War Forever: The Long Game of an Internationalist, Culture Warrior Catholic

So called "forever wars" (Iraq, Afghanistan)  are disparaged as wasteful and useless by many on the left and the right; notably by J.D. Vance and his millennial generation. This simple point of view rests upon a mistaken assumption: that peace is an option. A simple binary is imagined: peace, as in Biden's abandonment of Afghanistan, or war, as with Trump's current invasion of Iran. 

The truth is that we are ALWAYS, everywhere, at war...always in this life, always within human history, always. Peace with Hitler, peace with the USSR...  was never an option. Nor is it now with China, Iran, Sunni Terrorism, Cultural Liberalism, and the crime families to our south. Peace is not possible. The binary is not peace or war, but victory or defeat, Chamberlain or Churchill.

Most men understand this intuitively. By the time we can talk we know that life is about: the good guys and the bad guys. This insight does not come fluidly to many women. This reality is absolutely, systemically denied by contemporary liberalism.

Vance and the right blissfully trust that isolationist retreat will ensure peace and prosperity in the homeland. This is delusional. We could not detach from two world wars or from the Cold War. As I write, the Iranian military, that has been largely destroyed, retains a grip on the straight of Hormuz and is strangling the entire global economy. They can do this at will. If their entire arsenal is destroyed, they will be immediately replenishing drones and missiles, working in shops and importing from abroad. They would not hesitate to bring down the global economy. In our age of crypto-warfare and AI, isolation is all the more misguided.

The delusion on the left is more profound. Progressivism is optimistic: there is no devil, no sin, no permanence of evil to the human condition. We will enter a utopia of peace when people are fed and sheltered, educated, therapized, reasoned with, affirmed, understood. We need to address the deeper roots of the problems and war will disappear.

The ontology of Evil

We know from Revelation that evil and combat predated human history. Lucifer led a third of the angels in revolt against God. They all live eternally in hell, separation from God. Human life is a participation in that combat. Like the angels, we face a simple binary: heaven or hell. Peace between the two is not an option. In the paradise of Eden, Adam and Eve were not shielded from the demonic attacks: as free agents, their destiny was already to engage Evil: surrender/victory. Not diplomacy, compromise, and negotiation.

War with Islam

 In an early encyclical, Pope Francis famously said that "true Islam is a religion of peace." How he as Catholic pontiff can define "true" Islam is a good question. But facts verify the more negative scrutiny offered by Pope Benedict in his Regensburg address on the interplay of irrationality and violence within that religion. Almost immediately, at its origin, Islam crushed the flourishing Christian civilizations of Africa and the Middle East. The singular instance in which Christendom regained territory was the reconquest of Spain which took 770 years. We waged the crusades for two hundred years. Islam would have swept east through Europe except for ferocious battles at Constantinople 718, Lepanto 1571, Vienna 1683, Zenta 1697, Vasvar 1664, and the first Balkan War 1912.  Today we are engaged across the globe in this never-ending civilizational conflict: Sunni (Isis) and Shiite (Iran) terrorism, the immigrant invasion of Europe, and alerts everywhere.

Islam is a particularly resilient, persistent, tenacious, aggressive religion. It takes much that is best of Judaism/Christianity: monotheistic belief in a transcendent, holy God and the moral code of the ten commandments. It combines this with a regressive misogyny (polygamy) which fosters a hyper-masculinity and a cult of warfare. It lacks the merciful Gospel and the efficacy of the sacraments. It aggravates male propensities for lust and violence but offers inadequate purification rites. The result is that the guilt/shame add fire to a righteous violence, now viewed as Jihad. It is remarkable that many of the suicide terrorists of 9/11/2001 were using pornography the evening before they died. It makes perfect sense: they had no recourse to confession so they cleansed themselves by a martyr's death.

This is not to demonize Islam. There are rich resources in this faith, including mercy, hospitality, humility, prayer and piety. No doubt there are interpretations within the tradition which renounce this legacy of violence. But the historical record is clear.

The mullahs of Iran and warriors of Isis are enemies of America, Christianity, Judaism and Israel. They are at war with us. It is for us to protect ourselves and all that is precious to us. We are at war with them. Retreat with Vance into isolation is not possible. Diplomacy, without military might and the willingness to use it, in the mode of Obama and Biden, is self-defeating.

World of War Lords

Our world resembles that of El Cid, 11th century Spain. A colossal civilizational conflict of seven centuries. Everywhere there were local war lords, Christian and Muslim. They aligned with each other, often in messy arrangements. For example, at times a Christian and Muslim Lord will find it to their advantage to align against others of their own faith. Nevertheless, the major fault line is between the two religions and their civilizations.

Call it Christendom or Christian Nationalism or Catholic Integralism...but our faith is corporate, political, civilizational...it is not private, isolated, interior. Our faith ineluctably incarnates itself in institutions, families, practices, politics, conflicts, laws, armies, police, schools, organized works of mercy and a culture. Our faith create a civilization. And ours competes with our adversaries. 

Five civilizations are in competition in our world: Christianity, with Catholicism as the stable institution at its heart; Communism in various nations; Islam, expressed variously among Sunni and Shiites; fascisms; Cultural Liberalism.

Our four opponents are all perversions of Christianity. As noted, Islam is a merge of Arian or Judaized Christianity with misogyny and a culture of war. Communism is Christianity secularized into a this-worldly utopia and therefore inherently totalitarian. Fascisms are often blends of toxic-imperialistic nationalism, xenophobia, and a corrupted Christianity (as with Putin). Cultural liberalism is another secularized, perverse ethos of materialism, narcissism, sterility, toxic empathy and despair.

Fascism is the least of our threats as it lacks an enduring ideology and often dies with the tyrant (Hitler). Communism and liberalism are secular and therefore lack the faith in transcendence. They are trapped in a final despair. This is expressed in the demographics: sterility, a failure to procreate. So our greatest long term threat is militant Islam. It believes in God and heaven and therefore is freed from many earthly fears and entrapments. It has a high reproduction rate. It successfully passes on its faith to the young. 

Catholic Internationalist

No less than our rival ideologies, our Catholicism is expansive, confident, generous, evangelical. Liberals want to put lots of tax money into exporting contraception, abortion, the the LGBTQ agenda. Putin's Russian fascism is brutally imperialistic. Chinese communism is intrusive over the globe. And the proxies of Iran extend over the entire Middle East. But all the more so does our Catholic faith urge us to share it.

Our Catholic faith urges us to defend freedom...especially of religion, but all the freedoms. And to expand these freedoms...in never ending combat with repressive communism, fascism, Jihadism, and cultural progressivism. This means war...all the time.

Conclusion

Our current fight in Iran is a temporary skirmish in a long term war. Within a few weeks, both sides will run out of ammunition and the fighting will calm down. Both sides will declare victory. The regime will not collapse. In its two faces, clerical and military, it is resilient, tough, aggressive. While it may only have the support of 20% of the people, there is no countervailing force with weapons of destruction. To install a new regime would require an occupation. Such is not a political possibility. I wish it was. 

We are handicapped in our war against Islam, Communism, and Fascism as we fight a civil war within our own civilization against Cultural Liberalism. This religion denies the supernatural, including the demonic and the sinful. It assumes a humanity that is inherently good, peaceful, reasonable. It believes we can dispense with war if we redistribute wealth, defend the oppressed, feed the hungry,  provide education and therapy. It deconstructs family and gender as it reconstructs sexuality as the indulgence of the isolated, sovereign Self. It renounces fatherhood in horror of toxic masculinity and patriarchy. It is emasculating, perverted, depraved. 

The  number of adults who daily use marijuana has doubled in the last five years. This ethos of lethargy and passivity is connected to the plague of pornography, the cult of contraception/abortion, the failure to protect our borders, the escape from Afghanistan, weakness before Putin, the bipartisan explosion of deficit/debt, Critical Race Theory and its emasculation of the black male, deaths of despair, and the demographic winter.

It is the crisis of virility. The emasculation of our society and our Church. The refusal to recognize and cultivate the form of noble manhood.   

It is for us to "man up"...to gird ourselves, every day, in little ways and large, for the combat...personal, cultural, spiritual, civilizational, political...in which we are ever engaged.

 

Themes of Masculinity in "Lonesome Dove"

 This 8-hour, 4-part, 1989 miniseries is worth the time: it is a classic western, with powerful themes of masculinity.

1. The Virile Friendship between ex-Texas-Rangers Gus McRae (Robert Duvall) and Woodrow Call (Tommy Lee Jones) is the strongest portrayal of male friendship in my cinematic memory. There are other great ones:  the Newman/Redford pairs in The Sting  and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; multiple friendships in Lord of the Rings (Frodo/Sam, Aragon/Gandalf); Damon/Affleck in Good Will Hunting  and The Rip; Midnight Cowboy (Hoffman/Voight) and others. But this movie is the best.

The two are aging, ex-Texas-Rangers, probably Civil War veterans, renown for their toughness in fighting Indians and bandits in wild postwar Texas, who set off on a new adventure, a cattle drive to Montana. They share with each other a quintessentially masculine affection/respect, within a distance and a lively, humorous, competitive interaction. They know each other so well and most of their conversation is reminding each other of their character failures, with candor, humor and tenderness. Woodrow (Jones) is the Captain: lonely, incommunicative, emotionally repressed, a man of impeccable courage and honor. Everyone is in awe and fear of him, except Gus. Gus is affectionate, talkative, philosophical, funny, fun, a lover of women. Woodrow is distant from and awkward with women. They are a perfect match for each other; equally tough; but Woodrow's gravitas is equaled and slightly excelled by Gus's charm and charisma.

Both are bachelors, unsuccessful in love, but in contrary ways. Woodrow had loved a whore, fathered a son by her, but never spoke her name. Gus is crazy about women. The love of his life, Clara (an awe-inspiring Angelica Houston, the match of both our protagonists) had refused his multiple offers of marriage, realizing he would never settle down. Gus patronizes a local prostitute, Lerena (a fetching Diane Ladd), but then courageously rescues her and protects her as she recovers from the trauma of rape. His striking strength and tenderness are resplendent with noble virility, even if his habits of lust do not meet the Christian bar of chastity. 

Interestingly, Clara despises Woodrow as she realizes that Gus's loyalty to him, their shared adventures and missions, overwhelmed his love for her. This is a most striking fact. They are, to be sure, both bachelors. And yet, as a Catholic I cannot help but see here a resemblance to the celibacy of our priests. Neither men were really capable of mundane fidelity to wife and family, because their loyalty was to broader causes and adventures. There is a heroism, a nobility about this life, along with a loneliness, albeit mitigated by their friendship with each other and their posse (including a radiant Danny Glover as scout, super-competent and lustrous with goodness.) In this they resemble, here as a pair, similar Western heroes: Alan Ladd as Shane, John Wayne in The Searchers, Red River, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, and others.

For a Catholic man, his wife/family are number one priority, which is why our priests and our Western heroes are single, bachelor, celibate. But that is not an absolute. For us, loyalty to Christ is primary. Also, camaraderie with our brothers is essential. I would suggest that the three pillars of masculinity are: first loyalty to God, second fidelity to wife/family, and third allegiance to the brotherhood and its wars. We have Gary Cooper in High Noon, who must abandon his bride to fight his enemies; in his case alone, epitomizing the lonely dimension of masculinity. But in real life we have St. Thomas Moore, Franz Jagerstatter, and now Jimmy Lai as men who left wife/family in the hands of God to pursue a deeper allegiance. Beyond that we have our firemen, soldiers and police who willingly engage in life threatening work, at the risk of their immediate family, to protect the larger family.

 2. Father/Son Distance and the agony of desire, affection, fear, distrust between the two here recalls the classic Red River, (my personal western favorite,) another cattle drive in which father (John Wayne) and surrogate son (Montgomery Cliff) are driven to fight each other.

Woodrow is deeply troubled as a father: he cannot acknowledge his son to be his own. There is a deep darkness in him regarding women, himself, shame and guilt. Gus is well aware of it. There is a wide gulf here between father and son. Yet, he is fascinated by the boy. And the boy, on the cattle drive, becomes a man and leader in the image of his father. He passes through the primal agonistic test to own his noble virility.  But he must do this on his own, without a hint of affection, encouragement or support. In a striking scene, the boy fights a stronger man and takes a good beating. Woodrow calls the other men off to allow the fight to proceed and the boy be badly hurt. But at the end, the son (bleeding like Brando in The Waterfront or Jesus on Calvary or Gibson in Braveheart) faces his opponent in calm confidence with the authority he has (hiddenly? mystically?) inherited from the father who cannot acknowledge him. It is a strikingly, excessively, masculine form of fathering. When Woodrow leaves the ranch, he gives the boy his horse and his father's watch. He starts to speak the words "I am your father...You are my son." He cannot say them.

It is my view that he did his best. He showed his love in his language; it is not the spoken word. This is an aspect of masculinity. It was particularly true of our father's generation. My mother told me a million times, in words, "I love you." My father did not. He loved me as much. In some ways more. A man is capable of tenderness for another man...son, father, brother, friend...that a woman is not and that a man does not have for a woman. Because a man knows from within the agony of being a man...the loneliness, the fragility, the insecurity. A woman does not, intuitively,  know this. A woman does not experience the agony or the ecstasy of masculinity. 

I recall sitting by the bed of my dying father, with my sister Catherine, and I wanted desperately to just say "Dad, I love you." I could not. I simply could not. I prayed for a special grace. It did not come. Then I recalled that he would show his love for his grandchildren by a kiss to the forward. I walked to him and kissed him gently on the forehead. I sat down with a heavenly peace. He opened his eyes from sleep and calmly said "Matthew just kissed me." So, personally, I give Woodrow a pass for his muteness here. 

The Hanging of Jake Spoon...Retribution

Jake (Robert Urich) had been the third wing of this marvelous Texas ranger trio. He is fun, affectionate, charming, funny, bright, handsome. He is a compulsive gambler and womanizer, a superficial person with no depth of character. Gus warns that he is one that "...goes with the way the wind is blowing." So, we imagine that when he rode with Gus and Woodrow he fought galiantly. But he falls in with a group of depraved sociopaths and lacks the fortitude to resist them, at the risk of his life, even as they gratuitously shoot, hang and burn some simple farmers. Gus and Woodrow catch up with them and, with vigilante justice, hang the group. Jake pleads to their friendship: he intended no harm. " I was just trying to get through the territory." He was protecting his own life.

This is the single most touching, striking event in the film. We feel the tender affection of the two father figures for this, their weaker protege. But Gus is clear; "You passed a line." "You know how it works, Jake, you ride with an outlaw, you die with one."

Consider: why did they have to hang him? My wife, watching with me, says she would not have done so. I would have. This is, to a degree, a male/female thing. Jake was not really a threat to do more harm when he was free of this gang. Hanging him was not deterrence, not protection, not rehabilitation. It was retribution. It was the right thing. It was vigilante, wild west justice; but it was justice. This was a raw, violent hyper-masculine world. Men of character, like these, knew the meaning of justice, as retribution, as reward for good and punishment for bad. In our hypo-masculine world, by contrast, retribution as a form is no longer coherent or obvious. And so we have today, from the Vatican, an absolute prohibition of capital punishment and a soft pacifism. 

Conclusion

Raw violence and death pervade the narrative. Most of the key characters die, largely by violence. It is almost entirely a non-Christian world. 

The clearest residuals of Christianity are the burials. They go to great pains to properly bury and mark the graves. Astonishingly, Woodrow rides thousands of miles to bury Gus as he requests and then marks the grave with a crude wooden cross. 

There is a sadness, a nostalgia, a melancholy about the story. The protagonists are themselves old and nostalgic. They leave no family, except the one son who is alienated. All surges of romance end in heartbreak. Implicitly, there is a sense that the world in which they so excelled is now passing quickly away. 

And yet the tale is not nihilistic. Tenderness, reverence, loyalty, courage, and nobility shine out all the more brightly, even in the absence of any transcendent horizon, amidst all the evil, heartbreak, and sorrow. And this in the mode of a striking virility.

The Moment of Death: Christ's Final Offer and Our Ultimate Opportunity

 Theological thesis: at death, Jesus, having descended to the bottom of hell, presents himself to each of us, saint and sinner, showing his wounds, offering Mercy and eternity in heaven. That is a final and definitive opportunity for each of us, even those who die in sin, including suicide. Here we are invited definitively to receive Mercy, confess our sin, forgive others. 

This thesis is neither affirmed nor denied by the Church so we Catholics are free to accept or reject it.

It was repeatedly asserted by the late, revered Father Benedict Groeschel, particularly in reference to a suicide of a dear friend.

It is eloquently articulated by Gil Baile, out of Balthasar's dense theology of Jesus' descent into hell on Holy Saturday, in his masterful God's Gamble.

I find this idea to be credible and very inspiring. Specifically, it gives us hope for those we love who appear to die in sin: suicides, overdoses, and similar. 

Let's be honest: over most deaths there hangs a heavy ambiguity, a dense mixture of good and bad. While there are definitely some who clearly die in a state of grace, and probably at least some who die deep in the state of mortal sin, most of us lack that clarity. We are a mixture. It would seem that our final, eternal destiny would require a more definitive resolution than we achieve, apparently, in this life. 

This is why we Catholics are greatly comforted by the reality of purgatory and why we pray for the deceased. Most lives end with some degree of incompletion: a remaining need for contrition and reparation. And so this new concept of a decisive final encounter with Christ grants a sense of completion. It might be part of the mystery of purgatory, perhaps the initiation into that for those who do not go directly to heaven or hell...which is to say almost all of us.

Particular Judgement?

This is not the same as our traditional idea of the "particular judgment," but could be understood as a development of it. That idea was common Catholic knowledge until the 1960s. I have hardly heard it used since. It is the personal judgement at death; to heaven (perhaps by way of purgatory) or hell, forever. This contrasts with the general judgement, at the end of time, when we will all be judged together. Your destiny is already determined, at the particular judgement, by your decisions during your life. By contrast, this newer concept posits a final moment of freedom and decision. Baile speaks of it as "after death" while I prefer to imagine it as the very moment, the final and decisive moment of this one, unique, decisive life.

Fundamental option?

This idea must be distinguished from the concept, in moral theology, of the "fundamental option." Proposed by Karl Rahner and others after the Vatican Council, this posits an underlying orientation towards or away from God which is more important than specific acts of sin. By the logic operative here, one might perform a mortal sin without losing the "state of grace" understood as basic direction towards God. So, one might deliberately commit adultery or murder, perhaps in passion and confusion, but if there is not a clear, subjective rejection of God, the sin would not be mortal.This logic minimizes the gravity of particular mortal sins. It was rejected for this reason by St. Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. Catholic tradition maintains the sublime gravity of specific sins, as well as good deeds, and their significance for the state of the soul. 

But the idea of a fundamental orientation of the soul is not wrong. Indeed, the soul oriented to God will be all the more troubled by the dissonance of grave evil; as the soul distant from God will easily tolerate evil.  

Presumption?

A concern might be that the idea of a final option may induce presumption: "Why worry about sin? I can always opt for God at the last minute!" That would indeed be a deadly, presumptuous attitude. My view is that the prospect of that final decision moves me to prepare throughout this life as one's final decision is surely in large part fruit of the many decisions, for or against God, that anticipate it. I see myself as an athlete, preparing for the Olympics or the championship game: my preparation is immensely important!

Alternate for "Limbo?"

This idea of a final, free encounter resembles the old concept of "limbo." Limbo was never taught doctrinally by the Church; it is not in Scripture and not held by the early Fathers. The idea developed in the middle ages as an explanation of the destiny of unbaptized infants who die without personal sin but in original sin. Since baptism into the Church was considered necessary for eternal salvation there was a huge question about these infants. "Limbo" was a widely accepted idea: an intermediate state, neither boundless Joy nor punishment, rather a bland neutrality. This seemed to maintain the mercy and justice of God and the necessity of baptism. The idea was widely rejected across the Church around the time of the Council and more formally by the Vatican in 2007.

What has replaced limb? Simply, we entrust the souls of the little ones...especially newborns, miscarriages, abortions...to the mercy of God. And so, prayers and funerals are appropriate. 

But good questions remain. Heavenly life...in love with God...implies an act of freedom. The soul is a spiritual intellect and will, capable of freedom in decision to receive and reciprocate love. And so, while we trust in the Mercy of God, there seems a need to posit  an act freedom, of intellect and will, in response to God. And so, it makes sense to imagine that even the embryo, at the moment of death, is somehow imbued, directly by God, with intelligence/will to freely accept God's love.

We honor as saints the Holy Innocents, who were slain for the Christ child, but incapable of deliberation or choice in the natural realm. It seems necessary to posit some super-natural freedom and capacity on their part to fully receive their heavenly award.

Conclusion

I do not expect the hierarchical Church to teach this concept as doctrine. It has little precedent in Church history. It resembles "private revelation" understood as the personal experience of saints and mystics which is not part of "public revelation" which the Church clearly affirms. We the faithful are free to accept such private revelation if it is not contradictory of public revelation. It also resembles various pious practices...prayers, novenas, pilgrimages, legends, devotions...which are not integral to our faith but if they do not contradict it can be helpful and enriching for many of us. 

I cherish this theory, but do not give it the level of belief we have for revealed truth: the Trinity, Eucharist, purgatory, or the Immaculate Conception. We will never really know until we are there ourselves.

The idea stresses the Mercy of Christ, without compromise to his justice. It maintains the core idea of our Freedom. It allows for our weakness. It gives us hope for those who die under the cloud of mystery and darkness: suicides, miscarriages, abortions, overdoes, and others. 

Grant us, Lord, through the intercession of Mary and St. Joseph, happy deaths as we encounter you ultimately in all your mercy and justice! 

Inspire us to prepare for that time like a champion in training!

On those who die in ambiguity and mystery, show your Mercy!

Prayer of Mimesis Before the Blessed Sacrament

 With gratitude to Rene Girard and Gil Baile.

Jesus, our Eucharistic Lord,

Present, hidden and yet manifest,

in this host so small, light, white, plain, quiet.

Make me like Yourself:

Small, silent, simple, serene.

Poor, powerless, patient, pure.

Receptive of and radiant with your holiness.

Make me an agent of your Mercy.

Make me a servant of your little ones.

Make me a radiance of your holiness.

Amen.

The Cruciform (largely unrecognized) States of Life in the Catholic Economy

Catholicism, in contrast to other streams of Christianity, is firmly, clearly structured by the "states of life:" marriage, priesthood and religious life. Normal Catholic life is informed by the vows constituting these states and fidelity  to them. Hans Urs von Balthasar is especially clear on this. The Catholic soul, overflowing with the gift of the Holy Spirit, flowing from the side of Christ, is urged to reciprocate with a similar gift (free, total, clear, final) of self, a vow, to a spouse and family, to the Church as icon of Christ the Bridegroom, or in the consecration of poverty, chastity and obedience. Each of the three vows is the fruit of baptism/confirmation: the reciprocal gift of self.

Catholic "Vocations" and Protestant "Callings"

For example: we speak of and pray for "vocations." By this we mostly mean priests, who bring us the sacraments and preside over our shared life. But that also includes religious and married life. I found that Protestants never speak of vocations. The word does not structure their Church life. They speak of "calling" but it means something different. They (for the most part) lack consecrated life and the sacrament of holy orders. Everyone is the same. But people do receive "callings"...to ministry, to preaching, and so forth. Some years ago our house hosted a young, homeless, Afro-American, Evangelical woman who was on fire with faith and joy. She would smile at me and speak of my "calling." I would ask her "what is my calling?" She would smile again (brilliantly) and refuse to tell me. responding mirthfully: "You know your calling." It was a phenomenal tease. I was desperate to know what she called my calling. I insisted I did not know but she would just smile. I never found out. I still do not know. As a Catholic, I am married and therefore primarily husband/father. That is my vocation. I am unaware of a "calling." I have always aspired to be a catechist, one who echoes the voice of Christ within the Church in various ways. Is that my calling? I like to think of myself as friend of the poor; but that is normal to Catholic life I would think. 

Those Not in a State of Life?

Problem: what do we make of the single life and other ways outside of these three states. It is a minority of Catholics who are living within these states. Are the majority merely  a privation, a failure to give? One might easily conclude so. There is the lack of that final, clear vow, that giving away of self. 

However, these alternate states in fact have hidden structures of grace and sacrifice that work for the sanctification of the persons and the broader Church. It behooves us to recognize and honor these alternative states, the sacrifices involved, and the grace that flows.

To be clear, a "state of life" is far more profound, broad and definitive than more temporary and superficial engagements including career, friendships, ministries, activities. The vowed state structures and subordinates ones entire life. One's vow supersedes any career, relationship, ministry or engagement. 

The cruciform state of life is not structured by a vow, but by an affliction, suffered passively, patiently, sacrificially. It is a defining, final condition that informs ones entire life. Such are not the result of deliberate volition, but enacted by the hand of God. Let us consider examples.

The Suffering and Disabled

Many are afflicted, physically or emotionally, and unable to make the normal vows. These carry a specific cross of frustration, loneliness, and longing. They are deprived of the normal joys of marriage, family, career, and other. This is a crucifixion. Received patiently, trustingly, gently this path brings holiness. Such sanctity is a radiance that edifies all those surrounding. And for the rest of us, we do well to avoid sentimental, toxic pity and to revere the nobility, heroism and dignity present. We do well to humble ourselves and receive the graces that flow to us from closeness to such goodness.

The Chaste Homosexual

A particular example is the frustration, loneliness, and sadness of the homosexual. This is aggravated by stigma and homophobia. But even beyond social isolation, this is a condition of pain and suffering. Here again, the Catholic who receives this affliction in patience and trust, sacrificially, is an icon for all of us of the virile, lonely, abandoned Christ.

Widowed, Divorced, Single Parent

In the early Church, the widow held a strong, sacred status. As a woman without a man, she lacked resources and so was needy and dependent. Care for the widow was a privileged expression of mercy. She was also often holy, a woman of prayer, a certain consecration enacted by God. From the very beginning there was clear recognition of her special state. 

Similarly separated and divorced folks are living with a distinctive disappointment and loneliness. Avoiding moralism and judgment, we see here deep suffering. It is edifying for us to see the generosity and faith in the face of such.

The single parent faces, of course, an overwhelming challenge. The courage and generosity here again is inspiring. Here again, this condition...whatever its origins...entirely structures a person's life into generosity and self-gift.

The Non-Communicant

Not exactly a state of life, this is a precious condition. One who comes to mass and declines to receive is manifesting at once a love for Christ in the Eucharist, a loyalty to the Church, and a humility about her own person as a sinner. The most common cause here is of course an irregular marriage situation. This morning we visited a lovely young Mexican woman in the hospital. She happily told us the Church she attends but declined Communion as she said "juntos, no maridos." I understood her to mean she was with a man but nor married. She was straightforward about it.  Respectful of the sacramental protocol. She prayed reverently. We were edified by her.

Single Life

For the young adult, the single life is a waiting, a preparation for the eventual commitment. I know several beautiful marriages that were confected at the age of 50. What of those who never marry? It is my view that eventually, perhaps after 50, this solitude becomes a final condition, and implicitly an invitation to an intimacy with Christ, an aloneness, that is interiorly the consecrated life. I have known many such men and women. Theirs is a quiet, humble holiness. 

Ex-Priest and Ex-Religious

The laicized priest and dispensed religious are both returned to the lay state and usually marry. Some, for a variety of reasons, do not marry. This is an interesting state. Canonically, they are neither religious nor clerical. And yet, there remains an imprint on the soul. The priest in ordination receives an indelible seal that configures him the Christ specially and imprints powers for the sacraments, especially of confession and the Eucharist. The religious has no such sacramental seal but does live in the light of a sacred vow. This vow is dispensed and yet it cannot but have an enduring permanence in the recipient, even if lived out in a normal lay life of marriage, family and career. This is something that was never discussed in decades past, as many left those states. It is a taboo subject. Yet, we cannot wonder that God continues to work his graces in such souls, if quietly and covertly.

Conclusion

The Catholic cosmos is reminiscent of the feudal world; a marvelous galaxy of different states of life: peasants, merchants, monks and priests, knights, lords and kings. Each one is rich and dense in its tasks, charisms, sacrifices, privileges and mission. There is not a top-to-bottom ranking of best to least. But there is "hierarchy" in the etymological sense: "hier" means "holy" and "arch" means order. And so, a hierarchy is a "sacred order" which is according to the intentions of God. Each state is holy: inflamed with purpose, beauty, sacrifice, truth, and goodness. 

We give praise God for this magnificent, ordered, beautiful world!

Good News about the Priesthood: Quality, if Not Quantity

The numbers are not good for the Catholic priesthood in the USA. Ordinations are down. Many priests are older. There is a significant number leaving the priesthood in the years after ordination. 

But more important than quantity is quality. The good news:  quality is high.

Quality is hard to measure. What follows is personal and anecdotal. But, we do get around. My wife and I frequent at least half a dozen Churches where we live at the Jersey Shore and more where we work in Jersey City and Bayonne. We travel on vacations and to visit our children in different states. We may attend 30 Churches in a year; and experience 75 or more priests. 

Quite consistently and predictably, in diverse locations, the priest is obviously a stable personality, of sound moral character, intelligent, theologically educated and orthodox, and a man of prayer. I find it to be quite remarkable! 

The quality of sermons and homilies is not real high. There is generally a modesty, an ordinariness to the typical homily. That is okay. They are not highly erudite or inspiring. But they refer to Scripture and Christ, are personal and genuine, if sometimes superficial and moralistic. With a scale of 1-10 where 1-3 is bad and 8-10 exceptional, most homilies are 4-7. 

But even when the homily is weak, that is okay. I still marvel that this man, of modest abilities in regard to preaching, has donated his life to give us the Eucharist. THAT is amazing!

More important than the words and ideas is the "vibe" received from the priest. This is consistently excellent. The faith is there. If not impressive. His love of God and the Church is evident. He carries himself with dignity. He is trustworthy. A "stand up guy."

Those of us of a certain age look back to the 50s and early 60: five priests in every parish. We are tempted to nostalgia. But I propose that we may be better off today with fewer priests but better priests. I imagine a military commander tasked with a difficult mission: he might prefer 20 high quality rangers to 100 soldiers of varying quality. The American priest 70 years ago was highly esteemed in society (Bing Crosby, Karl Malden, Spencer Tracey.) Today, the priesthood is widely disparaged. They man who persists as a priest has been tried in fire: he is a "made man!" Solid. Reliable.

The quality of our priests is a testament to the stability, the permanence of the Catholic Church. The steadiness of the priests is like the durability of ancient Church buildings which live through the centuries. It is like the liturgy and sacraments that are passed from generation to generation; like the dogmatic and moral continuity of the organic Church.

This is likewise a credit to our seminaries. There have been problems. In our society an immense challenge is that seminarians are coming from broken families and carry emotional wounds. The seminary is not of its nature a rehabilitation community. It assumes a basic psychological integrity in the seminarian. And so it really specializes in theology and spirituality. 

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the verdict is: the seminaries are doing a good job. Wherever you go, you will find in the local priest the same "form," regardless of personal eccentricities and cultural differences. The priest is a stand in for Christ. He represents something beyond himself. The Church. He is aware of this and so basically humble. He has his own problems. He is an "organization man," even more than the military man, he gives his all for the Church...the Church as an institution but an institution that serves the people, all the people, ALL!

We Catholic love our priests! They are not perfect. That is the point: they are like us!

May all our priests be richly blessed for their service and sacrifice!

May God raise up many more priests, and religious!

My wife and I pray that some of our own grandchildren will receive and answer this call!

Thanks be to God for our priests and the priesthood!

Toxic Empathy

Corruption of the best is the worst.    Ancient Roman maxim. 

The worst is when the very most precious and worthy is corrupted: as when mercy is cheapened and empathy turns toxic.

The concept of "toxic empathy" is helpfully offered by Evangelical, rightwing thinkers (eg. Allie Beth Stuckey) as a hermeneutical clue to the cultural progressivism of our elite class. It is the female correlative of "toxic masculinity." Just think of a certain big, old guy with lots of orange hair and you are aware of: selfishness, aggression, revenge, domination, lust and greed. Of its nature the female psyche is far less selfish, aggressive, dominating and lustful. It is far, far more compassionate. So that is where it can go wrong. Empathy is defining of the person, of the Gospel, and of God. But it is not an unconditional absolute. It becomes toxic when it is exaggerated and unbalanced by countervailing realities including truth, justice, chastity, personal boundaries, authority, and reverence for the sacred, the eternal, the holy. Ungrounded in these principles, it easily colludes with rage, grievance, self-pity, co-dependence, indignation, indulgence and self-harm to undue all those involved. When empathy becomes toxic, it indulges the "victim," encourages sin, negates truth and justice, undermines the common good and corrupts the agent and the object of the empathy. 

The Mutuality of the Masculine and the Feminine

The female psyche is inherently compassionate. The ego boundaries of the woman are porous, open, fluid, receptive, generous. The masculine ego is defined, rigid, inflexible, abstract, intellectual, detached, and oriented by law, authority, and principles. In a good marriage, husband and wife love each other; are receptive and affirming of each others strengths, and corrective of defects. The woman interiorizes order, authority, and justice; the man receives compassion, generosity, receptivity. The defective male spirit, unleavened by the feminine, becomes violent, lustful, manipulative, greedy. The female spirit, unleavened by the masculine, becomes toxically empathetic.

Effete Feminism

The word "effete" derives from the Latin "ex" (out) and "fetus" (fruit). Ex-fetus would mean "having brought forth" or "exhausted from childbirth." It would refer to an animal or field now gone infertile, incapable of bearing fruit. We see immediately the connection to our world: an entire culture built upon sterile sex, contraception, abortion, and the abolition of gender (along with generativity and generosity). It frequently is used derogatively to describe a man lacking in virility. It came to apply to social circles who are over-refined, detached, weak, and unmanly. 

The defective feminism that pervaded our society in the sixty's was essentially effete: lacking in wholesome vitality, fertility, generosity. It was anti-maternity and therefore anti-feminine at its core. From this came obsessions with abortion, contraception, careerism and free sex. This "flight from woman" sprang more deeply from a lack of the Marian spirituality that receives the love of the Father, the eternal, merciful, generous, just and true Father. Authentic femininity is receptive of the masculine as authentic masculinity is donative, generously and selflessly, to the feminine. At the same time, the male is receptive of the female as the woman is donative to the man in a mysterious, enchanting dance that is at once complementary, asymmetric, and synergistic.

Mother of Seven Sons in Maccabees, Mary Mother of Sorrows, and the 8th Station of the Cross 

Contrast toxic empathy with the mother in Maccabees:  the devout Jewish woman who,  loving her God and  religion, exhorts her sons to heroically suffer burning and severance of hands in loyalty to God. She addresses her seventh and last son as he followed his brothers into torture and death: "My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you. I beg you, my child to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being. Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers." (2 Mac 7:28-9)

This mother of sorrows is a premonition of our Blessed Mother Mary who surrendered her son to far greater torment. Here we see the polar opposite of toxic empathy.

 

Also contradictory of this distortion is Jesus' strange rebuke to the women of Jerusalem which we remember in the 8th station of the cross, often misleadingly entitled "Jesus comforts the women of Jerusalem."  The women are weeping for Jesus in his suffering. He harshly rejects their compassion them: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, "Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never nursed! Then they will say to the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and to the hills 'Cover us.' For if thy do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" Luke 23:28-31. This is among the most troubling, puzzling and mysterious lines in Scripture. I do not understand it. But for sure it is a repudiation of an empathy that is on the face of it admirable. And can be extended more forcefully to toxic empathy.

Some concrete examples of toxic empathy.

Black Lives Matter.  The video of George Floyd being strangled to death sent much of our society  into paroxysms of  toxic empathy. The sight, which we all saw over and over again, was graphic and horrific. The reaction was hysteria in a cosmic dimension: obsessions with systemic racism, CRT, defund the police. Floyd became, for the Left, an icon of innocent, passive victimhood. He was in fact a career criminal, father of many children by many women, with a history of violence to women, a drug addict in the act of a crime in a state of intoxication, and a powerful man resistant to restrain even by several officers. His death was tragic but indeliberate.  In my own view, most pathological was the pervasive construction of the black male as defenseless, passive, basically effete in the hands of the police now configured as overwhelmingly white, powerful, and evil. The black male became seen as pitiful, passive, weak, effete, unmanly and void of agency or strength. This stereotype of "anti-racism" is insulting and deeply corrosive of black culture.

Here we might consider pity, a synonym of empathy or compassion. The word, derived from the Latin pietas, meaning loyalty/piety/compassion, is itself rich and wholesome. But consider a related word pitiful. This refers to that which evokes pity, but it carries a heavy negative connotation: weak, contemptable, deplorable. So, we might say: That is a pitiful excuse. With the Black Lives Matters movement the black male was construed by a handful of angry, black women and a legion of bourgeois white suburbanites as exactly pitiable: weak, pathetic, passive. 

Does anyone want to be pitied in this way? No. That is toxic empathy.

Abortion 

Here we find the compulsion to flee pain along with obliviousness to the value of sacrifice, in spiritual and eternal terms. The woman with an unwanted pregnancy is viewed as victim. She is detached from her own agency, her identity and destiny as mother, the realm of the supernatural, her inherent connections with the father, the broader family including grandparents, ancestors, siblings and the generations to come.

Immigration

If the current Trump policy of deporting even non-criminal immigrants is toxic masculinity in its lack of compassion, the root cause of the problem is the toxic empathy of Biden/Harris, a concern for immigrants unbalanced by valid concerns about national security, boundaries, rule of law, the protective responsibility of the state, and our cultural identity.

Minnesota Deaths of anti-ICE protestors Good and Pretti were good instances of toxic empathy. They were of course motivated by compassion for the immigrants. But this was unleavened by respect for the rule of law/authority, prudence, and common sense. It was infected with indignation and self-righteousness. Such unbalanced compassion tends to become intoxicating and smoother the capacity to look at a reality from other perspectives or see the entire picture. It is a kind of insobriety

Codependency.  Every addict (of whatever variety) is normally surrounded by a web of codependents or enablers who are drawn into the chaos out of imprudent kindness. Such support the addiction as they themselves become dysfunctional and disordered through a variety of destructive patterns of protection, rescue, overcompensation and others. The enabler suffers from insufficient personal boundaries and interior psychological/moral integrity and so becomes infected by the core addiction and perpetuates it into close communities.  Here we find the prototype of the empathizer adrift, unmoored from sound boundaries,  integrity of character, truth, accountability, justice and tough love. Happily, we have Alanon and similar groups which help such people to "detach with love."

Smothering Mothers.  There seems to be an inexorable drive, over the last 80 years, starting with us Boomers, to parenting that is overprotective, indulgent, and emotionally smothering. By nature, the mother is more sympathetic and the father more demanding. Ideally, the two complement each other. In organizational behavior we learn that even in more complex communities (businesses, politics, Church) a heathy system sets a high status figure as supportive and affirming (union shop steward, guidance counselor, HR department) in tension with one that is demanding (boss, dean of discipline, drill sergeant).  With the crisis in masculinity, parenting in our prosperous, privileged, pampered society has overwhelming favored effete, indulgent mothering to the detriment of the masculine, the disciplined, the heroic.

LGBTQ Affirmation.  Here more clearly than anywhere we see the hegemony of toxic empathy. The homosexual, suddenly "born that way" (without scientific evidence), is pitied: Poor guy! He can't help what he is! Everyone picks on him! The Church especially is SO mean and judgmental!  We affirm, welcome and celebrate him just as he is! Ancient traditions of chastity are casually dismissed as hateful and ignorant. The sublimity of femininity and valor of virility are both deconstructed. The "gay" is elevated in status and honor as the recipient of "pity."

Personal Anecdote

Just recently I was considering a retreat with my wife in Florida so I researched opportunities. One Catholic retreat house is committed to identification with "the suffering Christ." I instantaneously discarded that option. I am close to perhaps 8-10 people suffering deeply in depression, anxiety, addictions, and mental illness. For me to be helpful to them I must myself be wholesome, joyful, resilient, strong, and hopeful. So I am solicitous of my health, especially the spiritual. We can become vulnerable to the suffering around us, so overwhelming is it. I strengthen my prayer life, especially around the Eucharist and with my wife...for my own sake but also for those I affect.  Jesus was with us 33 years, he suffered on the cross for 3 hours, he abides in Joy eternal now...and beckons us to join him, and draw others with us.

Contemporary Catholicism

Even beyond the priest homosexual abuse scandal, the Church since the Council has suffered a severe masculinity crisis and surrendered, especially at the elite levels of the academy and the hierarchy, to an effete, toxic empathy. The program of Pope Francis is illustrative in its priorities: the absolute prohibition of capital punishment and his aversion to justice as retribution, his blessing of gay unions and dismissal of chastity, his advocacy for immigrants but indifference to legitimate populist concerns with borders and protection of their civilization. 

The Jeffrey Epstein Hysteria

Why the obsession? The guy is now getting exactly what he deserves: in God's mercy and retribution (a very good word!) he is at best deep in purgatory or at worst eternally in hell. His partner is in prison. Yet, every day we hear more about the guy. The narrative driving this preoccupation is: a cabal of wicked, powerful, wealthy, white men conspired to seduce and abuse young women. There is no evidence of such a cabal or conspiracy. It seems to be stronger, strangely, in MAGA than on the Left. It is clear that Epstein was himself a raging sex addict. No doubt he was eager to share his perverse hobby with those with similar vile propensities.  More important is the construction of the "victims" as passive, pitiable, innocent of complicity. The underlying fantasy is masochistic and paranoid: the helpless child violated by powerful, vicious men.

The victims were in fact not children, but young adults. As post-pubescent females they were adult, not only biologically as capable of conceiving a child, but emotionally/intellectually/morally/spiritually. Socially, they were adolescents. But adolescence is itself a social construct of a complex, industrial society. It is unknown to ancient, simple societies which recognize a natural, simple binary: child/adult.

The canon law of the Catholic law allows marriage of a female at the age of 14 but the male at 16. This recognizes the faster maturation of the woman. It grants that at this age she is capable of adult consent and moral responsibility, of spousal vows and maternity. In the eyes of the Church the 14 year old is a young woman, not a child and not an adolescent.

As a group the victims are strikingly attractive, competent, confident, aggressive, persistent and accomplished. They were that way at the time of the abuse. These were not insecure, rejected "losers." They were the cool girls, the pretty girls, the winners. They were chosen because they were beautiful, confident, interesting, and full of life. 

They were not compelled or pressured to return to the island. They came of their own free will because they wanted the money, the glamour, the promise of a future of such. They recruited classmates and even younger sisters. 

The real injustice to them was that they were unprepared to face this temptation: their culture, families and Churches did not teach them their dignity as women,  and the values of chastity, virginity and spousal union. And so, they really were adult (if young and unprepared) collaborators in the abuse.

Construing themselves as pitiful victims, keeps them and vicariously the society obsessed with this) in a limbo state of passivity, irresponsibility, and incompetence. They would be better off to confess their sin, forgive their abusers, and move forward freely with their lives.

Contrast: Simone Weil and Edith Stein (St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross) on Empathy

Contemporaries, converts from secular Judaism to Christianity, mystics, and easily the two most significant, profound female philosophers of the 20th century, these two are fascinating contrasts on empathy, toxic and wholesome.

Weil's thought dealt profoundly with "attention" as the reception of the other, and particularly attention to the afflicted, empathy, as loss of self and really miraculous. This included what she called "decreation." This is a puzzling concept: a mysticism of nothingness, a transcendence of the bodied self, in a deep renunciation of the same. It is the path of suffering and affliction and identification with those who suffer. For Weil, this was not speculative; she lived a mysticism of empathy. She identified so deeply, during WWII, with the suffering, that she basically starved herself to death. This was form of anorexia, but extremely deep and spiritual. It was not the anorexia nerviosa familiar to our psychologists, but anorexia mysterioso, the realm of saints and mystics. Monsignor John Oesterreicher, in The Bridge (1955) traced some of the psychology of Weil. As an adolescent, she felt negative about herself by comparison with an older brother who went on to become a world class mathematician. She seemed to have interiorized a negativity about herself as well as her femininity and specifically her womanly body. This may have been the psychic basis for her later anorexia, however spiritual. And so, her mysticism of identification with the suffering included an extraordinary negativity towards herself, her body and her femininity. She deeply experienced Christ, largely in his love for the suffering, but refused to be baptized into the Church. She shows here a strange "sacramental anorexia" in that she deprived herself of the nourishment, comfort and strength of the sacraments. Elon Musk, along these lines, has spoken of "suicidal empathy."  Weil is an exemplar of empathy in the extreme, unbalanced, and eventually self destructive.

Stein is by contrast feminine in a most wholesome way. She was the most respected student of the great Husserl the phenomenologist. High positions in academia were not open to women at that time in Germany (1920s) so she became a renowned speaker/thinker in women's circles. In anticipation of St. John Paul (another phenomenologist) she developed a positive philosophy of the unique genius of women. For example, in her thought about the education of women she saw that women, as more emotional and empathetic, need deliberate education of the intellect and will in order to be whole and good, in their femininity. She specifically treated empathy as the pathway by which phenomenology might move beyond the subjectivity and solipsism of phenomenology (attention to the experience without metaphysical declaration on what is real) into contact with the real, the true, the objective beyond the self-enclosure of the solitary self. In this she resembles Weil. Additionally, she developed a profound spirituality of the Cross which attended to the realities of suffering, renunciation and sacrifice. But her treatment of empathy led her to contact with reality and so into the classic Thomistic metaphysics of Being and epistemology of realism. As a cloistered nun, she embraced the masculine realism of St. Thomas. She herself died in Auscwitz, a martyr for her Jewishness. In the days preceding, she joyously, generously, heroically cared for those around her. She is the epitome of a radiant femininity, open to and expressive of truth, heroism, prudence, and wisdom.

Conclusion

Let us together give thanks and praise for our masculinity and femininity!

Let us open our hearts to a holy compassion, leavened by truth, justice, and purity

    as we tenderly esteem each other, man and woman, in our contrasting strengths and weaknesses,

   

Let us open our hearts to graces from heaven!