The Great Catholic Counter-Liberation 1968-2025

Catholicism: Attacks and Counteroffensives 

Among the greatest attacks upon the Church we distinguish those from the outside, those that divided us and those from the inside.

 From the outside: 1. The barbarian invasions of the ancient Roman Catholic world. 2. The Islamic devastation of Christian civilization across the Middle East and Northern Africa which reached up into Spain and was repelled by the Reconquista, at Lepanto and other battles. This war continues around the globe today. 3. The Enlightenment-inspired revolutionary movements from the French Revolution up until the Mexican persecution of the Church and the Spanish Civil War. 4. Communism, Soviet and Chinese.

Those that divided us: 1. The East-West schism. 2.Protestant Reformation.

Those from the inside: Arianism. Iconoclasm. Other heresies. 

Arguably worse than these is the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. It was an attack from an exterior enemy. But it also penetrated, like a viral infection, into the Church itself in the form of theological progressivism. It has the Church institutionally united but theologically divided.  

In the history of the Church, real apostolic synods have decisively guided the Church. Nicea renounced Arianism; Nicaea eliminated iconoclasm. Trent contradicted the Reformation: clearly, authoritatively, efficaciously, finally. Trent triggered a robust, revived Catholicism: Ignatius and the Jesuits, Philip Neri, Charles Borromeo, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, Francis DeSales, Vincent DePaul, the missionary orders all over the globe, the entirety of Baroque culture. 

Vatican II

By a misfortune of chronology, Vatican Council II predated by a few years the explosion of the Cultural Revolution. So it was not a response to that attack. It was not a preparation for it. Unfortunately, it weakened the Church in its ability to fight this attack. It lowered the Catholic immune system, just as a bacterial infection was about to attack. It embraced an openness, a positivity, a credulity just when that world was turning dark.

It was an authoritative act of the Church, surely inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was many things:

-A refocusing of the Church on its Evangelical center: the person/event of Jesus Christ.

-A return to the sources of the early Church.

-A reconciliation with what is good/true/beautiful in modernity.

-An ecumenical reconciliation with the Churches and world religions (especially Judaism).

-A quintessential expression of the post-War Church and the various movements thriving in it (ecumenism, scripture, lay leadership, etc.)

-The culmination, the final closure of the Tridentine Church. It was a splendid conclusion to a historical era. It was not the defining statement for a new Church.

Curiously, it failed to address the battles the Church would wage in the coming decades. With regard to both Islam and Communism it advocated mutuality in respect and dialogue and avoided candid witness to the violence that continues from these adversaries. More significantly, its positivity towards contemporary culture left it unarmed for the assault about to be mounted. A future historian looking at the documents and then at the travails of the Church that followed would have to note the dissonance.

What followed the Council was the collapse of the institutional Church from within and continued persecution from Communism, Islam and Cultural Progressivism. 

If the Reformation elicited from the Tridentine Church an explosion of energy, is it possible that the Cultural Revolution did the same for the Church of our time? A Catholic Counter-Liberation?

Catholic Counter-Liberation

Yes, we have in our time just such a counter-liberation. The problem with the Vatican II documents is that their positivity gives encouragement to the progressive affirmation that a new Church was initiated by that event. The so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" was a vulnerability, a openness to the viciously anti-Catholic virus of the sexual revolution, an impulse to accommodate to, to surrender to that assault. And so, we look beyond the Council for other dynamics that provide a correct hermeneutic for it and directly confront the sexual-cultural revolution.

Let's go back to 1968.

- The Cultural Revolution is exploding. 

- The thriving institutional Catholicism of the past 23 years is about to collapse catastrophically. Mainstream Catholic leadership and theology is clueless.

- I myself am a mild-mannered, introverted student spending endless hours in the Fleckinstein Philosophy Reading room, Maryknoll College Seminary, with the uber-Catholicism of Etienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain and Ivan Illich. 

- Catholic charismatic renewal is spreading from its birth in Duquesne University in 1967 to Clark/Martin in Ann Arbor, to Notre Dame and then beyond. 

-The disciples of Monsignor Luigi Giussani (previously  encouraged by Archbishop Montini of Milan) form Communion and Liberation in response to the radical student rebellions.  They adopt that name signaling that genuine liberation lies in communion with Christ in his Church. 

-Amidst that same Italian/global unrest, Chiara Lubich founds the Focolare Gen Movement for young people 15-30 years old. 

- Kiko and Carmen arrive in Rome to spread their Neocatechumenal Way beyond Spain. Giuseppe Gennarini converts from leftwing radicalism and becomes the apostle of this "way" to the USA. 

- Pope Paul VI, tutored by the brilliant Polish Cardinal Wojtyla, is about to issue Humanae Vitae, the defining authoritative statement that divided the conjugal mystics from the political activists. (SO MUCH is happening in Italy!) 

- Initial conversations begin among Ratzinger, Balthasar, Boyer, DeLubac and others regarding the Communio journal to be founded in 1972. 

- Ratzinger himself, observing the violence of the student protests, retains his theological grounding but repositions himself from Vatican II progressive to culture war conservative and publishes his influential Introduction to Christianity. 

- Cardinal Wojtyla initiates the beatification process for Sister Faustina of the Divine Mercy as he develops his catechesis on sexuality, covertly wages war with hegemonic Communism, and becomes famous for his support of the Jews among anti-Semitic student protests.

- Mother Teresa of Calcutta expands her work around the globe as she enters her extended dark night of the soul. We see that 1968 is the year the Cultural Revolution exploded across the West; even as the Great Counter Liberation was percolating quietly, humbly, anonymously, hopefully.

The primary dynamics and agents of the Great Catholic Counter Liberation include:

1. John Paul and Benedict. Their output, authoritative and scholarly, lucidly defines the Great Counter Liberation, as Trent did for the earlier Church.

2. Von Balthasar. His theology, unparalleled in depth and breath, brilliantly compliments that of John Paul and Benedict.

3. Charismatic Renewal. A powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit; bringing ecumenical communion between Catholicism, Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism; and a fresh communion with the supernatural to a Catholicism whose mainstream was tending strongly to the progressive and secular.

4. Lay Renewal Movements. Neocatechumenal Way, Focolare, Communion and Liberation and others.

5. Evangelical-Catholic Culture War Alliance. Unified Christians against Cultural Liberalism even as it risked intimacy with rightwing, Republican ideology.

6. Divine Mercy Devotion. Encouraged by John Paul and articulated in his masterful Dives in Misericordia, this articulated a powerful message of God's compassion but always in tension with divine truth, justice and wrath against sin.

7. The Latin Mass. Pope Benedict especially appreciated the value of maintaining practice of this rite in a healthy diversity.

8. New, Strong Catholic Colleges. 20 such schools (another 5 provisionally) are recognized for strong Catholic identity in contrast to the marked liberalization across most of higher education: Franciscan, Benedictine, Ave Maria, Dallas, Catholic University, Christendom, and others.

9. Homeschooling. Since the pandemic, the number of students homeschooled has been stable at 4 million, 10% of the population, up from 3-4% previously. A major motive is religious education with the widespread radicalization of the public schools and collapse of many parochial schools. Anecdotal evidence indicates good fruit.

10. New, Small, Orthodox Religious Orders. Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, Community of St. John, Sisters of Life and several new Dominican orders of sisters are vigorously orthodox in contrast to mainstream orders in swift decline.

11. Martyrs, Especially across the Communist and Islamist Worlds. Mainstream, liberal media gives little attention to the very large number of martyrs across the globe. In the economy of the Church, however, we know that "blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."

12. Enduring Catholic Practices: Worship, Service of the Poor, Family Life. Overall, of course, more important than all these significant developments, is the steady, based, humble practice of our Catholic faith by countless families, parishes, priests, brothers, nuns all united around the Eucharist, within the Communion of Saints, in confession of sins and aspirational holiness, fidelity to our legacy, service of the poor and suffering, and loyalty to state of life.

What is the Great Counter Liberation?

-The affirmation that genuine liberation of the human person and community is found in communion with the person/event of Jesus Christ in his Church.

-Articulation of core, perennial Catholic values in a fresh, contemporary vernacular.

-Vigorous, militant resistance against cultural liberalism as: rupture of sexuality from the spousal union, deconstruction of gender, genocide of the helpless, disconnect from authority-revelation-tradition, denial of the supernatural, exaggerated trust in science, adulatory elevation of the isolated-sovereign-Self.

-A conjugal mysticism that finds in Christ's spousal love for his bridal Church the hermeneutical key to sexuality, gender, family, sacramental life, priesthood and religious life.

-Eucharistic, Marian, aspirational of holiness, chaste, faithful to vows and state of life, docile to the hierarchical Church, close to the poor, detached from political ideologies, Philo-Semitic, ecumenical.

If counter-reformation was the interpretive key to Catholicism after Trent, counter-liberation as explained above is key to that after Vatican II. Similar to Baroque Catholicism, it is defined by opposition, contradiction: not of Protestantism (with which it largely reconciled in Vatican II), but against cultural liberalism including its penetration of the Church as theological progressivism. 

In contrast to Baroque Catholicism which prevailed up to the Council,  Counter-Liberation:

1. Not only reconciles with the Reformation, but restores a balance to Catholicism with a fresh evangelical focus on Christ and an enhanced grasp of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

2. Is a sophisticated, intellectual engagement with modernity, discerning the good from the bad, especially in the brilliant intellects of John Paul, Benedict, Balthasar and others.

3. It ponders more deeply, in response to the Cultural Revolution, the Mystery of spousal communion: that of Christ with the Church, within marriage/family, and at the core of the Catholic cult of worship, sacrament, priesthood and religious life.

4. It engages confidently, assertively, always in truth and love, with global adversaries including communism, Islamism, cultural liberalism, and various disordered political ideologies.

It is a singular blessing to be Catholic in the time of the Great Counter Liberation.

We, the Church Militant on earth, are always at war. Always under attack, from the world, the flesh and the devil. Always under attack by our adversaries. But more importantly, always on the offensive. We are assured by our Savior that the gates of hell will not prevail. Our eventual victory is assured. But we do play the long game. We are assertive, confident, zealous, fearless...with John Paul, Benedict, Luigi, Kiko and Carmen, Mother Teresa, those who have gone before us and who march with us now.

Dueling Catholicisms: John Paul/Benedict vs. Francis/Leo

The Durbin affair was a clear disclosure of the divide within our Church. Cardinal Cupich planned to prominently honor the senator for his work on behalf of immigrants despite his longtime, fervent advocacy of legal abortion. Durbin's bishop Thomas Paprocki was joined by nine in strongly protesting this as a blatant violation of the episcopal policy to not honor pro-abortion leaders. Of the 441 active and retired bishops, none came to the support of Cupich. That makes 2% of our bishops who defended the agreed upon policy. We see that the default of our episcopacy is to avoid conflict.

Durban cannot receive communion in his own parish or diocese of Springfield, but in the Archdiocese of Chicago next door he is feted as a hero. Clearly we are dealing here with two different religions: Catholic Thick and Catholic Lite.

Most significant was the response of Pope Leo. With a candor and transparency more typical of his predecessor, he responded that "if you are against abortion but indifferent to immigrants you are not prolife." This off-the-cuff, non-authoritative response was telling: clearly the deportation of  immigrants is more troubling to him than the destruction of the unborn.

It is now clear that  Francis and Leo share a theological vision that contrasts sharply with that offered by John Paul and Benedict. Before contrasting the two, lets see what all four popes have in common.

Fervent Evangelical Catholics

Each is a man of prayer, clearly close to the person of Jesus Christ, and zealous in the mission to share this faith with the world. They all love the Church. They are complex personalities who combine aspects that might be considered progressive and conservative. 

They differ primarily in their responses to the cultural revolution that swept the West in the 1960s. John Paul and Benedict articulated a clear, strong contradiction of sexual liberalism; Francis and Leo are accommodating and conciliatory, seeking to downplay the conflict. A second difference is that the more recent popes present a political, global agenda as integral to Catholicism. The prior pontiffs do not disagree with the values in this political vision but resist giving them such prominence as they see more clearly the limits of papal competence in political policy and the inevitability of diversity in ideology among Catholics in prudential matters. The two are not in absolute contradiction of each other. As Catholics, we profess allegiance to every pope. But the inconsistencies and incompatibilities, blatant in the Durbin affair and other issues, are evident and require a decision from the thinking Catholic: Which vision do I follow? Most serious thinkers fall into one school or the other: to fail to decide is to remain indecisive, confused and ambivalent.

What follows will consider the heart of each vision, here described as "conjugal mysticism" and "social justice activism," and then highlight major differences.

Conjugal Mysticism

At the very start of his papacy, John Paul presented a long "catechesis on the human body" (later known as "theology of the body") that decisively answered the sexual revolution as it deeply developed Catholic teaching on the human person, body, gender, sexuality, marriage and family. He highlighted masculinity and femininity as God's creation and as mutuality in self-gift between the spouses and together to family and the broader community. In continuity with Catholic tradition, he brought illumination from contemporary thinking, especially phenomenology, to unveil the sacredness of sexuality and marriage. This deeper penetration into the Mystery of sexuality also illuminated the "spousal" nature of Catholic liturgical/sacramental life. Pondering the scriptural/Pauline view of Christ as Bridegroom of the Bridal Church, light was thrown upon the masculine role of the priesthood, the feminine-virginal identity of the Church, the primacy of the Marian over the Petrine dimensions of the Church, the bridal nature of professed virginity and more. With a novel freshness, classic Catholic principles around fidelity to vows and state of life, personal chastity, marital and religious stability were given new life and perspective. This teaching, in my view, was the most significant development in Catholic theology in the 20th century. It is not an abstract philosophy, but practical and concrete, especially inspiring for those of us who struggle with chastity.

Ratzinger-and-then-Benedict worked closely with John Paul so that their teaching can be seen as a unity. He combined brilliance in scholarship, erudition in scripture/tradition, a philosophical personalism similar to John Paul's with an inspired catechetical touch. Theirs can be considered one papacy.

Differences Between John Paul and Benedict

Along with the unity, we can see that two such original thinkers did differ in emphasis on certain matters.

Benedict was more positive and supportive of the Latin Mass which he elevated. He loved that tradition. John Paul, to my knowledge, did not strongly address the issue one way or the other. We know that Leo apparently will continue the repression of the rite begun by Francis.

Ecumenically, John Paul collaborated with the Islamic countries at the UN conferences in Cairo and Bejing to fight the abortion imperialism of American and Western sexual liberalism. He also participated in the Assis ecumenical event which appeared to join Christianity/Judaism/Islam in prayer together.

Benedict was not comfortable with the relaxed theological grounding of that ecumenical event. Additionally, early in his papacy he delivered the (in)famous Regensburg lecture in which he defended the Catholic synthesis of faith and reason as he critiqued the West for a reason without faith and Islam for a faith cut off from reason. This was, in my view, a brilliant presentation which exemplified his theological clarity and depth. But it provoked violence across the globe from Muslim crowds. So we see a difference in their relationship with Islam. It seems obvious that both reacted to real realities in that religion, the bright side and the dark side.

Social Justice Activism

Neither Francis nor Leo intend to change Church teaching on sexuality. Rather, they want to avoid the topic. Early in his pontificate, Leo hosted James Martin S.J., thus continuing his predecessor's close collaboration. Martin does not explicitly contradict Catholic teaching. Rather, he ignores it. He implicitly devalues it. His gay-affirmation crusade intends, of course, to welcome those who feel rejected by the Church. In doing so, he devalues the sacred significance of sexuality, including the gravity of sins against chastity. In effect, he declares the spousal meaning of sexuality (fruitful, exclusive, faithful, free, male/female) as insignificant.  In gospel of gay affirmation, homosexual practice is reconfigured from a sin to be confessed to an expression of wholesome affection. This requires, obviously, a resolute avoidance of the evident indignity and pathology of the specific acts. If these acts are benign, then the Church is indeed homophobic, hateful and condemnatory. If they are disordered, than Martin, Francis and Leo are supporting patterns of sin. And so we have the blessing of homosexual unions which affirms the goodness, even of the physical dimension.

The heart of Francis/Leo Catholicism is care for the suffering, the violated, the poor, not just in traditional works of mercy practiced by Mother Theresa and so many saints, but in social policy. They articulate a global, political vision: welcoming of immigrants, green policy for the environment, prohibition of the death penalty, redistribution of wealth. A few years ago Cardinal Joe Tobin of NJ, close friend of both popes, identified Francis as the political protagonist against antagonist Donald Trump. 

The problem here is that they swerve out of their lane, as authoritative on faith and morals, and exercise a "clericalism" that presumes authority about complex, prudential matters. Social policy is properly the expertise of political processes and leaders, assisted by scientists, theorists, activists, and others. The basic moral vision is properly the concern of the pope. But when the pope involves with concrete policy (like border walls, etc.) he depletes his authority, polarizes the Church and alienates those who come to different practical conclusions about the best policies to follow.

Difference Between Francis and Leo

Leo has consistently said he will continue the policies of his predecessor. He is man of his word.

But the difference in temperament is startling. Francis was impulsive, indiscrete, intentionally provocative and disruptive. He was viscerally hateful of the Latin Mass, "clericalist" priests, the USA Evangelical-Catholic coalition against abortion, and "rigid" traditionalism. 

Leo is restrained, modest, steady, institutional, moderate, and looking to reconcile and stabilize the Church. In the same week he met with Fr. Martin he met with Cardinal Burke and allowed a Latin mass in St. Peter's. 

Style has about it already a substance. This is why I have hopes for this papacy. My hope is that he will listen to the voices that Francis repressed; the voices of many devout Catholics; the voices of John Paul,  Benedict, Augustine and others. My hope is that he will bring peace to the Church by hearing what is true in the views of those opposed to Francis.

Key Issues of Difference

Chinese Church.  While the agreement of the Vatican with the Communist state remains secretive, it is clear that Francis surrendered control of the Church to the government. This contrasts sharply with the war John Paul waged and finally won against Soviet Communism. This will surely rank as the most disastrous, shameful policy of Pope Francis. We wait to see how Leo will proceed.

Sexuality. Francis destroyed the John Paul Institute for the Family in Rome. This had institutionalized the magisterial legacy of John Paul and Benedict. Leo said he will continue the Francis direction. He avoided laying out a theological vision but intends it to be a more practical assist to family life. He shares an anti-intellectualism with Francis: an indifference  or aversion to the deep philosophical legacy of that school.

The Latin Mass.  Indications are that Leo will continue the repression of this rite. His meeting with Burke and allowance of the rite in St. Peter's signal that he will be less heavy handed and more open to dialogue with that important movement in the Church.

Synodality.   Influential participants in Vatican II, John Paul and Benedict understood "synod" to be a gathering of bishops to exercise their apostolic authority. Leo follows Francis' novel contrivance of "synod" as an open, democratic, dialogic process. It is an unprecedented, alternate source of Church authority which includes even those who reject the Catholic legacy. Vulnerable to manipulation by progressive activists, it excludes many voices who are loyal to the Church, including those who avoid it as a big mistake.

Dogmatization of Political Policy.  The elevation of leftist, Western ideology into Catholic dogma is best exemplified in the death penalty. Perhaps our widest catechetical error is that "the Church is against the death penalty." John Paul and Benedict both strenuously opposed it for prudential reasons. They argued, for example, that contemporary prisons are so good that we do not need capital punishment to protect society. By this logic, they upheld the traditional teaching that use of lethal force for protection of society is the duty of the state when necessary. They maintained the issue as prudential, about which Catholics can disagree. It is not inherently/always evil (like adultery, abortion, rape) but dependent upon circumstances (like warfare, theft (of bread to feed starving) or lying (to gestapo about Jews in attic.)) They knew the limits of their finite, practical opinion; they realized they had no authority to unilaterally change an ancient teaching. What I know of American prisons makes me skeptical. And I am sure many other countries are worse. Neither they nor Francis consulted with the world's bishops or produced a scholarly, authoritative study considering the classic aims of retribution: deterrence, protection, rehabilitation and retribution.  Impulsively, dictatorially Francis ruled the practice as "inadmissible as a violation of the dignity and inviolability of the human person." He presents here a moral intuition that is taken to be self-evident but is not part of our tradition. It is a rupture with a consistent practice.  It is supported by no historical legacy, no episcopal consensus, no authoritative argument. Rather, Francis, with most of the secular ("no afterlife") progressive West does not like the thing.

Will Our Unity Hold?

The German Church seems to be moving towards schism. But on the whole, I see no danger of a catastrophic global divide. We have lived with this divide for 60 years. Powerful dynamics, interior to Catholicism, hold us together.  The sources of our union are dual: truth and love. The truths in dispute are all hills upon which we are willing to die. But that dedication to truth is infused by, as it infuses, love of the brother and sister. The exigency to witness to truth coexists with the urgency for unity. 

Catholic leadership at its best retains a generosity, a tolerance for difference, a reverence even for the adversary. Francis was weak on this: he emotionally attacked those with whom he disagreed. Leo by contrast, from the start, shows a deep intention to maintain unity and listen to all sides. This is a good thing! The response of the American episcopacy to the Durbin controversy also shows this valuation of unity.

Going Forward

The pronounced divide in our Church is not normal. But it is not unusual. Our Church is not a sect, with clearly defined, protective boundaries setting us apart. Rather, we mingle in the broader society; we seek to influence it; but we are also unavoidably influenced by it. And so, a tension between accommodation and resistance is unavoidable. 

In the long game, thick, countercultural Catholicism is far more promising than the thinner version, which adapts to the surrounding world. Consider, for example: which is more likely to move our youth to priestly and religious vocations...conjugal mysticism or social justice activism? Clearly, one passionate about the immigrants, global warming or economic inequality will more likely want to be an activist, a politician, a policy expert. Which will draw our young to have large families: the ethos of chastity and fertility or that of contraception and gay-affirmation? The questions answer themselves.

John Paul and Benedict were world class theologians of the calibre of our Church doctors. Their teachings will be forming seminarians and students of theology far into the future. It was a sadness that Francis rejected their vision. We hope that the Catholic intuitions of Leo will overcome the superficial theological heritage he received from his predecessor.

 

 

Sin of Omission (2): Praying for My Enemies

"Fredo, you're my older brother and I love you, but don't ever take sides with anyone against the family with anyone, ever, again."  Michael Corleone to brother Fredo in Godfather.

 I confess: I do not much pray for my enemies. 

Well, I don't have many enemies. Will Rogers famously said "I never met a man I didn't like." I don't go quite that far, but pretty close. My wife says I like people more than they like me and I think they like me more than they do. She may be right. But this is a good problem to have. I have no intention to correct it.

My enemies are intellectual: Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud. They are dead. I would do well to pray for their souls.

In this diverse American society, I have always been keenly aware of my cultural-religious tribe: Catholic. We are in competition with other tribes: mainline WASP Protestants, Evangelicals-Fundamentalists, Jews both secular and orthodox, Black Evangelicals and so forth. But raised in the harmonious, ecumenical post-war period, I see these more as competitors or benign adversaries, not enemies, like in a wholesome recreational athletic league. 

And so, I do not have a personal animus against those from other tribes: Clintons, Trumps, Obamas, Bushes, and so forth. They are what they are; they don't know better.

Rather, the enemy I despise is the Catholic who betrays our family and our values: politicians like the Bidens, Kennedys, Pelosis, Cuomos, and such who crusade for abortion, force Catholic agencies to place adoptee children with gay couples, force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraception, force our daughters to compete with biological boys. 

Worse still are the Church leaders...theologians, priests, bishops...who betray us in the Culture War by blessing gay unions, tolerating abortion, abandoning our deposit of faith to accommodate fashion: Cardinals like Fernandez, Cupich, McElroy, Parolin and others. 

These are to me what Fredo was to Michael Corleone. 

It is important that I pray for them...for a number of reasons.

First of all, for my own soul. That I grow in charity; and not surrender to contempt, resentment, hatred.

Secondly, to enhance my own witness to Truth since I will be far more effective when I speak from a heart of serenity, love and openness. 

Lastly, for the good of the Church. By speaking the truth always in love, out of prayer, humbly and open-mindedly, I contribute to the unity of the Church.

Yes...praying for my political-theological enemies within the Church is a salutary exercise: for my own heart, soul and intellect...and for the good of the Church.