Confusion about Holy Orders in the Magisterium of Pope Francis

 The sharp clergy/laity binary is crystal clear and decisive for the structure of Catholicism. The clergy or hierarchy or priesthood is:

- Continuance of the apostolic college of 12 specific men designated by Christ to do his work.

- Endowed with the charism, authority and mission to teach, sanctify (especially through the sacramental economy) and govern the Church.

- A clearly defined clerical cult that is carefully chosen and vetted, very thoroughly trained, entirely masculine, normally celibate, vowed to obedience to the Church, and highly esteemed by the laity.

By contrast, we laity are not passive, but primarily receptive in our communion with the Church. We receive the Word of God, the sacramental actions, the sanctifying Holy Spirit. We are the bride, responding to the initiatives of the Groom; we are sons and daughters of Mother Church; we are the (hopefully good) soil that receives the seed. 

We are active, not passive members of the Communion that is the Church. But as lay we are first and foremost receptive. There are specific activities and ministries that we perform. Especially (for me) catechesis as well as theology which includes laity. Within the liturgy itself we have lectors, choir, ushers, altar servers and other. Nevertheless, we are primarily receptive of the graces Christ pours upon his people, through the sacramental events presented by the priesthood.

Filled up with God's grace in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, we reemerge into our worlds...family, work, culture, politics, entertainment, etc....with an overflow and radiance of faith and love to enlighten, relieve, comfort, encourage, evangelize, catechize and instruct those around us.

And so, we see two distinct arenas: the Church proper (worship, teaching, common life) which is the specific expertise (by training and the sacrament of Holy Orders) of priests and the secular, extra-ecclesial, world of family, work, politics, culture and society which is the domain of the laity in its diversity and complexity.  Priests/bishops have a special charism for ecclesial live; laity properly minister in all shared areas of life. Priests have no particular expertise in secular/lay areas; the laity lack the specific charism for ecclesial life.

The magisterium of Pope Francis has confused this distinction in two ways: "synodality" and his political agenda.

"Synodality"

The core concern of "synodality" seems to be that we listen to each other, all of us, especially bishops who rule the Church. This is correct of course. Listening to each other within the Church is what breathing is to the body: essential. This goes without saying. We cannot possibly be too attentive, empathetic, open-minded, curious, affirmative, tender and reverent in our reception of each other...even those in error/sin or those hostile to us.

But is it a good idea to institutionalize this in bureaucratic forms? In mandatory, expensive, extended gatherings? And then endow these meetings with "synodality," a vague, undefined authority that seems to replace that assigned by ordination to bishops? No! Not a good idea!

Endowing these new, mixed lay/clerical "synods" with authority is an insult to sacrament of Holy Orders and the priesthood/episcopacy. It confuses things: replacing traditional episcopal authority with a convoluted faith in a group process.

The fascination with "synodality" as a novel process, promising a new Church, is reminiscent of the obsession, in the late 1960s and 70s, with group dynamics such as encounter/sensitivity sessions, flowing from the humanistic psychology of Rogers, Maslow and others. These were popular, influential and largely destructive, particularly in religious orders that embraced them, as they exalted anti-traditional values like authenticity, transparency, autonomy,  unrestrained expressiveness in aggression/ sexuality, triumph of the therapeutic and the narcissistic/sovereign Self. 

In part, "synodality" flows from Francis' resentful judgment against a hierarchy viewed as "clerical" in the negative sense: detached, arrogant, condescending, and rigid. This has been a strong theme in this papacy: clergy/episcopacy as removed from real human suffering, ceremonial, moralistic, dogmatic, and superior. There is no doubt some truth in this perspective. But his transparent, emotional aversion, joined with the manipulative strategy to undo it bureaucratically is not a fruitful approach. Long term, it will provoke negative reaction from younger clergy who are more conservative than Francis and his generation.

Traditionalists look to the past at a defining, revelatory event, in our case the Pasch of Jesus, and a history, in our case the saints, dogma, practices through the centuries. This is not a static museum-type thing; but an organic, living, fruitful and creative development. By contrast, progressives in some form despise the past and look to the future to overcome it whether through science/technology, education, therapy, sexual liberation, or revolution of the oppressed. Pope Francis, always complicated and confusing, looks to the future, to "synodality" as a messianic dynamic. Such does not flow organically from our tradition, but contradicts it, specifically regarding ordination. It is an implicit ingratitude to our legacy of faith.

A Clericalist, Political Agenda

About a year ago, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark declared in a lecture that Francis is the protagonist opposed to Trump and the new wave of rightwing populists. He meant it to be flattering; it was in fact a damning condemnation. But it was the truth. Francis has strenuously, systemically advocated a clear, developed political agenda for the world: open borders, capital punishment as absolutely prohibited (instead of the traditional Catholic view of it as a prudential option), global warming as a priority, distaste for American conservatism (even the prolife movement), and a soft pacifism that (initially) treated the Russian invasion of the Ukraine as understandable but the Israeli action in Gaza as genocide. 

By virtue of his sacramental ordination, his education, and his natural temperament, our Holy Father has no charism or expertise in matters of diplomacy and politics. His area is faith and morals. Ironically, he sees himself as a populist, but positions himself against the populist movements which he broadly condemns, aligning himself as "chaplain" of the progressive Western program on these issues. Even more ironically, the anti-clericalist pope shows himself to be blatantly clericalist (in the worst sense) as he uses his sacral position to advance a political agenda to his own liking. In doing so, he loses his position as detached, transcendent and free to speak prophetically to all political actors.

Conclusion

Our priesthood/episcopacy is under attack from all directions. The scandal. The Dallas Charter in which the bishops betrayed our priests. Continued tolerance of abuse in Rupnik and other cases. Decline in vocations. We see in the above further insult and injury: "synodality" as disrespectful of holy orders; papal aversion to an alleged clericalism; and the papal, clericalist intrusion into the secular on behalf of a progressive political agenda.

A fine Catholic theologian serenely replied to me, after I voiced concerns similar to the above, "Our next pope will have a lot of work to do in unraveling so much." 

We pray for our pope, bishops, priests...and for vocations:

Come Holy Spirit!

Chivalry, Femininity/Masculinity, and the Heroic Vocations

 The heroic vocations inherently include willingness to die in the agonistic combat with violent, hostile forces: soldier, police, firefighter. That is why they are heroic.

They are quintessentially masculine as they engage the primal virile mission: protection and provision for the community and the vulnerable, especially the mother with children. Masculinity itself is defined as strength in such protection and provision. This strength itself is further informed by humility, gentleness, chastity, sobriety, prudence and justice.

Chivalry is far more than an antiquated medieval code or a style of politeness and niceness. It is the defining, virtuous, reverent, tender, virile posture, towards women, children, the suffering and vulnerable of protective, nurturing strength informed by humility, gentleness, chastity, courage, and prudence.

Chivalry is a masculine, not a feminine and not an androgynous ethos. A man holds the door for a woman; ladies before gentlemen. These are simple but significant symbols of a chivalrous way of life.

The Catholic form of chivalry proposed here is best understood as the commingling of the heroic, noble, honor-based ethos of traditional warrior cultures with the following of Jesus up the hill of Calvary. If Catholicism is the fruit of Athens, Jerusalem and Rome; chivalry merges Sparta and Nazareth. It is a cult of courage, strength, sacrifice, brotherhood, combat. But the negatives of that warrior ethos...male dominance, pride, cruelty, tribalism...are leavened by the spirit of the beatitudes...humility, service, compassion, mercy, magnanimity.

The fierce, aggressive, passionate, selfish male urges must be shaped, in a long itinerary of formation, into a virtuous posture, especially to women/children/vulnerable, in camaraderie with brothers, of humility, courage, chastity, and generosity. Women do not require such a rigorous program of mentoring, testing, discipline, encouragement and eventual installation. Maternity, in contrast with paternity, is more instinctive and natural.

The deconstruction of masculinity/femininity, especially the rituals/practices/values of the chivalrous code, is THE DEFINING CATASTROPHE OF OUR SOCIETY.

Chivalry requires filial reverence and obedience to elders, tradition, and authority. Reception of authority, in free submission, leads eventually to an endowment of such authority. This is not power, as the forceful overpowering of others, but authority as a representation of transcendental Truth, Good and Beauty.

Chivalry requires  the camaraderie, brotherhood, in mutual loyalty, fidelity to higher causes, wholesome competition, shared generosity, and chaste intimacy.

Chivalry requires, in relationship to women, the comfort/confidence/mutuality of brother/sister; a modest, proper distance; and a maturity and moderation in expressions of affection and attraction.

There is a proper and fruitful place in society for same-sex association. Obviously in athletics. But generally, women and men both require spaces to engage with each other without the other sex. This happens spontaneously: in gatherings of family and friends, much of the time is spent, fluidly, in separate gatherings as we share our common interests. 

When men and women each develop strong, intimate friendships with their own gender they satisfy much of their emotional needs for love and closeness. This is healthy in that they bring less neediness to romance and marriage. The crisis in marriage, with divorce rate around 50%, and the difficulties our youth face in courtship, are in some degree rooted in the attack upon single sex cultures. For this reason I strongly favor same-sex high schools. The best preparation for marriage is solid same sex friendships, through high school and college, with avoidance of heavy sexual and romantic involvements.

In chivalrous masculine culture men encourage each other in reverence and tenderness towards women. Such a culture requires segregation. We see this in sports, priesthood, military, police, fire and various associations.

In my UPS delivery days, I recall one Christmas working on my truck with a helper and a supervisor, a sweet, competent, attractive Afro-American woman of slight build. We were loaded down with hundreds of packages. Early in the morning she became sick in her stomach. We decided to leave her at the local library where she made a call and returned to the center. My response to her was emotional: very paternal, protective and tender. I was quite distracted from our "mission" until we left her at the library. If that were a sturdy male, I would have been far less tender and distracted. I would have detached and focused upon my work and left him to take care of himself. 

Is that a double standard? Absolutely! And a wholesome, chivalrous one!

I like this hypothetical: The high school boys and girls swimming teams are on a cruise in the Caribbean when the boat begins to sink, far from land. There are 10 girls and 10 boys but the lifeboat holds only 10. Who goes on the boat? This is a no-brainer to the chivalrous mind: the girls of course. But in an androgynous world this does not work. The coach might pick the weakest swimmers. Or, possibly there would be chaotic competition with most of the stronger boys prevailing.

In general, women do not belong in military combat, firefighter duty, and much of police work. These agonistic, forceful engagements require, even more than physical strength,  a detachment and a focus upon the mission. Fighting a fire, an enemy or a fire in the company of women is a detriment as one's chivalrous instincts detract from the battle.

Several years ago a NYC fireman was telling me that his station had a new woman captain. The men did not trust her. They already had a plan for the next fire by which they would circumvent her leadership. This is a problem. I would leave the fire department to men. This is not a terrible injustice!

I  do have high esteem for women police due to our experience at Magnificat Home. We have had perhaps 100 visits from the Jersey City police over the years. They are always a diverse group ethnically, professional, courteous, and often include one or more women. The women are especially good at deflating our problematic crises: compassionate, comforting and reassuring to our women who are upset or in conflict. A large, strong, male policeman in uniform with gun protruding simply cannot be as comforting as a smaller woman.

It is an unfortunate that these vocations do attract a number of violent, sociopathic an predatory men. These are often powerful, charismatic individuals who draw others into supporting their violence by virtue of the code of loyalty that binds men joined in life-threatening combat. This makes it all the more important that young men of good character serve in these arenas.

Let's bring back virile character, chivalry and the cult of heroism!

The Paradox of the Good and the Bad in a "Great Man of History": Donald Trump

In my lifetime (b.1947) there are perhaps six "great men" who have immensely influenced our world, for good or bad, changing the direction of history: Stalin, Mao, Churchill, Gandhi (including his influence on ML King), Ronald Reagan and John Paul II. Clearly, the first two were for the bad; the last four the good.

Donald Trump is well on his way to joining this elite group. He has singlehandedly reconfigured the political culture of our nation; and is now working upon the globe. But for the good or the bad? He is larger than life; a superhero/villain out of Marvel comics. Amazingly polarizing! About 40% of us see him as a pure evil; about 40% dismiss his flaws and see him as our salvific hero. A smaller number of us enjoy some clarity and sobriety in seeing both sides. 

Ten Best Things

1. From the perspective of the unborn, he is the liberational champion of the ages. Specifically in his court appointments. Liberals disparage his sincerity and intentions. It is best not to judge the heart of another. But we can and must judge actions and policies: on this he is both great and good!

2. Singlehandedly, he has stopped (at least for now) the "march through the institutions" by the progressive cultural revolutionaries. When DEI, LGBTQ and the woke axis had near total control of all the higher institutions of society, he rallied moral conservatives and disgruntled populists to stop the crusade. This is truly breathtaking and encouraging!

3. Religious liberty. Traditional Christians, Catholic and Evangelical/Pentecostal, have in him a genuine champion as he protects our freedom from the quiet, insidious totalitarianism of the cultural left.

4. Populist: He voices the dissatisfaction of the lower classes in a society that increasingly privileges the already wealthy and educated. He has not proposed a viable agenda to correct things. But he does voice their grief in his defiance of the liberal hegemony.

5. Globally, he already sensed the changing dynamics of our world: the emergence of a hostile China; the necessity for Europe to take responsibility for NATO; the toxicity of Iran; the limits of American power in a multi-polar world.

6. The Abrahamic Accords, in aligning Israel with the Sunni states against Iran, is especially prescient and promising.

7. He closed our southern border.

8. He is in many (but not all) ways a strong, courageous, energetic, virile man. His fist pump, after being shot, blood running down his cheeks, became an unforgettable icon of virility and drew many young men, across races and ethnicities, to him. His level of energy since taking office, contrast to Biden, is extraordinary.  He represents in some degree a cultural resurgence (albeit crude) of masculinity.

9. Shamelessly transparent in his many ugly dimensions, he is refreshingly free of any self-righteous, hypocritical, moralistic facades. He is wildly interesting and entertaining: a true celebrity. Politics for him is largely performance, histrionics and camp. He is very good at this.

10. I can only think of 9. But I have 11 negatives for an even 20 total.

Ten Worst Things

1. In his bottomless narcissism, he is entirely indifferent to Truth and disconnected in major ways from reality.

2. The contempt he shows for others...opponents, foreigners, women...is morally despicable. In ordinary times, this alone would disqualify him for boy scout leader, much less president. As a role model (which is a huge part of his job) he is a catastrophe!

3. His personal vindictiveness and resentment are unmanly, cowardly and toxic for politics and culture.

4. So voracious is his expansive Ego that he has no respect for institutions. These he uses for his own enrichment as he is the epitome of the Narcissistic Personality of our times. 

5. More specifically, he has little regard for constitutional order, the rule of law, or protocols of ordinary decency as he expands the executive office without restraint. 

6. In policy he is impulsive, irrational and lacking in any clarity and coherence. This includes tariffs, diplomacy, and every aspect. This makes for uncertainty, instability and anxiety. Very dangerous diplomatically. (Even as this very unpredictability may deter bad actors.)

7. He  appeals to base populist instincts, anxiety and resentment, inflaming them without directing them in a positive directions.

8. In his contempt for his political adversaries, he polarizes the society and heightens anxiety, anger, distrust and sadness.

9. His MAGA agenda is xenophobic, jingoistic, and alienating of our allies in a multi-polar world where alliances will be crucial to prevail against the various axes of evil.

10. His idolization of and infatuation with Putin is idiotic, insane and extremely dangerous.

11. He shows little empathy for the poor and suffering. Specifically, his tax plans emphasize tax cuts for the investor class, arguing the "trickle down theory" that an expansive economy favors all, even as he increases the national debt with inflationary consequences. On another front, the abrupt curtailing of USAID funds for the poor overseas was breathlessly coldhearted.

How do we weigh these 11 negatives against the 9 positives? This is a subjective, prudential decision; almost a Rorschach test.  Even two or three of the negatives should disqualify him. But, the deeper weakness and depravity of the alternative party serve to highlight his strengths and diminish his weaknesses. That (more than the price of eggs or an alleged "white racism") is why he was elected.

Letter to Grandchildren: On the Vocation of Soldier/Police/Firefighter

 I would call these the heroic vocations, or the anti-violence vocations: you place your life in the line of fire, risking death, to protect the community from violence. They, in my view, are the very highest secular vocations. They are inferior, of course, to the priesthood and religious life, which are of their very nature, objectively closer to Christ. (Subjectively, we know, many lay people are deeply holy; and some priests and religious are deeply sinful.)

Yesterday Luke visited West Point and was favorably impressed. Fr. Gabe Costa, friend of Fr. Joe, chaplain and math professor, explained that the place resembles a seminary in its formative dimension, unlike most college life. Tommy has also expressed interest. I would never push anyone towards or away from a specific vocation: this is a matter of the heart and mind in union with God. But we do well to consider the nature and value of different vocations. 

Our family leans overwhelmingly into human services: psychology, medicine, teaching. We have no one in the fire or police departments. Paul Anthony served in the army as JAG lawyer; cousin Connor is a DOJ prosecutor, which is very close to police work. Going back in time, all of my five uncles (4 Laracy and 1 Gallagher) served honorably in World War II. Uncle Jack Laracy fought with Patton. Uncle Bill Gallagher was awarded the Purple Heart (wounded in battle) and went on to serve many years, secretively, in army intelligence.

My generation came of age in the anti-military fervor of the Vietnam war era. We boomers, especially the loudest, cockiest and most influential of us, have carried a prejudice against the military. In liberal and progressive circles (but not in the lower echelons of society, or the South) a cloud of shame hangs over things military. There abides a soft pacifism that blames American militarism, imperialism, and colonialism for much of our global violence. And so: the oil greed of the USA fuels the turmoil in the Middle East; NATOs ambitions regarding Ukraine triggered Putin's invasion. 

When Obama took office, there were great expectations for an era of peace, especially in the Middle East: he would break with the oil fascination and Neo-conservative militarism of Bush with his own Muslim background and his enlightened reasonableness and inclination to dialogue. What ensued, of course, was that the entire region exploded in violence. This was neither caused by nor could it have been prevented by Obama. But it unveils the illusory progressive optimism that underlaid the scapegoating of American power as the root of all evil.

Denial of Evil: The Root Error of Progressivism. Secular progressivism most fundamentally denies the realities of sin (original, mortal and venial), Satan, and hell....the world, the flesh and the devil...our perennial enemies! It confesses that these are myths, non-entities, and that we humans can bring happiness by our own agency through: therapy, education, negotiation, open-mindedness, science, technology, globalism rather than nationalism/localism, the inevitable "arc of history," the "awokening" of the oppressed and victory over the oppressors. And so, we can: defund the police; disarm ourselves; embrace anti-racism and the entire woke agenda; liberate our sexuality; empower the enlightened, liberal, mother-state; and live in utopia here on earth forever.

Evil today. Consider:

- The details of the Hamas attack on Oct 7, 2023.  The rape, torture and murder, even of mothers and children in each others presence. The continued captivity of the hostages. The placement of Hamas militia in hospitals, schools, nurseries.

- Russia's unprovoked invasion of the Ukraine with its relentless bombing of civilian populations.

- The massive, near total suppression of human rights and dignity in China, North Korea as well as Cuba, Venezuela and now Nicaragua. 

- Gangs currently being deported (Tren de Agua) ritualistically torture their murder victims. A member is in charge of "dismemberment."

- Heroic Vocations are those which directly engage such evil: soldier, police, firefighter. They risk their lives to protect the rest of us. These are the most courageous, noble, and virtuous of professions. Each requires an extraordinary degree of virtue...patience, restraint, forgiveness...in order to engage such evil but not be drawn into it. 

A vocation to the military, police or fire department is similar to the calling to priesthood. It is a special mission; requires unusual virtue; is absolutely necessary for the good of the entire community. In elite, liberal culture they are widely disparaged as being violent, corrupt, racist. These field do attract some bad types: sociopaths, borderlines, bullies. But the heart and soul of these careers are noble an heroic.  

These can involve the use of force, including lethal force, in the service of anti-violence. Such force, even when lethal, is essentially non-violent as it is defensive of innocent life and of the good of the community. We will be quite proud if any of our young people are drawn, in God's providence, to such service.

Cardinal Parolin: Diplomacy of Illusion

Our Vatican Secretary of State has condemned the rearming of Europe: "if we make arms we will use them." Actually, if we make them we may deter Putin; if we do not we will be overcome by him and others. Parolin is in denial: of the reality of Evil... in Putin, but also in Chinese Communism, Jihadist Islam, and sexual depravity in Catholic clergy. 

The indulgence toward Putin, Xi, and Hamas is of the same type as the tolerance of Rupnik, McCarrick and a legion of clerical predators. The root cause seems to be a superficial, overly positive view of human nature. Such a rosy, Pollyanna view of life is the heart of the progressive vision: we can find happiness and salvation through education, science/technology, therapy, sexual liberation, diplomatic negotiation and defeat of the oppressor classes. Our tragedy is that such a view has penetrated much of our hierarchy and clergy.

One of the greatest strengths of the Catholic view of life is realism about Evil: sin (original, mortal, venial), the demonic, and judgement including hell. Such tough realism has been largely replaced by a soft, quasi-passivist, effete ethos of cheap compassion. The gospel of Mercy prevalent in the current pontificate is toxic, unlike that of St. John Paul, in that it is not balanced by truth, judgment, and wrath. This leads in the real world to capitulation to the predators: clerical, Communist, imperialist, and Jihadist.

The Vatican as a sovereign state has not years, not centuries, but millennia of diplomatic experience. Its historical memory well knows the realities of "the world, the flesh and the devil." But an amnesia seems to have set in over the last decade as the Francis papacy has assumed a role as chaplain to Western Progressivism and advocated a particular ideology involving disarmament, immigration, climate, death penalty and other.

Through most of my adult life I consulted respectfully the diplomatic announcements of the papacy. Clearly, the infallibility in faith and morals does not include the diplomatic and the political. Yet, the Vatican has, in addition to an incomparable historic memory, a distinct and privileged position: truly global, it pledges allegiance to no nation, alliance or ideology. It communicates daily with clergy all over the world and so has a truly international, and (as close to as possible) a transcendent perspective. With recent developments I no longer extend such respect to the voices around the pope.

In Talking with Strangers, Malcom Gladwell points out that we are normally vulnerable to deceit because our social life requires a level of trust. Con men, sociopaths and predators often prevail because most of us properly work from an assumptive trust. Perhaps the most gullible and vulnerable among us are, ironically, the more virtuous, idealistic and altruistic. This would include, obviously, those who become priests. As a group, they are exceptional in motivation: generous, peace-seeking, open-minded, compassionate. Understandably, they project their own motivations on others. As a group, they are perhaps least personally in touch with the base, evil, violent side of human nature. This makes them the least capable of confronting the genuine evil and demonic.

This systemic blindness was countervailed in traditional Catholicism, prior to the 1960s, by closeness to death, sickness, poverty, war as well as a rigorous supernatural ethos attuned to sin, evil, and punishment. 

Perhaps the most Holy-Spirit-inspired movement within 20th century, global Catholicism was the focus upon the Divine Mercy in St. Faustina and St. John Paul. Concurrent with this are darker developments. The emergence of the therapeutic is compatible with Mercy, if situated within a traditional sense of reality. But the triumph of the therapeutic, within a broad, secularizing progressivism, leads to  disorders of indulgence, relativism, and illusion. 

So, we have seen in the last decades a perfect storm of naivete, credulity, gullibility and effete weakness as our clergy, already disposed to empathy and blind to evil, live in a denial that effectively enables evil-doers. The traditional trust in our clergy has been replaced by widespread suspicion. There is good reason for this. If our priests, because of their goodness, are systemically indisposed to agonistic engagement with evil, this weakness is intensified by the influence of the secular, therapeutic, and progressive. 

A more traditional theology does not of itself overcome sin and evil; many of our worst clerical predators (Maciel) were conservative. But a perspective rooted in our Tradition will countervail powerful, erroneous forces of modernity prevalent in our Church. 

As laity we remain filial, docile, receptive and obedient to the hierarchy in regard to dogma and worship. We do not enviously ambition, through some "synodality," to share in the apostolic authority bestowed in holy orders.  We have our own missions to perform in our world. In the current context, as we pursue our vocations, in areas of diplomacy, politics and culture we do well to receive with strict scrutiny pronouncements from a hierarchy singularly ill prepared and ill disposed to engage the powers of darkness.

Would I Vote for Trump Today? A Numerical Evaluation

For six weeks after the inauguration I exulted in the defeat of Harris and hoped for the best from Trump, that he might generally repeat his first term or improve on it. But since the meeting with Zelinskyy I have been horrified by: his Ukraine policy, disregard for the constitution and rule of law,  tariff incoherence, relentless vindictiveness, polarizing compulsions, grandiosity and narcissistic disconnect from reality. His worst character traits have been intensified by his years of battle and final victory. But when I remember Biden/Harris I recall my urgency to defeat them. For some clarity, I will attempt a numerical evaluation of our last four presidents on  7 distinct areas of importance.

First, let's identify the areas of concern along with the weight of their importance to me. Secondly, I will evaluate, on  a scale of 1 to 10 the last four presidents and so arrive at a final evaluative weight.

Culture War issues have the highest weight of 5 for me as a moral conservative: the nature of the human person (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic research), gender, sexuality and family (surrogacy, in vitro, LGBTQ), identity politics and religious freedom.

Social Justice and Solidarity including concern for the poor, suffering, marginalized carries a 2.

Personal Moral Exemplar, especially for our youth, carries a 2.

Global Diplomacy carries a 2.

Vision of the Common Good, including law/order and immigration, an ability to unite the nation thereby carries a 2.

General Competence in Governance and Diplomacy carries a 1.

Economic Policy carries a 1. 

We see that the total weight is 14; so that a perfect president would score 140; a mediocre, averaging 5, would score 70. We might think of it as a school grading; 70s is adequate, 80s good, 90s excellent.

Donald Trump 

- scores 9 out of 10 on the culture war for 45;

- 3 on social justice and solidarity for 6; 

- on personal morality he is amazingly a -3 so bad is his example for a -15; 

- on global diplomacy a 5 for a total of 10 as he is terrible on Ukraine but good on the Middle East and other; 

- vision of the common good he gets a 3 for a total of 6 for his overdue closing of the border but he is horrifically polarizing for us as a nation;

- competence gets him a low 3 for his character-based disconnect from reality and truth despite his astounding political powers for a total of 3.

-  his economic policy garners him 5 for a total of 5 as it is mixed but very confused on tariffs.   

 Total: 60.  Clearly a failing score

Biden/Harris 

- are -4 on culture war for a -20; 

- social justice and solidarity gets them a 5 as they speak for the poor but actually cater to the affluent, educated upper class for a 10.

- personal exemplar they score a 3 for a 6.

- global diplomacy they score a 3 for a 6 due to systemic weakness.

- vision of the common good they score a 3 for a 6 due to polarization and weakness, especially on the border.

- competence they garner a 3 due again to weakness, lack of energy, clarity and vision for a 3.

- economic policy they score a 3 for deficit and inflation for a 3.

Total 14. Terrible!

Barrack Obama

-Culture war scores 0 for 0.

-Social justice scores 6 for a 12 total as first black president.

- Personal exemplar scores 7 for wholesomeness despite social policies for 14.

- Diplomacy scores a moderate 6 for 12.

- Vision of common good again a moderate 6 for 12.

- Competence gets a 7 for 7.

- Economics a 7 for 7.

Total 64. Not passing. Overall slightly better than Trump despite his 0 for culture war.

George W. Bush

- culture war 8 for total of 40.

- social justice 6 (especially Africa policy and a compassionate conservatism) for 12.

- personal exemplar 8 for his decency for 16.

- diplomacy is 6. I am not as hard on him on Iraq as most are. for 12.

- vision is 6 for 12.

- competence is 6 for 6.

- economics is 6 for 6.

Total: 104.

Conclusion:   Bush 104, Obama 64, Trump 60, Biden/Harris 14. 

By this calculus I am again forced to vote for Trump because the Biden/Harris option is still SO bad.

Bush senior would be close to the score of his son.  Hillary very close to that of Obama with whom she served. Bill Clinton would be lower, not only for his personal immorality, but because there was neither remorse nor consequences with catastrophic consequences for the souls of our young. Reagan would be very high, into the 120s, because of good grades on the culture war, diplomacy (fall of Soviet Union), and personal decency. Carter, strong on personal morality and global vision with human values, would be quite low since he was on the wrong side of the culture war and was a weak president.

I am proud that most of my immediate family voted for neither Trump nor Harris. Many of my conservative friends dismiss or underestimate the depravities of Trump. Most of my progressive Catholic family and friends share my values but prefer to displace and ignore the culture war issues as personal, rather than political: a catastrophic judgment!

Let's bring back the Bushes! Is Jed Bush still around?

The Israeli War in Gaza: A Just War Dilemna!

 Pope Francis and the Catholic bishops of the Holy Land have unequivocally condemned the Israeli assault on Gaza as unjust. While their reasoning, from classic just war principles, is sound, I do not share their moral clarity and certitude. The magnitude of civilian suffering and death would normally rule this as unjust; but this situation is highly unusual.

An Unusual Situation

The primary reality is that Hamas is embedded in civilian locations, including even hospitals and schools. To simplify, this leaves the Israelis with the choice:  protect themselves by endangering Palestinian civilians or refrain and  leave their own population eventually unprotected. Given this simple binary, the responsibility of the state is clear: to protect its own population.

Additionally, the Gazans en masse support Hamas. They celebrated the October 7 attack. They are then in some degree not innocents, but morally complicit as quasi-combatants. This is a total war, with the population of Gaza committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. In this context the principles of Just War become questionable.

Add to this: Israel is attacked not only by Hamas, but by Hezbollah, the Houtis and Iran. The entire Muslim Arab world favors their destruction. 

If that is not enough: the Progressive Left of the West has now configured Israel as the oppressor and the Gazans as the oppressed. Much of the world sympathizes with this version of things. That leaves the USA as their lone ally against a hostile world. 

All of this is considered in light of the Holocaust and a long history of violence against Jews.

Palestinian Bishops

The condemnation by the Palestinian bishops, led by the esteemed Cardinal Pizzaballa, is understandable. As Arabs they are victims of the assault. Most importantly, even if they entertained some ambivalence, it would be suicidal to express this as they are far move endangered by hostile Muslim Arabs than by a Jewish state that is capable of some moral restrain. 

Pope Francis

The strong condemnation from the Pope is more problematic. Every day he speaks by phone to the single Catholic parish in Gaza. Obviously, this has aroused his empathy for the Arab victims. This would be commendable for an ordinary Catholic, a movement to the margins and the suffering. Is it appropriate for the Pope to position himself so markedly on one side of a war?

He is the pope for every parish, order, ecclesial community. In a real sense, he is "papa" for the entire world, including Muslims and Jews. In his papal ministry, he has accentuated (to a fault?) this more-than-ecclesial, global role (climate, immigration, etc.). He is already by temperament emotional with diminished capacity for abstraction, detachment and objectivity. In this instance, his daily phone call clearly inclines him to favor the Arabs over the Jews, in appearance and inevitably in fact.

This is worse given the history of Catholic and Christian hostility to the Jews. It is worse than worst given the global hatred for Israel and the Jews across the Muslim world and the progressive West. It might appear that he is jumping on the bandwagon of beating up on the Jews...again!

His positioning here contrasts sharply with his posture, early on especially, on the Ukraine war where he assumed a neutrality, apparently hoping to broker a peace, and refrained from condemning what is far more obviously an unjust war. In the one case he risks the appearance of indifference to the suffering of the Jews, in the other to the plight of the Ukrainians. The charism of infallibility, in morals and faith, clearly does not extend to diplomacy.

President Biden and Trump

Biden was a loyal ally to Israel even as he pressured them to exercise restraint in regard to civilians. This would be one of the few things that I believe Biden got right. He attempted a deliberate balance in which he offended strong defenders of both Israel and Hamas. 

But he is in part the root cause for this war in his indulgence and weakness towards Iran. It was the infusion of money that allowed Iran to finance its surrogates including Hamas. 

In light of Trump's attacks this week on the Yemen Houthis, it is striking that Biden was characteristically weak in his response to the Houthi attacks on international trade. 

By contrast, Netanyahu's fierceness against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran has remade the Middle East for the better. Trump is clearly in synch with this forceful approach. That prudent use of force along with continued advances in the alliance of Israel with the Arab states may well become Trump's decisive contribution to world peace.

Reinhold Niebuhr: Private and Public Morality

We learned from Niebuhr that, for a Christian, public morality (the policy of a government) is different from that of the individual. For example, a person might be pacifist and prefer his own death to taking that of another. But a father could hardly surrender his wife and children to a homicidal assailant out of an aversion to the use of lethal force. Likewise with the state: it is required by its very nature to defend the innocent,  including use of lethal force. Personal decisions are ALWAYS finally unambiguous morally: in every situation there is a right thing to do. But policy decisions, which are comprehensive/abstract rather than concrete/situational, are always complicated, ambiguous and endlessly consequential in unexpected manners. In a personal situation, my conscience, if well-informed and prudent and sober, will direct me, however fallibly and provisionally. But with policy there is an entirely different moral and prudential calculus. We cannot apply a personal kind of moralism to the complexities of policy. This reasoning applies to all policy but especially to the use of lethal force (which is distinct from violence) in policing, war and the death penalty. 

Inherent Evils

Catholic ethics is not relativistic, situational or consequentialist in that it sees some acts as inherently evil, by way of their form or nature, regardless of intention or circumstances. This includes adultery, blasphemy, abortion, and deliberate killing of the innocent. This clear, simple principle becomes clouded by the Hamas policy of embedding themselves with civilians. By classic reasoning, a lethal strike that inevitably and directly kills innocents is not acceptable. Arguably, Israel by prewarning civilians to leave the area to be attacked has taken proper precautions. Also, as stated above, Palestinian civilians are in some degree complicit with Hamas and to that extent not protected. 

Double Standard?

Nevertheless, with my Catholic conscience I would probably have to object to the level of civilian casualties, women and children, in Gaza. Yet, I am reticent to issue a moral judgement against Israel. First of all, I am not in their situation, their battle for survival. Secondly, while the principles of the natural law, including the just war, are binding for all people, in this extreme situation I hesitate to apply them so righteously. I would hold a self-consciously Catholic or Christian government to a higher standard. Compared with the Jewish and Muslim faiths, we have a more rigorous ethic of forgiveness of the enemy and the brotherhood of all humans. I cannot hold either group to the high bar of morality demanded, even in public as different from private morality, that we hold for ourselves as disciples of Christ.

Humanitarian Aid

Another issue entirely is the withholding of aid...food, water, medicine, electricity...from the Gazans. This adds a new level of devastation that arguably does move towards genocide. If I would tolerate  Israel in their use of lethal force against Hamas, I could not accept the prevention of humanitarian assistance. It may be true that much of this aid is helping Hamas to survive and fight. Nevertheless, the toll of starvation, dehydration, and sickness imposed upon the broader populace cannot be justified. 

On this issue, it is my view that the President of the USA is obliged to draw a definite, firm red line: prevention of such aid will incur the suspension of our assistance to the state. This is a strong position but is, in my view, morally obligatory.

Conclusion

As a Catholic I cherish a special love for the Jewish people. As an American I respect them as an ally and defender of democracy and the freedoms. Regarding Zionism and Israel's policies and practices I of course reserve freedom of opinion. With the Trump diplomacy I hope for a strengthening of the Israel alliance with the Sunni states and a diminished Iran. Regarding the Israeli use of force, including civilian casualties, I reserve judgment due to the complexity of the situation. But the withdrawal of humanitarian aid is not morally acceptable. On this we as a nation cannot be complicit.