Weeds and Wheat: The Civil Rights Movement Remembered

Having come of age during the Civil Rights Movement, I consider it the finest moment of our nation. Not only was the cause impeccably just, but the evangelical, non-violent modus operandi of the Reverend King and his lieutenants was courageous, ennobling, fierce yet gentle, and boundlessly generous. In captivating our hearts, it was marvelously successful: by the end of that tumultuous decade of the 60s, racial inclusion was passionately embraced by all our major cultural institutions: academia, the churches, media, entertainment, sports, the government, political parties and the law. Twenty years later, in the 90s, my employer UPS put all of us management through diversity training where we learned that profitability and global capitalism had zero tolerance for the faintest trace of bigotry. Racism, as a historical and institutional force, was deader than the dinosaur. No doubt there are residual traces among old timers and the unavoidable ethnic, tribal rivalries endemic to male adolescents (think the West Side Story). A type of racism that I personally find despicable is the current practice by hoodlum, black teens in the cities of northern NJ of mugging undocumented Latino workers who are flush with cash on payday Friday...but you will not learn about that on public television. Nevertheless,  culturally racism is as taboo as animal sacrifice. In all of the worlds I have inhabited in my adulthood, I am in the minority as a white...and quite comfortable surrounded by descendants from Africa, Asia and Latin America...in Jersey City, at UPS operations in Newark Airport, teaching in urban Catholic schools, in our own modest residence for low income women, and in the many urban Catholic churches I attend. However cultural movements are complex and contradictory, like us human beings ourselves, and never pure but always infected with sin. The weeds and the wheat, prior to the Second Coming of our Lord, cannot be definitively separated. And so I identify three significant, unfortunate consequences of the Civil Rights Movement: the sexual revolution, the concentration of power in the federal government and the cult of victimization. None of these three weeds were intrinsic to the Civil Rights Movement itself, which was wheat of finest quality, but they were deeply involved with it and thereby given impetus. It was an unholy intimacy. Regarding the sexual and cultural revolutions that accompanied the King movement: the wives of the black leaders, but few others, were painfully aware of the virulent promiscuity (particularly with young white women) of the leaders of the movement. There seems to have been an implicit but strong compact of compliance between the sexual liberals and the civil rights leaders and that coalition remains the inner core of the Democratic Party to this day. And so, in spite of the immense legal and political advances, the black family emerged from that decade in worse shape than it began and has been getting worse since. Despite almost 50 years of the easy availability of contraception, today 2/3 of black babies conceived in NYC are aborted. And Afro-Americans are flawlessly pro-choice! The second catastrophe that issued from the Civil Rights movement was the moral approval of concentration of power in the federal government. Local governance in the South was not able to correct the deeply-structured racism so the intervention from the higher power was necessary, correct and immensely successful. This moral success, which should be considered an exception to a wholesome federalism served to consecrate the concentration of power in the federal government (which was the result of many and various historical forces throughout the 20th century) and accelerated the decline of intermediary organizations and the loss of a sense of subsidiarity even among Catholics. And so, we have the atomizatiion of the individual, the emergence of a enveloping Mother-State, and the weakening of smaller social units including the family, church, and smaller social bodies. Lastly, we have the cult of victimization that pervades our culture as all kinds of minorities claim the sacred shroud of victimhood and compensatory entitlement. This blend of self-pity, jealousy and impotence is the starkest contradiction of the original Civil Rights Movement with its ethos of quiet strength, forgiveness, courage and hope. We do well to honor the memory of Reverend King who is in the company of a very elite group of American moral heroes including Lincoln, Ceasar Chavez and Bill W of the 12-step tradition: all notable for their humility, wisdom and courage. But we do well also to renounce the legacy of sexual license, centralization of power and the culture of victimization that has instituted itself in all our major cultural institutions and elites.

I Believe What I See!

“I believe what I see.” She said...with serene intelligence. She is a student of human psychology: a learner and a searcher, open-minded and sober in investigation, eager for meaning but thoroughly contemporary in her agnosticism and skepticism, especially about wild claims about the invisible, spiritual universe.

“I believe what I see.” This is good start, a wholesome and trusting empiricism: “I believe…” An act of faith, trust, belief! I believe what I see…I trust in my eyes …which are given to me to access what is real…and will show me what is actually there beyond my own mind.

This is already an act of faith: in my eyes, my mind, my natural capacities for perception, and the validity of my senses and intellect. This reflects a wholesome and naïve realism. Implicitly this involves a trust in Reality: that there is an objective reality beyond subjective experience which unveils itself, benevolently, to attentive eyes and inquiring intellects. After all, a deep suspicion and distrust would discredit the validity of one’s own perception and judgment: maybe I am dreaming, maybe I am deluded, maybe my deepest thoughts and convictions are entirely the result of cultural conditioning, of needs and desires, of my own peculiar and finite experience. It is a good start to trust one’s experience: to look, and think and question and listen and ponder…receptively, trustingly, gratefully.

Consider: every act of perception and cognition is already an interpretation, an intuition of meaning and purpose beyond the immediate, discrete sensory data. A stranger smiles at you in the street: you smile back, having received it trustingly; or you look away in defensive avoidance, or glare back angrily muttering “What do you think you are smiling at, stupid?” You arrive at your office on your birthday to find a bouquet of lovely flowers on your desk:  you are beaming with delight as you already have a sense of their origin and purpose. Indeed, the human mind is an unending search for meaning and purpose: what does that smile or this bouquet mean? What is it all about? What is the purpose of my life, of my yearnings, of my suffering?

And so the question is:  What do you see?

Do you see a bad infinity of hard molecules banging against each other senselessly? (Materialism?)

Do you see a cruel universe where the deepest human longing for love and meaning is ultimately frustrated? Where life is an endless battle between conflicting wills, frustrated egoisms and and vicious tribalisms? (Nietzsche?)

Do you see a futile cosmos that emerged senselessly from Nothing; that lacks any interior coherence or meaning; that is doomed eventually to disappear into that same Nothing? (Nihilism?)

Or: Do you see a marvelous world charged… gratuitously, serendipitously…. with splendor, surprise, and purpose?

Do you see the love and compassion that moves you as an image of an even greater, an infinite love and compassion that moves the stars and the atoms and the human heart?

Do you sense that the yearning that possesses your heart…and all human hearts…the desire to love and be loved TOTALLY…Do you sense that this longing is destined to be surpassed beyond its own limits?

What do you see? Cherish your agnosticism as an impetus to learn! Continue to look, to see, to question, to probe, to wonder, to marvel, to admire, to love, to thank, to pray (even if skeptically), to sacrifice, to exult and delight in Reality with all its Truth, Beauty and Goodness…and to Hope!

A Theological Style: Dulles and Guarino...Loyal, Receptive yet Rigorous, Modest, Detached

I was delighted that the theological work of our friend Fr. Tom Guarino was recognized by the Vatican naming him a monsignor.  I recalled a similar happy event when Fr. Avery Dulles was named a cardinal for the same reason. I think that Fr. Dulles was something of a mentor to Fr. Tom who has assumed leadership in the Catholic-Evangelical-Dialogue. I have found in them a similar and striking theological style that is at once:  fiercely loyal to the Church, open minded and yet rigorous in thought, detached from any particular theological approach, and modest in epistemological expectations.  Each shows a fierce filial loyalty to Christ’s Church as Mother and Magister in all elements starting with Scripture, Tradition, the magisterium and the testimony of the saints. Each practices “theology on the knees” albeit in a humble, unpretentious manner.  Secondly, they welcome dialogue with other faith traditions and a diversity of theological approaches even as they are precise and painstaking in analysis and wholesome criticism. For example, they will parse a papal statement to discern exactly what is and isn’t intended, not hesitating to point out limitations, but in a stance of loyalty and obedience.  Docility of the will is joined with clarity of the intellect. They welcome the positive insights of various approaches but identify the imbalances. Thirdly, and most interestingly for me:  they both seem detached from any particular theological approach. Neither seems committed to any thinker or school of thought. I suppose they are indebted, with all Catholic theology, to Thomas, Newman, DeLubac, and possibly Rahner and Ratzinger. But they seem detached: fully committed to the Church and her teaching but distant and free to accept and reject what they want from the competing schools of thought. They both favor a “models” approach which comes from Kuhn’s understanding of “paradigms” and is, I suggest, a soft Kantianism:  the “noumenal”,  the unapproachable Mystery of God and Heaven, is inaccessible, even if it is revealed, and our cognitive expressions are always inadequate and partial, if valid and necessary.  Theirs is a humble, modest and apophatic epistemology. We “know” God best when we know we are “not really knowing Him.”This is especially true of Guarino who is engaged with postmodern agnosticism and acutely aware of human knowing in its historicity, subjectivity, and enfleshed finitude.  I see three schools of theology competing in the Catholic Church today: a renewed, traditional Thomism; the conjugal mysticism of Balthasar, St. John Paul II, Benedict and their “communio” allies; and heirs of the transcendental (Kantian) Thomism of Rahner and Lonergan.  Dulles and Guarino do not surrender to any one approach but seem to borrow from each: they share a deep, prayerful spirituality with the romantic mystics but in a sober manner, without fascination for nuptial mystery as the very interiority of the Church. With the traditionalists they reverence the intellect in its capacity and orientation to truth even as they share with the Kantian-Thomists an awareness of subjectivity and finitude. They are more engaged with modern thought than the traditionalists, even as they renounce the slide of the Rahner/Lonergan heirs into an adulterous embrace of the most anti-Catholic aspects of modernity.  My own view is that Balthasar and  John Paul are the ones who directly, clearly and deeply answer the threat our age faces in regard to sexuality, family, gender and the very ontological reality of the Church as Bride of Christ. Dulles was the unrivaled dean of American Catholic Theology: admired by all even as he resisted the slide of much of the guild away from precious Catholic truths. Guarino continues his mission: educating generations of priests, dialoguing with Evangelicals in a time of crisis, and developing the Deposit of Faith. Guarino is a particularly gifted presenter: energetic, humorous, and virally contagious in his love for theology.  Deeply in love with Christ and his Church, broad and deep in scholarship, clear in thought, and zealous in search of Truth:  How blessed we are to have close to us such Fathers of the Church!

Polarities of Vocation and State of Life

My daughter's unusual and sometimes confusing vocation has caused me to reflect. Having professed herself in Christ to a life of evangelical poverty, chastity and obedience within the community of Memores Domini ("Rememberers of the Lord") she lives actively as a lay person in the world and is not a nun or a sister and even avoids the language of "vow" and "consecration."  Most of us Catholics can't quite put our minds around this. I think this is because we simplify "vocation" into a single polarity:  lay/married and priest-or-religious.  It may be helpful to identify four distinct but overlapping and interpenetrating polarities: apostolic mission vs. regular life; celibacy and marriage; sacraments of orders and matrimony; and the religious (called out of the world) and lay states. The primal New Testament distinction involved those called by Christ to share in his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom and the Word. These would be his 12 apostles, the other disciples sent out in pairs, and Paul and others. Many wanted to follow him but were told, in no uncertain terms, to return to their normal lives. Mary and Joseph were not called to apostolic ministry. Secondly, we have the call to virginity. Most of the apostles, disciples and early priests and bishops were not virgins although Jesus, Mary, Paul and probably Joseph and John were. But the spontaneous, passionate embrace of virginity, especially by young women, was one of the great Christian shocks to the pagan and Jewish worlds which had nothing even remotely similar. The independence and defiance of Roman patriarchy by such young virgins was as confounding as their embrace of martyrdom.     Thirdly we have the sacraments of orders and matrimony which complement each other but are neither incompatible nor necessary. We have married deacons who are bound in conjugal union and yet ordained for a special ecclesial or apostolic ministry. At the same time, many single and professed abstain from both sacraments. The last polarity contrasts ordinary "lay" life in society with a "religious" call out of the world into the monastary or hermitage. This was unknown to the apostolic church but initiated by the desert fathers and dominated the medieval world.  Virginity ordinarily accompanies this life although there have been some (in my view misguided) attempts to fuse marriage with such a retreat from the world. The classical religious community would be a cloistered community, common in the middle ages, but the more active, "apostolic" orders (inspired by St. Vincent De Paul and his followers) who work in the lay world in teaching and service of the needy are "religious" and yet "lay" in a sense. And so, we have in the Catholic Church a rich variety of combinations.  We have married couples who are called to an apostolic mission such as the itinerants of the Neocatechumenal Way or the Maryknoll affiliates; we have consecrated, celibate religious (such as my nephew who is a Franciscan Friar of the Renewal) who are not ordained and yet serve actively among the poor of this world; we have consecrated virgins who are not ordained and who have no specific apostolic mission other than the ordinary baptismal life of prayer, service and holiness. Indeed, all of these variations are expressions of the deeper, foundational union we all share with Christ and in Christ through baptism. Balthasar has taught us that such life in Christ inexorably urges us to a gift of self, normally in a clear and definitive manner in  the vows that constitute matrimony or virginity. But this simple, unifying commonality expresses itself in a rich and variegated symphony as our charisms and missions work mysteriously together for God's glory, our salvation and the transformation of Creation.


P.S.  Is one vocation or state of life superior to another?  Yes and No. The final issue is holiness of life and so we can imagine that the greatest living saint might be someone who is not ordained, not called to ministry, not vowed to virginity and not blessed with matrimony. Think of someone patiently suffering a great affliction! Perhaps mental illness! But objectively there is hierarchy, or actually three different hierarchies.  First, the virginal state is superior not just because it involves heroic self-sacrifice but because it is a truer realization of the Kingdom of Heaven in imitation of Jesus and Mary. Secondly, the graces of the sacraments are very special and powerful and have a certain pre-eminence. Lastly, a special call to apostolic-ecclesial service does set one aside and above the ordinary pursuits of society. And so, a celibate, ordained, and apostolic Christian has a special pre-emience. But that does not translate into personal holiness. Indeed, more is expected of such a person and failure in holiness for this special one is more gravely sinful. Additionally, within a genuine Catholic culture there are clearly three privileged and sacred roles. First, those who suffer, physically or psychologically, have a special closeness to Christ and are to be honored. Secondly, those who identify closely with the poor and suffering have a particularly strong blessing. Lastly, and especially in a society so misguided as our own, a special honor is due those who witness to truth in catechesis, teaching, preaching and writing. Great is the need for such witness!

Suprised by Grace: An American Beauty

In the 1999 classic American Beauty Kevin Spacey gives an astonishing performance as Lester, a no-life conformist suburbanite who breaks free from stale job and sterile marriage to embark on a journey of liberation by buying a hot rod, surrendering to his lustful fantasy about his daugher's sexy cheerleader friend, working out, smoking very good pot, venting his anger at his wife (a hilarious, delightful Annete Bening) and fleeing to a job with very, very low responsibility (flipping burgers at a fast food place.) His is the quintessential male midlife crisis. A psychologist would call this regression. His path would warm the hearts of Marcuse, Reich, Kinsey, Mead and all the geniuses of perversion who inspired the Cultural Revolution that transformed our society in the decades leading to this movie. Common sense (that has become uncommon since the 1960s) would see that this is a path to futility and despair. But the movie has a delightful, supernatural surprise in store! The story is narrated by the voice of the now deceased Lester in a tone of deep appreciation and peace from a heavenly, but not stereotypicaly  pious perspective. The object of his lust is an arrogant, aggressive, and seductive young blonde. The plot builds to the climax: he finally "gets" her as she surrenders herself. As he unbuttons her blouse, something deeper is unveiled. Timidly, fearfully she says: "This is my first time. I am sorry I am not better at this!"  Her facade has disappeared and she shows her real, vulnerable self.  Lester smiles lovingly, paternally. He reaches for a shirt and covers her protectively. He embraces her tenderly, chastely. In an instant they are both transformed...A Miracle! Through no merit or effort of his own, Lester is granted a revelation, a manifestation...of  the truer, deeper beauty, indeed the splendor, of this precious, fragile, misguided young woman. And this awakens within him, at last, his own greatness as a man, his paternity, his true virility. Lester's narrative is illuminated by that of his mentor: his daughter's adolescent boyfriend who is at the same time a drug user and dealer and a genius and mystic who may be mentally unstable. He explains that he had heard a heavenly voice assure him that "there is nothing to fear, ever!" and he had come to experience the heart-piercing Beauty that surrounds and permeates everything. Through the influence of his deviant saintly mentor and the self-disclosure of his Beloved, Lester is drawn into the Kingdom of Delight and Goodness! This movie is especially refreshing for a believer in that it entirely transcends moralism:  not only is Lester not trying to be good, but he is trying to be bad. But where sin abounds, so much more does grace! Something mysterious, efficacious, transcendent intervenes to bring him Joy and make him good. Balthasar would approve: it is Beauty that finally triumphs, not our own feeble efforts at virtue or vice...in a Drama of sheer Splendor! We see that his ridiculous, embarassing erotic fascination and her manipulative seductiveness were both mysteriously anticipatory of a heavenly Encounter, a genuine Event of piercing Loveliness!

Josephite Homosexual Union?

Fr. Groeschel said: "I would not have expected this, but I have come to know homosexual couples who out of love  for each other and God  have returned to the Church and a chaste life together as brothers." So interesting!  It is not at all uncommon, a gay friend assured me last week, that one or both members of gay or lesbian relationship lose interest in sex due to age, health, medicines and such.  He was interested in my thoughts about his budding romance. I cautioned:  every romance is doomed to self-destruct  eventually ... and the higher you go the deeper you fall ... after which there is heartbreak or transformation into something deeper and truer... a love rooted in forgiveness and contrition, generosity, faith and sacrifice. I recalled a homosexual couple who have taken in about a dozen disabled children and I remembered the worst of the aids epidemic and the many who cared for  their loved ones through suffering onto death.  I assured him of my prayers for his relationship but made it clear that that prayer included chastity. He was less than enthused  with the blessing. Later I thought to myself:  how about something like a Josephite union for such a couple?  In Catholic tradition a Josephite marriage is like that of Mary and St. Joseph: a real marriage but without sexual intercourse. To my knowledge, the Church has no definite teaching on such and it seems in tension with our pronounced emphasis on the procreative meaning of marriage.  But in unique and unusual cases, it seems to have borne fruit.  The Maritains (Jacques and Raissa) famously consecrated their union to a mission of truth. The blessed Quatrocci couple made the vow after having children... a more normal path. The Martin couple (parents of St. Terese) lived thus until directed otherwise by their spiritual director. I have known of one such couple in my own community. Could a homosexual couple, male or female, live together chastely in something like a marital union? It seems to me that such is not impossible and not wrong. I suspect many couples have lived thus...quietly, humbly, anonymously. It seems particularly congenial to the feminine psyche. Our sexual yearnings, I deeply believe, are informed by a deeper emotional/spiritual hunger for loving communion. We cannot rule out that Grace might create a true, holy union in a same-sex partnership.  It is unusual but not forbidden and might well be a holy thing.  I cannot imagine that the Church could officially, in principle,  endorse such a union, if it has not done so for heterosexual couples. And our understanding of gender, complimentarity and the marital union clearly indicate that a same-sex union by its nature would be less than fully conjugal. Nevertheless, it seems to me possible that such a friendship might participate, in a less than full manner, in the graces of spousal love if it is informed by purity, abstinence, generosity, compassion, mutual forgiveness and contrition, faith and a shared mission of love. I can imagine a spiritual director finding grace and sacrifice in such a companionship and encouraging participation in the sacraments if appearance of scandal is avoided. Wise discretion would be necessary but we want to always be open to the surprising workings of grace!

Icons of Satan: Best Movie Villians

Watching Johnny Depp’s portrayl of Whitey Bolger in “Black Mass” I was inspired: “This guy is SO bad! I want to be as good as he is bad! I want to be powerfully good: pulling others with me into God’s life as he pulled the FBI and police and all his cronies into his fevered psychopathology!” A really, really bad bad guy is a mavel: a really bad bad guy is strong, courageous, resourceful, brilliant, purposeful, resolute and fearless. These are all, of course, good qualities, worthy of emulation…but unfortunately misdirected. The final purpose of the bad guy is that he elicits the greater strength and heroism of the good guy: when the bad guy is really bad, the good guy has to be really good, and even stronger in courage, resolution, and intelligence. Consider Lucifer himself: he was God’s finest creation, splendid in beauty, intelligence and power. With his fall, these qualities did not evaporate, but became directed against God Himself. There is a greatness, as Milton intuited, to Satan and his rebellion. But his excessive evil only elicits the greater splendor of the Protagonist: Jesus our Lord! So we do well to contemplate Satan and his kingdom and his power: recall the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius! And we do well to consider icons of Satan in the movies. Below are my 12 best villains: Honorable Mention goes to three outstanding performances which are really over-the-top, surreal and so mega-dramatic as to be unrealistic but quite delightful to behold: Daniel Day Lewis as Bill the Butcher in “Gangs of NY,” Al Pacino as Lucifer himself in “The Devil’s Advocate” and Jack Nicholson’s Joker. Another honorary mention goes to Satan as seen in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” in which the en-fleshed but de-gendered demon coveys a bottomless perversity. 12. Lee Marvin’s Liberty Valence is so tough and bad and mean but John Wayne’s Tom Donifon is just that much tougher: who could forget the scene when bully Valence trips the Jimmy Stewart character and laughs with malicious glee and then the Wayne voice, virile and calm and confident is heard: “That was my steak, Valence!” 11. Johnny Friendly, portrayed by Lee J Cobb in “On the Waterfront,” a classic dock mobster, very realistic, eventually elicits the heroism of Brando’s Terry Malloy. 10. Ernest Borgnine, Fatso in “From Here to Eternity,” is the quintessential bully but don’t you just love the Montgomery Cliff and Frank Sinatra characters all the more! 9. Michael and Vito Corleone, of Godfather fame, are themselves protagonists and glamorous ones at that so somewhat defective as villains. But the acting was superlative! 8. Nurse Ratchet (Louise Fletcher) in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” is the only female to make the list (although most lists include the Wicked Witch of the West) but has a place of honor because the perversion of femininity is so much worse than that of masculinity. “The perversion of the best is the worst.” 7. Bane (Tom Hardy) in “The Dark Knight Rises” is high on the list because he is SO strong that he overcomes our hero Batman…penultimately…to our distress! 6. Whitey Bolger, acted by Johnny Depp in “Black Mass” is a real person, still alive and in prison, who is preternatural if not supernatural in his cruelty, notably to women. His misogyny alone identifies him deeply with Lucifer and puts him in a class of his own. 5. Amon Goeth, in a brilliant performance by Ralph Fiennes in “Schindler’s List” was also a real Nazi whose sheer, exuberant cruelty seems to overwhelm the kindness and courage of Schindler. In this world, in history this side of the parousia, goodness is always fragile and vulnerable before real Evil. 4. Darth Vadar, especially in the original “Star Wars” is unequalled for menacing strength. Ultimately, of course, he converts. He himself is subservient to the Emperor Palptine. The later is arguably a greater villain but he never rises to the level of menace that Vadar portrays with his breathing and posture in the earliest films. 3. Hannibal Lecter, an unforgettable Anthony Hopkins in “Silence of the Lambs,” is virtually invincible in every dimension but especially for his intelligence, a fundamental ingredient in every great villain. 2. Kaiser Soze, Kevin Spacey in “The Ususal Suspects,” is comparable to Lecter in brilliance and fearlessness and power. But there is a light, serendipitous touch to this film so he may not merit such a high rating. But he is my favorite. 1. The Joker, Keith Ledger in “The Dark Knight,” is number one for many reasons. He manifests the sheer transcendence of evil: he is evil beyond nature and humanity. Especially memorable is the scene in which he burns all the money to the horror of the criminals. He is beyond mere greed: he is pure evil. The performance by Ledger is unequalled. Nicholson’s had a tongue-in-cheek quality to it so we felt we were laughing with him. Not so with Ledger: he seemed to give himself over to the character. It is deeply frightening. A genuine icon of evil! These icons of the Kingdom of Darkness are worth considering! May we ourselves, in a counter-emulation, give ourselves over to the Kingdom of Light…ferociously, intelligently, courageously, purposefully, exuberantly…along with Schinler and Terry Malloy, and Luke Skywalker/Obi-Wan-Kenobi and Bruce Wayne and all the Communion of Saints!