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.

 

Guest Essay: "Concerns About Second Trump Administration"

Today Fleckinstein welcomes comments from brother-in-law Michael Mulroe which were part of our exchange in early November in regard to the second Trump administration. 

I do not, as a rule, read the essays posted by my brother-in-law Matthew, but, as I was the inspiration for his post “Do I Have Concerns About Another Trump Administration?” I felt obliged to see what he had to say.

Some background. After the outcome of the 2024 election was decided I sent a note of congratulations, and the following question about Donald Trump to several friends and relatives who had voted for him:

“I am interested to know whether, given his (in my opinion) tendency to prioritize his own self-interests, and the recent evisceration of constraints on abuse of presidential authority, you have any concerns going into his second term as president.”

It seemed to me to be a fairly apolitical question that did not touch on the rationale for voting Trump vs. Harris. And while Matthew begins his essay by stating that I (Michael Mulroe) am “deeply troubled by realities” of migrants, global warming, etc., the truth is that my biggest concern about a 2^nd Trump presidency is the threat, in my opinion, of his pushing the country towards autocracy. There is nothing I have seen since last week’s inauguration that has assuaged my concerns.

What follows is the response I gave to Matthew back in November after reading his essay.

=====================================

Matthew,

As my initial query to you was about potential abuse of Presidential authority, I am responding to just the middle third of your essay where you elaborate on why you do not believe DJT poses a threat.

You begin with the following statement:

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

My query did not write “egotism”, however. I wrote “tendency to prioritize his own self-interests” which I believe is a different and, in this case, more dangerous thing.

I have the following thoughts on your 3 arguments in Trump's favor.

YOU WROTE

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

I RESPONDED

I find it interesting that you use the phrase “what he said is not to be taken literally”, as one of the most astute quotes I have heard about DJT is (roughly) “do not take what he says literally, but take it seriously”. When he says something provocative I believe it is more than attention seeking, but rather a window into what his driving motivations are and what he is willing to do.

He is, indeed, vain, self-centered and desperate for attention, but in his mind money and winning out in “the deal” are his ultimate ego boosters. His M.O. is to use whatever means are available to structure things to his advantage. In his world everything is a transaction, and relationships are only as valuable as the benefit he derived from the last transaction. Is that a problem? In the business world maybe not. As the President of the U.S. I think so.

But he was like this in his first term, so what changed? I believe 3 things:

1) Autocrats (I believe that is a better fit here than tyrant and it is what I believe he can become), do not pop up out of thin air. They are often rightfully elected into power and take office intending the best for the people they serve. But over time they morph as they learn they can manipulate the system to their advantage and create a narrative discourse that enables them consolidate power. DJTs rhetoric demonizing his opposition (“the enemy within”), threatening the press (“fake news”, threatening to cancel broadcast licenses), claiming election fraud (“stop the steal”) all take time to seep into the national psyche. He had insufficient time in his first term to make this transition.

2) In his first term he had to temper his actions with considerations about re-election. In a second term that is moot.

3) In his first term it was unclear as to how much the courts would let him get away with. The Supreme Court has pretty well rolled out the carpet for him.

I am not claiming he intends to remain in office after his second term is up, but I believe there is a strong likelihood that he will act in autocratic ways that will harm our governmental institutions.

YOU WROTE

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

I RESPONDED

His “grand scale success” is in the eye of the beholder and I will defer debate on that to another day.

The primary quality of the people he surrounds himself with is loyalty to DJT. Jeff Sessions, whom I presume you would consider to be a good person, did the right thing by recusing himself from investigations involving DJTs 2016 run for office. But it was not a great career decision. So to whatever extent he is delegating to his subordinates they know that loyalty to DJT comes first and they are out of a job if they waiver.

Whatever humility he has apparently does not appear to extend to dealing with foreign leaders, most notably Vladimir Putin and Kim Song Un. A private meeting with Putin and no record of what was said? And then siding with him over U.S. intelligence services on Russian interference? I suppose that is a certain humility. Granting North Korea a degree of international recognition with nothing in return? Or maybe less in return? He assumes that his knack for business dealing carries over to international relations. I would call that hubris.

As for Afghanistan, that should have been handled better. But generally forgotten is the DJT set the wheels in motion by signing an accord with the Taliban in February 2020 that established a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, to a large extent limiting Biden’s options.

It is interesting that as I was writing this news broke that Matt Gaetz is the pick for AG. A man with limited qualifications for the job, and apparently of questionable moral character, but possessing the traits that DJT admires most – unwavering loyalty to DJT and the willingness to act as an attack dog on his behalf.

YOU WROTE

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

I RESPONDED

You are more optimistic about the state of our institutions than I am.

I think back to December 2000. The outcome of the Presidential election was in doubt not because of voting fraud, but because of a technical glitch with voting machines in Florida that left a sizable number of ballots unprocessed. Working towards a deadline imposed by the Supreme Court county officials were conducting a hand tally of those ballots when Roger Stone (who will resurface to foment false claims of fraud in the 2020 election) helps to orchestrate the “Brooks Brother riot” whereby those officials were cowed into stopping their work and allowing the clock to run out in George Bush’s favor. All this occurring during a far more stable period of our nation’s history.

Your recollection of the aftermath of the 2020 election does not quite line up with mine.

I agree that the courts uniformly rejected the suits brought forth claiming fraud.

And while Barr did eventually state that the DOJ had found no evidence of widespread fraud, he made statements before the election sowing fear that fraud could occur. Barr also further helped stoke claims of election fraud by sharing with DJT info about an ongoing FBI investigation into a case of discarded ballots in Luzerne County, PA – a case that was subsequently found to have no basis in fraud but was used by DJT to push claims that there were.

True that DJT received pushback from multiple fronts, but I disagree that this restrained him, as he continued to pursue the only viable paths open to him to overturn the election. The January 2021 attempted coup of the DOJ was thwarted only because DJT did not have sufficient loyalists in DOJ leadership – a mistake he will not make in the coming term.

Regarding Jan 6, I find your phrasing ‘alleged “insurrection”’ troubling. From our subsequent conversation I understand that you object to that term being used by the press, as it was not the basis for any of the legal cases coming out of that day (although its close cousin Seditious Conspiracy was). But on paper your statement comes across (to me) as downplaying the events of the day. You also wrote separately to me that Jan 6 was similar in kind to the BLM protests of the preceding summer and while on the whole I would agree, there is one key point in which I believe they differ. In the BLM protests any violence or destruction that occurred was directed at some, essentially random, symbol of authority – one police or fire station was as good as the next. Jan 6 was a different animal. The objective was not even the Capitol per se, but the specific action that was taking place inside the Capitol on that day.

A repeat of 2020, however, is not what most concerns me.

DJT is a master of using the court system to his advantage. Bankruptcy, frivolous lawsuits, delay tactics – they all served him well as a businessman. Even as former president he masterfully worked the system to insure that no trial would occur before he had a chance for reelection.

But, how much does that even matter now? The Supreme Court’s decision granting immunity for “official” acts pretty much gives him free reign to do what he wants – he just needs a subordinate to provide coverage in advance. And if a case is filed in response to some action he takes, recent history indicates that it will take months to work its way through the system.

His initial list of potential appointees (Gaetz especially so) is also telling…. Short on qualifications for the position, long on loyalty to DJT.

I hope that your optimism about the next four years pans out. I fear, however, the Trump supporters have made a Faustian bargain.

The Objectivity of the Papacy

The papacy, like the entire Catholic sacramental system, is an efficacious, objective source of grace, regardless of the good/bad qualities of the occupant. It too operates by the Catholic principle of "ex opere operato": by the nature of the act itself, not according to the quality of the minister himself. So, the Eucharist is the Eucharist, whether the priest is a saint-mystic or a wretch.  Absolution of sin is efficacious, even if the confessor priest is himself in mortal sin. 

Among the providential dimensions of the Francis Papacy is that it reminds us of this reality. We Catholics were spoiled by the previous six popes over the last century: four were men of exceptional intelligence and holiness; the last two were veritable doctors of the Church and remarkable saints. But Christ by way of the Holy Spirit guides the Church even when we have bad popes. 

Think about your boss at work. I have had many bosses: some I liked and some I didn't like. But that hardly mattered. Work is about work; about getting the job done. It is not about likes/dislikes, feelings and emotions, making friends and making nice.

The Church is like work, or the military, or a strong football program: it is not about how you feel. It is about getting the job done. It is objective. It is external  to the experiential self. But it is not extrinsic: it directs, inspires, instructs, heals and sanctifies...from outside.

Liberalism in religion is the turn from the objective to the subjective: to the feelings of the narcissistic, therapeutic self. This took over mainline Protestantism already in the 19th century. It has taken over much of Catholicism, the elites and the academia, over the last 60 years since the Council. 

Catholicism itself, by contrast, is a bedrock of objectivity. 

- Our dogmatic teaching is clear, certain, available and entirely objective. 

- Our moral teaching is clear, certain, available and entirely objective. 

- Our sacraments and rituals are clear, certain, available and entirely objective. 

- Our roles within the Church...lay, married, priest, bishop, pope, religious, etc....are all clear, certain, available and entirely objective. 

- Our places and buildings...churches, shrines, cathedrals, seminaries, monasteries, convents, schools, etc.  are clear, certain, available and entirely objective. 

I do not like Pope Francis...do not like the way he teaches, thinks, governs, and lots of things. But my "no like" doesn't matter. He is my pope. He is my Holy Father. He is the vicar of Christ on earth.  He is, for me, notwithstanding his manifold flaws, a rock of stability, a guide, a source of grace. 

The same can be said of my parish priest (liberal or conservative, holy or sinful, erudite or ignorant) and bishop. It is when the particular priest is particularly annoying, flawed, wrongheaded and dysfunctional that I remind myself of the boundless consolation of Catholicism:  "ex opere operato." Christ gives his grace...infallibly and efficaciously...precisely through these weak vessels. And I thank God for this man who has surrendered his life to God for us. And I pray for him.

Of course I pray for the Holy Father, at least once daily, the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be at the end of each rosary.

I receive from his office or chair the many blessings that flow. For example, this is a Jubilee Year declared by him as a source of pardon, reconciliation, peace, indulgences, pilgrimages and more. We can only get something like that from the Pope. Every time he canonizes a saint we are drawn closer to heaven as heaven draws closer to us. He recently wrote a fine piece about the Sacred Heart. He welcomed a week or so ago Bishop Schneider from Kazakhstan,  one of his most severe, if loyal, critics. The meeting went well according to the Bishop who emerged urging all the faithful to pray that the pontiff confirm us in the faith.

I cannot let my own feelings impede me from receiving from Christ the graces he is pouring on the Church from this pope. For one like me, so disappointed with this papacy, it is a salutary gesture of  filial loyalty, trust and humility to cast aside my aversions and receive this Peter as our gift from Christ. 

May our Lord bless and guide Pope Francis, strengthen all that is good in him, and protect him (in his weakness and vulnerability) from the errors to which he is prone. Thank God for the Papacy!

My Great America

1960. John F. Kennedy is President. I am 13; quiet, skinny, shy kid who loves basketball. Conscientious altar boy. Son of union organizer. Interested in the world.

JFK exudes virile confidence, charm, vigor, generosity, purpose, liberality, energy. Everyone knows he is Catholic but he doesn't wear it on his slieve. 

The USA is the good Sheriff. Strong, protective, prudent, just. Combating the evil, imperialistic, tyrannical, totalitarian USSR. 

We had, in recent memory, defeated two similar evil empires; restored Europe in the Marshall Plan; rebuilt our own economy into the most prosperous in human history.

While containing the aggressive Soviets, we were sending aid to the underdeveloped world of hunger and suffering: USAID, Peace Corps, Catholic Missionaries, international organizations like the UN, and such.

The Civil Rights Movement is gaining momentum and engaging all our moral elites, outside of the segregated South, including Church, university, unions, entertainment, athletics, media, law, politics.

There is a good deal of migration: blacks and Puerto Ricans moving into the northern cities for work and better living conditions. No great panic of anxiety as the cities absorb the new migrations as they had previous one.

An ecumenical, religious revival...Protestant, Catholic, Jewish...has lifted spirits across the country under inspired leaders like Billy Graham, Bishop Fulton Sheen, Abraham Heschel, Thomas Merton.

Fluidly if inarticulately, our entire country is Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Maternity-Paternity, Pro-Chastity/Fidelity, Pro-Religion, Pro-Capital, Pro-Labor, Pro-Country, Pro-Freedom...if imperfectly in practice.

Large, wholesome families...especially among Catholics and Afro-Americans...thrive in a spirit of hope and optimism as the anxious WASP elite have not yet engineered their dsytopian campaign of contraception, sterilization, abortion and genocide against the poor and powerless.

Working class is flourishing: forcefully represented by the Church in the cultural, the unions in the economic, and the Democratic Party in the political. 

Competition...labor vs. capital, Democrats vs. Republicans, South vs. North, Religious vs. Secular...is conducted in a spirit of civility, respect, cooperation. There is a lessening of resentment, polarization, demonization. There is a sense of national unity. And so, for example, Richard Nixon, who most probably lost the election due to election fraud in Chicago and Texas, gracefully conceded the victory for the peace of the nation.

If a single word were to describe USA 1960, it would be:  Generosity.  JFK embodied it. Graciousness, abundance, hope, confidence. He famously expressed it:  "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." He lived it, fluently, spontaneously, passionately. He was to Nikita Khrushchev what Davey Crockett was to Big Mike Fink, what John Wayne's Tom Doniphon was to Lee Marvin's Liberty Valence.

Our new MAGA America of DJT is morally the polar opposite of the USA of JFK. It is ungenerous, resentful, anxious, bitter, polarized, isolationist, insecure, vindictive, xenophobic, selfish and lacking in dignity, courtesy, magnanimity, humility, and basic decency. If JFK inspired us, DJT degrades us. 

I voted in this recent election, without reservation, AGAINST the deeper depravity of the DNC of Biden and Harris. The Trump victory may prove to be a move towards Franco/Mussolini/Salazar (the last is the best case scenario as he was the competent, devoutly Catholic, longtime dictator of Portugal). But it is a move away from a progressive totalitarianism I compare to Mao/Stalin/Hitler. 

I hope and pray that all the good, and none of the bad, possibilities of this new regime be accomplished. If Trump represents much of the ugliest side of America, he is also a fierce ally of the Church in so many of her concerns. Such irony that such a flawed person become in many ways our best friend.

We now know that the heroes of the early 1960s, JFK and MLK, who so edified us, carried private, moral cancers. They probably exceeded Clinton and Trump in promiscuity, marital infidelity, and abuse of young women. This malignancy exploded across our society in the late 1960s and has given us the contrasting (but not morally equivalent) perversities of today's DNC and RNC.

Is this essay a useless exercise in sentimental nostalgia? I think not. With this recall I remind myself, but especially our young (my grandchildren), that America is not a choice between DJT and Biden/Harris. Just one lifetime ago (65 years ago) the USA was magnanimous, confident, vigorous, procreative; not enslaved to jealousy, anxiety, resentment; and radiant with dignity, grace, charm, nobility. 

Indeed, in that manner may we "make America Great!"

Why the Hatred of Kneeling at Mass?

Cardinal Cupich, Pope' Francis' point man in the USA who has become a cartoonish caricature of the "Catholic Progressive" (note the substantive here!), recently sent out a carefully worded message: he hates kneeling at Holy Communion.  In my own parish a retired boomer priest also strongly condemned the practice. The Church's teaching is that standing is the normal, default posture but kneeling is explicitly permitted. Refusing communion to the kneeler is prohibited. And so the question arises: Why this animus against kneeling?

Cleverly, Cupich conjures a mystique around the communion "procession" as the community's sacred approach to the sacrament. By his logic, genuflecting or kneeling disrupts the process and is thereby self-centered, distracting, precarious and irreverent. This is quite novel.  I have been receiving for over 70 years and have read/heard thousands of talks/writings on the sacrament. I do not remember reference to such a "procession." It is not a procession; it is the communion line. We do not fantasize the line waiting outside of the confessional, all of us silent, a little apprehensive, arms folded, as a "vigil." As we wait for communion or confession, we are not in a public, communal ritual. We are quietly waiting to receive or confess. Our focus is on the anticipated encounter; not on some communal event.

In a meticulously researched piece of historical/investigative journalism, Nico Fassino ("'Stand Up Like Free Men': The Modern History of Standing for Communion"  Pillar, 1/14/25) details how the Church shifted from kneeling to standing. The change came during the implementation of Vatican II but significantly the documents make zero mention of standing as preferred over sitting. This is very important because Cupich makes a lot of fuss about the Council's profound changes. In fact, the Church fathers do not mention the topic. Here again we see a fabrication of the "spirit of Vatican II" mind, a perspective that does not need the documents as it follows its own intuitions.

While kneeling has been normal since Trent, if we go back through the centuries there has been abundant practice of both postures. So recourse to history does not resolve the issue in favor of one or the other. Mother Church in accepting both positions is true to Tradition. 

Where did this change come from if not from the Council Fathers?  Just prior to, during and after the Council a small cadre of progressive liturgical activists zealously advocated for the change. Initially they framed it in practical terms: as preferable in large gatherings and conferences for safety, efficiency and such. Clearly, however, this pragmatic argument camouflaged a deeper intention. In the fever of change and novelty after the Council, this view spread widely among bishops and priests. It seemed to blend in with everything else: vernacular, contemporary music, emphasis on community and disparagement of an alleged individualism. 

Significantly, it was vigorously opposed by the laity. Polls consistently showed that this was the most unpopular of the liturgical changes. With some exceptions, bishops/clergy disparaged such resistance as ignorant reaction and pushed confidently forward. Eventually, of course, they prevailed and standing became the default posture. And yet, the Vatican never caved to the pressure and preserved the option for both postures. This has been reiterated by the American bishops.

Personally, regarding the liturgy, I view compliance with Apostolic directives as absolute. Within that framework, I am "live and let live."  "Let a thousand flowers blossom." I relish charismatic, NeoCatechumenal, Latin, and above all the prosaic half hour daily parish mass. I am happy to stand or kneel. In a nearby parish, Holy Innocents in Neptune NJ, both are offered. The priest distributes to standers but to his left and right are lines of kneelers for those who so choose. I normally kneel. But I like the "choice."

But we are left with this question: Why do the progressives hate to kneel?

In today's "Ethicist" in the Sunday NY Times (1/19/25), an atheist asks if he can still go to mass despite his lack of belief. He loves the music, the ritual, and specifically the kneeling which gives him a sense of humility and gratitude. Happily, the Ethicist welcomed the (cognitive) non-believer to join the community. It is striking that even as a non-believer he appreciates the spiritual dimension of the posture.

The posture of kneeling, within worship, has two dimensions. First, it is adoration, recognition of the presence of that which is vastly Holy, Good, True, Beautiful. Before such a reality, the person needs to bodily pay homage, often in the posture of kneeling or even prostrating. Secondly, in regard to the self, it expresses a humility or a poverty, in relation to the Holy. This can be a gesture of contrition for sin, petition for pardon, or request for mercy in ones poverty, need, and suffering. It is a fitting and appropriate expression of adoration of the Powerful, Good, Merciful, True, Beautiful, Infinite, Absolute by one who is awestruck, admiring, fascinated, poor, sinful, unfaithful, finite, mortal, fallible, contrite and desperately in need. What's not to like about that?

In the title of his Pillar piece, Nico Fassino subtly suggests an explanation, without explicating it. He cites an article in Nov. 1965, by a lay liturgical leader, Mary Perkins Ryan,  who exhorts us to "Stand Up Like Free Men." She sees that many lay people view standing as disrespectful, but she insists that standing is appropriate as it demonstrates our dignity and freedom from sin, that we are free men and not slaves. On the positive side, she is correct: standing is a posture of dignity, not of disrespect. But she herself seems to imply that kneeling itself is lacking in dignity, the position of a slave. 

This may be the underlying motive for the antipathy to kneeling. That it lacks dignity, freedom, self-esteem. That it is vaguely demeaning. In this it reflects the positive, but implicitly secular humanism that swept the culture, and the Church, in the late 1960s. There was a pronounced emphasis on the dignity of the person, as a distinct individual. Unfortunately, this was accompanied by a pervasive loss of the sense of the holy, the transcendent, the supernatural as well as a denial of  sin (actual, mortal, original, etc.) and evil (the demonic, the weakness of the flesh, the "world.)

There is an irony here. The liturgical progressive is infatuated with "community" as it reconfigures "communion" with a focus on the community (singing, processing, kiss of peace) that displaces the Eucharistic Christ in his explicit, concrete, specific presence, body and soul, humanity and divinity.  Additionally, the humanist, infatuated with self-esteem, cannot tolerate talk of unworthiness, guilt, contrition.  But the communicant, now detached in practice from a sense of poverty and of adoration, can in fact be left with a sterile individualism and a superficial camaraderie.

The Novus Ordo is the true Eucharist of the Church. It is the privileged presence of Christ. It is also a human activity and as such is vulnerable to loss of reverence, silence, solemnity, contrition, and adoration. The Church does very well to maintain and cherish practices of kneeling, receiving on the tongue, silence, chant, incense, use of Latin and other practices. It is unfortunate that Pope Francis and his lieutenants like Cardinal Cupich so despise these salutary, ancient, honorable practices. 

Our age resembles the Arian crisis of the 4th century when a majority of the hierarchy embraced that heresy and orthodoxy was largely maintained by the laity (as well as bishop heroes like Athanasius.) And so today it is incumbent upon us all to maintain these reverent practices as we await a renewal of our hierarchy. 

State of Grace/ State of Sin

 "I can't receive Communion. I am not in the state of grace" the Catholic lady in the hospital bed responded to me. This is not unusual when we visit the hospital. As always,  I was touched by her humility and reverence. Any Catholic of my generation would understand; younger people, who came of age after the changes of Vatican II may not. Since 1965, we rarely use this language. But it is fundamental.

"State of Grace" is living in the condition of sanctifying grace which we enter in baptism. It is union with God, friendship with God; and so it is eternal life, that will prevail through natural death. It is not moral perfection or freedom from all sin; normally it coexists with a range of sins and failings. It is given to us as pure gift in baptism; it can be lost by mortal (grave, deliberate, and free) sin; it can be regained by confession to a priest. Normally it is conscious, deliberate communion with God that expresses as obedience to the moral law, participation in the sacramental life, fidelity to the duties of one's state in life, dynamic growth in holiness and virtue. Negatively it includes freedom from mortal sin; but that understanding is reductionist and inadequate. It includes faith, hope, love, joy, serenity, interior liberty, vigor and agency in God's grace and in union with the Church.

The noun "state" is misleading as it suggests a static condition. More accurately it is a relationship, of intimacy and mutual "indwelling" with God and his Church; it is  Event;  Encounter,  Drama,  Romance. It is boundless energy, vitality, agency, synergy, fascination, surrender, ecstasy, adoration.

"State of Sin" is the opposite: separation from God and the life he offers us. We enter this when we do a grave sin, deliberately and freely. ..which is to say we sin mortally, killing the life of God within us. A Catholic regains the state of grace by an honest confession of the sin. 

Can we know we are in the state of grace? Yes. With reasonable, but not absolute certainty. St. Paul himself said that he had no certitude of his standing before God, but that his conscience did not convict him. And he teaches the Churches with boundless confidence, clarity and passion. Now in retrospect, we know that as a canonized saint he was in the state of grace. Such confidence in one's good standing before God is accompanied by an overwhelming sense of his Mercy and one's own poverty and spiritual vulnerability and fragility.

We cannot ever judge the soul and heart of another. That is up to God. And yet we must make practical decisions, without presuming that we know the interiority of another. For example, the priest may decline absolution if he sees lack of contrition by the penitent. Padre Pio did that frequently. 

Likewise, for objective, not subjective reasons, there are conditions which impede one from receiving the sacraments. This is NOT a judgement that the person is interiorly in a state of mortal sin. It is an objective judgement that the observed behavior is scandalous for the Church. It is a rejection of a pattern of action; not of the soul of a person. So, for example, membership in the Nazi party, employment at an abortion clinic, cohabitation with someone outside of marriage, participation in human trafficking ...all these warrant exclusion from the sacramental life until there is confession and repentance.

At my father's funeral, I said that it was my sense that he lived his entire life in the state of sanctifying grace. He never left it. There was about him a simplicity, a purity, an innocence. (I pray TO him and my mother daily.) That is not to say he was perfect. And, of course, I do not know for sure. He did once tell me that he confessed missing mass on Sunday. The priest asked "Why did you miss?" "I went fishing" he responded. The priest's retort, before granting absolution: "Too bad you didn't drown out there!" In those days (1940s) priests were not playing around. He laughed as he shared it; his sense of humor and lightness was among his greatest assets.

Certainly, the two most pervasive occasions "the state of sin" and the consequent abstention from Holy Communion  are: sexual activity outside of marriage and abstention from Sunday Eucharist without a good reason such as sickness. Traditionally, we speak of people "living in sin" which means they are living as married spouses without marriage. We do not judge their intentions; but the objective situation. It is a counter-witness, especially to the young and impressionable. It is a behavior that invites others into sin.

Participation in Sunday mass is one of the very few laws of the Church. It is very sacred. I was told by one of my children: "I don't think I believe in the Eucharist." I responded: "You are not required to believe. You are required to show up." The singular gesture that indicates observation of the Catholic faith is attendance at Sunday mass.

This "state of grace/sin" category is defining for the observant Catholic. It cannot, however, be applied to those outside of the Church who do not inhabit our moral/spiritual/sacramental world. 

More troubling, however: the 4 out of 5 Catholics in our society who do not practice the faith. Can we apply these categories to them? (See prior blog on Catholic Twilight Zone.) I think not. It is not for us to judge who is in what state. That is up to God. The density, depth and complexity of the human heart/soul/psyche is beyond our comprehension.

At the same time, it is crucial that we protect the Eucharist from sacrilege. Just as non-Catholics do not receive the Eucharist, so Catholics non-compliant with our "Way" (miss mass, cohabitate, etc.), would participate sacrilegiously were they to receive Holy Communion. And so, our Church, meaning our priests, have the challenge of protecting the sacredness of our sacraments without being perceived somehow as judgmental and exclusionary.  What a terrible task! 

It is salutary for us to dread, despise, renounce the "state of sin"...for ourselves and others. Not to judge anyone. But always to "hate the sin; love the sinner."

Much  more so, let us exult in the "state of grace"! Let us remain, relax, abide in deep serentiy, gratitude, safety, and joy! Let us inflame the fires of zeal, agency, charity, justice, and hope! Let us delight in the love we share with each other, in the Trinity!

 

   

Catholic Twilight Zone

Most of the people I engage, in the various worlds I enter and exit regularly, are in a "twilight zone" with regard to the Catholic Church and faith. They are neither fully in nor fully out; they are in between somewhere. They are not in the flaming heat of the midday sun of Christ's love for his Church; nor are they in deep, cold darkness. They are a blend of light and darkness. This is also called "Catholic Lite" or "cafeteria Catholic" (choose what you want) or "thin Catholicism" (contrast to the "thick" or countercultural type.)

In NJ where I live, about 50% are Catholic. About 20% of Catholics "practice" their faith by the clear, specific habit of attendance at mass every Sunday. We Catholics have that very concrete, observable criterion: practice of our faith is clear in attendance at Sunday Eucharist. So perhaps 10% of our population are observant Catholics; about 40% are non-practicing (used to be called "fallen away") Catholics. That 40% practices their faith in a great variety of ways and intensities. Some come to Church on Christmas, Ash Wednesday and Easter; others attend mass randomly; many want baptism, communion, marriage and burial in the Church but have little interest otherwise. 

Many have formally left the Church for another religion but retain more than a minor residual Catholicism. There are different directions: some become "born again" in Evangelical or Pentecostal Churches; others retain much of their childhood faith in a convenient marriage with progressivism (women priests, gay marriage, etc.) in mainline Protestantism. We have a litany of high profile "Catholic" politicians who wear their faith on their lapels as they crusade militantly against her fundamental convictions. And SO many gifted artists who proudly retain a Catholic identity, albeit in a diluted form (Jack Kerouac, Bruce Springsteen).  And then there are the famous "Nones" without allegiance to any social body; but they may find themselves making the sign of the cross when passing a Church or cemetery. And of course we have the phenomenon of "reversion" or return back to the Church.

Beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church I find many people who have sympathy, attraction, and fascination with it. For example, many are influenced by a devout spouse, possibly attending mass and eventually converting.  In visitations as voluntary hospital chaplain, for example, I encounter secular Jews who use the rosary or are attached to St. Padre Pio. I just this morning read that Protestant President Ronald Regan had the Ave Maria sung at his funeral.  A Latin Mass friend of mine invited some Jewish friends: "Do you want to go to Christmas midnight mass with us?" He didn't expect the response: "Midnight mass? Are you kidding? What Jew does not want to go to midnight mass?"

Among my very favorite books is "The Christian Unconscious of Sigmund Freud."  Brilliantly, psychologist Paul Vitz highlights the fascination of Freud, the great antagonist of religion, for Catholic Churches and cathedrals, particularly in Rome. We see here that even the fiercest enemies harbor deep ambivalence about the Church. 

We also observe that some of the great secular, moral minds are drawn to the Church, but are unable to make the crucial step across the doorway, for reasons not clear. We think of Jordan Peterson, David Brooks, Ernest Becker and Albert Camus. We might call such "Almost Catholics."

I think of the Church as the mother, not always vigorous and thriving, who hovers over our society. Most of us are spiritually adolescents in crisis mode: still dependent, but desiring autonomy; and fluctuating in and out of resentment towards Mom.

I think of our society as a dynamic energy field, with the Church at the center, a powerful magnet, at once drawing us together, but also repelling many of us. And so, at any point in time we have complicated dynamics, with some fleeing desperately away from the Center, and others being drawn close. It is a thrilling, powerful Drama: at once a clash, and a romance of freedoms, human and divine and demonic. 

It is a great Mystery, the movements of our hearts and souls towards and away from God and his Church. And the subtle, profound ways we influence each other. 

May we all of us be drawn...and draw each other...into the midday Sun of God's love.

Movie Stars and Actors

Thinking about the greatest male, English language, cinematic actors of all time, I have been considering the sharp contrast between "movie star quality" and acting ability. The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that the two are not merely contrasting, but entirely different realities, "forms," and are mutually contradictory of each other, incommensurate.

By "star quality" I mean the powerful, indescribable charisma, charm, fascination, allure, and attraction that mesmerizes the movie viewer. This is the figure that "lights up the screen." By contrast, acting ability per se is the ability to create a new character  in which the person of the actor himself largely disappears. These two are almost contraries. The movie star brings his unique "persona" to each role, which becomes a vessel to manifest his compelling, fascinating person. The actor disappears in deference to a new creation, a new role, a new person. 

My suggestion: the great figures of the movies are either stars or actors. They captivate us by their own charm and charisma; or they dazzle us by disappearing behind the appearance of a new character. The two are incompatible. 

My favorite stars:  Marlon Brando,  John Wayne, Gregory Peck, Burt Lancaster, Al Pacino, Paul Newman, Denzel Washington, Yul Brunner, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg,  Humphry Bogart, Gary Cooper, Fred Astaire, James Dean, Montgomery Cliff, James Stewart, Henry Fonda, Spencer Tracey, Anthony Quinn, James Cagney, Cary Grant, Clark Gable, Gene Kelly, Steve McQueen, Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Robert Redford. 

My favorite actors: Daniel Day Lewis, Russell Crowe, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Hanks, Ed Norton, Philip Seymore Hoffman, Alec Guinness, Anthony Hopkins, Robert De Niro, Kevin Spacey, Jack Nicholson, Robert Duvall, Christian Bale, Sean Penn, Tommy Lee Jones, Jeremy Irons, Ralph Fiennes.

It is worth noting that the earlier, classic era (up to the 1960s) we see more stars; more recently less star power but a higher level of acting. More contemporary stars (Pitt, Damon, Clooney, etc.) are hardly in the same league as Wayne, Peck, Grant, Cooper. But they and their contemporaries are better actors.

When we think of the star, we have a clear, powerful image of the person that pervades every performance. John Wayne is a good example: he does not need to act; he is always John Wayne; us fans don't want him to be anything else. His portrayal of Genghis Khan is a cult classic and simply hilarious. By contrast, Alec Guinness is well known as Obi Wan Kenobi, but his career prior to Star Wars was a magnificent diversity of characters, each unique. His own persona is low in celebrity, glamour and appeal. He is a pure vehicle for the character he portrays. Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are very similar in lifetime achievement; but I see that Pacino brings this star charisma to every role; while De Niro has the greater ability to disappear behind the character he portrays.

To be sure, some of the great stars are also great actors: Brando, Pacino, Dean, Quinn. But it remains that even in their greatest performances their personal charisma is irrepressible and exultant. Likewise, some of the great actors have great star stature by virtue of charisma as well as a huge body of work; but their greatness as actor includes their ability to camouflage their personal charisma in deference to the character they play.

We love our great stars as well as our actors. But I must give primacy of place to those actors who disappear behind their character and yet infuse that character with a radiance, power, fascination that is detached from the actor himself: Daniel Lewis, Russell Crowe, Ed Norton, Jack Nicholson, Robert Duvall, and Christian Bale.

Don't we love the movies?   

Virtues of Virility

 "Any man who has not plunged himself into the magnitude of the littleness of Christ is not fit to exercise power."    Caryll Houselander

These few words from the incomparable Brit pierce more sharply, profoundly into the perversity of ordinary (which is to say sinful) masculinity than volumes from militant feminism and cultural liberalism. The greatness of these 21 words is that it offers, not just a diagnosis, but a cure; The littleness of the Christ Child that we have been celebrating now for over two week.  

In the light of this luminous insight, I offer that the primary, foundational virtue of noble virility is humility; that the secondary virtues are fortitude and chastity; and that the tertiary are sobriety, serenity, prudence and justice.

HUMILITY is truth, honesty about one's self: one's gifts, strengths, goodness; the splendor of the masculine vocation as son, brother, groom and father; and one's weaknesses, failings, toxicities and perversities. It is this last that is absolutely crucial: accurate acknowledgment of one's inadequacies and sins. The slightest confusion or inaccuracy on this creates a monster. 

We are all of us men like St. Peter: one moment grandiose ("Even if I have to die with you I will never disown you"); the next minute violent (cutting off the ear); and the next cowardly ("I do not know the man.").  The greatness of tri-polar Peter is that he fully owned all of this, in humility, and opened his heart to the Mercy and Love of Christ.

We are each of us prone at any moment to become Herod the Great, megalomaniac murderer of infants, or the Holy Innocents themselves, witnesses in God's grace to the Christ. We are each of us at any moment prone to become Herod Antipas, cowardly adulterer and killer of the Baptist, or the witness-Cousin himself, fierce-fierceless-chaste-humble herald of Christ.

Humility is the pivotal virtue because the masculine, contrast so sharply with the feminine, has no value or worth interior to itself. Masculinity is entirely representative; it is created to stand for, present, convey Another, a far greater one, God the Father and Christ the Bridegroom and infinite varieties of analogous sacred authority. Virility is a vessel that carries something far greater than itself. It is the temple that encloses the Holy, the altar that contains the precious Body and Blood.

Consider our US Ambassador to Germany: he is not a policy maker, an executive, a legislature, a judge. He is a messenger. He carries the policy and decisions of the President to that country. Were he to start developing and proclaiming his own ideas he would be a contradiction. He is the communicator, nothing more. And so that is the masculine.

My oldest son once told me "I love to wear a uniform." He spent many years a a JAG lawyer with the Army. He was an EMT, a bartender, an altar boy. He now is a father. In all of these he stands for something greater than himself. My younger son teaches religion in a Catholic high school: he is a "doctor" in theology; he is certified; he has been tried and proven; he has immersed himself in the Great Tradition and speaks from it, not merely from his own limited experience and views.  I myself enjoyed many years in the brown uniform of a UPS driver. In that outfit I was something different from myself. I walked into hundreds of businesses and offices as if I were a partner there, fully comfortable and accepted. I was more than my own little self. Today  I am comfortable and confident in several ministries (catechesis, hospital, jail): not because of my own gifts and charm, but because I represent something transcendent, the Church of Christ. I represent!

And so the priest, judge, fireman, soldier, security guard, doctor and lawyer in his suit...all of the above are vested to indicate what they represent, something transcendent and abiding and worthy. How much more does the father...in the family or in the Church..."stand in" for the one True Father, our heavenly Father.

And so the primary task of the masculine journey is the: Deflation of the Ego. The male ego (contrast to the fluid, organic, generous, inclusive, welcoming feminine psyche!) is brittle, fragile, vulnerable, selfish and resistant to surrender and generosity. How can such be infused with light so as to become flexible, generous, porous, generous? The male has to be loved. To be humble is to be loved. To receive unmerited, undeserved goodness and grace. And then become a vessel of such to others. So the path to wholesome, humble virility is...paradoxically...not masculine competence, assertiveness and know-how, but receptivity!

FORITUDE understood as gentle strength and courage is the second crucial masculine virtue. Key here is the conjunction of gentleness with strength: this is the peaceful, calm, confident strength of the good father in his care for the little ones, including the mother. There is nothing shrill, frenetic, resentful, insecure or anxious here; but a deep serenity that conveys security, safety and peace. This includes courage: a certain ferocity and fearlessness in the face of attack of any sort. The man knows his life is to be given away, disposed of, in the service of his family and community. The woman sheds blood in her distinctive way, on behalf of family and new life. The man is prepared to spill his own blood, in the mode of martyr or hero, on the hill or battlefield that is given him. The goal of the young man is not success, affluence, achievement; but self-sacrifice, heroism and nobility in whatever combat or task is required. So we men need always to keep in our attention the witness of the martyrs and heroes.

CHASTITY is purity of heart...freedom, simplicity, sobriety, temperance...in the key arena of sexual desire and emotional/romantic yearnings. It is the inner capacity to see, value, revere, and protect the sanctity of the feminine. This is, for many of us, a lifelong task. Concupiscence, our wounded condition due to original sin, leaves us men especially infected with disordered, often overwhelming physical and psychological urges. The pandemic of pornography that has crept over our society since the 1960s has made things that much worse. Cultural progressivism and theological liberalism is in large part an enormous denial of the need for chastity and the perversity of lust and covetousness. This is a tragedy for our society and our Church. Our young men need to be mentored, encouraged, corrected and challenged to embrace purity of heart and chastity of the body. We Catholics benefit from the unspeakable splendor of the sacrament of Confession; but it is largely unused. The revival of virility basically includes the renewal of chivalry and chastity.

SOBRIETY here goes well beyond freedom from addictions and compulsions to include all that traditionally is understood as temperance: interior moderation, peace and harmony that is free from the intoxicating, confusing and disorienting passions of lust, anger, anxiety, depression, discouragement, jealousy and resentment. Sobriety is a relative emotional serenity that allows the intellect to operate freely, clearly, accurately in the evaluation of often complex and unclear realities. We speak of the "sobriety" of the judge by which we mean a certain realism, objectivity, neutrality and fairness. Such sobriety obviously builds upon humility (as the ego needs are not tyranical) and chastity and leads to the practice of prudence and justice.

SERENITY is the calm, certainty, clarity and security that flows from the prior virtues of sobriety, chastity, courage and humility. It is the peace inherent in genuine fortitude. It is a mysterious graciousness, stability and sense of safety that emanates from the good father. Where does such a good father himself find such serenity? From his own filial intimacy with his heavenly Father, the source of all that is good and true and stable!

PRUDENCE is practical wisdom, identification of the GOOD in the concrete practicalities of any situation, which flows from the prior virtues of serenity, sobriety, chastity, courage and humility. It is practical intelligence, exercised by a will that is not bound by disordered emotion and able to consider patiently all the circumstances of the Reality before it. It is the ability to judge correctly the right, the true, the just and the good of a dramatic, historical event.

JUSTICE flows fluently from the network of virtues already present. Here we do well to recall the memory of the Patriarch Joseph, chaste and wise and forgiving of his brothers, he was able to wisely guide the Pharaoh and exercise stewartship throughout the famine. Likewise, his namesake, St. Joseph, husband of Mary and father of Jesus, was a man of purity, courage, wisdom and responsiveness to the heavenly who protected the mother and child so well.

Let us conclude these considerations by returning to the words of Caryll Houselander about the "littleness of Christ." Here is the key to noble virility. The Christ child is little, humble, responsive, vulnerable, trusting, and above all receptive...of the love flowing from Mary, Joseph, the animals, the shepherds, the Magi, the angels, the Holy Innocents, the Father and the Holy Spirit. From all eternity, Jesus is The Son, absolutely and perfectly and infinitely receptive of the Father in the Spirit. Each of us is destined to emulate this receptivity...in our own unique, concrete lives...in filial trust, delight, obedience...in a humility that surrenders and embraces the courage, purity, sobriety, serenity, prudence and justice of Christ himself and all the saints, martyrs, heroes, patriarchs, doctors and fathers.

 

An Encounter: Stephen Tripp

That I, with my weak memory for names, remember so clearly his, after a random encounter over 50 years ago, indicates that this was not a trivial event.

In the extended, happy, honeymoon period of our marriage, before we received our first born (1971-4) we religiously practiced the sacred American rite of Saturday date night. Mostly we loved to go into "The City" (meaning lower Manhattan): movie, dinner and drinks, maybe stop at a bookstore or an open Church or a Saturday vigil mass.) We were walking up Avenue of the Americas, early evening, when around 9th or 10th street we almost walked over a man laying in the street. Many people were passing; some pausing to look or enquire. But I instinctively knelt down next to him and asked "Are you ok? Do you need help?" It seemed probable it was a drug overdose. I have the idea he could not see me, but not that he was blind. He seemed to immediately like and trust my voice as he grabbed my arm and said "Yes. Please help me." No cell phones than. I don't recall thinking about an ambulance, which would have been the correct protocol. We helped him to his feet and determined to bring him to a hospital. Fortunately, St. Vincents's was just one long block west so we made our way there slowly. He could barely walk on his own but he was not a big man and we were both young and strong so it was not so difficult. The ER declined to evaluate him. His address was not too far: more than a mile, less than two. We slowly accompanied him east on 11th Street a couple of long blocks and then south on, perhaps 3rd or 4th Avenue, quite a few blocks. 

His condition improved as we walked. We now were balancing but not carrying him. We talked pleasantly.. He must have told us he had overdosed. The walk was delightful. Lighthearted, in a heavenly way. The kind of transcendence we often receive from the ordinary flow of life at a really good vacation or funeral or wedding. Lifted out of life: easy, peaceful, delighted. 

As we left him, very grateful and affectionate, I said to myself: "I will never forget Stephen Tripp." And I never have. I wonder if he remembered us.

The High Feminism of Marian Catholicism

Mainstream feminism exploded upon our society in the sixties and has in large part informed our culture since. At its best, it was a liberating and refreshing release of women's energies across the culture, beyond the restrictive, (in my opinion) mostly wholesome and fruitful, limits of the postwar period of 1945-65. At its very best it recognized the feminine genius that enriches us in all areas of life. At its worst, it was the firstborn of the cultural/sexual revolution: an imitation of toxic/dysfunctional machismo as sexually liberational, careerist, techo-fanatic, individualistic. At its very worst, it vacated of any meaning the very concept of femininity, leaving Supreme Court Justice Brown incapable of describing "woman."

By contrast, consider the esteem for femininity inherent in the Catholic cult of Mary, Mother of God. 

The very early and decisive definition of Mary was that she was Mother of God, not merely of Jesus in his humanity. From this flows a litany of maternity: From the cross Jesus entrusts John, representing the Church, to her and establishes her as Mother of the Church. Beyond that, she is considered Queen of Angels and Saints. As such, she is the supreme creation, "nature's solitary boast," the incomparable high point of history and the universe.

Two Catholic dogmas defined authoritatively from the chair of Peter are the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). Both are celebrated by holy days of obligation. We see here the Petrine or Papal (which is to say masculine) dimension of the Church deferring in reverence to the holiness of a singular woman. We see clearly that within the Catholic Church the Petrine-priestly-hierarchical-apostolic dimension of the Church is subservient to the Marian, feminine, Church of holiness.

From Genesis we know that she would crush the head of the serpent, Satan, and so by her "fiat" or "yes" at the Annunciation she (cooperating with grace flowing from the subsequent Passover of her Son) decisively defeated (or "pre-defeated") Lucifer and the kingdom of darkness.

The forth of the Marian doctrines (along with the Immaculate Conception, Motherhood of God, and the Assumption) is her perpetual virginity: that she conceived Christ by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, and that she was preserved eternally in her physical virginity with all its spiritual significance. 

An idea congenial and obvious to the Catholic mind, but incoherent/ridiculous/sentimental to the secular intellect, is that of "the Eternal Feminine." In Genesis we see that "male and female He created them." Clearly, the ideas of masculinity/femininity were already in the mind of God prior to his creation of Adam and Eve. Since God is eternal, this form-essence-substance-logos of femininity existed intellectually prior to creation, history and the universe. As a divine idea, it is eternal. The perfect instantiation of the "eternal female" is, of course, the Immaculate One. But every specific woman...however wounded and disordered...is an expression of this "idea of God."

We do not speak of the "eternal masculine."  The masculine, as a form, is inherently inferior, diminished, and largely void of inherent value. The purpose of the masculine, in its very poverty and vacuity, is to represent another: the Father. The feminine, by contrast, is not primarily representative, but holds within herself her own value, preciousness, and worth...for eternity.

The purpose of the masculine is to be poor and humble, to revere the feminine in the mode of the Divine Bridegroom, and to provide and protect, in imitation of the eternal Father, the little ones, in need of such strength and mercy.

When the Father-Son-Holy-Spirit envisioned Creation...infinitely before time, history, or this universe...They fell in love...with the entirety of Creation...but specifically with its climax, the feminine as Mary. No, Jesus is not the high point of creation: he is an anomaly, a hybrid, both God and Man. Within Creation, it is Mary, the woman, who is the goal, the fulfillment, the climax. Jesus is the one who came from heaven to save us from sin and death and bring us into Eternal Life. He is the fireman who storms into the building, kicks down the doors, saves the Woman and her children, and dies heroically. His life is disposable, there to be given away, to save the Woman and her children. 

The Catholic lives an enchanted reality, inaccessible to modernity as cultural liberalism and techno-mania. We move from the comfort of the womb, to that of the breast, into the arms of Mother Church, within a Motherland, always on Mother Earth, which is part of a universe held by the Mother of God.

With Don Quixote, the Catholic man  sees in every woman, however wretched, Dulcinea, a creature of unspeakable loveliness. Yes, this can be in part a hallucination, a projection of insatiable desire. But no, at its heart it is a glimpse of the "eternal feminine" ... of the radiant, even salvific splendor inherent to femininity as created, and then redeemed, in Mary, by God.

In the real world that makes us Catholic men vulnerable to the seduction, the manipulation, the allure of the "femne fatale," the Jezebel, the Sirens, the temptress. No, we cannot blame Adam, or Ahab, or so many who have surrendered to temptation.  It is the weakness of the male and the inherent enchantment of the feminine that set up this dangerous drama. The strongest antidote to this temptation is, of course, closeness to the feminine in it integrity, dignity and holiness: that is, close, chaste, enduring friendship with good, holy women.  Here I pause to make a personal boast: I doubt there is a man on earth who has been so well loved by so many good, lovely, holy women as have I. I think God realized I needed this, as my personal weakness is so pronounced.

This is why I must praise and honor the Beauty, the Truth and the Goodness of the feminine: in our Mother, the ever-Virgin Mary, and in so so so many women close to me!