The Return of the King

Donald Trump is not exactly Aragorn of Gondor, aka Strider-Ranger-of-the-North, companion of Gandalf and the Hobbits of the Ring. But he is the resurgence of "kingship." The spectacle of him pumping his fist, blood flowing down his face, is straight out of Knights of the Roundtable or Lord of the Rings. The "No Kings" rallies of June testify to this. This resurgence of kingship is a global event: not just the Communist and Islamic worlds but many democracies are legally opting for kingly figures. The absolute and final hegemony of "individualist" free-market, constitutional democracies that was assumed for a few decades after the fall of the Soviets in 1989 is now entirely discredited. We are now post-liberal and post-modern, whatever that means. The famous "Arc of History" of Whig history and Obama is no longer operative. We are not moving ineluctably to greater individual autonomy and freedom. We don't know where we are going at this point. Personally, I like it this way: I prefer chaos to the oppressive monotony of secular-techno-bureaucratic-bourgeois, end-of-history Darwinian/Hegelian/Marxist/Freudian "progress!"

Mary Harrington, with her customary insight and brilliance, is very helpful about this in her recent "The King and the Swarm" in First Things, Aug./Sept. 2025. She contrasts the two pivotal revolutions which created entirely new forms of human consciousness. First, the printing press transitioned us from an oral to a  literate culture. Reading entailed: focus, linear logic, solitude, analysis, the primacy of facts/objectivity and individuation. It provides the foundation for the Protestant Revolution, technology/industrialization, individuation, democracy, and secular disenchantment. The second such revolution is our current shift from the literate to the digital, a kind of reversion back to pre-literacy. She notes that over 50% of American adults have not read a full book in the last year. Internet, phones, social media and AI are creating a new form of human consciousness. It is less linear, logical, analytical; more dispersed, mythical, intuitive.

Surprisingly and refreshingly, Harrington is not the usual gloom-and-doom about these developments. Rather, she sets her critical glace against the entire print-culture,  Enlightenment project of disenchantment. Specifically, modernity as a world view rejected the formal and final causality of the ancient and medieval worlds. Reality no longer had interior forms/essences; it lacked any purpose or finality; it was vacated of transcendent meaning, charm, irony, tragedy, drama, goodness, truth and beauty. Rather, reality becomes small, hard atoms which bounce off each other and somehow (random change, survival of the fittest) combine eventually in complexities including human consciousness. The human eventually is imagined like the primary unit of reality, the atom, as autonomous, isolated, impervious. And the polity of democracy is imagined as a "swarm" of bees as "we the people" formulate our will, independent of any transcendent order of meaning. Devoid of natural order and transcendence, democracy has developed into a technocracy in which anonymous, educated elites engineer our social order in a manner that has become repulsive to the underclass: deep state, privilege of money/education, disparagement of the "deplorables." Harrington bemoans, of course, the enmity between the powerful and the underclass. 

She says almost nothing about Trump in the article, but his "kingship" hovers like a ghost over it. She suggests his appeal is that he is not a bureaucrat, but a person with affections, hurts, angers, purpose. She contrasts this with the Biden regime as the dying gasps of the hegemony of bureaucratic, technocratic, liberal, disenchanted modernity. We now know he was senile and incompetent and handled/micromanaged. But by whom? By an anonymous, invisible, impersonal, covert network of some sort. His cabinet, his designated team, (Harris, Blinken, Yellin, Austin, Garland, Buttigieg, Mayorkas, etc.) was iconic of print culture: probably score in the top 1% in literacy and math. But they are excruciatingly lacking in purpose, confidence, energy, personality, originality, humor, irony, agency, eccentricity. They are algorithmic personalities: interchangeable, atomic units of a mechanistic system. One could easily imagine the Biden regime being directed by an AI unit programed appropriately with: DEI, LGBTQ, avoidance of military force at whatever price, denial of global bad actors, indifference to national debt/deficit, indulgence of unions, professional class, etc.

By sharpest contrast, Donald himself and his "knights of the roundtable" (Vance, Musk, Kennedy, Gabbard, Noem, Hegseth, etc.) are larger-than-life, anti-bureaucratic, superhero protagonists, defiant of "the system." Each lacks credentials of the techno-bureaucracy; which is a credit to them in Trump-world. Each is a personality: eccentric, anarchistic, purposeful, confident, surging with supreme confidence and sense of agency. Each in some way rises above, transcends and disparages "modernity" as systemic, secular, liberal, "scientific" monotony.

When Trump was elected in 2016 I credited him as a father-figure, however deplorable. Now with his reelection in 2024 and Harrington's essay we can see him as the "return of the King." Harrington suggests that we may not return to literal kingship, but some form of it may well the the least bad available. She recalls the Aristotelian idea of friendship, that the ruler is friend of the ruled. We Americans certainly remember FDR, JFK, RR as such friends. She further suggests that effective rulers going forward will need to operate in both registers: "the rational print one and the symbolic digital one."

She sees that the emergent digital, post-print order, whatever its deficits, may well be more open to the symbolic, the meaningful, the transcendent. The digital brain is less logical and focused, but more open to patterns and underlying connections. And so, we see now the attraction of young men of all classes and ethnicities to religion, authority, and strong concepts of masculinity.

Our Catholic faith instructs us that all authority descends from and points to our heavenly Father. So, masculinity as paternity, government at every level, kingship itself are all radiances from heaven, reflecting (however flawed and deficient) the goodness and power of our Creator. 

And so, the digital culture, the demise of print culture, the emergence of Trump and his ilk...with all the dangers and depravities, also offer opportunities for retrieval of an enchanted, symbolic, integral, natural and marvelous social order.

The Irenic, Catholic Spirit of Leo XIV in an Age of Demonizing, Polarizing Ideologies

Prior to any substantive decisions, Pope Leo signaled...by demeanor, style, deportment, temperament and history...a radical "vibe shift": irenic and (small "c") catholic. Irenic in that he seeks peace and reconciliation, across divides of fear, anger, hatred. Catholic in that he seeks the good and true in everything, including the adversary and those in error. My hope is that he is able to do this in allegiance to the Deposit of Faith and Truth entrusted to him.

"Ideology," in the toxic, negative sense, is a vision of political reality that:

1. Vastly simplifies social life all its richness, complexity, nuance, depth, ambiguity and mystery into stiff, narrow terms.

2. Is fueled, unconsciously, by fear, anxiety, defensiveness, resentment, rage,  scapegoating and rash judgment.

3. Demonizes the adversary, seeing all evil; and defensively justifies the wrong on its own side.

Our world, nation and Church are viciously polarized, divided by resentment, fear, rage and judgement.  Leo is like a refreshing breeze from heaven...even before he speaks or acts.

Immediately upon his election, I surged with joy and relief. I have been in a good mood ever since! This is very personal for me. For 50 years I have been a loyal, zealous Catholic Culture Warrior, defensive of my faith inheritance against  progressive/liberational elite and the liberal wing of our Church which are both hostile to core Catholic values. However large majorities of my friends, family and those with whom I work significantly agree with the opposition on key issues. This has been a sadness for my for the entirety of my adult life. Leo points for me a path forward: loyal to truth, but free of fear and anger and open to the other, even the other in error.

I expect Leo to preserve what was best in Francis: his eagerness to come close to those far from the Church. I expect him to free us from the confusion and volatility of Francis. I expect he will move slowly, judiciously, carefully, sensitively to preserve what is best from the past. I do not expect from him the lucid, profound, virile teaching we received from John Paul and Benedict. But I expect him to reverence and protect that legacy. 

In family discussion I have been told: "You are listening too much to Fox News!" Likewise, from another family member: "I would not even touch the NY Times." Both comments manifest an ideological suspicion: a sense of moral contamination. If I watch Fox or read the Times I efficaciously become infected with error and evil. I probably get 20% of my news from Fox; I am a proud member of the Fox family of Bret and Martha. I get about 15% from the Times and 10% from CNN. I am a member of those families as well. I have been reading the Times for 60 years and will do so until I die. They are not perfect: what family is?

I agree with Fox about 80%; with CNN about the same; with the Times about 75%. The cultural/moral issues most important to me align with Fox about 95%. But when it comes to reporting and analysis of global diplomacy, economics and such I find CNN and The Times most helpful. I accept and value and critique the Times for what it is: a professional, competent, progressive, Jewish newspaper.

My aspiration going forward is to maintain the intensity and clarity of my convictions as I build communion with those with differing views...always in confidence, peace, openness, and love. 

Senility Cancelled: Boomer Gerontocracy in Denial

Let's bring back senility,  as a good word!

Approaching the end of my 78th year, I prefer to think of myself as suffering/enjoying early, mild senility. I am suffering, involuntarily/slowly/inevitably: loss of speed, stamina, balance, strength, concentration, memory, executive functioning. I am enjoying: serenity, slowness, memory, gratitude, contemplation, (theological virtue of) hope, consideration of the legacy I received and now hand on.  The powers that be would deny me use of that perfectly good word "senility." Google Search says that the word is "outdated." This is given in a dictatorial, infallible, strident, intolerant tone. "Outdated" in the progressive, WOKE, technical, algorithmic universe of ChatGBT means: useless, disposable, contemptible. Deplorable! Not to be used!

The word simply denotes: old, aged, experienced.

In a world of wisdom, tradition, transcendence, and authority senility connotes: wise, valuable, connected with the past, serene, generous, free.

In a world of techno-dominance, materialism, disbelief, meritocracy, youth-worship, obsession with novelty and change, the word connotes: disabled, incompetent, disposable, contemptible.  

The word has no meaning in modern medicine as a diagnostic category. Fair enough! The word never presumed itself as scientific and technical. It is common sense: things in the natural world age, reach a peak of thriving, decline, eventually die and decompose. This is the nature of things! Everything in the natural universe enters senility, age, decline, irreversible movement to death.

I...traditional, anti-woke, anti-progressive...will not be told by some AI algorithm that the word senile is outdated. I will boldly use it! Yes, I am myself in early stage of senility...gratefully, hopefully, peacefully.

Joe Biden is the glaring example of an aging generation, clinging to power, status and self-importance; desperate in denial of decline, senescence and death;  and systemically denying youth their place in the world. It is not just that his advisors, Jill/Hunter, the DNC and liberal press conspired to hide his blatant senility. Half of society, the blue half, was in a viral contagion of denial. He clung to power with the complicity of the entire liberal establishment: enabling and so emasculating Hunter, denying his granddaughter, impulsively and catastrophically disengaging from Afghanistan, and enfeebling our entire nation with the weakness of a King Theoden (of Lord of the Rings, before his exorcism by Gandalf the White.)

Trump, due to his personality (extroverted, narcissistic, combative, hyper-energetic and confident) manifests a different, hypo-manic style of senility: impulsive, incoherent, volatile, grandiose, attention-seeking, disruptive, and wildly unstable.

This geriatro-phobia pervades society well beyond the White House! Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer!  In academia, tenured professors cling to status, tenure and income so that younger scholars are denied positions. The Boomer generation was indulged and spoiled in the prosperity of the post-war era and largely continues in a narcissistic posture. Biden and Trump, contrasts in style, outdo each other in narcissistic self-indulgence. For example, the entitlement programs of Medicare and social security are not viable for the future; but they are politically untouchable; and are saddling our offspring with interminable debt. We are simply eating our children and their children.

So, what is senility in a correct understanding?

A slowing-down, a restfulness, a serenity.

Memory, contemplation, reception, enjoyment.

Gratitude.

Hope: supernaturally, for heaven, which is not far off, but without presumption.

Hope: naturally, for our children and theirs and the world we leave behind.

Growing small; that the young may grow big.

Decluttering of mind and heart; loss of data and detail; deeper immersion into the boundless informing of all things by the Good, True and Beautiful.

May we all, with God's help, in serene senility, grow in age, grace and wisdom; peace and patience; faith, hope and love.

The Joy of Co-Grandparenting

With all its AI and algorithms, Google Search does not know co-grandparenting. It seems to be unknown to academic psychology, sociology and anthropology. I myself have been practicing it for over 20 years but only last week recognized it intellectually in the structure, interiority, complexity, integrity, purpose and radiance of its form. In an earlier essay, I was numbering those upon the living whom I most admire and thought of my daughters-and-sons-in-law. And then of their parents, our co-grandparents. This gave me much joy.

My wife and I often agree in gratitude about our marvelous in-laws. This is an immense blessing! There is a lot involved here.

The joy of grandparenting itself is a superlative surprise, especially when the parents are united, competent and loving. In this case, grandparenting is sheer joy, free of stress, something-of-heaven-on-earth. 

Honestly, most people don't want to hear about our little ones' cuteness, athletics, photos, or "my grandson is an honor roll student in PS 27" bumper stickers. Who does? Our co-grandparents: their joy exactly mirrors our own. 

It is the nature of things that every human has, biologically, two grandmothers and two grandfathers. The artificiality of technology cannot change the nature of things. In contemplating a grandchild, we are overwhelmed by the absolute uniqueness in front of us. And also amazed that in this "creation from nothing" God used my personal DNA for one quarter material of the project. Great pride in that! But also gratitude to the other three grandparents who contributed equally! The four of us share an utterly distinctive joy around this one person.

I might have imagined that I would compete with the other grandfather to be number 1.  Happily, that is not the case. Quite the contrary, I am delighted that the little one benefits from two, not one grandfather. Love is not jealous!

The God-imaging mystery of the human family centers in the one, and only one, relationship that is absolutely exclusive, entirely intimate/unitive, and mutually possessive: the spousal love of husband and wife.  All the others lack such closure and open up to more. One benefits from having more brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc. But a husband has one wife; a wife one husband; and every child four grandparents, no more no less. 

Let's think about "in-laws!" The words are inadequate to the reality. Yes, there is a legal dimension. But we have always understood the covenant dimension: two distinct families are drawn into a communion, a covenant, an implied vow of loyalty that is almost-but-not-quite blood. For Catholics, of course, the permanent sacramental bond adds a supernatural dimension. The blood boundaries of family are clear and real, but pourous as they open to the flow of love between families and beyond. So, for example, I am bound, through my own 8 siblings and 7 children, to hundreds of others in a permanent, stable, reliable alliance of loyalty and affection. That is amazing!

In our case, three of our six families live out of state, three close to us; so we spend more time with half of our grandchildren. We are delighted that the other half live near our co-grandparents so they get attention we cannot give. Our more rare times with them are that much more special. Clearly, it is all part of a splendid providential plan, in which co-parenting plays a quiet, modest, significant if unheralded role.

My closest co-parent is of course my wife. It is a most joyous shared task. It deepens and strengthens our own marriage. One might think that after almost 55 years of marriage things would get easier. Well...yes and no! There are deep roots of mutual respect, affection, gratitude. But there remain dark dynamics: residual hurts and resentments, mutual irritations, conflicts of will...all worsened by the weariness and weakness of aging. My own love for my wife is intensified in gratitude to her for her love for our little ones.

We co-grandparents play a singular and happy role in the family. When we gaze on our little ones, we know that even in the natural order something of us endures in our descendants. At the same time, we recall our own parents, grandparents and ancestors with whom we retain a bond, naturally in blood, historically in culture, and spiritually in the Communion of Saints.

Six of our seven children are married so we have twelve co-grandparents. Two are now deceased. They are wildly diverse: ethnicity, class, profession, location, religion, and such. Each is marvelous!

Let us all give thanks for our co-grandparents, grandchildren, and our own grandparents!

A Catholic Among Republicans: Stranger in a Strange World

For 50 years, as an observant Catholic and an "almost-never-Trumper" moral conservative, I have registered and voted  Republican to defend what is most precious: innocent-defenseless-incompetent human life, the realities of sexuality-gender-marriage-family, freedom to practice our faith, the common good, the natural order, connection with tradition and openness to the Eternal. My interior, formal, constitutive identity is Catholic, not Republican: informed by communion with the global Church, the souls in purgatory and the saints in heaven. My relationship to the Church is filial, spousal, intimate, substantial; my relationship with this party is extrinsic, pragmatic, transactional,  accidental, utilitarian, and provisional. The party is an umbrella coalition of forces that are distinct and sometimes incompatible and contradictory of each other.

Like the Hebrews in Egypt in the time of patriarch Joseph and the Jews in Babylon in the time of Daniel/Shadrack/Mishack/Abednego/Judith/Ester, our challenge is to cooperate with the hegemonic empire while retaining the integrity of our faith. This essay will consider our allies in the party and the ways they contradict our Catholic values lest we be seduced, compromised and corrupted.

1. Personal Depravity of Donald Trump.

Absolute disregard for truth and any objective order, shameless disrespect for others (especially opponents, immigrants, etc.), and flaming narcissism all make our President an anti-role model.

2. Incoherent MAGA Populist Rage.

The preternatural demagogic energies of MAGA flow from fear, resentment, anger. A clear, coherent, sensible program is not offered. Rather, charismatically, Trump channels irrational, violent energies that are vulnerable to xenophobia, toxic nationalism, white ethnic identity politics, isolationism, ideological demonization of the opponents, disregard for constitutional restraints and order, and a Nietzchean macho-authoritarianism. 

3. Rich Capitalists.

The actual economic policy of Trump is not populist or working class, but capitalist. His "one beautiful bill" primarily helps the rich to get richer while it recklessly increases debt and deficit and cuts back on medicaid. 

4. Libertarians.

Philosophically, this school is most contradictory of Catholic communitarianism and care for the least powerful. It elevates the autonomous, competent, agential, isolated individual in an implied Nietzcheanism that discards the powerless, in the womb, in infirmity or senility.

5. TechBros.

The pivot of powerful technocrats (Musk, Thiele) towards an anti-WOKE conservatism is one of the big changes in the 2024 election. Ross Douthat entertains hope that these might collaborate with moral conservatives in creation of a new policy. I am skeptical. Musk and Thiele both work from a disordered moral basis, regarding the limits of technology as well as the nature of family/sexuality. Eventually, there is a contradiction between these two schools.

6. Isolationism vs. Internationalism. 

 This divide within the party is largely generational as youth are reactive against recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan  as senseless. My own version of Catholicism is strongly interventionist, not in the neoconservative confidence in democratic capitalism, but for two reasons: our solidarity with all peoples and the reality of very bad actors (China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Jihadist militance) which can only be contravailed by lethal force. 

Collaboration and Conflict within Detachment

Politics is not everything; it is not nothing. It is the arena in which we defend and elaborate what is most sacred. The conservative mind recognizes that most of life, yes social life, is largely but not entirely free from politics and government: family, religion, civil organizations/activities, art, music, entertainment, and culture in general. Such conservatism participates in Republican politics within a detachment, withholding exaggerated ideological investment. This leaves us free of demonization of our adversaries so that we can cooperate with them on causes that our good. This allows a return to cooperation across the aisle that has been lost in the age of Trump and Biden/Harris

 Three Reasons for Joy, Hope and Gratitude

First, our new Pope Leo XIV displays an irenic spirit, a moderation, a judiciousness, a quiet and confident prudence that hopefully will become contagious across the Church and the world.

Second, Justice Amy Comey Barrett is respected as a calm, reconciling voice; the significant swing vote on the court; with a capacity to transcend narrow ideology in professional jurisprudence. Her decisions will be decisive in reigning in the dictatorial impulses of Trump.

Lastly, J.D. and Usha Vance. Liberals, moderates, and never-Trump conservatives are disappointed that he has apparently sold his soul to the devil. I view him as a work-in-progress and retain hopes for him. We all know his story: fatherless; gifted, intelligent, charismatic; hillbilly; travelled across the marines, Yale, finance, and now politics. A fine intellect and searching spirit has brought him into the Catholic Church; but he remains a baby in the faith. His roots leave him as tribal and combative and so he has thrown himself into the Agon of politics and is a perfect protege for Trump. I am hopeful because of his wife and his Mother the Church. Usha is impressive: refined, lovely, intelligent, she seems to be largely non-political. There is absolutely NOTHING MAGA about her. He clearly has looked to her as a mentor in climbing out of hillbilly-land. Not Christian, she nevertheless radiates a spiritual goodness, beauty and truth. She surely will have a good influence; in the long game, a countervailing balance to Trump. I am hopeful that as his reading of Rene Girard led him towards the Church, his fine mind will find other influences to bring him beyond the entrapping MAGA ideology. I would hope that he find a father figure, perhaps a priest spiritual director, to develop in him a wholesome, holy paternity.

The possibility that a Catholic integralism might take power within the Republican Party is vastly improbable, but not inconceivable. My hopes are more modest. That we as Catholics cooperate and compete in the political arena to defend our way of life and our values. We don't have to win in the political arena. But we will fight the good fight and run the good race. 

 

Why "On the Waterfront" is the Best Movie Ever

1. Marlon Brando's portrayal of Terry Malloy is simply spectacular: tough city kid, but tender with Edie and the teens and the pigeons (calls to mind Mike Tyson) and tormented in conscience.

2. The iconic car conversation with big brother, Charlie the Gent, the famous "...Charlie, you were my brother..."you shooda taken care of me a little...I coulda had class, I coulda been a somebody, I coulda been a contender"...is the most poignant dialogue in cinematic history.

3. The dialogue is all crisp, simple, piercing, perfect.

4. The flirtation and romance between Terry and Edie is heart-piercingly innocent, tender, passionate, erotic yet restrained and respectful. Eva Marie Saint is exquisite as the virginal, protected girl from a convent school who is smitten with Terry. The atmosphere of violence, danger, menace, guilt and regret serve to heighten the sexual tension.

5. Karl Malden's Father Barry (based on real-life Jesuit John Corridan) is among the very best priest portrayals in the movies. He is real, credible, like many an urban Irish priest of the 1950s. His raging, prophetic harangue in the pit of the ship over the body of just-murdered Dugan is a classic!

6. The drab, cloudy, black-and-white urban visuals and audibles drape the narrative in menace and threat. The music is very evocative of the mood. The pivotal scene in which Terry confesses to Edie is overwhelming: a loud fog horn  drowns out the words so we can only observe the horrified expression of Edie and the tormented look of Terry and his words repeated; "...I swear to God, Edie...I swear to God!"

7, Lee J. Cobb as angry, violent, vicious mob boss Johnny Friendly is overwhelming as antagonist. His cronies have a comedic aspect but are an entertaining bunch. There is no glamorizing of the Mob as in many classic movies of this type. Everything is gritty, tough, urban, harsh. 

I may favor this movie because I come from a family of union men, was myself a teamster before I became a supervisor of truck drivers, recall my youthful experiences on beer trucks and of "shaping" in the caddy yard like the dock workers, and lived my adult life in Jersey City a few miles from the Hoboken docks. The entire movie felt real.

8. The finale. Among the best movie endings ever! Having struck a blow against Johnny in the criminal hearing, Terry is now despised in his community as a "canary." He confronts and fights Johnny on the dock and is beaten brutally by the goons. With a little assist from Fr. Barry and Edie he pulls himself up and walks up the dock, hook in hand, barely able to keep his balance, his face beaten and bloody, now leading the dock workers to the ship. It is a stunning visual of the masculine  mission and identity: to fight, to sacrifice, to spill blood. And to walk triumphantly, wounds bleeding, like Christ in his passion!

The Gender Divide within a Catholic Family in the Age of Trump

 Our six sisters voted for Harris and, with varying degrees of intensity, are horrified that their three brothers voted for Trump. The much discussed "gender divide" is pronounced in our family.

We are serious about religion and  politics. The two are distinct, but politics is an expression of deeper religious convictions. We were raised, in the 1950-60s, to be loyal to family, Church, the Democrats/Labor Movement, and the USA... in that order. Our "Leave it to Beaver" world collapsed in the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s as the DNC turned culturally progressive and hostile to core Catholic values around powerless human life, gender, sexuality and other. In reaction to the Sexual Revolution, the Catholic community entered an interminable civil war: one side accommodating of and the other resistant to progressivism. An overly simplistic explanation would be that the brothers leaned more deeply into their Catholicism and the sisters their liberalism. That binary fails because the sisters themselves are deeply Catholic and view their politics as expressive of their faith. 

This essay will highlight specific ways in which masculinity/femininity contributed to this divide. To be sure, political (and all human) choice is overdetermined: the result of many factors including class, culture, place, time, personal idiosyncrasies of temperament, history, and choice. Fleckinstein will be accused of exaggeration of and obsession with gender. The plea, of course, is "guilty as charged." 

The binary is clear but far from pure and absolute. A recent PEW poll shows Catholics favored Trump 55-43%.  An earlier EWTN poll shows Catholic women favoring Harris 56-37% and men Trump 49-43%. Interestingly, our spouses all (with one exception) voted with us; as did, for the most part, our children. Our family suffers the polarization of our society and Church. We brothers disagree regularly, but are remarkably close in politics and religion. Our sisters, united in their vote for Harris, show more diversity as one is generally more conservative, two strongly progressive, and three maintain the dual allegiance (liberal and Catholic) received from our parents.

Here are gender differences that contribute to this troubling divide:

1. Mom and Dad: Boys Leaving and Girls Staying.  

"What would Mom and Dad, Aunt Grace and Uncle Eddy think of the three of you!"  Our youngest sister,  my closest collaborator in Magnificat Home,  shortly after the election, spoke with striking candor, directness, intensity. I was silent, speechless, awestruck.  I was being reprimanded authoritatively like a misbehaving boy. It gave me pause! She expressed the painful sense of betrayal shared by our six sisters. We brothers had betrayed the precious heritage of our parents and family. How had it come to this? 

(For context, consider:  although it cannot be spoken,  our family is a matriarchy, not because of the numbers (6-3), but due to the loyalty and cohesiveness of sister-power. This strong unit is pure democracy, without hierarchy. But probably the most influential is the youngest, by virtue of her  loving, humble, wise, openminded gentleness. She is like the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in the minority, male, marginalized, rightwing sector I am honored as The Patriarch, first among equals to be sure...but covertly, always! So this reprimand of the oldest son by the youngest daughter was significant.)

After high school, each brother left for college out of state and never came really came home. The sisters stayed local, living with the family. Today, half a century later, our sisters mostly live a few miles from each other and are extremely close-knit. We brothers also love each other, but in a more distant, detached (geographical as well as emotional) way. 

Ideologically, our sisters remained faithful to our inherited ideology, we brothers broke away. The feminine psyche inherently retains an intimate connection, over a lifetime, especially with mother but also with father. ("Your son is a son until he finds himself a wife; your daughter is your daughter for the rest of your life.")The masculine life itinerary is defined by rupture and distancing from mother and later differentiation and sometimes conflict with father. Our family perfectly reflects this: we brothers (like the three little pigs) left mother to build our own homes, religiously and politically. Our sisters retain a  connection with the Catholic-Democrat honeymoon of the 1945-65 era.

2. Immigrants.

Compassion for immigrants is a Catholic value, strongly expressed by Popes Francis and Leo both, and very, very deeply felt and lived by our sisters. Perhaps nothing grieves them, properly, than the reality of hard working, decent but undocumented families arrested, jailed and deported back to poverty and violence. It is heartening that large majorities of our electorate favor closed borders and toughness on criminals but renounce deporting the undocumented that are not criminals. I share this compassion. At the same time,  we brothers entertain countervailing, more masculine values like boundaries.

3. Borders and Boundaries. 

The masculine ego and psyche is less  expansive, welcoming, fluid, pervious, generous, nurturing; it is more discrete, structured, legal, defensive, defined. Everything about the woman...hormones, morphology, neurology, psychology, spirituality, etc....is intended for the maternal embrace. Everything about a man is preparatory for the paternal mission. The man has a sharper sense of boundaries. And so, many of us blame Biden for the immigration mess we are now in. That open door policy was in part humanitarian to be sure. It also included appreciation that most would be voting Democrats, that our business/middle classes demand cheap labor for our financial privileges, and long term demographics (falling birth rate) require large numbers of immigrants. But it was also a deranged over-reaction against Trump. Biden failed to protect us: incentivized unaccompanied children, human trafficking, drugs, gangs, and terrorists. Needlessly, this aroused the anxiety, not of the affluent and professional classes, but of the underclass. This breath-takingly irresponsible, dysfunctional, destructive policy consolidated the Trump movement and led to his triumph. The 2024 election, for many of us,  was  about Biden, not Trump. 

Of course, Trump defeated Harris, not Biden. She was an extension of his pronounced weakness. She had exactly two clear ideas: Trump is very, very bad; legal abortion is very, very good. She trusted "reproductive rights" to drive her to victory. Trump wisely, in political calculation and also for the wellbeing of our nation, downplayed the issue. She became a misogynist's stereotype of the female as incoherent, indecisive, shrill, giggly, void of character and political vision.

4. Abortion and Choice.

A male, paternal protectiveness of the powerless embryo/mother is widely construed in our society as "patriarchal" or oppressive. And so women who are "pro-life" nevertheless vote "pro-choice" in reaction to an image of the conservative,  pro-life movement as male, wealthy, powerful, Republican, arrogant, ungenerous, judgmental, controlling. In fact, of course, the movement has been almost entirely driven by women and their powerful maternal energies. It is puzzling: our sisters (with one exception) may have never voted for a politician who was not pro-choice. But: no father in human history loved his daughters more than our father.  Additionally, they themselves love their husbands reverently and tenderly. Nevertheless, the women in our family share a strong ideological disgust for the Republican male, especially as preacher (eg. Huckabee), soldier (eg. McCann), and businessman (eg. Romney.) 

5. Global Warming and Environment 

We speak of "Mother Nature" and of "God, our heavenly Father." The male role of imaging The Father entails an element if distance, transcendence, abstraction, separation. The female role of mother means greater connection, closeness, empathy, communion. So we might expect our women to be closer to nature, gardening, physicality as men are more abstract, distant, systemic, managerial. Women feel more the vulnerability of others and of our physical environment itself. In our family women favor the medical profession (20, mostly nurses) and psychology (7); men number (5) in these two fields.  It is hard to imagine any male leading the global crusade as poignantly as the young Greta Thunberg. So a  difference in the emphasis on this issue between brothers and sisters is hardly surprising.

6. Masculinity of Trump

He is not a good man. He (refreshingly) does not pretend to be a good man. But he is a strong man.  When he won in 2016 I noted that he was a strong, but not a good, father figure. He defeated Hillary and Kamala, but lost to a competitive father figure, Joe Biden, who is charming and nice but weak. At the NATO conference last week the leader playfully referred to him as "Daddy." He loved it. NATO and much of the world is now looking to him as Dad. The unforgettable image of him when he was shot...blood flowing across his face, combatively pumping his fist ...may have propelled him to the White House as much as anything else. Any red-blooded male has to love it! The extraordinary B2 bombing of Iran last weekend is another gesture of vigorous virility. The electoral results, including among black and Hispanic men, show the appeal. Especially in contrast to his opponents, Biden/Harris.

7. Non-Virility of Biden

Joe Biden epitomizes the masculinity approved by progressive feminism: nice, charming, warm, conciliatory, pro-abortion, trusting in diplomacy, averse to combat, humorous, weak. What a man sees in Biden:

Refused to acknowledge or see his own little granddaughter, his own blood! Indulged and enabled his son Hunter, failing him as a father! Abandoned our allies catastrophically in Afghanistan! Betrayed his Catholic faith in cowardly surrender to abortion, LGBTQ, and the entire agenda of cultural liberalism! Failed to protect our national border! Expanded our deficit and debt, leaving a burden in the future for our young! (Yes I know Trump did the same.) Pampered those with college debt, burdening those who did not go to college or financed their education responsibly! Endorsed identity politics, BLM, "defund the police" approaches thus disparaging underclass whites as uneducated racists and homophobes.

Beyond himself, his entire cabinet emanated weakness, indecision, and a lack of virile energy, confidence, fortitude and purpose: Blinken, Garland, Buttigieg, Mayorkas, Harris. We still have no clear idea of who was ruling the nation and concealing his mental decline. Aside from Jill and Hunter, we were apparently governed by an group of anonymous bureaucrats. 

(Thought experiment: imagine you get into a bar fight with Xi, Putin, Kim, Chavez, some Tren de Aguas, and Hamas thugs! Who would you want in your corner? The cabinet members listed under Biden? I would go with Vance, Hegseth, Duffy, even little Marco and super-smart, gay-identifying Bessent. To be more gender-inclusive, I would go with Kristi, Tulsi, Pam and Karoline over Kamala and Hillary. But to be fair, I suspect AOC, Warren and Karine can handle themselves. In the geriatric division, against the Ayatollahs would you prefer Joe and Bernie, or The Donald himself? The question answers itself. This crude metaphor will be immediately obvious and pleasing to most men; nonsensical and repugnant to many women. But it is not ridiculous: our world today (as during the Cold War and WWII) is less like a boutique, high-end restaurant and more like a tough biker bar!)

I am surely not the only voter who was compelled to vote reluctantly for Trump as the lessor evil, several levels less depraved than Biden.

8. Culture War and Trump the Combatant.

Men are warriors by nature: hormonally, neurologically, morally, culturally, historically, religiously, ontologically. Women are not warriors by nature. They are peace makers, unifiers, reconcilers, nurturers. 

Sometime in the 1970s, we brothers realized that cultural progressivism, now hegemonic over elite culture, was at war with our Catholic faith. We became conservative, culture warriors, pro-life, Republican. Many Catholic women made peace with progressivism. They did not enter any war. They did not recognize such. "They had no dog in the fight." Some liked both sides; they reconciled them.

Paradoxically, given his personal decadence, Trump entered the Culture War on the side of tradition. And a powerful warrior he is! The Supreme Court! Just this week his DOJ filed suit against Washington State which is repressing the seal of confession in situations of abuse. Deplorable in many ways to the Catholic conscience, he is nevertheless our best friend in our battle to practice our faith against elite progressivism hostile to us.

9. Trump as Camp, Macho-Comedic, Performative.

Primarily a celebrity and entertainer, he is entirely performative and histrionic. A cartoon figure! He has always been for me the high school "wise guy:" pushing the boundaries, transgressive, indifferent to rules/courtesy/protocol, defiant of authority, prankish, hilarious, recklessly and vicariously expressive of the male id against the regressive, progressive, woke superego. At one level you hold him in contempt. but he is wildly entertaining. 

Stephen Adubatto and others have highlighted his "camp" closeness to gay culture. His outrageous, flamboyant deportment expresses a burlesque, faux-machismo the way the drag queen mimics femininity. Every day is Halloween for him. There is  a sense in which his politics is tongue-in-cheek. It is not just that he is good at what he does. But an extraordinary combination of his superhero energy/confidence with national/global developments have propelled him into a historical role that is unprecedented. Additionally, he surrounds himself with similarly freakish, circus, larger-than-life characters: Musk, Vance, Kennedy, Bannon, Miller, Homan, even Bessent.

The aggressive, ironic masculine mind appreciates this camp/comedic dimension. Our minds are more divided and split off. In one part of my mind, I am thoroughly enjoying his performance, especially his defiance of elite, liberal culture. With another part of my mind I deplore his moral decadence. With a third part I evaluate his policies: some very good and many very bad. For example, his disparaging of others with nicknames is morally vile, but it does trigger the 9-year old male sensibility in us. The feminine intellect...more compassionate, integral, unified...is disinclined to such aggressive, ironic humor. There is nothing funny about Trump. Most women do not get the joke.  That is mostly to their credit.

10. Mother-State, Narratives of Victimhood, and Suspicion of Authority as "Patriarchal."

Women lean left partly because maternal instincts of nurture look to the "mother state" to care for the poor, suffering, marginalized. This is the core Catholic principle of solidarity, at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Since Pope Leo XIII the Church has rejected both socialist collectivism and capitalist individualism in favor of a communalism directed to the common good, subsidiarity, a mix of public/private economies, private property, unions for workers, and prudence in tax and regulation.

The male intellect entertains Catholic values in tension with such care. To start, a suspicion of  overreach, the regulatory deep state, the mega-bureaucracy, government as a smothering mother. This distrust is heightened when government accepts the agenda of sexual liberation: abortion on demand, tax funded contraception, gay marriage, transgender protections, and so forth. This masculine tendency can lean into privileges for big business such as low taxation and regulation. Alternatively, it can move in a more Catholic direction of subsidiarity, preference for the small, the local, the personal. Since World War II such subsidiarity has largely been forgotten, by Democrats who favor big government and by Republicans who privilege gigantic corporations. A more masculine Catholicism will prefer that works of mercy be performed in freedom, voluntarily in civil society and intermediate organizations, outside of the coercive arm of the state.

The compassion of the maternal heart also leads it toward sympathy with narratives of victimhood. For example, the viral video of George Floyd on the ground, struggling to breathe, foot on his throat evoked paroxysms of indignation across liberal America. We had riots/protests in the midst of the pandemic, BLM, CRT, and defund the police crusades. The perspective of one in authority, however,  might pause the rush to judgment to consider the difficulty of restraining and overwhelming such a powerful man who is intoxicated. Most men in our world have struggled in physical combat with a strong man and we realize that real physical violence is life-threatening. We know that physical resistance of a legal authority creates just such a life-threatening situation. One accustomed to such authority has some sympathy for the police, called to the scene of a strong, intoxicated, lifelong criminal who is breaking the law. 

And so we see that the feminine can be drawn to suspicion of the police as patriarchal, oppressive, and violent. Those who exercise paternal authority...as father, police, manager, mayor, etc....will have some sympathy for the policeman, soldier, prosecutor in the exercise of protective authority. It is notable that mirroring this feminine distrust of patriarchy is the masculine concern with a smothering, expanded, maternal government. Both seem to be defensive responses to government (like all of society) grown too big and powerful.

Conclusion.

The intention here has not been to advance the masculine viewpoint, but to consider how gender tendencies can lead us to different positions. Please pardon if  the intensity and clarity with which these convictions are held has become aggressive in tone.

Again, we seen in our family a microcosm of the broader society and Church. We brothers, separated by geography and profession, came to shared conclusions in our positioning of our Catholic faith against hegemonic cultural liberalism. Our sisters, with varying emphases, continue to mimic our parents in a reconciliation of Catholicism with liberalism. 

The good news! We just returned from a weeklong family vacation in Maine, a great blessing for our family; about 150 of us; something we have done for over 50 years. Great fun: eating, drinking, visiting, walks, runs, boating, frisbee, basketball, biking, book club, NBA finals, hockey championship, daily mass, shopping, reading, and more.

What didn't happen? No arguments about politics!  Some things ...  love of family and all the beauty we share ... really are more important than our differing political viewpoints!  A magnificent blessing: that we can disagree quite passionately about things of great importance, and yet set them aside for a time to delight in each other. In that Mom, Dad, Aunt Grace and Uncle Eddy can be pleased!

Wisest Non-Professional Psychologists

As a lifelong "wannabe" or (more positively) "amateur" psychologist, I have learned most about the human person from those outside of the credentialed, academic community. "Amateur" does not primarily mean untrained, unprofessional, or inferior. From the root word "amo" it means love: you do it or study it for love, not for achievement or money or recognition. In that sense, of course, a professional who truly professes also loves the work. I have learned much from mainline psychologists including Ericson, Jung, Freud, Horney, Szaz, and others.  Nevertheless my mentors have largely been maverick, original, amateur thinkers, well beyond the limitations of the science of psychology. In the time order in which I encountered them:

1. Philosophical Personalism.

Classically in Martin Buber's "I-Thou" this is fascination with the human person in its ineffable, even mystical dignity, depth, freedom, destiny, encounter with the other, community, and imagining of the Divine. Maritain, Marcel, Hildebrandt, Day, Maurin, Marcel, Ellul, Stein, Ratzinger, and John Paul II. In its strongest Catholic expressions it builds upon as it completes classic Thomistic realism and objectivity in metaphysics and epistemology. 

2. Ivan Illich. 

A wildly distinctive, eccentric, iconoclastic, anarchistic yet profoundly Catholic, even mystical personalist, a disciple of Maritain, Illich boldly illustrated in life and writing the person as agent, in freedom and convivial relationships/communities, of his destiny. He radically critiqued a modernity gone madly mechanistic, techno-manic, bureaucratic, meritocratic, clericalist, over-schooled but under-educated. Starkly an individual, he is neither member nor founder of a school (he detested schools.) But his thought is congenial with a group of thinkers (Ellul, Freire, Day/Maurin, Maritain, Goodman, Fromm, Holt) as radically anti-bourgeois but fiercely opposed to classical economic, class-war Marxism, to cultural Freudian-Marxism (Marcuse, Riek), to political liberalism, and to neo-liberal capitalist Republicanism. He is a forceful expression of Catholic subsidiarity.

3. Philip Rieff and Triumph of the Therapeutic.

At the very beginning of the Cultural Revolution this brilliant, Jewish cultural critic grasped the form of the world-shattering change occurring: the renunciation of traditions of morality, restrain, and responsibility in favor of the therapeutic, the enhancement of the narcissistic, expansive, indulged Self. His focus was not on the profession of psychology itself, but rather on the pervasive and profound cultural shift fueled by a popularized psychology. This is a classic that lives beyond its time.

4. Fr. Charles Curran. (Not the dissident moral theologian of the same name and time.) Curran worked with Carl Rogers but developed his ideas in a Catholic direction with pronounced emphasis on the importance of listening, particularly in education including on the part of the teacher. He is a sharp contrast to (ex-priest-Maryknoller) Eugene Kennedy who was popular at the time in developing Rogerian thinking to dissent from Catholic traditions.

5. Charismatic Practices of Healing and Deliverance of Evil Spirit's. Pentecostalism, including its Catholic form, retrieved practices of faith healing and deliverance within a wholistic, classic understanding of the human person. Ruth Carter Stapleton developed a sophisticated "healing of memories" which included a psychological remembrance of earlier traumas with a trust in the person of Jesus and the concrete workings of the Holy Spirit. Neil Lozano similarly developed a practice of deliverance from evil spirits which is theologically sound, focused on Jesus and the Holy Spirit in a gentle manner, and sophisticated psychologically in the recall of hurtful memories. These are known only to small niches and entirely ignored in Catholic schools  psychology.

6. Paul Vitz's Critique of Psychology as Religion. Formerly at NYU, this convert to Catholicism has written a series of books which critique psychology from within: Psychology as a Religion, The Christian Unconscious of Sigmund Freud, Faith of the Fatherless, and others. He psychoanalyzes the psychoanalysts! (BTW he directed my daughter's doctoral dissertation on the role of beauty in therapy.)

7. Theology of the Body of St. Pope John Paul II.  Reflecting on the anthropology of Genesis, these insights into gender/body/sexuality transformed my own life and represent THE authoritative answer to the sexual revolution and the the most profoundly creative, yet orthodox development in Catholic theology of the 20th century. 

8. Mimetic anthropology of Rene Girard. Especially as popularized by the gifted Gil Baile, this innovative body of thought opens an breathtaking window into the human person and community based upon our mimetic nature and sacrificial sacrifice. 

9. Scrutinies of Kiko Arguello and the Neocatechumenate. A step within the extraordinary itinerary of faith, the scrutiny, this involves lay catechists, without any professional training, scrutinizing (in the power of the Holy Spirit, much like the charismatic stuff above and 12-step below) the person's past and present for impediments to the action of God. Having observed it myself during my participation, I attest that it is miraculous.

10. 12-Step Recovery Program. This approach to addiction is nothing short of miraculous. It's principles are deeply spiritual in the best sense. It doesn't seem to be congenial for all.

11. Reparative Therapy. Widely and mistakenly confused with "conversion therapy" (attempt to change a person's sexual inclinations), this is rather directed to "repair" wounds to one's sexuality which may contribute to disorder. I personally found this approach (in Joseph Nicolosi, Elizabeth Moberly) particularly helpful in identifying the nature, origin and path ahead for my own sexual issues which are unrelated to homosexuality.

12. Yuval Levin on Institutions.  This measured Jewish, conservative moralist has highlighted the importance of institutions in a society gone madly individualistic, therapeutic and narcissistic. He sees that institutions (family, Church, school, military, politics, business) not only express our core values but also form our personalities, drawing us out of ourselves in the service of something greater. He is a perfect balance to the iconoclastic anarchy of Ivan Illich. It is not easy, but I think the two can be held together in a creative tension.

Conclusion.

These diverse, distinctive currents of thought countervail and correct the limitations of professional psychology as tending to the reductive, secular, liberal, individualistic, narcissistic.

More than that, they elaborate and enrich classic Catholic anthropology of the human person as created to image God in dignity, freedom, agency, community, chastity, integrity, simplicity and generosity.