The Great Catholic Counter-Liberation 1968-2025

Catholicism: Attacks and Counteroffensives 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vatican II

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

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

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

-A return to the sources of the early Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic Counter-Liberation

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

Let's go back to 1968. The Cultural Revolution is exploding. The thriving institutional Catholicism of the past 23 years is about to collapse catastrophically. Mainstream Catholic leadership and theology is clueless. I myself am a mild-mannered, introverted student spending endless hours in the Fleckinstein Philosophy Reading room, Maryknoll College Seminary, with the uber-Catholicism of Etienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain and Ivan Illich. 

Catholic charismatic renewal is spreading from its birth in Duquesne University in 1967 to Clark/Martin in Ann Arbor, to Notre Dame and then beyond. The disciples of Monsignor Luigi Giussani (previously  encouraged by Archbishop Montini of Milan) form Communion and Liberation in response to the radical student rebellions.  They adopt that name signaling that genuine liberation lies in communion with Christ in his Church. Amidst that same Italian/global unrest, Chiara Lubich founds the Focolare Gen Movement for young people 15-30 years old. Kiko and Carmen arrive in Rome to spread their Neocatechumenal Way beyond Spain. Giuseppe Gennarini converts from leftwing radicalism and becomes the apostle of this "way" to the USA. Pope Paul VI, tutored by the brilliant Polish Cardinal Wojtyla, is about to issue Humanae Vitae, the defining authoritative statement that divided the conjugal mystics from the political activists. (SO MUCH is happening in Italy!) Initial conversations begin among Ratzinger, Balthasar, Boyer, DeLubac and others regarding the Communio journal to be founded in 1972. Ratzinger himself, observing the violence of the student protests, retains his theological grounding but repositions himself from Vatican II progressive to culture war conservative and publishes his influential Introduction to Christianity.  Cardinal Wojtyla initiates the beatification process for Sister Faustina of the Divine Mercy as he develops his catechesis on sexuality, covertly wages war with hegemonic Communism, and becomes famous for his support of the Jews among anti-Semitic student protests. Mother Teresa of Calcutta expands her work around the globe as she enters her extended dark night of the soul. We see that 1968 is the year the Cultural Revolution exploded across the West; even as the Great Counter Liberation was percolating quietly, humbly, anonymously, hopefully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Great Counter Liberation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fervent Evangelical Catholics

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

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

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

Conjugal Mysticism

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

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

Differences Between John Paul and Benedict

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

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

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

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

Social Justice Activism

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

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

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

Difference Between Francis and Leo

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

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

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

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

Key Issues of Difference

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

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

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

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

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

Will Our Unity Hold?

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

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

Going Forward

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

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

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

 

 

Sin of Omission (2): Praying for My Enemies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are to me what Fredo was to Michael Corleone. 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Sin of Omission: Praying for the Souls in Purgatory

Today being the last day of November, the month of the last things and the souls in purgatory, I publicly confess: in my Catholic adulthood of 60 years I have almost never, excepting wakes and funerals, prayed for the souls in purgatory. I never confessed the sin until Friday. The priest, who is about my age, clearly resonated and seemed to almost co-confess with me.  I knew about the souls, of course. But I didn't care. Purgatory was not part of my lived world. 

It is not just me of course. I am a product of my society and age. At the time of the second Vatican Council, our society, including Catholicism, turned increasingly secular...right about 1965 as I graduated from high school. I ingested the flavor of the age and lost interest in the souls. On purgatory we Catholics for practical purposes went Protestant. No need for purification or reparation: God's mercy is all that matters. Souls pretty much go smoothly, directly to heaven: they are "in a better place." And so, we gather "to celebrate a life." Judgment, wrath, purgatory, retribution, reparation, purification...all that is SO pre-Vatican Council!

It was not always so. Medieval and Tridentine Catholicism placed great emphasis upon prayer for the souls. The Mystical Body of Christ was a sophisticated economy of grace: the saints in heaven (Triumphant) pray for us who struggle on earth (Militant) as we assist the souls in purgatory (Suffering). Prayers, masses, and sacrifices for the souls was a foundation of Catholic life. Our generation learned this from the Baltimore Catechism, but we cavalierly discarded it after the Council in our implicitly arrogant dismissal of our legacy. 

My emergent consciousness is not unrelated to my age. Born 8/20/47, I was conceived circa 11/20/46 and so have just completed 79 years alive and begun my 80th year. Life expectancy for men in the USA is around 75. So, purgatory is becoming increasingly probable and imminent!

I hope my family and friends are more diligent in prayer for my soul than I have been for those who have gone before me.

The "saint for the day" in Magnificat for November 2025 has been "saints who teach us about purgatory." This has opened my eyes. My favorite is Blessed Christina the Wonderful. She died; in the middle of her funeral mass she sat up in the casket and levitated up to the rafters of the Church. Later she explained that she had gone to heaven, hell and purgatory and seen in each people she knew. She was told she could go to heaven or return to earth to pray for sinners and the souls in purgatory. She opted to return and spent the rest of her life doing just that. 

Saint Maria Assunta Pallotta prayed the "Eternal Rest" prayer 100 times a day to help the souls. This is very doable and salutary. The prayer takes about 5 seconds to say, without rushing. So, said 100 times is 500 seconds which comes to under 10 minutes a day. It is a good aspiration: short, direct, inspiring. It can be said while walking, driving, or restless in bed at night. It fruitfully occupies a mind that otherwise can become distracted, discouraged or restless.

No, this is not "salvation by works." It is a work, an act, but it is inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit. It is not human initiative. It is a work of Christ in his Church.

Prayer for the souls is a win/win/win. It helps them to get to heaven. They help us from heaven. But in addition, like any meritorious act...prayer, act of mercy, sacrifice...it sanctifies our soul. After I pray for the souls, I am flowing with faith, hope, charity, serenity, gratitude, joy, and integrity.

I had an argument with Sister Joan Noreen, of happy memory, who insisted that the souls in purgatory pray for us and that we can pray to them, as well as for them. I resisted: insisting we pray for them, not to them. When I looked into it a little further I saw that it was unclear. Most of the earlier fathers and doctors have us praying for, not to them. They are passive; dependent upon our prayers. But more recent authorities, including a statement in the Catechism have them also praying for us. It seems to me to be something Catholics can disagree about as the teaching is not clear. But my position is "lex orandi, lex credendi." "The way we pray is the way we believe." Our traditional prayers and liturgical practices NEVER have us praying TO the souls. So why start now?

I pray daily TO those I know who lived holy lives, who are not canonizable, who had evident flaws, but lived in the state of grace and are surely in God's presence, even if serving a mild purgatory: Sister Joan Noreen herself,  my father/mother Ray and Jeanne, Aunt Grace, Betty Hopf, Fathers Joe Whelan S.J., Avery Cardinal Dulles S.J., John Wrynn S.J., Neal Doherty S.J., Paul Viale, John and Mary Rapinich, Sisters of Charity Patricia Brennan, Virginia Kean, Maria Martha Joyce, Alberta, Peggy McCarthy. 

Souls I did not know but pray TO:  Pope Benedict, Baron von Huegel, Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrandt, Maurice Blondel, Jacques and Raissa Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Fr. Schleeben, Elizabeth Anscombe, G.K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, C.S. Lewis, Fathers Delubac, Danielou, Congar, Boyer, Phillips, Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop Martinez, Popes Pius XII and John Paul I, Caryll Houselander, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Adrienne von Speyr, Madaleine del Brel, Elizabeth Leseur, Rose Hawthorne, Mother Margaret Cusak, and others I cannot recall at the moment.

My friend Tim does not the "Eternal Rest" prayer. He understands "rest" to be absence, negation, privation. I differ. I see "rest" in the context of prayer as plenitude, reception, joy, gratitude, praise, liberation from stress and striving. I see that genuine, wholesome, holy action always springs forth from deeper grounding in "rest" as abiding, reception, communion, plenitude. In God and his life, of course, the polarity of rest/action that structures our finitude is transcended in an eternal rest that is at the same time an eternal event of love.

Eternal Rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let the perpetual light shine upon them.  May their souls and those of all the faithful departed rest in peace.

Fierce Women: Mary Crushing the Head of the Serpent and Maccabee's Mother of Seven Sons

 Rightly, we honor Our Lady of Sorrow's in the Pieta, the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary, the seven sorrows prophesized by Simeon. The heartbreak of a mother seeing her son suffer  is a staple of Catholic piety. Put perhaps there is a problem of balance: she is also the one who crushes the head of the serpent. She is Our Lady of Victories. With her son she is triumphant over sin, death, guilt, the world and the devil. She is determined, steadfast, ferocious, fearless, courageous, long-suffering, hopeful, magnanimous, longanimous, exultant and victorious. She is not pitiable. She is not a victim. She, with her son, is victor.

Recall the mother of seven sons in Maccabees. Her sons are being tortured to death, one at a time, by the gentile Greeks who insist they eat pork and adore false gods. She is free of a soft, sentimental pity. She does not seek to shield them from pain and suffering. She exhorts them to courage, perseverance, loyalty to God and their faith. 

The masterful Mel Gibson film The Passion of Christ is overheavy with pain and torture but redeemed by many scenes. The crucial one is half way through the movie: Christ falls under the cross and Mary bends down close to his face. He looks at her, his face grotesque with bleeding. Serenely, confidently, even ecstatically he says: "Mother, see, I make all things new." This was a brilliant touch by Gibson. We have, of course, no record of him saying this on his walk up Golgotha. But it is the point of the entire drama: he is making all things new by his passion and death. When he stretches out his arms, in pain, on the cross, he embraces the entire world, and every sinner, as he turns and tells his companion " this very day you will be with me in paradise." This was the ultimate moment of victory!

Consider also Jesus encounter with the women of Jerusalem, recalled in the 8th station of the cross. Falsely, it is usually called "Jesus Comforts the Women of Jerusalem." This is blatantly wrong. There is not comfort here. He flatly rejects their pity and comfort. He says: "Do not weep for me but for yourselves." He warns them of the suffering to come upon themselves and their children as a day of judgment is coming. He is calling them to repentance from sin. And to ready themselves for the imminent suffering. This is severely discomforting. It is a call to conversion, to courage and endurance. It is a word meant to sober and strengthen. There is here severity, ferocity, brutal honesty.

Contemporary Catholic, especially progressive piety, is saturated with an effete, toxic ethos of sentimental pity and victimhood. The "bleeding heart" grieves victimhood in Ukraine, Gaza, the ghetto, the "LGBTQ community." This does not spring from a genuine, holy femininity...that of Mary and the Mother of seven. Rather, from a decadent feminism. It flourishes in distance from the actual people pitied. The Ukrainians are tough, resilient people who want to fight the Russians for their sovereignty. The Palestinians in large number approve of the slaughter/rape that started the war. The gay community is now privileged, affluent and powerful. Black men are not powerless, pitiable victims of systemically racist police.

Protestants mostly avoid crucifixes with the suffering body of Jesus. Catholics glory in that image, and in the 14 stations, the 5 sorrowful mysteries, the Pieta and our Lady of Sorrows. But, Jesus suffered for three hours on the cross. It was temporary. He reigns, with his mother-virgin-queen at his side, eternally in unending Joy. 

I imagine that Jesus in carrying his cross and looking down from it, to Mary and John and the women, in his fragile, vulnerable flesh was heartened by the presence of his mother, the women, and his beloved disciple. He did not feel viewed with pity, as a victim. Rather, he was heartened by their pride in him, his courage, his fidelity, and his triumph. 

May we be just such encouragement to each other. 

Dialing Down the Temperature...in the Political and Theological Wars...in the Time of Trump and Leo

Napoleon Bonaparte: "If you want to understand a man, look at what was happening in his world in his 20s." I was 20 in 1967, exactly as the Cultural Revolution exploded in the West. That remains, for me, the defining Event of my world/time. EVERYTHING ELSE...fall of the Soviets and rise of China, immigration, global warming, internet/AI, wars in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan/Ukraine/Gaza, Islamic terrorism, Civil Rights, gun violence...EVERYTHING ELSE is a sideshow, a subplot. What matters most is the dignity and value of the human person (especially the small, vulnerable and incompetent), of marriage, family, sexuality, gender, chastity, fidelity, tradition, the sacramental life, revelation, the Eternal. It took me a little time: I graduated college 1969 and married 1971 as a moderate liberal. But by 1975, under the influence of some holy, brilliant Jesuit theologians and Cursillo/Charismatic Renewals, I recognized the new structure of the world. I have been a culture warrior for the last 50 years. This war is only intensifying.

I am not retiring from the conflict. But I am drawn to dial down the heat: to be serene, confident, gracious, open-minded, 

Perhaps I am old, tired, mellow? A "made man" who has nothing to prove? Who is less anxious, threatened, indignant, angry?

Perhaps I am returning to the more innocent, positive world of my youth, the early 1960s, the robust American Catholicism at the time of the Council, serene, confident and ecstatic in urgency to engage and embrace everything, in the world beyond the Church, that is Good, True and Beautiful. 

It has to do with the amygdala! We know this is the primary cerebral location of the emotions: fear, anger, anxiety, hatred, indignation. If the passions here are raging furiously it is difficult for the intellect, largely located in the prefrontal cortex, to function well: soberly, perceptively, intuitively, empathetically, wisely. Rather, disordered emotions of anxiety, rage and indignation distort the intellectual apprehension. 

In this age of Trump, everyone's amygdala seems to be aflame. The underclass and we moral conservatives are enraged at the progressive, overclass hegemony and have rallied around Trump as our champion. Our feelings of vulnerability, threat, rage and indignation can be so overwhelming that we lack sobriety and clarity. Progressives, on the other extreme, are apoplectic. And so, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), as inflamed amygdala, is epidemic on both sides of the political divide.

Similarly, in the Church, the theological civil war rages on undiminished. John Paul and Benedict gave the definitive, lucid response to theological progressivism. But the more recent dual-pontificate has taken a different direction. They have not directly contradicted the Catholic legacy on the nature of the human person, but have downplayed it, diverted attention to political issues (environment, immigration) and sought to appease the progressives. 

Our Catholic civil war of over half a century continues under Leo. He leans to appease the left. But, in contrast to Francis, he embodies a sincere intent to listen to both sides, to maintain harmony, to steady the bark of Peter. He intends to minimize conflict. To do this he will, in my opinion, compromise on fundamentals of our heritage. But the underlying pastoral intent has value. 

And so, in American politics and the Church we do well to lower the temperature, to diminish the anxiety and rage, to relax a little.

This is also good for the soul. My own sense is that God is drawing me into his peace, to a relaxation, to cessation of anger and anxiety, to "abide, thrive and bear fruit in Him." With regard to Trump and MAGA we all do well to lighten up. With regard to Pope Leo, we do well to emulate his tranquility, his pastoral compassion, his stability, his desire for unity and harmony. 

This does not mean we compromise on the truth. Rather, with charity, patience, serenity and graciousness emergent, our witness to the truth will become more gentle, confident, and appealing.

Above all: we invoke the Holy Spirit...to inflame...not our amygdala...but our souls ...with simple praise and thanks, with liberation from resentment and fear, with supernatural charity, with quiet zeal,

Be Still My Soul!

Come Holy Spirit! 

In Praise of In-Laws

In-Laws: underrated. Underappreciated. Rarely discussed, considered, studied. 

They are TERRIFIC! I know because I have a ton. Oldest of nine, happily married, father of seven...I am "well connected." In the "social capital" that counts...spiritual, moral, cultural, intellectual...I am more wealthy than the Trumps, the Russian oligarchs, and the Saudi princes all together!

They are family, not by blood, by covenant. How marvelous: every marriage is a unique, unprecedented "creation from nothing" whereby God gives life to a new family, which combines two distinct families, and promises an entirely novel legacy going forward.

When I look at my grandchildren I swell with amazement: they belong to me, the are "mine," but they are so much more, they are also "other," as they come from the other side as well, and they move into a novel, new, promised future largely obscure to me, in God's good Providence.

There is a mutual belonging, a bond, a covenant with in-laws. In ancient societies we would come to fight for each other when attacked. Royal families married to form alliances. 

That doesn't happen now, but there abides a deep, unspoken connection. In  this era of isolation, loneliness and individualism we do well to appreciate our in-laws!

Last week I attended the wake-funeral-repast of my brother's wife's brother. I got to know the family. I was deeply touched and impressed. Their flaws and gifts are so different from those of my family; but so fascinating, impressive, talented, and charming! I am thrilled that my brother married into this family; that my niece and two nephews belong also to this family; and I and mine are well connected.

There is a deep Catholic intuition in the appreciation of the in-laws. Some societies allow and even prefer, for example, marriage of 1st cousins. This may help explain some of the fierce, tribal militancy of some Muslim groups. The Church forbids (with dispensation possible) marriage of 1st cousins and so urges us to move beyond boundaries of blood to bond with other families. This expresses the "catholic" passion to move outward, to share our faith, to unite with all peoples to the ends of the earth.

Beyond family, a similar, analogous bond unites us with other groups. There are many to which I do not fully belong but am connected. As a charismatic Catholic, I am bonded with all Evangelicals and Pentecostals. As a non-MAGA Republican, I am part of the broad, diverse conservative movement. My daughter "married into" (as a professed participant) the Memores Domini of Communion and Liberation and my son and his family into the Neocatchumenal Way. My son-in -law works in Jesuit secondary education and my granddaughter now for America magazine. I am close to the Jesuits, Maryknoll, CFRs and some Salesians as I have worked closely with religious women Dominicans, Felicians and Charities.  I am friend of Catholic Worker, the Latin Mass and the  Bruderhof.

I am proud member of the Fox Family (with Brett, Martha, Shannon), the CNN Family (Erin, Anderson), the NY Times (Ross, Maureen, Bret, Nicholas, Ezra, Thomas), and (as non-subscriber) the Wall Street Journal  (Peggy, Kimberly, Daniel, Jason, Allysia) but moreso of Communio, Crisis, The Catholic Thing, EWTN, and National Catholic Register.

Obviously, I cannot endorse all the positions of all these groups. Every family has its flaws as well as its gifts, charisms and charms. The problems and sins do not stop us from loving them.

You can see my Catholicity urges me to engage even my intellectual adversaries: to draw close, to listen, to embrace what is good. I cannot retreat into a culture war silo or tribe. I cannot shrivel up in the bunker in rage, anxiety and indignation. Rather, I learn from my enemy; I pray for him; I delight in what is good and true; and I assist him, by my affection-respect-prayer, as I am myself assisted, to overcome the errors that entrap. 

To the Catholic sensibility, the "otherness" ... of the in-laws, of the theological or political adversary...is not something to be feared, but to be cherished.  And that is why it is such a blessing to have in-laws!