Fasting

Today being Good Friday, I review my 78th lent and find my fasting was well above my norm.

Confession of a Non-Faster

My norm is very low: not zero but close to it. I believe in fasting. Jesus himself said some demons cannot be cast out except with prayer and fasting, But I pretty much never fast. I can't fast. I have a constitutional aversion that I have not been able to overcome. But this lent I made some progress. Part of it may be that my appetite is diminishing as I age. The rest is God's grace.

I am product of my time and place: with my boomer generation, I am soft. We were protected, secure, comfortable, and generally indulged. We are not tough. Our parents were tough: Great Depression, War, large families, marvelous church, exploding economy, containment of communism, a peaceful and prosperous world order. Even now we retirees receive inordinate money from the government and sit on assets while the young cannot purchase homes. I am ashamed of myself and my cohort.

What I Have Learned About Fasting

1. Intercession.  

The only thing that ever motivates me to fast, that overcomes my resistance, is intercession. At various times in my life, when someone dear to me was in trouble, I easily fasted as part of my intercession. Whenever I felt hungry I thought of my dear one. I felt an aversion to eating. For example, I have done the three day fast on liquids only. After the first difficult day, it became easier as my stomach shrank. When I broke the fast I was not terribly hungry. Additionally there is the well known physical benefit f the purging.

2. Spiritual Leisure: Freedom from Stress

I cannot fast when I am at all stressed. In 12-step spirituality we learn (HALT) to avoid becoming Hungry, Angry, Lonely or Tired as our tendency is to treat these with our preferred addiction. I would add to that stress. Stress for me is aggravated by hunger. Eating comforts me and diminishes anxiety. For example, my current schedule has me attending to the needs of our home for women on Monday and Tuesday: paperwork, repairs, personal problems. There is a lot going on. I do not even think about fasting. This may be part of why I avoided fasting: most of my adult life had me engaged in a degree of stress. There is some wisdom in this. The non-fasting may have been in part a prudent if humbling deference to my psychological weakness.

3. Spiritual Leisure and Delight.

The underlying psychology of my daily routine has me looking forward to my next meal, however modest. Eating may be the most steady, dependable, satisfying aspect of my day.  For me to fast I need to replace those delightful punctuations with spiritual ones. So, I can fast when I know I will take a long, quiet walk; spend time in Church, alone; do some spiritual reading; maybe even take a nap. In short, my craving for pleasure and delight gets redirected to the spiritual. Fasting becomes easy.

4. Communal, not Individual.

Catholic fasting is not an act of the will by a solitary individual. It is a corporate thing. Everyone is giving up meat and eating fish on Friday. Everyone! We are by nature intrinsically mimetic and social; and so it is with fasting. Recall that the preaching of Jonah provoked all of Nineveh, from king to the animals, to fast in contrition. In the catechetical confusion that prevailed after 1965, fasting fell of fashion in progressive circles. Traditional Lenten practice indicated fast, prayer and alms. But up-to-date priests would dismiss fasting in favor of acts of charity. This was a huge mistake: charity and discipline work together, not against or in place of each other. The pendulum is swinging back. Fasting is cool again.  My nephew is doing Exodus 90, a demanding program of masculine discipline. A grandson gave up all sweets; another takes cold showers; my wife gave up wine. I love to hear these things. They encourage me. And I feel that I am a little part of a very large ecclesial movement. Every Ash Wednesday Jesus directs us to our rooms to fast quietly and covertly rather than seek approval. That valid truth needs to be balanced: we need let our light shine so as to encourage and strengthen each other, in the mimetics of holiness.

Tomorrow evening we will transition within the Paschal Mystery into Easter, 50 days of festivity and feast. May the Holy Spirit deepen, intensify, purify, and strengthen us in communion, compassion, and spiritual delight! 

What is a Woman to a Man?

 Many things...very very good and very very bad...profound, mysterious, dramatic, complex.

First, the very very good.

1. Mother.

For several reasons, a woman is always for a man, at least unconsciously, mother. 

First, the man spends 9 months and several years enclosed within the mother. That experience, of filial gratitude/trust or suspicion/resentment, abides always.

Second, every girl is already infused, by God and nature, with the powerful instincts of maternity, as she organically embraces her first doll. Woman is finally mother; as man is finally father.

Third, the mature, wholesome man in search of a spouse, however unconsciously, looks for the mother of his children, the singular partner in creating his legacy. This contrasts sharply with the immature male who is seeking regressively to recover his own lost mother.

2. Sister, Friend, Partner.

Here we have mutuality and equality in respect, affection, chaste delight, and shared interests, values, adventures and missions. This starts with one's own biological sisters and cousins; translates to friends; and fundamentally defines the wife.

3. Lover and Spouse.

Here we include the flame of sexual and romantic desire/fulfillment as wholesome and holy,  intended by God to image his own passionate/intimate/dramatic love, properly within marriage. Outside of that communion, many friendships, in chaste restrain and within wise boundaries, enjoy the enrichments of libidinal appreciation.

4. Madonna-Virgin-Martyr-Beauty.

In a privileged, extraordinary way, woman embodies the True, the Good and the Beautiful...emotionally, physically, socially, intellectually, and spiritually. This finds its ultimate expression, of course, in Mary, mother and virgin. Secondly, we see this in our virgin-martyrs and in all consecrated women. Even the natural beauty of women is properly a reflection of the deeper, eternal reality of Beauty.

5. Daughter.

A man achieves full virility in fatherhood, biological and emotional/spiritual. The father's paternal bond with daughter is different from that with son: more intense delight, distance, mystery, difference, protectiveness, tenderness, reverence. The mature man transfers this paternity to every woman, in her preciousness, fragility and trust. 

In every encounter with a woman, the man engages, in endless combinations, these five dimensions: gratitude/trust/affection, camaraderie/friendship, desire/intimacy/communion, reverence, gentle-strong tenderness.

Now, the very very bad:

1. Sex object.

This is not the natural, holy sexual desire intended by God, however urgent and passionate. This essentially is objectivization of the woman: she is configured entirely as a source of pleasure and release. Her dignity, her personhood, her suffering, and holiness are all blocked. 

2. Goddess-like, Distant Object of Desire.

Similar to the prior dynamic, this is less physical than psychological. Here the woman is coveted as the satisfaction of a deep, emotional emptiness. The root cause is surely in part a traumatic loss of the mother and a residual wound of emptiness and longing. The man suffers interminable tension as he craves what he cannot have. An excessive female cultivation of glamor, even if not deliberate, inflames this urgency. This is a suffering that if not acknowledged leads to obsession, bondage, sin. 

3. Evil Stepmother, Femme Fatale.

Here we have the dark, devouring, rejecting mother figure. Jezebel, the seductress, the critical-harassing wife, the smothering mother. Even the relatively normal male can experience the dissatisfaction/criticism of the relatively normal female as psychically life-threatening.

4. Object of Resentment, Contempt, Abuse.

Developmentally, the adolescent male commonly sees femininity through the lens of an inadequate masculine ideal as weak, cowardly, annoying, emotional, and of little worth. In the best case scenario, he gradually attains a confident masculine identity, wholesome friendships, spousal intimacy and masculine appreciation for the splendor of the feminine, deeper than the mere physical. Alternatively, the man with mother wounds can become pathologically misogynist: viewing woman with contempt, rage, fear, controlling dominance and frustrated desire. This becomes abuse, neglect, or disordered distance.

A woman can be for a man: excruciatingly desirable, threatening, smothering, demeaning, seductive, frustrating, and incomprehensible. More truly she is  fascinating, awesome, mysterious, incomprehensible, delightful, comforting, inspiring, encouraging, and holy.

 And What am I as a Man to a Woman?

Let us confess to God and our sisters: we are abusers, neglectors, disrespectors, cowards, regressive and needy infants.

May we rather be:

Brother, Friend, Partner in Christ, before God first and foremost. Here there is equality and mutuality. "In Christ there is no man and woman." Chaste, fervent, passionate communion in the good, the true, the beautiful; in adventure, delight, and mission. In this I am brother equally to man and woman.

Childlike, Grateful, Receptive of the feminine/maternal comfort, care, wisdom, empathy and love; ever moving beyond the childish, the selfish, the regressive.

Paternal as tenderly protective and providing. A steady source of stability, clarity, wisdom, and calm.

Reverent before innocence, loveliness, virtue, generosity, nobility, and holiness. 

Mary our Mother, St. Joseph and all you saints and angels, Pray for us!

Praying for Sinful Souls

An hour ago I had a pleasant conversation with a priest friend, an octogenarian monsignor who most days offers mass privately in his home. At my request he will offer masses for Caesar Chavez and  Father/Bishop-by-virtue-of-indelible-seal-of-ordination Ted McCarrick. He would not take a donation. He was happy to do so as he is an admirer of both. He served as pastor under McCarrick for the entirety of his time in Newark and knows many good things about him. He mentioned that we don't know that they didn't repent of their sins. I was delighted that he is saying these masses.

As I get older, I like to pray for the souls and have masses said. I am getting closer to my own particular judgement, retribution, mercy and wrath. This is important. This is Catholic. A crucial conflict between the Protestant reformers and Catholicism was precisely masses and prayers for the souls in purgatory. In the wake of Vatican II, which was an ecumenical reconciliation, there was a covert triumph of the reformers in the "Spirit of Vatican II". It was not that anyone denied purgatory or actively discouraged prayer for the deceased. But, in large part, we simply stopped doing it. It was now the null curriculum. Funeral services became Resurrection-focused, sin-ignoring, eulogy addicted, solemnity-deprived, retribution-denying, and heaven-presuming. Catholic ritual continued to pray for the deceased; but popular piety imbibed the cool aid of a secularized, sentimental, superficial, cockeyed optimism. 

Next I hope to have masses said for Jefferey Epstein and Bernie Maddow. Then, Brigid Bardot and Ingrid Bergman. Probably Fr. Bruce Ritter and Jean Vanier. After that I am even thinking about Saddam Hussein and Osama ben Laden. 

In each of these I see good. I cannot just accept that their souls go to hell.

Note: the normal donation for a mass is still $10, the most inflation-resisting bargain in the world. Of course, it is a donation: one can give more or less or nothing at all. To "sell" a sacrament is the serious sin of simony. I don't want to have these masses said in the parish as it can cause scandal, confusion and unhealthy controversy.  So, for my new crusade, I hope to quietly engage priest friends, out of the limelight. 

I am not inclined to pray for Fr. Marcial Maciel,  Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, or  Mao. I won't deny you the right to pray for them. Theoretically it might be good for me to pray for them...and Pilate, Nero, Genghis Khan, Count Dracula, and Ivan the Terrible. But psychologically I cannot grab on to any good in them. It doesn't feel right to me.

We pray always for Mercy and Justice. Not just mercy. But mercy in justice, truth, and annihilation of evil. We want retribution: not revenge, but justice as good for good and destruction of evil. 

We do not pray for Lucifer and his minions. 

 The classics, of course, are JFK and MKL. St. Padre Pio had high regard for American presidents and was deeply saddened by the assassination of Kennedy. He allegedly told a priest friend that Kennedy was in heaven. It is also reported that Pio said he benefited from all the prayers of the faithful. Does this mean we need not pray for him? I think not! This is, after all, private revelation. If anything, he may be in heaven as God foresaw all the prayers for him. And likewise in the case of King. 

A death brings for us here closure, a conclusion. But not absolute finality. For the damned, the judgement is definitive. But the soul in purgatory is still in motion; and the one in heaven intercedes for us on earth. Life here is not self-contained, but opens up to a broader, eternal drama.

Additionally, as considered in an earlier blog, it is possible that the moment of death, for each of us, included hardened sinners themselves in the act of a mortal sin, might have each of us face to face with the wounded-but-glorified Jesus in his final offer of Mercy albeit with Justice. With that in mind, we do well to pray for those who have died even hard in sin. As God transcends time, our prayers are retroactively efficacious. 

The Church in her wisdom has assigned no person to hell; in her mercy she buries the murderer, terrorist, pedophile, suicide, and the psychopath. There are rare exceptions this, for pastoral reasons, where it would cause scandal.  The practice of the Church resonates with the question of Balthasar: Dare we hope? 

And we hope that when each of us faces that moment, we will benefit from prayers and masses yet to be offered for us in the Body of Christ, the Church. In the meantime, we do well to revive our Catholic practice of prayer for the souls, even of hardened sinners, as our conscience and the Holy Spirits prompts us. As we emulate Christ and his saints in their thirst for souls, we all benefit.

May their souls...and the souls of the faithful departed...as well as the not so faithful departed...through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.

Birthright Citizenship and the American Bishops

 As usual, I largely sympathize with the moral view of the bishops on this issue but think they err in advocating. They are "out of their lane"...as usual.

Their concern is that children will be vulnerable to "statelessness." This is a strong moral argument. But it is not an absolute. It is a prudential judgment that must weigh other concerns into a political policy. But the bishops enjoy no authority in regard to policy. In this case, it is not even a political problem, but a very specific legal, constitutional issue. The bishops surely enjoy no authority in that.

Most of the nations, even Catholic ones, do not provide birthrate citizenship. We do not see the Vatican or some synod of bishops crusading for it as they often do against controlled borders, global warming, or the prudential use of lethal force in capital punishment and warfare. Clearly, this is not some Catholic moral absolute.

The judges themselves will not rule on the moral goodness (protect children) or even the political wisdom of the policy, but upon its constitutionality. The conservative judges generally know their role: to umpire policies according to precedent and the Constitution. It is not for them to autocratically decide what is best for children, or the poor, or the nation.

The liberal political conscience does not know boundaries, form, or order. It's raging indignation explodes into sports, the Oscars, and the Church. And so, we are subject to political harassment in every arena as liberal justices themselves determine for us major issues like abortion, gay marriage, death penalty and others. 

The birthright constitutional clause and precedent is so strong and clear that it is highly unlikely the justices will side with Trump. Some may very well sympathize with his political reasoning about the risks to our nation in light of the recent flood of illegal immigration under Biden. But they know that is not their task. This issue is not up to the Executive, even with the Judicial, to determine. It is a complicated political question that should go through democratic and legislative processes. I would not be surprised if there is a unanimous decision against Trump.

The bishops forfeit their political authority when they step beyond their mission. It is not for the Church to dictate political policy to the nations. Outside of clear moral absolutes (abortion) practical policy is complex and contentious. It is properly the competence of the laity: politicians, governors, activists, social scientists, and such. The bishops need not concern themselves with this. They have enough to do with worship, reception of the Word, proclamation of the Gospel, Church governance, dogma and morals.

Their propensity to dictate political policy unveils an arrogant clericalism: a sense that they must teach the ignorant laity the right things to do in policy. Actually, the "right things to do" are not revealed in Scripture or Tradition or to the Magisterium. They are often confusing. They must be worked out, often in culture war, among various factions.

By advocating specific policies, the hierarchical Church polarizes us further and needlessly alienates those of us who come to opposing prudential decisions. 

We can trust that the Supreme Court justices, especially the conservative Catholic ones, know their lane. The bishops can learn from them.

State of Grace/State of Sin; Objectivity/Subjectivity...Balancing Binaries

Traditional, pre-Vatican II catechesis, was clear: you are in a state of grace or a state of sin. A hard binary: no gray areas, no spectrum or scale. Grace is friendship with God. Mortal sin (deliberate, free act that is gravely evil) breaks that relationship and places you in the state of sin. We would refer to someone "living in sin" which meant sleeping with someone outside of marriage. Likewise, missing mass on Sunday without good reason was grave and had to be confessed before one could receive communion. Someone with a mortal sin, unconfessed and unpardoned, would add additional sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion. Any number of venial sins would not destroy the state of grace. But venial sins would eventually lead to mortal sin if not repented. 

This crystal clear model disappeared from mainstream Catholic catechesis after the Council. It was part of the ecclesial collapse into confusion after 1965. The papacy of John Paul and the Catholic Catechism of 1994 marked the beginning of recovery. 

This moral clarity and simplicity presents a problem! In 1965 75% of Catholics went to mass on Sunday; today that figure may be as low as 20%. Most of our Catholic friends and family are not there Sunday. Do we say they all are "in the state of mortal sin?"

Well...not exactly. Here we have to distinguish objective from subjective evil.

The act or condition itself can be objectively evil: a Catholic missing mass or sleeping with his girlfriend or advocating legal abortion. We can and must make that objective judgement. But we cannot judge the subjective culpability of the person doing the act. We cannot read the heart and intellect of someone else: we do not know their intent, or their knowledge, or the psychological forces (fear, insecurity, anxiety, trauma, etc.) that may be at work. 

A person can be objectively in a state of sin but not culpable subjectively due to a defective, ignorant intellect or a will weakened by psychological damage. Imagine a young woman who has been neglected and abused and surrenders herself sexually to the first man who show affection for her. Objectively this is grave, but her intention may be relatively innocent, her deliberation and discretion compromised, her consent not fully free. And so, only God can look into her heart and measure her culpability.

We do well to retain our Catholic objectivity while we see the immense psychological depth, complexity and mystery of human subjectivity. We can and must judge objectively the good/evil of an act. But we cannot look into the heart of another and judge that. The "triumph of the therapeutic" which gripped our culture and Church after 1965 is not all bad. We can draw the good out of it in our pastoral sensitivity to the inner drama of the human heart as we keep our Catholic sense of the moral order, the battle between the kingdoms of darkness and light.

Imagine two doctors. One has given himself over to generous, sacrificial service of the very poor. He has also fallen into love and adultery and stopped going to mass. The second is successful and prosperous, proudly in mass every week with his impressive family before he goes to the country club. He cares not for the poor as he enjoys a superficial, satisfying life.  Which of the two is in the state of grace? As we ponder this we of course think of Ceasar Chavez, Martin Luther King and others!

Happily, we do not have to judge. We leave that to God. But we can pray for both civil rights leaders. And we might invite the country club guy to give a day to serve the poor in the city. And invite the adulterer to come to a penance service with us.

Lord, let your mercy be upon us as we place our trust in you.!

Father, Forgive Them for They Know Not What They Do

In the psyche ward of the county jail I met Michael about two years ago, when he arrived and I joined the Catholic jail ministry. Cognitively he was ok, but very depressed, quiet. He only asked: "How do you get rid of guilt?" I have seen him a few times since as we rotate to different sections of the jail. He would attend our Catholic communion service every week, but with rotating leaders. He seemed different this past Friday. He was walking briskly, exercising. He was serene and peaceful as he told us his sentencing will be June 5 and he expects to get 30 years. I wondered what he could have done. In prayer he was different. Quiet but peaceful. Good eye contact. In the petitions he prayed "that all incarcerated people could leave jail better than they entered." That touched me and I mentioned it. He spoke sincerely of hope and how important it is. I marveled: You are looking at 30 so calmly; you must have hope. We discussed the Passion of Christ and he noted that Judas redeemed himself somewhat at least by his remorse. My partner leading the prayer correctly contrasted Judas and Peter: Peter received pardon, Judas did not. I agreed with that, of course, but did affirm Michael's point: the contrition of Judas was not without value, I shared the theological opinion, neither renounced nor affirmed by the Church officially, that Christ appears to each of us, sinners, at death, showing his wounds sustained for our pardon, and offers his mercy. And so, while we Catholics believe in a hell populated, at least by demons, we do not know with certitude that any human is there, even Judas. 

Later I learned his crime. In a schizophrenic state, fighting about household chores, he stabbed his mother and father to death. Now I understood the guilt. I was amazed by his newfound peace. I have been thinking about him since then. I see this as a real miracle. A GREAT miracle, if quiet and hidden.

I am happy with our Catholic mission. Jails do always welcome religious visitors as we can give them headaches with our enthusiasms and good intentions. But we are welcomed by the officers. We are simple, compliant, disciplined, obedient and objective. We do a simple service: read Scripture, receive communion, discuss the readings. We do NOT involve ourselves personally with inmates. Priest comes monthly for confessions. Jail rules are strict. We are there too share our Catholic faith, with the efficacious Word and Sacrament. We do not reveal last our last names. Do not bring in pens, rosaries, phones. Any piece of paper must be approved by the officer. We rotate so the inmates meet different people every week. It is not about ME, but the simple, clear objectivity of the communion rite.

It was this simple, steady objectivity, I assume, that assisted the miracle of conversion of Michael.

The jail chaplain is a muscular, tattooed, no-nonsense drill sergeant type, with a tender heart. Our leader, an ex-marine, worked for years in UPS management like myself. The jail, the military, UPS and Catholicism are alike: a clear, simple, masculine objectivity of form, rules, protocols. This is not about feelings, relationships, therapy. There is discipline, purpose, accountability, seriousness of intent. Jail is serious stuff, life and death, hard and objective; Catholicism is serious stuff, life and death, hard and objective.

Michael will be moving on to the state prison, a dark place, worse than the local jail. Let's pray for him going forward: that his own peace be preserved; and also that he be a light to others there in his quiet, meek manner.

God, bless, protect and strengthen Michael. Grant that the incarcerated be drawn to you.

Top Catholic Intellects of the 20th Century

Indulge, dear Reader, Fleckinstein's compulsion to rework top-ten lists. Our criteria here will be: fidelity to our Catholic legacy; range of influence; depth, breath and creativity of erudition; and holiness in personal life. With an exception, we identify groups, nor individuals.

10. One of a Kind: Avery Cardinal Dulles. A personal favorite of mine as he taught me, he is the only solitary on this list. He stood largely alone...like Athanasius against the Arians, like Marlon Brando/Terry Malloy against Johnny Friendly and his thugs (On the Waterfront), like Gary Cooper in High Noon, like Henry Fonda (in 12 Angry Men), like Gregory Peck, whom he resembled, (To Kill a Mockingbird)...against the theological progressivism that prevailed through the 1980-90s. Named a Cardinal for his work, he earned the respect and affections of legions of intellectual antagonists, including in his own Jesuit order, by his brilliance, vast erudition, ecumenical sensitivity, quiet charm, humility and unspoken holiness. His theological method and style is continued, with more flair and a slightly better vocabulary, by his younger colleague, Fr. Tom Guarino of Seton Hall. Dulles was not entirely alone: he worked closely in the Catholic-Evangelical dialogue with key figures Neuhaus, Colson, Reno and others.

9. Popular Spiritual Writers: Baron von Hugel (largely unknown early 20th century expert on mysticism), Henri Nouwen, (early) Thomas Merton (of The Seven Story Mountain, later 1960s Merton of the Catholic Left and dialogue with the East not so much,) Carlo Caretto, St. Charles de Focault, Romano Guardini,  and Walter Ciszek S.J. Important non-Catholic voices would be C.S. Lewis, Etty Hellison, Simone Weil, Abraham Heschel, Martin Buber. Not included here are widely popular thinkers who are dissonant with fundamental Catholic principles: Richard Rohr, James Martin S.J., and Joan Chittister. 

8.Biblical Scholars:  Especially in the build up to Vatican II: Raymond Brown,  Joseph Fitzmyer, John McKenzie, Cardinal Bea, Joseph Ratzinger and more recently Scott Hahn and Brant Pitre. These have all brought academic study of the Bible more clearly into Catholic thought.

7. American Communio School of Theology: David L Schindler, David C Schindler, Antonio Lopez, Nick Healy, Michael Hanby, Adrian Walker and others.  These bring the Communio theology of John Paul, Benedict and Balthasar into conversation with our American culture.

6. Evangelists: Fulton Sheen, Fr. Patrick Peyton and Bishop Robert Barron. Sheen and Barron are first rate theologians, but these three are remarkable for their vast influence. In a different, lay key we note Frank Sheed. 

5. Holy Women: Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Madeleine Delbrel, Caryll Houselander, Elizabeth Leseur, St. Elizabeth of the Trinity.  Non-academics, these women lived lives of heroism and holiness, often very close to the poor and suffering,  as they exercised immense influence through their communities, thought and writings.  Adrienne von Speyr is a special, controversial mystic and close collaborator with Balthasar. Ralph Martin considers her to be gravely pathological; Balthasarian true belivers, myself included, see her as immensely important. 

4. Lay Philosophers: Jacques and Raissa Maritain, Maurice Blondel, Etienne Gilson, Dietrich von Hildebrandt, Edith Stein (St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross), G.K. Chesterton, Rene Girard, Gil Baile, Remi Brague, John Finnis, Germain Grizez, Robert George, George Weigel, Louis Depre, William May, Robert George, Charles Taylor, Alasdair McIntyre, Gabriel Marcel, Paul Ricoeur, Peter Kreft, Augusto del Noce, Ivan Illich, Schumacher, Karl Stern. Adjacent to, coextensive with and co-inherent with theology, these critically engaged contemporary thought, drawing largely from Thomism and Personalism. It is notable that among these 25 there is not a single priest (excepting the laicized Illich.)  The clergy dominate however in theology. A special case: Fr. Stanley Jaki, priest-scientist-theologian. 

3. Periti at Vatican II: De Lubac, Danielou, Congar, Boyer, Chenu, Phillips, Ratzinger, Courtney Murray and John Osterreicher.  These greatly influenced the Council and went on to interpret it in continuity with tradition. Fr. Phillips is not known globally as a theologian but was the diplomat who navigated the documents to find common ground and virtual episcopal consensus. Garrigou-Lagrange deserves mention as a conservative voice that was decisively countervailed. Other influential thinkers, after the Council, pursued a progressive direction which had harmful effects in their followers: Haring, Kung, Baum, Schillebeeckx, and others.

2. Founders of Lay Renewal Movements: Luigi Giussani, Kiko Arguello, Chiara Lubich, Ralph Martin and Collaborators (Cardinal Suenens, Steve Clark and others). These articulated distinctive, creative but Catholic-loyal spiritualities that inform the Church of the new century. Influential in a different lay movement, liberation theology, we can include Gustavo Gutierrez  who worked to keep it within the boundaries of Catholicism. 

1. St. Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, Hans Urs von Balthasar. Taken together, their work rivals that of Thomas, Augustine or entire schools of the fathers and doctors. It defines our Catholicism of the years to come.

That is actually 80, not 10.  (Ratzinger shows up in three groupings.) Each an utterly distinctive synthesis of intellectual brilliance, loyalty to Christ and his Church, holiness of life, and wide influence. Few remain with us. Imagine their conversation in heaven! A conversation in which we share as we consider their lives and read their writings! 

Pray for us, you wise and holy ones,

that we may receive, cherish, defend, enhance, and above all hand on

the legacy you have left us!

This list is hardly exhaustive: it excludes literary, scientific and political figures. Who has been ignored or overrated here, dear Reader? Your comments are welcome!