Pope Leo XIII: Non-Theologian, Institutuionalist

 In an astute essay in First Things, reviewing two recent biographies of our new pope, Fr. DeSouza notes: we know nothing about the theological views of Robert Prevost, his rise in the hierarchy was entirely the doing of Pope Francis, he was the "Francis candidate" most unlike Francis temperamentally. He spent his life in in Peru and Rome, mostly in leadership of institutions. His formative years, the 1970s in the seminary, and his entire life has been in a Church in institutional decline; and he wonders "what he learned from this?"

I take a slightly different view. Leo is clearly an institutionalist, an "organization man," in the best sense. While he has lived in a Church in institutional decline, he is himself, a canon lawyer, instinctively a preserver of the institution. This is a very good thing. 

He is a man of prayer, a holy priest. Like his mentor Francis.

He is pastoral, urgent to share the love of Christ, especially with the suffering and marginalized. Like his mentor Francis.

He is not a theologian. Like his mentor Francis.

He is inclined to steady the bark of Peter; to strengthen unity; to minimize conflict and stress. Unlike his mentor Francis. 

The best Churchmen, progressive or conservative, are instinctively "catholic" in an openness, a liberality, a "live-and-let-live" acceptance of diversity. In the Archdiocese of Newark which I know, Cardinal Tobin is a ranking lieutenant of Francis but he rules here with a light hand, allowing distinct groups like the Latin Mass and the Neocatechumenate to live peacefully. Prior to him, Archbishop Meyers came here with a reputation as the second most conservative in the nation; I expected fireworks as our presbyterate could be described as moderate-liberal; there was peace. In a recent Pillar piece, Ed Conlin expressed appreciation for Cardinal McElroy of Washington D.C. who is on the far left of the American episcopacy but well received by conservative priests.

Pope Francis blatantly lacked this openness, notwithstanding his profession of openness and "synodality." He shamelessly refused the red hat to prelates of leading sees (Philadelphia) that always receive it out of personal animosity. It is clear that, by contrast, Pope Leo does have this disposition towards unity.

The Church in which Prevost came of age, the 1970s, was most significantly in catechetical crisis. Coming out of the Council, the Baltimore Catechisism and the received synthesis was discarded but nothing replaced it, until the papacy of John Paul II. Catechetically, Prevost was part of the "lost generation" in its intellectual grasp of our Catholic tradition. Our faith was passed on as a communion in prayer with God, as a worshipping community, as a fraternity of love and outreach to the suffering. But theologically most of the Church was in a fog of confusion. There were points of light. A hungry theological intellect could find its way to the Communio School or that of St. Thomas. 

But Prevost was apparently not such an intellect. He majored in college in math. Clearly bright. But not drawn to theology. He is an American: a pragmatist. His vision, just announced, for the John Paul II Institute for the Family is entirely pastoral and (shades of Francis) anti-intellectual. He wants to move away from abstraction and reform it as a practical guide and aid to family life. Depending upon who leads it, this can be a good or a bad thing. But it is a retreat from the outstanding academic tradition of that school.

It is striking: in my lifetime we had three popes (Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI) with fine, clear, deep theological intellects. These were followed by John Paul and Benedict: theological geniuses, possibly the finest pope theologians in Church history, surely to be doctors of the Church. And now we have two quite mediocre theological popes.

Nevertheless, I am happy with this pope. He is modest, judicious, stable, self-effacing, gentle, open to all. He is a force for steadiness, for unity, for peace. He is endearing and charming.

We have the theology of John Paul and Benedict. It will be taught in seminaries and schools of theology for generations to come. Those hungry for the truth of the Gospel will bask in it and radiate it. Leo will steady the ship of the Church. He will call us to works of Mercy. As the legacy of John Paul and Benedict draws us into the clarity, the depth, and the profundity of Truth.

Make America Godly Again: A MAGA Vision

 Do not be so quick, dear Reader, to dismiss what follows as impossible, as sheer fantasy. ALL things are possible to God. Also: we know that Donald Trump is quite capable of change.

IMAGINE:  Donald Trump wakes up one morning, overwhelmed by how much he is loved by God. Perhaps it is the prayers of those who love him. Perhaps the intercession of Charlie Kirk in heaven or his friendship with Erika. Perhaps the unfailing affection and loyalty of Melania and his family. He is largely (but of course not completely) liberated from enslavement to narcissistic compulsions. So, he:

- Announces that he has been wrong to so many people and asks forgiveness. He starts a serious program of amends to those he has harmed, insulted, or hurt in any way.

- He forgives all who have harmed him in any way. He expresses appreciation for those who have tried to hold him accountable by indictments and impeachments. He issues presidential pardons for Comey, Bolton, James, Smith and Willis.

- He authorizes a full audit of his personal wealth in order to donate 80% to the poor and going forward to give 80% of his income annually to the needy. 

- He joins a Narcissist's Anonymous group, gets a sponsor, works the 12 steps, He finds that virtually all elected politicians in DC certify for the program.

- He joins the OCIA program to enter the Catholic church so he can confess his sins to a priest.

- He enjoys a special Synodal session of congress and hosts it at Mar Lago so Democrats and Republicans can get to know and like each other.

- He takes a 30-day prayer sabbatical from his duties, handing responsibility to JD Vance. (Is this constitutional? Possibly not. But who would have standing to contest? And if anyone did, he would be back in charge within a month anyway.)

- He does a 30-day directed retreat with a good Jesuit to consider the direction of his life after the presidency. Everything is on the table, including jail ministry at the prison in El Salvador with all the gang members, the hermitage or cloistered monastery, a Josephite (abstinent) marriage with Melania, teaching ESL to immigrants, and other.

Granted, dear Reader, the details here seem far-fetched. But you get the drift. Let's pray for something in that direction! This is, after all, November, the month of the last things: death, judgment, heaven, hell.

Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and the Rosary

Reporter Jonathan Karl, in his book Retribution reports on the final, secret meeting of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden shortly after the disastrous debate which revealed his incompetence. The Biden family now despises Pelosi as the prime mover in ending his campaign. The meeting was in the Biden family living room and was a secret even from his staff. She delivered the bad news: widespread consensus was that he would not only lose the election but also bring down the house. The meeting was not contentious. When she finished she took out what Karl calls a rosary or also a rosary coin. I don't know of a rosary coin although a rosary ring with 10 beads is common. In any case, it turns out that Biden then took out the same rosary. It isn't clear that they prayed together, but they did show each other a rosary (or rosary coin?) That was the final meeting between the two of them. They are now, in Karl's words, "enemies forever."

This anecdote is fascinating on several levels.

These two are the incomparable icons of "Catholic" Progressivism of the last several decades. Pelosi has been arguably the most powerful woman politician in American history. She is not allowed communion in her diocese of San Francisco. Biden, the second Catholic president, disparaged the values of his faith in a number of public ways. 

Cultural Progressivism (post 1970) is itself a religion, competitive with and contradictory of Catholicism. Core beliefs: sterilized sex, deconstructed gender, abortion, superiority of technological/scientific culture over the past, and other. Biden/Pelosi are key figures in the triumph of Progressivism. But they flavored this, their core religion, with a superficial, nostalgic, sentimental Catholic piety.

They embody the stereotypical private/public binary: I wouldn't want one but I want the state to pay for everyone else's abortion, especially the poor and the black. 

How ironic that it is reported in a book entitled "retribution." Actually, the theme of the book is retribution by Trump against his enemies. (You are aware, Dear Reader) Fleckinstein is a strong advocate for the retrieval of "retribution" as a moral, cultural, religious form. One might view the aftermath of the meeting as heavenly retribution as  the Biden/Pelosi legacy was devastated by the sweeping Trump victory.

Ironic also that after these displays of piety, they now despise each other.

If they did pray (which I strongly doubt), what mysteries would they have pondered. The first are of course the Joyful: the Annunciation, the Visitation, The Nativity. These deal with the sacredness of unborn life: conception, the embrace of two pregnant cousins, the birth of Jesus (accompanied by the slaughter of the Holy Innocents.) I cannot imagine that these two crusaders for legal abortion would have prayed these foundational Catholic realities. 

Perhaps they replaced with Progressive Dogmas: contraception, abortion of the unborn through 9 months, artificial technologies of surrogacy and other, euthanasia and assisted suicide of the elderly/infirm, the contagion of legal pornography, the sacred status of homosexual and other forms of sodomy. 

These two perfectly represent the dyad of Cultural Progressivism: the passive, impotent male; the empowered, controlling, grasping female. This is resonant of Eve, jealous, manipulative, aggressive; Adam, emasculated, self-pitying, finger-pointing. It is the pathetic Ahab and his vicious, controlling wife Jezebel. It is Herod, manipulated by the incestuous Herodias to cut off the head of the prophet whom he admired.

Catholicism has always been vulnerable to syncretism, impure mixture with other religious practices. It would be hard to imagine something as depraved, as repellant to the Catholic mind as these two mutually admiring each others rosaries. We compete, respectfully, with political/cultural adversaries, for example, the Clintons and Obamas in the political arena. But the presence within our own Church of a Trojan horse, an enemy within, a betrayal by our own of our basic values presents an immense challenge.

The temptation here is a serious one: to contempt. To view a fellow Catholic, a brother and sister in Christ, with spiritual loathing. How do we renounce this temptation? Only with prayer! Prayer for our enemy. 

Lord, touch our hearts with your tender Mercy. Touch as well the hearts of our enemies, cultural progressives, especially Catholics, within the Church and in the political arena. Let your Mercy be upon us as we place our trust in You!

Election Day, November 3, 2025: End of a Temper-Manic Episode?

Like a pampered 2-year old or a raging neighborhood bully, Trump has been on a 9 month rampage, manic and furious. It is simply amazing that he got away with so much for so long. Our constitutional system, still resilient and steady, is finally restraining him.

On Tuesday, the electorate in a number of states, especially in NJ, decisively rejected the Republicans.

 On the following day, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the Trump tariffs and will almost certainly find them unconstitutional. These are a centerpiece of his diplomacy and economics. He sees this as total catastrophe. The Wall Street Journal anticipates it with joy.

With the ongoing government shutdown, Trump is calling for the "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster. Like a self-centered infantile, which he is psychologically, he sees only his own immediate concerns. Finally, Senate Republicans are finding some spine and defending their institutional integrity. 

We can hope that, led by moderate-conservative justices Barrett and Roberts, institutions including congressional Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives, agencies including the FED and others renounce their contemptible subservience to this dictator-wannabe-narcissistic. 

This comes from a moral conservative who voted for Trump in 2024 and for the Republican ticket this week. Ciattarelli is personally prochoice and unappealing. My vote was ideological: pro-Republican and anti-Democrat in defense of fundamental Catholic realities including the life of the powerless, religious liberty, the dignity of the person, gender, sexuality, marriage, the role of science, and more.

While I was initially disappointed with the outcome, I quickly saw the positive. The pendellum had to swing back against the MAGA excesses. Precisely from a conservative viewpoint, basic institutions and protocols of respect have to be protected from the violence, the crudeness, the irrationality of MAGA. 

Is it too much to hope for a resurgence of a more based, traditional, stable conservatism?

We can always hope and pray! 

Almost Catholic...The Twilight Zone of the Catholic Church

 Almost Catholics

Charlie Kirk was seemingly on a trajectory into the Catholic Church, under the influence of his amazing, best-of-many-worlds wife, Erika. Who knew that a woman could be Evangelical and Catholic, a social activist, a mother, a gorgeous celebrity, and a prayerful theologian?  

Jordan Peterson, whose wife famously entered the Church, stands frozen at the boundary, apparently unwilling to or incapable of crossing that line of trust, even as he powerfully articulates Catholic views.

C.S. Lewis remained Anglican, apparently retaining reservations about the papacy and Marian devotion as well as some residual prejudice against Catholicism from his childhood. His teachings were resoundingly Catholic. If he were alive today, it is hard to imagine that he could resist the pull across the Tiber.

Simone Weil, brilliant philosopher-social activist-mystic, was possessed by love for the poor and by the person of Jesus Christ. She was deeply drawn to the prayer of the Church but rejected baptism out of a disgust for dogmatic and institutional dimensions of the Church.

Mother Margaret Cusack, a fiery Irish nationalist and brilliant, prodigious writer (35 books)fought the English overlords and fed the starving during the famine before converting to Catholicism.  Described as eccentric, passionate, rebellious and difficult (think Maureen O'Hara in The Quiet Man), she was an early advocate of the apparitions at Knock and claimed that the Blessed Mother spoke directly to her. After fighting with the episcopacy in Ireland, she got permission personally from the Pope to found a new order, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, to house and train "friendless girls." In 1885 she opened a home (still there) in Jersey City. She again got into ecclesiastical trouble, now with Newark authorities and NYC's  Archbishop Corrigan over her support for a leftwing activist priest and over funds. She left the Catholic Church, returned to the Anglican and was buried therein.

My high school friend Frank was a Catholic priest for 25 years and an Episcopalian priest for just over that. He considers himself a Roman Catholic who has a job with the Anglicans. He says as Episcopalian he does half the work and gets twice the pay he did as Catholic. When he isn't presiding at Eucharist as a visitor he attends a Catholic mass. He, unlike myself, seems untroubled that the mass he celebrates is probably valid but illicit and therefore at least disrespectful but perhaps sacrilegious as his communicants entertain various theologies of the mass.

Another friend left the Church to be ordained a Methodist minister; then reverted to Catholicism, renouncing his ordination; then re-reverted to Methodism; then re-re-reverted to Catholicism. He is intelligent, passionate and articulate in his faith.

I graduated in 1969 from Maryknoll College Seminary with over 50 classmates after 4 years preparing to be missionary priests. Today most do not practice our faith. In large part, their children and grandchildren are minimally familiar with our faith.

If I were to honor, from my generational cohort of idealists, priests, psychologists, activists, and academics,  one figure for his service to the suffering and his prayerfulness of life it would clearly be college classmate John: ordained a missionary priest, he still happily displays a picture of himself concelebrating mass with John Paul II. He left the missionary priesthood, confronted his alcoholism, surrendered himself to the 12 steps and prayer, married, raised a son, and built a marvelous community of service to the addicted, homeless and mentally ill. He speaks with affection, gratitude and reverence of the Church as he seems to remain distant.

To summarize, we contemplate with awe the complexities, nuances, depth and boundless variety in such relationships with the Church.

A Church in Decline?

By all the numbers, our Church has been in steady, steep decline for the last six decades since the Council. There seems to be now a plateau, and even signs of a revival, certainly among young men in the USA. But numbers do not accurately disclose spiritual realities. And so, the argument here is that the reality of God and his Church in our lives is immeasurable, mysterious, dense, largely anonymous.

Not long ago, Catholics were 50% of the NJ population; now it is closer to 33%. The NONES are now more than 25% and possibly half of them are ex-Catholics. Only one in six Catholics practice their faith by weekly participation in Sunday mass. So, in NJ about one in eighteen, just over 5%, people practice our faith. Even these are largely victims of the catechetical famine that afflicted us from the Council until the pontificates of John Paul and Benedict (from 1965 through the 70s). Few understand with any depth and clarity our faith. So, integral, intelligent, passionate Catholic faith has become rare, almost a cult, found in niches like religious orders, priests, renewal movements and the Latin Mass. (For example, many Sunday mass attendees would be unpleasantly surprised by the previous essay on the structure of the spousal act.)

However, (as noted in an earlier blog essay), our experience in hospital ministry shows that while institutional loyalty has declined, there abides a immense, deep Catholic influence. Almost everyone we encounter has some connection, usually positive, with the Church. Some are influenced by marriage or a family member. Many retain practices and beliefs: devotion to Mary or the rosary, Padre Pio, St. Francis. Most at least admire the Church's solicitude for the poor and suffering. Most respect and (to some extent) emulate the ideals of marital fidelity. Even those who self-identify as agnostics or even atheists are open to prayer as they entertain some uncertainty in their "unbelief." Frequently we hear grateful mention of a happy connection with a priest, nun, devout layperson or a vibrant institution.

The Church is like other movements and communities of value: there are concentric circles of participation. At the very center, those fully dedicated: professionally or voluntarily, but wholeheartedly. Moving outward, we find decreasing intensity. At the outside circles we have nonmembers who nevertheless are influenced, and therefore participant in some degree. At least in NJ, it is like St. Patrick's Day when everyone is Irish: everyone is, however incompletely, Catholic.

Conclusion

Christ and His Church is a bright, flaming, illuminating, warming fire at the heart of creation, history, society. It reaches everything and everywhere. Even as some are moving away; others moving closer;  many strangely moving now one way and then another. The warmth and light is available everywhere to everyone. There are shadows everywhere; and in everyone. There are also black holes of sin ready to devour the willing. 

May we despise the dark and the cold. May we crave the light and the warmth. May we draw each other closer to that Fire!

The Structure of the Conjugal Act

 Most widespread slander against the Catholic Church:  "Not fair! Gays can't have any sex! Straights can have all they want!"

Foundational cultural error of post-1970, sterile, contraceptive American culture: "Sex is a human need."

The Spousal or Conjugal or Marital Act

In the Catholic world, everyone...homosexual, heterosexual, married, single, vowed to virginity or celibacy...plays by the same, very strict rules. 

The conjugal act belongs within the spousal union. That union is exclusive, male/female, perpetual, free, open to life, in union with God, legitimately manifested as a sacrament or with explicit Church approval. 

The act has a sacred, sacramental character as enactive of the "one-enfleshment" of man and woman. It is inherently unitive and procreative, even though every single act is not fruitful. The very nature or inner form of the act requires that the male climax occur within the woman, who receives the man's seed.

In other words, at climax, with the release of the seed, the penis must be within the vagina. Even slight penetration allows the act to be valid and well-ordered.

Accidental premature ejaculation is unintended and therefore morally innocent. Within the flow of the intercourse, the woman can be brought to climax before or after ejaculation without harm to the act.

Deliberate arousal to climax outside of this spousal one-enfleshment is inherently non-unitive and sterile and therefore disordered as mutual masturbation. This applies even to a married couple.

Consummation and Dissolubility of Marriage

In the 12th century Church especially, there was disagreement as to what created or ratified the marriage: consent of the spouses or consummation understood as natural intercourse, open to life. The final resolution included both: the actual marriage is ratified by the consent. But the consummation completes or seals the marriage. So, a valid but unconsummated marriage is a real marriage. However, such can be dissolved by the Pope for good reasons. A sacramentally valid and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by the Pope or anyone else. It is absolutely permanent.

To dissolve is different in kind from an annulment which is common. The later declares the sacrament to be void: there never was a real marriage at all due to some defect, for example in consent or form. By contrast, to dissolve is to declare there was a real marriage, but it was not finalized by the spousal act, and therefore can be dissolved. This leaves the parties free to marry or make vows in the religious life.

I have never heard of such. It must be quite rare. In earlier times we can imagine: a man and woman, on the night of their marriage, share that the man desires priesthood  and the woman religious life but perhaps married to satisfy their families. This case would also raise a question about the consent being free. Nevertheless, if they refrain from natural intercourse it is possible that they petition to have the marriage dissolved. 

Josephite marriage, in which spouses validly marry but voluntarily and mutually refrain from sex in imitation of the marriage of Mary and Joseph is another rarity in our time. But such a marriage, unconsummated, can be dissolved, for example if either desires consecrated life or ordination.

We see from this discussion that the spousal act is itself normally constitutive of the sacrament, understood broadly beyond the marriage ceremony itself.

The sacredness of the act would be intuitive for most traditional religions. The idea is ridiculous in our secular, sexually-sterile culture.

Impotence as Impediment to Catholic Marriage

Here is another little known fact, really a well-kept secret: sexual impotence, the inability to complete the spousal act, is an impediment to marriage. Impotence here does not mean sterility, the inability to conceive. Nor may it be confused with sexual dysfunction including female disinterest in sex. Rather, it refers to permanent, irreversible incapacity to perform the act. This would normally mean erectile dysfunction on the part of the male such that he can never, even slightly, penetrate the vagina. On the woman's part, this would mean a pathology such that she is unable to receive the penetration and the seed. I am not aware that this is a known condition although I did read of a woman who suffered a muscle condition due to rape but that seemed not to be permanent. And so, permanent and irreversible impotence, discovered after marriage, is grounds for annulment. 

We see here again: not fertility nor ability to enjoy sex but capacity to perform the act itself is intrinsic to a Catholic marriage. 

This raises issues for couples that marry late in life. Such are obviously sterile. Studies indicate something like 60% of men in their 60s suffer some degree of impotence. It is well known that there are treatments for the condition if it is not permanent and total. If there is even slight capacity and possibility that some seed be received, than the condition is not an impediment. Doubt is resolved in favor of the marriage. But lets assume the condition, possibly due to surgery, is total and irremediable by any drug or licit device. In that case the marriage could be annulled. 

Lets assume that the spouse, normally the woman, accepts the condition and opts not to seek annulment.  Obviously, if the Church does not know about it than it is not an issue. In the eyes of God? My guess is that he takes delight in the couple. But in this case, they would be restricted...along with everyone else...from sexual activity deliberately leading to climax, for either or both spouses, as it would not be a proper conjugal act.

Yes. This is a hard teaching! He never said it would be easy!

Conclusion

In Catholic life, the marriage bed, along with the family table and the Eucharistic altar, is the sacred place where God communes with the human person most intimately. The spousal act is sacred in many ways. It is cooperation with God in the creation of a person, a soul that will live for eternity. It is an incomparable union of husband and wife, not just physically or extrinsically, but in heart, soul, intellect, will and in all things. It is the most precious, intimate, holy, natural act imaginable.

And so, wisely, sternly, the Church protects the act...as well as the marriage, the family, the woman and the children. It is a hard, but inspiring and splendid teaching.

The Allure of the Femme Fatale: Meryl Streep in "Still of the Night"

Here is a largely unknown, unheralded movie. Streep herself apparently thought little of it, calling it "a mistake" and noting that she got to spend a lot of time with her infant as it was shot near her home in NYC. I differ. Perhaps her effortless nonchalance allowed her raw talent to shine so brightly.

It is a gem of a film. A merciful 83 minutes! (In film as in all things, "small is beautiful.") Made in 1982 in a drab, dark Manhattan, which suits me as I savor many memories there and love movies set there. It is taut, clear, austere; a psychological thriller worthy of Hitchcock. Roy Scheider plays a tight, repressed psychoanalyst, just divorced, quietly in crisis. A playboy patient is stabbed to death. Streep shows up as an ex-girlfriend, who is very possibly the murderess. She is strikingly lovely, in an ethereal, surreal fashion. Fair skinned, slightly exotic, impeccably proportioned, she is so pronouncedly sweet, innocent, and vulnerable that she almost has to be (the intelligent viewer sees immediately) a psychopath. But maybe not! As evidence increases that she is the culprit, she radiates all the more a virginal luminosity that can only be direct from heaven or hell. The poor psychotherapist (along with the male viewer) is without defense!

She is easily the best femme fatale I have every known! (And I have never known one I didn't like!) She is the type that drives you crazy because she is either very good or very bad but you just cannot tell...until the very end. (Sorry, Reader, there will be no spoiler here. It is on Prime.)

Such a classic femme fatale is a heightened expression of three prime manifestations of the feminine to the masculine gaze: the innocent, fragile, precious, vulnerable one to be rescued or protected; the comforting, pleasure-giving, object of desire reminiscent of maternal enclosure; and the ominous, evil, murderous seductress. Blend them together and you have a powerful cocktail!

First: the "daughter" figure: virginal, fragile, precious and vulnerable. This appeals, powerfully, to the paternal instinct. She must be protected or rescued. This is the most powerful passion of the mature, virile man. And so, the psychologist, throwing prudence to the wind, engages in the investigation, at his own peril. The ambiguity becomes unbearable: she is so sweet that it must be a con job. 

A contrasting, flaming femme fatale is the Kim Basinger prostitute in LA Confidential. She is blatantly shamelessly seductive; even as she is the victim of violence. The Russel Crowe detective, who had watched his own mother be abused, is a combustible combination of rage against the abuser and lust: the chemistry between them is nuclear.

The second manifestation is that which awakens desire: erotic, romantic, covetous, deeply emotional. Here the child-bearing-age-woman draws the man to herself, promising pleasure, comfort, and ecstatic inclusion. We recall here the explosive appeal of the feminine hour glass, figure 8 shape: petite in the manner of the precious one but full and reminiscent of infantile euphoria. These lead of course to the third: the dark mother, the threatening feminine.

It is perhaps more fear of his own cravings that awakens dread in the male heart and psyche. The woman becomes so desirable that the man loses all control, he is powerless, overwhelmed, without resistance to the woman's seduction. In contrast to the strong father figure awakened by the first feminine manifestation of powerlessness, here the man becomes passive before the machinations of the clever beauty. 

Here we recall the original fall of Adam. He is not participant in the initial act of sin, the engagement of Eve with the serpent, Lucifer. Adam is strangely absent from that prime drama. He is drawn in, secondarily, by the more dominant Eve. He puts up no resistance, but submits at her mere suggestion.

Like Eve in the initial drama of the human story, the femme fatale dominates the noire film. The male protagonist, like Adam, is secondary, derivative, passive.

By a happy coincidence, the Vatican just released a new document clarifying our Catholic devotion to Mary. It reviews the history, highlighting Mary's maternal love and care for us, her perpetual virginity and purity, and her preeminence as first among us as recipient of and collaborator in salvation. It discourages the use of controversial titles "co-redemptrix" and "mediatrix" of graces. These tend to lift Mary up into participation in the divine, distancing her from us, and possibly obscuring the absolutely unique salvific role of Christ. 

We might contrast the image of Mary with the femme fatale. She also is small, humble, vulnerable, virginal. She also is mother, source of comfort, protection, assistance. She is virgin mother, mysteriously. But the shadow of evil that haunts the femme fatale is entirely absent from Mary. She is the answer to the complicity of Eve in sin. She is without sin, from conception, entirely holy all throughout childbirth and with Jesus on Calvary, after his rising, until Pentecost, and finally assumed into heaven. 

The allure of the femme fatale, life-giving mother and yet virginal innocence, is in Mary purged of sin and illuminated with the beauty of purity and holiness. She is not the primary protagonist in the drama of our salvation. But she gets Oscar for incomparable actress in a supporting role! 

The Authoritative Voices in our Church: Paternal and Maternal

Authority

Authority sharply contrasts with power or empowerment. The later indicates capacity to force, to coerce, to dominate. The former, from the Latin "augeo," to grow or increase, is the capacity to give life, as in "author." An authority is one who gives life, as with a mother or a father. Such authority originates not in the self, but in a transcendent source beyond the ego. So, for example, an authority in some science is steeped in that objective field and so transparent of it: the ego recedes so that the material may manifest. Personal authority inherently is informed by a prior humility, an openness to the True, the Good or the Beautiful.

Religious or spiritual authority comes from God. It is a visitation of the heavenly to us here on earth. It is the embodiment, representation or manifestation of the holy, the transcendent, the eternal. 

Much of what passes for "spiritual but not religious" is void of authority: a feeling or dimension of the Sovereign Self, a communion with nature, a passing euphoric or ecstatic experience, a satisfying human experience.

For example, the current Catholic cult of "synodality" is ambiguous. It is, on the one hand, an admirable call to a spirituality of listening as compassion, reverence, and reception, including of those distanced from Catholic life. On the other hand, institutionalized in some bureaucratic protocol, it masquerades as a novel, false source of authority. 

Genuine authority can be institutional or charismatic. It comes first through inherited, communal institutions which express and preserve a definitive, primitive visitation of the divine. In the second, it comes to us directly, in the present, in an extraordinary, gifted person or group open to and representative of a new visitation of heaven on earth. Within Catholicism the two blend together in a marvelous, mutually enriching synergy. The charismatic, of course, always flows from and into the inherited, the given, the Tradition, which it refreshes and renews.

Since masculinity/paternity as representational/authoritative has been treated in this blog frequently, this essay will consider maternity as virile and authoritative. Then we will identify significant voices of authority, masculine and feminine, over the last 80 years.

Virility of the Maternal

Who was the most virile person I have ever met? Senator John F. Kennedy, 1957, comes to mind. But no! It is not even close: St. Mother Theresa of Calcutta.  

Jersey City, 1973. She entered the room, surrounded by her sisters in their white saris. Purposeful. Petite, she looked well under 5'. Slight: the strange thought occurred that  I could pick her up with one hand and throw her across the room like a pillow. Bent over towards the floor with osteoporosis. An aura of gravitas, as if she could at any second manifest Jedi powers. She asked the family about the condition of her quadripelegic-friend-prayer-partner in bed. She leaned over and spoke to her quietly, tenderly. Introduced to me as religion teacher of sons Michael and Donald, she bent her head back, looked up at me calmly and said with authority: "I hope you are teaching the right things." I froze, speechless in awe and uncertainty. My wife, holding our infant oldest daughter in her hands, came to my defense.

She radiated toughness, strength like steel, compactness, definition, identity-mission-destiny, authority, clarity, certitude, and an inner integrity and serenity that no force on earth could threaten. The most virile person I have ever met, without a doubt. The most authoritative person I have ever met. Authoritative as Mother.

Think of the nun principal of your Catholic grammar school (if you were so blessed)! How would you rate her, in toughness, against: Mike Tyson? General Patton? Kaiser Souci? Darth Vader? Hannibal Lecter? Genghis Khan?  If your Principal was like the ones I have known, it is not close. 

Mother Teresa. Mother Angelica. Mother Francis Xavier Cabrini. Mother Katherine Drexell. Actually, all the Catholic "mothers" who served the poor, taught the ignorant, founded orders, fought with bishops: as a group they are the toughest...tougher than navy seals, Russian mafia hitmen, bare knuckle fighters, KGB operatives.

Consider: Who is the singular human person who crushed the head of Lucifer, the most intelligent, powerful and magnificent of all creatures, human and angelic? Our Blessed Mother Mary. She is superior in the combat with the dark kingdom even to St. Michael the Archangel. She is superior of course, not in power, but in humility, over the "power" and pride of Satan.

Femininity at its epitome is superior as authoritative in two ways. First, as maternal, the feminine is closer, more intimate with us, the recipients. Secondly, less powerful, empowered-NOT, (Please: lets NOT empower our girls, or our boys, and especially not our men!) the feminine is more receptive of the Transcendent, God and also of created illuminations of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. And so, as receptive the feminine is also reflective, like the full moon reflects the light of the sun.

Maternity/Paternity

And so, maternity and paternity in distinctive ways are both authoritative: receptive of the Transcendent and then representative of it. This is NOT-POWER. It is iconic or sacramental: humble, certain, efficacious, charming, life-giving. 

In the Uber-Event of the Spousal Drama, the embrace of bride and groom...erotic, romantic, complementary, synergistic, agonistic, excruciating, purgative, ecstatic, abusive, sacrificial, contrite, forgiving, fruitful...the feminine and the masculine, asymmetrically receptive and donative,  purge and inflame each other into maternity and paternity as vessels of life-giving authority...embodying the Holy, the True, the Good and the Beautiful. 

Today, All Saints, let us consider in our time (1945-2025) the voices, sacramentals, icons of just such authority. 

 PATERNAL                                                                               

 John Paul II                                                                           

Kiko Arguello (with Carmen Hernandez)                                    

Pope Benedict                                                                              

Hans Urs von Balthasar (with Speyr)                                             

Ralph Martin and charismatic companions.                                   

DeLubac, Danielou, Congar, Boyer, Phillips, Suenens and Vatican Council Fathers and Periti              

David L. Schindler and Communio colleagues                           

Cardinals Mueller, Arinze, Sarah, Burke, George, O'Connor      

Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Baron, African bishops                   

Maritains (Jacques/Raissa) and Hildebrands (Dietrich/Alice)   

MATERNAL

St. Mother Theresa

Chiara Lubich

Mother Angelica

Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Madeleine Delbrel

Carmen Hernandez (with Kiko Arguello)

Adrienne von Speyr (with Hans Urs von Balthasar)

Flannery O'Connor, Sigrid Undset

Elizabeth Anscombe

Sisters of Life

Caryll Houselander 

                                                                                         

Honorable Mention:

Knights of Columbus and other men's groups active in the Church.

Jesuits: Avery Cardinal Dulles (my model theological model) and Joseph Whelan  (my spirituality mentor), John Wrynn and Neil Doherty (my spiritual directors) and  Fessio, Schall, Baker, Paqwa, Oates, Spitzer, Mankowski, Koterski, and others.)

EWTN, Communio Journal, First Things and other

Franciscan University of Steubenville, Benedictine, Ave Maria, University of Dallas, Thomas Aquinas Academy and other strong Catholic colleges.

Erika Kirk, Mary Anne Glendon, Amy Comey Barrett, Heather King, Tracey Rowland, Helen Andrews, Debra Herbeck, Janet Smith, Mary Healy,  Patricia Snow, Kimbely Hahn, Abigaile Favale, Anne Eberstadt, Helen Andrews,  Helen Alvare, and so many other.

Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, Missionaries of Charity, Little Sisters of the Poor and so many other.

Charlie Kirk, Etienne Gilson, Scott Hahn, Monsignor Luigi Giussanni, Bill W. and Doctor Bob and all the anonymous compulsives grateful in recovery, and so many others.

Conclusion

The women above all are feminine specifically in their receptivity to God in prayer, but also welcoming of the masculine in all its created valor. These women are delighted in their own femininity as they cherish the masculine received from father, Church, husband, brothers, and friends. As women, they interiorize the masculine and reflect it; as men do with the feminine. Such women are content, grateful, serene: neither envious, self-pitying, or resentful. Likewise, authentic men are not effeminate but confident in their virility, delighted in femininity and therefore open to its influence.

These, the Church Militant, all sinners-in-recovery, are the definitive answer to Cultural/Theological Progressivism, the unholy union of envious feminism and effeminate masculinity. 

And so, femininity and masculinity, in the dance of asymmetric reception/donation, open to the Transcendent, abide in and with each other, thrive and become fruitful and authoritative.

Thank God for our abiding Motherly Church, for our authoritative hierarchy, and the holy messengers from heaven in our time.

The Crisis of Authentic Virile Authority: The Complicity of Toxic Feminism and Effeminate Masculinity

 "While the most competent women leaders often reflect the virtues of male-dominated spaces, they do so while maintaining what St. John Paul II called "the feminine genius"--a biologically-based way of perceiving the world that allows for genuine empathy.  But to flourish as a society, we need a best-of-both-worlds form of leadership in which that "feminine genius" works in concert with the "masculine genius."  Men must be allowed to contribute in the courageous, to-the-point, appropriately confrontational style designed into them by their Creator.

The enduring health of any society depends on the full expression of both: the intuitive compassion that builds communion, and the principled firmness that guards order and truth. When men are diminished or sidelined, society loses the guardianship of boundaries, courage and disciplined purpose--qualities that stabilize families, communities and nations.

Civilization itself depends on this balance: the complementarity between the man who protects and the woman who nurtures, each reflecting a facet of divine wisdom that, together, sustains human flourishing."

Kelsey Reinhardt, President of Catholic Vote CatholicVote.org October 23, 2025

Kelsey Reinhardt's precise, penetrating summary of the divinely-intended female/male balance is a development of the must-read, brilliant essay The Great Feminization by Helen Andrews at www.compactmag.com Oct. 16, 2025. There Andrews, with her customary depth and precision, sees that the explosion of the "woke" cult a few years ago coincides exactly with the demographic predominance of women in key cultural arenas including law, social sciences, education and other. In this new order, masculine values of order, justice, accountability, authority, borders, tradition, confrontation, courage, and magnanimity have succumbed to the pronouncedly feminine of empathy, welcome, affirmation, fluidity, cooperation, unity, serenity and nurture. In a previous essay, Fleckinstein here argued that this new regime is not the influence of an authentic, holy femininity, but the unholy union of an effeminate masculinity and a toxic, machismo-imitating femininity.  Admittedly we see around us toxic, inflated masculinity,  but the deeper crisis is the diminishment of authentic, wholesome virility as authoritative paternity and paternal authority.

Pope Leo on Synodality

Within this context, we consider Pope Leo's homily Sunday (8/26) on the Pharisee and the Publican. Echoing his mentor-predecessor, he discovers that the Pharisee sins against "synodality:" he positions himself over the tax collector as superior, indifferent and distant. And so, the Gospel call is to the equality of listening: open, compassionate, loving. This posture is set against power, hierarchy, superiority, and the refusal to listen.  Toxic masculinity is contrasted to wholesomely feminine virtues, which are of course intrinsic also to genuine virility. 

In this he is entirely faithful to his mentor's agenda. Francis passionately despised a image he configured and condemned of toxic, clerical machismo: dogmatic, moralistic, reactionary, superior, indifferent to the poor and the suffering. This message is sweeter to the palette coming from Leo in his sincerity, gentleness and transparency. He radiates a serenity, stability, kindness, and yearning for unity,  unsullied by emotionalism, resentment, melodrama. Indeed, his appeal is largely in masculine virtues: steadfast, calm, rational, reliable, objective, judicious, humble and selfless in dedication to the institution. And so, the message, especially as exemplified in his own person, is admirable. And it does address  masculine propensities to egotistic indifference, superiority, status hierarchy, and the pride/aggression of the inflated-but-fragile male ego. 

So far so good. What is the problem? 

An initial problem will be if he persists in the bureaucratization of this synodal ideal: it will become either an endless girly venting of feelings or it will be manipulated behind the scenes, in catty-camouflaged manner,  by progressives to further rupture our bonds with the past. 

More troubling is a deeper dilemma: Like his mentor, Pope Leo seems unaware that OUR CRISIS IS NOT AN EXAGGERATED, BUT A DIMINISHED VIRILITY!  To be precise, within the Church, it is a crisis of virile authority. It is not that the Church has become feminine in a wholesome, holy, Marian manner. Rather,  a critical mass of our hierarchy and lay intellectual elite have become effeminate: weak, uncertain, indecisive, toxically empathetic, gay-friendly. IT IS NOT THAT THE HIERARCHY HAS POWER, BUT THAT IT LACKS AUTHORITY. 

Power and Authority

These two are entirely different. Power is the capacity to exert force externally. For example, on the basketball court the big guy has the strength to position himself, box out, push competitors away and grab the rebound. The President exerts the power to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants or he applies tariffs on countries for various reasons. Power is the white ball knocking the other ball into the hole.

Authority, from the Latin word "to grow or make grow" is not extrinsic force, but the capacity to influence and allow growth, life, thriving. "Authority" resembles the word "author" which also means to create or bring to life. All authority derives and expresses the ultimate life-bestowing capacity and intention of God. All genuine authority here on earth is intended for the life of the one under its influence. Authority, as life-giving, is inherently generous, gentle, humble, gracious, tender, gratuitous, magnanimous. Additionally, human authority itself is always subservient to a Good-Truth-Beauty transcendent of the one endowed with authority. So, the priest proclaims the Gospel, the pope protects and enhances the Deposit of Faith, the policeman serves the peace and safety of the city, the father/mother protects the good of the entire family. The authority figure is not powerful, but always representative,  expressive of a Reality greater than himself. Real authority is interiorly humble: deferential to something greater. The Pope serves the Word of God; the Supreme Court the Constitution.

The strength of authority is intrinsic, interior; it is influential, flowing peacefully into the receptive, voluntarily-open heart and mind. Power is extrinsic; it is coercive.  Authority, by its attractiveness, charm and goodness penetrates the heart and mind of the recipient... encouraging, healing, inspiring, strengthening, correcting, comforting. It draws from the transcendent; as it satisfies the cravings of the human heart and intellect. 

There is a distinction...subtle, nuanced, mysterious... between feminine and masculine authority. The masculine is always paternal, iconic of the Fatherhood of God, the first person of the Blessed Trinity.  And so, there is a certain distance, reflecting the infinite distance of creature from Creator, as in the prolonged distance between the embryo-and-then-infant and the father. This chasm is slowly overcome by the loving, persistent overtures of the father. The distance of paternity carries awe, obedience, accountability, and fascination. This distance remains even as it is infused with affection, comfort, protection, provision, tenderness and delight. Paternal love, distinct from the maternal, is precisely the mysterious, paradoxical, fascinating co-inherence of  gentleness/tenderness/delight with strength/awe/authority. It is God-like in its retention of transcendence within immanence.

By contrast, from the moment of conception, the mother enjoys a remarkable intimacy with the child. Maternal influence is more intimate and immediate, less transcendent. Even prior to conception, in the spousal embrace the woman is receptive in trust while the man is assertive and donative. The 9 month enclosure of the child is extended into infancy in the maternal embrace, tender attentiveness and especially the act of nursing. Slowly and inexorably, the child, especially the boy, moves away from this enclosure.

 We see that the trajectories are in opposite directions: the father moves to the inherently-distant child, the child moves away from the enclosing-mother. Yet these primal structures remain resonant throughout life as they develop themselves into the forms of paternity and maternity and permeate every dimension of human life. 

Our New "Synodality": Not Apostolic, Not Virile, Not Authoritative 

Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, is the icon of the Father. To see Jesus is to see the Father. And so by analogy, all masculinity is iconic of the Father: giver of life, author, authoritative, strong but gentle, patiently working to overcome distance in tenderness, nurture and delight. Within virile authority there is always a strength, courage, ferocity, awesomeness; even as it is gentle, tender, protective. 

This new democratic, non-apostolic "synodality" is highly feminine: receptive, sensitive, nurturing, verbal, reconciling, affirmative, unitive. As I type those adjectives, I sense the oxytocin and serotonin calming my heart; my testosterone is quiet. This is, of course, to the good. A virtuous man will exercise such listening. But he will not remain in it, as in an unending bureaucratic protocol. No! Virility moves into decision, action, often confrontation. Women have stronger inclinations to talk and to listen. Even preteen girls can spend lots of time just talking with each other. Boys cannot do this. They have to play, compete, act. A man can listen only so long. Then he has to decide, act, compete.

As given to us by Pope Francis, synodality is without finality, indecisive, inactive, non-confrontational. It is not authoritative. Any red-blooded, testosterone-pumping, woman-loving, fruitful male would rather mow the lawn, play touch football, or write a scathing blog essay than sit for weeks sharing feelings.

Bishops and all in authority would be well-served by intensive, deliberate listening sessions. We all would be well-served! Proposal: every bishop, boss and authority set aside two hours weekly to just listen: to employees, competitors, transgendered, victims, borderlines, sociopaths, polysexuals, fascists, jihadists, Latin Massers, sexaholics, and depressives. The purpose here would be to listen and learn...contemplatively, compassionately, receptively; not to decide.  

By contrast, the traditional episcopal synod is (after listening) precisely decisive,  authoritative and virile: it is convened (by elderly, male, ordained bishops only) to address a controversy, confusion or heresy. It is decisive, certain, definitive. It listens, it argues, it votes, it decides. It is clear and binding.

Virile, Christlike Authority 

We do not see Moses descending the mountain, radiant with light, to listen to the grieving, victim Israelites. Nor did Joshua, Samson, and David listen to the Jebusites, Amorites and Edomites. The Maccabees did not dialogue with the Hellenists. 

In the Gospel, Jesus does not listen, question, poll and affirm tax collectors, Sadducees, or Roman imperialists. He proclaims. He acts. Decisively.  He spends nights in prayer where he clearly listens to his Father. Yes he is instantaneously compassionate. But that moment of empathy springs directly into action: deliverance of spirits and healing.  Authoritative action! The mission he gives the 72 and the 12 is not to have affirmation/sensitivity/listening sessions! They are to proclaim, heal, drive out demons.  If their voice is rejected, they shake the dust and move on to proclaim and act elsewhere.

Christ is virile. He is authoritative. He is masculine...not feminine, not androgynous... love. He is not love as passivity, tolerance, endless sharing, unconditional acceptance, peace at any price. He is not effeminate. He is love as decision, Truth, fearlessness, ferocity, wrath, certitude, clarity, efficaciousness, infallibility, assertiveness, boldness, combat, judgment, sacrifice, retribution, paternity.

Christ is the groom to us the bride. In relation to him, we receive: his Word, his Body and Blood, his Holy Spirit. Leaving the receptivity of the Eucharist, we ourselves...in our own arenas... then manifest our own Spirit-infused assertiveness, magnanimity, confidence, courage, generosity, generativity. 

Christ to the Father is Son. Within the Trinity and in his humanity/virility Christ is ultra-super-uber-feminine:  trusting, grateful, actively receptive. With the Father, Christ is generative of the Holy Spirit. With us he is paternal as he is the perfect image of the Father. In turn, the Son gives glory and honor to the Father. And so, the super-receptive Son is super-active, in his love and service of the Father and the Kingdom. And, secondly in his love for us. His love for us is already/always enclosed within his love for the Father. But, in his divinity and humanity both, the primacy is his union with the Father. The most important thing he does every day: not teaching, not healing, not forgiving, not exorcising, not even suffering and dying; but abiding in his Father, spending his nights in prayer.

The human person, image of the Trinity, is likewise receptive and donative. Each person is so in an utterly unique fashion, free of rigid stereotype. The feminine and the masculine are distinct in the manner in which these dynamics cohere. The feminine genius is more one of reception, the masculine one of donation. The beauty is the communion between the two: within each person, within each relationship. 

And so the man, and the cleric in his specific mode, emulates the virility of Christ. Primarily, in a creaturely mimesis of the Son, receptive within the Trinity of the Father and the Holy Spirit. The male enjoys a blessing of strength, iconic of the Father: in his physique, especially his seed-donating fruitfulness. Psychologically he is prone to decision, action, confrontation, certitude, clarity, courage, sacrifice. At the same time his psyche, in its stability, is vulnerable to a rigidity and fragility. This makes him desperately in need of receptivity in prayer as well as in reception of the love of mother, then father, brother and sister, friends, wife.

The woman for her part manifests more pronouncedly the receptivity within the Trinity. She more intimately, passionately, precisely receives: first, the love of God; then the other person... friend, child, spouse, or the suffering one. This maternity is itself so fierce that when aroused it can be even more courageous, aggressive and enflamed than virility as paternity. The maternal and paternal are both  receptive and donative, in a different manner.

We intuit here an endless dance, at every level of reality...the physical, emotional, social, intellectual, and the mystical. The virile and the feminine, the groom and the bride, the paternal and the maternal... enchanted, fascinated, reverential, heroic, receptive/donative, active/contemplative...reflective of the inner-eternal-Event of love that is the Trinity.

Conclusion

Toxic masculinity is a plague upon our world: control, power, greed, lust, indifference, manipulation, narcissism, aggression...Putin, Trump, Epstein, Weinstein, jihadism, fascism, misogyny, clericalism and much more. It is not our only and not our worst problem.

Western society and the Catholic Church...in all its elite institutions...has surrendered to a toxic femininity that is NOT authentically womanly as receptive, confident, trusting, generous, holy and Marian. It is, rather, a mimesis of insecure, toxic machismo: suspicious, envious, grasping, discontent, grasping, self-pitying, toxically-empathetic, angry and sterile. 

Worse still...and the real core of our crisis...is the crisis in virility: the absence of authority; the prevalence of effeminacy.

Our men, our society/institutions/communities/families are fatherless.  

We, systemically, lack: masculine obedience to the Transcendent, confidence, authority, certitude, magnanimity, heroism, stability, sobriety, protectiveness, humility, chastity, fidelity, gentle strength and strong gentleness.

Fleckinstein, you know Dear Reader, does not like to end on this negative note. Stay tuned: the next essay will identity the authentic witnesses to virile authority, men and women!  

 

The Dems are Right About...

A broken clock is right twice a day. The DNC does a little better than that. As a moral conservative, a registered Republican, a non-Trumper, 2024-only Trump voter, and a passionate, culture war opponent of the Democratic Party for half a century, I give my adversary credit for:

1. Ukraine. Biden was basically right but weak: too little too late. Trump has been much worse. There is a broad consensus among Democrats to support the Ukraine with sanctions and weapons. The Republicans are split, with Trump and Vance deferential to Putin, for different reasons.

2. Economics. The Trump budget favors the rich. Democrats support a stronger safety net for the poor and lower working class. Money in the hands of these recycles quickly back into the economy and keeps it vital.

3. Immigration. Given that the Biden policy on borders and immigration was a nightmare of a train wreck within a catastrophe enacted by a senile-auto-pen-dependent incompetent; and given that Trump has done a superb job in closing the border and deporting the criminal element; realistically and charitably we do well to leave hardworking, law abiding, undocumented immigrants alone and work towards a comprehensive immigration program.

4. Foreign Aid. Granting that much of AID had been corrupted by the agenda of cultural liberalism, it was nevertheless a tragedy that aid to so many suffering overseas was canceled. This is very dear to my heart.

5. Labor Unions. A vigorous union movement is important for such a large capitalist economy, even as it is vulnerable to woke politics and corruption.

6. Gun control. Reasonable, moderate controls will reduce lethal violence.

7. Climate.  Dismissing the widespread hysteria around it, climate warming is long term a real challenge. There is room for optimism that we will adapt to it. Nuclear power, despite its dangers, seems to be a necessity in the near and intermediate term.

8. Diplomacy. Given that Trump has been strikingly successful on a number of fronts (the Middle East) and has been a refreshing change in many dimensions; and given that Biden destabilized the world by his predictable, anxious timidity in the face of bad actors; we do well to renounce volatility, incoherence, jingoism, xenophobia, narcissism, personal greed, and melodrama in favor of stability, policy coherence,  professionalism, multilateralism, strong international alliances, established protocols, and simple decency.

9. Constitution. Trump in his second term disrespects the constitutional order: murderous military attacks on "drug boats" without due process or protocol; contradicting financial decisions of the legislature; deporting student activists without any process; flagrantly, shamelessly weaponizing the DOJ for personal revenge (yes, they already did this to him, but he is worse), sending federal forces into cities against the will of local leadership in violation of subsidiarity (he will not know what that word means). Neither elected Democrats nor Republicans are capable of restraining him. That job will fall to the more moderate, judicious, conservative Justices Barrett and Roberts.

10. Size of Government and Regulation.  A society, technology and economy of our complexity and size requires a substantial state and regulation system. The Red would diminish such; the Blue expand it.  It is easier to expand than reduce. In that sense the chain saw approach of DOGE was defensible. The balance is surely in the middle.

Our political order is in a crisis of polarization: hatred, distrust, exaggerated enmity, violent language and incapacity for compromise and cooperation. Trump himself is the product of this, as he is its singular aggravator. We desperately need a return to respect, civility, and a willingness to listen to and work with the opponent. 

If I were President of the USA, I would hold a Synodal (LOL!) Political Retreat, for all 100 Senators. Compulsory. (Is that constitutional?) At a beautiful mountain lake. Lots of gourmet food, expensive alcohol, and Cuban cigars (are they legal?). Morning/evening prayer and praise/worship sessions would be optional. Quiet time compulsory.  I would pair a Democrat with a Republican, randomly. Send them for a long, leisurely walk around the lake. They are to share what is dear to them, painful, essential, troubling. At the dinner, each Senator would speak for 5 minutes (while alcohol flows and dessert is served) in appreciation of his "new best friend." We would do listening and affirmation exercises.  (I started off serious but as I imagine it concretely it becomes hilarious.)

Acknowledgement: This "best friend retreat" is not original with me. All UPS supervision participated in such, some time in the 1990s, as management aspired to a radical change in business culture from combative, tough guy, kick ass, macho paramilitary to cooperation, affirmation, acceptance, and positivity. I myself was like a duck in water: by temperament and background (seminary, school, Church) this was my style. Then we learned that our UPS CEO was having an affair with that of the consulting company directing the change. They both lost their jobs. UPS returned to its high stress, confrontational, competitive default. It is hard to teach an old dog new tricks!

Challenge to you Dear Reader: whatever side of the political divide you are on, can you name 10 things about which your adversary is right?

Developments in Canterbury and Rome: Will Pope Leo Go Anglican on Us?

Full Disclosure: As a Charismatic-Evangelical-Eucharistic-Countercultural-Catholic, Fleckinstein is  flamingly Ecumenical in his love for Pentecostalism in the zeal, Evangelicals in the love for Jesus Christ and his Word, Eastern Orthodox in the liturgical and spiritual riches, and Anabaptistism like the Bruderhoff in the concrete Gospel Radicality. He has little use for Anglicanism.

To be clear: this is not about persons who are Anglican. I have dear cousins who have embraced that faith. A good friend from high school was 25 years a Roman Catholic priest, and now 25 years an Episcopalian priest; we get together for lunch and I thoroughly enjoy and respect him; we don't go into theology. As always: hate the sin, love the sinner. I hate alcoholism but love alcoholics; most of the people I love are Democrats, I despise the party. My wife, a registered Democrat, reminds me several times a week, when we see Trump actions, especially treatment of immigrants, "I am a Democrat." As annoying as this is, do I love her less?  You get the point!

What's Wrong with the Anglican (non)Communion?

Don't get me started!

1. With a (probably fine) woman as Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church is a single-mother family, desecrating the nature of orders and the genius of femininity, bereft of virility-paternity-authority as iconic of the divine Father.

2. It is the institutionalization of theological progressivism as the unchaste union of effeminate, impotent masculinity and resentful, jealous, grasping femininity that maintains sterility by killing the unintended child as it embraces every perverse cultural fad (abortion, gay marriage, women archbishops.)

3. It' s origin is the adultery of Henry VIII.

4. It tortured and killed our martyrs, especially Jesuits. (Although in fairness we Catholics did the same to them.)

5. It destroyed the rich, historic English Catholicism in its monasteries, pilgrimages, iconography, indulgences, and other.

6. It participated in persecution of the Irish, including the Famine which was arguably quasi-genocidal.

7. It continues to uphold a kingship that we Americans had to fight against to be free.

8. It lacks a centering authority and so is a clowder of cats with everyone doing their own thing: high and low Churches, evangelicals and liberals, traditional Africans and progressive West, etc.

9. As a "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism it lacks clear identity, structure, interior form; neither this nor that.

10. It's head is not an ordained bishop, descended from Peter or the apostles,  but a king. This is obscene! Under Elizabeth there was at least a style of dignity, but the person of Charles, his history (Diana) and personal faith makes things worse; it recalls Henry.

11. It is a bureaucratic pillar of the bourgeois status quo.

12. Worst of all, it is sacramentally confused and befuddled. The strong, clear forms of Protestantism reject the sacramental economy entirely and present a worship form in Word, song and witness that has its own integrity and value. As an ecumenical Catholic I happily participate in such, listening to often inspired preaching and lifting my hands in shared praise of our Lord and Savior. Anglicans present a bogus version of our sacraments, a "knock off" imitation. They claim to continue our sacramental tradition. In the higher Church expression their form is arguably more traditional and reverent in style than our Vatican II mass. So, we might profitably join them in non-Eucharistic praise with their rich musical heritage. Pope Leo XIII declared their orders (and so all their sacraments except baptism) invalid because there was a break with the apostolic succession of bishops. There was also a change in their understanding of Eucharist as they denied its nature as sacrifice. But the apostolic succession issue troubles me. What of their priests who were ordained within that line? How would we know the valid (however illicit) from the invalid? How about my high school friend and many Roman priests who have joined that Church. Their celebration of the mass is valid. So, some Anglican masses present a piece of bread, others the body of our Lord. To confuse things further, they allow a variety of theological views: some recipients believe in the Real Presence but are deceived as they receive a piece of bread and so are (if unintentionally) practicing idolatry ;others blaspheme (if unintentionally) by receiving Christ himself, physically, but consider it merely symbolic. This is sacramentally a horrific, sacrilegious, despicable situation:  I am running away from the Anglican "faux-mass!"

Pope Leo's Anglican Temptation

Under Pope Francis, our Church already drifted toward the unfortunate, scattered-cat condition of Anglicanism. Blessing of gay unions is strictly forbidden in all of Africa; it is widely, publicly celebrated in German and across the West. Divorced-without-annulment-remarried Catholic can receive communion in Germany but not across the border in Poland. Francis has said that women cannot be ordained deacons, and then said that maybe they can, and then that they cannot??? 

Recent papal gestures suggest that Pope Leo is temperamentally inclined to just such a use of authority. He highly values the unity of the Church; which is a good thing of course. But he shows signs of being a "people pleaser"...wanting to keep everyone happy, disinclined to decisive action. He allowed Cardinal's  Burke to celebrate the Latin Mass in St. Peter's Basilica even as a number of American bishops are basically eliminating that practice, with the implicit acceptance of the Vatican. When Cardinal Cupich sundered the unity of the American episcopate by violating their policy on honoring prochoice politicians he favored Cupich and then gave him a prominent position in the Vatican. His clear anti-Trump bias is hardly helpful to an American Catholicism split almost exactly 50-50 on the politics. 

In these few months, he has mostly kicked the ball down the road on the important things. He cannot do this for the remainder of what will likely be a prolonged pontificate. He is the primary protagonist on a number of battle fronts: cultural and theological progressivism, the Communist takeover of the Chinese Church, the Latin Mass, financial-sexual-theological corruption in the Vatican. Neutrality is not an option in any of these fronts. Like his mentor, he would prefer to engage in synodal meanderings about climate, immigrants, and the poor. A moderate, mediating approach to the contested issues will in effect enable the revolutionaries and debilitate the Church at her core. 

We do well to pray for Pope Leo: that in his tenderness he find a toughness in the defense of the Truth; that as a canon lawyer and institutionalist he strenghen the Church in her defining structures; that he manifest the courage and clarity of the apostles, martyrs, fathers and doctors in his love for Christ and his Church.

The Itinerary of a Catholic Faith 1947-2025

A Catholic, I am NOT:

An isolated, autonomous individual, as libertarians and liberals would have it.

Part of a greater collectivity: a survival-of-the-fittest-species, as evolutionists would have it; a nationality, as fascists would have it; the oppressed/oppressing class, as Marxists would have it; an intersectional victim or the white-privileged-heteronormative-cisgendered-male-oppressor, as identity politics would have it.

An irrational, futile Will to Power, as postmodern Nietzscheans would have it.

A combustion of superego-id-ego, as Freudians would have it. 

I am:

An entirely distinctively person...a freedom, an embodied-immoral-soul,  a heart-intelligence-will-in-flesh, an "angimal"... in communion with Christ and his body, the Church, historical-institutional-mystical.

As a Catholic, I live within the Church as a pilgrim on this earth, already initiated into heaven by anticipation, moving deeper into that Kingdom, ever in combat with world-flesh-devil.

To live in the Church is to swim in the current of God's infinite Mercy. Alive on the earth and in history the Church is formed within by the Holy Spirit but also by specific, concrete, historical events, movements, dramas, institutions. 

My own personal life has been blessed to be participant in many of the crucial events in the life of the Church. My particular journey is unusually reflective of that of the Church of our time. I am almost a Catholic Forest Gump. (I spoke with John F. Kennedy, Mother Theresa, Avery Cardinal Dulles S.J., Joe (mystic/theologian) Whelan S.J., Dorothy Day, David L. Schindler and his colleagues at the John Paul Institute. I listened in person to John Paul, Benedict, Fulton Sheen, Bernard Lonergan, Kiko Arguello, Ralph Martin, Cardinal Suenens, Ivan Illich.)

CHILDHOOD 1947-60. Age 0-13 (St. John's Parish Grammar School)

The Great Post-War American Catholic revival; the final, thriving chapter of Tridentine Catholicism in urban, working class, ethnic parochialism; 

National euphoria of ecumenical unity across ethnicities and religions after the victory in WWII and within the Cold War, including civil rights and thriving labor movement.

ADOLESCENCE 1960-70. Age 13-23 (Seton Hall Prep, Maryknoll College Seminary)

Vatican II renewal of the Church by return to the sources, engagement with culture, and grounding in the person/event of Jesus Christ. An ecumenism which opened Catholicism to see (by the Thomistic principle of analogy) the Good, given by God, beyond Church boundaries: other Churches, Judaism, world religions, natural rights and freedoms, the broader culture. Biblical, ecumenical, liturgical, social justice movements.

Emergent leftist critique of the Global-American Order in dimensions of inequality, consumerism, technocracy, materialism, cultural imperialism.

EARLY ADULTHOOD 1971-1979 Age 24-32 (Marriage, children, study theology at Woodstock Jesuit and Union Theological in NYC, teach ESL NYC, teach high school religion, pastoral work in Jersey City housing projects)

Cursillo Movement: Evangelical/communal Catholic movement in which I experienced a clear, personal encounter with the divine-human person of Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.

Charismatic Renewal: The Pentecostal experience, within the Church, of the direct, intimate workings of the Holy Spirit. This included engagement with Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity.

Culture war erupts with legalized abortion and dominance of Cultural Liberalism; emergence of pro-life movement; embrace  of Countercultural-Cultural Conservatism; renunciation of the Democratic Party;  and a blended political conservatism/liberalism within the Republican Party.

Enrichment by spiritualities of the Marriage Encounter, Divine Mercy and Marian apparitions of Medjugorie.  Discovery of mystical dimension of Catholicism through theologian Joe Whelan S.J., of the balanced theology of Avery Cardinal Dulles, and the profound-encyclopedic-inspiring vision of Balthasar and his school.

MIDDLE ADULTHOOD 1980-2000 Age  43-53 (Raising seven children; supervisor in UPS; part-time graduate stud at Rutger's MBA, Seton Hall Master, Teacher's College/Union Theological Religion and Education)

Papacy of John Paul and Benedict: The conjugal mysticism which sees in the spousal mystery the key to Christ's embrace of the Church; Theology of the Body; a hermeneutic of continuity of the Council and the previous Church. Theological journal Communio out of the John Paul Institute for the Family in Washington DC.

MATURE ADULTHOOD 2001-2025  Age 54-78 (Early retirement UPS; Return to teaching of high school religion; Magnificat Home is started; move from Jersey City to Bradley Beach; participate in jail, hospital, CCD work.) 

Continued study of the theology of John Paul, Benedict, Balthasar and the Communio school.

Participation, for a period, in the Neocatechumenal Way which opened new windows into Christ and his radicality in a strikingly counterculture mode.

Participation in 12-step groups (including AA, Alanon, Emotions Anonymous, Sexaholics Anonymous, Suicide Survivors Support Group, Recovery meetings of Dr. Lowe)  which provided a path to freedom from compulsions by acknowledgment of powerlessness, surrender to God, fraternal accountability and support. 

With family/friends, open Magnificat Home, residence for low income women, as inspired by Mother Theresa, L'Arche, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty and others.

Friendship (especially through our daughter) with Communion and Liberation and (through our son) with Neocatechumenal Way.

Nourished spiritually/intellectually by faithful reading of Communio and First Things.

Participation in OLME (Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist) which offered a clear but flexible lay "rule of life" centered in daily Eucharist, rosary, prayer of the Church, simplicity of life.

I rejoice to recall the workings of the Holy Spirit in our Church and our time. I give thanks that I have been blessed to be part of them, in my own small way. I pray and hope that my children and theirs may be similarly privileged. 

Catholic Politics and Drama: Polidrama

After dinner, I can do nothing...no work, no reading, no conversation...except watch, on TV, either the news or a good drama, preferably a thriller, spy, romance, or mafia movie. What I watch on the news, of course, is politics, national and global. It strikes me: they are really the same thing. With politics and drama we are observing performance of a narrative involving love, hatred, loyalty, violence, infidelity, conflict and a conclusion, happy or sad. But on a deeper, philosophical level we find these so fascinating because in our own real lives, however routine and normal, we are ourselves always engaged in drama/politics. I will subsume them both into one category, POLIDRAMA, and define it as the interaction of two or more freedoms in love or hate. Polidrama is only possible for a spirit, a being with intelligence and will, the capacity to decide in freedom. Things (including IE), plants, and animals are incapable of it. Angels and humans are. The monogamous God of Judaism and Islam is capable of drama with us, but not within himself as he is simply One. The trinitarian God of Christianity is an endless, infinite Polidrama of love, an eternal and ecstatic event, imminently, even without creation, as he also engages with us in creation and history. 

For a Catholic, then, politics as we know it, for example the blue/red conflict in the US, is a small aspect of the immense dynamics of human polidrama. We will see that in the final scheme of things, national/global politics is not nothing, but it is relatively small. This is relieving: we can all sigh with relief! No, Donald Trump is not at the center; he is way out on the periphery!

Imagine a person's life as a number of concentric circles, going outwards from the center. These indicate the horizontal dimension of human life, with the smaller ones, closer to the center being the most important engagements or polidramas in a kind of subsidiarity. The outer circles are the most distant. But before we consider the different circles, we need to see that at the very center of the circles, that precise point is the person who also connects vertically, to the supernatural realm, heaven above and hell below.

The human polidrama was preceded by two others. First, the eternal interaction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...the infinite event of love...out of which lower dramas are created. Second, the angelic polidrama in which the angels, pure not-bodied spirits, decided, uber-dramatically, in a single decision,  to serve God or Lucifer. 

And so, the many human polidramas of love, power, competition, revenge and so forth occur always in the light of the more ultimate, profound engagement of the human soul with heaven and hell: faith, disbelief, love, hate, competition, surrender, control, loyalty, betrayal, and so forth. The politics and drama of family, romance, war, governance, power, generosity, and revenge all are enacted within this more primal spiritual politics and drama. So, while we are ourselves free agents, with limits and impediments to our exercise of freedom, we exercise this limited liberty within the greater war between heaven and hell. And even our minor decisions mysteriously feed into and out of this greater polidrama.

Returning to the horizontal concentric circles: The inner, closest, smallest one involves the drama/politics of the most intimate community: spouse, parent/child, and nuclear family. The kindness, resentment, power plays, forgiveness, contrition, magnanimity, trust and joy here is far more important than all the other circles combined. The second circle would be the broader, extended family: grandparents/children, cousins, aunts and uncles, in-laws, and very close friends. Moving to the third circle we have broader engagements: work, neighborhood, voluntary and recreational associations, and such. 

We pause here to consider the Church. Normally, the local parish is there as part of the third or perhaps second circle for those more engaged. But the Church is far more than the specific parish or association. The Church is the Body of Christ, it is the illumination of the Holy Spirit which radiates out to heal, strengthen and sanctify in all the circles. So, the Church is a vertical dimension that pervades all the circles. Likewise, hell, the kingdom of darkness, the reign of Lucifer also permeates all the circles.

The hermit is an interesting anomaly. He detaches from all the circles, certainly from politics but even from spouse/children. He situates himself at the precise center of the concentric circles, surrendering himself to the vertical, opening with complete transparency to heaven, directly combating the demonic. From this position he radiates out to all the circles, even Gaza and communist China, the heavenly illumination of the Holy Spirit in a manner we cannot understand.

Work is an ambiguous category. For those with priestly or religious vocations their daily work is the very first, inner circle. For those who have a job that provides income but very little meaning work might be out toward the outer circles: fourth or fifth or sixth. For those with meaningful professions...doctor, nurse, teacher, counselor, politician, activist, scientist...work might be close to the center, second or even first circle in some cases.

The furthest, most distant from the center circles would be national and global politics, the stuff we watch on the news every night. Many, like myself, are political junkies that follow the stuff like others do the NBA, or college football, or an afternoon soap opera. Others have virtually no interest of knowledge. Engagement in such polidrama is NOT obligatory. No, it is NOT a civil duty to vote. It is an option. It is in a way a calling, for those with the interest and inclination.  If you are entirely ignorant about the issues and the players you do everyone a favor by refraining from the electoral process, guilt free. 

So we conclude: the politics we know of the national/global circle is the furthest and therefore in a way the least significant. It is not nothing. But it does not merit ruining more important, intimate relationships. It is an arena of moral conflict. Those of us drawn to it do well to educate ourselves; participate; and compete...always soberly, respectfully, charitably, if passionately.  

In all things, illuminated from the Divine center of the concentric circles. Love and Truth.

The Great Boomer, Oedipal Patricide

The identity, itinerary and destiny of ever male: to receive the love of the Father, in the Son, in the Spirit of filiality; through the love of mother and father; to interiorize this love in his own paternity as iconic of the Father's love.

The third most monumental event in human history was: the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s in the West. The first chronologically and second in gravity was the Fall into sin which launched us into history; the second sequentially but first in significance was our salvation in the  Person/Event of Jesus Christ who is to come to finalize history; the third, to date, was the reconstruction of the human person through cultural patricide. 

The core of the Revolution was the rejection of paternity: a rupture with our own fathers, with the very form of paternity, and with God as our heavenly father; and desecration of our own paternity. 

At the heart of the Revolution is an echo of Lucifer's word to Eve: "Do not fear to break the commandment! Take and eat! He is not to be trusted! He is not a loving, powerful Father! He is a toxic patriarch!" Mary, already detached from Adam, listened and trusted him; she surrendered to envy and distrust of her Father. She took and she ate. She then invited the original patriarch, Adam, to join her in sin.  

The crucial technological basis for the sexual revolution was the Pill. The pill is the first technology intended not to heal what is sick or fix what is broken, but to ruin that which is whole, the spousal reality of marriage and family. It is a toxic eating, like that in the garden. It is the contrary of the other, wholesome and natural eating in paradise and what we do at every Eucharist. No other technological breakthrough...not fire, gun powder, electricity, automobile, computer, internet, cell phone or IE...has so profoundly changed, broken the reality of the human person: male/female, father/mother, brother-sister, son/daughter. By tearing sex from conjugal paternity/maternity, the Revolution deconstructed the family and the person, rendering us as naked, disconnected, autonomous individuals. This aligned with  the turn against the Father. 

Oedipus

This ancient Greek myth in which the protagonist kills his father and marries his mother has been boundlessly excavated by Freudian thinking regarding the development of the boy. But here we follow others in applying it to a generation, a society, a momentous revolution. Our thesis: in critical mass, the generation growing up after the war stayed enclosed within the maternal embrace and renounced the paternal, thus failing to transition into adult paternity. They "killed their father"...not the specific man who was their father...but socially, the historical legacy, the tradition offered by their fathers collectively. The Pill, detaching sexuality from procreation/marriage/family/paternity, allowed the young man to become fixated in an infantile, entitled, indulged state and thereby renounce the "paternal," here understood spiritually as the father figure, the primal male, the authority who represents the transcendent, eternal order and all values around obedience, loyalty, sacrifice, heroism, justice, retribution, chastity and moral integrity.

Prequel: 

The Greatest Generation returned victorious from the war  to raise and support large families and build magnificent economies: financial, ecclesial, cultural, political and physical. The women happily stayed home with the kids. The economy exploded with prosperity. The kids were spoiled by Mom and by affluence. With Dad so busy, they became Momma's boys and girls. 

Well into adulthood, the kids stayed in school, 16 years or more in what is an extension of the maternal enclosure.  Prior to this, the young married early and launched into the adulthood of maternity and paternity.  At work the boys learned discipline, restraint, obedience, teamwork, integrity. At home the women gave their heart/soul/body for the family, immediate and extended. But the boomer generation were spared (catastrophically) this rite of passage as they remained protected, sheltered, entitled and indulged under the cape of a toxic maternity.

The Pill allowed men especially to avoid the tough passage into paternity/virility by remaining fixated, sterile, contracepting/cohabitating, and passive, within the feminine embrace. In other words, the pill destroys the man's own paternity. He indulges himself sexually, closed off to new life, closed off to the rigors and demands of paternity, closed off to the tradition offered by his own father, closed off to the transcendent plan of the Father, and closed off to the very feminine, maternal otherness of his bride. He regresses into an infantilism that is perfectly expressed in consumption of pornography and the despairing enclosure of sex-with-self.

This generation at once renounced the paternal legacy offered them and destroyed their own paternity by self-sterilization. 

Because of the higher level of schooling, boomers considered themselves superior to their parents. The parents highly valued education and were proud to see their children advancing in school. They put them on a pedestal, bestowing a status that was not earned. The children interiorized this sense of superiority and unconsciously looked down upon the parents. Here we see the beginnings of the oedipal patricide.

The advances in technology, science, business and culture were  so drastic, profound and widespread that a novel new society exploded as the boomers entered adulthood in the late 1960s. Works like Future Shock announced a "new kingdom" which the young, but not the old, could comprehend and navigate. Experience and age, previously esteemed, were now looked down upon as youth, in their innocence and capacity to learn, gained status. 

The Generational Break with Father

The Vietnam war triggered a clear divide between the generations. Fathers and sons, broadly across society, faced off against each other. Like so many wars, it was at once two things: part of the contest between the West and the Soviet Union and therefore worthy of our support; but it was also a nationalist, populist rejection of the Diem regime and therefore something we ought not to enter. Even to this day, it remains a morally ambiguous event. The war ended in a decade, but was important spiritually as it pitted father against son. It was a clear occasion by which the son rejected the father.

We had two distinct rebellions against paternity. The New Left was a political rejection of the entire order constructed by our fathers: capitalism, racism, the Military-Industrial complex, and other. It was a declaration: what you have built is not good! We will do better! Revolution!  In another direction the Hippy movement rejected culturally paternal values around work, accomplishment, merit, law and order and retreated into passivity, drugs, free sex, and avoidance of adulthood as responsibility. To be sure, not all of us were radicals or hippies, but that critical mass flavored our generation.

In both manifestations, we had entered "The Age of Aquarius" and could "Imagine there's no Heaven!"  A critical mass of our generation's best and brightest, and to lesser degrees much of the rest, renounced the legacy of our fathers. A new era had dawned, much better than that we had received. This is ironic: no generation in history had ever come of age in such prosperity, privilege and abundance. And yet, in both the New Left and the Hippie Movement, the son rejected the legacy of the father.

Feminism and Anti-Patriarchy

Feeding into the mega-Revolution was a militant feminism which attacked paternity as toxic patriarchy. The father figure (echoing Satan in the garden) was reconstituted as oppressive, greedy, destructive.  Gender was deconstructed, leaving both man and woman as neutered, androgynous, isolated individuals, competing for status, power, achievement and wealth. "Patriarchy" became a very bad word. Masculinity and femininity became non-entities except in the arena of sexual pleasure, now entirely recreational or romantic, but not spousal, paternal or maternal.

Gay Revolution

In this new fatherless world, homosexuality is redefined as "gay," suggesting something happy, celebrative, festive. The shameful image of one man, physically submitting to and receptive of another, so contrary of the dignity of paternity, is elevated to just another form of sex, no different from heterosexual sex, now contracepted and sterile. The gay movement was widely embraced, by most of society, because it represented sterile sex already approved in contraception. But also because the gay condition is itself fixation within the (toxic) maternal embrace and rejection of the (toxic) father and his identity.

Liberal and Progressive

The word "liberal" had previously been understood as "free" in the spiritual sense, or in regard to study of the humanities, or of a political order defensive of fundamental rights of speech, religion, rule of law and the democratic process. With the Cultural Revolution, it came to mean sexual license, release from traditional boundaries and rules restricting sex to marriage and family. It came to mean triumph over the past, over oppression of the libido, over the ignorance of religion. It came to mean technological control over life and death. 

"Progressive" came to indicate an endless triumph over the past as deprived, ignorant, oppressed. Whether in the Darwinian model of constant progress or the Marxist one of revolution of the underdog, hope was always in the future. The past was not to be received, obeyed, revered, and echoed but was to be defeated by advances in science, technology and education. 

In this new paradigm, the "father" as authoritative representative of the past, of a previous Revelation and tradition, is now reconfigured as an evil figure. He must be lowered from his position of authority. He is just another one of us. He does not represent the paternity of the heavenly Father because the new secular order recognizes no such supernatural, transcendent, eternal reality.

Post Council Catholic Church: Anti-Patriarchal, Anti-Paternal, Effeminate, Toxically Maternal

By the strangest coincidence, the Vatican Council ended just as the Revolution exploded. That Catholic event was a move to recover elements of tradition and to engage the world in a positive but not uncritical encounter, all rooted in the person of Jesus Christ. It was a fresh approach,  in organic continuity with tradition and Church authority. It exercised the concept of "analogy" to recognize similarities between Catholicism, other religions, and the contemporary world itself. It was very positive; not sufficiently suspicious or vigilant. It happened, just as the boomer generation was renouncing paternity.

And so, the progressive/liberal movement within the Church surrendered to the camouflaged Oedipal rejection of the past. Within the Church, we have a "Spirit of Vatican II" which had no connection at all with the actual consensus of the Council Fathers, but was expressive of the dominance of a toxic, indulgent "maternity" hostile to all elements of traditional paternity. We have:

1. Insistence on women priests and denial of any paternal or masculine dimension to priesthood.

2. Emotional repression of the Latin rite mass under Pope Francis. That which served our fathers for over 15 centuries is disparaged as retrograde and reactionary.

3. Articulation of a emasculated, sentimental "mercy" which is catastrophically forgetful of truth, justice, wrath, retribution, and heroism.

4. A soft virtual-pacifism, in denial of the imperialism of Evil whose aggression  requires just, rational use of lethal force. So, we have sympathy for "defund police," open borders, prohibition of capital punishment, capitulation to the Chinese communists, and an idealistic attitude towards wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

5. Infatuation with a "synodalism" which replaces apostolic (paternal) authority with group dynamics.

6. Tolerance of legal abortion which not only destroys the little, powerless, dependent One, but violates the sacredness of maternity and paternity.

Retrieval of "Pietas"

What we understand as "piety" does not correspond to the ancient Roman reality of "pietas." The former indicates churchly religiosity. At its best, such suggests authentic prayerfulness and holiness. But more frequently, with "pious" we imagine elderly women or effeminate men indulging in repetitious, sentimental, possibly self-righteous religiosity. By contrast, the Romans, in pietas, see something virile, heroic, honorable. It is gratitude, obedience, loyalty, courage, ferocity, reverence, and sacrifice in regard to nation, tribe, family, ancestors, the gods, mother and father. It implies "magnanimity" or greatness of spirit, an abundance of generosity, a humility that is at the same time bold and assertive. The embodiment of this is, of course, "pius Aeneas." Aeneas famously carries his father and guides his son out of Troy to Rome where he founds the city. 

For our sake, we see pietas as gratitude...to mother/father, family, community, nation, Revelation, tradition, our saints and ancestors. It is built upon the foundation of reception, trust, gratitude, It matures into virility and finally paternity, as generous, fierce, fearless, assertive, reliable, and generative.  The core duality is filiality and paternity/maternity. This is no progressivism that despises the past as inferior. Rather, it is an organic conservatism, a creative traditionalism that glances at once back to a glorious past of Revelation, tradition and heroism and towards a future that flows creatively out of that past. 

The fourth commandment, "Honor thy mother and thy father," comes to us from the Jews, not the Romans. But it shares with the entire ancient world this reverence for, loyalty to what we have received, the traditional. This indicates tender reverence for our own mother and father, but also reception of, loyalty to, and courageous service of a legacy, a Deposit received.

Ours is the lost generation. In large part, but not entirely, we have abandoned the faith of our fathers. We have surrendered to the bourgeois, the therapeutic, the narcissistic. Enslaved within the toxic maternal, we have violated our own filiality, renounced our fathers and our Father, and desecrated our own holy paternity.

In our few years remaining, may we revive what was offered us from the past! Even more: may our children and grandchildren receive what has been given! And move into the future, hopeful/confident/magnanimous and enlivened by the love of the Father and of our fathers/mothers!