of the techno-dominant world, but rather placed under the influence of Mary, Queen of angels and saints, Mother of Christ and all of us. Genuine paternity is strong, stable, certain and is the fruit of the seed of the filial position of being both held and liberated by the loving Mother.

Carl Jung taught that in the second half of life the recessive, hidden aspect of the personality (the anima)  emerges so that the assertive male manifests feminine aspects previously camouflaged. This makes a great deal of sense. In any case, within Catholic life, reception of the feminine or Marian influence is essential to the maturation of fruitful paternity.  On that note, we end prayerfully:

We place ourselves, Mary our Mother, under the mantle of your holiness, your purity, your tenderness, your beauty and your love.

 

Pro-Life in USA 2024: A Culture of Virile Chastity

 Who is it that has led the pro-life movement for the last half century? Who runs the pregnancy centers, the Marchs on Life, the literature? All women! The pro-life movement has not been fueled primarily by career politicians, nor by bishops, nor by males, chaste or unchaste. But by women. This movement is the authentic feminism of our age: the passionate, profound, persistent, maternal drive to nourish, cherish and protect the innocent, vulnerable, powerless.

Who really benefits from legal abortion? Unchaste, indulgent, irresponsible men who can use/abuse women and then manipulate them to destroy the child conceived. Violation of the sixth commandments leads directly to violation of the fifth: fornication/adultery lead to murder. Remember David, Bathsheba and her murdered husband Uriah?

Militant sexual progressivism has contrived the protection of the unborn as masculine control of the feminine body. This is an inversion straight from hell. It is abortion that violates the feminine body. This lie was the singular coherent thought of the recent Harris campaign: she proclaimed it obsessively, passionately, indignantly, self-righteously. She was indecisive, confused and incoherent in all things; but about abortion she was shrill, impassioned and condemnatory. She presented as the heroic, noble figure saving women from the violent control of evil, Trumpian men.

The gullible swallowed this in huge doses. Good, devout, otherwise intelligent Catholic women become furious as they entertain this paranoid, delusional obsession. They rage; become depressed and anxious about the new president. They throw themselves into a convoluted, demon-inspired gender war.

In fact, there have been more abortions since Dobbs, due largely to the availability of pills. Most of the state initiatives protecting abortion have passed.

In fact, the Trump campaign, in contrast with the Harris-abortion-obsession, has taken abortion off the table of national politics. This is a prudent policy on several levels. For one, it helped him win the election as we know voters in key states voted for pro-abortion initiatives and also for Trump: they understood the distinction. But at a deeper level, the return of abortion to the states is very good for our country. For the last half century, it has been the single most polarizing issue in the nation. Most political issues are negotiable: taxes, border policy, climate, guns, etc. But the value of the life of the embryo and "reproductive rights" are absolutely contradictory; there is no compromise. It is good that we battle this out on the state level and return our national politics, hopefully, to a degree of civility and cooperation.

Catholic progressives enhance their self-righteousness in voting prochoice by condemning Trump's support for life as insincere. They presume to judge his heart and soul, rashly and hatefully. We do better to leave that judgment to God and consider his objective record. It is mixed. Formerly he was prochoice. Recently he has, in apparent ignorance, embraced the freezing of IVF embryos. His record is mixed; he seems to mirror the majority of Americans who are ambivalent. I think there are about 20% passionate on both sides of the issue; about 60% are conflicted or unsure. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the unborn, he is the best friend they ever had!

Today we know about the marital infidelity and adultery of liberal heroes JFK, MLK, Clinton and others. Trump is in this club; but he is not in the major leagues like them. His deep narcissism draws his libidinal energies towards himself and leaves less available for even a physical craving of the feminine. They share with the many conservative adulterers and fornicators the value of hypocrisy: they tried to hide their wrong doing and not directly influence others to sin. Jesus said: "It would be better for you to have a millstone around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to lead these little ones into sin." Sins of the flesh are mortal and serious: against the possibly conceived, against the sacred feminine body, and against one's own dignity as a temple of the Holy Spirit. But leading others into sin is far worse. Consider Joseph Kennedy, the patriarch, father of JFK and RFK: he inducted his own sons into infidelity and lust. I can hardly conceive a deeper place than his, in purgatory or hell we cannot know...but it doesn't look good for him. In this November, month of the souls, let's give him a chance and pray for his soul, and his entire family, and his companions in sin. 

With Dobbs we see that our society, under Roe for half a century, has become overwhelmingly, even substantially pro-abortion. This is because in the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s our society, in critical mass, rejected the sixth commandment: Thou shall not commit adultery. And the ninth: Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife. The new dogma: sex is not essentially conceptive. It is relational, recreational, relieving, expressive...it is not about babies. In this world, abortion is absolutely necessary as back-up contraception.

Another lie from the pit of hell: responsible use of contraception avoids abortion. The opposite is true: the decision to engage sexually but reject conception is already a choice to destroy the offspring that comes so often as the method is far from perfect. A "contra-ceptive" society  is already, essentially, an abortive society. We see that clearly after Dobbs. The epidemic of porn-fueled sexual addiction, the breakdown of marital fidelity as our moral norm, the embrace of unchastity...all of this is the root cause of abortion.

Political and legislative efforts to eliminate abortion in such a culture are largely futile. Indeed, they may themselves provoke stronger pushback as in the aftermath of Dobbs. This does not mean that we abandon the unborn. No, we need to defend them prudently with the resources at hand.

Each state is now a distinct battleground. Nationally we will have to deal with issues about funding and support for abortion overseas. But the real action properly happens at the state level. We cannot win the war across the culture.

What we must do is defend our own way of life: absolutely refuse to directly support abortion (as well as contraception, IVF, trans surgery and all the artificial technologies) ourselves directly. Our tax and insurance money cannot be used for evil purposes. Harris clearly stated that  "reproductive rights" are absolute and allow no exemptions: she would coerce Catholic doctors, nurses and hospitals to perform abortion, trans operation and the the entire litany of degradation. This we must fight passionately.

"Love chastity" Saint Benedict said. Yes! Love chastity. This is the heart of a prolife culture. Even as we suffer our own weakness of the flesh...lust, covetousness, isolation, jealousy, anxiety, depression, self-hatred, compulsions, bad habits...let us encourage each other in love of chastity. We are dealing with often constitutional weakness, with the allure of the world, and the hyper-intelligence of the devil! But we are immersed in the very Body of Christ; we are ourselves Temples of the Holy Spirit; we have the efficacy of the sacraments, the guidance of the Church, and the example of the saints, many of them around us. Come Holy Spirit!

Do I Have Concerns About Another Trump Administration?

I was happy to receive this question from a family member who offered it in a good spirit: along with a congratulations on our victory, in genuine curiosity, and (I think) with real grief. He, along with most of my family of origin, is deeply troubled by realities like the plight of immigrants, global warming, and the violence of January 6. I share these concerns.  But they are not my top priorities.

My deepest concern with Trump is one, but has three aspects. It deals not with policy or governance so much as morals and culture, the deeper dimension of politics. It is what made me as a "never-Trump-conservative" and a "double-hater"  abstain for the previous two elections. These views have not changed, but have been overwhelmed by the stronger negatives of Biden/Harris.

1. Decadent moral example: for all of us, but specifically my grandchildren. EVERYONE is a moral exemplar; and especially those in positions of leadership, status and power. No one more than our President! I passionately rejected the public/private distinction that allowed many to accept Bill Clinton after his scandalizing dalliance. The private and the public are not separate; they influence one another. Above all, I despise Trump's shameless disrespect for people: women, immigrants, his political enemies. Secondly, his almost absolute disregard for Truth. Thirdly, his uncamouflaged, all-pervading narcissism makes him largely unfit for this position.

2. Along similar lines: the ongoing Trump Performance has badly damaged, not our democratic political institutions, but our culture and morals. Since the 1960s our society has been in catastrophic moral decline. Trump rides that wave and has intensified it: scandalous disrespect for people, disregard for truth, sexual license, crude and insulting language. He makes our society morally worse by his example and behavior.

3. Polarization of the left/right: Again, he did not invent this, but he has benefited from it and intensified it. The mutual suspicion, fear, resentment, and contempt across the divide is becoming worse. Trump deliberately inflames this. There is a real demonic quality to this mutuality and it is effective on both sides of the aisle. That is why I welcomed the question, offered in respect.

Regarding his egotism and potential for abuse of Presidential power I am not greatly concerned for three reasons.

1. Ross Douthat is right: he is not a power broker; he is a vain, self-centered man, desperate for attention. My daughter said "He is not a fascist; he is a big baby." He has little interest in policy, ideology and power. He wants everyone's attention. He is an entertainer; he is performing for the crowd. What he says is not to be taken literally; it is entirely histrionic, performative, attention-seeking.  In his four years of power, he did not maximize it. For example, a real tyrant would have used the covid emergency as an opportunity to monopolize power: he let the states do their thing and deferred to Fauci.

2. He surrounds himself with good people, he delegates to them, he defers to them as he himself lacks strong inner convictions. This is what has made him successful on such a grand scale. Paradoxically, he has a certain humility in that he does not claim expertise but defers to others with specific competence. For example, unlike the arrogant Biden who was sure of his competence about Afghanistan, he would not have overruled his generals and pulled out of there with such devastation.

3. Lastly, our basic institutions are resilient, rooted, stable and resistant to someone so unfocused, unhinged, and infantile. He was restrained by his own advisors but also by establishment Republicans, the courts, the Democratic opposition, and the durability of our institutions. His election denial was rejected by all kinds of courts and most Republicans (notably Bill Barr). The alleged "insurrection" was overcome in a few hours and the actual election validated immediately, by both parties, with his own Vice President presiding. 

With regard to policy, I am not Trumpian but have a number of concerns. 

1. In foreign policy, I am myself a strong internationalist, not an isolationist. But it is undeniable that the world enjoyed four years of peace in his term. That was, in my view, mostly good luck. But his contribution to it was not nothing. His unpredictability, I do believe, gave pause to bad actors like Iran and Russia. He showed a strong hand that they feared. The Abrahamic Accords are historic accomplishments and will hopefully be strengthened. His policy on Iran was correct. He correctly forced our NATO allies to pay more of a fair share. Going forward he does well to mute his "America First" chant and build strong alliances in all arenas: Europe, but even more in the Middle East and the Pacific. His infatuation with strong man dictators is troubling and distracting. But I hope that that is more of a personal hobby and does not set real policy. I share his pro-Israel position on Gaza and Lebanon. I strongly support the Ukraine and find that Biden did too little too late; but I think the time is right now for him to force both sides to the table.

2. Economically he talks populism, but his tax policy favored the rich and increased the debt and therefore inflation. He won the election because of inflation (along with other factors); but in my view he contributed to it as much as the Biden over-spending. He was rewarded; Harris was punished. Such is politics. My hope is that the new Catholic-friendly populism of Vance will have influence and help the lower working class.

3. He is absolutely right about the need for a controlled border. But I do despise his negative rhetoric about immigrants. It is inconceivable, impossible, that he would deport millions of law abiding illegals. What he will do, correctly, is deport the criminal element.

With regard to energy, tariffs, guns and many issues I am somewhere between the parties and satisfied that neither side is able to entirely prevail. 

Almost all of my children voted for neither candidate as "double haters." I am proud of them for that. I am greatly relieved at the defeat of Kamala Harris. But that does not eliminate my moral contempt for the performative person of Trump; my sorrow at the sadness of so many dear friends and family; and especially my regret at the divide that has come between us.

So again I am grateful for the question and the spirit in which it was offered.

The Moral Rot at The Core of The Democratic Party: Desecration of Femininity and Masculinity

Biden/Harris is a replication, a mimesis of Adam/Eve, Ahab/Jezebel, father/stepmother of Hansel and Gretel: weak, passive, negligent man and hateful, shrill, destructive woman. This is the heart and soul of Progressivism, the DNC.

Apart from her "Trump-is-Fascist-Paranoid-Hysteria," Kamala had a single thought: Abortion. She was vague and vacuous on every issue, but crystal clear on legalized abortion. In her debates, interviews and speeches she would put you to sleep with her empty, meaningless nonsense; but when she spoke about abortion she changed entirely: passionate, indignant, certain, furious, self-righteous! She truly is a one-issue politician, an abortion fanatic! She will hear nothing about "leave it on the state level:" she will tolerate no exemptions for religious reasons. The mother's right to kill her unborn is ABSOLUTE.

Politics is always, among other things, defense of the sacred. For Kamala and the DNC there is one thing above all that is sacred: "reproductive rights."

Abortion however is downstream of, a consequence of a more fundamental progressive dogma: contempt for virility as paternity ("patriarchy") and femininity as maternity. Militant femininity despises paternity/femininity as iconic of the Trinity and reconfigures the human as an androgynous, isolated monad...an "individual."  When you reconstruct the person as a degendered individual, you do not create a neutral, abstract reality, you design a monster, a perversity, a Frankenstein. You create a pathetic, feeble, emasculated male; and a shrill, hateful, destructive female. Both are entirely repulsive...morally, spiritually, viscerally, personally.

This creed is Anti-Catholicism. What is sacred for the Catholic? Every human life, particularly the most defenseless, powerless, diminutive. And facing this little, vulnerable one is the iconic love of Mother and Father. And so, Cultural Progressivism and Catholicism mutually despise each other. 

Donald Trump's victory in 2016 (I wrote at the time) was in part an unconscious yearning for a father figure. Trump is a perverse father figure, but he is a father figure: strong, assertive, paternal. In a dangerous world of ferocious war lords, you want him in your corner. Those who sanctimoniously despise him might consider that his is an intact, loyal family; contrast this to Hunter Biden, the Cuomos and Kennedys!) After losing to a man, Biden, a father figure although a weak one, he has again prevailed over  another woman, who is constitutionally unable to be a father figure. (This is NOT to suggest that women cannot be President and Commander in Chief, but it does take a very special kind of woman like Golda Meir, Joan of Arc, Nicki Halley, Tracey Gabbard, Margaret Thatcher, etc.).

His second victory is vindication of that claim: he is a strong male figure. Morally despicable in a multitude of ways! But he is a man. Putin is right: he did "act like a man when he was shot." Blood running down his face, pumping his fists...that picture is a classic, an icon, an unforgettable image. When I first saw it I said to myself: "This man has this election." The election was a victory of classic virility, however toxic-perverse-decadent, over a raging femininity and a passive, weak masculinity.

The myriad of failures of the Biden/Harris years can all be seen as symptomatic of a deeper, systemic moral infection: the weak, passive male submissive to the raging female in the tradition of King Ahab, Adam, and the negligent father of Hansel and Gretel. Consider:

- Abortion, the defining and absolutely sacred value of the party, is primarily the consequent of the male as indulgent, irresponsible, and unprotective of his woman and child.

- Consider the Biden team! All are intelligent, accomplished and altruistically motivated, but together and individually they convey indecision, weakness, anxiety, defensiveness, caution: Blinken, Mayorkas, Buttigieg, Garland. Contrast Trump's first administration team:  Pence, Pompeo, Ball, Kelly, Mattis, Mnuchin, Tillerson, Carson, DeVos, and Haley. Right of center, they exude confidence, certainty, assertiveness, and gravitas. Moderately right, they functioned as entirely conservative, preserving our institutions despite the volatility of the President. Even more striking contrast is with those currently surrounding Trump: Vance, Musk, R. Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek Ramaswamy. These, the famous "X-men" are immensely talented but also risk-friendly, fearless, unconventional, politically incorrect, unpredictable. The polar opposite of the safety-obsessed Biden team.

- The ill-considered, impulsive and perfidious pullout from Afghanistan was a betrayal of our allies there, the arrogant reaction of an incompetent President, and a signal to the world (Putin, Iran, China) that the USA lacks the will to fight.

- The catastrophe unfolding in Israel/Lebanon is rooted primarily in the machinations of Iran, funded by the indulgent Biden policies.

- The entire Hunter Biden nonsense is simply the failure of an indulgent father to discipline his son.

- The border crisis and increase in crime is a clear failure of the paternal, protective mission of the state.

- The infatuation with homosexuality and transgenderism signals a systemic deprivation in wholesome virility.

- Inflation is in part the undisciplined spending, the failure of prudence, the impulse to indulge, as for example, the loans of students, with little attention to the long term effects on national debt.

- Biden's support for the Ukraine and Israel has been too little too late: not enough to deter Putin, not enough to adequately ensure Israel's decisive victory. He is indecisive, wavering, fearful (of Putin and Iran both.) Chamberlain's peace with Hitler is the accurate historical analogy.

A clear majority of the American people have rejected the slander of fascism, tyranny, misogyny, "patriarchy" and endorsed a man, however flawed and self-centered. Let us pray that he, and all of us, may become iconic, reflective of the love of our heavenly Father: not only strong, but gentle, humble, chaste, wise, protective, generous and sacrificial! Come Holy Spirit: upon all our leaders!

Meanderings of an Itinerant Theological Student: a Reminiscence

Shortly before our college graduation, my friend Tim Hull offered me his image of my future: I am on a dirt road in some third world country, kicking a can as I walk, wrapped up in my thinking. At the time, I received this as accurate, appreciative, and affectionate. I was flattered.  I have always cherished the image. I take it to be prophetic of my life.

In sophomore year of college seminary, I received my annual "evaluation" (the judgment of our priest faculty about our progress towards the priesthood) from a marvelous Maryknoll priest, John Halbert:  "You are a nothing! What are you? A nothing! Not a leader, not an athlete, not a trouble-maker, not the popular guy, not the class clown, not the smart one! You are nothing!" He paused in silence. I let it sank in. "That is about right" I said to myself. Through high school I was the same thing: quiet, nothing exceptional, invisible. But I didn't feel bad. Strangely, I felt quietly within a peaceful self-esteem, unrelated to the social perception. I think I was flattered by the attention: he was obviously speaking so  passionately because he expected better of me. Than he asked: "What about your father? Is he a nothing like you." At that I felt a surge of joy and pride within: "No. My father is not a nothing. He is a union organizer. A leader of men." I felt such happiness and affection at the thought of my father, Ray Laracy. And I quietly thought: "I am his son. I will not be a nothing." I have always cherished this memory. Most (for example my wife and children) are horrified to hear of it. 

Upon graduating college in 1969 at the age of 22 I left the seminary. Despite a continuing attraction to the missionary priesthood, I had to overcome my pathological shyness with women and work/live as a man before I could consider returning to the seminary. On my very first date I fell madly in love. My destiny was clear: husband to Mary Lynn and hopefully father of our children.

I had zero career direction. What I had was an urgency to study/share my faith and a desire to befriend the poor. While I courted my Beloved, I pursued these two passions, in an entirely fluid, spontaneous and random manner. I took courses as an nonmatriculated student with the best professors at Union
Theological and Woodstock Jesuit Theology School; I taught theology part time at Xavier HS. and  ESL in the South Bronx. At the time, another college friend described me as an itinerant, mendicant theological student.  

You can imagine that my new wife's mother and father were not thrilled with the career-free, happy-go-lucky, live-simply attitude of their new son-in-law. And the subsequent almost 54 years of marriage have been a dance...not always serene, never boring...between a Groom who is frugal, sparse, minimalist, abstract, detached...and the Bride who is an Earth Mother: free-spirited, fiercely devout, compassionate, mega-generous, artistic, aesthetic, visual, concrete, garden-food-wine-beauty loving. Rarely is the asymmetry, along with the more dominant mutuality and complementarity, of the male/female so pronounced (and sometimes excruciating, especially for the more sensitive one of us.) 

The 18 months in Manhattan between my graduation and marriage, I realize in retrospect, nicely sum up my entire adult life: the love I share with Mary Lynn, study and sharing of our Catholic faith, and our friendship with the poor. 

Other than 25 years working as a supervisor in United Parcel Service to support our family, my adult life has been bereft of career purpose, certification, achievements, and a  professional curriculum vita. In the meritocracy I am close to a nothing. The initiation, with family and friends, of Magnificat Home, now over 15 years old, is another exception. In general, I am amateur, entirely lay and unprofessional, in all things. This in two ways.

Most importantly, I have done what I have done out of love (Latin: Amo), not out of utility or for an exterior goal like money, status, security. 

Secondly, I have done everything at a low level of quality: almost no real excellence. But I have done very many very excellent things...however poorly...and that is my salvation. Somewhere I heard: "lower your expectations, and your performance will rise." I have a low bar of expectation. So I am easily pleased...with myself and with others. "Jack of all trades; master of none."

I have taught elementary school, high school, college, CCD, confirmation, summer bible camps, charismatic prayer meetings. I am expert at none.

I have prayed in city projects, jails, hospitals, psychiatric wards...I am not a certified chaplain.

I have engaged in Cursillo, Marriage Encounter, Charismatic Renewal, Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation events, Communio conferences, 12-step groups, sensitivity groups, retreats of all sorts, men's conferences and support groups. But I wander in and out of these ambiances of grace, staying with none.

Perhaps my favorite spiritual classis is The Way of the Pilgrim, the strange, mysterious story of a Russian man who loses family and property to fire and embarks as a wandering pilgrim across Russia. He moves from one holy site or monastery to another; owning nothing; seeking wisdom; encountering all kinds of events, good and bad; always praying the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner." I find this story exhilarating in the pilgrim's life of freedom, simplicity, purity, humility, drama, and unlimited serendipity. I want to be that pilgrim!

A similar liberty of spirit is manifest in the classic of Myles Connelly: Mr. Blue. Blue is an eccentric, urban, joyous mystic, living in NYC, friends with the poor, lavishly sharing riches with the hopeless, exploding with praise and exuberance. 

A specific highpoint in my life was  20 years ago when I did the Camino of Santiago of Compostela across northern Spain. I had been delivered by surgery of colon cancer; my children were moving through school and into adulthood; I was happily teaching high school religion. I walked, in solitude, in late summer, in marvelous weather, across the glorious, historic northern Spain. I stopped at every chapel and church to pray. I cherished my solitude. I had a long itinerary of prayers to do each day: 20 decades of the rosary, intentions, litany of Divine Mercy, prayer of the sinner, scripture reading. I had died and gone to heaven! The only time I was lonely was a dinner: inexpensive, delicious, with a cheap but decent carafe of wine. I missed my wife Mary Lynn who would have LOVED the meal and the wine and the price! Sometimes I would walk with someone and talk or eat dinner with people. But mostly I was alone and enjoying it. I never planned ahead. Even walking I only looked for the "pilgrim shells" that marked the way. About 3 or 4 times I wandered off path, but always found my way back. 

So my life, at its best,  has been like the Camino: not programmed ahead of time, spontaneous, light, free. I would like to think much of it in synch with the Holy Spirit...of joy, of mercy, of hope, of abundance. My hidden ambition has always been to emulate the Russian Pilgrim and Mr. Blue. 

From my conception I have been surrounded by love...of family, within the Church, in a prosperous USA. This intensified my temperamental tendency to introversion, solitude, happiness, reflection. Along with this: an aversion to a culture of activism, conspicuous consumerism, extroversion,  competition, status obsession and crude machismo. Perhaps that is why I am prone to reject the bourgeois.  Perhaps that is partly why I will, in about two hours, pull the lever for Trump/Vance! Still a "never-Trumper" and a "double-hater," my statement is defensive of my Catholic way of life and of the lower class against the pretentious, Catholic-despising, sexually liberated, science-adoring progressive hegemony of the professional, managerial, educated elites.

I was conceived just 78 years ago this month. I wonder: what will be my legacy? I hope I will be remembered as a pilgrim, of the Camino, like the little Russian guy; as a  happy friend of poor, like Blue; as a "man of the Church,"  a "catechist," an "echoer" who lived and listened within the womb of Mother Church; as one whose life of love, faith, and joy, shared with his wife, continues and flourishes in his family and friends.