Profession of Hatred

I profess my solemn hatred of the Democratic Party in the USA. This is not a dislike, a preference, an inclination or an opinion! It is a deep-seated, passionate, soul-defining conviction! This Party is essentially, structurally, and invasively hostile to what is most sacred to me: innocent life, sexuality/marriage/family, and religious liberty. This hatred is the inverse of my love for the Church: total, unqualified, enduring,and unequivocal. When it comes to the Church and the Party, I am not 80/20; not even 99/1; I am 100/0! My allegiance to the Republican Party, by contrast, is ambivalent, qualified, and lukewarm...for many reasons. But my contempt for the other Party is boundless. The way a Jew views the Nazi or an Afro-American the KKK...this is the way I see that Party. But my loathing is more intimate and more personal because I was raised a Democrat and I entered adulthood in this condition. It was in my early adulthood, during the 1970s, that the Party betrayed us Catholics in favor of sexual license, abortion, the deconstruction of marriage and eventually an attack on our religious liberty. It is as if my very best friend took and raped my wife, my daughters, and my sisters. This is intellectual, spiritual, social...it is also VERY personal! My loathing of the Party and what it stands for is simple, straightforward and uncomplicated. My real problem is: How do I relate with Democrats? About half of my best friends and family are such! I love them dearly. I respect them. How do I reconcile this love with this hatred? It is not easy! It is a challenging, complicated spiritual-emotional task. A key to this reconciliation is given by Jesus from the cross: "They know not what they do." Those I love clearly do not intend the destruction if the Innocents, the break-up of the family, and the dissolution of Catholic social action as we have known it. Their conscious, deliberate intention is to help the poor and needy. So, at the deeper level of intent, we are in union. I deliberately dwell in this communion. Nevertheless, objectively, formally and structurally, they collaborate directly with the politics of death. I see that they do so out of ignorance: like one under hypnosis or in a psychotic state. I assume that this ignorance is invincible...or virtually so. Their judgment is clouded by a most complex web of prejudice, indoctrination, and rash judgement. They are carried along, unawares, by a liberal consensus in which they ardently believe...the way a Nazi sincerely defended Country and Tradition and a KKK lynch mob protected its virtuous women. And so I see that family and friends are innocent subjectively, but complicit and guilty objectively. They, of course, see me in a similar way: I have been misled by reactionary, right-wing views. A second thought that is helpful is to keep in mind the prudential, positional, ambivalent nature of political views. Practical matters involve a universe of circumstances and conditions and give rise to varied opinions among the the most-informed and best-intended. Therefore, generally, political judgments are best if held in a tentative, non-ideological manner. The problem, however, is that issues of life, family and liberty are far more profound and decisive than issues like capital gains tax, immigration policy or what we do in Syria or Iraq or Iran. And so, I do my best to keep a sense of humility, tentativeness and openness...even as I pledge my total allegiance to the unborn, weak and elderly, to the sanctity of traditional marriage, and to freedom of religion. Lastly, I realize the limited nature of politics: most of life is NOT politics. For example, in my current work involving a residence for low-income, special-needs women, most of my collaborators are Democrats. We do not talk about or think about that arena. We happily conspire in the doing of good deeds. We enjoy peace and agreement to a remarkable degree. We dwell upon the deeper, broader things upon which we agree. And I do not focus on, but I cannot deny, the wound, the grief, that is best if not spoken.

Financial Psychology: Hysteria of Scarcity and the Exuberance of Extravagance

As we begin Holy Week, we have the embarrassingly extravagant, affectionate Mary anointing the feet of Jesus with a costly perfume and that stingy cheapskate Judas moaning about the "waste" of money. The contrast could hardly be sharper: overflowing, joyous generosity versus anxious, resentful complaining. The "Hysteria of Scarcity" is all around us. In our residence for women, for example, one lady worries constantly that we will run out of toilet paper. Another calls me to pick up milk even when we have four gallons in the refrigerator. Another over-fills her plate and later throws most of it away because she worries that someone she dislikes will get more than her. We see it more broadly in politics. On the right, we hear groaning about people who use food stamps for junk food and breast-beating about the deficit. On the left, we find envious obsession about the one percent and the growing inequality gap. To be sure, the long-term redistribution of wealth in favor of the obscenely wealth and the national debt we are leaving our grandchildren are both legitimate concerns; but isn't it strange that generally those who lament the one dismiss the other? A follower of Jesus knows only the boundless, excessive super-abundance of God and His Kingdom. There is ALWAYS plenty to share and tons left over. But this fullness comes in the costume of simplicity and frugality: consider the Eucharist...tiny, thin, tasteless, quiet, gentle, Divine! The one who feasts at this infinitely nutritious and delicious Banquet can only rejoice, give thanks, and share with others. Do not confuse this Cult of Plenty, disguised as austerity, with the counterfeit gospel of prosperity with its consumerist, materialist individualism. The Eucharistic Cult of Generosity is like the billionaire who doesn't look like one: dressed shabbily in worn-out jeans, he has hardly any cash in his pocket. His wealth is hidden in real estate and stocks. And so, the Catholic may be unimpressive to the exterior eye, but he feasts on and shares the Bread of Life.

The Cultural Underpinnings of Same-sex Marriage

The crusade for gay marriage will continue its virulent, triumphant march through the elite circles of law, entertainment, politics and academy because it is supported by four deep-seated, unquestioned cultural values or dogmas which are themselves even more toxic than the sterile, infectious acts they sanctify: the romantic myth of the "lover who will make me whole;" the separation of sex and new life; the deconstruction of gender; and individualism. The first, strongest, most influential and misleading myth is "there is another person, a romantic partner, a lover who will make me whole." Anyone who is really married should laugh at this powerful and pervasive deception, but instead we cling desperately to the belief; we long relentlessly for the perfect love object; and we wander, like Mickey Rooney and his 8 wives (may he rest in peace), in a fog of serial infidelity. And so, the logic determines, if I as a man can seek my happiness in the arms of my female "soul partner" (surely the stupidest concept imaginable!), why cannot a man find happiness with a man? The second secular dogma that cannot be questioned is the separation of sex, love and fertility that was definitively established by the immediate and complete cultural take-over by contraception in the 1960s. This disastrous divorce condemns sex to sadness, purposelessness and despair. But equal opportunity demands that if men and women can misuse each other in this way, why can't men do the same with men and women with women? The third cultural force is the deconstruction of masculinity and femininity. Increasingly and tragically, our young especially males, are incapable of seeing the form, the gestalt, the interiority of virility as fraternal, generous, paternal, chaste, courageous and heroic or that of femininity as virginal, fresh, receptive, loving, bridal and maternal. If you do not see this, I cannot help you! If you cannot see this, the deepest joy, thrill and purpose of human sexuality are all lost. If you cannot see this, then of course you think that men can marry men. Lastly, the religion of the USA, especially the young, is individualism. We see an emergent economic, diplomatic libertarianism of right and a corresponding sexual liberalism of the left infecting our young. Rick Warren, in his best-seller, recognized this when he started it with: "It is not about you." And so, gay militance is being carried by a perect storm, a tsunami of cultural confusion. But it will only progress so far before it hits a wall. The Church and common sense are clear about the toxicity of this way of life. Eventually the facts will emerge and science will catch up with faith and the intuitions of the ordinary citizen. In the meantime, Russia's tyrant Putin has unexpectedly positioned himself as the world's champion on behalf of traditional marriage against the corruption of the West. He has the entire continent of Africa and most of the world with him. In the long run, this infatuation with sterile sex will be a blip of insanity in the flow of history. We are losing in the short term. We cannot lose in the end.

The Butler

The Butler, propelled by the dazzling performances of Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey, is a rich, engaging, insightful, nuanced, complex and evocative film that eventually disappoints as it resolves its dramatic and personal tension in a surrender to simplistic, stereotypical political ideology. It is based, loosely, on the story of a real butler who served eight US presidents. The primal intuition of the film is the sterling character and integrity of this butler and the miraculous manner in which he transcends and transforms his subservient position by his quiet dignity, humility, industry, and loyalty. Additionally, he is a faithful and devoted husband and father. The dramatic action springs from his relationship with his son who is coming of age in the 1960s as a militant civil rights activist and is ashamed of his father’s submissive profession. The film poignantly portrays the excruciating break that occurred between fathers (the WWII generation) and their sons (the “boomers”) in that distressing period. The film brilliantly balances the protagonist and antagonist as the viewer respects and sympathizes with both positions: the butler is flawlessly admirable and charming even as the young man is surely justified in his rage at the system. Throughout the film, both sides of the argument are held in a delicate, provocative tension. In a key interchange, the son shows that he is ashamed about his father’s work and he is corrected by his mentor, a civil rights leader, who says that domestic servants are actually subversive rather than subservient in that they undermine the stereotype by their work ethic, loyalty, and moral integrity. This, I take, to be the key to the movie. A secondary plot is his relationship with his wife, played superlatively by Oprah, who is drifting into boredom, resentment, alcoholism and adultery until her unexpected and inexplicable awakening to sobriety and to the value of her extraordinary husband. It is only at the very end of the movie that we see the couple preparing for Church and sharing the Bible but her change of heart is unintelligible without something like a 12-step engagement or an evangelical conversion. The portrayal of the presidents is remarkable in that there were zero attempts at physical similarity. They are humanized, even as their residual racism is highlighted. And the Republicans, although on the “wrong side” of civil rights, are presented nicely: Reagan is shown in gestures of anonymous generosity and Nixon is surely smiling (from purgatory, I imagine) as he is so much more handsome, charming and “cool” than the movie’s JFK. (So much for historical accuracy!) Most of the movie is entirely fictional. For example, the historical butler had one, not two sons, and he was not a militant activist. More troubling, however, was the fabricated beginning of the film in which the protagonist, as a young boy, witnesses the rape of his mother by a white psychopath, the murder of his father, and the passivity of many plantation workers who stand by and watch the atrocity. The incident was overdone, melodramatic and offensive. But the conflict between the angry activism of the son and the deferential humility of the father captured the anguish of that time and deeper spiritual issues involving injustice, anger and submission. This is, however, where the film finally disappoints. The butler comes around, eventually, to embrace the civil rights movement as he joins his son in picketing against apartheid in South Africa and then weeps with elation at the election of Obama. The plot line is, then simple…it is one I myself learned very clearly in a Catholic high school around 1964: racism, as in the South, is bad; civil rights are good. However, the moral values, the nuance, the complexity on the personal level that was so brilliantly portrayed by the actors is waved away in political simplicity and stereotype. I would suggest that the moral values so passionately enacted by the butler are precisely those that have been disparaged, on the political or public level, by the civil rights movement and political liberalism in general in the years since King’s death. The butler was: humble, hard-working, responsible, chaste, faithful to his wife, loyal to his employers, self-reliant, respectful of authority, patient, manly, paternal and religious. By contrast, the civil rights movement went on to prostitute itself by adultery with a political liberalism defined by: abortion rights, sexual permissiveness, rejection of parental rights (vouchers, credits) in education, a culture of entitlement, and an ethos of “victimhood.” The film ends on the note of Obama-adoration without the slightest clue that the butler, as portrayed here, might not weep with elation at the consequences of political liberalism: serial abortions, single mothers stuck in poverty, the break-up of the family.

Love as Delight

The essence, the heart, the form of Love is Delight. Love is one...it is Delight...but it is also manifold, rich, expansive. It is also: gratitude, trust, respect, attraction, donation,companionship,fruitfulness and care. These eight moments are suggestive rather than exclusive or conclusive but entail the filial (gratitude, trust, respect), the companionable (companionship), the spousal (attraction, donation) and the generative (fruitfulness and care.)Every particular love is singular and distinctive: it flows from delight but gathers these eight moments into a unique gestalt. Delight here is understood as communion...intellectual, volitional and emotional...with the other in approval and celebration. The mysterious, profound, radiant "goodness" of the beloved is received, experienced, internalized, proclaimed and enhanced...the beloved is "glorified." The filial structure of gratitude is fundamental: the beloved is manifest to the lover unexpectedly, gratuitously, unnecessarily, uselessly and generously. The filial posture of trust is essential: to be in love is to be safe, comforted, hopeful and free to be genuine, spontaneous, decisive and active. The filial attitude of respect is primal: the beloved is received as worthy, awesome, fascinating, tremendous and holy. Attraction, so pronounced in romantic love, has two faces: in the creature, afflicted with sin, is flows from limitation, lack, privation, and need; but God's attraction to us is different, He desires and comes in search of us out of plenitude, not lack. And so, human desire can spring from the two fountains, one empty and one full. Companionship or partnership means that the lovers always look beyond each other to a shared task, interest, mission, or purpose. The two do not close in upon themselves but open up to a third in a trinitarian manner. Love between the two outflows to a third, always. This reaches a new depth and intensity with the fruitfulness of intimacy, quintessentially in the conception of a new child but analogously in other manners of fecundity. The donative or generous impulse is the marvelous drive to give to the beloved: the mother who breastfeeds, the groom on their wedding night, the child who draws a picture for a grandparent. Care is the tender, cherishing and protective response to the fragility, preciousness and vulnerability of the beloved. The Madonna with Child is the most paradigmatic expression of this. As creatures, we could never care for an infinite, invulnerable God had he not become a helpless infant and gone on to suffer and die for us. This is why a believer never tires of contemplating the crib and the crucifix. Finally, underlying and infusing delight and the accompanying eight moments of love is the most significant: every genuine love (friendship, romance, family) comes from and moves to God. To love, even slightly or momentarily, is to taste heaven. Love conquers death. Love transcends and transforms time and space. Love inspires the flesh but moves beyond it in a vow and surrender that can only find fulfillment in eternity.

"The Yellow Stream" by I. P. Standing

It may be 4th grade bathroom humor, but I still love that book title and author. Probably because of my memory. It is a marvelous memory: deep, strong, indelible and defining of my identity. I am unsure if it happened once or frequently. It doesn't matter. I don't know how we fit; our bathroom was so tight. This is it: my Dad, myself (age 7 maybe) and my little brother John (age 3 or so) are standing around the toilet, urinating in unison. Similarity and contrast: each of us is clear, firm and accurate in the aim of our streams at the target water; the sound of stream hitting water is music to the ear; my own is modest in comparison with the long, strong force of my Dad's; but substantial in relation to the miniature, tiny dimensions of my brother's. I sense the perfect harmony, hierarchy and order of the world. I am in my own place, which is smaller in one direction but larger in another. I am comforted and elated to be in the shadow of...and imitative of, reflective of, participative in...one so large, good and strong. I feel tender and dear to the other one who is precious and small. I sense my...our masculinity...in a non-conceptual, intuitive manner...as good, worthy, orderly, strong and purposeful. "Man and Woman He created us, in His own image He created us." Some things that are humble, physical and seemingly trivial, distinguish and define us. Only a woman can conceive, carry and give birth. Only a woman can give suck. Only a woman can, fruitfully and honorably, receive the seed of life from Another. Likewise, only a man undergoes an erection, which is: fickle, unpredictable, self-willed, irrepressible, excruciatingly embarrassing, exhilarating, frustrating and not entirely reliable. An erection is at once an icon of our Godliness, our power to love and give life, and our creatureliness and woundedness, as foolish, silly, uncontrollable and ridiculous. Likewise, only a man can urinate in unison with Dad and brother. Such a humble act, done in communion and reverent emulation, is in its own way an image of the Trinity. This is said with all respect for ANALOGY, the similarity is within a far greater dissimilarity. We know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not urinate in unison. But we can be sure that Jesus did with St. Joseph...and he surely enjoyed it...and that is significant!

Discontinuity Within a Greater Continuity

Pope Benedict gave us the exact key in which to understand the event of the Vatican II Council: "discontinuity within a greater continuity." This is a key to more than that council: it is the key to Church history and indeed Salvation History. The "greater continuity" is God's love, his covenant with Abraham that was renewed and enhanced with Moses, David and then fulfilled in Christ. The Church is in the habit of praying the canticle of Zechariah in the morning and the Magnificat of Mary in the evening. Each announces a surprising fulfillment of the earlier promise: a startling, serendipitous climax that perfectly accomplishes the earlier promise. "This was the oath that he swore to our father Abraham" and "he has come to the aid of Israel his servant, being mindful of his covenant, the promise that he made to Abraham and to his seed forever." There is a seamless coherence in God's work even as it is, every day, new, startling, and thrilling. So, our "maverick" new pope can only be understood as standing upon his two predecessors; who were themselves really a single-if-dual pontificate; as they emulated and developed the work of John and Paul; who were already rooted in Pius XII; and so forth. What a splendid Mystery is the Church: steady, rooted, eternal; and yet ever fresh, new and original!