Confusion about Holy Orders in the Magisterium of Pope Francis

 The sharp clergy/laity binary is crystal clear and decisive for the structure of Catholicism. The clergy or hierarchy or priesthood is:

- Continuance of the apostolic college of 12 specific men designated by Christ to do his work.

- Endowed with the charism, authority and mission to teach, sanctify (especially through the sacramental economy) and govern the Church.

- A clearly defined clerical cult that is carefully chosen and vetted, very thoroughly trained, entirely masculine, normally celibate, vowed to obedience to the Church, and highly esteemed by the laity.

By contrast, we laity are not passive, but primarily receptive in our communion with the Church. We receive the Word of God, the sacramental actions, the sanctifying Holy Spirit. We are the bride, responding to the initiatives of the Groom; we are sons and daughters of Mother Church; we are the (hopefully good) soil that receives the seed. 

We are active, not passive members of the Communion that is the Church. But as lay we are first and foremost receptive. There are specific activities and ministries that we perform. Especially (for me) catechesis as well as theology which includes laity. Within the liturgy itself we have lectors, choir, ushers, altar servers and other. Nevertheless, we are primarily receptive of the graces Christ pours upon his people, through the sacramental events presented by the priesthood.

Filled up with God's grace in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, we reemerge into our worlds...family, work, culture, politics, entertainment, etc....with an overflow and radiance of faith and love to enlighten, relieve, comfort, encourage, evangelize, catechize and instruct those around us.

And so, we see two distinct arenas: the Church proper (worship, teaching, common life) which is the specific expertise (by training and the sacrament of Holy Orders) of priests and the secular, extra-ecclesial, world of family, work, politics, culture and society which is the domain of the laity in its diversity and complexity.  Priests/bishops have a special charism for ecclesial live; laity properly minister in all shared areas of life. Priests have no particular expertise in secular/lay areas; the laity lack the specific charism for ecclesial life.

The magisterium of Pope Francis has confused this distinction in two ways: "synodality" and his political agenda.

"Synodality"

The core concern of "synodality" seems to be that we listen to each other, all of us, especially bishops who rule the Church. This is correct of course. Listening to each other within the Church is what breathing is to the body: essential. This goes without saying. We cannot possibly be too attentive, empathetic, open-minded, curious, affirmative, tender and reverent in our reception of each other...even those in error/sin or those hostile to us.

But is it a good idea to institutionalize this in bureaucratic forms? In mandatory, expensive, extended gatherings? And then endow these meetings with "synodality," a vague, undefined authority that seems to replace that assigned by ordination to bishops? No! Not a good idea!

Endowing these new, mixed lay/clerical "synods" with authority is an insult to sacrament of Holy Orders and the priesthood/episcopacy. It confuses things: replacing traditional episcopal authority with a convoluted faith in a group process.

The fascination with "synodality" as a novel process, promising a new Church, is reminiscent of the obsession, in the late 1960s and 70s, with group dynamics such as encounter/sensitivity sessions, flowing from the humanistic psychology of Rogers, Maslow and others. These were popular, influential and largely destructive, particularly in religious orders that embraced them, as they exalted anti-traditional values like authenticity, transparency, autonomy,  unrestrained expressiveness in aggression/ sexuality, triumph of the therapeutic and the narcissistic/sovereign Self. 

In part, "synodality" flows from Francis' resentful judgment against a hierarchy viewed as "clerical" in the negative sense: detached, arrogant, condescending, and rigid. This has been a strong theme in this papacy: clergy/episcopacy as removed from real human suffering, ceremonial, moralistic, dogmatic, and superior. There is no doubt some truth in this perspective. But his transparent, emotional aversion, joined with the manipulative strategy to undo it bureaucratically is not a fruitful approach. Long term, it will provoke negative reaction from younger clergy who are more conservative than Francis and his generation.

Traditionalists look to the past at a defining, revelatory event, in our case the Pasch of Jesus, and a history, in our case the saints, dogma, practices through the centuries. This is not a static museum-type thing; but an organic, living, fruitful and creative development. By contrast, progressives in some form despise the past and look to the future to overcome it whether through science/technology, education, therapy, sexual liberation, or revolution of the oppressed. Pope Francis, always complicated and confusing, looks to the future, to "synodality" as a messianic dynamic. Such does not flow organically from our tradition, but contradicts it, specifically regarding ordination. It is an implicit ingratitude to our legacy of faith.

A Clericalist, Political Agenda

About a year ago, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark declared in a lecture that Francis is the protagonist opposed to Trump and the new wave of rightwing populists. He meant it to be flattering; it was in fact a damning condemnation. But it was the truth. Francis has strenuously, systemically advocated a clear, developed political agenda for the world: open borders, capital punishment as absolutely prohibited (instead of the traditional Catholic view of it as a prudential option), global warming as a priority, distaste for American conservatism (even the prolife movement), and a soft pacifism that (initially) treated the Russian invasion of the Ukraine as understandable but the Israeli action in Gaza as genocide. 

By virtue of his sacramental ordination, his education, and his natural temperament, our Holy Father has no charism or expertise in matters of diplomacy and politics. His area is faith and morals. Ironically, he sees himself as a populist, but positions himself against the populist movements which he broadly condemns, aligning himself as "chaplain" of the progressive Western program on these issues. Even more ironically, the anti-clericalist pope shows himself to be blatantly clericalist (in the worst sense) as he uses his sacral position to advance a political agenda to his own liking. In doing so, he loses his position as detached, transcendent and free to speak prophetically to all political actors.

Conclusion

Our priesthood/episcopacy is under attack from all directions. The scandal. The Dallas Charter in which the bishops betrayed our priests. Continued tolerance of abuse in Rupnik and other cases. Decline in vocations. We see in the above further insult and injury: "synodality" as disrespectful of holy orders; papal aversion to an alleged clericalism; and the papal, clericalist intrusion into the secular on behalf of a progressive political agenda.

A fine Catholic theologian serenely replied to me, after I voiced concerns similar to the above, "Our next pope will have a lot of work to do in unraveling so much." 

We pray for our pope, bishops, priests...and for vocations:

Come Holy Spirit!

Chivalry, Femininity/Masculinity, and the Heroic Vocations

 The heroic vocations inherently include willingness to die in the agonistic combat with violent, hostile forces: soldier, police, firefighter. That is why they are heroic.

They are quintessentially masculine as they engage the primal virile mission: protection and provision for the community and the vulnerable, especially the mother with children. Masculinity itself is defined as strength in such protection and provision. This strength itself is further informed by humility, gentleness, chastity, sobriety, prudence and justice.

Chivalry is far more than an antiquated medieval code or a style of politeness and niceness. It is the defining, virtuous, reverent, tender, virile posture, towards women, children, the suffering and vulnerable of protective, nurturing strength informed by humility, gentleness, chastity, courage, and prudence.

Chivalry is a masculine, not a feminine and not an androgynous ethos. A man holds the door for a woman; ladies before gentlemen. These are simple but significant symbols of a chivalrous way of life.

The Catholic form of chivalry proposed here is best understood as the commingling of the heroic, noble, honor-based ethos of traditional warrior cultures with the following of Jesus up the hill of Calvary. If Catholicism is the fruit of Athens, Jerusalem and Rome; chivalry merges Sparta and Nazareth. It is a cult of courage, strength, sacrifice, brotherhood, combat. But the negatives of that warrior ethos...male dominance, pride, cruelty, tribalism...are leavened by the spirit of the beatitudes...humility, service, compassion, mercy, magnanimity.

The fierce, aggressive, passionate, selfish male urges must be shaped, in a long itinerary of formation, into a virtuous posture, especially to women/children/vulnerable, in camaraderie with brothers, of humility, courage, chastity, and generosity. Women do not require such a rigorous program of mentoring, testing, discipline, encouragement and eventual installation. Maternity, in contrast with paternity, is more instinctive and natural.

The deconstruction of masculinity/femininity, especially the rituals/practices/values of the chivalrous code, is THE DEFINING CATASTROPHE OF OUR SOCIETY.

Chivalry requires filial reverence and obedience to elders, tradition, and authority. Reception of authority, in free submission, leads eventually to an endowment of such authority. This is not power, as the forceful overpowering of others, but authority as a representation of transcendental Truth, Good and Beauty.

Chivalry requires  the camaraderie, brotherhood, in mutual loyalty, fidelity to higher causes, wholesome competition, shared generosity, and chaste intimacy.

Chivalry requires, in relationship to women, the comfort/confidence/mutuality of brother/sister; a modest, proper distance; and a maturity and moderation in expressions of affection and attraction.

There is a proper and fruitful place in society for same-sex association. Obviously in athletics. But generally, women and men both require spaces to engage with each other without the other sex. This happens spontaneously: in gatherings of family and friends, much of the time is spent, fluidly, in separate gatherings as we share our common interests. 

When men and women each develop strong, intimate friendships with their own gender they satisfy much of their emotional needs for love and closeness. This is healthy in that they bring less neediness to romance and marriage. The crisis in marriage, with divorce rate around 50%, and the difficulties our youth face in courtship, are in some degree rooted in the attack upon single sex cultures. For this reason I strongly favor same-sex high schools. The best preparation for marriage is solid same sex friendships, through high school and college, with avoidance of heavy sexual and romantic involvements.

In chivalrous masculine culture men encourage each other in reverence and tenderness towards women. Such a culture requires segregation. We see this in sports, priesthood, military, police, fire and various associations.

In my UPS delivery days, I recall one Christmas working on my truck with a helper and a supervisor, a sweet, competent, attractive Afro-American woman of slight build. We were loaded down with hundreds of packages. Early in the morning she became sick in her stomach. We decided to leave her at the local library where she made a call and returned to the center. My response to her was emotional: very paternal, protective and tender. I was quite distracted from our "mission" until we left her at the library. If that were a sturdy male, I would have been far less tender and distracted. I would have detached and focused upon my work and left him to take care of himself. 

Is that a double standard? Absolutely! And a wholesome, chivalrous one!

I like this hypothetical: The high school boys and girls swimming teams are on a cruise in the Caribbean when the boat begins to sink, far from land. There are 10 girls and 10 boys but the lifeboat holds only 10. Who goes on the boat? This is a no-brainer to the chivalrous mind: the girls of course. But in an androgynous world this does not work. The coach might pick the weakest swimmers. Or, possibly there would be chaotic competition with most of the stronger boys prevailing.

In general, women do not belong in military combat, firefighter duty, and much of police work. These agonistic, forceful engagements require, even more than physical strength,  a detachment and a focus upon the mission. Fighting a fire, an enemy or a fire in the company of women is a detriment as one's chivalrous instincts detract from the battle.

Several years ago a NYC fireman was telling me that his station had a new woman captain. The men did not trust her. They already had a plan for the next fire by which they would circumvent her leadership. This is a problem. I would leave the fire department to men. This is not a terrible injustice!

I  do have high esteem for women police due to our experience at Magnificat Home. We have had perhaps 100 visits from the Jersey City police over the years. They are always a diverse group ethnically, professional, courteous, and often include one or more women. The women are especially good at deflating our problematic crises: compassionate, comforting and reassuring to our women who are upset or in conflict. A large, strong, male policeman in uniform with gun protruding simply cannot be as comforting as a smaller woman.

It is an unfortunate that these vocations do attract a number of violent, sociopathic an predatory men. These are often powerful, charismatic individuals who draw others into supporting their violence by virtue of the code of loyalty that binds men joined in life-threatening combat. This makes it all the more important that young men of good character serve in these arenas.

Let's bring back virile character, chivalry and the cult of heroism!

The Paradox of the Good and the Bad in a "Great Man of History": Donald Trump

In my lifetime (b.1947) there are perhaps six "great men" who have immensely influenced our world, for good or bad, changing the direction of history: Stalin, Mao, Churchill, Gandhi (including his influence on ML King), Ronald Reagan and John Paul II. Clearly, the first two were for the bad; the last four the good.

Donald Trump is well on his way to joining this elite group. He has singlehandedly reconfigured the political culture of our nation; and is now working upon the globe. But for the good or the bad? He is larger than life; a superhero/villain out of Marvel comics. Amazingly polarizing! About 40% of us see him as a pure evil; about 40% dismiss his flaws and see him as our salvific hero. A smaller number of us enjoy some clarity and sobriety in seeing both sides. 

Ten Best Things

1. From the perspective of the unborn, he is the liberational champion of the ages. Specifically in his court appointments. Liberals disparage his sincerity and intentions. It is best not to judge the heart of another. But we can and must judge actions and policies: on this he is both great and good!

2. Singlehandedly, he has stopped (at least for now) the "march through the institutions" by the progressive cultural revolutionaries. When DEI, LGBTQ and the woke axis had near total control of all the higher institutions of society, he rallied moral conservatives and disgruntled populists to stop the crusade. This is truly breathtaking and encouraging!

3. Religious liberty. Traditional Christians, Catholic and Evangelical/Pentecostal, have in him a genuine champion as he protects our freedom from the quiet, insidious totalitarianism of the cultural left.

4. Populist: He voices the dissatisfaction of the lower classes in a society that increasingly privileges the already wealthy and educated. He has not proposed a viable agenda to correct things. But he does voice their grief in his defiance of the liberal hegemony.

5. Globally, he already sensed the changing dynamics of our world: the emergence of a hostile China; the necessity for Europe to take responsibility for NATO; the toxicity of Iran; the limits of American power in a multi-polar world.

6. The Abrahamic Accords, in aligning Israel with the Sunni states against Iran, is especially prescient and promising.

7. He closed our southern border.

8. He is in many (but not all) ways a strong, courageous, energetic, virile man. His fist pump, after being shot, blood running down his cheeks, became an unforgettable icon of virility and drew many young men, across races and ethnicities, to him. His level of energy since taking office, contrast to Biden, is extraordinary.  He represents in some degree a cultural resurgence (albeit crude) of masculinity.

9. Shamelessly transparent in his many ugly dimensions, he is refreshingly free of any self-righteous, hypocritical, moralistic facades. He is wildly interesting and entertaining: a true celebrity. Politics for him is largely performance, histrionics and camp. He is very good at this.

10. I can only think of 9. But I have 11 negatives for an even 20 total.

Ten Worst Things

1. In his bottomless narcissism, he is entirely indifferent to Truth and disconnected in major ways from reality.

2. The contempt he shows for others...opponents, foreigners, women...is morally despicable. In ordinary times, this alone would disqualify him for boy scout leader, much less president. As a role model (which is a huge part of his job) he is a catastrophe!

3. His personal vindictiveness and resentment are unmanly, cowardly and toxic for politics and culture.

4. So voracious is his expansive Ego that he has no respect for institutions. These he uses for his own enrichment as he is the epitome of the Narcissistic Personality of our times. 

5. More specifically, he has little regard for constitutional order, the rule of law, or protocols of ordinary decency as he expands the executive office without restraint. 

6. In policy he is impulsive, irrational and lacking in any clarity and coherence. This includes tariffs, diplomacy, and every aspect. This makes for uncertainty, instability and anxiety. Very dangerous diplomatically. (Even as this very unpredictability may deter bad actors.)

7. He  appeals to base populist instincts, anxiety and resentment, inflaming them without directing them in a positive directions.

8. In his contempt for his political adversaries, he polarizes the society and heightens anxiety, anger, distrust and sadness.

9. His MAGA agenda is xenophobic, jingoistic, and alienating of our allies in a multi-polar world where alliances will be crucial to prevail against the various axes of evil.

10. His idolization of and infatuation with Putin is idiotic, insane and extremely dangerous.

11. He shows little empathy for the poor and suffering. Specifically, his tax plans emphasize tax cuts for the investor class, arguing the "trickle down theory" that an expansive economy favors all, even as he increases the national debt with inflationary consequences. On another front, the abrupt curtailing of USAID funds for the poor overseas was breathlessly coldhearted.

How do we weigh these 11 negatives against the 9 positives? This is a subjective, prudential decision; almost a Rorschach test.  Even two or three of the negatives should disqualify him. But, the deeper weakness and depravity of the alternative party serve to highlight his strengths and diminish his weaknesses. That (more than the price of eggs or an alleged "white racism") is why he was elected.

Letter to Grandchildren: On the Vocation of Soldier/Police/Firefighter

 I would call these the heroic vocations, or the anti-violence vocations: you place your life in the line of fire, risking death, to protect the community from violence. They, in my view, are the very highest secular vocations. They are inferior, of course, to the priesthood and religious life, which are of their very nature, objectively closer to Christ. (Subjectively, we know, many lay people are deeply holy; and some priests and religious are deeply sinful.)

Yesterday Luke visited West Point and was favorably impressed. Fr. Gabe Costa, friend of Fr. Joe, chaplain and math professor, explained that the place resembles a seminary in its formative dimension, unlike most college life. Tommy has also expressed interest. I would never push anyone towards or away from a specific vocation: this is a matter of the heart and mind in union with God. But we do well to consider the nature and value of different vocations. 

Our family leans overwhelmingly into human services: psychology, medicine, teaching. We have no one in the fire or police departments. Paul Anthony served in the army as JAG lawyer; cousin Connor is a DOJ prosecutor, which is very close to police work. Going back in time, all of my five uncles (4 Laracy and 1 Gallagher) served honorably in World War II. Uncle Jack Laracy fought with Patton. Uncle Bill Gallagher was awarded the Purple Heart (wounded in battle) and went on to serve many years, secretively, in army intelligence.

My generation came of age in the anti-military fervor of the Vietnam war era. We boomers, especially the loudest, cockiest and most influential of us, have carried a prejudice against the military. In liberal and progressive circles (but not in the lower echelons of society, or the South) a cloud of shame hangs over things military. There abides a soft pacifism that blames American militarism, imperialism, and colonialism for much of our global violence. And so: the oil greed of the USA fuels the turmoil in the Middle East; NATOs ambitions regarding Ukraine triggered Putin's invasion. 

When Obama took office, there were great expectations for an era of peace, especially in the Middle East: he would break with the oil fascination and Neo-conservative militarism of Bush with his own Muslim background and his enlightened reasonableness and inclination to dialogue. What ensued, of course, was that the entire region exploded in violence. This was neither caused by nor could it have been prevented by Obama. But it unveils the illusory progressive optimism that underlaid the scapegoating of American power as the root of all evil.

Denial of Evil: The Root Error of Progressivism. Secular progressivism most fundamentally denies the realities of sin (original, mortal and venial), Satan, and hell....the world, the flesh and the devil...our perennial enemies! It confesses that these are myths, non-entities, and that we humans can bring happiness by our own agency through: therapy, education, negotiation, open-mindedness, science, technology, globalism rather than nationalism/localism, the inevitable "arc of history," the "awokening" of the oppressed and victory over the oppressors. And so, we can: defund the police; disarm ourselves; embrace anti-racism and the entire woke agenda; liberate our sexuality; empower the enlightened, liberal, mother-state; and live in utopia here on earth forever.

Evil today. Consider:

- The details of the Hamas attack on Oct 7, 2023.  The rape, torture and murder, even of mothers and children in each others presence. The continued captivity of the hostages. The placement of Hamas militia in hospitals, schools, nurseries.

- Russia's unprovoked invasion of the Ukraine with its relentless bombing of civilian populations.

- The massive, near total suppression of human rights and dignity in China, North Korea as well as Cuba, Venezuela and now Nicaragua. 

- Gangs currently being deported (Tren de Agua) ritualistically torture their murder victims. A member is in charge of "dismemberment."

- Heroic Vocations are those which directly engage such evil: soldier, police, firefighter. They risk their lives to protect the rest of us. These are the most courageous, noble, and virtuous of professions. Each requires an extraordinary degree of virtue...patience, restraint, forgiveness...in order to engage such evil but not be drawn into it. 

A vocation to the military, police or fire department is similar to the calling to priesthood. It is a special mission; requires unusual virtue; is absolutely necessary for the good of the entire community. In elite, liberal culture they are widely disparaged as being violent, corrupt, racist. These field do attract some bad types: sociopaths, borderlines, bullies. But the heart and soul of these careers are noble an heroic.  

These can involve the use of force, including lethal force, in the service of anti-violence. Such force, even when lethal, is essentially non-violent as it is defensive of innocent life and of the good of the community. We will be quite proud if any of our young people are drawn, in God's providence, to such service.

Cardinal Parolin: Diplomacy of Illusion

Our Vatican Secretary of State has condemned the rearming of Europe: "if we make arms we will use them." Actually, if we make them we may deter Putin; if we do not we will be overcome by him and others. Parolin is in denial: of the reality of Evil... in Putin, but also in Chinese Communism, Jihadist Islam, and sexual depravity in Catholic clergy. 

The indulgence toward Putin, Xi, and Hamas is of the same type as the tolerance of Rupnik, McCarrick and a legion of clerical predators. The root cause seems to be a superficial, overly positive view of human nature. Such a rosy, Pollyanna view of life is the heart of the progressive vision: we can find happiness and salvation through education, science/technology, therapy, sexual liberation, diplomatic negotiation and defeat of the oppressor classes. Our tragedy is that such a view has penetrated much of our hierarchy and clergy.

One of the greatest strengths of the Catholic view of life is realism about Evil: sin (original, mortal, venial), the demonic, and judgement including hell. Such tough realism has been largely replaced by a soft, quasi-passivist, effete ethos of cheap compassion. The gospel of Mercy prevalent in the current pontificate is toxic, unlike that of St. John Paul, in that it is not balanced by truth, judgment, and wrath. This leads in the real world to capitulation to the predators: clerical, Communist, imperialist, and Jihadist.

The Vatican as a sovereign state has not years, not centuries, but millennia of diplomatic experience. Its historical memory well knows the realities of "the world, the flesh and the devil." But an amnesia seems to have set in over the last decade as the Francis papacy has assumed a role as chaplain to Western Progressivism and advocated a particular ideology involving disarmament, immigration, climate, death penalty and other.

Through most of my adult life I consulted respectfully the diplomatic announcements of the papacy. Clearly, the infallibility in faith and morals does not include the diplomatic and the political. Yet, the Vatican has, in addition to an incomparable historic memory, a distinct and privileged position: truly global, it pledges allegiance to no nation, alliance or ideology. It communicates daily with clergy all over the world and so has a truly international, and (as close to as possible) a transcendent perspective. With recent developments I no longer extend such respect to the voices around the pope.

In Talking with Strangers, Malcom Gladwell points out that we are normally vulnerable to deceit because our social life requires a level of trust. Con men, sociopaths and predators often prevail because most of us properly work from an assumptive trust. Perhaps the most gullible and vulnerable among us are, ironically, the more virtuous, idealistic and altruistic. This would include, obviously, those who become priests. As a group, they are exceptional in motivation: generous, peace-seeking, open-minded, compassionate. Understandably, they project their own motivations on others. As a group, they are perhaps least personally in touch with the base, evil, violent side of human nature. This makes them the least capable of confronting the genuine evil and demonic.

This systemic blindness was countervailed in traditional Catholicism, prior to the 1960s, by closeness to death, sickness, poverty, war as well as a rigorous supernatural ethos attuned to sin, evil, and punishment. 

Perhaps the most Holy-Spirit-inspired movement within 20th century, global Catholicism was the focus upon the Divine Mercy in St. Faustina and St. John Paul. Concurrent with this are darker developments. The emergence of the therapeutic is compatible with Mercy, if situated within a traditional sense of reality. But the triumph of the therapeutic, within a broad, secularizing progressivism, leads to  disorders of indulgence, relativism, and illusion. 

So, we have seen in the last decades a perfect storm of naivete, credulity, gullibility and effete weakness as our clergy, already disposed to empathy and blind to evil, live in a denial that effectively enables evil-doers. The traditional trust in our clergy has been replaced by widespread suspicion. There is good reason for this. If our priests, because of their goodness, are systemically indisposed to agonistic engagement with evil, this weakness is intensified by the influence of the secular, therapeutic, and progressive. 

A more traditional theology does not of itself overcome sin and evil; many of our worst clerical predators (Maciel) were conservative. But a perspective rooted in our Tradition will countervail powerful, erroneous forces of modernity prevalent in our Church. 

As laity we remain filial, docile, receptive and obedient to the hierarchy in regard to dogma and worship. We do not enviously ambition, through some "synodality," to share in the apostolic authority bestowed in holy orders.  We have our own missions to perform in our world. In the current context, as we pursue our vocations, in areas of diplomacy, politics and culture we do well to receive with strict scrutiny pronouncements from a hierarchy singularly ill prepared and ill disposed to engage the powers of darkness.

Would I Vote for Trump Today? A Numerical Evaluation

For six weeks after the inauguration I exulted in the defeat of Harris and hoped for the best from Trump, that he might generally repeat his first term or improve on it. But since the meeting with Zelinskyy I have been horrified by: his Ukraine policy, disregard for the constitution and rule of law,  tariff incoherence, relentless vindictiveness, polarizing compulsions, grandiosity and narcissistic disconnect from reality. His worst character traits have been intensified by his years of battle and final victory. But when I remember Biden/Harris I recall my urgency to defeat them. For some clarity, I will attempt a numerical evaluation of our last four presidents on  7 distinct areas of importance.

First, let's identify the areas of concern along with the weight of their importance to me. Secondly, I will evaluate, on  a scale of 1 to 10 the last four presidents and so arrive at a final evaluative weight.

Culture War issues have the highest weight of 5 for me as a moral conservative: the nature of the human person (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic research), gender, sexuality and family (surrogacy, in vitro, LGBTQ), identity politics and religious freedom.

Social Justice and Solidarity including concern for the poor, suffering, marginalized carries a 2.

Personal Moral Exemplar, especially for our youth, carries a 2.

Global Diplomacy carries a 2.

Vision of the Common Good, including law/order and immigration, an ability to unite the nation thereby carries a 2.

General Competence in Governance and Diplomacy carries a 1.

Economic Policy carries a 1. 

We see that the total weight is 14; so that a perfect president would score 140; a mediocre, averaging 5, would score 70. We might think of it as a school grading; 70s is adequate, 80s good, 90s excellent.

Donald Trump 

- scores 9 out of 10 on the culture war for 45;

- 3 on social justice and solidarity for 6; 

- on personal morality he is amazingly a -3 so bad is his example for a -15; 

- on global diplomacy a 5 for a total of 10 as he is terrible on Ukraine but good on the Middle East and other; 

- vision of the common good he gets a 3 for a total of 6 for his overdue closing of the border but he is horrifically polarizing for us as a nation;

- competence gets him a low 3 for his character-based disconnect from reality and truth despite his astounding political powers for a total of 3.

-  his economic policy garners him 5 for a total of 5 as it is mixed but very confused on tariffs.   

 Total: 60.  Clearly a failing score

Biden/Harris 

- are -4 on culture war for a -20; 

- social justice and solidarity gets them a 5 as they speak for the poor but actually cater to the affluent, educated upper class for a 10.

- personal exemplar they score a 3 for a 6.

- global diplomacy they score a 3 for a 6 due to systemic weakness.

- vision of the common good they score a 3 for a 6 due to polarization and weakness, especially on the border.

- competence they garner a 3 due again to weakness, lack of energy, clarity and vision for a 3.

- economic policy they score a 3 for deficit and inflation for a 3.

Total 14. Terrible!

Barrack Obama

-Culture war scores 0 for 0.

-Social justice scores 6 for a 12 total as first black president.

- Personal exemplar scores 7 for wholesomeness despite social policies for 14.

- Diplomacy scores a moderate 6 for 12.

- Vision of common good again a moderate 6 for 12.

- Competence gets a 7 for 7.

- Economics a 7 for 7.

Total 64. Not passing. Overall slightly better than Trump despite his 0 for culture war.

George W. Bush

- culture war 8 for total of 40.

- social justice 6 (especially Africa policy and a compassionate conservatism) for 12.

- personal exemplar 8 for his decency for 16.

- diplomacy is 6. I am not as hard on him on Iraq as most are. for 12.

- vision is 6 for 12.

- competence is 6 for 6.

- economics is 6 for 6.

Total: 104.

Conclusion:   Bush 104, Obama 64, Trump 60, Biden/Harris 14. 

By this calculus I am again forced to vote for Trump because the Biden/Harris option is still SO bad.

Bush senior would be close to the score of his son.  Hillary very close to that of Obama with whom she served. Bill Clinton would be lower, not only for his personal immorality, but because there was neither remorse nor consequences with catastrophic consequences for the souls of our young. Reagan would be very high, into the 120s, because of good grades on the culture war, diplomacy (fall of Soviet Union), and personal decency. Carter, strong on personal morality and global vision with human values, would be quite low since he was on the wrong side of the culture war and was a weak president.

I am proud that most of my immediate family voted for neither Trump nor Harris. Many of my conservative friends dismiss or underestimate the depravities of Trump. Most of my progressive Catholic family and friends share my values but prefer to displace and ignore the culture war issues as personal, rather than political: a catastrophic judgment!

Let's bring back the Bushes! Is Jed Bush still around?

The Israeli War in Gaza: A Just War Dilemna!

 Pope Francis and the Catholic bishops of the Holy Land have unequivocally condemned the Israeli assault on Gaza as unjust. While their reasoning, from classic just war principles, is sound, I do not share their moral clarity and certitude. The magnitude of civilian suffering and death would normally rule this as unjust; but this situation is highly unusual.

An Unusual Situation

The primary reality is that Hamas is embedded in civilian locations, including even hospitals and schools. To simplify, this leaves the Israelis with the choice:  protect themselves by endangering Palestinian civilians or refrain and  leave their own population eventually unprotected. Given this simple binary, the responsibility of the state is clear: to protect its own population.

Additionally, the Gazans en masse support Hamas. They celebrated the October 7 attack. They are then in some degree not innocents, but morally complicit as quasi-combatants. This is a total war, with the population of Gaza committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. In this context the principles of Just War become questionable.

Add to this: Israel is attacked not only by Hamas, but by Hezbollah, the Houtis and Iran. The entire Muslim Arab world favors their destruction. 

If that is not enough: the Progressive Left of the West has now configured Israel as the oppressor and the Gazans as the oppressed. Much of the world sympathizes with this version of things. That leaves the USA as their lone ally against a hostile world. 

All of this is considered in light of the Holocaust and a long history of violence against Jews.

Palestinian Bishops

The condemnation by the Palestinian bishops, led by the esteemed Cardinal Pizzaballa, is understandable. As Arabs they are victims of the assault. Most importantly, even if they entertained some ambivalence, it would be suicidal to express this as they are far move endangered by hostile Muslim Arabs than by a Jewish state that is capable of some moral restrain. 

Pope Francis

The strong condemnation from the Pope is more problematic. Every day he speaks by phone to the single Catholic parish in Gaza. Obviously, this has aroused his empathy for the Arab victims. This would be commendable for an ordinary Catholic, a movement to the margins and the suffering. Is it appropriate for the Pope to position himself so markedly on one side of a war?

He is the pope for every parish, order, ecclesial community. In a real sense, he is "papa" for the entire world, including Muslims and Jews. In his papal ministry, he has accentuated (to a fault?) this more-than-ecclesial, global role (climate, immigration, etc.). He is already by temperament emotional with diminished capacity for abstraction, detachment and objectivity. In this instance, his daily phone call clearly inclines him to favor the Arabs over the Jews, in appearance and inevitably in fact.

This is worse given the history of Catholic and Christian hostility to the Jews. It is worse than worst given the global hatred for Israel and the Jews across the Muslim world and the progressive West. It might appear that he is jumping on the bandwagon of beating up on the Jews...again!

His positioning here contrasts sharply with his posture, early on especially, on the Ukraine war where he assumed a neutrality, apparently hoping to broker a peace, and refrained from condemning what is far more obviously an unjust war. In the one case he risks the appearance of indifference to the suffering of the Jews, in the other to the plight of the Ukrainians. The charism of infallibility, in morals and faith, clearly does not extend to diplomacy.

President Biden and Trump

Biden was a loyal ally to Israel even as he pressured them to exercise restraint in regard to civilians. This would be one of the few things that I believe Biden got right. He attempted a deliberate balance in which he offended strong defenders of both Israel and Hamas. 

But he is in part the root cause for this war in his indulgence and weakness towards Iran. It was the infusion of money that allowed Iran to finance its surrogates including Hamas. 

In light of Trump's attacks this week on the Yemen Houthis, it is striking that Biden was characteristically weak in his response to the Houthi attacks on international trade. 

By contrast, Netanyahu's fierceness against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran has remade the Middle East for the better. Trump is clearly in synch with this forceful approach. That prudent use of force along with continued advances in the alliance of Israel with the Arab states may well become Trump's decisive contribution to world peace.

Reinhold Niebuhr: Private and Public Morality

We learned from Niebuhr that, for a Christian, public morality (the policy of a government) is different from that of the individual. For example, a person might be pacifist and prefer his own death to taking that of another. But a father could hardly surrender his wife and children to a homicidal assailant out of an aversion to the use of lethal force. Likewise with the state: it is required by its very nature to defend the innocent,  including use of lethal force. Personal decisions are ALWAYS finally unambiguous morally: in every situation there is a right thing to do. But policy decisions, which are comprehensive/abstract rather than concrete/situational, are always complicated, ambiguous and endlessly consequential in unexpected manners. In a personal situation, my conscience, if well-informed and prudent and sober, will direct me, however fallibly and provisionally. But with policy there is an entirely different moral and prudential calculus. We cannot apply a personal kind of moralism to the complexities of policy. This reasoning applies to all policy but especially to the use of lethal force (which is distinct from violence) in policing, war and the death penalty. 

Inherent Evils

Catholic ethics is not relativistic, situational or consequentialist in that it sees some acts as inherently evil, by way of their form or nature, regardless of intention or circumstances. This includes adultery, blasphemy, abortion, and deliberate killing of the innocent. This clear, simple principle becomes clouded by the Hamas policy of embedding themselves with civilians. By classic reasoning, a lethal strike that inevitably and directly kills innocents is not acceptable. Arguably, Israel by prewarning civilians to leave the area to be attacked has taken proper precautions. Also, as stated above, Palestinian civilians are in some degree complicit with Hamas and to that extent not protected. 

Double Standard?

Nevertheless, with my Catholic conscience I would probably have to object to the level of civilian casualties, women and children, in Gaza. Yet, I am reticent to issue a moral judgement against Israel. First of all, I am not in their situation, their battle for survival. Secondly, while the principles of the natural law, including the just war, are binding for all people, in this extreme situation I hesitate to apply them so righteously. I would hold a self-consciously Catholic or Christian government to a higher standard. Compared with the Jewish and Muslim faiths, we have a more rigorous ethic of forgiveness of the enemy and the brotherhood of all humans. I cannot hold either group to the high bar of morality demanded, even in public as different from private morality, that we hold for ourselves as disciples of Christ.

Humanitarian Aid

Another issue entirely is the withholding of aid...food, water, medicine, electricity...from the Gazans. This adds a new level of devastation that arguably does move towards genocide. If I would tolerate  Israel in their use of lethal force against Hamas, I could not accept the prevention of humanitarian assistance. It may be true that much of this aid is helping Hamas to survive and fight. Nevertheless, the toll of starvation, dehydration, and sickness imposed upon the broader populace cannot be justified. 

On this issue, it is my view that the President of the USA is obliged to draw a definite, firm red line: prevention of such aid will incur the suspension of our assistance to the state. This is a strong position but is, in my view, morally obligatory.

Conclusion

As a Catholic I cherish a special love for the Jewish people. As an American I respect them as an ally and defender of democracy and the freedoms. Regarding Zionism and Israel's policies and practices I of course reserve freedom of opinion. With the Trump diplomacy I hope for a strengthening of the Israel alliance with the Sunni states and a diminished Iran. Regarding the Israeli use of force, including civilian casualties, I reserve judgment due to the complexity of the situation. But the withdrawal of humanitarian aid is not morally acceptable. On this we as a nation cannot be complicit.

  

The Masculine Gaze in ANORA...Tender and Reverent

 Anora (also Ani), the prostitute protagonist, portrayed by Mikey Madison in an Oscar winning performance, is Woman Empowered: smart, confident, assertive, fearless and fierce as she navigates her way through the four interwoven dramas that brilliantly structure the movie: the brutal, competitive world of prostitution; her idyllic romance with rich son of Russian Oligarch;  her defense of her marriage against the powerful oligarch family; and lastly the subtle, surprise relationship with Igor, who is the heavy, the tough guy for the Russians.

The first 45 minutes of the film is a relentless, graphic barrage of the details of the prostitution trade. I saw more nudity in that time than in the entire 77 years of my life prior to that. It garners the movie a PG75 rating, only for very, very, very mature audiences, those well into senility and the senescence of the libido. However, this does achieve its artistic aim: so manic, mechanical, hyperactive, manipulative; so objectifying and bereft of any tenderness or reverence is all this sex that is becomes "anti-pornographic" in eliciting a visceral repugnance at the indignity of it all. Quite a powerful setting for the unraveling of the plot!

Madison earned her Oscar. But it was the Oscar-nominated performance of Russian actor Yura Borisov as Igor, the henchman, that fascinated me. Handsome, virile, tough, clean-shaven, Slavic...he reminded me of a young Karol Wojtyla (later John Paul II) or John Rapinich (my best friend).. His performance will remain as an icon of the form of  virility: humble, quiet, strong, tender, reverent.

He is a humble guy: works for the guy who works for the guy who works for the Oligarch. He is at the bottom of the mob hierarchy. 

He is quiet. Says very little. His English is not good. But his role is to be the muscle, not to talk.

He is obviously tough, but in a quiet way. His confidence is serene; he is unflappable. He does not seem to carry a weapon; does not beat anyone up. His presence is important.

 But from the first moment in the presence of Anora he looks at her with a quiet but striking tenderness and reverence. He speaks hardly at all. His few words are kind and protective. As she goes into a hysterical rage and bites him he restrains her with a grasp that is at once strong, calm and chaste. Materially, as an employee, he participates in the assault on her and her marriage, but his countenance clearly signals a disapproval, a detachment. Anonymously, he is clearly in her corner. He maintains an impeccable emotional sobriety and serenity even as everyone else surrenders to hysteria, rage, inebriation and lust.

Much of the film is Anora's combat with the Russians. She is lean and small of frame; but so determined and fierce of will that she entirely dominates them. She is David against ten Goliaths. This is especially refreshing since the stereotype of Russian gangsters (in the Gulags, in post-Communist Russia, with Putin) is that they are so evil and powerful that the traditional Italian mafia is a bunch of altar boys by comparison. Her toughness is comedic as it is inspiring. 

The kind, protective gestures of Igor are reciprocated by Anora with insults, contempt, and rage. He is unflappable. Sublimely confident. Quiet. Gentle. 

He lives in his mother's house and drives his grandmother's car. 

His chaste, affectionate reception of Anora is classic and iconic. It recalls Dante's Beatrice and Don Quiote's Dulcinea; as well as Peck/Hepburn in "Roman Holiday," Murray/Johansen in "Lost In Translation," or Ladd/Arthur in "Shane." 

She accuses him of wanting to rape her. He smiles and says "I did not want to rape you." She asks "Why." He smiles and says in broken English: "Because I am not a rapist."  She pauses; processes this; and then returns to form: "Then you are a faggot-assed bitch!" In her world there are two kinds of men: rapists and faggots. Igor does not fit this world.

The ending of the movie is marvelously ambiguous. There will be no spoiler here. Mikey Madison said in an interview that she has found great variety in interpretation. She thinks the interpretation shows much about the interpreter. For this interpreter, the ending unveils a sublime vision of both the feminine and the masculine. The later as humble, strong, chaste, calm, tender, and reverent. Even in the most lurid chaos and decadence. 

Bohemian Catholic Revisited

 Conversation with a young friend moves me to reconsider my blog essay of August 2024 on "Bohemian Catholic."  

Bohemian Catholic  

When I heard that a friend had described our family as "Bohemian Catholic" I was flattered. We do not deserve that accolade, but it has always been an aspiration of mine.

"Bohemian"

The word often refers to countercultures of artists, eccentrics, anarchists and others who reject mainstream, middle class or bourgeois culture and gather in places like Greenwich Village or the East Village of NYC. The word has a complicated relationship to the literal Bohemia, now  the Czech Republic, ethnically German/Slav, formerly part of the Holy Roman and then the Habsburg empires. The word was first used in France to designate the Gypsy or Roma people, an entirely alternative or "other" group, who had come from Bohemia. At a point in the middle ages, a gracious Bohemian king had welcomed the Roma and so many settled there as they were not welcome elsewhere. Eventually the French expanded the word to refer to Gypsy-like groups, alternate countercultures. 

Can a Catholic be Bohemian?

Yes, but only with strict scrutiny. The word connotes (but does not denote): free love and sexual license, indulgence in drugs and alcohol, weak work ethic, an anarchic/iconoclastic sensibility, and a superficiality and pretentiousness in faux-sophistication. Perhaps more spiritually toxic is an underlying arrogance, superiority and condescension towards the ordinary. All of that is the decadent side of the bohemian: nothing Catholic about this! 

On the positive side, the expression suggests: poverty of spirit and identification with the poor, pursuit of the true-good-beautiful for itself, freedom of spirit, release from toxic social pressures, and rejection of the "bourgeois" in its false securities and certainties. 

We are directed by Jesus to be "in the world but not of it." And so the discerning Catholic may find a prophetic element in the bohemian critique of society. 

Towards a Definition of Bohemian Catholic

The Bohemian charism within Catholicism is the attraction, away from the false securities and certainties of the bourgeois, to the poor, marginalized, suffering, and even criminal, sinful and transgressive. If authentic, this is not out of guilt, obligation, sentimentality, need for merit or approval. (Although our motives are always mixed and complicated!) It is not even primarily the desire for justice. It is a tenderness, an empathy, a generous impulse to give comfort to the suffering. But it is far more even than this. It is delight, admiration and even exultation in the beauty, the truth, the good that manifests in human circumstances of suffering and impoverishment. It is aesthetic, a love for beauty, even as it is ethical, an impulse to do good. It is intellectual as it carries with it an interior freedom, a sobriety, and a capacity for contemplating the True. It flows out of and into communion with God, most especially in the Eucharist.

A question: Is "Bohemian Catholic" a form, a coherent reality, or a mere conjunction of two disparate entities. For example: "blond soccer player" is not a form as the blond and the soccer do not co-inhere in a formal unity. But "Catholic priest" does refer to a coherent entity. In common usage, Bohemian and Catholic are dissonant if not contradictory: the former transgressive, anti-establishment, and rebellious. Additionally, there are very few BCs so they would seem to be anomalies, eccentricities, exceptions. 

The argument here is that the BC is indeed a form, however rare. The substantive and foundational here is Catholic so that the Bohemian is informed by the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit: it is downwardly mobile (in contrast to the upward aspirations of the mainstream), free of compulsions around security/status/control, embracive of the poor and marginalized, enchanted by the Beautiful and True and Good in its disturbing disguise.

Let's consider some who embody this charism/calling.

Prominent Bohemian Catholics: Top Ten

1. Catholic Worker is a pure example. Dorothy Day herself lived a bohemian NYC life prior to her conversion to Catholicism and her encounter with the eccentric Peter Maurin. Their poverty of life style, care for the poor, pacifism, anarchism, political advocacy for the disadvantaged (farm workers, civil rights, etc.,) agriculturalism and wholehearted rejection of "the system" together constitute a flourishing, vigorous Bohemian Catholicism. Their genuine care for the poor and simplicity of life are, for me, admirable; their ideological pacifism, anarchism and agriculturalism not so much.

2. Kindred spirits and contemporaries of Dorothy Day:  Caryll Houselander, Madeleine Delbrell, Catherine deHueck Doherty, Chiara Lubich.  Each exceptional, distinctive, bohemian and flamingly Catholic!

Caryll was the eccentric, neurotic, brilliant, chain-smoking, artistic Mystic of the Suffering Chris,. She fell in love with a spy who broke her heart and was later the inspiration for the James Bond character.  She cared for the suffering during the bombing of London in WWII, wrote spiritual classics, and had a natural-preternatural-supernatural gift for comforting and healing those suffering mental/emotional afflictions.

Catherine, Russian hierarch whose first marriage to her emotionally abusive first cousin was annulled, remarried journalist Eddy Doherty. They took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience; lived a Josephite marriage and he was ordained an Eastern rite priest. She founded Friendship House in Harlem and later Madonna House. Her classic book Poustinia, described the role of solitude in our faith. She is a model lay activist/contemplative.

Madeleine was at home with the poor, working class, and communists in the desolation of wartime France. She ran the social services during the war and can be the patron saint of social workers and administrators.

Chiara Lubich gathered a group of likeminded young women and assisted the poor in war raged Italy of the early 1940s. She founded the Focolare movement.

You will know these four if you read the Magnificat. Each is a superb writer. It is notable that this move into Bohemian Catholicism, at a deep level, seems to come easier for women, especially who are free of husband and children. 

3.  Contemporary Italian Women.  More recently, we have two more extraordinary BCs, again Italian women. Mother Elvira opened her heart to the homeless/addicted and God's mercy in the 1980s and  developed  Comunita Cenocalo, homes across the world where addicts live a "Catholic boot camp" of prayer, work and friendship.  Quite similar in radical Bohemian Catholicity is Chiara Amirante who has similarly engaged herself and her movement (New Horizons) with the homeless, addicted and desperate.

4.  Kiko Arguello, founder of the Neocatechumenal Way, emulating St. Charles de Focauld, buried himself with his Bible, guitar and (was it 10?) dogs with the Gypsies in a ghetto of Madrid, Spain in the early 1960s. In the process of catechizing the gypsies, he developed an alternative Catholic culture given over to simplicity/poverty/community/praise/Eucharist/Scripture and an exhaustive critique of modern society as dystopian and apocalyptic. It cultivates its own habits, music, art, and patterns of life as it detaches in many ways from modern culture and much of the contemporary Church. Kiko himself was a genuine, hardcore bohemian in his embrace of the gypsies.  

5.  Franciscan Friars of the Renewal (CFRs) are a new Franciscan order that returns to intimacy with the poor, radical lifestyle, bold proclamation of the Gospel (notably to youth) and militancy in the Culture War.  It's roots are in NYC and it has an edgy, urban, tough, extroverted, virile style. It is manifestly Bohemian and deeply Catholic.

6. Communion and Liberation, again out of Italy, of the 1960s, is a highbrow movement, largely affluent and middle class, with a pronounced, almost Renaissance aesthetic sensibility and a strong interest in the poor that finds expression in a variety of volunteer activities and organizations. An influential American leader was Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete. A pearl of a Bohemian Catholic, he was brilliant, culturally multi-fluent, at home in secular NYC, immensely entertaining, and a genuine free spirit.  A newer, younger exemplar is our friend, the gifted writer/educator Stephen Adubato. He brings a deep, subtle, ethnic, sophisticated Catholic faith together with an unusual, offbeat sensibility in his evaluation of contemporary culture. He writes for a remarkable range of journals: America, First Things, Plough, Compact, National Catholic Reporter, and others. He combines a devotion to Giussani with the same for Dorothy Day: the strongest possible Bohemian Catholic cocktail!

7. John Rapinich, my best friend, was a certified, authentic Bohemian Catholic in the league of Kiko and Dorothy Day. His Jewish mother spent her entire adult life in a mental hospital, where John worked later, and where she was later reconciled to his father. They were both baptized and married in the Church; we were there. John was raised by his father, a tough, non-religious Slavic sailor. John suffered nervous breakdown and shock treatments in the military. He opened a coffee shop which was the gathering spot for Kerouac, Ginsburg and his other beatnik friends. He travelled with Kerouac and became a character in "On the Road." He ends up in Mexico and has a powerful conversion into Catholicism. We met in our charismatic prayer group. He lived in our house: he was uncle to my children, little-big-brother to me as I was big-little-brother to him. He worked in the mental hospital where his parents lived; went on mission with a charismatic Jesuit priest to slums on the Mexican border; worked with Hawthorne Dominicans in care of the poor dying of cancer. His last decades he was passionately (everything John did was passionate!) involved in the first Neocatechumenal community in this country. His was an extraordinary intellect and heart. He inflamed my own bohemian tendencies. I was honored to be his friend.

8. 12-Steps of AA.  

The many 12-step programs are explicitly neither Bohemian nor Catholic. At a deeper level, however, they are very similar as a spiritual counterculture. 

Their first and primary premise is powerlessness over the compulsion, whatever it may be. This is a startling humility that blatantly contradicts the self-confidence and arrogance of modernity in its pretentions to complete control. Secondly, in trusting surrender to "higher power" it moves beyond secularism and materialism into a refreshing space of freedom and hope. Thirdly, its reliance upon the meeting, the program, the fellowship and the sponsor all overcome the individualism/isolation that haunt our society. Lastly, in the practice of amends and sharing the program they release synergistic, expansive energies of agency and optimism. Lastly, such programs practice anonymity and humility, in contrast to the narcissism of the Sovereign Self. For example, a dear college friend, de facto leader of our class, John Harper, went on to do amazing work with the homeless and addicted all out of a fervent embrace of the 12-steps.

9. Bruderhof.

Again, hardly Catholic or Bohemian, the Bruderhof is an intensive counterculture in the Hutterite and Anabaptist tradition: evangelical, communitarian, pacifist, engaged with the poor, with a strong aesthetic reminiscent of their German background. They are Catholic-friendly and warmly "catholic" particularly in their journal, Plough Quarterly, which offers a rich menu of reflections on Christian life and modern culture, refreshing free of ideological compulsions.

10. Other Contrasting Groups

In my own college years, the late 1960s, I was influenced by leftist critiques of mainstream, bourgeois culture: Day/Maurin, Buber, the Maritains, Illich, Ellul, Freire, the New Left, hippies, Schumacher, Holt, King, Chavez, and others. These intensified aspects of my Catholic faith, especially closeness to the poor. However, going into the 1970s Catholic Progressivism deteriorated as it largely renounced Catholic traditions around sexuality/family to embrace Cultural Liberalism. Additionally, in large part it distanced itself from close contact with the actual poor by accepting middle class lifestyles while assuaging guilt by the embrace of leftist ideologies. 

On the conservative side, we see strong Catholic countercultures resisting the sexual revolution: prolife movement, home schooling, charismatic covenant communities, new religious orders, Latin mass groups, intensive Catholic colleges (Franciscan, Benedictine, Ave Maria, Christendom, Dallas, etc.), and Communio theology. In large part, however, these stayed safely positioned within normal middle class life patterns, at a distance from actual poverty.

An exception is the Neocatehumenal Way of Kiko Arguello mentioned above. These move into all kinds of impoverished areas and intentionally reach out to people in crisis and desperation. They create strong, close, intensive communities of faith which foster large families, many religious vocations and a rich alternative Catholic culture. A weakness is that so much time/energy is given to family/community that there is little available for contact with other groups, within and without the Church.

The Bohemian Catholic, along with Dorothy Day, Kiko Arguello and others, breathes strongly from two lungs: intimacy with the poor and with God in prayer. It is enormously liberating! It is like the left hand working with the right; like the right hemisphere of the brain in cooperation with the left; like a family where husband and wife adore each other!

Characteristics of the Bohemian Catholic

1. Uber Catholic. The BC cannot be Catholic Lite...not a casual, cafeteria, bourgie or normie Catholic! The BC must be a red-blooded, high-octaine, uber-Catholic: deep, broad, passionate.  He needs to be more fiercely, flamingly fanatical, in his Catholicism, than the anarchists, addicts, borderlines, revolutionaries, perverts, criminals and psychopaths around him. Otherwise, he will be pulled into the disorders of the environment. He can say (as did one of my more troubled residents, in defense of me against one hostile to me):  "You don't want to mess with me;  I am crazier than you!" 

2. Peaceful, Not Intimidated by Sin and Darkness. Because of these deep roots, the BC is at ease at the margins, even with disorder, chaos, dissonance, crime and sin. This mirrors Jesus' comfort with sinners. This assumes that the BC is dealing with his own interior demons and disorders. It also assumes a strong spiritual support network. This contrasts with a more mainstream, fragile piety (even in the renewal movements) that prudently seeks distance and shelter from "worldly" influences. 

Can Families Live this Lifestyle? 

This is a great question. The heartbreaking biography of Dorothy Day by her granddaughter Kate Hennessey would suggest caution. In general, the raising of children requires a degree of stability and safety that does not characterize Bohemia but is more typical of working class, even the lower levels, and middle class life.  The charism of precarity is dissonant with marriage and family and usually reserved for the professed Evangelical life of poverty, chastity and obedience. Yet, I have had the privilege of knowing hard core Catholic Workers (Pat Jordan, Tom Cornell) that raised fine families in this lifestyle. 

Missionary families in the Neocatechumenal Way also embrace such poverty and vulnerability by moving to quite destitute areas to bring the Gospel to the poor and suffering.  This embrace of precarity by families is well outside Catholic traditions and is fascinating. Such are extraordinary, eccentric, exceptional individuals, who clearly opened themselves to God's grace, and found support even while plunging into the chaos.

Catholic Bohemianism as a Specific Charism

Bohemian Catholicism is not normal, not normative, certainly not mandatory.  It is exceptional; it is a special charism, gift, calling. Normative Catholicism is very clear and simple: personal belief/trust in Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, Man/God; upholding of the moral law and precepts of the Church (especially Sunday Eucharist); fidelity to duties of one's state in life; filial reception of Church teaching. At the same time, the Church offers an amazing banquet of enrichments that are optional, not mandatory: sacramentals, devotions (stations, rosary, Sacred Heart, saints), pilgrimages, renewal movements, retreats, spiritual direction, missions, ministries, prayer practices, and ad infinitum. 

St. Francis de Sales clearly showed us that the path of holiness is open in every walk of life and class. Middle class, and even upper class life, and every level of society is open to God's grace. Love of the brethren takes an infinity of forms: usually charity to those closest to us, family/friends/neighbors; also careers of service (medicine, teaching, etc.) as well as political/social activism. 

The descent to lower levels of society is a privileged emulation of the kenosis of Jesus in the Incarnation. Intimate engagement with the poor, voluntary acceptance of precarity, and renunciation of the comforts of affluence are all special graces, analogous to the evangelical precepts of poverty, chastity and obedience embraced by the evangelical vows. 

Those who enjoy this charism, even in small portion, do well to enjoy it and vigilantly avoid the temptation to judge others moralistically. 

Conclusion

The biggest temptation for the aspiring Bohemian Catholic is an aesthetic/moral arrogance that looks down upon the mainstream and the ordinary. Catholic and "catholic" instincts can countervail this tendency and strengthen Christlike friendships across cultures and classes, appreciating the good in all things!

While writing this I have been rereading Myles Connolly's Mr. Blue, a favorite and formative read from my high school years. Blue is the ultimate Bohemian Catholic: a modern-urban St. Francis, madly in love with God, deliriously delighted with his Creation, militantly anti-bourgeois and absolutely impractical. I am motivated to emulate this Don Quixote. My wife thinks the book is a bad influence, intensifying my worst non-pragmatic and idealistic tendencies. She is herself a good balance to me with her own blend of the bohemian and the mainstream. Countervailing my intellectual abstraction, she is an artist, a superb cook, a gardener, an earth mother with a deep faith and a heart of gold, and simply the best wife of our time (in my humble opinion). We were blessed to raise our family in a tough neighborhood of Jersey City where our children came to be comfortable with all kind of people, including those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Together we have enjoyed an relatively ordinary Catholic life, but with a delicious bohemian flavoring.

Make America GOOD Again

I am a patriot...as Catholic, internationalist, humble, realistic.

I hate this "Great America" stuff.

I have never believed in "American Exceptionalism" or the messianic role of the USA, or that this is the "greatest country on the earth." That last phrase, more frequently in the mouth of conservatives, makes me winch with shame.

Our country is immensely blessed: natural resources, immigrant energies, Christian legacy, political culture of human freedoms and the rule of law. But in the deepest things that matter most...love of God and others, gratitude, humility, virtue...Haiti may be far superior...even though only God can measure this. It is nevertheless offensive, arrogant and ignorant to boast of our "greatness."

I love this country...realistically. The reality is, in many ways, dark.

Our founders were wealthy, Enlightenment freemasons, Calvinists, Anglicans and others who despised our Church.

Our founders and their legacy allowed the decimation of native Americans, enslavement of Africans, WASP persecution of ethnic Catholics, and the current genocide of the unborn.

I was blessed to be raised by what I consider a "great generation." But they would never have considered themselves "great." Their goodness consisted precisely in their humility, gratitude, realism. Their faith helped them survive deprivation in the 30s, a horrendous war in the 40, and the apocalyptic war with Soviet Communism. As I came of age, we rebuilt Europe, founded the UN and NATO, assisted the poor overseas in things like the Peace Corps and USAID, renounced systemic racism in the Civil Rights movement, and launched a War on Poverty to help the poorest among us. They did this while raising large families.  The adults in my world were grateful and humble: they went to Mass, confessed regularly, prayed the rosary, practiced Lenten disciplines. They considered God as "Great"...not themselves. This was a good, but not perfect or great, America!

In my college years, 1965-9, I accepted much of the New Left critique of America as materialistic,  imperialistic, and arrogant. I learned from Ivan Illich about the toxicity of the technocratic bureaucracy, from Dorothy Day the beauty of the poor, from Oscar Lewis the devastating  culture of poverty, from the hippies the primacy of being and joy over having and achievement.

By the mid-1970s I recognized the new Evil Empire, primarily expanding from our country, of the sterilization/liberation of sexuality, genocide of the unborn, and deconstruction of the bipolar human person. I joined the Culture War on the side of the Resistance, the underclass.

By the 1980s I was instructed in a profound analysis of post-Calvinist American Culture by the Communio School of David L Schindler and others under the influence of John Paul, Ratzinger and Balthasar. This deepened and intensified my critical Catholic view of our country.

I voted for Trump in 2024 with serene clarity and certainty, although with a bad taste in my mouth, as a renunciation of a deeper, greater Evil, the so-called "arc of history." In the weeks since he took office, that bad taste has become nauseating.

A Catholic in the USA in the 2020s is like a German Catholic in the 1920s: fighting at once Nazism, Communism, and Sexual Libertarianism. We need to fight several wars at the same time.

Trump is our best friend in the primary conflict. But he is in many ways himself a moral perversity. He is the stereotypical "Ugly American" of the late 60s, now inflated into a camp, cartoon caricature: overweight, red faced,  jingoistic, xenophobic, greedy, grandiose, impulsive, vindictive. He is shamelessly contemptuous of those who resist him. He is dismissive of constitutional order, the protocols of international diplomacy, and the suffering of the poorest around the world and in our country. He lacks simple, common sense decency and dignity. His personal life shows the worst excesses of his...our...generation: lust, greed, pride. 

Within weeks of his victory, I find myself on the side of the New Resistance, against MAGA. This is a pivot like that of our nation in 1945: suddenly, our ally, the USSR, had become our antagonist. 

I retain hope in the underlying goodness and resiliency of our nation. The Trump victory was in part the rage of the under class against the affluent elite and in part the religious rejection of a decadent secular progressivism. That was a move toward the Good. Now we need a countervailing movement to correct the pathologies of Trumpism. I am hopeful. The primary restrain on this dictator-wannabe will be the Supreme Court, especially Barrett and Roberts. Perhaps prominent figures like Rubio and Vance will lean more strongly into their Catholic values. The economic uncertainty of the tariff lunacy will trouble the stock market which Trump, with his class, worships. The DOGE recklessness and increased inflation will diminish his popularity, which he idolizes. The Democratic Party is pathetic, decadent and without moral anchoring. Yet a prudent "Christian Strategy" (as articulated by Adrian Vermeule) might have us align with them in correcting Trumpian extremism.

Yes, I love my country. But we are a train wreck.   We are now two, not one, dysfunctional families: the Left and the Right. No, we are not great. Let's take small steps towards Good. Let's pray for our country, our world, and our leaders.

Grieving with the Ukraine: Regret of a Trump Voter

 I was deeply saddened, horrified, sickened by the recent and ongoing treatment of Zelenskyy by Trump/Vance.

Saddened by the suffering of this people; by the betrayal and abandonment.

Horrified by a new World Order. Or more accurately, lack of order, chaos. Suddenly we are plunged into a dystopian game of Risk in which brutal, psychopathic War Lords divide the globe: Putin you take the Ukraine; we take Greenland/Panama/Canada; and Xi can have Taiwan; while Israel and the Sunni states divide the Middle East.

Sickened by the condescension, arrogance and bullying of a man from an oppressed nation who comes to us begging for help. The optics were nauseating: two larger, powerful men verbally belittling a little man. Complete absence of decency, dignity, respect.

Without misgivings I voted for Trump and celebrated his victory as a defeat of the greater evil. I still see the subtle, cultural totalitarianism of the Left as a greater threat to my Catholic way of life than the authoritarianism of Trump.

For six weeks I observed with interest this radical, novel social experiment. I withheld judgement: detached from the high-fiving intoxication of the Right and the hysteria of the Left. I foresaw neither dystopia nor utopia, but a risky, daring gamble. I liked: pro-life gestures, closing of the border, round up of criminals, recovery to sanity from the identity politics lunacy of the Biden area. I hated: blanket pardon of Jan. 6 criminals, excesses of DOGE crusade in defiance of acts of Congress, repulsive jingoism (Gulf of America, etc.) I waited to see how things developed with immigration, tariffs, and DOGE.

Surprised by the unprecedented level of energy, confidence, and boldness, I was troubled by the contagious recklessness, grandiosity, mania, vindictiveness and disregard for tradition, authority, protocol, decency and constitutional order. 47 is an entirely different animal from 45.  As I am one year younger than Trump, I erroneously assumed that us old guys don't radically change at this stage in the game. My recall of 45: surrounded by, restrained by, and deferential to competent, establishment figures; historic victories in the Culture War (justices); amazing peace across the globe; a properous economy (due to tax cuts which led later to inflation.)  I expected 47 to be something like 45. Wrong!

What happened?

I blame the Left.

First of all, many of us were pushed to vote against a Progressivism that holds in contempt our most cherished values: religion, family, marriage, the immense dignity of powerless/incompetent human life, liberty, tradition.

Secondly, the Trump Derangement Syndrome led to excesses.  We listened for years to the Russia conspiracy hoax which was then entirely rejected by the Mueller report. He faced four trials which were all weak and showed zero respect for the President of our country who is preferred by almost half of our population. This warfare only strengthened Trump in his combative propensities. He flourished. He loved it. He prevailed and took on preternatural powers. Rightly did Jordan Peterson, in a remarkable podcast, characterize him and his coterie as Superheroes. Our justice system was weaponized, under Biden, against Trump and a range of conservative groups. Now Trump is unrestrained and pushing that disorder much further.

Democrats are fragmented and disoriented but more basically bereft of a moral core.

Republicans are afraid of this Superman.

Much of my hope is in the Supreme Court. Yesterday, by a 5-4 decision, Roberts and Barrett joined the three liberals to release funds already designated by Congress for foreign aid. This is a good sign!

If the election were today, in light of the last week, I could not vote for Trump. But...if I thought for more than 10 seconds about Harris/Biden, I would have to vote for Trump!

What a world! At least the remaining years of my life will not be boring!

We can pray...and wait and see.   

Lord I Need You

Matt Mahr's song, "Lord I Need You," inspired this prayer. Listening to it might be a helpful Lenten exercise:  google "Lord I Need You."

Lord, I need You...desperately!

I want You...above all things...and all things only from You, with You, in You, through You, and to You.

I long for You...with deepest cravings.

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

I seek You...and find You in all the blessings You send and all the trials You allow.

I receive You.

I thank You.

I rest in You.

I delight in You.

I move in You.

I work in You.

I wage war in You.

I trust in You.

I hope in You.

I love You.

I adore You.

I serve You.

Amen.

A Divided Society

Have we ever, in our national history, been so polarized, divided, fragmented? Everywhere the question hangs:  Is our civilization  collapsing? The turbulence of the late 60s does not compare. That was largely a passing, generational divide, focused mostly on the Vietnam war. The cohort of  privileged, pampered, boomer "revolutionaries" quickly moved on to bourgeois careers, comfort, affluence, and security, now flavored with a self-righteous progressivism.. Our Civil War in the 1860s was clear cut, slavery and states' rights, and over in four years. Currently we are engaged in something like the religious wars that lasted hundreds of years in the 16th and 17th centuries. Our conflicts and divides are multiple and interweaved in complex, convoluted ways.

1.  The Religious/Moral Divide. This is the primal, foundational conflict that underlies all the other issues. We have here two opposed, incompatible religions. The Cultural-Religious Revolution of the 1960s rejected traditional religion in favor of: rupture of sex from spousal unity/procreativity; deconstruction of the masculine/feminine; reproductive rights as the depersonalization of the unborn for the purpose of backup contraception; a secular "arc" of history, as inexorable triumph of technology over a disparaged past, replacing Salvation History; and the Marxist model of oppressor/oppressed (male/female, white/black, straight/LGBTQ, Israeli/Gazan, etc.) as structurally systemic and omnipresent. And so we have the Democratic Party as (among other things) the institutionalization of Cultural Progressivism and the Republican Party as (among other things) the protector of traditional Christianity. 

2. Gender Divide.  Survey's indicate that 55% of men and 45% of women voted for Trump in 2024. My own (particular and anecdotal) experience suggests that the divide is even greater because of the intensity elicited but not measured. In my world, most women are repulsed by Trump; many men exhilarated. Clearly this is rooted in masculine/feminine psychology.

The Harris campaign had a single coherent idea (aside from disgust with Trump) about which she would become flamingly and uncharacteristically passionate, indignant, articulate: "reproductive rights." About everything else she was vague, avoidant, indecisive or giggly. Her battle cry was the right of women, against an imagined "patriarchy," to kill her unborn child.  Her party has become a raging matriarchy: think the stepmother of Hansel and Gretel! Masculinity is conceived as toxic and violent; or castrated and configured as passive, effete, gentle, inclusive, and powerless. The black male, for example, in the BLM narrative, is imagined as defenseless and victimized by the far stronger white policeman. The core problem of the black community, a deficiency in virile fidelity, honor, discipline, virtue, is intensified by this fiction that breeds futile insecurity and resentment. The entire Biden regime was a demonstration of weakness: Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza; open borders and tolerance of crime; indulgent, unrestrained spending which fueled inflation; and a team of intelligent, refined, gentle men entirely lacking in masculine confidence, energy, and dynamism.  This party has become the expression of anti-virility and non-paternity as well as raging, shrill feminism.

And so we have young men, across ethnicities and classes, viscerally renouncing the Left in favor of a vibrant, if decadent, masculinity of the Right. Trump himself, along with his coterie of cartoon characters, is flamboyantly, shamelessly, boastfully masculine, in a most immature manner. He is the ninth grade wise guy, bully, disrupter-in-chief: big, strong, intimidating, smart in his pushing of the boundaries, tormenting of the weak, and absolute demand for attention. His entire performance is, however, fascinating and entertaining for the immature male psyche. Even as it is disgusting to the sensitivities of the more mature female. He offers our country a striking virility, entirely devoid of virtue,  paternity, dignity, selflessness, and respect.

3. Class (Economic, Educational, Cultural) Divide: Building upon emergent trends, Trump singlehandedly reconfigured the political-class structure of our society. This is a dazzling accomplishment: something akin to Alexander the Great or Napoleon. 

Already in the 1970s the DNC has renounced the religious roots of the Catholic working class and become the progressive party of the affluent, educated cosmopolitan and the ethos of liberated sexuality and abortion (backup contraception). In the following 50 years (1970-2020), the prosperous economic peace between capital and labor steadily deteriorated as a widening gulf separated the working poor from the educated, affluent progressives who benefited from the globalist, technological order. Trump, ironically given his own wealth, impeccably channeled the populist rage at this condescending hegemony.

This divide is overwhelmingly rooted in education. DJT won large majorities of those without college education. Biden's compulsive crusading for tuition forgiveness manifests that his loyalty is with the upper, not the working class. Higher education has become, in large part, socialization into the progressive world view. So it is logical that educational credentials bring a bias to progressivism. It also makes sense that women, who outachieve men in schooling, would lean left.

The cultural divide is multifaceted, complex and dense. Along with the obvious religious and educational dimensions, there are others. To a sensibility that is refined, sensitive, feminine, DJT is a vile, crude character. He is "low class." He is without class...shamelessly and defiantly. He is dismissive, personally, of intellectual and religious values. He blatantly, happily free of hypocrisy, exults in wealth, celebrity and power. He is defiant of the Puritanism and moralism of our upper classes: blatantly. This blend of rage, power, and defiance is intoxicating for his base. He is their champion: defying and defeating the upper class with their superiority, power, privilege and contempt.

The economic piece is the strangest! He aspires to help the underdog and yet his actual economic policy is built upon tax breaks for the investment class.  He has not up to now delivered real economic relief for the underclass. It is improbable that he will. Democrats, who steadily advocate economic policies favorable to the working and poor, are baffled that so many vote against their own financial interests. Many explain this as ignorance (lack of schooling), racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misguided piety. They are, in a way, not entirely wrong. My own view is that culture trumps economics. The obsession with money is itself a cultural perversion. More important than money is honor, dignity, respect, autonomy, agency. Underlying the populist revolt is a degree of fear and anger; but also a justified demand for dignity. 

4. Diplomatic Divide. Here we contrast a resurging populist nationalism with the internationalism of the upper class. This globalism is complicated: belief in free markets and trade (Republican); confidence in the efficacy of international cooperation and negotiation (Democrat) in agencies like the UN, WHO, and others; residual trust in the military might of the USA. These last two move in different directions: Biden and to a lesser extent Obama contrast with hawks (Haley, Pompeo, etc.) who served the first Trump administration.

Trump, with his MAGA direction, is not really isolationist. He is intensely international, engaging across the globe to advance our national interests. He is devoid of any idealism. For him, diplomacy is an analogue of hardball, self-interested business: he is out to get the most he can, indifferent to anything beyond self-interest. Intuitively (he is extremely intelligent) he sees the global reality that we are no longer in a unipolar or even bipolar world. He looks to protect our interests: indifferent to the plight of others. This is realpolitik as crude national imperialism, narcissism on the global stage. It is realistic in its awareness of a multi-polar world and the limitations of American global power.

Democratic Party is in an identity crisis: baffled that it was defeated by a cartoonish buffoon. Its only explanation is the ignorance and malice of half the electorate. It is a split personality: the expression of Cultural Liberalism as it continues to advocate for the poor and working classes. As such, it has no moral core. The energy is focused obsessively on the availability of abortion. They continue to dominate blue states and may succeed in some national elections. But morally there is no hope here.

Republican Party is far more complicated and interesting. It is a circus: with different agents, energies and interests...many contradictory of each other. First, the primal populist rage (Steve Bannon) fueled more by emotion than policy clarity other than closed borders, nationalism and anti-wokism. Second there is the old establishment, quiet and dormant, but still in the picture. Third, there are the emergent tech-oligarchs (Musk). They are, in my view, a misfit in the party: philosophically incompatible,  entirely opportunistic, and ultimately dangerous in their techno-aspirations and pride. Lastly, there are the religious/moral conservatives who retain a large seat at the Trump table. Particularly interesting in this last group is the trend, largely Catholic, sometimes called National Conservatism, to broaden traditional political wisdom beyond family/person to the broader social good, including advocacy for the poor, unions,  a reasonably vigorous government. Vance and Rubio show these tendencies. I will be watching them in the coming years. 

What's a Guy to Do?

 Dear Fleckinstein:  My friend has a big problem. He is crazy about women. He is obsessed. He can't help himself. What is he to do?  from Anonymous

Dear Anonymous:

This is serious! Your friend is what the Spanish language calls a "mujeriego" which is a man that is crazy about women.  It is chronic, deep-seated, and critical! But not hopeless! There is one path ahead for your friend.

He is to love women...more!  Yes, more; not less. Differently. More.

He is to love women more tenderly, reverently, appreciatively, chastely, gratefully, humbly, generously, confidently, compassionately, protectively, passionately, receptively, assertively. (That is 13 adverbs!😍)

This is a long, arduous journey. It is a 100 years war. It is not a few therapy sessions or self-help books. A priest in confession said these cravings will not cease until your body is cold in the ground for four days. It is probably a structural aspect of his person so he will live with it the rest of his life. 

This is a patient, prolonged itinerary of moving beyond infantile neediness, regressive compulsions, romantic fantasies of comfort and enclosure, lust, covetousness, narcissism, bad habits and neural wiring.

Do this:

- When you are attracted to a woman, pray for her. For her happiness, family, holiness. This is helpful: it shifts you out of your own neediness into communion with God and your true identity as a man who loves women.

- Own and acknowledge the interior emptiness, sadness, longing and loneliness. Bring it to God in prayer. My own preferred aspiration is: "I come to you, Lord, as a poor man; in need of your mercy and in need of your love."  Another good one: "Lord, give me what I seek in her and bless her." And of course the classic: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, be merciful to me a sinner." Recall what Monsignor Giussani told us:  "The true protagonist of history is the beggar: us begging for Christ; Christ begging for us."

- Direct your gaze always away from her curvaceous figure to her eyes. There you will glimpse the nobility, agony, intelligence, generosity, truth, goodness and splendor of her heart and soul.

- Deepen and intensify your loyalty to your spouse, present or future, or your religious vows to Christ.

- Frequently place yourself under "the mantle of the purity, holiness, tenderness, love and beauty" of our Blessed Mother with aspirations, the rosary, hymns, the scapular or miraculous medal.

- Cherish strong, close friendships with men so that your needs for intimacy are not so strongly directed to women.  (This practice is even more urgent for men sexually attracted to men.)

- Deepen your Eucharistic devotion, daily mass and visits to the Eucharist as much as possible, and ask Christ to infuse within you his own virile, fruitful, pure, heroic, ennobling love for women.

- Even if you are falling into sin, imagine you are falling onto Christ who fell three times on his climb up Calvary with his cross.

- Confession of sin to priest, even weekly if necessary.

- Confide your afflictions, temptations and failings to at least one trusted, safe, wise mentor: friend, confessor, counselor, spiritual director. Has to be a man of course. Women don't understand this stuff.

- Cherish strong relationships with good, holy women who elicit your true virility.

- Wholesome, temperate habits in all areas of life: sleep, diet, exercise, friendships. reading, prayer, work, service to others, recreation.

- Pray to holy women and saints. My own daily litany, mostly 20th century, is: St. Terese of Lisieux, St. Elizabeth of the Trinity, Elizabeth Liseux, St. Josephine Bakata, St. Maria Goretti, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Mother Katherine Drexel, St. Mother Francis Xavier Cabrini, St. Mother Mary Ann Cope, St. Mother Jean Jarden, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Rose Hawthorne, Mother Margaret Cusak;   Etty Helison, Maria Teresa Debjanowicz, St. Faustina, St. Theresa Benedicata of the Cross;  Caryll Houselander, Adrienne von Speyr, Madalein DelBrel;  St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, and Catherine de Hueck Dougherty.

(That is 13 practices, in no particular order.)

Tell your friend, Anonymous, to be patient. This is the long game. Rely upon the Holy Spirit. Be gentle with your own weakness. Give praise and thanks for the heart-piercing Beauty of women! And for your own virility, including your cravings however disordered, in its God-given and Christ-imaging Splendour. 

Ordo Amoris

 Vice President Vance and Pope Francis are both, of course, right about the "order of love."  Vance sees that there is a structure, a hierarchy, a priority about love; Pope Francis sees that Christian charity reaches outward, beyond boundaries to the margins. The two complement and complete each other.  The VP (intellectual, combative, virile, conservative) is stronger on order; the Holy Father (emotional, compassionate, inclusive, feminine-of-sensitivity, liberal) is clearer on love.

Love has an order. It is infused with, as it infuses, Truth. An ordo that is weak in love becomes defensive, pugnacious, ungenerous, chauvinist, xenophobic, tribal, macho in a toxic way.  (Sounds like our current administration?) Love that is weak on order becomes emotive, volatile, vague, confused, dispersed, vacuous, effete. (Sounds like our current pontificate?)

My love for my wife would be defective if I did not care about the young women in Afghanistan, the displaced Palestinians, or the hostages in Gaza. My concern for these suffering people would be diminished by negligence of my spouse and immediate family.

I count as my singular blessing and foundation that I was conceived, born, and raised in a family where my mother and father loved each other...tenderly, reverently, passionately, faithfully, with deep Catholic devotion. Love...quiet, modest, stable, less than perfect...was the air we breathed. Our family of nine was itself enclosed within a large extended family, St. John's parish/school in Orange NJ, the global Roman Catholic Church, the United States of America, the Democratic Party, the UAW with the union movement, and the entire Greatest Generation.

When I was seven years old, the "age of reason" I learned about the starving babies in China and was pierced to the heart. The image of those suffering children indelibly structured my person and my aspirations. In other words, the simple love I absorbed in my family moved me around the globe to China. I grew up with the NY Times, America and Maryknoll Magazine in the Catholic Camelot of 1945-65, prior to the Cultural Revolution with its rupture of sexuality from marriage, when political liberalism was expressive of a vigorous, open, solidly traditional Catholicism. We interiorized a fervent internationalism and a firm sense of our mission as Americans and Catholics within the global family.

My wife and I were blessed to raise our seven children in a tough, working class neighborhood of Jersey City, the most diverse city in the country. Our children were not sheltered, but learned quickly to navigate safely in a dangerous world and became comfortable with all sorts of people. My wife opened our home to all sorts. A particular memory: two tough little boys, whose parents were drug addicted and always close to homelessness, were playing in our house with another child from an affluent family. The two tough kids were dispersing our toys all over the house; the rich kid was following them, spontaneously putting them back in place. Quite a contrast!

The lifestyle of the Catholic Worker was always, for me, a vague aspiration; even as my wife kept us tethered to a stable, wholesome primacy of the family. This did and does still make for tension, but of a fruitful type.

As I write this, Pope Francis is in the hospital with a complex lung infection. His pontificate is likely drawing to a close. We commend him to our Lord as we seek to receive what is best and reject what is problematic in his papacy.

I have admiration and hopes for JD Vance. He has more talents of heart and intellect than any American politician since JFK. But he has his own limitations. Consider: he was raised in the tribal, combative hillbilly culture; served as a marine in early adulthood; went to Yale where he was clearly a misfit;  succeeded in the combat arena of finance; and finally into the political game in a viciously polarized society. He has been groomed to be a fighter. Politics is always combat, Culture War; but it is also always cooperation, compromise, reconciliation. My prayer is that in the coming years he will grow deeply into his Catholic faith and distinguish within Trumpism the good and the bad.