Progress (Modernity), Chaos (Post-Modernity) or Drama (Catholicism)

 Among Balthasar's greatest contributions: announcement of the Dramatic structure of human existence, against competing models of progress and chaos. For him life is always the clash and confrontation of freedoms: our own, God's, the angels and the demons. We are engaged in an ongoing drama, at times tragic and then comic, as each of us personally engages the freedoms of other humans and the domains of heaven and of hell. This is combat, but not chaos. There is movement, in freedom, but no mechanical inevitability as progress. Each of us faces constantly the decision: for life or for death; as did the good and bad angels, our parents Adam and Eve and every spirit, human and angelic, in Creation. This drama reaches climax and conclusion: for each of us at death, for all of Creation with the return of Jesus.

Progress: Modernity

Modernity, starting with the rationalism of the Enlightenment, is built upon the myth or dogma of progress: that humanity is moving forward and upward, into a this-worldly utopia, entirely without the supernatural, through human agency and reason. Three of the four great "masters of suspicion" structure this narrative: Marx, Darwin and Freud. 

Marx took the Hegelian "dialectic" of history, materialized it, and posited an inevitable, inexorable, conflictual  movement into freedom through the revolution of the oppressed against those in power. In the industrial society of his time, Marx asserted the victory of the working class, the proletariat, over the capitalist class. In time, however, this economic model was superseded by the cultural one: the liberation of racial groups, sexual minorities, women and similar groups.  And so, the "arc of history" is always the resistance of those oppressed, their capture of power and liberation.

Darwin's discovery of biological evolution was, of course, exaggerated into a philosophical meta-narrative whereby the human race is developing, not just physically by survival of the fittest, but culturally and spiritually by the advance of science and technology.  This stream of Progressivism replaces the combat model of Marx with the quasi-mechanical, inevitable development of science, reason, and education.  In this story line, human reason, over time, overcomes ignorance, superstition, religion, authority, tradition and so-called-revelation. Gradually but inexorably, human reason and agency attain happiness and liberation from physical vulnerabilities (sickness) and intellectual/spiritual failings (religion).

Not so much Freud, ever the sober realist, but a school of his followers identified human integrity and happiness with liberation from inhibitions of guilt and shame around sex. Here we have the famous "triumph of the therapeutic." This story has human sexuality as inherently wholesome and uncomplicated but violated by societal negativity and repression. Here we have Cultural Liberalism pure and simple.

These three "liberation movements" are distinct but entirely compatible, they work to support each other and together compose the Progressivism that exploded upon the West in the 1960s and has reigned as the hegemonic, elite culture since then.

Post-Modernity: Chaos, Nihilism, Will to Power

Nietzsche, our fourth "master of suspicion," shared with the sober realist Freud an immunity to the illusions of progress. With a depth and clarity of insight that eludes progressives, he saw that the "death of God" brings us no earthly utopia, but "war of all against all"...descent into the abyss of chaos and meaningless, reliance upon the bare, naked human will, and nothing else. He thus resists the systemic optimism of evolutionary theory. His raw religion of power absorbs easily the sexual license of cultural progressivism.  as well as the tribal resentments of cultural Marxism. But he strips these ideologies of all comfort and leaves the sexual libertine and the raging revolutionary both  to face the boundless abyss of despair and meaninglessness. In the long run, Nietzsche is our primary antagonist: brutally honest and real, free of illusion and delusion. 

Balthasar: Catholic Drama

Against the delusional optimism of rationalistic modernity and the despairing-raging irrationality of post-modernity, Balthasar proclaims the Eventful Drama of human salvation and damnation. In an Act of gracious, free, unbounded generosity the Triune-Event-Communion-of-Love CREATED us other free, rational, relational spiritual agents, angels and humans. We, all of us, are engaged in a Drama of Freedom, with each other, with the kingdoms of heaven and of hell. Wounded by earlier exercises of this freedom, we nevertheless engage freely with each other and the two conflicting dominions in decision, combat, collaboration, communion, surrender, agency, assent, reception, donation, affirmation, disobedience, defiance, disbelief, faith, hatred and love.

Conclusion

In today's gospel (John 6;60-9), the disciples complain that Jesus teaching is hard. Many return to their former way of life and no longer walk with him. Jesus asks the twelve: "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter, impetuous-volatile-unreliable-honest, answers: "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

Each of us, every day, hears this same question! May each of us, whatever our Peter-like failings, answer with such clarity and conviction!

The Vatican Document on Human Dignity

With a sigh of relief, we, the faithful, receive the Vatican's recent document on human dignity: Not too bad!

Cardinal Fernandez is doing a little better with this document. It is, on the whole, a reasonably accurate and fair summary of Catholic thought on this immensely significant reality of human dignity.  

It is a tedious, boring read, like most Church documents, as it mostly quotes earlier statements. Not recommended for leisurely or spiritual reading. It is mercifully short and succinct.  To it's credit it quotes quite a bit from earlier popes, not just Francis. John Allen in his Crux publication has been advertising a theological artificial intelligence that can access thousands of Church documents to address any particular topic. I suspect that that application could produce something like this current document. It is a decent survey. But it lacks the personal touch of charm and inspiration we find in the encyclicals of John Paul and Benedict and even (by some miracle) The Catholic Catechism. It does not carry the fire of the Holy Spirit to inflame us with zeal and courage.

It's strengths:

1. Not once did I read the nauseating "s" word that begins with "syn" and ends with "ality."  Additionally: there are no exhortations "to make a mess;" no defamation of rigid, retro priests; no mention of "accompaniment;" and no blessings of "irregularities." This shows that the Holy Spirit remains with the Church; that the Catholic Church maintains integrity, stability and resilience even in the worst of times; that there are resources of prudence, common sense and intelligence, however under cover, in the scandal-plagued Vatican! 

2. There is a refreshing clarity and intensity in the rejection of gender ideology, surrogate maternity and related issues. The fact that the LGBTQ crusade is so upset with the document, that the Biden White House disagreed with it...these are very good signs.

3. Even more important is the very clear statement about the created nature of the human person as male/female. This is stated with force. It is applied to gender ideology but has obvious implications as well for other hot issues, particularly homosexuality and the masculine priesthood. 

4. It also provides succinct, but very significant explanations of the philosophical and scriptural foundations for human dignity and rights. It alludes frequently to the United Nations statement on rights which asserted such without any solid foundations.  Clearly, one aim to provide such a footing.

Weaknesses:

1. There is no mention of chastity and fidelity  to one's (marital or religious) vows. This is a glaring deficit: personal purity/loyalty are the expression, the protection, the embodiment of dignity. The Sexual Revolution is specifically an assault on chastity as dignity. Yet, the document fails to engage precisely  here.  This failure is emblematic of the Francis Project: first,  to renounce the stern, vigorous, traditional sexual ethos clearly announced by his three predecessors in the face of the Cultural Revolution; second, to avoid agonistic combat and seek peace through surrender to all opponents including Cultural Progressives, Chinese Communists, imperial Russians, and terrorist Islamists. Peace at any price! No war is worth fighting, dying for! No heroic ideal here!

2.  Contraception, masturbation and pornography are not addressed. Pope Paul VI clearly predicted that societal acceptance of contraception would lead quickly to abortion, abuse of women, homosexuality, and the breakdown of the family. This is precisely what happened across the globe, but especially in the West. A culture of sexual sterility requires backup abortion, normalization of "self-abuse" (including its manifestation in homosexual acts), deconstruction of gender, and toxic individualism. Our youth especially are facing a pandemic of pornography and the assault on self-dignity that is lust. 

3. Homosexuality is the thorniest issue for this pontificate. Cardinal Fernandez, in presenting the document, was asked about the language of "disorder" used by the Catechism in regard to the practice. H refused to defend this language, answering that a different word might be preferable but that the act cannot match the infinite beauty of heterosexual ones which bring forth human life. He, Francis and this document lack the charity, clarity and courage to call a sin a sin. (Note the irony that the gay-affirming Catholic group that works to normalize homosexuality calls itself "Dignity.")

4. There is no recognition of the supernatural, the demonic in the global assaults on human dignity. We Catholics know we are dealing with powers greater than ourselves and we will not prevail on our own agency, but only by calling for heavenly intervention. This is a failing coming from the office of doctrine.

5. "Who is the audience for this document?" This question hangs over the document. Coming from the Vatican office of doctrine we would assume it addresses  the Catholic Church, especially bishops, priests, teachers and thinkers. In its foundational affirmations from revelation on the "image of God" there is assumed a Catholic faith or something close to it. At other times, however, as so often with this pontificate, the posture is that of "global chaplain" in giving binding guidance on policy matters like immigration, environmental concerns and other.  This is a creeping clericalism that assumes some vague papal infallibility on matters that are vastly complicated, nuanced, unpredictable and removed from the specific God-given expertise on faith and morals.

6. Unfortunately, this propensity is glaringly evident in the forceful repetition that the death penalty is unacceptable in ALL circumstances. This absolute statement  directly contradicts the unchanging teaching of the Church for many centuries. It was done without any "synodal consultation" by the fiat of Francis. One wonders if the African bishops would agree. The issue is marginal, however, as all Catholic majority and all Western (except the USA) countries have banned it. It is practiced by Communism and Islam, hardly the audiences for this document. 

7. The "seamless garment" model is apparent in the document: a long litany of violations of human dignity are lumped together in a confused way. Key distinctions are not made; priorities are not set. Most troubling is the failure to contrast inherent moral evils which must be absolutely renounced and defeated from complex, ambiguous policy issues which allow difference in prudential judgements. Inherent moral evils that are always and everywhere wrong include: sex trafficking, abortion, genocide, deliberate targeting of civilian populations, torture, euthanasia and assisted suicide. Quite different are those issues which admit of different approaches: hunger, homelessness, medical coverage, immigration, gun control, and crime. The Francis pontificate has been heavily influenced by Cultural Liberalism in its obsession to downgrade the first category (especially those dealing with sexuality and innocent life) as they impose an ideological rigidity regarding the second category. The "seamless garment" approach allows the Vatican to mush all the issues together and thus allow different factions to advocate according to preferences: the cafeteria approach. No one is offended; everyone gets along!

8. The section on war is the worst instance of this confusion and indecision. A nod is given to "the need for self defense and protection" but then the document quotes Francis: "...no war is worth the tears of a mother who has seen her child mutilated or killed; no war is worth the loss of life of even one human being..." Actually, if the Vatican were to ("synodally") consult with the Ukranians or the Israelis they will hear from the vast majority that their war is worth fighting. There are many, many wars worth fighting, dying and killing for. In this world there always will be. This section is not only self-contradictory; not only histrionic, indignant, hysterical;  but it reveals an underlying viewpoint that is naive, sentimental, Chamberlain-esque: that if we are nice to others (Hamas, Putin, Beijing, etc.) they will be nice to us.

Conclusion 

My math shows 8 weaknesses to 4 strengths. Not an outstanding score! But every human statement is prone to limitations and inadequacies. It is a decent, accurate summary of our Catholic view on human dignity. 

May the Holy Spirit protect Pope Francis and his Vatican and guide it into all truth!

Why the Novus Ordo Mass Requires the Latin, Charismatic, Neocatechumenal and an Extravagant Banquet of Devotions

Eucharist: Our almighty, perfect, absolute, everlasting, infinitely Good-True-Beautiful, eventful Trinity...present in a simple rite, a few words and gestures, and elements of bread and wine.  This is incomprehensible for our finite intellects! This is incommensurate with the fragility, finitude, weakness, disorder, instability and sickness of  wills, hearts, intellects, and emotions. The thing is impossible on two levels: objective and subjective. Objectively: no human act, no creaturely reality can fittingly express God. Subjectively: so distracted, inattentive, agitated, restless, compulsive and obsessed are we, in so many ways, that we are incapable of a fitting reception and response. 

Nevertheless, Christ choses to give himself to us...body and soul, humanity and divinity, crucified-and-risen...in these few simple gestures, words and elements. So we, the Catholic Church...the Bride of the Groom, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit...say "yes"..."fiat"..."amen" as we receive, cherish, celebrate, enjoy, protect and share this Incommensurate Mystery!

Subjectively: We hear the words "this is my body...take and eat...in memory of me." We do so...aware that our thankful but weak reception and response are infinitely asymmetrical, incommensurate, and inadequate. We can only pray that over time, by God's grace, we might walk a patient path that honors the encounter...of thanksgiving, receptivity, praise, charity, hope, compassion, zeal, and joy.

Objectively: We receive with filial gratitude, from Mother Church, this miraculous treasure in its humble, earthen vessel. For us: the Novus Ordo, the Vatican II Catholic mass. We painfully recognize that no imaginable rite of words, gestures and things can fittingly represent God. But he himself chooses to come to us in this simplicity, indeed indignity. And we obediently receive, participate, eat, drink and adore.

Novus Ordo form of the mass, universally practiced by the worldwide Roman Church for almost 60 years, is authoritative, efficacious, authentic, and valid. It is also blatantly inadequate...as an expression of the inner form/substance/essence/Mystery of the Eucharistic Reality...in several ways:

- It lacks sense of the sacred, the solemn, the awe-inspiring, the adorable. It is deliberately casual, informal, vernacular, relaxed, ordinary. It discards silence in favor; it replaces altar with table; it prefers the living room to the sanctuary, the chapel, the cathedral. Along with this:

- Aesthetically it is banal, monotonous, philistine. It is low (Protestant) Church and low brow. The  newer Church buildings feel like clean, new, high school gymnasiums. The music is, for the most part, winey-moany-groaney, effeminate, sentimental. (I much prefer the solemnity of Gregorian Chant, the piety of old Catholic hymns, the vigor of charismatic Praise-and-Worship music, and the martial virility of the Neocatechumenate.) Translations emulate the secular and avoid the traditional and ancient.

- Too many words! Too verbal! We sit and listen, non-stop, to prosaic, common-use American English until our minds go dizzy and we get nauseous. There is no break for silence, Latin, crusader zeal, solemn chant, praying in tongues, holy laughter, ecstatic worship. The entire rite is cerebral, white bread, suburban, bourgeois, middle class! Along with this:

- Too priest-centered! Paradoxically, the liturgical movement intended to retrieve a sense of community. What resulted is that we sit and listen to the priest. He reads scripture, gives homily, says almost all the prayers. We sit and listen, like a bunch of hyperactive, high-testosterone junior high boys stuck in the classroom learning poetry from a 75-year-old nun. Worse: priests with a narcissistic trait feel obliged to entertain, to tell jokes, to charm and enchant. And so we endure the annoyance of embracive greetings, personal stories, clapping in Church, and amateur performance.  By contrast: the Latin mass offers: an aura of quiet,  ongoing chant from the choir, incense, a legion of aged altar "boys" moving around in perfect harmony; the Charismatics offer robust music, praying in tongues, prophesies, apostolic preaching, miraculous healings, heartwarming testimonies; the Neocatechumenate offers echoes, admonitions, and crusader music that would stir the heart of an El Cid. In none of these forms is the persona of the clergyman so pervadingly monotonous and oppressive. 

It is not the fault of the priests. Many are humble and holy and find a way to hide themselves and allow Christ to radiate in the liturgy. The problem is systemic. So we see that our Church needs other expressions, other forms to manifest other dimensions of this incomprehensible Mystery.

Latin Mass retrieves that sense of the sacred and the solemn: the unusual language, the calming-prayerful-inspiring chant, the genuflecting-kneeling-reception-on-tongue. It maintains a sense of community with previous generations over the centuries. It is deliberately NOT casual, informal, user-friendly. The priestly action is, of course, the heart of the rite, but it is symphonically complemented by music, incense, many participants around the altar. It is largely non-cerebral and non-verbal and so appeals to the human spirit, senses, emotions as well as the intellect. There is plenty of exercise: standing, sitting, kneeling, genuflecting, sitting, etc. It is even good for the body!

Charismatic Worship, offers similar benefits in a strikingly different style: tongues, prophesies, exuberant music including swaying and lifting of the arms, testimonies. Again: the priest is the center actor, the Alter Christus, as he is surrounded by a superb cast of supporting characters. From the Pentecostals and Evangelicals there is an enhanced reverence for the power of the Word of God.

Neocatechumenal Way even more deeply strengthens the Liturgy of the Word. A small group meets previous to the liturgy to prayerfully, carefully read the three scripture offerings and prepare admonitions or exhortations. After the readings, participants share "echoes" or personal testimonies on how the Word impacts their actual lives. After this, the priest delivers a succinct homily, highlighting the key message. Historically we Catholics have been weak in our reception of the Word. Unhappily, the Liturgy of the Eucharist which follows is not strengthened but weakened in this "Way" as the ancient, received model of solemnity and sacrifice is rejected in favor of a "Passover-meal" model that became fashionable at the time of the Council. 

Eucharistic Devotions are essential to Catholic life for two reasons: objectively no single rite can adequately express the Reality; and subjectively our reception/response at that rite is woefully inadequate and requires an entire way of life, a culture. So, we need: adoration, processions, 40-hour-devotions, frequent visits to Church, holy hours, daily mass, solemn protocols of silence/genuflecting, signs-of-cross, fasting, daily office, rosary and frequent confession. We need to build our personal and social lives around that simple, short daily and weekly liturgical rite.

Pope Francis, tolerant of the charismatics and Neocatechumenate, has brutally repressed the Latin Mass. This is a rash judgement on his part; a huge mistake; a scandal; a narrow, authoritarian repression. One of his very worst decisions. He has crushed a wholesome, salutary and even necessary expression of the Eucharistic Mystery. History will judge him harshly on this.

Pope Benedict will be remembered as the great pope-theologian of the Eucharist. His Spirit of the Eucharist, which echoes in his personal voice the masterpiece of the same title by Romano Guardino, is a classic. He encouraged the Latin Mass as a corrective to the Novus Ordo. He valued the Neocatechumenal Way but directed that they be more integrated into the broader Catholic liturgical practice by attending the ordinary parish liturgy once a month. This was, in my view, a prudent, balanced, corrective pastoral directive. However, Kiko Arguello rejected it as a threat to the integrity of his "   ?   " (way? association? movement? cult?). In this suspicion he shows a fundamental schismatic impulse: a disparagement of ordinary, parish Catholicism. While he does not question the validity of the ordinary mass in the manner of the most extreme, sedevacantist Latins, he clearly devalues ordinary parish worship. He seems to fear that such integration and diminishment of the detached position of his innovative Catholic association will destroy it. To his satisfaction, of course, Benedict resigned and his successor Francis is not so demanding.

To Conclude:  Catholic life is an entire culture, a Eucharistic symphony, that infuses every aspect of life, and finds expression in boundless creativity, richness, and diversity. With Benedict we do well to "catholically" welcome the many valid expressions of the Eucharist, integrating them into the broader ecclesial life, but cherishing each for its distinctive beauty.

The Chiaroscuro of Dark Apocalyptic Times: 1930s and 2020s

 After 75 years of national and (for the most part) global peace and prosperity (1945-2020), we have entered a new, dark, even apocalyptic time: horrendous violence in Ukraine and Gaza, the ominous emergent Chinese Communist Empire, environmental troubles, and domestic politics of unprecedented divisiveness, decadence and discouragement. We seem to be entering a dark era, more similar to the first half of the twentieth century. Consider especially the 1930s:

Worldwide Depression with the accompanying impoverishment, despair, suicides and mental breakdowns; the bookends of two world wars; emergent anti-Christs of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini; fratricide in the Spanish civil war; suppression of Church by the masonic state in Catholic Mexico; Jim Crow and the KKK in control of our South; contempt for poor, urban, Catholic ethnics among the WASP elite of our northern cities.

My maternal grandfather lost his job, suffered a breakdown, attempted suicide, and died mysteriously in an institution, leaving his wife poor with three children. My paternal grandfather, having lost the family diary farm, was unemployed with six children until he got a job with a New Deal program. My oldest uncle, Frank, was a young, emergent labor leader with the UAW, getting beaten up by Henry Ford's union-breaking goons on strike at Edgewater, NJ, and fighting communists for control of the union. Dark days!

At the very same time, we have an alternate reality at work: quietly, humbly, hopefully, anonymously at study/work/prayer: Father Solanus, Brother Andre, Father Maximillian Kolbe, Padre Pio, Karol Wojtyla, Father Leopoldo, and thinkers like Danielou, Congar, Balthasar and DeLubac. 

An even greater radiance comes when we consider women quietly in service and prayer: Faustina, Edith Stein, Simone Weil, Dorothy Day, Catherine Dougherty, Katherine Drexel, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Caryll Houselander, Adrienne von Speyr, Elizabeth Anscombe, Raisa Maritain, Josephine Bakhita, and Etty Hillesum.

Our time, like that decade ninety years ago, is one of chiaroscuro: a cosmic, apocalyptic clash of the dark and the light. In the darkness, the light shines all the more.

May we consider these quiet, radiant flames of faith and hope. May we emulate them and bring that warmth, clarity, light and encouragement now to our world!

 

Glamour

In the USA it is spelled "glamor" 12 % of the time. In England, they spell it "glamour" 97% of the time. My daughter uses the word "jazzy" which means "bright, colorful, showy." Dictionaries define glamor as pleasing, attractive, appealing, alluring, often entailing good looks and charm. That misses the mark.

The many synonyms for "beauty" all have distinct connotations: cute, pretty, lovely, elegant, glamorous, gorgeous and so many more.

Beauty is the most generic term and is normally defined in our subjectivist culture as pleasing to the observer. But a realistic philosophy will see it as objective, even as received by the subject: it is a perfection of the form, the thing or being, a radiance and harmony from an interior, mysterious integrity. So, in boundless analogy, we know the beauty of a poem, woman, rose, symphony, mathematical equation, or baseball double play. They are beautiful in entirely different ways but all are perfect expressions of their kind, in a distinctive, indeed miraculous radiance, harmony and integrity. It is this objective reality that pleases the observer.

Cute is beauty as petite, precious, endearing, fragile, vulnerable, non-intimidating. It evokes delight as tender, protective and nurturing.

Pretty implies beautiful and therefore pleasing in a moderate degree, without intensity, depth or exaggeration. It resembles "cute" in its modesty, temperance, and lack of pretense. We speak of a pretty girl and a cute child.

Lovely is "beauty" but with more emphasis upon the interior, spiritual aspects. A "lovely" woman is beautiful especially in dimensions of modesty, simplicity, generosity, dignity, graciousness. 

Elegance is very similar to "lovely" in the sense of quality, style, dignity. It suggests again simplicity and modesty with a sense of  culture and artistic worth; again free from ostentation and pretense. It can be defined as "artful enhancement of beauty."

Gorgeous is an intensification of the subjective delight, similar to words like "spectacular," "striking, "splendid" or "marvelous;" but not indicative of any specific objective reality.

Glory or Splendor is beauty as absolute, infinite, transcendent, supernatural. It describes God. Yet the Divine Absolute Beauty is manifest in created loveliness at its highest.  

Glamour I will define as:  artificial exaggeration of feminine attractiveness.

Glamour can be contrasted with elegance.  The first is artificial, the second artful; the first an exaggeration, the second an enhancement; the first is overstated, the second is understated; the first ostentatious and pretentious, the second modest and simple.

Is glamour bad, of its nature? In baptism, we renounce the "glamor of evil." So is glamor itself evil? Not necessarily. At its best, it is a form of play: ironic, purposefully overstated, tongue-in-cheek. For example, little girls play at being glamorous using their mother's makeup, high heels and so forth. It is innocent and harmless. Something similar happens when adult women go glamourous, on an occasional and celebrative event:  prom, weddings, and girls night. They intentionally accentuate their feminine attractiveness, in a protected and wholesome setting, with bright red lipstick, heavy makeup, striking hair styling, tight-colorful-revealing dresses and so forth. This is fun, celebration and play...in itself wholesome and good.

Can men be glamorous? No, glamour is inherently feminine. If a red-blooded male is looking at the magazine Glamour, he is not seeing the styles but the female models. Glamour involves an essential element of vanity, of awareness of one's own beauty. A modest degree of vanity is proper for the woman but contradictory of virility. True, men dress up for the Kentucky derby in a play/ceremonial manner with color, hats, bowties and such. It is playful, costume-like,  lighthearted. Note that in weddings men traditionally all wear the same thing: tuxedo or suit. There is a monotony here. The male identity and vocation is to direct his strength, gently, for the protection, provision and affirmation of women, children and all that is good-true-beautiful in the community. So narcissistic self-regard is unmanly. We see this in traditional expressions like fop, dandy, glamour boy. With the deconstruction of gender and amnesia about the form of masculinity, we have new terms which redefine such anti-masculinity as a mere question of taste. So, we have had the metrosexual, the urban, sophisticated hetero-male concerned with style, fashion, and appearance. More recently we have the spornosexual who combines "sport" with "porn" in a narcissistic obsession with his own body as muscled, sculpted and tanned: "Do you lift, Bro?" 

Drag Queen is, of course, the epitome of male glamour. Here we have a male costumed in a caricature of feminine glamour in cartoonish exaggeration. Previously, in traditional gender-normal society, the sight of a man dressed and acting like a woman was entirely ridiculous and therefore hilarious: Some Like it Hot, Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire. Here again we have comedy, play, irony, dissonance. The drag queen phenomenon is not so light and comical: it is more serious and therefore tragic, toxic and disordered. The real drag queen is renouncing his own virility and doing so by a contemptuous display of faux-femininity. It is an insult to the man and the woman .It is neither fun nor innocent. It is inappropriate for library story hour.

Feminine Vocation involves beauty, inherently. In her own person, appearance, style, demeanor the woman manifests beauty as comforting, encouraging, inspiring, iconic, nurturing, healing, delightful and sanctifying. Beyond her person she attends to the immediate environment: home, garden, grooming and dressing of the family especially the young, elderly, and the males. She is endowed, by nature and culture, with a sensitivity, an intuition, a spontaneous taste for what is good, true, beautiful, proper, delicate, and vulnerable. It is entirely coherent with this vocation and identity for the woman to be aware of her own appearance, to groom herself properly, as she does the same for those around her and her world. 

One of my daughters spent a good portion of her 13th summer monitoring, before our full-length mirror, the development of her physique. I found it to be delightful and wholesome as she was developing into a beautiful woman and properly aware of it. Were my son to do the same in spornosexual fashion, I would have disapproved. Yes...there is a double standard here. 

Another daughter, beautiful in a statuesque, athletic fashion came home late from a softball game with 12 minutes to prepare for the prom. She did her shower, hair, makeup, jewelry, and dress within 12 minutes. She was stunning; but not glamorous. 

My 99-year old mother still went to daily mass and groomed herself elegantly: dress, makeup, hair and so forth. A good touch of glamour. Not overdone. Age did not diminish her sense for beauty.

Women Dress for Women.  As a male, I assumed for many years that women dress to be attractive to men. As a son, husband, brother to six sisters and father to five daughters, I finally got it: women dress for women. They are not thinking about men. For girls night out, they all dress up; get silly; drink and eat freely; dance; joke and laugh. It is true: girls just want to have fun! It can be wholesome, innocent, playful, mutually delightful. But it can be competitive and demeaning. Women compare themselves to each other; they rate themselves against each other. In this they can inflate themselves in vanity but much more frequently (I observe) demean themselves as inferior.

Trophy Wife. Here, as in many things, exhibit A is former President Donald Trump. If men are not really glamorous, their machismo, celebrity and status can be enhanced by the trophy or glamorous wife. Melania is the most glamorous woman I can think of off the top of my head. She is naturally gorgeous with more than a touch of elegance and taste. In contrast to other former presidents (Clinton, Kennedy) her glamor-beauty seems not to arouse desire, much less affection, reverence or gratitude in her mate. Rather, she seems to function for him (like the horses in the patriarchy of Barbie's  Ken) as a "male enhancer," to increase his prestige as a powerful, admired man.

Glamour as Distance, Illusion, Frustration. My argument here is largely, but not entirely, anti-glamour because of how I experience feminine glamour. For most of my adult life, I experienced a normal degree of masculine insecurity, but more than average attraction to women. And so I encountered the glamourous woman as fascinating, attractive, alluring, but also as unavailable, distant, goddess-like and therefore frustrating and saddening. For those like myself, the glamor girl (as with romantic and erotic longing in general) seems to be a painful rehearsal of the oedipal loss: the desired, the pleasurable is denied, is distant and out of touch, is unavailable. This is saddening, discouraging, and dark. I am not suggesting that the glamor girl intends this (although that is a possibility), but that is simply the common experience of some of us men. It contrasts with the engagement with woman as close, sisterly, friend, partner, comforter, healer, nurturer. It contrasts, negatively,  with masculine experience of the feminine as filial, spousal, sororal, maternal, convivial, companionable. 

Glamour Magazine embodies the ideal of progressive femininity in the post-cultural-revolution utopia: beautiful, glamorous, affluent, bourgeois, educated, anti-patriarchal, independent of men, liberal, accomplished, sexually-romantically unrestrained by traditions and faith, contraception-addicted, divorce-and- abortion-friendly. It is woman as NOT innocent, childlike, spousal, maternal, Marian, religious, poor-chaste-obedient, sacrificial, modest, humble.

Barbie the doll is a glamorous toy for girls. As such it is arguably innocent and childlike. Barbie the movie is a brilliant, hilarious, ironic spoof of the doll, feminism, glamour, and the weakening of masculinity into timidity and toxic, macho patriarchy. It is humor and irony at its best. It is itself...writing, jokes, acting, music, color, playful glamor...a thing of beauty!

Illusion and fantasy is a dimension of glamor. It intends a surreal, quasi godlike grandeur that is fascinating, mesmerizing, and intoxicating. It is used, therefore, by evil to seduce and deceive. But in the correct context it is not necessarily evil. 

Taylor Swift is "girl-power-glamor." She is a new kind of diva. "Diva" (from the Italian for goddess) describes the stereotypical opera star: dramatic, gorgeous, exaggerated, fascinating, larger than life. Taylor is clearly not a pin-up; not a fantasy of male lust. She has about her an aura of girlish energy, innocence and wholesomeness. She operates, as in the Barbie movie, in a girl-only world. Tons of girls, all in pink, (including my unabashedly "swifty" granddaughters) happily, vicariously participating in the joyous, uninhibited spontaneity of being a girl.

This brings to mind the father-daughter dances I would attend when my daughters were in high school. The girls were all dressed to the nines:  gorgeous! The only men there: us fathers. It was a moderately boring night; we would sit at the tables and talk. But the girls were running around the place in small groups, dancing together, singing, laughing. Entirely oblivious of the fathers and of men in general. Girls really do want to have fun!

To Conclude:  Glamor is the artful, artificial enhancement and exaggeration of feminine beauty. It is in part fantasy, illusion, fascination. It can be used to seduce and deceive for evil intents. However as play, irony, comedy, art, celebration it can be delightful and wholesome. At its best and in the right order it can be a glimmer, however distant and faint, of the Glory of Heaven. 

The Logic and Intention of Drag Queen Story Time

"Unless you become like little children, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Jesus.

"We are coming for your children."  Alan Ginsburg, militant gay Beatnik.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were tied around his neck and he was thrown into the sea."  Jesus.

In my little world, the active homosexuals I know (family, friends, work) are almost all quiet, discrete, modest, restrained, congenial. They do not engage in Culture War. It is "live and let live" and "don't ask don't tell." We enjoy a mutual affection, delight and respect and a shared interest in a range of things including family, prayer, care for the suffering, books, movies, humor and more. Sexuality remains where it belongs: private, confidential, sacred. I do not know what they do or even what they think. They probably know my staunch Catholic views but we never get into that. Sexuality and also politics are set to the side so that we can get on with life together. Very wholesome! 

A different reality is the militant "Gay." Here we have indignant, righteous demand for full moral approval of these actions and lifestyle; aggressive Culture War; parades, pronouns, podcasts, Hawaiian shirts,  rainbows, social media obsessions; histrionics, narcissism, narratives of self-pity and victimhood; public, priestly blessings;  moralistic condemnation of the entire Christian tradition of chastity and spousal fidelity.

To be sure there is such a thing as homophobia: contempt for the homosexual. I encountered it mostly in adolescence when I was repulsed by the disgust in expressions like "queer" and "faggot." In retrospect, I attribute it mostly to adolescent masculine insecurity. Also, the graphic, inherently violent and demeaning reality of male-on-male intercourse is naturally repulsive to an innocent psyche not brainwashed into the gay-affirming, woke universe. 

Honestly, I have not encountered homophobia in my adult life. I worked over 25 years with truck drivers so I have not been entirely sheltered from the realities of male life. Like racism, homophobia is absolutely prohibited in elite and even mainstream culture. You may find residues of it on some high school football team in a rural area of some deep red state: a relic of the past.

To be sure: horrific emotional suffering accompanies the attraction. This is only slightly due to social disapproval. In places (Scandinavia, San Francisco, Greenwich Village) that have been gay-affirming for decades there remain elevated levels of addiction, suicide, mental illness, and quiet despair. The primary causes of this suffering are not social disapproval but twofold. First, the actions and lifestyle are themselves contrary to the moral order and therefore toxic. Secondly, the attraction is often, but not always, accompanied by related disorders: masculine insecurity, bad father connection, dread of the feminine, history of homosexual abuse, difficulty in male peer relationships, sexual addiction, and personality disorders. The suffering of the homosexual is real and profound. Unhappily, "gay affirmation" in the long run will increase, not relieve this agony. 

The LGBTQ crusade has the approval of mainstream society and all the elite institutions: law, Hollywood, media, academia, big business, liberal religion, even the military. The young are virtually unanimous in their approval. This is because the practice, culture and identity is the epitome of the prevailing culture or "religion" understood broadly: expressive individualism, materialistic consumerism, sterilized sexuality, technologized "reproduction," deconstructed gender, antipathy to masculinity, paternity, authority, and tradition. The isolated, narcissistic, hedonistic, progressive, therapy-craving, careerist, sterile "gay" individual is the ideal of the New World that exploded in the 1960s. 

In its narrative of victimhood and pity, it plays shrewdly upon the heartstrings of the (bleeding heart, limousine) liberal psyche which is sentimental, gullible, naive, and blind to the actual realities of evil, sin, Satan and guilt. It elicits a faux pity and a saccharine self-righteousness: "born that way," heteronormativity, intersectionality, and the entire "woke" litany.

The crusade is not satisfied with legal gay marriage and the virtually unanimous approval of elite/mainstream society. They indignantly require the approval of two moral authorities: the Church and innocent children.

The global Church and churches are violently polarized on this. This Culture War will be with us for a long time.

Perhaps more important is the young and innocent. Here is where the logic and intent of Drag Queen Story Time is manifest.

Traditionally, we revere the "latent period" of sexuality and shield our youth from exposure until adolescence, protecting their innocence, and trusting in their gradual, guided maturation into mature femininity and masculinity, into chastity, fidelity and generous-generative paternity/maternity (biological and spiritual). 

The gay militant, desperate for moral approval, torn from paternity-authority-religion, unconsciously and compulsively craves acceptance by those who are innocent, and so good. They need to be received by our children as normal. And so, we have Drag Queen Story Hour. 

The "drag queen" is of course neither masculine nor feminine, but a contemptuous parody of the feminine in a grotesque, glamorous extreme. Therefore, it brilliantly but subtly deconstructs the wholesome, natural, God-given binary of mother-and-father. It attacks the very filial soul of the child in its trust, reception, reverence for the mother and the father.

It is widely known that gay culture is obsessed with youth and the young. Cut off from paternity, the gay man dreads aging and wants to maintain the facade of youth and fitness. We see in the priest sex scandal the obsession with young men. Very many gay and homosexual men have themselves been victims of seduction in their youth. Could this be a disordered expression of the frustrated paternal drive? Or could it be an expression of a wounded filiality, some primal disconnect with the maternal and paternal, that becomes sexualized into a craving for the young and innocent?

In any case, there is no doubt that the Drag Queen Story Time is an instance of the broader crusade: to indoctrinate our young into the gay cult of sterile, isolated, de-gendered, motherless-fatherless, anti-filial, non-familial, histrionic, narcissistic sexuality. To cover themselves with a facade of moral innocence, they are compelled to rob our own children of innocence. 

May we be clear, vigilant, forceful in the protection of our little ones from the fervid, unrecognized attack on childhood innocence which drives the gay crusade. 

Co-Creators of 21st Century, 3rd Millennium Catholicism

In a world of horrendous violence and chaos, and a Church divided and confused, the Holy Spirit has been at work in  splendid, symphonic extravagance. Let us ponder his presence as we entered this century and millennium. Three conspirators ("co-breathers") stand out.

St. John Paul the Great. He led us into this time. He is our Moses, our El Cid, our George Washington. In his dramatic engagements, personal holiness, iconic teaching...he embodied and articulated our faith in all its creativity, contemporaneity, and freshness as well as its ancient authority.

Saint Mother Teresa. In her dark night of 40 years, she emptied herself in service of our Lord in the very least, the suffering, the forgotten. She is one of many including Dorothy Day, Catherine Dougherty, Madeleine Delbrel and so  many. Pope Francis, to his credit, exemplified this for us, for example in his decision to wash the feet, on Holy Thursday, of women in prison rather than the cardinals.

Saints Andre, Solanus, Leopoldo and all the "little ones" of simple, childlike faith who open their hearts and minds to the invasions from heaven.

After that solid trio, we have others.

Kiko Arguello, Luigi Giussani, Chiara Lubich, Ralph Martin and all the leaders of the lay renewal movements who have interacted with the Holy Spirit in a dazzling variety that manifests the unbounded richness of our Church.

Ratzinger-Benedict, DeLubac, Balthasar, Speyr, again John Paul and the entire Resourcement, later Communio, school of theology that largely birthed the Council and then interpreted it authoritatively. In the USA this means the David Schindlers and the John Paul II Institute in Washington DC. Together they offer an extraordinary flourishing of Catholicism that integrates the best of modernity within loyal traditionalism.

Ecumenical Coalitions including the charismatic/Pentecostal renewal across the denominations (especially in Africa); the Culture War alliance in the West of evangelicals, Catholics and others; cooperation at every level in service of the poor and suffering.

Countless Flourishing of Faith in a million modest, humble forms on the ground: new religious orders, prayer movements, Marian devotions, works of corporal and spiritual mercy, home schooling, small colleges of countercultural faith, intellectual activity in journals, books and the internet. And of course: the mundane, ordinary fidelity of parish priests, families, teachers, catechists and so many who labor to pass on our faith to our young and others.

We have entered an age that can be threatening and discouraging. But when we consider the Presence and Actions of God, of the Holy Spirit, gathering us together in Jesus the Son, we are filled with wonder, joy, gratitude, agency and hope!

 

Girls Are Becoming More Liberal, Boys More Conservative: The Gender Divide

Gen Z girls self-identify as liberal at a rate of 40%; boys at 25%. This might not be so bad if it were not for other realities. 71% of this same cohort say they won't date or marry someone from the other side of the divide. Such extreme polarization spells trouble. 

A distinct but perhaps not entirely unrelated development is the troubling surge in mental and emotional suffering among this generation, especially girls, which exploded with the new technological world of social media in 2012. Jonathan Haidt has been following this trend closely and shown that the difficulties are strongest for young liberal women. 

David French

In a thoughtful piece in the NY Times (Feb. 29, 2024), French acknowledges significant political events like the election of Trump and the #MeToo movement, but gives more weight to deeper, broader cultural developments. With Putnam (Bowling Together) he grieves the breakdown of community at every level and the isolation of the individual; with Haidt (Coddling of the American Mind) he sees that smothering, protective parenting has increased anxiety, risk-aversion, and social insecurity. The broader society, but especially the world inhabited by our youth, is increasingly lonely with less interaction, dating, romance and friendship. Likeminded people enclose themselves in silos, listening to the same sources and reinforcing viewpoints with less and less exchange with other perspectives. This is magnified immensely by the internet and social media. He notes the increase of what he calls "workism" as the conviction that career is the center of one's identity: a 2023 poll found 71% of Americans agreed that "having an enjoyable career/job is very or extremely important for a fulfilling life" while 23% said the same about marriage.

Education, Class, Culture and the Gender Gap

The gender gap in education is also alarming. In 1970, two generations ago, for ages 25-34, 20 % of men and 12 % of women had bachelor degrees...an 8 % gap. In 2020, there was 41% of women and 32% men, a 9 % gap. In our meritocratic, professional society, education is a significant marker of class and culture. This growing divide is problematic: our young women face a choice between "marrying down" and not marrying at all.

Our post-war society (1945-65) was structured around a dominant, expansive "middle class." In the exploding suburbs, teamsters, doctors, lawyers, unionized auto workers and others lived together in shared bourgeois homogeneity. Over the last 50 years, this inclusive class has fractured into the upper and lower echelons: the upper is educated, professional, prestigious, connected, secure in possession of real estate and savings programs, liberal, blue, largely urban/costal, secular and high in self-regard; the lower is blue collar, uneducated, low status, conservative, red, more rural and mid-country, financially precarious, and low in self-esteem. The former disparages the latter as deplorable-MAGA-racists; the later seethes with rage.

What makes things worse is that those in the upper tiers marry within their class. Those, for example, at the lower end of the upper tier (nurses, teachers, small business owners, policemen, unionized workers) enjoy two salaries close to or at six figures each and generous insurance/pension plans. Those in the upper level of the lower tier, the "working poor" miss out on the safety net for the real poor and struggle without permanent employment, insurance or retirement plans. 

And so, the gender gap of our young is (among other things) a consequence of our class/culture divide: young women are outperforming men in the competitive, meritocratic arena of a society increasingly removed from farm, factory, and hands-on labor and centered in bureaucracy, professions, health, education, information, media, and technology. 

There is high irony here! The progressive "intersectionality narrative" has women, blacks, and LGBTQs as victimized by white males. Actually, those groups are privileged and entitled IF they fit the class/culture mode: educated, liberal, professional, bourgeois.  (Example: average combined salary for same-sex married couples is $123,000; for heterosexuals is $96,000). White males are falling into the lower class at alarming rates. 

And of course we have the perennial difference in maturity. My personal observation is that a girl in a wholesome family matures into a motherhood-capable woman around age 14; a boy, if fortunate, reaches comparable maturity in his early 50s. (Ok, some exaggeration, but only a little!)

Our society systemically segregates  us from each other: the elderly in gated communities or nursing homes; the troubled in prisons and psychiatric wards; the young in schools; the poor in ghettos and the rich in enclaves. Our young people are entrapped with their peers, removed from the older and the younger; and now boys and girls are also increasingly detached from each other. So we have declining rates of marriage and the misfortune of an emergent gender divide,  with feelings of victimhood, suspicion and resentment on both sides. Always and everywhere: rupture of connection, isolation, loneliness of the Sovereign Ego.

 The Nature of Things

French's analysis, on the sociological level, is accurate. But he does not explore the inner, formal nature of man/woman. Implicitly he seems to accept the nominalism inherent in modernity: that there are no inner essences or forms; that there are only particularities and statistical averages; that any talk of an interior femininity/masculinity is a stereotyping in service of oppressive male chauvinism; that there is no ontological philosophy of gender; and that we can only speak of biological characteristics, cultural constructs and empirical statistics. 

"Male and female he created them; in his own image he created him" we read in the Genesis 1. The two are intelligible only in relationship: 

- face to face with each other; 

- together facing outward towards their children, family, broader society; 

- together facing back gratefully to the Past and forward hopefully to the Future; and

-  together facing upwards towards heaven. 

If you tear masculinity or femininity away from each other, away from children-family-community, and away from God, gender/sex becomes an absurdity, a non-entity, a private or social construct, a raw Nietzchean willfulness raging into the abyss, a bare and meaningless mathematical average. 

The masculine and the feminine, in their very distinction from each other,  define, complement and complete each other. They are equal in dignity, in giftedness, in finitude. They crave each other. They generously bless each other. In the condition of sin, they crucify each other. In the state of grace they beg pardon, forgive, heal, strengthen, delight each other.  In every man/woman meeting, however trivial, the Joy of Adam resounds:  "This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." 

The encounter of man and woman is the Great Drama at the very heart of Being. It is the Love Event

...as erotic-romantic-intimate-spousal, filial, fraternal/sororal, maternal/paternal.

...as singular analogue for the Eternal Embrace of the Bridal Church by her Bridegroom.

...as privileged icon of the love between the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.

...as imaged in the (inferior) Petrine and the (superior) Marian dimensions of the Church.

...as mutuality in the contemplative gaze, delight, the dance of reception/donation, sacrifice ("sacra" holy "facere" make).

...as tenderness, reverence, gratitude, magnanimity within humility, generosity, fruitfulness, abundance, exuberance.

The two sexes, of their very nature,  exist in creative, wholesome, thrilling tension with each other: mutual completion, inspiration, affirmation, and delight. The two entertain distinct, contrasting propensities. So it would not be surprising to find different political tendencies. The liberal/conservative binary is not clear, interior or formal as their definitions vary according to context: what is conservative  in one time and place may be liberal in another. The traditional/progressive duality has more clarity: the one looking to the past for a revelation and tradition; the other looking to the future for enlightenment and improvement.

"If you are not liberal when you are young you do not have a heart; if you are not conservative when you are old you do not have a brain." If there is a coherence within youthful liberalism and seasoned conservatism, so we can consider the consonance of the feminine with the liberal and the masculine with the conservative.

In our current context, the youthful female psyche...in the dimensions of tenderness, sensitivity, receptivity, generosity, welcome, nurture, acceptance, empathy, physicality and concreteness...understandably resonates with environmental concern, welcome of the immigrant, strong safety net including care for children, restrictions on gun ownership, protection of the authentic autonomy and dignity of women. 

Conversely, the male psyche (especially if immature)...as competitive, assertive, individualistic, inclined to authority, tradition, clarity, abstraction, boundaries, hierarchy...intuits more value in economic liberty, secure borders, international assertiveness contra bad actors, and protection of defenseless, innocent human life. 

In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt identified six  core moral values that influence political orientation: care, fairness, loyalty, liberty, sanctity and authority. While there are complex, contradictory ways that these core values find expression in both camps, (especially liberty and fairness), he finds that liberals lean heavily into care and fairness; conservative more into authority, loyalty and sanctity. And so the argument here is that youthful femininity also inclines to care and fairness as masculinity favors authority, loyalty ad sanctity. And so there is a natural fittingness that girls are more liberal and boys conservative.

Clearly we renounce stereotypes here: of course men are tender and women abstract. All of us have all of these interior qualities even as they gestalt within each of us as femininity or masculinity. 

Of great significance is the rich influence each of us receives from others. Ideally each child matures under the influence of one or more mother and father figures. And so, the girl interiorizes strong values from her father and mother both; and likewise for the boy. And we observe the boundless creativity and fluidity as children with the same mother/father interact in diverse, dramatic fashions. 

In the course of a seasoned, mature marriage the spouses mutually influence each other so that values that are lacking in each are interiorized from the other, making for balance and integrity in both husband and wife. This same dynamic holds for every relationship, community and organization: friendships, Church, education, business and politics. And so we would expect more exaggeration and imbalance in the young.

Deconstruction of Masculinity

Here we must mention Fleckinstein's guiding conviction: our crisis in virility. Femininity, also under attack, is nevertheless resilient, organic, instinctive, and ontologically-psychologically dense. Masculinity is far more fragile, vulnerable, and dependent upon a cultural itinerary of formation. While both are ontological, created forms, virility is more of a social construct as it depends more on training, motivation, discipline, correction, encouragement, mentoring and camaraderie. 

The society-wide, systemic destruction of virility formation leaves our young men adrift: prone to insecurity and indecision or to toxic, vicious machismo. And so, we witness in the Trump phenomenon the emergence of a crude macho politics: irreverent, nationalistic, defensive, raging, xenophobic, chauvinist. 

This bipolarity of weakness/viciousness elicits, of course, a feminist liberalism of suspicion, anxiety, and resentment. An unhappy polarization of the sexes!

Conclusion

If isolation is the problem, connection is the solution.

At every level, we desperately need connection: husband and wife, male and female, Marian and Petrine, traditional and progressive, conservative and liberal.  Such can happen, however, only within our greater communion, all of us, in the "Communio" of the Holy Trinity, in Christ and his Church. I have found it helpful, in every encounter and engagement, to "triangulate"...to engage the other (my friend, partner, competitor, enemy) in the presence of a "Third", Jesus Christ himself. In that luminous presence, all that is good in the other is enhanced, and all that is bad is overcome. 

May our youth engage, at every level of politics, all that is Good, True, Beautiful, Pure and Holy!

USA 1965: Why the Sudden, Catastrophic Collapse of the Catholic, Post-War Camelot?

The short answer to this question: a hundred million events and developments masterfully coordinated by the greatest intellect in Creation: Lucifer himself.

A slightly longer  answer: the Church emerged from the Vatican Council in 1965 confident, optimistic, credulous, eager to embrace and affirm all that is good in a world that was at that very moment about to explode in a tornado straight from hell: the Cultural-Sexual Revolution. The cohort about to take the reins of Catholic life, the Great Generation, was entirely unprepared for this assault. The Council, inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritatively interpreted by John Paul and Benedict, not so much in its specific wording, but in the tone and mood that surrounded it, left the Church all the more unguarded, gullible and vulnerable to the imminent attack. Some of the steams that fed this flood are evident:

1. Prosperity, Security, Affluence, Achievement.  After the war and throughout the cold war, Catholics escaped the ghetto and were fully integrated into mainstream, bourgeois society in the happy ecumenical peace that largely pervaded the county. This contrasted sharply, of course, with the earlier travails of the depression and two wars. Inexorably there emerged a moral softness, materialism, consumerism, careerism, technological arrogance, individualism, and cultural superiority of the dominant world power. Unconsciously, without deliberation, they transitioned from urban ghetto to middle class suburb, from working to professional class, from social pariah and underdog to privileged achiever. The sharp countercultural identity...ethnic, anti-Protestant, persecuted (by WASP and Evangelical-Fundamentalist), "thick" religion...was inexorably replaced by a "thin," homogenized, accommodating partnership in the club of the successful and elite.

2. Individualism. From the roots of its founding...Calvinism, Enlightenment, Freemasonry... the USA had been anti-Catholic as individualistic and disparaging of communal Catholicism in its sacramentality, magisterium, religious life, Tradition/traditions, Mary and the saints. Catholic ethnics maintained an ambivalence about the country: appreciation for liberty and opportunity, but resistance to the WASP hegemony.  This sharp, thick, combative identity steadily dissolved from 1945-65 as Catholics blended into a society already secularizing and transitioning from Protestant to moralistic-therapeutic-deistic.

4. Loss of Sense of the Sacred and of Sin. The earlier poverty and suffering of immigration, two world wars, and the depression kept our grandparents close to death, sickness, and the precarity of human life as well as the realities of the supernatural...the heavenly but also the hellish facts of sin, evil, the demonic and damnation. This sense was diminished, if not lost, in the prosperity, power, and competence of post-war America. Comfort, security, achievement and the quasi-omnipotence of techno-science became an addictive narcotic for the now-bourgeois Catholic, smoothly ascending the ladder of professional/educational meritocracy. This trend surged around 1965 when immediately, intuitively the entire apparatus of Tridentine Catholicism became incoherent and nonsensical: confession, reparation for sin,  purgatory and hell (but not heaven which was welcoming, now, of everyone), judgement, the diabolical, spiritual warfare, the miraculous, and the very reality of the supernatural. Within a few years, the efficacious sacramental economy was replaced by an obsession with therapy and social activism as decisive in the fight against human suffering, without reference to sin or God.

4. Non-evangelical. In contrast to "I-love-Jesus-Protestantism," our mid-century Church did not clearly invite to a personal, intimate, eventful relationship with the person of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, man and God. Our boomer generation was systematically catechized into our sacramental, moral and dogmatic legacy, but not evangelized. The Christology of Tridentine Catholic piety placed a heavy accent on the suffering and death of Jesus as reparation for our sins: stations of the cross, the theology of substitution, a just and wrathful God.  This Jansenist trend was softened by devotion to the Sacred Heart, but even that accentuated his suffering and so was not entirely inviting. The merciful face of heaven was often projected on to Mary who is often described as restraining the wrathful arm of God. Such a Catholicism, lacking a clear theology of and devotion to the person of Jesus Christ, was viable within an enclosed, thick, ethnic, ghetto culture. But was unstable when released into a broader society, becoming viciously anti-Catholic.

5. De-Programmed.  More than anything else, the talented young athlete needs:  a good program  which includes competent coaches, stimulating teammates/competitors, balanced/challenging schedule of exercise, practice and games. So much greater is the need for solid spiritual programs. The Catholic Church is rich in this! St. Benedict gave us the monastic model which created Christendom. Francis, Dominic, Ignatius and a legion of such left us a superb banquet of options. In our time we see in the 12-steps of AA such a program; likewise renewal movements such as Opus Dei or the Neocatechumenal way exemplify this. For five centuries, since the Council of Trent, Catholics practiced such a sound program: obedience to the ten commandments, Church precepts, and the natural law; engagement with sacramental life; and fidelity to one's state of life (married, ordained, religious.)  For the more zealous, there was much more: devotions, third orders, novenas, missions, spiritual direction, confraternities of various sorts. Even minor things like meatless Fridays, choosing the names of saints, crossing oneself when passing a Church, hearing the Church chimes,  and ashes on the forehead at the start of lent played a role in defining one's identity, community, vocation and destiny as Catholic. 

In 1965, not according to the actual documents of the Council, but in accord with the "spirit" or overall pervading atmosphere at the time, that entire network of Catholic practice was disparaged by our fashionable, progressive elites. "THE PROGRAM" was dismantled. It was replaced by:...Nothing! A vague, innocuous, voluntarist, moralist individualism resulted. You can eat meat on Friday; just choose your own penance. That Church precept was immediately forgotten by everyone. Why confess sin when it is almost impossible to commit a real mortal sin (unless you are Hitler or Stalin.) Why pray for the deceased when we know all "good people" automatically go to heaven? 

6. Intellectual Superficiality. For several generations, from the start of the 20th century, the core of priestly formation was the dry, rigid manualist scholasticism which was detached from engagement with the broader academic culture. It was widely received as sterile and superficial. Especially in the thriving, fertile, activist post-war era, the pragmatic, can-do clergy were building many and massive physical plants, but pronouncedly low-brow and allergic to metaphysics (of Being)  and (realistic) epistemology. Intellectually, as well as spiritually, our clergy/hierarchy was unprepared for the assault launched in 1965. The younger clergy at the time, again practical and non-philosophical and technical, drifted swiftly into the social sciences, especially psychology, sociology and political science, as comfortable venues of human service. 

Conclusion.  It was hardly obvious at the time, but looking back we must conclude: the massive, impressive edifice of post-war Catholicism was vulnerable because it had a weak foundation, spiritually and intellectually. It was like a huge tree, with shallow roots. It could not resist a strong wind; and certainly not the tsunami-tornado-earthquake that struck immediately in 1965.

That post-war Catholic renaissance (1945-65) was a time of bounteous blessings. But we do well to avoid nostalgia. Every "Camelot" is in part illusory. That was not a perfect time. That impressive, but in some dimensions hallow, Catholic civilization was largely, but not completely destroyed by the Cultural Revolution. 

But Catholic life continues and thrives in millions of families, parishes, gatherings of all sorts. In different circumstances, Christ remains with us: in the Eucharist, his Word, every gathering in his name, and in billions of prayers and acts. The Holy Spirit abides with us and moves within us and among us.

 We surrender, Jesus our Lord, to your abiding presence; and, Holy Spirit, to your movements among us!   

Movements of the Holy Spirit: 1950-2000

Catholic Church: Pre- and Post- 1965

In considering the life of the Church in the late 20th century, we see two starkly distinct periods divided by the year 1965 and the concurrence of two distinct, contradictory events: Vatican II and the Cultural Revolution of the West. The standard rationale for the Council is twofold: the overcoming of a narrow scholastic theology by return to the ancient sources and opening of the doors of a closed, defensive, late Tridentine Church positively to the world. By this logic, a narrow, suspicious, closed pre-Council Church converted to a warm, positive, ecumenical one. 

Recalling my childhood as a child in the 1950s and an adolescent in the 1960s, this narrative never made sense to me. The immediate environment of my childhood/youth was parochial: all urban, ethnic Catholic, mostly Irish and Italians with some of German or Polish descent. I knew hardly any Blacks, Protestants, Jews, Asians, Maoists or Visigoths. But I did understand the place of the Catholic in the broader world. It did not include signs saying "Irish need not apply." Catholics in 1945-65 were: prominent protagonists in the labor movement, urban politics, Democrat Party, FBI, police and fire departments; having large families; making good money, going to colleges, moving to the suburbs, ascending the social ladder; militantly pro-America, pro-capitalism (even union families) and anti-Communism; enthusiastic participants in the civil rights movement; concerned about aid to the developing nations; surging with religious vocations; building an immense parochial, institutional system; enjoying elevated levels of church participation; and influential across the culture in figures like Sheen, Merton, Flanner O'Connor, JFK, Hitchcock, John Ford, and Grace Kelly. In other words, the Church of 1945-65 was hardly a ghetto; it was fully engaged in the broader Catholic-friendly society. Meanwhile, in Europe Catholic figures like De Gaulle, Adenauer, Schuman, Monet and a generation of Christian Democrats were influential in the resurgent post-War European Union.

By this logic, Vatican II was culturally/spiritually continuous with its immediate past. It was a punctuation point of a happy period; it was the icing on the cake. Contra the progressive and traditionalist interpretations of discontinuity, it provided a theological rationale for a cultural reality already mature and flourishing.

The Cultural-Sexual Revolution was something else altogether. Many see 1968 as the tipping point, but by the early 1970s the Church was: collapsing rapidly; hemorrhaging vocations; contracepting and aborting with the mainstream; locked in a vicious war between progressives, conservatives and a smaller number of traditionalists; and defensive before the new hostile, hegemonic liberalism of the elite. 

And so, contrary to the accepted story of a closed Church opening itself to an amiable dialogue with the world, what actually happened was that the Church found herself suddenly under assault from a now-dominant secular liberalism; falling apart rapidly; and polarized in a vicious civil war.  

It is worth considering the predominant attitude of the generation of young priests at that time, the cohort now in their 80s and 90s and rapidly passing away.  I have a fair familiarity with the priests of Newark NJ, Maryknoll and the Society of Jesus. I have seen: a small group of perhaps 10% on each side of the divide passionately engaged in advancing or resisting the agenda of cultural/sexual liberation. But a large majority of perhaps 75% largely detached from the conflict as (often liberal-leaning) moderates; pastorally sensitive and responsive to as much of the laity as possible; and loyal to the open, affirmative, ecumenical, irenic Catholic ethos they inhaled in 1945-65. And so, while battle raged in academia, media, law, politics and upper echelon arenas, at the ground level parish life carried on serenely, surprisingly untouched by the chaos and conflict elsewhere. 

Along with the mundane stability of parish Catholicism and the flaming culture wars, the Holy Spirit was happily active in most serendipitous, synergistic, surprising ways. We distinguish the spiritual, intellectual and the populist.

SPIRITUAL

Divine Mercy devotion as received from St. Faustina and St. John Paul surged across the globe.

American Catholic Post-War Revival was fueled by Bishop Sheen, Thomas Merton, Patrick Peyton, among others.

Servants of the poor...Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Madeleine Delbrel...drew all of us to the presence of Christ in "the least."

Catholic Post-War Revival was fueled by Bishop Sheen, Thomas Merton, Patrick Peyton, and others.

Servants of the poor...Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Madeleine Delbrel...draw all of us to the presence of Christ in "the least."

Lay Renewal Movements including Charismatic Renewal, Cursillo, Opus Dei, Regnum Christi, Focolari, Neocatechumenal Way and Marriage Encounter.

Quiet, humble, faith-filled saints like Josephine Bakhita, the Quattrocchis, Caryll Houselander, Gianna Molla,  Brother Andre, Father Solonus, and Padre Pio.

EWTN and the remarkable Mother Angelica.

INTELLECTUAL

Resourcement/Communio Theology. This school flowed into the Council as Resourcement and gushed out as Communio to inform the dual pontificate  which decisively defined Catholicism as happy marriage of the best of contemporary culture with the heart of Catholic Tradition as the Church entered the third millennium. Participants include:  John Paul, Benedict, Balthasar, DeLubac, Congar, Bouyer,  Schindler and the American School.

Vatican II architects...Pope John XXIII in invoking it; key Cardinals like Suenens and Bea; advisors including John Courtney Murray, Gerard Phillips, John Osterreicher, the group including young Ratzinger and the young Polish bishop Wojtyla.

Cultural Critics of Modernity as technocracy and alienation including Illich, Girard, McLuhan, Dawson, Brague, Schumacher, Ong and others. 

Neo-Thomism: Gilson, Maritain, Garrigou-Lagrange, Przywara, Pieper, Finnis, Grisez, Anscombe, McIntyre, and White. 

 Personalists: Marcel, Hildebrand, Stein, Mournier, and of course Wojtyla.

Catholic Writers including Flanner O'Connor, Graham Green, Evelyn Waugh, and Walter Percy

Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI and the catechesis of the human body of Pope John Paul.

Catholic Neoconservatives: Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel.

Singular Thinkers including Guardini, Taylor, Del Noce, Hahn, Dulles, Vitz, Groeschel, Sheed, Dupre, 

POPULIST

Perhaps as important as the above events are the many populist religious movements which sprang up from the grassroots without being initiated by specific, identifiable charismatic, intellectual or clerical leadership. It is crucial to distinguish those of the pre-Council era (1950-65) and those that followed that event (1965-2000). These are two strikingly different times.

The immediate post-war era was characterized by an expansive, outgoing generosity. The later era engaged the Church in defense before an aggressive, hostile cultural liberalism across the West.  

The earlier movements: Catholic participation in a vigorous labor movement (George Meany, Ceasar Chavez), civil rights, ecumenism, scripture study, liturgical reform, aid to the developing world, surge in vocations, family rosary, devotions like novenas,  Cana, expansion of the parochial systems of Churches, schools, seminaries, hospitals, and other.

By contrast, the later period largely involved Culture War: home schooling, pro-life movement, Latin Mass, new conservative religious orders, small and intensive Catholic colleges, Natural Family Planning, devotion to the Divine Mercy, and other.

Conclusion

In a world of chaos, instability, feverous activity and unpredictability, the Church is a rock of steadiness, clarity, certainty, and reliability. It is the Eternal dwelling with the temporal, contingent, transitory. And so it is also eventful, dramatic, surprising, radiant, organic, fluid, creative, pure, and ever refreshing. 

For the Catholic, 1950-2000 has been an era of expansion, decline, rest, action, spontaneity, providence, conflict, warfare, renewal and inexpressible delight. It has been an amazing time to be Catholic! 

Christ the Groom never tires of showering his Bride the Church with his tender mercies.

Come Holy Spirit! Let us rest in your abiding presence! Let us respond to your movements!

Great Catholic Minds and Voices of the Late 20th Century

 In the second half of the last century, what were the most powerful, positive voices and minds in the Catholic Church? Here is my all-star, top-ten list, using as criteria:

- Loyalty to the revelation of Jesus Christ as received from Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

- Depth and creativity of insight.

- Breath of scholarship: of the ancients and contemporaries; in theology/philosophy and across the disciplines.

- Holiness of life.

- Range of influence.

- Beauty, clarity and inspiration in expression.

1.  John Paul. The depth and creativity of his thought; the drama and holiness of his life; and the immense reach of his influence...all make him uncontested Catholic Champion of our time.

2. Balthasar. His engagement of theology in sanctity, beauty, drama and truth; his partnership with mystic Adrienne von Speyr; his incomparable range of scholarship; the depth and creativity of his thought...all make him the incomparable Catholic Theologian of our time.

3. Pope Benedict. His humble, holy, steadiness of life; his depth of insight; the beauty, clarity, simplicity, and grace of his expression...all make him the premier Catechist of our time.

These first three, the Great Triumvirate, will be (in my view) doctors of the Church and in the league of Augustine, Thomas and Newman in historical significance.

4.Bishop Fulton Sheen, Thomas Merton, Patrick Peyton. These and others fueled the Catholic post-war revival (1945-65).

 5. DeLubac. His love and loyalty for the Church and Tradition in a contemporary style; his depth and breath of thought; his influence on Vatican II.

6. Kiko Arguello. In his person and "Way" the Church receives the most passionate, militant, deep, clear and countercultural response to the chaos and decadence of our time.

7. Luigi Giussani. In the person and event of Jesus Christ, Giassanni unveiled the raw ontological positivity, notwithstanding the reality of sin, radiant in all human friendship, life and culture. 

8. Ralph Martin and the American Charismatics. These channeled the enthusiastic, charismatic energies of revival to engage the best in Evangelical-Pentecostal spiritualty, to fuel a renewal within Catholicism, to develop a new evangelization across the globe, and offer a fierce, ecumenical response to the Cultural Revolution.

9. Chiara Lubich and St. Escrivera. Founders of  Focolari and Opus Dei, vital renewal movements in our era.

10. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. While not an academic, she taught, wrote and exercised immense influence over our Church and world by virtue of her sacrificial, heroic charity and holiness.

In composing this list, I realized: First, the list is personal and subjective, rooted in my own person and situation. Second, so many others belong on the list. Third, such thinkers/influencers thrive in schools, communities, groups and movements rather than as isolated individuals. Lastly, many of the greatest spiritual influencers are not scholars but saints, servants of the poor, writers and speakers, clerics. 

And so, the next blog will consider the defining schools, groups and movements of 1950-2000 that define Catholicism on the entry into the third millennium. 

What a marvelous time to be a Catholic!

Resourcement/Communio School: John Paul, Benedict, Balthasar, DeLubac, Congar,Bouyer,  Schindler and the American School.

Renewal Leaders: Kiko, Giasanni, Martin and the American charismatics, Eschriva, Lubich.

Bishop Sheen, Thomas Merton, Patrick Peyton, Mother Angelica, Nouwen, .

Servants of the poor:  Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Madelene DelBrel.

Neo-Thomists: Gilson, Maritain, Pieper. Grisez, Anscombe,

Personalists: Marcel, Hildebrand. Stein, Mournier.

Dulles, Courtney-Murray, Ostereicher, Phillips.

Cultural critics: Illich, Girard, McLuhan, Dawson, Brague., Schumacher, Ong, 

Writers: Flanner O'Connor, Graham Green, Waugh,, Percy 

Scott Hahn, Neuhaus, McIntyre, Sheed, DelNoce, Dupre

Chardin, Garrigou-Lagrange, Guardini, Przywara, Taylor,

Popular movements: labor, civil rights, creation of parochial empire, surge in vocations, ecumenism, biblical studies, aid to the developing world.    pro-life movement, home schooling, Latin Mass, smaller more Catholic colleges, new conservative religious orders, 

Gutierezz, Boff, Freire, Segundo, Sobrino, 

Chittister, Kung, Baum, Schillibeckx, Haring.

Vote for Trump, the Lesser Evil: Bad Catholic Logic

Trump, versus Biden or any Democrat, is precisely the lessor evil. By my calculus, Hilary was five times worse; Biden ten times worse. No moral equivalence here! But the operative word is evil. A Catholic cannot participate in a real evil, even to avoid a far greater evil. 

I cannot kill one innocent  person, even to save a million. If I were an Israeli soldier in Gaza today with my Catholic conscience, could I bomb buildings knowing what I know? In 1937, could I have bombed Guernica for Franco's forces? Berlin or Hiroshima for the Allies  in 1945? The napalmed fields of South Vietnam in the late 1960s? No! No! No! No! (Aside: I do not judge Netanyahu, FDR, Truman or Johnson who do not live in my more demanding moral Catholic universe. Franco is another story!) 

The question: Is Trump a substantial, formal evil? Or is he merely an imperfect, crude and vulgar man but a prudent choice in the circumstances? Am I unrealistic, possibly looking for the purity of a saint in the messy, rough arena of politics? This essay will argue that The Donald is gravely, essentially an evil political force. This is not to judge his heart; we leave that to God; but to objectively evaluate his influence.

Full disclosure: psychiatrically I have been diagnosed with a severe  Biden-Aversion-Complex but am entirely free of Trump-Derangement-Syndrome so the analysis that follows is entirely sober, critical but appreciative, objective, fair, balanced and unafraid (just like Bret Baer at 6 PM on Fox). LOL!

Credit Where Credit is Due

His Supreme Court appointments make him, from the viewpoint of the unborn, the greatest pro-life President in history. He gets A+ for that and for his general forcefulness on the Culture War. Trump-haters say he could care less about the unborn but merely played to his base. I think he does care; I do not see him as a sociopath, bereft of empathy and conscience. But the correct response is that only God can see his soul and judge him. What we must judge, politically, is the objective value and consequence of his actions. He gets very high grades here, however impure his motives may be.

He is basically a celebrity and an entertainer. I never cared for him; but in the political arena, harassing the progressive elites, he is relieving, refreshing and sometimes comical. 

As a severe narcissist he has no real interest in governance or policy so he did little real damage to our institutions, restrained as he was by competent advisors and resilient national institutions. 

He presided over a world order of remarkable tranquility. This is undeniable, especially compared with the Obama and Bush years. I give him credit for: the Abrahamic Accords and forcing NATO to pay their due. I believe his unpredictability was a deterrent to aggressors. That worked well for that time but is not good policy in the long term. His good fortune was due (in my view) less to his policy than to events beyond his control. He needlessly weakened the trust of our allies; he despicably idolized tyrants like Putin; and he advocated isolation and abandonment of our proper role in deterring bad actors across the globe. On foreign affairs, I give him fair grades; better than Obama and far, far better than the Biden train wreck. 

He presided over a robust economy, especially contrasted with the inflation of the Biden years. Here again I give his policy partial credit as the economy is so complex that federal policy has (in my view) limited influence. This tax cuts surely energized the economy. But it also favored the rich, increased the deficit/debt, and contributed to long term inflation. I do not give him good grades on economics.

What's So Evil About Trump From a Catholic Perspective?

1. The Dignity of the Person. This is the foundation of all political life. In policy Trump is generally satisfactory, in some ways exemplary, and superior to the Democrats. But his personal language, behavior, and attitude convey raw contempt: of women, immigrants, anyone who opposes him. This is not just vulgarity or bad manners. This is moral decadence. 

2. Moral Exemplar. For all of us, but especially our young, he is an force for evil. He is a strong man and a powerful  influence. He springs from but intensifies the deepening decadence of our society. In addition to his contempt for the person, his indifference to truth and fact is simply breathtaking. He presents as populist but is in fact an indulgent, selfish child of privilege who shows no sign of compassion for the poor and suffering. We are all of us, always under mimetic influence. Everyone, but especially one in authority and the limelight, is a role model. As such, he is a catastrophe. This is not incidental, but essential to presidential leadership.

In a position of leadership we seek three qualities: competence in the task, a sound policy vision, and a personal (less than perfect) exemplar of the values of the community. My own view is that a resilient, stable institution (like the Church and the USA) can more easily endure weakness in competence or ideology than in moral character.

It is not that we expect a pure, innocent saint, but a man who personally represents in his person what our country stands for. This is the role of anyone in leadership at whatever level: not holiness, not perfection, but basic moral integrity and dignity. In my own lifetime, of 14 presidents, 11 from both parties have provided that. Even Nixon whom I never admired was publicly honorable; Kennedy, whose personal failings were largely unknown at the time, was an icon of dignity. The three exceptions: Clinton, with the Lewinsky scandal, opened the door to public acceptance of depravity. After that incident, a high school counselor told me that there was a new contagion of adolescent boys pressuring their girl friends for oral sex. Bill Clinton, if he does not burn eternally in hell, is looking at heavy purgatory time. Through that open door, fellow sexually-liberated Boomer-Trump shamelessly strolled. Even worse, Biden with his faux working-class-Catholic demeanor hypocritically betrayed his Church, abandoned his granddaughter, and leads the genocide of the unborn and the woke parade. As far as moral, mimetic contagion, we have in Clinton/Trump/Biden a genuine Axis of Evil.   

3. Hatred, Anxiety, Polarization. The role of leadership at any level is to unite participants around shared values. Trump is the mastermind in arousing populist fear, rage, suspicion and hatred. Likewise, in the opposition he elicits actual derangement: hysteria, irrationality, desperation, and contempt of the privileged for the lower class. This is not bad manners! This is, in the specific etymological meaning, diabolical: the "dia-bolic" or "tearing apart" of the body politic, into rage, hatred, anxiety and confusion.

4. Common Good vs. Individualism. Politics is "morality applied to society": it is about the common good, justice, rule of law, and solidarity with those afflicted and vulnerable. Even as they promote special interests and their own personal advancement, politicians appeal always to these primary values. Donald Trump is, by contrast, a cartoon caricature of the self-centered, indifferent, rich, powerful, privileged, arrogant, deceitful celebrity-narcissist. He vents hatred, rage, fear and contempt. Perhaps part of his appeal is that he is refreshingly free of hypocrisy: his amorality is blatant, uncamouflaged, and histrionic. His political vision is a vulgar, resentful nationalism, which is far from a wholesome patriotism. He is contemptuous of civil virtues of truthfulness, justice, humility, receptivity, care for the poor, reconciliation, and peace through contrition and forgiveness. 

My personal beef with Trump is his affect upon my older grandchildren: coming of age in his era in pure-blue NJ/NYC, they are nauseated by his moral stench and so pushed away from conservatism and towards progressivism. They already have a wholesome, understandable adolescent sympathy for liberal concerns like the environment, gun control, care of the poor/marginalized, and the dignity of women. Trump has placed a severe impediment in our intention to pass on our countercultural understanding of sexuality, gender, family, religious freedom and the unborn. In my primary concern of passing on my faith, Trump is my worst enemy. By a contrarian logic, I suspect that the more they see of Biden, the more they may be open to traditional moral values; the more they see of Trump the more they are repulsed by the same.

Defect in Judgement by the Catholic Trump Voter

Three dynamics are evident in the Catholic vote for Trump:

1. An exaggerated fear of the the progressive opposition along with an underestimation of our own conservative strength and resiliency. Yuval Levin accurately observes that both sides of the Culture War are prone to an hysteria that their side is losing and society is on the brink of collapse. Many smart liberals really think that democracy will be destroyed by a second Trump administration, even as his first did no real institutional damage. They bemoan an alleged "insurrection" as if we just had another civil war when a few hours after the riot Pence and the entire Republican establishment serenely ratified the election. Conservatives mirror this overreaction: a moronic memo by a handful of DOJ personnel is inflated into a systemic assault on traditional Catholicism. Conservatism is well served by sobriety, calm, a realistic evaluation of the internal incoherence and weakness of progressivism, and long-game confidence in the heavenly/earthly resources we have inherited.

2. An underestimation of the "Trump Effect": a view of him as a vulgar, crude man but overall a force for good in the context of the liberal threat. This fails to see the moral infection which he himself brings to the body politic. This is not a judgement about the state of his heart and soul; we leave that to God. It is a serene evaluation of his overall influence, culturally/morally/spiritually, for the heart of our country,  more than economic and power dynamics.

3. An unwillingness or inability to see any good in the liberals who are demonized into perverse cartoon figures. As a fierce moral conservative myself, I am sympathetic to their concerns about childhood poverty and hunger, gun control, the environment, a balanced regulatory environment, heavier taxation on the rich and hyper-rich, strong alliances across the globe, international cooperation including aid to the Ukraine. The "libs" are not as good as they think they are; but they are not as bad as the conservatives think they are.

Conclusion

This coming November I cannot vote for a Democrat and will not vote for Trump. I will stay up late, rooting for the defeat of the Left. Should Trump prevail, I will delight in the downfall of my enemy. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I will grieve the continued descent of our society into depravity. I will hope that the Republicans finally renounce the person of The Donald but retain what is best in his politics. I will hope that the Democrats succeed in the genuinely good they intend; and are restrained from the evil. I will pray for a moral/spiritual revival in our nation and our reconciliation/unification around all that is true, good, just.

The Eccentric, Brilliant Mystic

I was delighted, this past Saturday at the NY Encounter, by presentations about Monsignor  Lorenzo Albacete and Simone Weil. A starker contrast can hardly be imagined: the obese, cigarette smoking, disorganized and disheveled, fast-food-gorging, comic-scientist-theologian-Manhattan sophisticate-celebrity, Puerto Rican Monsignor friend of St. John Paul the Great. And: the austere, ascetic, Jewish-atheist-convert, anorexic (physical and spiritual), (Spanish) revolutionary failure, genius-philosopher, martyr-for-the-suffering, non-baptized (as far as we know) mystic. But then I realized: underneath, they are the same "form"...the eccentric, brilliant, mystic. This is absolutely one of my very favorite human types. 

"'Brilliant" is clear enough: their superior intelligence, conjoined to sterling character, tender heart and fierce spirit give them wisdom and extraordinary insight. "Mystic" is straightforward: they have been possessed by the love of God. "Eccentric" is more elusive, puzzling, and fascinating. The word means strange, odd, unconventional. Etymologically it means "out of center." Morally it is not good or bad. Oftentimes it describes behavior or personality that is harmless, but charming or endearing. But it can also imply disorder and underlying pathology. 

And so, for example, Albacete ate too much; Weil too little. Both failed the temperance test. But so flaming was their passion, affection, devotion, wisdom, faith, courage, and charm that those imperfections pale by comparison. They add to the attraction and fascination, like a slight beauty mark on the face of a stunning woman. Besides Albacete and Weil, my favorites: (BTW women outnumber men 6-5. No toxic, patriarchal misogyny here!)

- St. Charles de Focauld. The only canonized saint on my list. Spoiled, fat, rich boy; heroic military commander of Foreign Legion in North Africa; ground-breaking anthropologist, disguised as Russian Rabbi, of the Sahara; stern, rigorous monk-hermit-missionary; renown across the Sahara among the Bedouins for his holiness and generosity but murdered without a single disciple or convert.

- Caryll Houselander. Hard-drinking, heavy-smoking, tough-talking, English writer of sublime, inspirational spiritual literature. She fell in love and was spurned by a spy (who was basis for James Bond) and never married. Solidly Catholic, she was flamingly (small "c") catholic in finding Christ everywhere, way beyond ecclesiastical boundaries. Untrained in the discipline, she was renown during WWII for healing of those suffering emotional/psychological torment.

- Ivan Illich. The intellectual hero of my youth, erudite, anarchistic, Croatian-Jewish-Monsignor, laicized but faithful to his vows of celibacy and Liturgy of the Hours, mind-bogglingly radical critique of the bureaucratic Church (especially the self-satisfied Irish-American branch), and of modernity as technocracy. 

- Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin. Peter was the quirky, erudite, self-taught bookworm that gave the centered, solid Day the Catholic Worker vision of traditional piety, works of mercy, radical pacifism, and Christian anarchism that was entirely eccentric as fueled by love of God and the poor.

- Brennan Manning. Least likely to be canonized, this charismatic preacher/writer left the Church and the priesthood, married and divorced, remained trapped in his addiction, died of alcoholism, but dauntlessly proclaimed the unconditional love of Jesus Christ, for all us unworthy sinners, and was buried in St. Rose Catholic Church, Belmar, NJ.

- Heather King.  Recovering alcoholic-sex-love addict; survivor of multiple abortions; another writer of sublime, inspiring literature who rivals Caryll Houselander in her Catholic depth and catholic breath.

- Elizabeth Anscombe. Another odd, British genius like Houselander; best friend, protege and  executor for Ludwig Wittgenstein; mother-of-seven and happy wife; cigar-smoker; anti-war and anti-abortion and anti-contraception Catholic and radical (like Day and Maurin).

- Rose Hawthorn. Daughter of the literary giant, she left her husband to take care of the poor dying of cancer. An outlier, a puzzle, a challenge for us standard-order Catholics.

In my personal life, I have been drawn to and have drawn to myself similar, if more modest types: odd ducks with deep faith who delight me and bless me with mutual affection and respect.

In 1970, the year after college and before marriage, my best friends in Manhattan where I studied theology with the Jesuits and taught ESL in the South Bronx were: Gilbert Davidowitz, erudite linguistic researcher, Orthodox Jew, severe neurotic, tender friend and roommate; Tony Petrosky, another roommate, my boss at Puerto Rican Community Development Project, guitar-playing, pot-smoking, peace-exuding Hippy who lived in a tent for 3 years spending only $10 the entire time; and George Lissandrello, ex-seminarian-roommate, sensitive, antique-furniture-renovating, deeply spiritual and insightful, so-interesting, participant in the lower East Side gay community, victim of AIDs. 

My best friend ever (except my wife) was John Rapinich: beatnik friend of Kerouac and Ginzburg, convert, charismatic, artist, book worm, uncle to my children, little-big-brother to me, NeoCat, deep Catholic, free spirit. 

And I number among my best adult friends about 8 "maverick priests" (subject of a prior blog essay) who are each, in more modest proportion, eccentric, brilliant mystics. 

In heaven I aspire to spend a lot of time with these folks. I am not one myself. But I pride myself that I am odd enough, smart enough and pious enough to recognize one when I see one!