''The Great Emasculation," "The Hegemony of Eve-ist, non-Marian Femininity," and the Effeminate Church

The current drama of history is a contest between two matriarchies: the Queenship of Mary, Virgin Mother, who co-reigns with and deferential to her son, Christ our King, and his heavenly Father; and the tyranny of evil stepmother Eve-ist Faux-Feminism, which serves the master Lucifer.      Fleckinstein 

In a remarkable piece ("The Great Feminization" Compactmag.com, October 16, 2025), Helen Andrews identifies the eruption of "woke" culture with the demographic transition, a decade or so ago, when women became the majority in important realms like education, law, medicine and other. She agrees that inflection point was  the famous demise of Larry Summers at Harvard, in 2005, due to remarks about female competence and interest, at the highest levels, in science and math. The canceling was not in principle or according to clear argument, rather a visceral, emotional reaction of resentment, orchestrated by the now hegemonic feminism. 

I would like to offer a further clarification of this monumental development, not to contradict, but to enrich the analysis. First, it is not femininity as such, but rather a toxic form of femininity that is ascendant: it is "eve-ist, non-Marian" femininity that has triumphed. Secondly, closely related. is the contemporaneous decline of wholesome virility that has allowed toxic feminism to fill the void.

Femininity: Marian and Eve-ist

Toxic femininity is what we inherited from Eve herself. In her surrender to Lucifer, she was an isolated individual, separated from, possibly abandoned by but at least neglected by Adam, depending upon her own resources, independent of spouse and God. Vulnerable, she surrendered to suspicion of God at the cunning words of the serpent. She decided to take things into her own hands...without communion with God or husband...and grab the forbidden fruit. She renounced her given identity as receptive, trusting, surrendered, serene and generous. She GRABBED the fruit. Then she influenced Adam, drawing him into her chaos. 

In sharpest contrast is the femininity we receive from Mary, virgin and mother. She is fully in communion, from conception, with God. She is receptive, trusting, innocent, compliant. She is eager only to do what pleases the Father. She receives and conceives by the Holy Spirit. She lives a humble, quiet life in union with Joseph. She crushes the head of the Serpent.

The militant feminism that exploded upon us in the 1960s was entirely Eve-ist, not Marian: sexually liberated, suspicious of masculinity, disbelieving in God, self-determining, individualistic, careerist, status-envying, sterile, abortion-loving, resentful, competitive, materialist, consumerist, self-pitying. 

This was not the sublime femininity of...say, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Theresa of Lisieux, St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross, St. Mother Theresa of Calcutta, or Blessed Maria Teresa Demjanovitch of Bayonne!

Nor was it the femininity of an alternate school of wholesome, holy feminism: Mothers Drexell, Cabrini, Cope, Jadot, Hawthorne, Cusak, Elizabeth of the Trinity, Elizabeth Leseux, Etty Helison, Faustina,  Edith Stein (already mentioned), Sigrid Undset, Raissa Maritain, Alice von Hildebrandt, Gertrude von Fort, Elizabeth Anscombe, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Caryl Houselander, Maisy Ward, Adrienne von Speyr, Madeleine DelBrell, Flannery O'Connor, Eva Peron,  Mary Anne Glendon, Tracey Rowland, Helen Andrews, Mary Harrington,  Rita Simmons, Debra Herbeck, Heather King, Chiara Lubich, Janet Smith, Helen Alvare, Anne Eberstadt, Margaret Rose Laracy  (a favorite of mine), Abigail Favale, Margaret McCarthy, Kimberly Hahn, Patricia Snow, Anne Hendershott, and many more.

Nor is it the St.-Joan-of-Ark like femininity-with-virility we see in figures like Nicky Haley, Condoleza Rice, Margaret Thatcher or...my current favorite: Amy Coney Barrett. 

Notwithstanding her radiant femininity, maternity, and charismatic Catholicism, Barrett stands in marked contrast with the faux-masculinity, effeminacy of Donald Trump. In the current term of the Court, she promises to be the distinctive voice, capable of restraining his actions according to the Constitution. She is calm, rational, objective, sober, steady,non-partisan, confident, clear, based, restrained, serene. Trump is quintessentially the non-virile, toxic male: agitated, irrational, emotional, resentful, jealous, attention-seeking, volatile, unhinged, unrestrained, obsessed with himself, indifferent to institutional protocols. In her recent book and current round of interviews (note especially that with Ross Douthat) she clarifies that the Court's decisions are not personal, not about Trump, but about the future of our country. She is our judicial Caitlin Clark: clear, competitive, forceful, determined, steady...and yet feminine! That is a miracle!

Another striking figure of virile femininity is Erika Kirk. Breathtakingly beautiful in every way; but strong, clear, decisive, determined, fierce. She is Catholic and Evangelical. She may ultimately exceed her husband in influence for the good. If so, it will be because her radiant femininity is infused with a holy, wholesome, vigorous masculinity...largely through the love she shared with Charlie.

The Decline of Masculinity

The great puzzle and tragedy of our time: the virile men who returned victorious from the war to work hard and raise large families failed, in large part, to communicate their masculinity to us, their boomer sons. My analysis: we are all Momma's boys. Our fathers were out working long hours...lots of overtime and career advancement...and our mothers happily left the work force to concentrate on the kids. At the same time our economy exploded with prosperity. By around 1960 our shared standard of living was surely the highest, on such a large scale, in human history. If our fathers were hardened like steel in the Depression and War, we were softened,  pampered and indulged by affluence, too much mothering, not enough fathering. We are the spoiled generation.

I speak with the expertise of an insider. A certified boomer, I am a "mama's boy in recovery." Always have been. Soft in temperament, I profoundly crave infantile regression: return to the enclosing womb, the warm breast, the maternal embrace, vision of the exquisite face, all the comforts of feminine attention. Fortunately, I am painfully aware of this disordered compulsion. Many men are not; and so they use porn; stay on their phones and computers; refuse to commit to marriage/career/family; contracept/cohabit to retain maternal comfort without the cost of marriage and paternity. I benefited in the long run by being exiled from the maternal paradise by the rapid birth of 8 younger siblings so I had no choice but to find my way as a man in the cold world of competition, confrontation, and warfare. (okay, dear Reader, I am being melodramatic here! It was not that bad!)

 En masse, upon entering adulthood in the late 60s and 70s, we embraced the sexual revolution, contraception, materialism, resentment of authority and tradition, the hegemony of the Imperial Self.  We abandoned our Catholic faith and the heroic ideal of manhood. 

Militant feminism, suspect of full throttle masculinity, preferred a soft, androgynous variety: gentle, non-competitive, domestic, therapy-friendly, quasi-pacifist. Toxicity was attributed to police, military, all-men clubs, competition, evangelicalism, traditionalism, capitalism.

Traditional rituals and rites of passage, absolutely necessary for the itinerary into noble virility, were systematically replaced by the amorphous ideal of androgyny. This takes, of course, an extreme expression, not so much in homosexuality as such, as in gay and transwoman identity. But it takes a more pernicious form across the mainstream as, for example, all-boy prep schools endorse feminism and sponsor LGBTQ clubs.

And so we welcome the primal, volcanic explosion of raw masculinity in the Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk and even Donald Trump phenomena. We hope to channel it into nontoxic, wholesome, even holy forms in the tradition of our fathers.

Effeminate Church

That Andrews' demographic model requires correction and elaboration becomes evident when we consider the Catholic Church.  Holy Orders remains restricted to men. Notwithstanding recent appointments of women to administrative positions, leadership remains 99% male. Yet, our Church has largely gone woke and effeminate. 

The Church inherently, internally is feminine as Marian, receptive of the love of the Groom. But "effeminate" is not feminine. It is a perversion of the masculine: a weakness in identity, a faux-femininity springing from a depleted or poisoned masculinity. It is a pathology. 

This is manifest in the priest scandal, which afflicted teenage boys predominately; as well as in the gay culture that is no longer so covert. It pervades the entire clerical culture and the Church itself since the Council. Arguably, today's Church is less the product of the (Spirit-inspired) Council than of the Great Emasculation. Priests, bishops, theologians and many laity are simply "mamma's boys," lacking in integral masculine confidence, certainty, fortitude, chastity, humility, and magnanimity. They are heavy on compassion, kindness, tolerance...which is good. But these are not tempered by justice, truth, retribution, wrath, ferocity, courage and authority. 

The fetish with synodality is effeminate: it replaces the masculine, decisive, authoritative, apostolic synod with a vague, feel-good, indecisive, bureaucracy of endless listening. At the same time, the protocol is tailormade to be manipulated, behind the scenes, in the effeminacy of a disguised progressive agenda.

The new, absolute ban on capital punishment is effeminate. It is not based on principle and reason: it does not firmly call the thing inherently evil. It is in part a foggy, illusory trust in prison systems as adequate protection; in part an avoidance of the reality of retribution, here and in the afterlife; but mostly a sentimentality, a distaste for the practice. It is emotional, not intellectual. It is effeminate.

The papal/episcopal disapproval of borders is admirably compassionate, but in its implicit approval of Biden-type open borders it lacks the masculine sense of boundaries, rules, protection, order, and rule of law. It is effeminate. 

The papal surrender to the Chinese Communists and the Cultural Progressives of the West: effeminate, a failure in virile, truthful witness.

The crisis of the Church is one of effeminacy. No wonder men are not drawn to the priesthood!

Conclusion

The two defining saints of the 20th century were St. Mother Theresa in her maternity; and St. John Paul II in his paternity. He in his iconic virility. She in her even more virile, heroic, holy femininity.

Male effeminacy is an infection, a sin to be overcome. As is "Eve-ist Femininism." But femininity and masculinity are creations of God. They are intrinsic to the order of reality. They are finally inexorable. We see around us surges of wholesome, holy femininity and masculinity. This is a Joy. This is our Hope.

Dear Pope Leo,

My youngest brother (by 8 years) graduated with you from Villanova, 1977; so I write you as I would him, as my little brother in Christ; with due reverence for you as our Holy Father and Vicar of Christ on earth; with tender affection; with respect for your evident gifts; aware of shortcomings only recently manifest. To do such takes theological confidence, clarity, certitude and even cockiness. Fleckinstein (you are aware dear Reader) is not lacking in such!

In your choice of name, you clearly emulate Leo XIII. I urge you: do not expect to give us a Rerum Novarun for the 21st century! Rather, echo the Augustinian (your order) Leo who foresaw the darkness of the 20th century, the invasion from hell, and gave us the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, the call to spiritual combat.  This second Leo understood Augustine's view of the City of God and the City of Man. The first is the presence of the Kingdom of God among us, since Jesus, in the Church. The second is the realm of libido dominando ("lust for domination") which is the determining force of "the world," the arena of political force, violence and control. You belong to the City of God, not the City of Man. This is not a dualistic binary, rather a realization that in the real world the two interpenetrate each other in subtle, complex fashion, but are clearly distinct.

It is NOT your job to be global chaplain and outline the framework for international peace and justice. That is NOT your mission! I urge you: Do Not Worry...about...climate, immigrants, income inequality, fascism, capital punishment. Pray (as St. Padre Pio taught us), hope, and do not worry. 

Renounce the error of Pope Francis: to see yourself as global chaplain of a new international Christendom, as instructor of everyone in political ideology. Even Ross Douthat (with whom I agree 98% of the time) (NY Times Oct. 12, 2025) is looking for you to do what Leo XIII did for 20th century Catholicism in Rerum Novarun : provide political guidance going forward. Such is not possible. Such is not your job.

Catholic social doctrine...initiated by Rerum but developed for over a century through John Paul and Benedict...holds up well in postmodernity as it is not a meta-theory but a body of fluid, flexible, organic principles, rooted in Natural Law and Revelation, applicable in all contexts and untied to any system or ideology: solidarity with the poor, subsidiarity, common good, freedom of conscience, etc. These remain useful to us going forward and admit of organic development.

Douthat correctly notes that Leo XIII set the table for Catholic politics of that century by rejecting, as the Industrial World was emerging, both collectivist socialism and individualist capitalism in favor of a balanced, communal vision of social life rooted in the traditional family and entailing freedom of initiative, markets, unions, a limited but a robust state to serve the common good, countervail power/wealth, defend the worker and the poor. This template was implemented faithfully in the postwar West after the New Deal and in Christian Democracy in Europe.

 That accomplishment no longer holds: we are in a new world, far more dark, violent, turbulent, dangerous, and puzzling. It has been compared to that of Augustine and Benedict by sages like Ratzinger, McIntyre and Dreher: the old order weakened and collapsing under the assault of barbaric forces. In that time, it is unthinkable that any pope, AI program or genius could have anticipated the subsequent development of the monastic movement into the Medieval order. And so with our world: we look back, 80 years, and know the world we are leaving; we do not know the one we are entering, except that it is dark, dangerous, and complex. We speak of  "postmodern" and "postliberal."

"Postmodern" is the rejection of mega-theories of rationality and sees around us decision and freedom in the face of uncertainty, chaos, contingency, irony, partiality.  Encyclopedic, universal political theories and systems of all sorts...Marxism, Democratic Liberalism, Progressive Evolutionism...are now sterile, abstract constructions. Neither system nor abstraction serve us: we stand in a dramatic war between the holy and the hellish. Our choice is a hard binary: Nietzsche (protege of Lucifer) or Christ!

"Postliberal" means that the liberal, global, postwar Pax Americana no longer holds in a multipolar world of competing totalitarianisms/fascisms and a West bitterly waging culture war. Surely the basic Christian values (freedoms, rule of law, human dignity, right to life) remain; but they no longer cohere in a neat system like that of FDR or Ronald Reagan.  

Do not pressure yourself to create a brilliant new social thesis including technology, AI, the internet, medical ethics, the renunciation of lethal force (war, death penalty, defund police), global warming, immigration and borders.

First of all, there is nothing in your resume, temperament, training, ordination, mission or charism that prepares you for this impossible task.

Secondly, the dark forces overwhelming us are immense, far beyond the capacity of anyone to understand and order: loss of faith and despair across the West, totalitarianisms of communism and Islam, emergent fascisms, technology, global warming, wars and violence. This is LIBIDO DOMINANDI at a volcanic, boundless degree. 

As pope you have no role, no capacity, no place in the arena of libido dominandi. Your domain is the sacred, this is the profane, the secular. One reason the Catholic hierarchy allowed the priest abuse to continue was the systematic clerical incapacity to recognize and confront Evil. Inherently, priests have an innocence, a naivite, a cluelessness in dealing with evil. And so, papal teaching on warfare, death penalty, borders and such is unrealistic, largely illusionary. If it was up to the hierarchy, the USA would never have bombed the Iranian nuclear site, Israel would not have devastated their war machine, and the Middle East would still be dominandi by totalitarian mullahs. 

Stay in your lane! Sweep your side of the street! It is yours to shepherd the flock in Truth! It is the truth of the Gospel and the life of worship that unites us in Christ and empowers us to enlighten the world now in darkness. It is for the laity to deal with the secular, the libido dominandi. Yours is the realm of the sacred.

Please:

1. Rescue the Chinese Church that Pope Francis surrendered tragically to the communists.

2. Strengthen, clearly, our Catholic ethos of family, chastity, fidelity, respect for life. It is this that underlies any just social order. Stand against cultural progressivism. Dismiss the "blessing of homosexual unions." Define "synodality" as a spirituality of reverent, compassionate listening and get rid of the emergent faux-apostolic bureaucracy. Restore the John Paul Institute to the teachings of John Paul.

3. Welcome the Latin Mass back into the heart of the Church as did Pope Benedict.

4. Correct the Catechism back to the ancient, unchanging Catholic teaching on the death penalty as a prudential decision by secular authorities.

5. Clean up curial corruption: the progressive, lavender mafia; all the financial corruption; the continuing tolerance for sexual abuse by predators like Rupnik, 

In the last few weeks, dear Pontiff, you have shown us something of yourself. I am saddened and disappointed. There are clear indications that you will, as you promised, follow the path of Pope Francis: act as global chaplain; accommodate Western sexual liberation and Chinese Communism; and neglect the our urgent pastoral needs above.

Nevertheless, you are our Holy Father and Vicar of Christ on earth. You are a holy priest, a man of the poor, a steady and judicious institutionalist. We love you. We will pray all the more for you as we see that you are not temperamentally prepared for the task before you.   

Come Holy Ghost!

Eucharistic Reverence

 Two essays on the America  website (October 12, 2025) troubled me with regard to reverence for the Eucharist.

Eucharistic Procession at Chicago ICE Facility

"Eucharistic Procession Turned Back by Feds at Broadview ICE Detention Facility," by Kevin Clarke, describes that a procession, led by Jesuit Fathers Inczaukis and Harnett,  to the facility, famous now for confrontations and attempted deployment of National Guard, were denied entry. A Chicago archdiocesan priest, Father Dowling, described the refusal by authorities: "Evil is repelled, recoils in the presence of Christ." 

This disturbs at several levels.

First, mere respect for the integrity and protocols of the facility itself. I have some familiarity with jails: over the years I have been in such perhaps 50 or 60 times: visiting my Godson, Goddaughter, and doctor friend; in the 1970s with a charismatic Catholic ministry; and recently in Ocean County jail where we do a Catholic communion service. I have been trying to get into my own Monmouth county jail for some time, unsuccessfully. It can be as hard to get into jail as out of it. Security is the first concern in these facilities and many have had bad experiences with "holly rollers," of various faiths, unrestrained in enthusiasm and dismissive of rules.

Rules in jails are very strict. Obvi, they house the worst of us: sociopaths, sexual predators, murderers, gang members, child molesters and such. To get in, even as part of a Church ministry, you need to be thoroughly vetted, documented, approved and put through training. Rules vary, but where we go you dare not bring into the facility a cell phone, rosary bead, pen. You do not give your full name, address or phone number. If it turns out you know someone or even know someone who knows someone in jail, you report immediately. You do not carry messages for anyone. When the weather recently changed, I asked a guard if I could give a shivering woman my sweater (I have 18 at home) and was refused. You do not give a holy card to an inmate without explicit permission from the guard. A single violation and you do not enter again. I swing loose in my life with the trillions of rules around us; but with the jail I am serious and religiously compliant. This is a sacred thing: in that we are bringing the Eucharist and joining with each other in Christ; but also in that we are in the presence of substantial evil, and protections are absolutely necessary.

There is no way the authorities could have allowed entrance, responsibly, to this procession. Ministry to those inside is possible, but only with thorough vetting, regulation and the establishment of serenity. To allow a rando group of activist do-gooders into a facility under siege would be ludicrous.

Secondly, but more sacrilegiously, this abuses the Eucharist, weaponizing it in an histrionic, melodramatic fashion. Common sense would assure these activists that they would be denied entry. This is a performance, a public relations stunt, a piece of ideological drama. 

Imagine a rightwing Catholic group planned a Eucharistic Procession as part of a prolife rally or a protest at an abortion clinic. This also would be a sacrilege. There is a profound, powerful interlink between politics and religion, but they are distinct arenas and need to stay in their respective lanes. 

Last, but not least, there is the demonization of the ideological opponent. The priests attribute Evil to the authorities. They wax self-righteously about the refusal of compassion, comfort and religious liberty. Those authorities are probably following the rule book, which they would be derelict in duty should they dispense themselves. The ICE agents are doing their jobs; they are working as directed. We can disagree about the Trump or Biden immigrant policy; we can argue; we can fight it our electorally. We can combat, respectfully and soberly, policies of Stephen Miller and Kristie Noem without demonizing personalizing, emotionalizing and melodramatizing. 

This procession is suggestive of a progressive clericalism which assumes a posture of moral superiority, consecrates its own ideology, demonizes that of the opponent, and rest upon an ignorance of the actual, complex, difficult realities of law enforcement, use of lethal force, running a business,  borders, taxes, health care, energy and environment policy. This clericalism is widespread in the upper echelon of the Church of Francis and Leo. Catholic laity do well to steep ourselves in the morals and dogmas we receive from the hierarchy, but receive with vigilant scrutiny the often uninformed clerical incursions into prudential, policy debates.

At the Catholic Eucharist we gather as brothers-and-sisters in Christ, across political, policy and ideological lines. It is a grave violation of our ecclesial unity to weaponize the Eucharist against the other side.

Kneeling and Standing at Mass

In "Why US Catholic Kneel During Eucharist and the Rest of the World Stands," the accomplished Thomas Reese S.J. does to me what I have come to expect from my Jesuit friends: educates me, but also disturbs me.

On the positive side: he explains the background of why Catholic outside of the USA stand. In the ancient Church, kneeling was associated more with contrition than praise so that kneeling was strictly prohibited on Sundays and Easter season. Standing erect in worship was considered more dignified and appropriate, expressing Easter freedom and joy. This makes a great deal of sense. We speak of "a standup guy." We encourage each other: stand strong. Stand up for yourself. I stand with ....! He notes that the Vatican II rubric calls for standing as the proper posture, with allowances for exceptions. The American bishops were granted such because we are associate kneeling with Eucharistic worship. This short history gave me a good attitude about "standing"...in worship and in life. I will more devoutly stand in worship going forward (even as age diminishes my stamina.) 

Catholics started kneeling in the 12th century, as the illiterate did not understand Latin, the mass became something like Benediction, visual worship, from a distance, increased sense of sin, less frequent reception of communion. Fr. Reese, less positive about this than many of us,  is arguing for a return to the ancient and still widespread practice. He makes a good case.

Personally, I cannot entirely buy it. I am formed in a practice: for example, returning from reception I kneel and pray. This is for me a posture of adoration and intimacy with Christ. I want to kneel, not stand or sit. The Church wisely allows both. The Catholic Eucharist is a Mystery of such transcendence, power and beauty that it is not contained in any single formula. I personally enjoy the Latin Mass, the Neocatechumenal Eucharist, and Charismatic celebrations as well as the normie parish rite. Unity in expression is valuable: I happily stand with the standing, kneel with the kneeling and sit with the sitting. What is distracting: Some stand, some kneel, some sit. Worse: everyone is kneeling except one guy in the front pew, who stands defiantly. Given the chance, I prefer to kneel at the rail and receive on the tongue. Regarding those who kneel, from the line, before receiving:  I respect their piety, but would prefer to be spared the distraction. These postures can mean different things in different cultures and contexts. I would not want to only go to the Latin mass (but my nervous physiology appreciates that we sit-stand-kneel about 36 times) or the Neocatechumenate so reminiscent of the Passover or mass served with prophesy and tongues.

So I liked Fr. Reese's history and would happily participate (to the degree that my 78 year old stamina allows) in his standing-friendly rite. 

Then he wrote: "The Eucharist, after all, is a prayer with Jesus to the Father, not a prayer to Jesus." Hold the phone!!! We are "...not praying to Jesus?" Are you kidding me? Are you exaggerating for impact? My whole life I have been praying TO JESUS at mass! Why would you set them against each other: Are you praying with or to Jesus...hard binary, one or the other. Yes we are praying with brother Jesus to the Father. But when we pray to the Father we are also praying to the Son. We are praying in and within Jesus, in the Holy Spirit, to Father-Jesus-Holy Spirit. This is the mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Those few words, "...not to Jesus" reflect an Arian-leaning, low Christology and a weak Trinitarian theology. 

Conclusion

In the Eucharist, we participate, through the humanity of Jesus, in the very inner life of the Trinity. It is the most sacred thing on earth. The Church in her Spirit-inspired wisdom strikes a marvelous balance: First of all, she allows a valid variety and flexibility in  rites, postures, languages, and styles. So, Pope Francis erred gravely in repressing the Latin Mass which inspires many with its pronounced solemnity, silence, kneeling, chant, and formal reverence. The Neocats, the America Jesuits, the charismatics all bring varied styles: if they are reverent, they are acceptable to the Church.

At the same time, as the very embodiment of God on earth, the Eucharist has a super-sacred integrity, which absolutely must be respected. We noted that a jail has a firm, definite structure to it which cannot be dismissed. So much more does the Eucharist have such an integrity: we genuflect in the Presence, we fast one hour, we reserve it for baptized Catholics (with some exceptions), we surround it with reception of the Word, praise and prayers, song and silence. We receive the very life of the Trinity and then we return to ordinary, secular life where we do our works of mercy and fight our political battles.

The Holy Ones I Have Known: a Litany of Gratitude and Praise

 Criteria: I consider anyone I have known, even by a single conversation or attendance at a public lecture. The below are not flawless in regard to heroic virtue, emotional maturity, or theological orthodoxy. Rather, each has been possessed by and radiate the truth, mercy, love and holiness of Christ in such depth and intensity that the imperfections are drastically diminished.

First, the heavy hitters: I spoke with Mother Theresa and Dorothy Day. I attended two lectures by John Paul, one audience with Pope Benedict, two conferences with Kiko Arguello, one with Cardinal Suenens and one with Bishop Fulton Sheen.   (Pretty good start, eh?)

Father Joe Whelan S.J. is the holiest person I have known. He taught me mystical theology at Woodstock Jesuit Theologate in NYC 1970-2.  At the same time, I studied fundamental theology with Avery Cardinal Dulles S.J. whose breath and depth of theology was infused with a modest holiness of life.

Fr. Mariusz Koch, Franciscan Friar of the Renewal, is the holiest living person I know. Everyone who knows him agrees.  This order (notwithstanding failings) is the most holy culture I have known: it's depth and intensity, closeness to the poor and prayer life, come from founders: Fathers Groeschel, Apostoli, Sudano, Pio and others.

My father and mother, Ray and Jeanne Laracy, and maiden Aunt Grace lived lives of quiet, modest holiness. They were formed in the great Depression and the war, products of larger families and the broader Church that looked to God for help in times of trial and suffering.

John Rapinich (my best friend) and his wife Mary impacted me closely. We participated in the charismatic renewal; he lived in our house; he introduced me to the Neocatechumenal Way. With  Frank and Jeanne Palumbo they catechized my original community exemplified the striving for holiness.

Leadership of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s would include prominently Ralph Martin and locally Fr. Jim Ferry. Our own prayer group in Christ the King was led by a marvelous group of women: Sister of Charity Patricia Brennan, Dominican Sister Marge Jarosz, Kay Ready, Gloria Jeanne, Joan, Betty. 

Fr. Paul Viale (charismatic), Fr. John Wrynn S.J., Fr. Neal Dougherty S.J., and Fr. Ray McKeon who served me as spiritual directors.

Betty Hopf was a dear sister to us and aunt to our children. 

 Sister Joan Noreen, founder of Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist, was our spiritual mentor in recent years. 

In Jersey City, Sisters of Charity Maria Martha Joyce, Virginia Kean, Margaret McCarthy all worked with the poor, taught school and were spiritual "big sisters" for me .  

Sister Marilyn Minter and fellow Felician Sisters set a tone of holiness where I taught in Immaculate Conception HS.

In my college seminary years, Maryknoll fathers Tom Malone and Jack Halbert were exceptional. My personal mentor was librarian Pat William. 

Among my classmates several stand out: Fr. Jim Lee who died slowly of ALS after a fruitful priestly life; Fr. Larry Lewis, a delightful, eccentric, insightful master of the spiritual life; and John Harper who has built his identity and work upon the 12 steps.

In the parish of my childhood, St. John's Orange NJ, Fr. Dante DeGioralamo, known for his devotion to the Holy Face, was saintly in a vivid way. But the large body of priests, Christian Brothers and Sisters of Charity all created a general ambience of goodness.

David L. Schindler, for me the premier Catholic American theologian of our time, embodied the "praying theology" of Balthasar, personal holiness combined with brilliant erudition. He set the tone for the entire faculty at the John Paul Institute in D.C. 

That school has a close relationship, through thinkers like Monsignor Albacete, Fr. Antonio Lopez and Fr.  Paulo Prosperi, with the Communion and Liberation Movement. This is another striking environment of Godliness open to all the goods of Creation.

Among Protestants, I was impacted in the Charismatic Renewal by Ruth Carter Stapleton (healing of memories) and other Evangelical-Pentecostals. 

In studies at the liberal Union Theological Seminary, NYC, I encountered holiness in Anne Ulanov, Samuel Terrien, Will Kennedy, Sister Mary Boys and others.

At Seton Hall University I was privileged to study under Fr. Larry Frizell and Rabbi Finkel, outstanding scholars of admirable character and spirituality. Immaculate Seminary there features similar thinkers including Monsignors Liddy, Guarino, Joe Rielly, Doctors Bill Toth and Dianne Traflett. 

Christian Brother Ray Murphy has been for many years a big brother, friend, mentor. Additionally he calls to mind the Christian Brothers who taught me from grade 5-8 in St. John's Orange NJ 1958-61 as well all the brothers in our Church.

Recently, Presbyterian Reverend Cindy Wilcox has mentored us in hospital ministry: high energy, talented, radiant with the love of Christ.

Ivan Illich is the last because he is by far the least canonizable. He was heterodox in significant ways. But he made clear he was not a theologian. He was a brilliant, eccentric, passionate, mystic, prophetic critic of modernity. 

I have surely been unusually blessed, over the years, in my associations. 

I am proud of my list of 65: 2 canonized saints, 2 two popes, 2 cardinals, 1 bishop, 5 founders of religious orders, 3 founders of renewal movements,  4 monsignors (I never met a monsignor I didn't like. Pope Francis didn't like monsignors; that was his problem!) 18 priests, 24 women, 9 of them sisters, 5 Protestants, 1 Jew, 1 Brother, 2 ex-priests, 4 eccentrics, 18 are alive today.

As I finish, I am mostly aware that I have been blessed to live always in communities that are far from perfect, but open in faith to God, striving towards him, aware and contrite for our sins and failings. This includes family, friendships, parishes, schools, ministries, and renewal groups of varying sorts. The hermeneutical key to Catholic life is not perfection; actually it is imperfection. It is desperation,  craving for and trust in God.. It is awareness of sin and weakness, honesty in confession, reception of pardon. It is gratitude and joy in praise. It is attraction to and association with those who are strong with us in this walk.

I invite you, dear Reader, to consider your own personal litany. You will find it encouraging and inspiring. What is your top 10, or 20, or 65?

Our Pope, Our Bishops, and Our President's Roundup of Noncriminal Undocumenteds

Pope Leo has asked our bishops to stand together strong along with him, on behalf of immigrants. Clearly he intends Trump's roundup of those who entered illegally but have not committed crimes here. As a political conservative, I see that bishops have no competence or charism for politics and policy. They err when they intrude, with the best of intentions of helping the disadvantaged, into complex matters with multiple dimensions and consequences. They needlessly polarize, including setting themselves against those with different views. They dilute their actual authority in faith and morals.

They teach on morals but not policy. When there is a clear, substantial social evil, they must speak out strongly. Examples: the Civil Rights movement, abortion, right of workers to unionize (e.g. farm workers), a reasonable safety net for the poor, religious freedom, and blatant injustice. Does this current deportation reach that bar of gravity?

I believe it does. This for two major reasons, and a number of secondary ones.

First of all, the fear, confusion, chaos and disruption is quite overwhelming. No need to detail.

Secondly, these immigrants technically broke the law, but morally, formally, actually they did not. We know that a law or rule that is systematically not enforced by authority becomes technically, but not actually a rule. Implicitly, authority is approving of the violation. 

Imagine: St. Fleckinstein's Prep School handbook forbids chewing of gum in the building. No one reads the handbook. Everyone chews gum. The Dean of Discipline is never not chewing. When he runs out of gum he asks the nearest student. The guidance counselor and the school nurse both give gum to students. There is a lively market for chewing gum in the hallways. A new Dean takes over; he reads the handbook. You are standing at your locker, chewing gum, when the new Dean spots you. He gives you a three day suspension for disrespecting school rules with a warning of expulsion if you chew again.  Is anything wrong with this scenario?

For four years our border was open. Biden basically announced upon his election that the laws about immigration would not be enforced. They were effectively voided. This was simply as stupid a policy as one can imagine. (You know, reader, that Fleckinstein rarely uses the s....d word!) Every immigrant that crossed that border "illegally" did so with the clear approval of the President. Biden broke the law by refusing to enforce it. Those whom he incentivized and allowed to cross were in compliance with his policy. For that reason, I do not call them "illegals." Daily I exceed the speed limit on NJ highways by over 10 MPH. In my work and life I probably break a dozen or more rules every day.  I am not "an illegal." 

There is widespread consensus, even beyond the Right, that Trump did a great job of closing the border and in gathering up the criminals. But arresting otherwise hardworking, decent people is troubling.

A reasonable government maintains a degree of nonpartisan continuity between administrations. For example, an international treaty or policy  (nonproliferation, peace, environment, tariffs) is not absolutely binding upon subsequent regimes but some deference to precedent is generally prudent. Otherwise our internal instability will make us unreliable in all diplomacy. Imagine: Trump deports millions and then AOC wins in 2028 and open the borders again. This can get crazy. But in any case, the culprit in this story is the Biden administration, not decent folk who accepted the welcome.

There is a host of other reasons why this practice is unwise. 

1. Our economy requires this cheap labor in agriculture, construction, hospitality and elsewhere.

2. Demographically we need more citizens because without immigration in a few decades our elderly will overwhelm our young in their demands for social security and Medicare.

3. For the most part, they are hardworking and industrious, eager for employment, not inclined to depend upon the state or play the victim and identity politics cards. Immigrants in general tend to be courageous, energetic, and ambitious and so enrich our nation.

4. For the most part, they are Catholic or Christian and therefore congenial to our culture, unlike the Islamic incursion into Europe. While they incline liberal politically, they bring strong family and religious values.

5. Immigrants send money home to their families and thus provide humanitarian assistance that is far more generous and efficient than aid from our government.

6. Their immigration is a testament to our nation. They and their children generally are grateful and become loyal citizens.

7. The imagery of masked ICE agents showing up at parking lots, Churches and schools has a Kafkaesque, Gestapo-like vibe to it. It is understandably infuriating at least half of us. I include myself. It is adding fuel to the tragic polarization of our society.

To conclude: this is the rare case in which I hope our bishops, with Pope Leo, will lean heavily into President Trump: keep up the good work on the border and criminals. Leave the decent people alone. Trump is himself flexible. He can turn on a dime. We need him to hear a strong voice on behalf of all these hardworking families.

  

The Confused Faux-Sacramentality of "Synodality"

It is a sadness that our new Pope shares the confusion, the "hopium" (delusional optimism),  of Pope Francis about what they call "synodality."

Spirituality of Listening

If this is about listening to each other, I am the first on line. Early in our married life, around 1972, I read the psychologist Fr. Charles Curran who brought into the heart of education, counseling and Church life the empathetic listening highlighted by Carl Rogers. I travelled to Winsor, Canada, to hear him in person. I was converted. Since then I have strived, imperfectly, to listen. It does not always come naturally. 

When you listen you soon see widespread confusion and error. So many people believe so many crazy things and are so certain about them. This ignorance and error is largely intractable, virtually invincible. It is not possible to convince them through listening and conversation. You listen; you witness to the Truth; you get no result; you remain in serenity about "the things you cannot change." 

Nevertheless, compassionate, generous listening remains at the core of Catholic life and our corporate witness to Christ and Truth.

"Synodality:" An Institution

There is a vagueness about this novel, invented concept. It may best be described as the organization of listening into a bureaucratic institution, a "synod." Traditionally, a synod is a gathering of bishops to decide a controversial matter. But this new synod is not such: it is a democratic gathering of all sorts of people to listen to each other. It is a mega-sharing session. Apparently, the results carry some degree of authoritative authority; this is unclear. But there is a mystique about it; a trust in it. To it is attributed a vague efficacy: if we gather people together, listen to each other, we will be drawn by the process deeper into truth and love. It is our new sacrament, a deliberate act that carries grace efficaciously.

We know that among Catholics a large majority does not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Similar large numbers would approve of contraception, gay sex, in vitro conception, legal abortion. Most Americans (but not Japanese) would approve of the bombing of Hiroshima. Increasingly large numbers, especially of the young on the left, accept violence for political purposes. Politically, our Catholic electorate is divided, almost exactly 50-50, in support of the contrasting forms of moral depravity on the left and the right, with few signs of moral ambivalence about their preferred side. What do we get if we gather such in synodal sessions? Confusion and error!

Another problem is that the process is easily controlled by Church insiders, ideological activists, who position themselves to construct the results that they intend: progress away from Tradition. Conservatives like myself are not spending time and resources to influence the process. We have much better things to do. 

 Conclusion

We need to contrast the traditional and the novel, progressive understanding of synod: the first denotes a gathering of ordained bishops to teach the truth; the second is an amorphous sharing session, of all kinds of people, easily manipulated, to which is attributed an illusory efficacy. 

Our Church of 2000 years...of the apostles, fathers, doctors, confessors, martyrs... has been synodal in the traditional sense, NOT the novel, progressive sense. If it was good enough for Peter, Augustine, Thomas, Newman, and John Paul...it is good enough for me!

 

I Never Saw a Movement I Didn't Like

 A movement...political, spiritual, cultural...is the eruption and spread of a coherent pattern of ideas/values/beliefs/practices across society, for a limited period, in mimetic contagion and deliberate advocacy, leaving an impact on the culture and its institutions.

An earlier blog essay inventoried the institutions which have defined my world and myself; here I will review the movements which have shaped myself and my world over the last 8 decades. Institutions are stable, permanent, reliable across time; they preserve, protect and advance values as they shape those of us who serve them. Movements are temporary, transient, novel and revolutionary; they arise, engage culture, and disappear, leaving an impact and sometimes new institutions to preserve their values.

The last 8 decades have been a time of rapid, deep, pervasive change...and many movements, spiritual and political. Life has been similar to a surfer: we ride a wave until it crashes on the beach, then paddle back to await another good wave. The immense ocean and the sturdy board represent the stable, enduring, permanent; while the waves are change, movement, novelty.

We will consider first  religious movements that have shaped my own faith and that of the Catholic Church. Then, broader political movements that have formed our  world and my view of it.

1. Post-war Catholic Revival in the USA 1945-65.

Just prior to my birth, my father's courtship of my mother consisted of weekly attendance, with his mother, at Miraculous Medal devotions. They prayed, I am sure, in 1944-5, for the end of the war and return of their brothers. (All five came home safe; every man from Our Lady of the Lake, West Orange, returned home safe.) Our family of 9 children, quite common at the time, prayed the rosary along with the global crusade of Fr. Patrick Peyton. Our parents participated in Cana. They read America magazine and books from Sheed and Ward, the flourishing Catholic company. Fulton Sheen and Thomas Merton were celebrities; John Kennedy became president. By the early 1960s, when I was in high school, there was a wave of confidence and enthusiasm about sending missionaries and Peace Corps volunteers to Latin America to assist. Small wonder that I chose to attend Maryknoll Missionary Seminary for college.

2. Vatican II Renewal 1962-78. 

Immediately after the Council, in college, I was caught up with much of the Church in a Dionysian frenzy of hyperactive argument, reading and criticism about change in Catholicism and the society. So much to read, digest, engage: politics, psychology, theology, culture. I spent about 6 years in a steady state of low key euphoria about ideas, books, theories. Intellectually it was overstimulating. But so much fun. Spiritually, not so good. Most of my classmates in the seminary fell away from practice of the Catholic faith as they were pulled into politics and psychology. We did not receive a solid catechesis on the Christ-centered focus of the Council. A tsunami of ideas assaulted us and no one was available to situate them within our Catholic legacy. For myself, prayer life and closeness to God were at best at a plateau, but more probably diminished as attention went to new secular ideas and enthusiasm. I was largely typical of most Catholic intellectuals engaged in this.

3. Catholic Charismatic Renewal 1970s.

Our young marriage and family that was to come were powerfully impacted by engagement in the Charismatic Renewal in 1973. Coming off of Cursillo in which each of us encountered in a personal way the person of Jesus Christ, we were swept into a new surrender to the Holy Spirit and immersion for several years in an intensive, exhilarating Bible-center, evangelical-Catholic community. This brought prayer to the center of our marriage and family and has directed the course of our life since.

4. Dual Papacy (John Paul and Benedict) and Communio Theology. Post 1978. 

When John Paul became Pope I had already dived into the theology of Balthasar as presented by the Communio school in Washington DC. And so I voraciously devoured every word that came from his teaching: on Divine Mercy, Theology of the Body, labor and the social order, the primacy of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and more. This deepened, clarified and intensified my Catholic faith in all its essentials.

5. Other Spiritual Movements.

Coincident with the above major developments were a series of smaller ones which strengthened and deepened our Catholic faith: Divine Mercy as revealed to St. Faustina, the Catholic Worker movement and related groups (Madalein Delbrel, Catherine Dougherty), Cursillo, Marriage Encounter, Marian devotions including messages from Medjugorje, Communion and Liberation, Neocatechumenal Way, the 12-steps, Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist.

Significant also was the influence of psychology, the (in)famous "triumph of the therapeutic." The challenge here was, of course, to harmonize good psychology with our Catholic philosophy. Helpful here were people like Fr. Charles Curran (psychologist), Paul Vitz, Fr. Groeschel, Eric Erickson, and others. Along these lines also were psychology-inspired contributions to spirituality: healing of the memories of Ruth Carter Stapleton, deliverance of demons as practiced by Neal Lozano, the "scrutinies" of the Neocatechumenal Way, the gentle spirituality of Adrian Von Kaam, and the Catholic evaluation of psychology of Paul Vitz.

So we see here four major and ten minor movements, renewals, or revivals that directly impacted my own life as well as the Church and society around us. Now we consider of political movements.

Political Movements

Prelude: victory of Allies which structured the world into which I was born.

Cold War.

Labor movement. (Important for my family of union men.)

Development of the "third world" out of poverty.

Civil Rights.

Farm workers.

Anti-war movement and the New Left.

Countercultural Hippie Movement.

Reagan Revolution.

Prolife Movement.

Neoconservatism, specifically of First Things, and the Evangelical/Catholic dialogue.

All of the above impacted me significantly, and our world, for the good.

Toxic Movements

Actually, not all movements are to the good. The decisive, destructive movement of my lifetime is the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. This was many things but importantly: liberation of sex from marriage/family/children, deconstruction of gender, rejection of Tradition, gay liberation, militant feminism including abortion, eruption of technology into sacred domains of life and death without restraint by the natural order. More recently this movement has developed identity politics and the culture of self-pity, victimhood and grievance. 

More recently we have the MAGA movement, a study in moral ambiguity. On the one hand, Trump is the singular political figure that has defied and (at the moment) pushed back imperialistic Cultural Progressivism and restored order and reason to our border and other things. On the other hand it is toxic with his egoism, disregard for truth and reality, inflated nationalism, contempt for constitutional order, xenophobia, cruelty to the undocumented, lack of fundamental respect and dignity. And so, we find ourselves forced, in some degree,  to ally with this disorder against the greater threat. 

Conclusion

The above litany is subjective, personal, and  autobiographical but it does cover a shared history.

When you are grounded in the solid rock of the Catholic Church, family, and American constitutional democracy, you can move fluidly with the movements, currents of novelty and creativity. 

We live in interesting times.

 

"Catholic Politician"...Category Error

Commenting about the Durbin controversy, Cardinal Cupich bemoans that our polarized political system prevents anyone from being a truly "Catholic politician." This very concept is incoherent; it is a category error; it reflects the confusion of progressive thought.

It is like saying a Catholic mechanic. Doesn't make sense: his faith doesn't meaningfully effect his work. Or a Catholic ballerina. Or a hypertense ballerina. Or an anorexic polar bear. Or a progressive peanut butter. We don't give awards to our most Catholic mechanics, or ballerinas, or surgeons. They are distinct categories.

By definition, the progressive confounds politics and religion: politicizing the faith, and sanctifying the politics. So the religion becomes a political agenda: against racism, capitalism, etc. And the particular ideology...anti-racism, global warming, gun control...becomes itself a religion. It is astonishing that a Prince of the Church is so fundamentally confused. 

The Catholic social conscience does have some absolutes, that are not prudential policy affairs about which we can differ: pedophilia, abortion, torture, sexual abuse, contraception, slavery, military targeting of civilians. These are clear and simple, absolute, always wrong.

A second category would be issues that protect our way of life, the practice of our faith: freedom of speech and worship, ability to educate our children including in our schools, ability to place children for adoption without coercion to place them with "gay couples," liberty to run nursing homes without providing contraceptives to our employees, etc.

However, 95% or more political questions are pragmatic, prudential, policy calculations involving complex weighing of anticipated consequences; taxes, borders, tariffs, health policy, and so much more. There is no Catholic position on these. We gather at the Eucharist in a union that goes far deeper and farther than our policy arguments. 

Cupich suggested that we sit down in synodal meetings and talk about things like the award for Durbin. I would rather have a tooth pulled! This is silly and stupid to the extreme. We have been living together, since Roe, for over 50 years, two different worlds, prochoice and prolife: talking, arguing, voting. The divide is worst than ever. I do not bring up the subject. I do not want to talk about it. We do not convince each other; we do not have a "meeting of the minds." We live in two different worlds. And we will continue to battle politically over it. And we are obliged to do so respectfully. And there is a Catholic position on legal abortion: opposed! There is no Catholic position on immigration: not pro-Biden. Not anti-Trump. We can, as Catholics, be pro-Biden or pro-Trump, as good Catholics. But...please...no lifetime achievement awards!

Pope Leo, to my disappointment, made a similar category error in commenting on the Durban thing: "...if I say I am in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States I don't know if that's prolife."  So the immigration situation is complex, multifaceted and open to many interpretations. About half of the nation, and slightly more than half Catholics, voted for Trump and his immigration policy. They are not in defiance of Catholic doctrine. Catholic teaching is that we treat all people, and especially refugees charitably and justly, even as we protect our borders. How that is implemented is open to dispute. The Pope has no charism regarding border policy.

"Inhuman treatment?" If I illegally sneak into Mexico or Bermuda, or a movie theatre, or the Academy Awards, or somebody's backyard pool and I am arrested and sent home for trespassing...Is that inhuman? Am I being demonized? Not inherently.  Personally, I am in agreement with the majority of Americans as I do not want us to arrest and return illegals who have not broken the law here (other than the entry.) But: No, that is not necessarily demonizing or inhuman. Nor does it require a Pope to give it a status of moral equivalence with abortion of the unborn.

It is a sadness, a sadness that we can only accept: that our Church leaders, in the person of Leo and Cupich and many more, are confused as they use their charism of teaching authority, from Holy Orders, to advocate a particular progressive ideology.

Lord, grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change.

Grieving for the Truth in the Church of Pope Leo XIII

Today's first mass reading (Nehimiah 2) not only allows me but directs me to grieve, like Nehimiah over the collapsed walls of Jerusalem. The Persian king asks his cupbearer why he is so sad. With fear, Nehimiah answers that it is the destruction of his beloved Jerusalem. Compassionately, the king asks what could be done. He asks to rebuild the walls of the city. Not the temple itself, but the walls.

Just Sunday past we heard Amos condemn Israel for failure to grieve over the collapse of Joseph. In both these readings, I hear the Lord directing us to grieve over our Church.

Yesterday I was grieved to read Pope Leo's response to the crisis in Chicago. Cardinal Cupich decided to give Senator Dick Durbin a lifetime achievement award for his work on immigration. Durbin has long been forbidden to receive communion by his own Bishop Paprocki of Springfield. For decades Durbin has advocated for legal abortion, including even partial birth abortion. The policy of the American bishops for many decades has been to not publicly honor staunch defenders of legal abortion. In this decision, Cupich disrespects the college of bishops and his own neighbor bishop. About 12 bishops have spoken out against the award; none have spoken in favor. Durbin finally declined the honor, thus ending the controversy.

Walls

Walls, boundaries, definition, rules...are essential for us in many ways. Today's patron Saint Theresa of Lisieux, lived her short life behind the cloistered walls of a convent. Those are very important for this life. They mark a place of prayer, separate from the world, where the souls of the elect unite with God.

Psychologically we all need walls, boundaries: to define ourselves, to defend our dignity and integrity, to elucidate our mission and responsibilities. 

A nation needs boundaries. Our country is in crisis now because for four years our territorial integrity was not defended. Indeed, the open border policy incentivized the poor to send their children here alone or to place them with gangs and human traffickers. This unwise policy did immense harm to our common good and to many who were motivated to violate our laws.

Our Church needs walls: clarity in belief, practice, and worship. It is especially the task of the Pope to provide this definition in Truth.

Pope Leo on the Durbin Scandal

Pope Leo: "I think it's important to look at the overall work that a senator has done...in 40 years of service...I understand the difficulty and the tensions. But I think...it is important to look at many issues that are related to the teachings of the Church." He then went on to say that a prolife position on abortion but in favor of the death penalty is not prolife; and prolife on abortion but in favor of inhumane treatment of immigrants is not prolife. He of course ended by calling for mutual respect.

This can only be read as support for Cupich: that he may indeed prudentially reward a prochoice Catholic politician if his record on other issues warrants it. This is, however softly, a correction to Paprocki and a contradiction of the policy of the American bishops.

Back to Ratzinger and McCarrick

In 2004, then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a private letter to the gathered American bishops in which he directed that a Catholic politician who persists in advocacy for legal abortion after being spoken with is to be denied Communion. Then-Cardinal McCarrick ran the meeting. Astonishingly, he kept the letter private, did not at that time read it to the bishops, but paraphrased it as saying that the matter was a prudential one at the discretion of the particular bishop. 

We see that the spirit of McCarrick and Ratzinger are still at war in our Church. Paprocki is loyal to Ratzinger; Cupich and apparently Leo to the McCarrick misinterpretation.

A Church in Actual Schism

Durkin cannot receive communion in Springfield where he lives; but next door in Chicago he is given the highest imaginable honor. Gays can get blessing of their unions across the West but nowhere in Africa. A divorced-remarried-without-annulment spouse is welcome to communion in Germany, but not across the border in Poland. 

We are now clearly two distinct Churches; a Church in schism.

Durbin has apparently said that he considers Cardinal Cupich to be his bishop. Wow! Cafeteria Catholicism on steroids! We can choose our own bishop! Ok...I live in NJ but my bishop of choice is Cardinal Burke in Rome...or whoever. This is insanity!

Challenging Ecclesiology

We are, of course, ONE, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. But we are in reality two distinct Churches in significant aspects of practice, belief and worship. The Church of Ratzinger and that of McCarrick; that of John Paul and that of Francis, and now of Leo. This is difficult: as we differ gravely on matters of Truth we need to maintain our bonds of love (as Leo knows so well), our institutional unity and loyalty, our unity in works of mercy and so much that is good and beautiful. And yet we cannot abandon the Truth as we have received it. Difficult!

Leo Unveiled

These remarks about the Durbin affair were just a few sentences but his response was spontaneous, genuine, unscripted, from the heart and the intellect. We have been wondering and waiting. We should have seen this coming. He said from the start he would continue the papacy of Francis; and he meant it. He is still, in many ways, a refreshing break. He is a man of prayer and of the Church; a man of love for the people and especially those who suffer; he is an institutionalist who will steady the bark of Peter; he is a reconciler who will try to unite all of us.  All of this is good.

But now we know him theologically: he is Francis II. He grew up in the American Church immediately after Vatican II; went to college and seminary in the 70s when the Church was at its very worse low point catechetically and theologically. It is clear he imbibed the soft, sentimental progressivism that pervaded our Church at that time. His short comments showed confused, fuzzy, sentimental thinking on many levels about moral theology, doctrine, abortion, politics, death penalty and immigration. All of this is just too familiar. He lacks the intellectual depth and clarity to resolve our crisis in accord with the Tradition we have received. We will continue in the fog of synodality and sentimentality. He is a man of charity and prayer; a capable administrator; he is not a theological teacher.

Dysfunctional Dad

I feel like a bright 12-year-old who has always loved and adored his father but has just discovered: Dad is a drunk; or is unfaithful to Mom; or is prejudiced and ignorant; or is a workaholic; or cannot keep a job. This is a sadness. It cannot be avoided. It must be grieved. But we still love Dad. We honor him as our father. And we love him the more in his weakness. We pray for him.

What Do We Look For in a Pope?

Four things: holiness of life; a heart of charity; competence in governing the Church; and theological wisdom in teaching. Pope Francis gets good grades for the first two; poor grade in the third; failing grade in the last. Popes John Paul and Benedict get superb grades in all except the third where Benedict scores higher than John Paul. John Paul's mission included so much that he gave little attention to steering the bark of Peter except by his sterling example. Pope Leo looks like he will do very well in the first three. But poorly in the last. Hopefully, better than Francis. But the signs are not good.

We Always Have John Paul and Benedict

These two are really one-but-dual papacy in that they worked together and their combined theological legacy (even as enlarged by adjacent thinkers) is a unity. It appears that Francis-Leo will also be a one-but-dual papacy in that their thinking forms a unity. And so, the deficiency in this second dual papacy is not catastrophic as we lean always into the thought of the prior two. Most of our young priests are John-Paul-Benedict-priests. We do not have, we will not have Francis-Leo priests. Not that they were not good men, but they were weak theologians. The legacy of John Paul/Benedict will stand with that of Augustine/Aquinas, Francis/Benedict, and the fathers and doctors.

Where Are The American Bishops?

This dispute between Paprocki and Cupich can be resolved by the Pope in Rome or the American bishops. Pope Leo has avoided direct definition but clearly sides with Cupich. From the American bishops we have a dozen clear voices. There are 430 American bishops, including retired. That is less than 3% of our bishops. Cupich directly violated episcopal policy and insulted his brother bishop and less than 3 out of 100 bishops have anything to say about it. Is this intellectual confusion? Or moral cowardice? Or a combination?

Church Honoring Politicians: BAD Idea!

Aside from Durkin's depraved advocacy for legal abortion, it is a  terrible idea for the Church to honor any politician. Even an ideal Catholic politician should not be honored publicly by the Church. 

Politics and religion are two different spheres and must be kept separate. This is like the NBA giving MVP award to the outstanding NFL quarterback of the year. Or the Nobel Prize Committee giving an academy award.  Nonsensical! Generally, conservatives understand this intuitively: politics does not belong in Church, or at the NFL, or the Academy Awards, or Disney World. Progressives have already sanctified their politics and politicized their faith. And so, even Pope Leo is confused: he conflates the prudential and varying judgements that Catholics entertain about immigration with abortion, an inherent, always-and-everywhere evil.

Additionally, politics is always complex, multi-valued, and polarizing. So, to honor any politician is already to alienate those opposed to his politics. In a 2-party system, to honor someone from one party is to offend the other. The Church unites us around the person of Jesus, the Eucharist, our legacy of belief and practice. It unites those of all races, classes, and politics. We as Church have no business honoring someone in the name of the Church because we like their politics. That applies to Cardinals especially!

What are We to Do?

1. We grieve. We are sad and disappointed. We hear Amos and Nehimiah: we mourn for Jerusalem, for Joseph, for our Church.

2. We refocus, as always, on our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He, not the Pope, is head of the Church. We renounce remnants of ultramontanism or hyper-papalism; we detach in love and renounce lingering co-dependency on the papacy.

3. We maintain our loyalty to him; we pray for him all the more, aware that he is weak; we strive with him for the unity of the Church, in all that is good, beautiful and true.

4. We continue in the Culture/Theological War: we witness to the Truth as given. We do so zealously, respectfully, peacefully, confidently, compassionately.

5. We look elsewhere for teaching, direction, shepherding, guidance. We have good shepherds among the priests and bishops, but not many of them. We are blessed with Spirit-filled laity who receive and protect the Deposit of Faith as they respond to new initiatives of the Holy Spirit. These include prominently theologians, leaders of the lay renewal movements, and thinkers within strong Catholic institutions. We are in the age of the laity. With the hierarchy and even the priesthood in crisis, our brightest intellectual light today comes from the laity.

6. As mentioned, we drink deeply from the legacy of John Paul, Benedict, their companion theologians of the Vatican Council (DeLubac, Danielou, Congar, Boyer), Balthasar and those that continue their work. 

Conclusion

We love and accept Pope Leo as he is; we pray for him.

We love and accept the Church for who she is. She is Jerusalem, walls in ruins. 

We pray that we may, like Ezra and Nehimiah, restore our city and its temple!

Grieving the Collapse of Joseph: The Seven Sorrows of Mother Church in our Time (1945-85)

 "Woe to the complacent in Zion...they are not made ill by the collapse of Joseph." Amos 6

On Sept. 15 we celebrate our Lady of Sorrows and specifically the seven sorrows of Mary. (Surprise quiz: can you recall, from memory, dear Reader, the seven sorrows? For extra credit of course!) It occurred to me: every woman especially, but each man also, has seven sorrows. Yes, seven. Not five or ten or twelve. Why seven? Because Mary had seven and she is the exemplar, the prototype for all of...nature's solitary boast. Review your life, dear Reader: infancy, childhood and right up to today. Your challenge, should you accept it, is to identify the seven significant, defining sorrows of your life. Do not settle for six; do not go for eight. Seven it is. You will sigh with relief as you identify them. And bring them to prayer. And conversation with others. And you will find peace. Consolation. Even fruit from them. I did it for myself and it worked. But it did take a little time. 

In the first reading at mass this morning (Sept. 28, 2025; 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time) we hear Amos scourging Israel for its complacency and "failure to grieve the collapse of Joseph." Like the gospel about Lazarus and Dives, the mortal sin is passive, not active; negligence; indifference; complacency. The poor and lowly are suffering; but the affluent are relaxed and carefree. 

Why the grieving about Joseph? What/who is Joseph? Joseph represents the two tribes descended from him, part of the ten tribes of Israel Amos was chastising. They were indifferent to the sufferings of the poor. It calls to mind, also, of course Joseph the Patriarch. His brothers, after casting him into a well, sat down to eat. They were complacent. They did not grieve him.

I wondered: what is it about which we are called to grieve? Then I remembered the seven sorrows and asked myself: What are the seven sorrows, in our age, of Holy Mother the Church. These  would also be the sorrows of our Mother Mary who is herself the center of the Church.

I identified these seven:

1. Priest Sex Scandal. This is a sorrow of immense gravity, on many levels. It is violation of the innocent, the young, the vulnerable. It is a desecration of the priesthood, a most trusted and holy reality. It was, in addition, covered up by Church authorities, compounding the suffering of the innocent. 

2. Persecution of the Church Globally. At the hands of communism and Jihadist Islam there are massive persecutions and killings across the globe, recently in Africa. Our mainstream press has little interest so this is widely unknown.

3. Loss of Faith By So Many. Starting in 1965, after the Council, there has been a massive exodus out of the Church. We boomers are the "lost generation" in that so many of us have left the Church. This has been followed by our children and their children.

4. Division of Church and Rejection of Faith Within. Again, since about 1968 (Humanae Vitae) we have a divided Church, a schism with a progressive wing that embraces the Cultural Revolution and rejects fundamental Catholic teaching and practice around family, sexuality, unborn life, gender and other. This has caused immense confusion and a weakening of our Catholic life for those who remain.

5. Destruction of Family Life.  Divorce, children separated from parents, loneliness, babies conceived outside of marriage, widespread fatherlessness.

6. Violation of Femininity and Maternity.  This takes many forms around the world: Islamic polygamy and honor killings, abortion itself as violation of the mother, pornography, faux feminism, adultery.

7. Decline of Virility and Paternity.  The masculine role...in family, Church, society...is always to image the paternity of God. The assaults on masculinity are intended to render the world Godless.

The readings from Amos and about Lazarus are not a call to action. It is a Word to the heart. A call to open our hearts in compassion. To renounce complacency. To see the suffering, near to us and around the world. And to join our Mother the Church and our Mother in heaven in prayer to heaven. And then to do what we can, even, especially when it is small. Because we are small. But God is great! And he lifts up the poor.

Fascism in Perspective; 10 Most Underrated Dictators

When Lefties call us Righties '"fascists," I don't get upset, defensive, angry. I do not blame "the left" for the assassinations.   First, "sticks and stones can break your bones but names can never hurt you." Also, they have freedom of speech; as do we. I can, if I want (but I don't want to) call them Pinkos or Commies. But more important, fascism is not such a bad insult. Fascists are bad, but not THAT bad! Yes, they are authoritarian, but at least they are not totalitarian, like communists, Jihadists, Cultural Marxists!

Fascism is not Nazism.  Fascism gets a bad wrap because we think of Mussolini's alliance with Hitler. But Nazism is itself far worse than fascism. Fascism has more benign forms: particularly Spain's Franco and even more Portugal's Salazar. Nazism is fascism transformed into a different, far darker reality. It became a religion of the race, a genocidal force. And it targeted, not by accident, God's own chosen people. For a Christian, it may not be possible to imagine a worse ideology. 

Violent Language.  Language can be violent: an assault upon the dignity of the person. There are lines that cannot be crossed: crying fire in a movie theatre, insults to ones masculinity, disparaging the body or appearance, cursing one's mother, threatening real harm, racial/ethnic slurs, slander, public humiliation. Calling, for example, ICE agents (who are enforcing our laws) "Nazis" or "gestapo" is verbal violence. But calling a person, party or policy "fascist" is not violent because fascism is not THAT bad.

Catholic Social Teaching Does Not Baptize any Ideology.  No, not even Western, liberal, constitutional, rule-of-law, human-rights-respecting, free market Democracy. In World War II the Allies opposed the imperialistic, fascist Axis so we American Catholics were coherently defending our nation, our political ideology and our faith. Even more so during the Cold War. After 1989, with the alleged "end of history" we enjoyed the illusion that the "right system," ours, had prevailed over all competitors. We live in a different world today. Democracy is not looking so good: in our recent election it offered us crypto-fascist Trump and softly-totalitarian Harris. It is widely accepted that we are now "post-liberal," whatever that means. With Vatican II's statement on religious liberty, we widely assumed that the Church effectively baptized the American experiment in liberty and pluralism. That honeymoon period of our Church and state is now over. In fact, the Catholic Church has a long history of working well within a wide range of political systems. Coming out of medieval Europe, and until recently in Latin America, the ideal system was to be a polity in which the state deferred to the teachings of the Church. And so the Church has done well with many monarchies and dictators. Catholic social teaching is fluid, flexible, prudential as it can be applied to all systems, appreciatively and critically. And so, in the new emerging global order another look at "fascism" from a Catholic perspective is warranted.

Authoritarian vs. Totalitarian.  The former just wants his political power, all of it. He tolerates no opposition, no free speech, no open elections. But if you do not resist him, he will leave you alone to run schools, do works of mercy, worship freely, spread the faith, teach your children, start businesses or nonprofits, create cultural and entertainment events. The later is not satisfied with political power. It is itself a religion which must infuse and control every aspect of life. The major forms in our world are: classic communism (China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.), Sharia Law (in various forms), and Cultural Progressivism or Marxism, what Benedict called the "totalitarianism of relativism." All three are essentially forms of heretical Christianity. Each draws from basic elements of our faith, ignoring some, inflating others, to create a faux-Christianity posing as the real thing. Mohammed mixed Arianism (Christianity with a low Christology) with misogynist polygamy and violence into a potent cocktail. Marxism takes Jesus's love for the poor and makes a new ideology out of it. Cultural Progressivism mixes sexual liberation and identity politics to inflate the "individual" into a God in itself.

What is Fascism?  A form of authoritarianism or dictatorship which revolves around the cult of the "Leader," is highly nationalistic, probably militaristic and imperialistic, often populist in its appeal to the working and lower classes. It can be efficient in modernizing, industrializing, and technologizing society as it can use its monopoly on power to effect social change, for the good and the bad. It breeds corruption in the lust for money and power. It leaves much of society in place: social classes, free markets, activities of the Church and other religions.

The Cult of Personality and the Appeal of the Father Figure.  We saw in the 1930s the emergence of strong fascist leaders; we are seeing the same today across our globe. Psychologically, there seems to be a popular attraction to a strong "father figure," a need that is not satisfied by the impersonality, bureaucracy, and bare protocols of constitutional democracy. In the Catholic Church we recognize this: we are united under the Pope, our father; under the bishop; and the pastor. Some years ago (1970s?) experiments were done in the USA with co-pastors, in which two priests shared the roles and missions. That disappeared almost immediately. Consider: every family needs one and only one father. Do gay couples who adopt share paternity? rotate? How about a transgender couple of two transmen? two transwomen? one of each? No, the Sexual Progressive does away paternity/paternity in favor of androgynous co-parenting. But the communal, personal, interior longing is for a person, a father, who in himself represents the family/community/nation; as he defends and defines it. In our own recent history we have looked to JFK and his family; Ronald Reagan; the Bushes; the Cuomos and others. And so, in a post-monarchy/post-liberal era, we feel the draw to the strong man.

What is Good About Fascism?  Granting that the monopoly of power, the corruption that follows, the suppression of freedom of speech and assembly are evil in themselves, what could be good?

1. Realistically, it may be in some situations the only alternative to totalitarianism in the three forms mentioned. Democracy is preferable, but it can be weak, for many reasons. It requires a deep, broad cultural infrastructure of education, political engagement, civil discourse, rule of law, protocols of decency, etc. It also requires a moral, and I would say religious, basis. A decadent, immoral, secular population will be weak, without resistance to some form of totalitarianism or authoritarianism. Throughout the Cold War we restrained the Soviet Union through a network of dictatorships, some more and some less benevolent.

2. It allows large arenas of freedom within civil society: education, culture, religion, entertainment, and art free from intervention.

3. With the cult of the leader and his monopoly on power, the quality of the dictatorship depends upon  his personal integrity. The norm is that he is corrupted by power and surrounded by sycophants of his ilk: Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Samosa, Battista, etc. But we also find admirable, and even saintly dictators who monopolize power and repress dissent in order to serve the common good and protect basic human rights and values. Here we see that personal and public morality are not separate; they are distinct but mutually infuse each other.

Ten Best Dictators

The following ten were all dictators or "fascists" in that they repressed opposition and free speech in service of pronounced nationalism even as they admirably enhanced basic human values and the common good and renounced totalitarianism.  We will build to the very best:

10. Shah of Iran.  He was overthrown due to his corruption but in retrospect was better than the Ayatollahs.

9. Mustafa Ataturk. He secularized the state and thereby inhibited Sharia Law as he industrialized.

8. Ngo Diem. Devout Catholic and apparently of fine moral character, his regime was ruined by corruption. Again, he is better than communism, even of the heralded Ho Chi Minh. 

 7. Franco, of Spain, was clearly a fascist. He is a hero for defeating the Leftist forces that were martyring our Catholic priests, religious and laity. He did not share power. We know from Picasso's Guernaca that he had German bombers target civilians in that Civil War event. He is perhaps your essential fascist in his moral ambiguity: So good in his defeat of totalitarianism, but so bad in other things.

6. Haile Sellassie, Emperor of Ethiopia for four decades, far from being a fascist, himself battled the invasion of his country by Fascist Italy. He was a practicing Ethiopian Orthodox who later became revered as a messianic figure by Restafarians. Criticized for treatment of some groups, he succeeded to a large extent in uniting the country, including granting rights to Muslims. He was religiously ecumenical, uniting with other Coptic and Orthodox groups and even participating in a Billy Graham rally. He was pan-African even as he maintained connections with the West in the Cold War.  

5. Juan and Eva Peron of Argentina were strongly populist in their concern for the poor and working class. Again, not without moral ambiguity in the wielding of power.

4. King Abdullah of Jordan is perhaps the greatest living dictator: he rules Jordan with a firm hand but is generally the unusual steadying hand in the volatile area. 

3. Anwar Sadat of Egypt was a vast improvement over his mentor Nasser. He detached from the USSR; made peace with Israel, receiving the Nobel Prize; ruled with a gentler touch; and was assassinated. He is a moral figure of a high caliber. 

2. Antonio Salazar of Portugal ruled with an iron fist from 1932-68, an extraordinary tenure. He distanced himself from contemporary fascists Hitler and Mussolini whom he considered neo-pagans. He kept the military separate from government and so downplayed the military unlike more stereotypical fascists. He assisted Franco in the Civil War; kept his nation neutral in WWII but assisted the Allies; based his "corporalist" ideology largely on papal teaching; presided over the civil war within the Portuguese global empire. A devout, conservative Catholic, he had been a seminarian; never married. Apparently had a series of tender, passionate love affairs with women, some of them married. 

1. Julius Nyrerere of Tanzania is hands down the best dictator ever! A devout Catholic, he is designated a "Servant of God" by the Church and on the path to canonization. He was nationalist but also a pan-Africanist. He pioneered a third way, during the Cold War, between the Soviets and the West; but he had an affinity for Mao and the Chinese way. His was a one-party rule, and therefore a dictatorship; no real opposition. He advocated an African Socialism as alternative to Communism and Capitalism. He was much admired, in the 1960s, by many Maryknoller African missionaries during the time I was in Maryknoll College Seminary. That explains some of my preference for him. 

The best six (Nyrere, Salazar, Sadat, Abdulla, Peron, Sallassie)  here are substantially good in themselves. The last four (Franco, Diem,Ataturk, Shah) have grave deficiencies but are good in contrast to their alternatives, Communism and Sharia Law.

Honor Roll of Non-Fascist Dictators

General Douglas MacArthur. He was certainly NOT a fascist. But he did rule Japan, temporarily, on behalf of the USA, after WWII, as a dictator. He facilitated economic development, unions, women's rights, freedoms and democracy. His was a pure benevolent dictatorship. He was, obviously, an extraordinary and aggressive military man, a conservative Republican, a flaming patriot. No, not a fascist.

Irish Catholic Mayors, (Curley of Boston, Hague of Jersey City, Daily of Chicago) were certainly not fascists but were dictators with their political machines in their big cities. As such, they tolerated no opposition. But they were benevolent in many ways: they "took care of their own," were very good to the Church, "got the job done" in picking up the garbage and running the cities. Some were generous in personal ways and practicing Catholics. We can do worse...for sure!

Most Paradoxical Dictators:

 Donald Trump.  In this his second term, he astonishes with the ferocity of his dictatorial impulses and the vigor and strength with which he pursues them. At the same time, he is our champion in the war against Cultural Progressivism. He has singlehandedly stopped, or at least paused, the "arc of (totalitarian) history," Personally, in his style, speech and behavior he is a moral catastrophe, deeply depraved. He is a force for evil; he is a force against a greater evil.

 Viktor Orban of Hungary presents all the ambiguities and paradoxes of fascism: he defends traditional Christian values as he seems to undermine democracy, run a kleptocracy, and accommodate China and Russia. 

Thought Experiment

Imagine: we live in a country with five distinct political populations, each about 20%: Muslims for Sharia law, Communists for state control of everything, Cultural Marxists, fascists, and a Catholic-Evangelical friendly party supportive of traditional values but also solidarity with the poor, rule of law, and all the freedoms of speech/religion/etc.  (Does this, dear Reader, resemble the world we inhabit.?)

Assume you are, with me, in the last group. With only 20%, how do we safeguard our interests and advance our ideals? Obvi...our best friend is the fascist. He will leave us alone to pursue our way of life. We need to work together to restrain the overreach of the three totalitarianisms. 

We do well, however, to retain some detachment. Sometimes we might ally ourselves with the Muslims in the defense of the unborn, for religious rights, the nature of the family. We might work with Communists at times to improve the conditions of the poor. We might work with Cultural Progressives against the tyrannical impulses of the fascists. This is the famous "Christian Strategy" of Adrian Vermulle.

We live in interesting times! Perhaps liberal Democracy is not as good as we thought through the Cold War. Perhaps dictators aren't always as bad as we thought! Things are complicated! Interesting times!

The Existential Dread...Political-Psychological-Spiritual...of the Left in the Time of Trumph

This is no joke! The suffering is very real. Talk of Trump Derangement Syndrome was funny at a point; it is not funny now. The suffering is real: overwhelming feelings of anxiety, depression, anger, helplessness, hopelessness. Liberal adolescent girls are especially prone to this. Celebrities are leaving the country. We have had a series of assassinations by unhinged young men with little comparable from the right. In some polls close to half of liberals give moral approval to political assassination. This is more than disappointment with a political setback like when your team loses: it is "existential dread" in the sense of anxiety that one's very existence is threatened; a real death.

This is not entirely irrational. It is not psychosis. It is paranoid overreaction. But Woody Allen did remind us "Just because you are paranoid, that does not mean that THEY are not after you!" Trump is a "dictator wannabe" who is reckless in his disregard for our entire constitutional order: weaponizing the DOJ for personal vendettas, muscling the courts and the Fed, etc. I, who am of the Right, do not hesitate to describe him as a crypto-fascist. Beyond politics, in his person he has long been an assault on the moral values that hold our nation together: crude, self-centered, contemptuous and insulting in public discourse, detached from factuality, disrespectful of the person, especially the opponent. 

There are valid moral/political reasons to be repelled by MAGA and its master. I share these. But the almost clinical level of stress of the Cultural Left is pathological. Reality: the electorate is exactly matched, 50-50, politically. Trump will be out of office in three years. The Left remains fully in charge of all high status institutions. The crazier things he is doing will be nullified (I expect, trusting in the judicial integrity of Barrett and Roberts especially) by the Supreme Court. No, the sky is not falling!

Trump is not himself the primary cause of this dread. Rather, it is structural, inherent in the inner form, the very nature of the Cultural Progressivism that possessed our elite culture over half a century ago. The formal or structural elements of progressivism that incline to this hysteria include:

1. Godless.  The Left is formally secular. God is not in the game. To be sure, many religious people are leftist for good religious reasons. But on the Left you keep your piety private, not public or political. You are privately opposed to abortion but politically in favor of its legalization. A Catholic liberal may have lawn signs "Love lives here" or bumper stickers "Save the planet" but not  "Jesus, I trust in you." The progressive, obsessed with pluralism of a very specific sort, is always anxious about offending some atheist or Hindu or something!

 Without God and the supernatural, this world is all we have. There is no eternity, no afterlife. And so, severe worldly threats (environmental, fascism, racism, etc.) become ontologically overwhelming. We are facing oblivion. By contrast, the religious conservative always has an eye on God and our destiny: everything else has a tentative, light-hearted, paradoxical-ironic dimension to it.

2. Progress.  The progressive adores...progress. We are moving forward, into a happy and glorious future, due to science, technology and education. We are moving ever away from, triumphing over a past of ignorance, patriarchy, racism, sexism, and oppressions of every stripe. To "go back" would not be to retrieve and revive the legacy of our American founders, of Athens and Jerusalem! No, it would be to plunge back into the darkness. Evil. Death.

From that perspective, consider: Trump has singlehandedly stopped, perhaps paused, possibly reversed "the Arc of History!" He is anti-science, sexist, racist, xenophobic, fascist, capitalist and every imaginable "...ist." He has squelched every secular, leftist hope for the future. He is something like Satan.

3. Emasculated. Of course, many fine men are progressive. But the culture itself is non-or-anti-masculine just like the Marine culture is masculine. The Left is defined by: deconstruction of virility/femininity, abortion as a human right, aversion to patriarchy and toxic masculinity, a faux-feminism of resentment, victimization and envy (of male privilege). And so, masculinity in its full God-created range is canceled. Progressives do not like forceful evangelists, police, military, competitors, entrepreneurs. But the purpose of masculinity is to protect/provide for mother/with/child. The woman, who is unsheltered in some form by the paternal-or-spousal, in her vulnerability and delicacy, is prone to hysteria. And so, we see that the response of the Democratic Party today is one of hysteria: dispersed anxiety, confusion, disorientation, diffused anger, impotency. This is the response of a woman at risk, unprotected, bereft of the good of the masculine.

4. Sterile Sex.  The primary foundation of Cultural Liberalism is sterile sex, the liberation of sexuality from procreation, marriage, family, fidelity. Sexual license. The technology of contraception is what made Cultural Progressivism possible, as an entire civilization, a social order, rather than a minute bohemian subculture. So we have seen the hysteria across the left in the wake of Dobbs. The sexual libertarian knows that contraception is unreliable and so abortion is essential to his lifestyle. To a social order that is essentially sexually-addicted-but-in-denial, the loss of abortion is a loss of life: hysteria and dread!

5. Isolated, Autonomous Self.   The sterile, androgynous Self is the autonomous, isolated agent of its own destiny, its own god. This is a lonely place. Liberalism has deconstructed the family, nuclear and extended, as well all all intermediate organizations (Church, bowling leagues, volunteerism, etc.) to leave the naked self alone with mega-corporations and the the expansive state. And so, the progressive self is alone with career, accomplishments, singular relationships. Deprived of the smaller, intermediate organs of subsidiarity, the self is vulnerable to the power of the state.

 6. Dependence on Mega-State.  The liberal looks to government as a Messiah: the one to save us from all maladies. Politics takes the place previously held by God and Church, family, neighborhood, various communities. The State is the primary force, energizing science/technology/education and overcoming all the oppressions. Great expectations! But if government is so promising, it can also be threatening. That Trump can take over most of the levers of government and wield them so forcefully becomes than an actual existential threat, because those other communities are not there. It is the individual, alone, powerless before the mega-state. The serious conservative prefers small government and expanded intermediate communities; the serious liberal expects great things and invests richly in centralized government. So we see the angst of the progressive in Trump world.

7. Victimology. With identity politics, the Cultural Left imagines politics as the oppression/liberation of dominant and oppressed groups. This replaces the classical economic Left of class warfare between the investor and the worker class. This new paradigm allows the new affluent elite, including the managerial class, to enjoy financial affluence and privilege but claim the high ground morally as they advocate BLM and LGBTQ. Imagine the consternation: the MAGA victory was helped by the flight of black and Latino men to the right. The Left, in BLM and "Defund Police," had attributed a passivity, a victimization and impotency to the black male. Those black males have now exercised agency in voting for Trump. The Left...white, educated, affluent, privileged...now feels itself to be victim, passive, paralyzed, without agency. Existential dread!

8. Imperialistic, Totalitarian Compulsivity.  As a form of messianic politics, the Left impulsively infuses all of life with its politics. Disney becomes education in alternate lifestyles. Eating Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream involves us with Israel/Gaza and global warming. The Academy Awards becomes a series of shrill, moralistic, indignant tirades. Football teams need to decide: bend-or-not-bend-the-knee. The conservative sees that politics is not nothing, but it is not everything. Maybe 5-10 % at most. For the real progressive, it is 85%. The conservative would like to eat ice cream, watch the Oscars or football without politics. Not so the Left: you simply cannot watch a movie or game unbothered by sexism, racism and the environment. And so, we have the "totalitarianism of relativism." If MAGA is authoritarian, progressivism is totalitarian. (Read Hannah Arendt on the distinction: the former wants political power but is "live and let live" if you do not challenge him; the later needs to control everything.) Catholic adoption agencies dare not refuse to place a little girl with two gay (or trans?) men! The Little Sisters of the Poor dare not refuse to provide contraception to their workers! That baker dare not refuse a cake for a gay wedding.  Furthermore, it becomes imperialistic as it exports its values around the globe. Cardinals from Africa have spoken about cultural imperialism, for example in the Vatican's blessing of gay relations. The dissolution of AID programs finds some justification in the cultural aggressiveness around these issues. John Paul successfully led a coalition with Muslim nations at UN conferences in Cairo and Bejing against Clinton's crusade for abortion. We see here in the fragility of the Left its dangerous compulsion to complete control. That totalitarian compulsion diminishes the more mundane dictatorial propensities of MAGA.

9. Science as an Idol.  For the progressive mind, science and technology, fueled by big state, will save us. Robert Kennedy now has us in a civil war within the medical world. It is hard to know what to believe. The ideal of science as a pure, impeccably objective, selfless service of the community has now been disabused. But the important figure here is Dr. Fauci, our own Wizard of Oz. He reigned magisterially through the pandemic, transcendent, Jesuit-educated, non-partisan, follow-the-science guy. Now we learn he systematically repressed all evidence that the thing came from the lab with which he had dealings. He closed down our Churches but allowed BLM rallies. He steps behind the veil as pathetic little man in his deceptions. But the real progressive will not tolerate the cognitive dissonance of their idol. As with Martin Luther King and his treatment of women, the Left will keep them both on pedestals, bowing in awe, in deep denial.

10. Nature Mysticism. For many on the Left, global warming is not a problem to be solved politically, scientifically, and technically. It is existential threat. It is the death of God. We conservatives, as theists, receive Creation as a gift from the hand of our Creator: good in itself but also a gesture within a relationship of Eternal Love. Those who do not share traditional belief in a Creator-Father God, rarely, in this country, adapt a strong atheism. More probable is a soft agnosticism. Among women, widely we find an implicit "spirituality" of pantheism: strong sense of the spiritual as immanent in nature and relationships. Interest in Eastern religions, New Age stuff, Enneagram, psycho-spiritualities. For such, global warming is ontologically catastrophic. It is the end of life as we know it. It overcomes all other issues. It is Absolute Death. Angst!

Going Forward

With this Trump administration, we conservatives are on a roll in the Culture War. But we dare not gloat. 

Our current gains may be temporary. The "arc of history" may return after a pause. We do well to play the long game. This Culture War has raged for 55 years. It is getting worse, not better. It will probably be a multi-century war. In a  100 years or so, my great-grandchildren will be engaged with our same four major antagonists: Cultural Progressivism, Communism (largely Chinese), Islamic Jihadism (of various flavors) and your run-of-the-mill nationalist fascists (Putin). 

Seeing at this time the fragility and anxiety of the Cultural Left, we do well to give thanks, for all the riches... of family, Church, nation, cultural/historical...and delight in them. We do well to have some empathy and kindness for those not so blessed. With our legacy, we have great expectations for the future.

At the same time, realistically the diagnosis above is sobering. Cultural Progressivism is not merely toxic, it is fatal. Fatal for those we love. Also for us. It is like an addiction, or mental illness, or moral depravity or an infection...it can pull us in and destroy us. To start, we need to inoculate ourselves. We need to detach, with love, and cut cords of co-dependency: not enabling and cooperating, but not victimized, resentful and angry. Rather, confidently, peacefully, prudently we move ahead; fighting the Cultural and the Spiritual War; loving our enemy; strong, calm in heart, intellect and will.

We are not assured of victory here within history. We may well be overwhelmed by the dark forces. Like Obi Wan Kenobi, we may find ourselves like Jedi in hiding. like Aragon, a King-in-exile. Here we invoke the principle of Chiaroscoro: in the darkness, the light shines all the more. We need not win the Culture War. We only need to fight valiantly, charitably, truthfully. The recently deceased Charlie Kirk, not without flaw, is an inspiration to engage respectfully, charitably, truthfully.