"Gay": Bohemian or Bourgeois?

"Gay" is in quotes because its reference to homosexuality is entirely ironic, transgressive, antiphrasic (you may have to google that, Dear Reader!) , and contradictory. The reality is profoundly sad. Even in places gay-friendly for decades (Scandinavia, lower Manhattan, San Francisco) and long free of social stigma, the culture surges with mental illness, addictions, suicide, violence, and early death. In 1970, my college roommate and dear friend George Lissandrello, then part of the emerging homosexual culture of the lower east side of Manhattan looked at me...gently, pensively...and said "The 'gay' life is a sad one." George died of AIDS about a decade later. Those seven words remain for me the abiding truth about the active homosexual life. The entire "gay" crusade (Pride, LGBTQ school clubs, priestly blessings) is a diabolic deception of global proportions.

What is "Gay?"

Quite a history: the word means happy and joyful, and then became associated with bohemian freedom and promiscuity, and then homosexuality, and now can mean strange or weird as in "...SO gay!"

It is NOT synonymous with homosexuality. There are same-sex-attracted men who live holy, chaste lives as priests, brothers or single men. They are NOT "gay." There are priests (notably in 1970-2000) who live secret, double lives and married men (particularly in the evangelical black community) who likewise live a hidden life. These likewise are not "gay" unless they so identify. The word indicates more than the sexual desire or even the active practice, it means that one self-identifies substantially with the attraction. It becomes defining. A person could be left-handed, redheaded, or work for UPS but not identify as such. Grey hair or baldness will not undo his identity. The "gay" says "this desire is what interiorly defines me. This is truly me." This is a catastrophic mistake. We know that by virtues of original sin we are all wounded in our sexual nature by concupiscence, a disorder of desire. It manifests in a vast variety of vices, sins (adultery, fornication, promiscuity, pornography, masturbation) and paraphilias (voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, masochism, attraction to animals, dead bodies and other.) 

We avoid here the word "orientation." There is no such thing as "sexual orientation." There are not two (homo and hetero), nor are there ninety-nine. There is simply man-and-woman. Sexual desire can take a million different forms. Such is not an orientation. The word comes from the Latin oriens meaning east or rising sun. So it means a direction. In Catholic life, we might speak of orientation to marriage or the vowed religious life of chastity; or we might scrutinize our direction toward purity of heart or sin. Otherwise, this idea of sexual orientation is entirely ideological and defensive of the lifestyle.

Let's first consider what causes same-sex desire.

Born That Way?

"Born that way" is not a scientific fact; there is no homosexual gene or DNA prediction. It is a myth or dogma of gay ideology. It is intuitively obvious to those indoctrinated into the faith much like  us Catholics intuitively understand realities like chastity, spousal fidelity, mortal sin, hell, concupiscence, absolution and reparation. There has emerged a scientific consensus that about 30% of this condition is caused by nature, a predisposition; the remaining 70% by nurture, experience and environment. Most, but not all homosexuals have suffered a disconnect with the father. This may contribute about 40%. Another, related factor, failure to detach from the mother, may account for 20% or so. A third factor is weak bonding with peers and male friends, including "the sports wound." And lastly, there is a bad body self-image, a feeling of being unattractive, too thin, or small, or heavy. These last two may account for the remaining 10% or more. Each person is unique of course. It is unlikely to encounter a homosexual who is entirely free of these nurture factors. 

Decision to Act; Sex is Not a Need! 

Sexual desire...for all of us...in  its complexity, variety, profundity and power...is received, not chosen. It is a "passion"...something suffered, an affliction not deliberately intended.  In puberty, the adolescent is overwhelmed by powerful, mysterious, involuntary cravings. The reality of "concupiscence" is that, since Adam and Eve, we are all wounded, disordered deeply and interiorly in our sexuality.

But the decision to act sexually is an exercise in freedom. Whether with oneself (pornography) or with another, the act is voluntary and therefore moral, or actually immoral, outside of marriage. We are already inclined, through concupiscence, to do wrong. That is our weakness of the flesh. But in this world that emerged 60 years ago with the cultural revolution we are all contagiously, mimetically (Rene Girard) drawn to self indulgence and narcissism. 

Sex is a powerful drive and desire, it is not a need. No one goes to the hospital due to abstinence from sex. In the perverse Marxist-Freudianism of the Sexual Revolution (Reich, Marcuse, Mead, Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, Hefner, etc.) a defining LIE took possession of society: that we NEED sex. The defining myth emerged: repression of sex leads to pathologies of resentment, guilt, shame, hatred, authoritarianism, yada yada yada. 

(Analogical anecdote: when our son was in 5th grade the teachers called my wife to school and alleged that he was disrupting class by repetitive flatulence. When confronted, he had two explanations. First, that it had become a class joke so that whenever the sound of passing gas was heard the class erupted into laughter and pointed to him. Secondly, he admitted to a fair share in the ruckus as he had learned from a cousin that resisting the urge to pass gas was bad for ones health. (BTW did you know that the average person allows this 10 to 25 times a day?) You see the relevance here? Our culture, especially in wake of the contraceptive disconnect of sex from marriage/family/children, came to believe that self indulgence, rather than discipline and restrain, was the path to psychological freedom. The isolation and loneliness of masturbation was reconfigured as healthy  Sex was no longer the generous, life-giving, sacrificial communion with Another; it was vacated of its iconic, sacred profundity; it was perverted into a solipsistic, narcissistic, isolated release and  right of the lonely individual. The "triumph of the therapeutic!"

And so, across society and in Catholic progressivism, the cult of spousal fidelity, chastity, femininity as virginity/femininity, masculinity as paternity, and the sacred-iconic nature of sexuality was dismissed. It was replaced by the cult of sterility, loneliness, individualism, narcissism, indulgence and perversity. It was in this environment that "gay" militance flourished.

Bohemian vs. Bourgeois "Gay"

Homosexual practice and its accompanying culture has, through the ages, been a subculture, an alternative, a transgression of and rejection of both mainstream culture and Christianity. It was a Dionysian as artistic, revolutionary, substance using-abusing and often politically radical.   It was largely practiced covertly, secretly...married men or priests living double lives. In this secrecy, it implicitly recognized the moral legitimacy of the societal taboo. In small niches it was performative, flamboyant and arrogantly transgressive. It never presented itself as normal, respectable, wholesome, enlightened, or Christian. 

Let us note here that Catholicism on the whole has always been merciful towards sins of the flesh. Confession and absolution are readily available for all who seek it. Moral purity is not required, rather some degree of genuine contrition and intention to repent. While we recognize the gravity of mortal sin, we are not frightened by it. We know with certitude that sacramentally the Mercy of Christ triumphs.

Far more threatening to Catholic life than the ubiquitous sins of the flesh is the spread of moral, spiritual falsehood. This occurs when evil is reconfigured as good. This leads the credulous, the ignorant, the innocent into the disaster of sin. This is what has happened with the emergence of "bourgeois gayness." The bourgeois gay presents as normal, acceptable, admirable, and more enlightened. "Gay marriage" is the keystone of this revolution: the couple presents as respectable middle class...stable, educated, faithful, caring for children, often affluent. It is a parody of real, natural marriage of man and woman. 

Beyond that, it reconfigures the traditional Christian disapproval of homosexual activity as itself hateful, ignorant, biased, and homophobic. It presents as more inclusive, accepting, empathetic. It embraces "pride" in a flamboyantly prideful manner as spiritually/morally superior. And so, in this new gestalt or model the saints, father and doctors, the virgin martyrs are now seen as homophobic, ignorant, hateful, not intentionally of course but objectively and systemically. To emulate their concept of chastity is itself a moral depravity.

Hard Progressives and Soft Progressives

Hard progressives are aggressive, militant, indignant. They insist on moral approval of sodomy, contraception, legal abortion, female Catholic priests, and gay marriage. Theirs is a harsh moralism, a judgmentalism, an arrogance of moral superiority.

The critical mass, in our Church and society, are soft. They avoid conflict. They want peace at any price. They don't want to confront the real cultural progressives. So they vote pro-choice, approve of gay marriage, agree with woman priests. 

They want to remove sexuality from common life and reserve it as private. For example, Pope Leo recently said: "...the unity or division of the church should not revolve around sexual matters." He is a classic soft, cultural progressive. He does not want to fight about it.  He adopts a "live and let live" attitude; he has no dog in this fight.  He welcomes Fr. James Martin S.J. as well as Courage, even  though they mutually contradict each other. He prefers to talk about borders, the environment, wealth distribution and such. The soft progressive is embarrassed about this sex stuff. This was in large measure the singular weakness of the liberal legacy we boomers received from our parents, who are in many other matters "the greatest generation." 

Consider: what is worse for a family? A father who drinks too much, works too much, gambles too much? Or one who cheats on his wife?  The integrity of the family depends upon spousal chastity and fidelity. Nothing...Nothing...Nothing is worse for the family and the entire society as the loss of spousal fidelity, especially on the part of the husband. 

Conclusion

By abstaining from the culture war, the soft progressive effectively cedes the battlefield to the hard, militant progressive. This is what happened to the largely Catholic DNC in the 1970s. This is what happened in the Vatican under the Francis and apparently the Leo pontificate. It is clear that Leo, notwithstanding all his virtues, lacks the theological decisiveness and clarity to guide us on this. He wants to look away. 

We now know that the alleged "lavender mafia" was a reality in Rome and across the Church in the decades after the Council. But McCarrick, Maciel and company by their very secrecy, which was amazingly effective for a long time, implicitly affirmed the sexual code. The new crew is a deeper threat to the Church. Paglia, Fernandez, Martin, Cupich, McElroy...they enjoy a high degree of credibility which they use to aggressively, if cunningly, undermine our traditional sexual ethos. Soft progressives like Francis and Leo become for this revolution what Marxists classically call "useful idiots" as they comply not out of malice but a deficit of intelligence.

It is true: "now we are all gay." In the 1960s sex became contraceptive, sterile, non-spousal, isolated, individualistic, disconnected from family, past/future, and the heavenly. Or more accurately, the bourgeois became gay and the gay bourgeois. Corporate capitalism and most of our elite institutions have followed suite. 

The soft progressive wants to avoid  concupiscence, sexual sin, chastity and fidelity. Rather, he wants  the Church to be united on political projects of justice and equality. This puts the cart before the horse. About political, policy issues the Church and the hierarchy have nothing particularly to offer.  The Vatican Council made it clear that this is the responsibility of the laity, especially those with such duties of governance. These are prudential issues about which Catholics can disagree in good will. But the unity of the family and the Church is built upon emulation of Christ's love for his Bridal Church. .. in marriage, priesthood, and religious life. Christlike, chaste,  tender, reverent, spousal loyalty...this is the lifeblood of society and the Church.

"Gay" is now the heart and soul of the American bourgeois: individualistic, therapeutic, narcissistic, sterile, secular, materialistic. The bourgeois, in contrast to the bohemian, is not content as a subculture, an alternative and transgressive community. It is righteous, indignant, entitled and insistent: society and Church MUST reconfigure to endorse their sexual proclivities. It is imperialistic: seeking hegemony, even as its methods are soft, smooth, pleasing.

Our battle is for the intellects, hearts and souls of our children. We can practice patience as we enjoy a confidence, a serenity, a clarity in the truth about the moral, natural and spiritual order. Let us persevere.. clear, calm, assertive and decisive...in sharing with our young the sacred legacy we have received, most recently from St. John Paul and Pope Benedict.

Male Postures Towards the Female: Misogyny, Femomania, Gynophilia

Misogyny (hatred of woman) is evil; femomania (crazy about woman) is troubling; gynophilia (love of woman) is ennobling.

Misogyny

Hatred of woman is the most pervasive, powerful, diabolic dynamic in the world. We each receive life from our mothers; so attack upon woman is destruction of the human person and race.

An ancient Catholic tradition (non-biblical, neither affirmed nor denied by the Magisterium) has Lucifer revolting when he learned that he, the superior of all creatures,  was destined to defer to a woman, fleshly-mortal-fragile, as queen of heaven and earth. The primary focus of satanic odium is: woman. 

It takes myriad forms:

In Islam we have honor killings and polygamy.

In the contemporary rightwing manosphere we have shameless contempt (accompanied by antisemitism, a related pathology.)

In sexual, contraceptive liberalism we have deconstruction of femininity, flight from the maternal, reduction of woman to careerist producer, consumer, and object of male pleasure. 

In language we have words expressive of contempt for the woman's body. The notorious F-word specifically indicates sexual violation or rape. It's casual, indeliberate usage has become widespread and acceptable; but the literal meaning is vile and demonic. To use or hear the word calmly, without emotive/moral agitation, indicates a pronounced verbal/spiritual stupidity: think "The Dude" in The Great Lebowski.

Modernity (we learn from Karl Stern's magisterial Flight from Woman)...as technical, scientific, rational, manipulating, non-contemplative, non-receptive, non-poetic...from Descartes through Sartre...is flamingly contemptuous of the feminine.

My personal engagement in misogyny was relatively benign, mostly developmental. As co-founder, at age 10, with Rich Ott and Bobby Moore, of our neighborhood "Girl Haters Club,"(shortly after my parents unjustly forced us to surrender the fort we had built to my sisters for their baby carriages!) I prevailed in my argument that our statues grant a dispensation from the "never talk to a girl rule" for sisters (I have six) in cases like "pass the salt" or "is anyone in the bathroom?" Amazingly, I kept that vow and never spoke to a girl (who was not cousin or sister) from the age of 10 to 22. This for two reasons: first, I was morbidly girl-shy. Second: in fifth grade we boys went with the Christian Brothers, in high school I was in the divinity section of all-boys Seton Hall Prep; my college was all-men seminary. Also, my jobs were all-male: caddying (there were women golfers but we didn't converse), delivering beer, construction, greenskeeper, etc. That was a time when there was a man's world and a woman's world; and there was peace on earth. (See Ivan Illich's Gender.)

My misogyny was mostly directed to the oldest of my sisters. From age 7-13 the only sin I recall confessing was "mean to my sisters" about 3 or 4 times a day, which would be 90 to 120 times if I went a month without confessing. I have always regretted this compulsion. On two different occasions in adult life I have asked her for forgiveness. To my surprise, she waved the thing off as nothing. Apparently, she was unaffected by it: her own self-esteem and affection for me, her big brother, were entirely unbothered. Amazing! This addiction happily disappeared sometime in college.

In adolescence, I realized that aside from the normal respect rendered mother, aunts, grandmothers and others and the obsessive lust/covetousness of concupiscence, I had little interest in girls who seemed silly, boring, emotional and lacking in the virile virtues I craved for myself. However, on my first date, at age 22, with my wife-to-be, I fell madly in love and recovered miraculously from my misogyny. As a matter of fact, I am passionately anti-misogynist, not unlike the Russel Crowe character in L.A. Confidential, who himself became a flaming femomaniac whenever the Kim Basinger character appeared.

Femomania 

"Crazy about women." In Spanish: "Mujeriego." This is not a wholesome, virile appreciation for and tenderness to woman, but a desperation, a need, a craving. In itself it is not a vice or sin, as it is a passion, something suffered, indeliberate. It is the emotional substratum in which sin can be conceived in free will. It is, like intense same-sex desire, an emotional disorder. At its core is a feeling of loss, sadness, loneliness, isolation. It is diffuse, non-particular, profound. It can only be intelligible as a primal longing for the mother, for the infantile loss in the oedipal passage. It can manifest as lust, covetousness, jealousy, limerence (obsessive infatuation, see Dorothy Tennov), dependency, disordered craving for feminine attention, approval and affection. It is reflected when we speak of: falling in love, crazy about you, you are my everything, I can't live without you, fatal attraction, and such. In adult life this primal sadness is difficult to identify as it comes already commingled with thick shame and guilt, with a history of actions, involving freedom even as that freedom is diminished by psychological/social dynamics.

In severe cases, this is psychologically constitutive and not entirely curable. I was told in confession by a priest that my struggles with this would continue until my body was cold in the grave four days.

In the worst case scenario, it gives birth to vices, addictions, patterns of sin: obsessive fantasy, pornography, masturbation, promiscuity, infidelity, obsessive covetousness, jealousy, resentment, and other. It is the core of sexual addiction and is best treated by multiple approaches including 12-steps, therapy/counseling, spirituality, and overall wholesomeness and virtue.

Gynophilia 

"Love of woman" here is mature, virile, ennobling, chivalrous. It is grateful, trusting, tender, fraternal, protective, and reverent.

"Grateful" in that it flows from a prior reception of the maternal as nurturing, comforting, protective. The primal enclosure in the womb, the warmth and comfort of the mothers arms/body/breasts, and the beauty of her smile (Balthasar) leave a memory, a residue of contentment, joy, peace and gratitude.

"Trust" in that this gratitude leaves confidence in the feminine as good, worthy, reliable, stable, life-giving.

"Tender" in that the male reciprocates, unconsciously, the tenderness rendered maternally, in  joyful, gentle, physical, chaste intimacy.

"Fraternal" in that the man recognizes (like Adam "...here at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh...") in woman (sister, friend, spouse) his equal, his partner in the adventure of life and the mission for the good.

"Protective" in that  male testosteronic energy and strength is aroused and surges to care for the woman as precious, fragile and vulnerable.

"Reverent" in admiration of the moral virtues so pronounced in woman: empathy, generosity, welcome, intuition, resilience, self-giving. Beyond that is the deeper intuition into the feminine as receptive of the good, the true, the beautiful and the heavenly...and dispersive of the same.

Gynophilia flows from a mature virility. It flourishes with the (more or less) successful completion of the masculine itinerary: from mother to father in the oedipal passage, to the peer group of brothers, to secondary father figures (priests, coaches, mentors, role models) and into solitude with our heavenly father. It surges all the more when the father beholds the splendor of the femininity of his own daughters or surrogate daughters.

Overcoming Femomania

For many of us, the condition of femomania is not entirely curable in this life. Recall that dying King David, no longer able to generate body heat, even with blankets, was comforted and kept warm by the beautiful young Abishag. The Bible explicitly states that it was a chaste, non-sexual relationship. In light of David's sexual/romantic history, he  probably  suffered severe femomania. This relationship, however, seems innocent. Like an infant, he was comforted in his dotage and infirmity by a comforting, life-giving young beauty.

The road for recovery from femomania into profound, fierce, pure gynophilia is exhilarating and promising, even if the end point is distant. Key aspects:

1. Leaning deeply, passionately into all gynophilic relationships: spousal, family, friends. For example, when triggered by lust, obsession or romantic fantasy, the best immediate move is to pray for the woman desired: this transfigures her from an idol, an object of desire, into a person, with needs, sufferings, vulnerabilities and infinite dignity. 

2. Strong, fraternal, reverent, intimate, affectionate friendships with other men. With emotional needs met by such wholesome relationships, there is less desperate craving for the feminine.

3. Bringing the need, the loss, the inner sadness immediately to our Lord in prayer. My favored prayer: "I come to you as a poor man, in need of your mercy and in need of your love." Devotion to our Blessed Mother is key. A good prayer: "My mother, I place myself under the veil of your purity and your holiness, your tenderness, your beauty and your love." Likewise helpful is closeness to St. Joseph, the iconic gynophile.

4. Cultivating an aversion to sexual impurity. It is good to despise sin. Hundreds of times I have confessed or confided failures in chastity and hundreds of times received absolution and pardon, reassurance, that I am loved and worthy and that honest confession is salutary. Rarely, I have received absolution with something more helpful: a subtle repugnance at unchastity. It is not that I am myself shamed. Rather, the message is: "Are you kidding me? The grace of God in your life, your identity in Christ, your marriage and family, your mission in life and your role in the community....Would you risk destroying all of this by dallying, even for a second, even only in fantasy, with impurity?" It is good to despise sin. Concretely, the first manifestation of the sadness of femomania must be responded to by a firm, immediate renunciation of the impulse to sin; by a movement to God in petition and in intercession for the object of desire.

Conclusion

If misogyny/femomania is the slavery of Egypt, gynophilia is the Promised Land. Gynophilia...tender reverence for mother, spouse, daughter, friend... is constitutive of noble virility. Conjoined with filial loyalty to father/fathers/Father, fraternity, and paternal care, it is the way we men, in Christ, glorify the Holy Trinity, in work and deed and love.

Top 10 American Catholic Prelates of the Last 80 Years

10. Cardinal Timothy Dolan;  Bright, vivacious, charming, orthodox, balanced, stable, engaging.

 9. Cardinal John Kroll: Solid, great builder, collaborator with John Paul II, moderate, orthodox.

8. Cardinal Raymond Burke: Clear, courageous, authoritative corrective to the imbalances of Pope Francis.

7. Cardinal Terrence Cook: humble, holy, competent, decent.

6. Cardinal Francis George: brilliant theologian and culture warrior.

5. Cardinal Sean O'Malley: charismatic, prayerful, talented, man of the poor, steady and reconciling influence in the wake of the priest scandal.

4. Archbishop Charles Chaput: gifted theologian, loyal to Church but badly treated by Pope Francis.

3. Cardinal John O'Connor: virile champion of the unborn, comrade of John Paul, charming, orthodox, a true leader.

2. Bishop Robert Barron: gifted evangelist-catechist, widely influential, first-class moderate theologian.

1. Archbishop Fulton Sheen: brilliant, holy, flamboyant, entertaining evangelist; immensely influential in the Church and broader society in the postwar period.

Special Cases 

The following were broadly, significantly influential but flawed in an important way.

Cardinal Cushing, powerful Boston prelate in midcentury, was a tremendous builder, strong liberal voice in Vatican II especially on the Jews, ecumenist. Less impressive: he was friend and advisor of the Kennedy family. We cannot blame him for the tragic trajectory of that family, but he seems associated with a hidden weakness of thriving midcentury liberal Catholicism; surrender to the militant cultural progressivism of the late 1960s.

Cardinal Spellman of NY, contemporaneous with Kroll and Cushing, was another master builder and the most powerful prelate, in  both Church and national politics. As the kingpin of a political machine, he is not inspirational for us in an entirely different world.

Cardinal Joseph Bernadine of Chicago, greatly gifted, was the most influential prelate of the 1980-90s. Theologically a moderate liberal, he was an irenic figure, working for unity and peace in the Church. He famously engineered the Bishops' statement on nuclear arms (with the nuanced, but not finally coherent agreement that it was morally licit to keep them, for deterrence, but not use them.) He is best known for his famous "seamless garment" ethic of life. This is arguable, if properly understood, from a Catholic perspective, but disastrously has been used by liberals to obscure the fundamental difference between morally absolute evils (e.g. intentional killing of innocent human life)  and prudential policies on issues (like border/immigration, capital punishment, hunger, war, tax and economic policy) about which Catholic legitimately disagree.

Causes of Scandal

The following had impressive ecclesiastical careers but also caused scandal, confusion and polarization.

Cardinal Law had a sterling episcopal career in Boston: civil rights, theological orthodoxy, ecumenist, excellent speaker. I recall that in those years he seemed to be speaking and travelling everywhere. I often reflected that administration of his archdiocese was certainly in the hands of his vicars. However, Boston became ground zero of the priest sex scandal and he became identified with the scandalous episcopal coverup and negligence. With McCarrick, he has faced his judgment already so we need not wonder what he knew and allowed. He lived out his years in a comfortable position in Rome. I do not find fault with this myself. But I did wish that some prominent bishop like himself would take responsibility, ask forgiveness and surrender to a life of humility, poverty and reparation. That would have been good for the Church.

Theodore McCarrick died as a pariah, a pedophile predator. In his last years as Cardinal of Washington DC he was a shameless enabler of the progressive, prochoice Catholic democrats. However, in his years of service as Archbishop of Newark, NJ, he was collaborative with John Paul, amazingly energetic and competent, and did good in many ways. This good is not entirely erased by what we now know of his secret depravity. He has now met his Maker and his judgement: May God's Mercy and Justice be glorified in him.

Archbishop Rembert Weakland was a gifted, popular, Benedictine liberal in the 1980-90s. He retired in disgrace as he was found to have paid almost half a million dollars to an ex-male-lover. He is emblematic of the sexual disorder that infiltrated the hierarchy after the Council and the notorious homosexual "lavender mafia."

Cardinals Cupich, McElroy and Tobin, the Francis-favored, progressive triumvirate in the USA apparently enjoy the approval of Pope Leo. They, of course, renounce the classic Catholic sexual ethic of John Paul and Benedict in favor of a gay friendly and extremist ideology, theological and political, of the left. They are out of synch with the broader American episcopate which remains moderate and in part loyal to the magisterium of JPII/BenXVI so their influence is stronger in the Vatican than in this country. A positive word about Cardinal Tobin whom I know in my lifelong Archdiocese of Newark: he is a pureblooded progressive, but the most quiet and humble of the group. He is a decent man, a man of faith, and he has been fair to Catholics with different theological visions, including the Latin Mass, the Neocatechumenate and the charismatic renewal. As progressives go, he is a good one!

Archbishops of Newark NJ

A word of gratitude for the  six Archbishops of Newark: Walsh, Boland, Gerety, McCarrick, Myers and Tobin. Excepting the homosexual practices of McCarrick, they are consistently intelligent, competent, charitable, prayerful and of sound moral character. All six are of Irish descent. Postwar prelates Walsh and Boland were strong builders. After the Council, we find a wide range theologically: Gerety was a strong Vatican II liberal, but well within the boundaries of theological orthodoxy. He did ban the charismatic People of Hope for their anti-modernist positions on authority and gender. McCarrick, as mentioned, was a moderate, John Paul II collaborator. Myers was considered conservative, but he was personally low-energy (apparently suffering health conditions) and did not stir the pot for the more liberal-leaning presbyterate. Finally, Tobin is a more extreme progressive, pushing with Francis against traditional norms. 

Most striking over the 8 decades is the stability, calm, and "catholic" tolerance. A wholesome "live and let live" attitude has prevailed continuously. We have never seen anything like the Pope Francis destruction of the John Paul Institute or his repression of the Latin Mass. In this they have served well and merited the respect of priests, religious and laity. We...whether more liberal or conservative...are grateful!

Pope Leo XIV, Bishop Robert Prevost

Still a young pope, he may go on to dwarf the above in significance. He is already widely admired and loved, especially in the USA. Holy, intelligent, competent, humble, he is an institutionalist and already a movement to unity and stability in the Church. Unfortunately, he shares with his predecessor and the Church in which he came of age (USA 1970s), a theological softness, a vulnerability to liberal emotionalism and activism. In our agonistic combat with communism, cultural progressivism, jihadism and other diabolical powers, we need a combative Churchill, not an accommodating  Chamberlin. So, we pray that he receive from the Holy Spirit the required theological clarity, depth, decisiveness and courage.

Conclusion

We have considered here the standouts: the scandalous (Weakland, McCarrick, Law, Cupich, Tobin and McElroy); the influential but flawed (Bernadine, Spellman, Cushing); the inspired evangelists (Sheen, Barron); the fine theologians (George, Chaput); the voice of fidelity to tradition (Burke); and strong, holy,  virile leaders (Kroll, Dolan, O'Malley, Cook and O'Connor.)

Most American bishops, it seems to me, are close to a clear type; emotionally steady, prayerful, theologically educated and moderate, pragmatic, with strong leadership and administrative skills. Because American dioceses, after World War II, expanded so powerfully, a primacy has inevitably been  placed upon administrative ability. And so, bishops are not normally outstanding for intellectual brilliance, holiness or inspiration. 

I for one believe that the American Church will benefit from a reversal of the postwar expansion: from a deconstruction, a decluttering, a deinstitutionalization. If organizations (schools, hospitals, etc.) are shifted into the hands of the laity, the hierarchy can properly attend to the Gospel, the liturgy and the life of prayer. They can emulate the apostles who delegated deacons to take care of the distribution of bread.

Nevertheless, considering the difficulties and challenges of our time, we have been well served by good, prayerful, competent bishops. We do well to give thanks as we invoke the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit upon them!

Afterthought

Of the 25 prelates named above, 20 are of Irish descent. Yet, only 16% of American Catholics are of Irish descent. (Surprisingly 51% of Americans of Irish descent identify as Protestant, due to earlier immigration waves.) Why do the Irish disproportionally dominate the American hierarchy? Are they more religious? Saintly? Theological? Unlikely. But we do see that working class Irish have advanced themselves historically in politics, the labor movement,  civil service including police, fire department, army, FBI and other. And so, their strong ecclesiastical power is analogous to those trends.

Top Antagonists and Protagonists of the 20th Century

 Human life and history is always Drama: the engagement of Freedoms, the clash of Good and Evil, the Agon or contest between the protagonist and the antagonist.  Now 26 years away from the last century, we consider it with a degree of detachment. Here are my rankings:

Top Ten Antagonists

10. Mob Bosses: Capone, Luciani, Gambino, Bulger. Worse than them: cartel bosses like Pablo Escobar. Even worse is the Russian mafia.

9. Priest Predators and Negligent Bishops. This double, late century scandal involved predation, mostly upon adolescent males, and the failure of the hierarchy and their advisors to address it.

8. Right Wing Fascist Dictators:  Mussolini, Pinochet, Marcos, Samoza, Batista, Petain, (Please note: not included here are right wing, anti-communist regimes where violations of rights occurred but were countervailed by strong Catholic-friendly principles. These include Salazar, Franco, Diem, and others.)

7. Left Wing, Communist, Totalitarian Dictators:  Castro, Tito, Ortega, Chavez/Maduro, 

6. Jihadists, Sunni and Shia: Ayatollah Khomeni, Osama bin Laden and others.

5. Sexual Liberationists of 1960s: This is a legion but includes: Mead, Marcuse, Reich, Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, Hefner, Lawrence, Beauvoir, Millett, and others. Aligned with them are more private, but important bad actors including JFK, MLK, Chavez and an army of celebrities and power brokers.

4. Abortion Advocates in midcentury USA: Notably the Justices who signed Roe:  Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell. Leading organizations: ACLU. NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood. Most tragically, we must include here the majority of Catholic Democrat leaders who violated their faith by collaborating with the Abortion Revolution: Kennedys, Cuomos, Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Drinan and others.

3. Psychotic, Genocidal Dictators:  Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Hutu militia in Rwanda 1994, Armenian Genocide under Turkish Pasha, Kim of North Korea, 

2. Hitler, Mao, Lenin/Stalin:  A three-way tie for position 2.

1. Lucifer:  The primary Protagonist of the Evil of the 20th century. Evil is a supernatural Mystery, beyond our comprehension; but it becomes even less intelligible if we deny a Supernatural Actor, and his cronies,  working with us humans in our fragility. Lucifer is collaborator in all of the above as well as dark evil forces, powerful and pervasive across cultures in different forms, not clearly identified with individual protagonists. Chief among these: violation of women, abuse/neglect of children, hatred and contempt in biases of racism and antisemitism, and the weaponization of religion. 

Top  Protagonists: Political and Spiritual

Political Protagonists (In no particular order. Note: these significant, positive, political protagonists were often not entirely pure, in politics or personal morality.)

 African Populist, Nationalist Leaders who advocated a moral order distinct from the bipolar Communist/Capitalist offerings:   Catholic Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Nelson Mandela of South Africa (although he was communist early in adulthood), Hailie Selassie of Ethiopia, Anwar Sadat of Egypt. 

Labor Leaders of the mid-century union movement including George Meany, Walter Reuther, Cesar Chavez (notwithstanding his personal failings in marital fidelity and abuse of women), Philip Randolph, John Lewis. Importantly, this movement enjoyed the moral support of the American Catholic Church and was itself a practical ecumenism uniting the best social justice traditions of Catholicism and Judaism. 

Martin Luther King  and the Civil Rights Movement, notwithstanding his grave, significant moral failings in marital fidelity and abuse of women. This is another practical ecumenism uniting Catholics, Jews, Evangelicals, and seculars of all races and ethnicities.

Gandhi of India for his non-violence.

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John Paul and Lech Walesa: In downfall of Soviet Union.

Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt:  In downfall of Nazi Germany and Japan.

Prolife Movement, USA, post-Roe, in political protection of the unborn and concrete assistance to pregnant women in distress.

Architects of Post WWII Global Order and Cold War:  Marshall (plan in Europe), MacArthur (Japan), Truman, Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles,  Keynes (financial order), Italy's De Gasperi, Germany's Konrad Adenauer, U.N. Dag Hammarskjold, Charles de Gaulle, Jean Monet. 

Spiritual Protagonists

12. Bill W., Doctor Bob, and Sister Ignatia of 12-steps and AA. The crucial role of Sister Ignatia is not widely known.  An equally well kept secret is the  founder Bill W.'s sexual addiction, an affliction he shares with others on this list. 

11. Padre Pio: Stands out, by himself, as a solitary, hero protagonist against Lucifer.

10. Fathers of Vatican II:  Popes St. John XXIII and St. Paul VI, bishops and periti. 

9. Founders of Orders and Renewal Movements:  St. Jose Maria, Chiara Lubich, Monsignor Luigi Giussani, Kiko Arguello, Ralph Martin and colleagues, Brother Roger of Taize, disciples of Focauld,  Fr. Benedict Groeshel and fellow friars, 

8. Evangelists:  Billy Graham, Fulton Sheen, Billy Sunday, Fr. Patrick Peyton, Oral Roberts, and others. Along with these we recall and honor humble, anonymous missionaries...priests, religious, lay; Catholic and those of other denominations...who brought the Gospel around the globe, particularly with good fruit in Africa which is now a font of evangelical zeal and orthodoxy, Catholic and Evangelical.

7. Martyrs of 20th Century: Largely anonymous. Killed by Communists, Jihadists, Nazi, in  and Spain. By this we mean, first of all, the classic Catholic martyrs who suffered and died for the faith (. Pro, Stein, Kolbe, etc.) But we also include other innocents, especially the Jews under Hitler, as well as those in Cambodia, China, Rwanda, Armenia, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Guernica, and elsewhere.

6. Women Saint/Mystics.  Early in the century, we had mystics including St. Theresa of Lisieux  (who died in 1899 but is probably the most influential figure of the century), St. Maria Gioretti, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Elizabeth of the Trinity, St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross, Elizabeth Lisieux. 

5. Women Saint/Servants of the Poor. Later in the century, we have women who bury themselves in intimacy with the poor and suffering: St. Mother Theresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Madaleine del Brell, as well as St. Katherine Drexel, St. Mother Francis Xavier Cabrini. 

With both these groups stand the legion of humble, faithful religious who pray quietly in cloisters and hermitages and serve the poor and suffering.

4. Priests who quietly, anonymously announce the Gospel and sanctify us with the sacraments. 

3. St. Pope John Paul II is the definitive, human, non-heavenly Protagonist of our time. As stated above, he stood with Reagan/Thatcher/Walesa against the Soviet Empire. Earlier he defied the Nazis. He stood against Cultural Liberalism, allied with Islamic nations, against abortion at United Nations conferences. With his lieutenant and successor, Ratzinger/Benedict, he authoritatively defined post-Council Catholicism. His thought, like the best of the century's Catholicism (Stein, Hildebrandt, Blondel, Marcel, DeLubac, Danielou, Ratzinger, Congar, Boyer, Balthasar/Speyr, Schindlers) married classical Thomism with personalism/phenomenology. 

2. Our Blessed Mother Mary quietly, gently watches over us, intervening wisely and discretely (Fatima, etc.) just like the loving mother she is.

1. Holy Spirit is the prime protagonist, agent of the Good. He is collaborator, conspirer, colleague in all of the above. Noteworthy especially is the outpouring of Pentecostal graces in 1900, at Topeka Ka and later Azusa St. Los Angeles. This outpouring was preceded in 1897 by Pope Leo XIII's invocation of the Holy Spirit. This move is now fully global, renewing Catholicism and other denominations, and particularly strong in Africa where it challenges Islamic expansion and now sends missionaries to traditional Christian nations. Also, defining of our age, is the revelation on the Divine Mercy to St. Faustina which informed the papacy of John Paul.

Conclusion

Be heartened, dear Reader: you see the protagonists far outweigh the antagonists, in quantity and in quality. The antagonist...lonely, isolated, despicable and pathetic...can only destroy. The protagonist, in communion with heaven and earth, is procreative, communal, life-giving.

Please, dear Reader, do not hesitate to comment on this offering: who would you add or delete? Who promote or demote? 

On Sacramentals: I Prefer My Rosary Beads Cheap, String-and-Wood, Unblessed and Non-Sacramental

I couldn't find my beads so my wife gave me a nice pair, heavy wooden, masculine, blessed specially in Rome or somewhere, gift from a priest. She said I could use them but to take care of them. I gave them back to her and found my cheap pair. I did not want the weight of "taking care of them."

Rosary beads are to me like ball point pens: they are with me all the time, wherever I go. But I lose them; I leave them places; occasionally I give them to someone. I need them to be simple, practical, cheap, dispensable; not special, valuable or consecrated. I do not want them to be blessed and become a sacramental.

"Sacramentals" are a big deal to us Catholics. We have tons of them: crosses, crucifixes, statues, stain glass windows, holy water, medals, ashes, palms, candles, scapulars, paintings, icons, incense, chapels, basilicas, pilgrimage sites, altars, vestments, and other. This sets us off from other Western monotheisms: Judaism, Islam and Protestantism all disparage them as idolatrous, magical or superstitious. 

In the Catholic cosmos natural things are open to and welcoming of the supernatural, the heavenly, the eternal. This because God became physical in Jesus Christ. He remains physically with us in the Eucharist and all seven sacraments. But on a lower plane, many other places, persons and things can become holy; can become sacramentals. 

Only a priest, deacon or bishop can bless a sacramental. All of us can "bless" anything good by thanking God for it and receiving it as a blessing from heaven, a natural union with God. The sacramental does not undergo as deep a transformation as a sacrament; but it does change ontologically. It is no longer just a natural object. It becomes an expression of the heavenly. 

Imagine a boy joins two sticks together in the form of a cross. He might use this as a sword. But it is still two sticks together; the sword usage is external, not internal. If he hangs it over his bed to remind him of Jesus' death, it becomes a symbol, with a psychological meaning. But he still might use it as a sword if necessary. But if the priest blesses it, the thing changes. It becomes part of a sacramental world of things which point to heaven. He would not want to use it as a sword, even in play. If it is no longer usable, the wood is burned and the ashes buried.  

The sacramental is not efficacious in itself in the way of the seven sacraments. Its effect relies upon the psychological receptivity of the person: if I wear my scapular all week but never think of it, it may have little or no effect. But If I recall, at least when I remove it for my daily shower, that it expresses my consecration to our Mother Mary, then it has influence. 

A sacramental is "consecrated" or set aside to draw us closer to God. Disposal of such is important. Old, blessed rosaries or medals cannot be simply thrown in the trash. Rather, they must be "deconstructed" of their natural form, in which the supernatural presence abided. So, palms are burnt; rosaries might be burnt or cut up into small pieces; and then buried out of the way, the natural elements returned to the earth. When a Church is sold to become condos it must be de-consecrated. 

Religious jewelry is an interesting reality. I have myself no taste for use of such on my person. The value, of say a gold cross, would be a distraction to me. But costly art in Church is edifying. Also inspiring is the sight of a precious gold or silver cross or medal on a woman. It helps me, as a man, to recall, in a visible and physical way, her sanctity.

With the conception of Christ, by the Holy Spirit, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the earthly became receptacle of the heavenly. With Pentecost this invasion of Mercy and Holiness surged around the globe. And so, certain very specific persons, places, times, events and things become the presence of the Eternal.

How happy, how holy...to live in a sacramental world!

 

The Catholic Geography and a Eucharistic Prayer

Each person carries interiorly an intimate geography: a psychological/spiritual map of the places of significance. Last week I spoke in the hospital with an octogenarian, devout Roman Catholic who grew up in the Jersey City neighborhood where we now have our Magnificat Home residence: Clerk Street off Claremont, Ocean,  and Arlington. He was delighted to talk with me. He explained that his home was on Arlington, around the corner from Our Lady of  Sorrows Church and school, around the corner from his father's butcher shop on Ocean. His entire world was contained in four loci within a few city blocks...and he recalled it with immense pleasure!

For most of us our geography finds its center in our home; and then work/school, church, and other things like bar, gym, basketball court, etc. When I travel, for example on vacation, I have three priorities: where will I sleep, where will I eat, and where is the Catholic Church.

For the Catholic, anywhere on the globe, the center of the world, indeed of the physical universe, is not NYC, DC, or even Jerusalem or Rome! It is our Eucharistic Lord in the tabernacle in the nearest church or chapel. The entire cosmos...and the flow of history...is lightened, warmed, purified, sanctified...by the radiance from this Mysterious, thin, white, light, quiet, humble wafer.

Recall: St. Charles de Focauld adoring the Eucharist, alone in the Sahara desert, hundreds of miles from any other Catholic community. Recall St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, during her conversion, sitting in the Anglican church but praying to the Eucharistic presence in the Church down the street.

It took a while for the Church to fully recognize the Eucharistic Mystery. In the early centuries, reservation was for practical purposes, the last rites of the dying, not for adoration. The tradition developed from about the 4th century and was fully in place by about 1100. The cult was in full bloom e by the institution of Corpus Christi, the 13th century, the age of St. Thomas Aquinas and a high point of Catholicism.

I pause at this point, dear Reader, to peacefully glance toward the Eucharist, present a few hundred yards from where I sit. I invite you to do the same where you are. 

And I offer a simple Eucharistic prayer, that can be prayed any time of day, directed physically to the nearest tabernacle.

Jesus,

My friend, brother, captain, king, lord, savior and God,

Present Eucharistically in the host...

    so thin, white, light, quiet, and humble.

Make me like Yourself...

    small, simple, silent, serene;

    poor, powerless, patient, persevering, pure;

    receptive of and radiant with Your holiness!

Amen! 

The Ambiguity of Christian Zen

Is the practice of Christian Zen a step towards Christ or away from him? An enrichment or a distraction? 

This past week I participated, by Zoom, in a Zen "sitting" which honored a dear friend who recently passed away. Self-consciously Irish Catholic, Rosemary practiced her faith intermittently, but for decades zealously participated in the Zendo: working hard to organize it, participate daily, attend many retreats and nourish rich friendships. She had a curious, intelligent mind and memory; she was an encyclopedia of history and geography. But she couldn't explain Christian Zen. In part that is due to the nature of the thing: Zen is non-conceptual and anti-intellectual; it does not articulate truths or dogmas; it aspires to an "enlightenment" that is non-cognitive, mystical, intuitive. But in her case she suffered a deeper, personal wound: due to her parents' divorce, she attended Catholic boarding schools in the 1950s. She craved her mother and was hurt by Catholic teaching on divorce. She never recovered from that. As bright and experienced as she was, she suffered a deep incapacity to grasp the Catholic faith in its childlike simplicity. In that she perhaps resembles many of her fellow Zen practitioners: a restless, searching soul, allergic to the Catholic faith in some mysterious way.

I personally lack any expertise in or familiarity with Christian Zen. I enjoyed in college a course on "Oriental Philosophies" with an astute scholar from nearby evangelical Wheaton College, Illinois. At the time I was also reading Gilson and Maritain: I saw the sharp contrast between classic Catholicism and the Eastern religions and philosophies. I retained an urgent desire to go deeper into my own faith, but little interest in the alternatives. I was disappointed, for example, to see Thomas Merton, the great Catholic apologist of the 1950s, be distracted from his monastic vocation into the Catholic Left and dialogue with the East. Merton is perhaps also exemplary of the Zen Christian: sublimely gifted and insightful, he was a searching, restless spirit, incapable of rest and contentment in the faith and his vocation as given.

Christian Zen aspires to some synthesis of the two: it alleges that Zen practice does not contradict the Gospel, but can enhance one's engagement with it. So, I was curious to see if Christian truth was present in the meeting. I did not find much.

Demographics

Located in NYC and Jersey City, this community was what you would expect: older (mostly boomers), white (in the non-pejorative, non-ideological sense), educated, professional, affluent, liberal, and mostly women. {Aside: that last may have something to do with the Roshi: a tall, handsome, gracious, confident, charming, PhD in both theology and psychology,  nonagenarian Jesuit.} Many were raised Catholic. A small group retain Catholic zeal, observance and piety. More seemed to have replaced the practice of Catholicism with Zen mediation and community.

Catholicism and Zen: Incommensurate, Not Directly Contradictory

Catholic magisterium has been fairly gentle with Christian Zen. There has been no clear prohibition or condemnation to my knowledge. A 1989  Vatican document from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, warned about confusion and dangers. But it did allow for dialogue and some prudent use of meditation techniques and the  like.

This contrasts, sharply, with the way the Church handles competitive faiths: Islam, Mormonism, Marxism, Cultural Liberalism, radical Latin Mass traditionalists, and so forth. Zen is an entirely different thing. It is not a philosophy or religion in the Western sense. Mohammad, Luther, Joseph Smith, Karl Marx were all Christian heretics: they developed out of Christianity, but accentuated and denied aspects so as to propose an alternate faith. But Zen is something altogether different. It does not propose an intellectual interpretation of reality. It does not deny or affirm God, Jesus as Lord and Savior, our Bible, papal infallibility, natural law, the unitive/procreative nature of sexuality, or anything else in our faith. Zen theoretically can coexist with Christianity since it does not directly compete. It is a different game entirely. 

We see then that one might conceivably, without explicit self-contradiction, with caution, practice Catholicism and and some form of Zen. Thus the light approach of the Vatican. However, realistically, the two are incommensurate, not really compatible, if practiced with integrity.

Buddhism is an alternate path of life, an understanding of reality, a practice. Pursued in any depth and consistency, it leads not to the Person of Jesus Christ, but in a different, obscure direction.

 Non-Theistic

Zen does not cognitively assert the existence of a supreme, absolute Creator. It is not assertively-lucidly- militantly atheistic in the manner of Marx, Freud, Nietzsche and our Western masters of suspicion. It is probably closer to what we call pantheism or panentheism. God is for Zen the "null curriculum"...not mentioned one way or the other. In that way it is implicitly but really a form of unbelief as it offers a path to meaning devoid of God. The Buberian I-Thou that is the heart of Revealed religion is absent, and replaced by something else.

Anthropology: No Self, No Freedom, No Sin, No Salvation

Zen does not offer salvation as it does not believe in sin. It offers something else: release from suffering into peace by way of "Enlightenment" as freedom from the illusions of an autonomous Self. Suffering is an illusion because the Self is an illusion. Meditation leads to release from this. And it discards the entire  Catholic anthropology of the person as a image of God with freedom, intellect, will, and purpose.

No Revelation, No Event, No History

Catholicism is the reception, contemplation, and interiorization of a Revelation given over the centuries but culminating in Jesus. Zen knows no such thing. Rather the goal seems to be release from passions, concepts, aspirations.

Catholicism is eventful: it centers in the Encounter with Jesus Christ which saves us from sin. Zen knows no such thing. The "retreat" experience is different for the two. For Catholic many retreats resemble Cursillo in which there is a strong proclamation of the love of Christ in a way to radically change the lives of those listening. In the tradition of the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises, the retreatant is lead through particular meditations to an encounter with God's love that leads often to some form of life decision. By contrast, Zen practitioners can go to countless retreats but never experience a life-changing conversion, encounter or call. One gets the impression of a "groundhog day pattern": nothing new happens, but the pattern is repeated in accord with the cyclical nature of primitive religions.

History, salvation history, is the essence of Judaism and Christianity. God enters history; everything changes; we are on a journey to the Kingdom of God. Zen seems to be an escape from history and change into some state of non-binary tranquility. 

Content of Meditation

As we "sat" in silence, I kept wondering: "What is everyone thinking?" There was no content offered. In Christian meditation we focus on some aspect of life in Christ: events or teachings from Jesus himself or his saints. My understanding of Zen is that it observes, tolerates and detaches from the flow of thoughts and feelings. The end state is not clear. No external, objective gift is received. The goal is release from "self" but there is no one to effect that. Ratzinger has warned of a privatization, an enclosure of the self within itself. He spoke of an "auto-eroticism." It is puzzling: escape from the Self remains enclosed within that very Self. This is not promising from a perspective that looks for the self to transcend  in love for the Other, the Binary, for God and neighbor.

Broader Cultural Consequences

The serious, systematic practice of Christian Zen engages a very minute, niche demographic. As such it is not a prime pastoral concern of the Church. But Ratzinger said that a version of such may surpass Marxism as an alternative to Christianity. This would be broader, popular, less particular currents of spirituality that are very influential in informal, non-institutional ways.

We might call this: Therapeutic, Moralistic Pantheism. Zen aligns well with the triumph of the therapeutic: both focus on the Self. As there is no transcendence in God or the afterlife, there is concern for wholeness here and now. I would venture that many American practitioners of Christian Zen simultaneously are in private therapy. 

The goal of Zen is a moralism, similar to the Christian, of compassion and kindness, for the suffering. This is its most potent connection with Catholicism. But the mercy does not flow from a higher, supernatural source. Rather, it is an enlightened empathy, a sense of harmony, an overcoming of delusional self interests and a mystical communion with all of life.

Pantheism is not an organized religion in America, but is widely pervasive and influential. For example, Paul Vitz showed that lucid atheism is largely a male position associated with reaction against the father. Women, by contrast, lean less into assertive atheism than a pantheism that aligns well with radical feminism, eco-ideology, and nature mysticism.

Christian Zen may then be a clear, defined expression of a far broader, informal, influential, populist piety.

Conclusion

My observation: a consistent, vigorous observance of Catholicism and Christian Zen is an exception, an outlier, an eccentricity. More broadly, Christian Zen is a replacement, an alternative. It attracts a searching soul: sensitive, desirous of more, altruistic, possibly alienated from her childhood faith.  Christian Zen seems to be detached and ultimately distracted from the texts, sacraments, icons and practices that mediate our faith. 

It contrasts sharply with 12-step practices of AA which draw from our Christian legacy and pull in the same direction.  

It aligns with other dominant currents of middle class spirituality: individualism, the therapeutic, feminism, environmentalism, cultural and political liberalism, and the cosmopolitan sophistication of the upper echelons.

The question it raises is one that has haunted me since my youth: why is it that so many...intelligent, well motivated, good people...lack faith? We know that our faith is a gift from God; it is not merited or earned in any way. But why is it that so many have not received this gift? This is a Mystery...a sad and sobering Mystery! No simple answer presents itself.