Every person, community and institution, is an interplay of the masculine and the feminine. "Male and female He created them." About 20 years ago, a Felician nun graphologist studied my handwriting and found "a strong female influence." I took that as descriptive rather than evaluative, not necessarily good or bad: on the one hand we have Eve misleading Adam, the seductive femme fatale, the smothering mother with the Moma's boy; on the other hand we have Mary, our Blessed Mother. But I have always cherished the description. First of all, because I have been
fine women. Secondly, because I am convinced that genuine virility at its core is reverence, tenderness, affection, delight, intimacy, receptivity, gentle strength and generosity towards the feminine. Lastly, I share the Catholic Marian intuition of the vast superiority...spiritual, moral, emotional, social...of the feminine over the masculine. It is male inferiority that requires compensation by a degree of free, generous entrustment by the female; even as it is his evident deficiency that makes him a fitting
of the Father. Peter is so defective that there is little danger of deifying him; but the feminine is in itself so radiant that it lends itself to the pantheism of "Mother Earth."
I believe that the singular significant development in late 20th century Catholic theology was the conjugal mysticism of John Paul, Balthasar, Benedict, DeLubac, Speyr and others. This is a re-gestalt of Catholicism, in all essential elements, around the spousal communion of man/woman as the defining analogy of our relationship with God in Christ. In this view, the male/female communion of the male and the female, equal in dignity but distinct, in love is iconic of the inner life of the Trinity, three equal persons in perfect union yet infinitely distinct. The marital union of man/woman assumes at once equality in dignity and immense distinction. It is the highest expression of the love of the Trinity in the created realm. And so, regarding the Church, Father Von Balthasar famously contrasted the Marian (feminine) and Petrine (male, clerical) dimensions of the Church, highlighting the vast superiority, in Catholicism, of the former.
With that in mind, let's consider the interplay of the masculine/feminine in the renewal, especially lay, movements in the Church in recent history. We'll contrast three types: strongly feminine, balanced and integrated, and predominantly masculine. Our assumption is that accepting the Marian/Petrine mystery, the ideal is a balance that distinguishes and yet values both in a way that is integral, wholesome, chaste, reverent, tender, delighted, and fruitful. If St. Peter, his office and his descendants represent the Petrine/masculine; and Mary is the perfect embodiment of the feminine; than St. John, intimate with Christ and his mother, represents Christian life at its most integral, balanced, complete.
Strongly Feminine
To the Catholic mind, creation in relation to the Creator, Israel in relation to its Lord, the Church in relation to Christ the Groom, and the personal soul in relation to God are all receptive, feminine or bridal. This is clear, if understated, in scripture: Mary as mother of Jesus and the Church, the women close to Jesus even at the foot of the cross, the apostolic primacy of Mary Magdalen after the Resurrection. To the Catholic imagination, male and female are equal in ontological dignity, but distinct: the masculine is representative in its final form as paternity of God; but the feminine in itself is superior morally, spiritually, emotionally. One of the startlingly novel expressions of the Gospel was the powerful, anti-cultural, extra-patriarchal draw of women to the virginal life. Catholicism, especially in the cult of Mary, is the most "feminine" of all branches of Christianity and probably of all world religions. Protestantism and Islam are especially clear in their spiritual diminishment of femininity. Through most of our Catholic history, the religious feminine has found expression in women's religious orders. The good thing: women found here a realm free of male dominance in which they exercised freedom and agency, intimate with their spiritual spouse, our Lord Jesus. The bad thing: there was a distance between the feminine and masculine which impoverished both. Additionally, there was a class-like structure which elevated the ordained, male hierarchy over the lower echelon sisters. Wholesome, holy, humble priests and nuns transcended this dysfunctional division. But human nature being what it is (fallen), this was not the norm or the rule. In recent years (since Vatican II) we have the tendency of progressive nuns to (understandable) resentment. And the all male clerical state has always been prone to the immaturity and self-centeredness of the bachelor that fails in reverence, tenderness and affection for the feminine.
1. Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker
Day (along with similar 20th century Catholic women: Catherine de Hueck Doherty, Madeleine Delbrel) was fierce, fearless, determined, holy and passionately in love with Christ, his Church and the poor and suffering. They were lay, not religious, and so differ from predecessors like St. Mother Francis Xavier Cabrini, St. Mother Katherine Drexell, Rose Hawthorne, Mother Margaret Cusak and so many others. Their feminine ferocity, determination, selflessness, courage, confidence, liberty of spirit, and perseverance puts to shame contemporary feminism in it upper class comfort, indulgence, entitlement, sexual license, privilege, misandry, and embryo-phobia.
Day was a free and intrepid spirit, a voracious reader, a gifted writer, a deep thinker, a holy woman and a huge influence upon American Catholic culture. She was femininity at its most intense and fierce. But, in accord with Catholic tradition, she was receptive of the masculine and the Petrine (hierarchical/sacramental): she received her partner Peter Maurin (notice first name!) as her intellectual mentor, even as she was clearly the leading force of the Catholic Worker. She was in all essential things deferential to the magisterial Church, even as she operated with liberty in the face of disapproval of her political radicalism. In a distinctive manner, she combined flawlessly orthodox Catholic piety (for example, in all things sexual) with far left politics.
She reigned unchallenged as matriarch of the Catholic Worker, her child. She was no misandrist: she revered Maurin and the Catholic hierarchy and remained close to her lover/baby-father all her life. But her ferocious femininity, expressed in the Catholic Worker, was unbalanced by a comparable masculinity. We see this specifically in her pacifism and anarchism. Both these ideologies are lacking in masculine intuitions about the necessity of lethal force to restrain predators and the need for law, regulation and authority in human community. And so, the Catholic Worker, strong in maternity but weak in paternity, in pure form, and extended broadly, leads to chaos and vulnerability.
She, along with her soul mates like Doherty and Delbrel, embody a flaming, inspirational femininity that is nevertheless receptive of, if not quite balanced by the masculine/petrine/paternal.
2. Chiara Lubich and the Focolari
A delightful documentary on Chiara, available streaming on the EWTN channel, strikingly portrays the fierce-but-feminine heroine, in war torn Italy 1943, with her small group of girl friends, courageously serving the poor and suffering. She is intensely devout, receptive of guidance from spiritual directors and ecclesial authorities who are initially hostile and disrespectful. The fierce, fearless, radiant, holy femininity she and her friends demonstrate easily transcends the violence of the fascists as well as traditional Italian machismo. In a memorable scene, many are gathered in an underground shelter during bombing when a violent argument erupts between two men. Chiara stands observing; clearly incapable of physically intervening; when a half-asleep drunk starts quietly singing a sweet Italian melody that could have been a hymn or a child's tune. Chiara is sensitive to it; she listens; quietly joins in; gradually others, mostly women and children, also join in. Eventually a peace descends upon all, including the combatants.
The word "Focolari" derives from the Italian word for "hearth." This signals the nurturing elements of warmth, nurture, enclosure.
She is grilled mercilessly by the Vatican office (formerly the Inquisition) in a manner dismissive, contemptuous, and judgmental. But her clarity, certainty, and humility win the day: finally the suspicious Cardinals grand the goodness of the movement.
The Focolari movement has permission from the Vatican to be led, always, by a woman. In granting this unusual permission, John Paul acknowledged its "Marian" nature. I have had little personal contact with this group over the years. But their exclusive (feminine) focus upon unity and love did not appeal to my masculine psyche. However the striking documentary convinced me of the authenticity of this charism and mission.
Masculine Movements
By contrast, consider masculine, largely clerical rather than lay, movements.
1. Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. These are a favorite of mine as I live near NYC where they originated; have been in close contact with them over the years; and I have admired their founders, especially Fr. Benedict Groschel. I view them as the marines or navy seals of Catholicism: the most militant, combative, aggressive. What the Jesuits were over 400 years. While too much of the priesthood has become emasculated since the Council, this group is the opposite extreme. They live poorly; they serve the very poor; they evangelize clearly, energetically, certainly, boldly. They are Culture Warriors par excellence: intrepid and lucid in articulation of our faith and renunciation of error. Their devotion to Mary and Church as bride of Christ bring a feminine balance. But arguably, it is not adequate to offset a kind of machismo common in all-male groups whether police, sailors or friars.
2. Opus Dei and Legionnaires of Christ. These are quite similar: Hispanic, clerical, masculine, traditional. Again, the Marian dimension is recognized in the mode of class Catholic piety, but that is
hardly adequate to modulate male tendencies to a moralistic, rigid clericalism.
Personally I have had minimum personal contact with Opus Dei but I identify it with knowledgeable, upper class, confident priests. I cannot recall any women associated with it.
I have a fair personal acquaintance with Regnum Christi, specifically the woman's division which for a time attempted to recruit my own teenage daughters. They were unfailingly elegant, articulate, devout, attractive young women. (In that sense, my daughters would have fit right in...in my opinion😀.) With time, however, two specific problems became obvious.
First, their engagements (meetings, retreats) were clearly intended to recruit into their organization. There was little sense of strengthening the vocation of one who was not moving in their direction. In that sense it reflected a "cult-like" (but certainly not a cult as they are entirely Catholic) impulse to define themselWves as the "elect" against a world, and much of the Church, that is in deep darkness.
Secondly, more pertinently in regard to our topic, the men and women were kept absolutely apart from each other. This went well beyond a prudent concern to protect chastity against weakness of the flesh. It reflected a toxic suspicion, a distrust, a paralyzing anxiety about men being with women. It of course made complete sense when we learned the full details of the sexual depravity of their founder.
In that sense, they present a negative model of the inter-gender dynamic. However, I hasten to add: the light shines quite brightly, especially in the darkness. And we do marvel: while a good tree bears good fruit, it is not unknown that a bad tree bears good fruit and a good tree bad fruit. My daughter did her doctorate in psychology at the Institute for Psychological Science, founded by the Legionnaires, where she enjoyed wholesome, inspiring relations among male and female faculty and students.
3. Charismatic Renewal
With this movement I have personal familiarity as my wife and I participated vigorously in the 1970s, when it was developing and expanding in the United States. In large part, under the leadership of Ralph Martin and Steve Clark, in Ann Arbor, it was an infusion of Pentecostal and Evangelical spirituality into Catholicism: prayer in tongues, deliverance from evil spirits, miraculous healings, prophesies and inspirations, strong spiritual authority and discipleship, and (importantly for our purposes) very strong distinction in gender roles. In all of this bold supernaturalism, of course, it was a powerful reaction against the naturalist, progressive forces dominant in the Church after the Council, including feminism, hatred of patriarchy and the deconstruction of gender.
The core of this view is the Pauline intuition of Christ's sacrifice of himself on the cross as the inner form the spousal love of the husband and the bridal Church's reception of this love as informing the free, deliberate, serene entrustment by the bride of herself to her groom. This distinction, John Paul especially emphasized, was always in the context of Paul's prior and primary exhortation that the spouses defer to each other mutually, equally. At the time, I received this teaching as an encouraging call to emulate Christ in generous, strong-but-gentle sacrifice.
This view is, obviously, to the culturally progressive mind, at best incoherent and unintelligible, at worst a smokescreen for patriarchy as toxic male oppression and misogyny. The language used was not helpful: male "headship." This word clearly implies subordination, inequality, and diminishment of the feminine.
This model was problematic for our own marriage. My wife despised the term "head" and the subordination entailed. I consciously embraced the ideal of emulating Christ in humility, generosity and sensitivity. But intentions do not translate directly to deed. We already had a power inequality in our marriage: I am three years older, firstborn of nine, confident and assertive in my views and preferences, and comfortable with authority and hierarchical structures (Church, schools, UPS where I worked). Without deliberation or intention, I tended to spontaneously overwhelm my wife who was by nature less certain, secure, confident, assertive and more generous. In a subtle manner, this teaching tended to aggravate this dynamic of unequal power. My wife preferred the language of St. John Paul II who called for "mutual submission" between the spouses. We are now married almost 54 years and continue to struggle with the mystery of our marriage: pride, selfishness, insecurity, control...compassion, sensitivity, trust, generosity, humility.
Moving into the 1980s, we ourselves detached from charismatic renewal as our prayer group ended, we took up normal Catholic parish/family life, and the movement diminished as a cultural force. However, a small number of charismatics joined together in intensive "covenant communities" including locally the People of Hope and the Community of God's Love in the Newark area. These followed the gender philosophy of the "Sword of the Spirit" that became increasingly extreme and countercultural. In the strongest forms, this was shamelessly countercultural, especially in restrictions on women: in higher education they were directed to education and nursing, appropriate sports included gymnastics and dance but not softball or basketball, skirts (no pants!) were to be below the knee, and so forth. In our own area, northern NJ, a major controversy erupted between the People of Hope and Archbishop Peter Gerity. This division continued for many years but has diminished as the community is now in very good standing with the archdiocese.
From a distance, I followed this drama with great interest, The rejection of the monotony of androgyny was a relief, but clearly an overreaction. We raised our own family(I like to think) so as to blend the contemporary with the classically Catholic, avoiding the extremism of the covenant communities, in tune with conjugal mysticism and the following two movements which have influenced us.
Happy Marriage...Balanced, Integrated, Mutually Enchanted and Reverent...of Man and Woman
1. Communion and Liberation, out of Italy in the 1960s, is striking in the wholesome, free, relaxed, trusting, creative relationships between men and women. There is no trace of the suspicion and anxiety of Regnum Christi, nor of the stereotyping of the charismatic at its worst. We observe this every year at the jubilant New York Encounter which is a high energy event overflowing with attractive, intelligent, educated, devout but sophisticated young adults. More personally, we know it through our daughter who is a member of the Memores Domini, a community of women (and separately men) living, in community, the evangelical promises (poverty, chastity, obedience) while pursuing secular careers. From the founder, Monsignor Luigi Giussani, a renaissance man of our time, an extraordinary confidence, optimism, and trust in regard to culture, the Church, and specifically the serendipitous chemistry between the masculine and the feminine.
Their movement has not been free of the sexual scandal that seems to plague the entire Church. Arguably, their positivity needs correction by a prudent vigilance regarding (classically) the world, the flesh and the devil. Nevertheless, they are inspiring and encouraging in the joy, vigor, dignity, strength and generosity they radiate in the interaction of men and women.
The strongest evidence that the Sword of the Spirit and the covenant movement has gained some equilibrium is Amy Comey Barrett, so impressive in intellect, influence, character and luminous femininity...a product of and current participant in the People of Praise community in South Bend: "by their fruits you will know them."
2. Neocatechumenal Way, out of Spain in the 1960s, is a contrast to Communion and Liberation, but similar in its wholesome balance in the male/female dynamic. If CL is confident, dialogic, and respectful in the encounter with the broader culture, this "way" is defensive, vigilant, militant. It is perhaps the strongest expression of the famed "Benedict Option" as a qualified "retreat" from society to create a powerful intentional Catholic community, even more intense than the charismatic covenant communities. But there is a wholesome, balanced mutuality of reverence in tenderness in the husband and wife dynamic. The catechist (the real leaders) are lay, prominently including married couples. While there is a strong sense of the paternal and maternal roles (especially since they have very large families), there is no diminishment of the feminine, no hint of toxic patriarchy. Rather, in the communities (several) that I have personally known, the strength of the women is quite striking. For example, my own catechists were Frank and Jeanne Palumbo. Frank was a fireman who charged into the world trade center on 9/11 (straight into the arms of God) and left Jeanne with 11 children, including a newborn. Frank was a strong, impressive man; Jeanne was a quiet powerhouse...understated, intelligent, calm, reassuring. Their mutuality-in-strength was emulated by the catechist that succeeded them: David and Carmen. My observation was that the men did more of the talking; but the women were more intense and forceful when it mattered. This is neither a patriarchy, nor a matriarchy. Rather, the large families and expanding communities that they tend require comparable, but distinct strengths from both partners. It is now my delight to observe my son and his wife emulating this spiritual dignity.
Conclusion: Credit to (Some of) the Boomers
Every marriage, family, generation, society, community and relationship is a dense, creative, complex, eventful interaction of the masculine and the feminine. Perhaps none has been as chaotic and dramatic as my own generation that came of age in the 1960s. I have considerable shame as our generation largely ingested the toxicities of the Sexual Revolution and Cultural Progressivism. However, as I review the surprising, inspiring developments of my lifetime, I see that select groups of our generation have had immense influence, for the good, on the Church and world. Crucial movements that have influence our marriage and family came out of the 1960s: CL in Italy around 1968, Neocatechumenal Way out of Spain around 1962, and the Charismatic Renewal in Duquesne in 1967...all very close to Vatican II. These were all carried by elites of our generation: CL was really started by the college students influenced by Monsignor Giussani; the movement of Kiko and Carmen was brought to the USA by Giuseppe and Claudia Generelli who are about my age; and Charismatic Renewal was led by Steve Clark and Ralph Martin, young adults at the time.
While not all of my children are deliberate disciples of these schools, I am delighted that they all enact the same basic Catholic values in their distinctive marriages and families. And it is my fervent hope that my grandchildren, as they approach and enter adulthood, will receive, cherish, protect, develop and share the rich inheritance we have been given.
