Battle: the "Bachelor Individualism" of the Jesuits vs. the "Conjugal Mysticism" of John Paul II

The theological contours of our civil war in the Church since 1965 are clearly seen in the contest between the Jesuits and the John Paul papacy. Specifically, let us contrast the "bachelor individualism" of the former with the "conjugal mysticism" of the later.

Notoriously, Pope John Paul took charge of the Jesuits in 1981 to discipline and restore them. To the Catholic mind, this was startling. For 400 years the Society of Jesus, informed by the their fourth vow of loyalty to the pope, had epitomized Tridentine Catholicism as orthodox clarity, manly fortitude, evangelical zeal,  and academic excellence. The catastrophic collapse of Catholicism immediately after the Council finds exaggerated expression in the Jesuits. Their contest with John Paul on the mystery of nuptial or spousal love provides insight into the underlying issues of the Catholic Civil War that erupted in 1965 and still rages 60 years later.

In 1965, the Jesuit order had just under 8,400 priests, seminarians, brothers.  Today they number about 3,000 but shrinking steadily with an average age of 63. Quantitatively, they are 35% of what they were  50 years ago. But the qualitative change is more pronounced. 

It is not that all or even most Jesuits changed so drastically. Rather, institutionally the order changed, spectacularly in its universities and publications. The drastic turn to progressive values, contradictory of  traditional Catholicism, was led by a small, but influential group, a "critical mass." An opposing, but ineffectual minority resisted these changes. The vast majority of Jesuits (in my experience) are moderates, strongly aligned with neither side, pragmatic and pastoral, largely abstaining from the battle. But in its affluent, influential institutions, the order has been a primary advocate of an alternate, "enlightened," progressivism. The elite, the influencers... spontaneously, passionately, confidently, immediately...embraced the Cultural Revolution as it exploded after the Council. 

Why?

 Jesuits, Individualism and the "Bachelor Priest"

The Cultural Revolution at its heart enthroned the INDIVIDUAL as sovereign. It elevated the individual, the autonomous-competent-deliberative-agential Self as superior to all bonds and loyalties of family, Church, sacrament, nation, tradition, and God.

The Jesuit charism, centered largely on the autonomous Jesuit missionary, made it uniquely vulnerable to this individualistic progressivism. In sharpest contrast to monks, friars, cloistered communities and most active orders, the Ignatian charism is strongly individualistic: the 30-day Spiritual Exercises are personal, not communal; the nightly Examen; the private praying of the Liturgy of the Hours; and the overall spiritual culture. 

Fr. Charles Murr fondly recalls that while studying at the Jesuit Gregorian in Rome in the 1970s, he walked down the hall where the Jesuit professors lived at the time for vespers. The transoms over each bedroom door were open so that as he passed each room he could hear the priest praying aloud the psalms. (Practice at the time was to read aloud, not silently.) Every single door...a priest praying aloud...alone. This struck him in that it contrasted with the monastic and mendicant practices of communal prayer that preceded it.

The celibate Catholic priesthood has always been vulnerable to a "bachelor syndrome." The "bachelor" is a man not committed to wife and family, detached, alone, individualistic. Religious order priests compensate by their engagement in a community of prayer, brotherhood, and intimacy. The ordinary secular or diocesan priesthood lacks this dimension and so is especially vulnerable to a bachelor individualism. 

This is not an invincible impediment to a life of holiness and charity, but it is a difficulty to be overcome, for sure. Many priests succeed: they have wholesome family/friend relationships with women, devotion to our Blessed Mother, a filial intimacy with Holy Mother Church, a spousal relationship with the (bridal) Church they serve, strong priestly friendships, a virile/paternal identity and a deep prayer life.

Interestingly, the Ignatian charism deliberately cultivates individuality, here understood as intimacy with Christ, fortitude of character, patience in solitude and adversity. The Jesuit ideal is St. Francis Xavier, who travelled to the East to save souls. So, for 400 years, Jesuits were rigorously trained as heroic soldiers of Christ, prepared for hardship, persecution and martyrdom. They were trained to be free of community...Lone Rangers, without Tonto.  

Other groups resemble the Jesuits in this individualistic charism. I have familiarity with the Maryknoll Society of priests having studied to be one in my college years. The priests who taught us were men of sound moral character, deep personal faith, high intelligence, impressive agency and confidence. You did not sense among them a shared, communal spirituality. They were not attentive or close to us seminarians. Later, circa 1975, surging with the communal enthusiasm of the Catholic charismatic renewal, I read Come Holy Spirit by Servant of God Bishop John Ford M.M. He died in a Chinese concentration camp in 1952, having been the first Maryknoll seminarian and initial missioner to China in 1918. I was struck at the time by the pronounced individuality of the spirituality. For Martyr-to-be-Ford the Holy Spirit was not a communal, but a personal reality. It is the particular presence of God that was to strengthen him for decades of mission service, imprisonment and a martyr's death. This is bachelorhood at its best, as solitary heroism and sanctity. It is the Lone Ranger as Catholic saint.

Strangely, this Ignatian charism, iron-hard, tested and tried over 400 years in zealous mission labors, martyrdoms, combat with Protestantism, Fascisms, Communism, and paganisms of all sorts...collapsed into the Cultural Revolution 1965. Not only did it lack an immunity or resistance to the emergent cultural individualism, but it showed a propensity towards it. Two other aspects of the Jesuit heritage inclined it this way.

First, their high intellectualism. They spend years of study, detached from the practical and pastoral. Such abstraction carries dangers.  They are not rooted in a specific Catholic tradition in the manner of the Thomistic Dominicans. This was not a problem in the Tridentine Church which maintained its own academic traditions detached from the broader, secular society. But the Vatican II impetus to engage the broader culture pushed the Jesuits into the influence of Ivy League academia which was at that very time turning secular.

Another core principle of Ignatian spirituality is "to find God in all things." This assumes, of course, a closeness to God, a strong theology, and a capacity to discern the wheat from the chaff. In retrospect, me must judge that the individualism and intellectualism of the Jesuits did not prepare them to resist the siren call, in this new world, of Cultural Individualism. 

Individuality of Influential Mid-Century Progressive Jesuits

At the time of the Council (1962-65) we find a group of extraordinary Jesuits at the height of their influence: Courtney-Murray, Chardin, Lonergan, Rahner and then Arrupe who took charge of the order in 1965. Each embodied the Jesuit ideal: long lives of service to the Church, in a solitary fashion, in prayer and scholarship at once profound and encyclopedic. We might say they are "the last of the Mohicans"...outstanding in loyalty to the Church, intellectual brilliance, erudition, creativity, and personal piety. The problem: their theoretical work built upon the assumption of a bachelor-type individual, alone and isolated. This weakness made their approach vulnerable, especially in their disciples, to the toxicities of Cultural Individualism.

This is most evident in the  immensely influential Transcendental Thomism of Rahner and Lonergan. Famously, they labored to wed the metaphysical objectivity of Thomas with the Kantian "turn to the subject." This "turn to the subject" was the problem. It took as its starting point precisely the isolated Self, lonely and detached. They did not start from the Church in worship or the mystic in spousal communion with God. Lonergan attended to the dynamics of the human intellect. Rahner studied the interior longings and urgencies of the individual human spirit.  In this they resembled the Existentialism of postwar Europe in its fascination with the lonely, anguished individual suffering interior crisis. They did NOT take communion or, conjugality or family as their first building block.

Their slightly younger contemporary Avery Cardinal Dulles S.J. presents a distinct and illuminative image. Notice: Cardinal... He was honored by John Paul for his fidelity to Catholic tradition. In the 1980s-90s he stood as a solitary Jesuit in defense of basic Catholic beliefs in the face of  the progressive militance that swept over the Catholic academia. Particularly in the wake of John Paul's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Dulles fiercely defended the male priesthood. Part of his argument was that the priest represents Christ in his spousal love of his bridal Church so that his masculinity is intrinsic to the sacrament of Holy Orders. Here he reflected the "conjugal mysticism" at the center of the John Paul magisterium.

In this he distinguished himself from mainstream Jesuit theology of the time in its fashionable feminism. This shows he openness of his intellect. He was himself not strongly inclined to such "communio" or conjugal theology, but was personally a typical "bachelor Jesuit" in style and temperament, although a holy one at that. When I took his Fundamental Theology course in 1969 at Woodstock NY he was very positive about Rahner. Dulles did not fit into any school of theology but had an expansive mind that absorbed Truth from all corners, even as he was the sharpest of critics. In his classic Models of the Church (1974) he noticeably did NOT include "bride" and "mother" as significant models. He was himself not a participant in the Communio school of conjugal mystical theology. But he did clearly affirm their primary insights. He was himself surely the "Catholic Lone Ranger" and "Last of the (Jesuit) Mohicans."

And so, it is clear that the foundational realities...women priests, contraception, homosexuality, legalized abortion, leftist politics...in which the Jesuit leadership systemically renounced Catholic tradition for progressivism...all build upon a fundamental "bachelor individualism" and indifference to or rejection of the spousal basis of Catholicism as articulated authoritatively by John Paul, Benedict and their school.

Conjugal Mysticism

The clear, distinctive theological school of John Paul, Benedict, Balthasar and their comrades has been well described as "conjugal mysticism" since it finds in marriage a foundational image for our communion with God and it places immense importance on the actual reality of marriage and family. This is a continuation of the "Resourcement" theology that developed strongly after WWII and largely informed the Council itself: DeLubac, Danielou, Congar, Bouyer, and others. They "returned" to the patristic sources, even as they remained rooted in basic Thomistic metaphysics and engaged contemporary thought.  Influenced by classic Thomists (Gilson, Maritain, Pieper), they strongly engaged contemporary phenomenology and personalism (Stein, Hildebrandt, Blondel, Marcel, Buber). Their focus on the person differed from that of Rahner/Lonergan in that primacy was placed upon relationship, communion and marriage/family. Pronouncedly in John Paul's Theology of the Body and the fierce Catholic view of gender in Stein and Hildebrandt, we find a spousal mysticism that places the masculine/feminine reality at the center of Creation and Providence. And so, in a marriage of traditional with contemporary thought, new life springs from Catholic practice of the sacraments of matrimony and holy orders, the fecundity of sexuality, the holiness of the family and new life.

With a few notable exceptions (Oakes, Pacwa, Fessio), the Jesuit theological guild ignored when it did not oppose the conjugal mysticism and the theology of the body of the dual pontificate. In this they reflected the broader Catholic academy. John Paul brought his announcement to the Catholic laity largely without the the mediation of our dominant intelligencia. Or more accurately, he attracted a small, alternate cadre (West, Everet, Janet Smith, Waldenstein, and the entire international John Paul Institute) to lead a revolutionary,  populist, theological movement.  

In large measure, influential Jesuits resisted. Already in 1964 the Kennedy family convened at Hyannis Port a gathering of progressive theologians, many disciples of Courtney-Murray, including Jesuits Fuchs/Drinan/McCormick,  to lay the groundwork for Catholic support of legalized abortion. Richard McCormick along with leading Jesuits and their schools forcefully rejected Humanae Vitae (1968), although John Ford SJ strongly endorsed it and Arrupe clearly exhorted his order to obedience. Presidents of the prestigious Jesuit colleges joined in the infamous Land of Lakes Conference (1967) which declared Catholic Academy's independence from the hierarchy. And, finally, we have the Catholic LGBTQ movement and its encouragement by our Jesuit pope.

We see clearly a Church divided in its anthropology, its view of the person. Within the Jesuit order we find a "bachelor-individualist" version of Cultural liberalism which champions individual rights: women can be priests and abort, gay sex deserves full honors, and the conjugal imagery is diminished to honor the autonomous, independent, agential Self. On the other side, we have the Conjugal Mysticism which exalts the masculine/feminine as reflective of the unity/diversity of God as Trinity.

Conclusion

Our entire, received Catholic legacy is founded upon the sacredness of marriage as reflecting our spousal communion with Christ: the holiness of marriage and orders, the virginal-bridal form of the religious life, our rigorous sexual ethic, the mystery of femininity/masculinity, the foundational form of the natural family, and the reality of the person-in-communion. 

Catholic, largely Jesuit, Progressivism proposes an alternate anthropology: the autonomous, sovereign Self...sterile, contracepting, same-sexing, "choosing" of abortion and gender, solitary rather than maternal/paternal. 

In response to the Cultural Liberalism which exploded in 1965, John Paul and his cohort have given us a traditional-yet-contemporary Catholic proposal that is encouraging and inspiring in its moral and intellectual splendor. This is a wonderful time to be Catholic. 

 

Worlds of Men: Quiet, Honorable, Humble

I have long been keenly aware of mentors and close friends who have personally influenced me over the years. But Ephraim Radner ("Culture of Parricide" in First Things 11/26) alerted me to another reality I have underrated: the "worlds of men," hundreds who have structured my reality...quietly, humbly, honorably. They have done this in a more objective, impersonal, detached way; less subjective, interior and interpersonal. There is a masculinity about this. The male is inherently more solitary, independent, and autonomous than the female. As father of the family, he assumes a lonely position of responsibility and authority and therefore is trained for a fundamental solitude. And so, the world of men, compared with that of women, is more detached, independent, impersonal, objective. We might add that the Catholic Church, under a male hierarchy, has about it a similar objectivity in dogma, worship and style in contrast to pietisms of subjectivity and emotion. We can also agree (as a sidebar) with Helen Andrews that in the last 80 years our society, including the Church, has largely lost an inner core of masculine objectivity. (See her "The Great Femininization" in Compact.)

My Uncles and my Father's Friends.

I think often of the "world of men" of my childhood. I grew up in the shadow of five uncles and my fathe'rs friends, the "Friday Nighters" who drank beer, joked, played golf and handball together. I was not personally close to any one of them, but I observed them and emulated them. They were all WWII veterans, an admirable, honorable, modest group. Most practiced their Catholic faith in a humble, inarticulate fashion. They never spoke of the war. They joked and laughed a lot. They talked (Democratic) politics, union business, and sports. They demonstrated affection, but not in an intimate fashion. They maintained a degree of attachment. They elicited deep respect.

Parish and School: Priests, Brothers, Sisters

And so we Catholic come of age in the Church, an objective community. It is great if you are personally befriended by a priest, sister or brother. But that is not the norm. Our intimacy needs are met by family and friends. But generally the Church is an objective, stable structure of meaning, guidance, support and comfort when needed. My own family benefited from our parish priests, Christian Brothers and Sisters of Charity.

Maryknoll College Seminary

I cherish memories of my college years 1965-9, but sometimes regret that the fine Maryknoll priests who taught us did not personally befriend us. Yet, they did provide a marvelous environment in which we studied, prayed, and developed classmate friendships. They were in the background. Yet, that was precious in its own virile, impersonal manner.

Adult Life

I worked for 25 years in UPS, mostly in supervision. This is a very virile world. Informally it is truck drivers, lots of machismo. Formally it is an intensively capitalistic, competitive, efficient, hard-driving company. I enjoyed the camaraderie, the union/labor combat, the challenges. I was never mentored, but benefited from alliance with my fellow supervisors. I did not continue any friendships after my early retirement. Yet, it provided a strongly masculine, objective, Church-like (in some ways) structure in which I matured and provided for my family.

I worked closely with intelligent, holy Sisters of Charity, Felicians, and Dominicans. Again: they together created a strong, Catholic world of education.

I benefited from engagement with Jesuits and Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. Again, in addition to some personal relationships, I benefited from the "world" they created. 

What is this "World of Men?"

This refreshing world is devoid of sentimentality, emotionalism, gossip, pettiness, narcissism, histrionics, self-pity, victimization, indignation, and melodrama. 

It is modest, quiet, humorous, good-natured, industrious, competitive, confident, disciplined, reliable, stable, ordered. 

It is authoritative, competent, rational, intelligent, modest, institutional, and heroic when necessary.

It is a world of men who love and serve their women and children, humbly and chastely.

It is a world that abides with us still, in the chaos of modernity, and a world we do well to cherish and develop.

As Uncle and Grandfather

This line of thought is comforting to me with my 31 nephews/nieces and 30 grandchildren. I love each one. Am I personally close to all 61? No. But that is alright. We love and respect each other. I am an integral, small but significant, part of their world. For us this largely means the Church. This is the Communion of Saints, here on earth. This world is not subjective or emotional, but objective, true, good, beautiful, dogmatic, sacramental, institutional, reliable, stable, permanent  and merciful. From this world we all draw life, and to it we make our own personal donation.

Woman: At Once Innocent Victim and Complicit Femme Fatale

 Aside from our Blessed Mother Mary, no woman is perfectly innocent and pure. I know this  intellectually, but have a problem emotionally: I feel that all women are always good and true and beautiful. For example, I completely believed the women accusers of Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, even though I admire these imperfect justices and do not deem the deeds to be disqualifying in themselves in the broad scheme of things. I pretty much cannot get mad at or hold a grudge against a woman. I could count on my ten fingers the amount of real fights I have had with my five daughters and six sisters over the last sixty years. In our Magnificat Home boarding homes for women I have dealt with hundreds of women: borderlines, sociopaths, psychotics, and other. I never really felt victimized or angry. Women have accused me of theft and sexual abuse to the police and the state but I can't carry a grudge. I am the polar extreme from a misogynist: when I fall off the boat into sin it is towards idealization of woman and gyno-idolatry: inordinate craving for feminine approval and intimacy. I come by it honestly as I have always been surrounded by and close to holy, generous, virtuous, beautiful women. My defining challenge has always been to attain the Christlike virility of sobriety, strength, purity, tenderness, reverence and generosity for all women. 

Eve as Prototype 

In spiritual direction, I once confided an inordinate, adulterous attraction  and was startled as the priest erupted into a rant that women are evil, seductive, and to be distrusted at all times. This priest was a holy, wise and influential man. In this situation the woman was entirely innocent; I was the one with the problem. Yet, the priest did have a point: consider Eve.

Her decision to take the fruit was the original sin. After that she tempted Adam. She was herself not wounded by Original Sin so it was a free decision, like that of Lucifer, unlike the rest of us who are compromised by sin not of our own making. Yet, she was duped by a superior intelligence, Lucifer. Additionally, she was alone, vulnerable, unprotected by Adam who was a no-show. So even Eve was in some sense herself a victim. How much more are all subsequent women (excepting Mary) both victims and culprits in the Drama of Sin.

Femme Fatale and Cathy/Kate in Netflix' East of Eden

The allure of the femme fatale in film noir is that she is piercingly beautiful, potentially or actually evil, and possibly innocent, vulnerable and good. This paradox is flamingly portrayed in the new Netflix 7-episode series on John Steinbeck's East of Eden. 

(Moral hazard: the movie has much too much brothel nudity, mostly repulsive. You will not watch this with your children or grandmother.)

Amazingly, this version is the creation of Zoe Kazin, granddaughter of Elia Kazin who won the Oscar for director of the classic 1955 movie version with James Dean (best actor.) The novel, of course, centers on two generations of Cain-and-Abel brothers. This version retains the novel's general structure around the two sets of brothers but re-gestalts it around the anti-heroine wife/mother/whore/madam Cathy/Kate. 

This succeeds spectacularly because of the breath-taking performance of Florence Pugh as the femme fatale. She entirely dominates the movie. The intensity, range, and depth of her acting equals or exceeds that of James Dean which is one of the greatest in movie history.

To start, she is herself breathtakingly beautiful: the camera and viewer cannot get enough of her. Her face manifests, every second, a panorama of emotions: sadness, evil, vulnerability, tenderness. But the movie character developed here is herself complex, deep, nuanced. In the novel and movie she is simply evil. But this series shows her childhood in which she was herself abused. It shows how she reacts to the undesired attention of men, from a very early age. And so, we develop a sympathy for her: she is the victim of men: her father, her teacher and so on. There are flashes of tenderness and vulnerability. But she is...pure and solid...a psychopath. She is effectively void of conscience or empathy. But she retains a humanity, a fragility. I can think of no comparably nuanced and profound a betrayal of a true psychopath, a thoroughly evil person.

Recent Events

It is striking that our news lately has been filled with similar dramas of women who are at once victim of and collaborator in evil.

Lindsay Clancy

This is an extreme case: she was clearly suffering deep emotional illness, whether or not she was technically in a psychosis. She did kill her own children. To what degree is she a passive victim or a free agent. The legal issue is difficult enough; But the underlying moral, philosophical one is even worse. At the end, we just do not know. But it is a graphic example of woman, mother, as victim and perpetrator.

"Jane Doe" at Cornell

An equally confused event. Did she at some level consent? She seems to have deliberately gotten intoxicated and indulged in multi-partner sex. In that was she was a collaborator and possibly in some degree an initiator. And yet, as the event proceeded she was viciously violated. The perpetrators, themselves intoxicated, seem to have participated in varying degrees. My JAG lawyer son who spent three years prosecuting such cases in the army tells me such cases are immensely difficult to convict. The political histrionics and even litigation are not helpful. All involved are underwater in guilt and shame. Contrition and pardon...the reception of and granting of Mercy...are the only hopes.

Christa Pike

She brutally tortured and killed her victim. There is an argument that she deserved (yes: retribution) the death penalty. Yet her own background included multiple childhood rapes, attempted suicide, negligent alcoholic parents, and more. She did not deserve to sit and wait for 35 years...cruel and unusual punishment. She did not deserve to be executed and survive...cruel and unusual punishment. Arguably, in the overall scheme of things, she is as much a victim as a villain...before and after her crime.

Jeffrey Epstein "Victims"

 We continue in a relentless, indignant crusade of empathy for the victims of this now dead man. To be sure, they were victims. They were young, immature, vulnerable and skillfully seduced by powerful, attractive people. But they were not entirely innocent, passive victims as in real child abuse. They were all post-pubescent: physically, psychologically, intellectually developed women. They were overall not poor, hungry, desperate for food; but middle class. They were all attractive, which makes them high-status in their bourgeois, adolescent world. They were ambitious: lured on by promises of career and wealth. Many of them freely recruited friends and even sisters. No one put a gun to their head. They were themselves consensual and complicit. It is past time to end this pity party.

Conclusion

At the end all we can do is pray. We look to the Mercy of Christ.

Pray for these culprit-victims: Lindsay, Christa, "Jane," and the Epstein girls. And even the soul of Epstein himself. 

Pray for ourselves. We are all vulnerable to impurity and evil of various sorts. Even as we are destined to join Mary, Virgin and Mother, in lives of purity, generosity, and courage. In reception of and dispersal of the Divine Mercies!

Dean of Cardinals Tagle and the Catholic Pandemic of Sentimentality

 Sentimentality: the indulgent arousal of  emotions (affection-sadness-pity-compassion-nostalgia) in a disconnect from intellect and reality.

"Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, no hell below us, above us only sky; Imagine all the peoples, living life in peace; You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one."    John Lennon

In proper degree and context, sentimentality, as emotion disconnected from reality, is not a bad thing. It can be entertainment, rest, refreshment. We know that romantic comedies (Pretty Woman) and thrillers (Jason Bourne) are escapist relaxation, unproblematic in moderation.

Problem: our society... technologized, passive, dependent, inactive, bureaucratic, glued to screens...is increasingly detached from reality and addicted to sentimentality: intentional indulgence of feelings in detachment from reality, purpose and intelligence.

The cult of animals is a case in point. These have their place in the order of things and require the correct respect as useful, delicious, nourishing, beautiful, playful, endearing, interesting and so forth. But everywhere we see gushes of affection that are irrational, embarrassing and ridiculous.

Christmas is saturated with sentimentality: extravagance, saccharine songs (White Christmas, Blue Christmas, I'll Be Home for Christmas). Reality: Jesus' birth in poverty and fragility was accompanied by the slaughter of the Holy Innocents, so many people suffer depression and loneliness at this time, etc.

It is hard to imagine a more ludicrously sentimental song than John Lennon's Imagine, the delusion that if there is no heaven-or-hell we will all live euphorically together on earth. It is hard to imagine a more embarrassing scene than Cardinal Tagle enthusiastically singing this very song.

Cardinal Tagle is our new Dean of the College of Cardinals. This is not a position of real power or governance, but is symbolic and functional. He will convene the college with the death of the pope. But it is a position of immense status in the Church. He was apparently one of a small snumber of Cardinals technically eligible and only one of two (the other being Parolin) young enough to be a realistic choice. Therefore, we need not exaggerate the importance of the choice. Additionally, we admit that often we sing songs that appeal even as we ignore the lyrics, especially in a festive setting.

But the problem is: what we know of the Filipino Prelate is that he strongly represents the toxic sentimentality that permeates Catholicism, especially in the hierarchy and academy. Consider:

1. Church/China Accord.   He strongly supports the current accord between the Vatican and the Chinese Communist Party which has effectively surrendered governance there to the CCP. He seems clueless about the brutality of the regime, its suppression of human and especially religious rights, its blatant imperialistic ambitions, its contempt for the Church.

2. Blessing of Homosexual Unions.  He advocates the normalization of homosexuality. He thus implicitly denies the sin involved. He is oblivious of the repulsive physical/moral/social/spiritual aspects of the disordered act, lifestyle, identity and culture.

3. War and Death Penalty.  He crusades vigorously to eliminate capital punishment and war. He seems blissfully confident that evil forces (Communism, Jihadism, psychopaths, serial killers, Fascists) will succumb to kindness, education, negotiation, and diplomacy.

The elevation of Tagle, known as the "Asian Francis," to this elevated rank is troubling as it manifests the triumph of a sentimental Catholicism. It accentuates empathy, kindness, inclusion, affirmation in an effete retreat from evil, sin, retribution, wrath, truth, order and combat. It is a disconnect from intellect, will, purpose and the Real. Sentimentality at its worst!

"Synodality": Castration of the Episcopacy

 By a paradoxical inversion, synodality is in fact a contradiction of Vatican II's strong assertion of the authority of the bishops to govern, as a body, always in union with the pope, the Church. In this the Council magnificently  balanced Vatican I's emphasis in the authority of the papacy. In a subtle, deceptive manner, especially with synodality but more generally, Francis effectively emasculated the bishops in their apostolic authority.

He...unilaterally, surreptitously, dictatorially... implemented four significant changes in Catholic practice without real input from the body of bishops: death penalty, communion for the divorced/remarried, blessings of homosexual unions and allowance of the Latin mass. On the last of these, he reported an episcopal consensus, but we now know the majority favored greater liberty for the practice. We might contrast the workings of Vatican II with those of synodality, as currently in the Vatican conference on Amor Laetitia.

At Vatican II, every bishop had the right to publicly address the body. Every bishop had an equal vote. Pope Paul deliberately protected views of the minority of conservatives. The periti who drafted the documents were guided by the intention to garner a broad consensus. They succeeded spectacularly: average approval rating for the 17 documents was 98.6%. The council was absolutely and unconditionally an expression of the episcopal body. It embodied its own teaching on episcopal collegiality.

Synodality is presented as bishops listening...especially to those who have difficulties with the Church. That is an appealing idea. The average age of an American bishop is 66. Their responsibilities are enormous: governing vast bureaucracies, teaching, mentoring priests, etc. We can assume that our bishops have already spent those 66 years in a posture of listening. We don't need to put them through sensitivity sessions. 

In practice, under Francis and now Leo, synodality is a bureaucratic process in which the voice of bishops is silenced while gatherings and documents are cleverly manipulated by a progressive elite behind the scenes. Speakers and documents are preplanned. Bishops are buried in discussion groups but are not allowed to speak publicly. 

The current gathering of presidents of bishops councils shows this. The purpose is not to consider the infamous footnote on communion for the divorced, but to study its implementation. It is already accepted as established doctrine. But the bishops were never consulted on the radical practice itself. 

Noteworthy is that Pope Leo appointed, as his own special representatives from the USA, Cardinals Tobin, Cupich and McElroy. These three are the extreme left of the American episcopacy. They would never have been elected as representative of the broader body of bishops. Here he is clearly undercutting the democratic consensus of bishops to favor his own Francian ecclesial ideology.

The first speaker of the conference was a Dominican Sister Helen Alford. Who chose her? Not the bishops, but the office of synodality which is in charge of the entire event. The bishops themselves are not running this conference. It is the progressive bureaucrats who are in control.

The burden of her talk was to establish continuity between the teaching of John Paul in Familiais Consortio and that of Francis in Amoris. John Paul, with Benedict, clearly said those married/divorced cannot receive communion. Francis says they can. This is a clear binary; an absolute contradiction. The two documents are divided by 35 years, not a long time in the life of the Church. John Paul restated the continuous tradition of  the Church for over 2000 years. Francis overturned it on his own, without episcopal participation. Sister Alford's argument was that social change was so strong in those 35 years that a new practice is required. This is "progressivism" on steroids. 

She cites John Paul's reference to the "law of gradualness" whereby the Church patiently walks with sinners as they slowly grow in virtue and holiness toward the ideals of the law of the Church. But she makes a huge leap of logic: she uses this to change Church law itself. This was clearly rejected by John Paul and Benedict both. To argue continuity here is shear nonsense.

There is, of course, an argument for liberality on the grounds of pastoral compassion. This must be weighted against the Church's traditional practice as related to marriage and Eucharist, arguably the twin pillars of Catholicism. It would be a worthy exercise to have the bishops in Council argue precisely this. But the scandal here is that Francis/Leo deliberately inhibit such an exercise of episcopal authority. The bishops have been emasculated in their Christlike role of teaching the Church. It is inconceivable that the Pope on his own, detached from the episcopal body, should change a practice that touches the Church in her inner core of Eucharist ands Matrimony. 

The entire progressive agenda within the Church might be summarized as the deconstruction of the Conjugal Mystery of the bridal Church. Cultural liberalism basically sterilizes sexuality and neuters the genders. This expresses as artificial contraception, normalization of homosexuality, technologization of reproduction, and the subjective fluidity of gender. Here it expresses as the neutering of the hierarchy and priesthood, specifically the authority of the bishops. Holy orders sets bishop and priest (and deacons although there are issues here) as icons of Christ the Groom actively loving his bridal Church. In its place we have homogenization, a vague democracy of sameness: laity become priestly, priests become experts on secular/political policy, and women/men are basically indistinct. It is the deconstruction of gender, conjugality, and even sexuality.

To their credit, the African bishops unanimously asserted their autonomy in refusing to bless homosexual unions. The Vatican had no choice but to back down, making it an option. Another admirable exercise of episcopal authority was the famous Dubia submitted to Francis by a small group of cardinals. The Vatican, in blatant disrespect, has never responded.

We can only hope and pray that the broader body of bishops recover their ecclesial virility and assert their proper role in the Church. They have exemplars: the Africans and Cardinals Burke, Zen, Muller, Sarah, Ejik, Brandmueller, Iniguez, and Scola. 

While we love, admire and reverence Pope Leo for his office and his many fine qualities, we see in this current conference the same confusion and dysfunction the Church suffered under Francis. Unfortunately, in this time, an authentic loyalty to the Church will entail a resistance, in many aspects, to the Francis/Leo agenda.

Come Holy Spirit! We Need You!

 

Favorite Movie Romances

Note dear Reader that these are movie romances, not all are romantic movies. But your comments are welcomed: what would you add?

20. El Cid

19. As Good as it Gets

18. Lost in Translation

17. Silver Lining's Playbook

16. Moonstruck

15. It Happened One Night

14. Cinderella Man

13. When Harry Met Sally

12. The King and I

11. West Side Story

10. Sound of Music 

9. Princess Bride

8. Casablanca 

7. The Quiet Man

6. Tender Mercies

5. Life is Beautiful

4. It's a Wonderful Life

3. Last of the Mohicans 

2. On the Waterfront

1. Roman Holiday

Totalitarian Mercy

 Mercy is not everything.

What is Mercy? My definition: the free, generous, gratuitous response of abundance and grace to need, suffering and guilt. 

That we as creatures exist at all is merciful, as we are "created from nothing" out of free, spontaneous, gratuitous love. That we, in Jesus Christ, are forgiven of our sins is entirely merciful...unmerited, unnecessary.

Within the internal, eternal life of God...prior to creation and salvation...there is no mercy as there is no need, guilt or suffering. God's very self is an Event of Love...of gift, of exaltation, of delight...but not of compassion as there is no "passion" in the sense of suffering, deprivation, need or guilt. With creation, freedom, sin, incarnation, salvation...God takes us humans into his Trinitarian life so we might say God "becomes" merciful. It is not that he lacked anything before this, rather his absolute perfection and completion is further amplified by creating and saving us. No process theology here!

Mercy is not everything.

For us humans, finite and sinful, it is the main thing. But it is not everything.

There is also Freedom: the God-given (a gamble on his part, quite reckless!) capacity to refuse mercy. Lucifer and his coterie neither ask for, receive or disperse mercy. And he offers us that same option. Not-Mercy is a reality. We can and do chose it. Mercy is not everything.

There is Justice: also known as retribution (which is NOT revenge or resentment) whereby good is rewarded and evil is punished. Lucifer and his coterie are in hell eternally; and that is a good thing. The executions of Nuremberg and of Eichmann in Jerusalem were good things, just, not unmerciful.

There is the holy Wrath of God against sin and evil. Mary, the angels and saints participate in this. 

There is Truth. The reality of God, heaven, Satan, evil and sin...these cannot be annihilated by compassion.

A mercy that denies freedom, justice, wrath and truth is cheap and sentimental, rooted in feeling not reality. But it is worse than that: it becomes smothering, oppressive, totalitarian.

Divine Mercy Revealed to St. Faustina and Taught by St. John Paul

The most significant visitation of heaven on earth in the 20th century was...in my opinion... the revelations to St. Faustina and their articulation by John Paul II. Yes...more significant than the Marian apparitions,  Pentecostalism, Ecumenism, Vatican II, Theology of the Body, Resourcement/Communio theology, the marriage of Personalism and Thomism, or the liberation and civil rights movements!

It's splendor is that it is a creative, but organic development within Catholicism which give prominence to Divine Mercy but maintains connection with Freedom, Justice, Truth and Holy Wrath.  It is not a rearrangement or reconstruction but an authentic growth in the Deposit of Faith.

In discussion of the developments of Vatican II, Monsignor Tom Guarino helpfully uses the idea of chiaroscuro, the shifting of light/darkness that brings certain realities into prominence. And so, the revelations of Mercy were classic, but so forceful that they produced a creative but organic re-gestalt. For example, for centuries the Church did not grant Catholic burial to victims of suicide since it was seen as a mortal sin. But the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Catechism both changed this, emphasizing the Divine Mercy as well as awareness of the psychological realities that diminish freedom.

Papacy of Francis: Cheapened Mercy

Early in the 21st century, a brilliant satanic strategy unfolded: the Liar did not resist this force but latched onto it and perverted it by detaching it from other realities of justice, evil, freedom, and holy wrath. An isolated, inflated, unbalanced  mercy became the underlying hallmark of the Francis pontificate as it manifested in many areas. 

Death Penalty

 This is the most explicit, clear, heretical break with Tradition. For centuries, the use of lethal force (warfare, police, capital punishment) has been considered the responsibility of the state to be prudentially exercised when necessary in defense of the common good as protection, deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution. John Paul and Benedict both upheld this view even as they argued pragmatically for the abolition of the process in modern circumstances as not necessary. So they upheld the inherent right and responsibility of the state to use it when required. They argued, for example, that modern prisons were good enough for protection. This was itself a weak argument since we know that violence, murder and gang activity are prevalent in prisons around the globe.

By dictatorial fiat, without episcopal consultation (Where is "synodality" when we need it?) or engagement with Tradition, Pope Francis ruled capital punishment permanently "inadmissible" (a strange word here.)

He thereby crossed a line that John Paul and Benedict respected. But John Paul had planted the seeds. He dismissed "retribution" as an adequate reason in itself and stated it was allowable only when necessary for protection of society. He did not explain this easy dismissal of "retribution." 

Cardinal Ratzinger was more accurate and specific. Even as he advanced the crusade to abolish capital punishment, he specified that there was space in Catholic practice for disagreement on the issue. So, he clarified that a Catholic might in good faith disagree with the Vatican (and many bishops) on the issue and so even implement it as legislator, prosecutor, judge or jury without necessarily sinning. Such a person may properly receive Holy Communion, in contrast to those who implement or advocate abortion of the unborn or euthanasia of the infirm.

Retribution

Underlying this debate is the understanding of "retribution."  A drastic change occurred in modernity: from retribution as justice to it as revenge.

Traditionally, God is understood as absolute Justice and Mercy. Justice means retribution: the good is rewarded and the evil is punished. The angels in heaven and the demons in hell; Lazarus and Dives; the sheep and the goats. This permeates the Scriptures and our Tradition. Lucifer is defeated by St. Michael and by our Blessed Mother: this is just, it is not unmerciful.  And so, retribution as justice, as punishment and reward, is itself inherently good. If the delinquent or criminal is punished, this is a good thing, not a bad thing. So, authorities on earth...parents, teachers, police, judges...image the justice and retribution of God on earth precisely in the punitive. 

Especially since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, retribution has been reconfigured as revenge, hatred, violent. To refer to someone as punitive or juridic is disparaging, not admiring. This leaves a cheapened mercy as the contrary of a demeaned retribution. 

Consider the execution of Eichmann in 1961 (or any of the Nuremburg defendants.) He was a feeble, elderly, pathetic figure. His execution was not required to protect the Jews or anyone else. It was surely an exercise in retribution. Classically, this is seen as a good, a just, a proper thing. But in the new paradigm of Francis it would be unnecessary, uncharitable and evil. 

I for one go with Tradition.

Pacifism

Similarly, Francis and now Leo have both stated that war is no longer a moral option. This is also a break with tradition. Catholicism has always allowed pacifism as an option for individuals, but not as binding upon state authorities responsible for defense against aggressors. Here again we return for sanity and sobriety to Cardinal Ratzinger:  he stated in an official note that renunciation of lethal means might in fact enable and even collaborate with bad actors. We see in China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and other nations that war is not the greatest evil on earth. 

Here cheap  mercy allies itself with a delusional expectation that conflict can be resolved and aggression prevented by non-violent means of negotiation, education, dialogue and so forth. This is in effect a denial of the actual reality of evil in our world...a reality that will abide until the coming of Christ,  a reality that regularly requires the just, authoritative use of lethal force.

Blessing of Homosexual Unions

This is perhaps a more grave expression of cheap mercy. The unions here blessed are essentially defined by sinful acts. And yet, the union is blessed. It is not that the individuals, detached from the sin, are blessed. But the very union itself is blessed. 

Our saints who most powerfully manifested Mercy were equally ferocious in their holy hatred of sin. St. Maria Goretti battled her attacker, pleading for him to respect her and his chastity, and absorbed multiple stabs. Later, from heaven, she extended a mercy grounded in holiness. St. Teresa of Lisieux prayed fervently for the soul of the one to be executed, pleading that he be spared hell. St. Faustina, the Apostle of Mercy herself, is flamingly aware of hell. 

By contrast, we see in Pope Francis a nonchalance, a normalization of sin. Cheap mercy.

Holy Communion for Divorced-Remarried-not-Annulled 

Catholics are set apart, even from other Christians, in our reverence for the Eucharist and Matrimony. The two mutually define each other: Eucharist is the self-gift of the Bridegroom Christ to his bridal Church; marriage, in its finality and indissolubility, is iconic of the absolute, final gift of Christ. 

By another dictatorial fiat...without episcopal consent (synodality?) or engagement with Tradition, Pope Francis implemented a momentous change with a footnote in Amoris Latetiae. He granted that a remarried-but-not-annulled person might be granted access to the Eucharist in some circumstances. This was done in a stealthy, dishonest way: in a footnote. This has bitterly polarized the Church: Germans allow communion; Poles do not. Can both be right? Do we still have a united Catholic Church? A decision of this gravity does require episcopal consent, not mere notification. 

This is done in the name of mercy, but a cheap version at the expense of truth. The prohibition is to protect the sanctity of both the Eucharist and Matrimony. It is not a judgment on the subjective state of ones soul; not a social shunning; not about feelings or inclusion. If I have divorced my wife, I remain in a valid marriage unless it is annulled. It is better for everyone that I abstain from the Eucharist. The holiness of marriage and 

Boundaries

Mercy require form, structure, order and boundaries lest it become sentimental, volatile, chaotic, violent and oppressive. Love requires Truth. The Francis Papacy had difficulties with this.

Immigration.  The admirable empathy for refugees, by the Vatican and bishops, is not always balanced by awareness of a contrasting reality: the need for secure borders. And so, in their political advocacy, the hierarchy has in part alienated itself from valid populist anxieties about security and risked alignment with leftist ideologies of the progressive, global elite.

Church Governance. The Vatican is striving for some DEI balance in placing laity and especially women in positions of influence. In this they defer to a toxic, clericalist status envy. By Holy Orders men are set aside...from family, marriage, wealth...to sanctify, teach and govern the Church. We laity have a cosmos of family-politics-business-culture-education-information to govern; we do not need to govern the Church.

"Synodality"   Here again the distinct missions of hierarchy and laity are confused. If this convoluted word is an exhortation to attentive/empathetic listening by everyone, we can welcome it. But, unfortunately, it really is a new, burdensome, bureaucratic process which diminishes the authority of bishops in favor of a vacuous airing of progressive grievances. 

The progressive compulsion, evident in the Francis papacy, is to confuse the role of laity and clergy. The laity are pushed into clerical jobs. The hierarchy intrudes into the secular/lay arena of political policy with a preferred set of positions on war, immigration, climate and other.

Pope Leo

I cherish positive, modest, realistic expectations of Pope Leo. Fortunately, he is free of the anarchistic, "make-a-mess" impulsivity of Francis. He is a man of the Church, of intelligence and competence, of caution,  of the poor, of prayer, of institutional continuity, of peace and unity. He aspires, unrealistically, to a reconciliation of this polarized Church. He does not manifest the theological depth or decisiveness to correct his predecessor whom he clearly emulates. He intends to continue the legacy of Francis. 

We will likely have to look elsewhere...to John Paul, Benedict, their disciples and predecessors...for the acclamation of an integral Mercy, kind and generous at the same time just, true, and holy.

....................................................................                                                                    +-9=7o0j]o9ujyhredazSXCVBN MMaria Gioretti ;'

\+