Chad Pecknold: Catholic Defender of ICE?

Significantly, Chad Pecknold is on leave of absence from teaching theology at Catholic University to become a public spokesman for the Trump administrations ICE policies. This is, to say the least, controversial. 

The US bishops have spoken with unusual unanimity, along with Pope Leo, against the current policies as inhumane. About 50 % of American agree. One study has it that 75% of those currently held in custody are innocent of any crime (other then being here illegally.)

Pecknold is a respected theologian, expert in St. Augustine, who speaks firmly on politics from a right of center position. He is closely aligned with the "post-liberal, new Catholic right" of Patrick Dineen, Adrian Vermule, Sohab Ahmari, and J.D. Vance who propose a new blended conservatism of resistance to Cultural Liberalism (anti-abortion, pro-family, anti-trans, etc.), patriotism, and working class appreciation for unions and a robust federal government to countervail big money and business. They are, on the whole, appreciative of the more Catholic-friendly aspects of Trump. 

By working in this high profile position for Trump he clearly opposes the broad Catholic hatred for the current policies. As a layman, a citizen, and even an ordinary theologian this would not ordinarily be troubling. The Catholic Church has no authoritative, official teaching on political policy. Such is open to a variety of opinions. Such is also the expertise, not of the hierarchy or priesthood, but of the laity in their roles as citizens, politicians, leaders, policy experts, governors and such. So, for a lay theologian to take a leave of absence to serve the government, even in such a sensitive area, is not problematic as such.

What sets this case apart is that Pecknold teaches in Catholic University which has "ecclesiastical faculties" to teach officially for the Church and grant canonical degrees (STD, STL) as distinct from secular academic degrees (MA, PHD). So, he has a "canonical mission" to teach on behalf of the Church. He is not ordained; is lay, not clerical; but has official, legal status to teach authoritatively in a "quasi-clerical" manner. So, his status as an ecclesial official is similar to that of the clergy. So, it becomes a problem for him to retain that status and yet participate as a political partisan, even if the moral issue was not so inflamed. 

(Sidebar: The Canonical Mission is distinct from the Canonical Mandate. Canon Law (#802) requires that all who teach theology in a Catholic college receive the mandate, indicating that they teach according to Church doctrine, from their bishop. This requires a lower level of scrutiny than does the more demanding "mission." Of over 200 Catholic colleges and universities in the USA, less than 20 require it. They are the usual suspects: Franciscan, Benedictine, Ave Maria, Catholic U, Belmont, Aquinas,  Wyoming, Belmont and (to my happy surprise) Mt. St. Mary's in Emmitsburg Md. 

Full disclosure: Fleckinstein, under his real-life name, proudly obtained and retains this mandate from when he taught as adjunct at local NJ Dominican Caldwell College.) 

Working for the Trump agenda he is clearly not "teaching on behalf of the Church." He is not exercising his canonical mission, but his ordinary prudential judgment as a layman and a citizen. But for clarity he would do well to at least suspend his canonical status, if that is possible. Ed Conlin (in Pillar seems to suggest such in a more detailed, instructive treatment of the issue.) However, in the long run, he needs to clarify his mission and vocation: to teach theology on behalf of the Church or to advocate for a political agenda. These are both callings; but they cannot be combined; just as a priest cannot be a politician. Probably he will return to his teaching within a few years. (Few stay long with Trump!)

But I fear his authority as "teacher on behalf of the Church" may be compromised, certainly for the 40% or so of Catholics that despise MAGA. A helpful analogy. Some 25 years ago when I directed our parish confirmation program, four of the 8th graders had fathers who were running against each other for local councilman. Needless to say, I did not hang a sign for any one of them in my front yard as that would have been offensive to the other three and compromised my mission. 

I have personally appreciated the judgment of Pecknold and his group as they balance the views of the American bishops and our current and recent popes. I agree with the common sense view of a majority of Americans: we need to control our borders, get rid of criminals, and leave decent-hard-working people alone. The Biden policy was as insane and dysfunctional as that of Trump is cruel. 

Social and political policy when delivered by the bishops and Vatican is always, systemically, one-sided and unbalanced. They apply the personal Catholic ethic of compassion to policy in an unrealistic fashion. I do not recall Biden being corrected by bishops or pope about his catastrophic open border policy. Clerics are overwhelmingly well-motivated, altruistic people with little capacity for dealing competently with bad actors: totalitarians, Allatollahs, border gangs, psychopaths, or pedophiles. And so they resist firm borders, capital punishment, warfare...not prudentially, but sentimentally, ideologically. They (John Paul excepting) generally fail to appreciate wholesome patriotism. 

Recall again: their competency is faith and morals, not social policy. They rightly address the moral dimensions of policy. Respectfully, but critically we listen. But we know their limitations. Political decision is not their lane.

And so, we benefit from lay participants who often appreciate the very Catholic values ignored by our prelates: patriotism, subsidiarity, freedom markets, and the just use of lethal force. We do well to pick up First Things or something by the "post-liberal Catholic right" after listening to Pope Leo or the bishops!

I admire what I know of Chad Pecknold. But we do well to pray for him. 

Trump has been the authentic champion of many of our Catholic values: unborn life, borders, family concerns, sexual values and other. But his personal depravity has spread, with a preternatural energy and efficacy, across his administration, the country and the entire globe. Tucker Carson said that he is such a strong personality that he literally casts a spell over those close to him. I think this is right...and frightening.  

I personally intend to pray fore Pecknold, along with Rubio and Vance, all talented leaders, devout Catholics, and decent family men...that God's grace deliver them from evil and help them to preserve the good of MAGA and defeat the evil of it.

The Feminine as "Holy": Mysterium, Tremendum, Fascinans

In his 1917 monumentally significant and influential The Idea of the Holy, German-Lutheran Rudolph Otto described the specifically "holy" or "numinous" as a distinct encounter, beyond the rational or ethical, with Reality as "mysterium" (beyond the ordinary, the intelligible, the profane), "tremendum" (awesome, terrifying, threatening) and "fascinans" (profoundly, intensively attractive and beautiful).

This essay will identify woman, the feminine human, as the apex of creation and the greatest manifestation of the holy, the sacred, the transcendental, the supernatural in the natural order.

Not Goddess, Divine Feminine, or Pantheism

Woman is the last and greatest creature according to the logic of Genesis where we see God moving from the least to the best in his six days of creation. Above all else, woman is:  CREATURE.  She is the greatest creature but she is creature. She is not a divinity, not a goddess.  The absolute, defining binary here is the infinite abyss between Creator and creature. Above all, we are NOT dealing here with pantheism or some "Divine Feminine."

Pantheism is the greatest metaphysical and spiritual disaster because it collapses this contrast: God is everything, everything is God, I am God, God is me. It is the leveling of all to the natural, the denial of the truly supernatural. It is the narcissism of Carl Jung, the hatred of Judaism/Christianity by Joseph Campbell, the "panentheism" (a camouflaged simulcrum) of Richard Rohr, the impersonal and morally ambivalent "force" of Star Wars, and the ecofeminism that despises anything paternal or masculine.

The hierarchy of being runs from the least, inanimate material like sand or stone, through the vegetative, the animal, the human, the angelic, and the divine. Question: are angels higher in the hierarchy than humans? 

Yes and No. They are pure spirits, intellect and will, unburdened by flesh with its finitude, temporality/spatiality, mortality, fragility, vulnerability and (post-Adam and Eve) sinfulness. In all this the physical/spiritual ("angimal") human is decidedly inferior. But in terms of relationship and destiny...and beyond the agonies and travails of the present era... humans are superior. We are made in the image of God, sons and daughters, to govern creation. We are joined intimately to the Trinity in the divine/human person of Jesus. God did not become an angel. But even more infuriating to Lucifer and his legion is that a singular human, a woman, Mary, is Queen of Heaven and Earth. The angels and humans all pay her homage. So the human woman has greater eternal glory than the greatest of angels (Lucifer himself.)...always as CREATURE.

Feminine Superiority as Receptive

The (primarily spiritual, but also physical, emotional, intellectual, social) superiority of the female over the male is her greater receptivity. Her entire being...body, heart, intellect, spirit...is supple, docile, sensitive, fluid, receptive, responsive, welcoming, integrated, and embracive. She receives (as she herself attracts) her lover, bridegroom, husband, seed of life, child, the stranger, the suffering, the spiritual and God's very Self.

The human person is bipolar, with feminine and masculine oriented towards each other and equal in ontological dignity. But there is immense dissimilarity. Each has superiorities: the male more physical muscle, emotional steadiness, abstraction in thinking, capacity for detachment, sense of personal boundaries. The female lives longer, has enhanced sensitivity, compassion, emotional intelligence, spiritual receptivity, innate generosity, capacity for communion with another, inclination to self-gift. The male is more vulnerable to violence, lust, discouragement, selfishness. The female more prone to anxiety...so, so, so vulnerable to anxiety! There is the mutuality in attraction: sexual, romantic, intellectual, emotional. There is the complementarity, strong in Catholic thinking about marriage where ideally the two balance, fulfill, correct and enhance each other. But this complementarity is not perfect by any means: the two do not make a perfect whole. Even in the Garden there surely was asymmetry between male and female. But more so in our lapsed condition do we misalign, misunderstand, frustrate, violate, neglect, and (YES) crucify each other. In the garden any asymmetry and dissonance was overcome as they walked together with God. But in out sinful state, this disharmony is intensified into abuse, suspicion, and hatred. In Christ the communion of man/woman is restored, even as it remains an ongoing, arduous task. 

The man can lift heavier weights and run a faster mile; but the woman is superior in the important things of the heart, soul, intellect and will. She is closer to the children, to the suffering, to God. The man's psyche is more brittle, rigid, fragmented, explosive, fragile, exclusive, selfish, defensive, violent. The average 12 year old girl has more emotional/psychological integrity than the average 18 year old boy. Because of his social/emotional/spiritual inferiority, the male needs to be socially elevated by the esteem of the woman, he requires a degree of deference in order that he may maintain some equality of influence in the family and community. Spiritually the mother entrusts her infant into the masculine arms of the father, by her evident affection, trust and admiration; so the little one inbreathes the mother's love and thereby enjoys the paternal as well as the maternal care. The maternal has priority and primacy; the paternal is dependent upon the graciousness of the mother.

Fascinans: the Feminine as Lovely

This interior womanly goodness manifests physically, emotionally, and every which way. The woman is comfort, protection, delight, encouragement...for the infant, her husband, other children, friends, and the feeble and suffering. It is above all, as Balthasar reminds us, the mother's smile: approving, affirming, luminous, inspiring. It is the harmony and clarity of her face and features; the curve and fluidity of her body and movements; the expressiveness of her face; her empathy; her boundless generosity. 

Consider the bride walking up the church aisle on the arm of her father: all eyes are upon her. She is radiant. Young and old, men and women...all are enchanted, charmed, fascinated. It is everything...her hair, dress, figure, expression...all manifesting as beauty a profound interior Mysterium of goodness.

Tremendum:  Awe and Fear

Why fear of the feminine? Why do so many primitive religions surround femininity with taboos, rituals, purification, and severe punishment? Why so much timidity, awkwardness, shame and even terror?

If we retain a primal sense of woman as source and sustainer of life, we also fear death as the consequence of the loss of her. 

When I was growing up, my mother regularly welcomed "the club," a group of five friends since early childhood. These were marvelous women: devout, intelligent, generous, modest yet elegant, humorous, unpretentious. Salt of the earth: everything good, nothing bad. Devoted to each other and the families. Irrationally, I suffered a severed timidity, a real terror at just walking into the room and saying hello. I realized at some point that my father, at that time mature, handsome, accomplished, self-confident leader of men, seemed to suffer something similar. Why? I have always considered it a temperamental weakness, timidity, fear...irrational, infantile. 

That was true. But it now seems that there was a deeper, spiritual-ontological apprehension of something deep and true: unconsciously these women awoke a sense of dependency, fragility, and vulnerability...an inchoate, noncognitive sense of dread and awe. The infant or child deprived of the mother's affection, protection, or approval goes into existential dread: the presence of death. The suggestion here is that a residue of that dread remains in the adult male and can be aroused without warning.

Perhaps this dread is in part the root cause of misogyny in all its forms...all the violence, abuse, control, escape from and neglect of women by men. 

Mary: The Quintessential Creature...Receptive of and Dispensive of God's Holiness

Our Blessed Mother is of herself small, humble, insignificant, vulnerable, fragile. But in the entirety of creation, she is the singular perfection as receptive and dispersive of God's love and grace. As such she is uniquely holy: mysterious, beautiful, awe-inspiring, numinous. 

Is she also fearsome, terrible, threatening? Not in her maternal tenderness. But she is perfectly pure and holy. As such, she is intolerant of evil, sin, unchastity. The devils flee from her presence. Evil cannot be in her presence. She it is who steps upon the head of the serpent. She above all, excepting only Jesus, even above St. Michael the Archangel, defeats Satan. In her purity, goodness, holiness she casts out sin and evil. She evokes reverence, wonder, and hyper-veneration. And profound, passionate emulation. No, we do not adore her. She remains one of us, always a creature. In all of creation and all of history, she alone is the impeccable reception and  manifestation of the Holy.

Our Singular Aspiration and Joy: that We and Ours Be Children of the Church

St. Monica, on her deathbed in 387 to her son Augustine in grief that she would not be laid with her ancestors in North Africa: "Lay this body anywhere and take no trouble over it. One thing only do I ask of you: that you remember me at the altar of the Lord wherever you may be.."

I have long envied now-recently-deceased Wendel Berry with his trans-generational sense of place in his Kentucky farm. Similarly, I am jealous of Jersey City families with whom we raised our children in that their entire families live near them, some firemen and police, in that city. Our family is scattered: NJ, Pa, Illinois, and Kentucky. We raised our family in Jersey City over half a century; none of us live there now. My own roots are deep: St. John's, Orange NJ, where my maternal great-grandfather helped build the Church, my paternal great-grandfather taught in the school, and today my priest-nephew says mass every Sunday: that is six generations over at least 140 years. We are all of us now re-rooted happily in new locations. That is fine, as long as everyone is at mass on Sunday.

I am charismatic Catholic. Involvement in a prayer group and reception of "release of the Holy Spirit" in 1973 transformed my faith and defined our subsequent family and life. With the exception of my niece's husband, no one in our extended family of about 160 is charismatic in this sense. That is fine, as long as they are in mass on Sunday. Most are.

In young adulthood, the 1970s, my 20s, our elite culture turned anti-Catholic and I became a Culture Warrior on the right and have been such ever since. Our children share our values, but none are exactly certified Culture Warriors. That is fine, at least they are Catholic.

Diplomatically, I am a strong internationalist, Catholic neo-Conservative hawk. My view of the world is structured by the Churchill/Chamberlain contrast; WWII; and the Cold War. Notwithstanding the flaws of Late-Post-Protestant-USA, she is a redeeming presence in a world of bad actors. The younger generations are not so hawkish. That is ok; as long as they are Catholic.

I consider myself a practitioner of the 12-steps. In dealing with my personal patterns of codependency and compulsivity, I have benefited from the literature, friendships and meetings including AA, Alanon, SA, EA (Emotions Anonymous), and aligned groups Suicide Survivor Support Group and Dr. Lowe's Recovery meetings. I qualify for Cancer-Surviver-Support-Group but have not participated. (Yes I am aware that I resemble here the Ed Norton character in Fight Club !😏   ) I am unaware of any family members involved in such programs. But that is fine; as long as they are sons and daughters of the Church.

Since high school I have been enthusiastic about the Catholic-Jewish dialogue, especially over the years at Seton Hall University. My children do not particularly share this interest. That is not important; what matters is their Catholic faith and practice.

I have aspired to live a radical, countercultural life of friendship with the poor...like Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, the Friars of the Renewal, and such. We have actually lived a fairly "normie" middle class, parish-Catholic life. Our children show tendencies to non-bourgeois, bohemian Catholicism: one has 9 another 7 children, one has received 2 foster children, another lives the evangelical life of poverty/chastity/obedience, all are deeply involved in their children largely parochial schools. But we are no Catholic Worker family. That is okay. I don't so much care if we are low, middle or upper class; or even the 1%;  as long as everyone is at mass on Sunday.

I subscribe to the NY Times and have read it, religiously on Sundays, for 65 years. I watch Bret Baer on Fox News every night at 6 PM. Young people today don't take to newspapers or cable news. Not to worry. As long as they get to Church Sunday.

Our offspring are athletic; I am not. Lots of track; also basketball, soccer, football. The males love pro and college sports; I do not; so I join the women when talk turns to sports. The only thing I was halfway decent in was 3-wall, outdoor handball in college seminary. My partner, Tim, was one of the best athletes in the school so we were competitive. Athletically, those were my glory days. Today, no one in my family plays handball. I don't mind. I am just happy they all are in Church on Sunday. 

I love this blog. My wife, family and friends mostly don't care about my thoughts. But my blog is always there...waiting to receive every word. In our immediate family of 45, I am aware of one, my daughter-in-law, who may read the blog regularly. In my extended family of about 160, my nephew reads it daily. There are also two friends. And recently, my granddaughter's boyfriend. Total of 5. And then some irregulars. My "brand" is modest. I am not exactly a celebrity influencer! Hey! It is what it is! That is fine! We are all together, Sunday, at the Eucharist, wherever we happen to be.

Sure it can be lonely sometimes: no one with whom to pray in tongues, play 3-wall handball, discuss a Times opinion piece, root against the IRG, Putin, Hamas and the Cultural Conservatives, or work the steps! But you are never really lonely within the Communion of Saints: us militants in this world, the souls in purgatory and the triumphant saints!

In earlier essays, I identified seven flavors of Catholicism in our family: the Charismatic, the Notre Dame-booster-athletic-positive-confident-Americanist, Communion and Liberation, the Neocatechumenate, Ignatian Progressivism, Neo-Conservatism, and traditional Eucharistic-Marian devotionalism. These are all good options.

But no-frills-standard-generic-parish-Catholicism is simple, clear, straightforward: mass on Sundays and holydays (Don't forget holydays!), confession of mortal sin as needed, obedience to 10 commandments and 6 laws of the Church, loyalty to state of life (marriage or religious vows), reception of the Gospel from the Church, love of neighbor as yourself, and love of God...Father, Son, Holy Spirit...with all your mind, and all your heart and all your soul and all your strength. 

We happily observe our grandchildren growing and doing many marvelous things. But at the end of the day, one thing matters: To live in the heart of the Church and travel the road to holiness.

Waging War...always in Charity...Staying Small-c "catholic" in the Culture War

The Miles Christi, the "soldier of Christ," wages war ...always in the mode of love...love of the adversary, the antagonist, the opponent. The Catholic combatant... military or culture war, politics, athletics, theology and ideology...holds the enemy in esteem and mercy. The absolute enemies are: the world, the flesh and the devil.

Maximillian Kolbe, prior to his arrest because of his opposition to Nazism, was visited by the Nazi Gestapo. He received them courteously, respectfully, in kindness.

At Appomattox, after a brutal, bloody war, Grant fondly greeted Lee and his generals, many of them friends from earlier in the US Army or West Point. Graciously he allowed the starving Confederate troops to retain their horses and handguns and issued 25,000 rations of food. He ruled out trials and prison for them.

Charles-Henri Sanson, executioner under Louis XVI, from a long generational line in that work, killed 3,000, including that king and Robespierre. After the death of his former monarch, he sought out a priest and had a mass said for his soul. For that act, he himself could have been guillotined. 

Saddam Hussein was escorted to his execution by the American soldiers who had him in custody. Before his death he shook the hand of each soldier who had treated him with dignity.

John Paul II was shot by Mehmet Ali Agca, then visited him to forgive and advocated for his release.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson waged a venomous campaign against each other for the presidency in 1800 and then didn't speak for years. They reconciled, wrote 158 letters to each other, and died fast friends.

Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford in the 1976 election but they became friends, worked together on projects and Carter delivered Ford's eulogy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were judicial adversaries but dear friends.

NBA is filled with competitor-friendships, Magic/Bird the most famous.

At the time, William Buckley would argue fiercely with John Kenneth Galbraith or Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but they would also joke and laugh together, obviously fond and respectful of each other.

It is markedly a masculine trait to fight and compete without personalizing, resenting, emotionalizing. 

It needs, also, to be a Catholic trait...this for several reasons.

First, obviously, we are to love our enemy. This means also our political, ideological or theological enemy. It means we forgive him; empathize with his suffering; protect him; respect him; see the best in him; pray for him.

Secondly, the word "catholic" (from Greek meaning "the whole") indicates inclusive of all. It means the welcoming and embrace of all that is good, true and beautiful. This includes seeing the good in the adversary. A Catholic is like a good politician who opposes another one day only to ally with him on a different issue the next. A serious sin, for a Catholic, is to deny, ignore or minimize a real good in the other, even the opponent. 

This means that whether we stand on the left or right side of the current divide, we see the good in Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Mandami, Tucker Carlson, and Kamala Harris.

Generally, my wife and I watch Bret Baier on Fox at 6 and Erin Burnett on CNN at 7. I read the NY Times throughout the week along with conservative sources. I don't want to stay in my bubble. I want to seek the truth in a variety of sources.

Gloria Steinem just passed. She was a prominent advocate for abortion and an adversary of the Catholic Church. As a child she took care of a mentally ill mother. This was apparently an immense burden. She later noted that she was "a very small mother of a very large child." She later had an abortion and fought for her entire life for that right. She seems to have been a conscientious and compassionate woman. It makes sense that she would protect women from a burden they could not handle, an unwanted child. Many advocates are similarly motivated by a dread for such a burden. This is not to agree with the position. But to understand it with some compassion. Gay militance is in part a call for dignity and respect for the person: with that the Catholic is in accord.

Standing upon our heritage, the graces within the Church, the shoulders of the saints, and the eternal love of God, we Catholics enjoy a peace, a confidence, a certitude...and can be gracious and generous with our adversaries.

Dear Pope Leo: Let's Have a REAL Synod!

 We can call it Vatican III. This will be our 23 official council, just like Nicea, Trent, and the rest. An authentic, authoritative, apostolic deliberative gathering of the bishops in union with the pope.

No, not that other thing...that manipulated bureaucratic quagmire, that convoluted faux-parliament of the aggrieved, the confused, the resentful...that word I prefer not to say or write "S.....dality."

Vatican II ended in 1965: it did not define a new church so much as punctuate, conclude, articulate the movements of the Holy Spirit earlier in the 20th century, especially the 20 years since WWII. As that concluded, the world and Church erupted in a perfect storm of catastrophic revolutions and institutionally the Church in the West largely collapsed. Now, 60 years later, we need a new Council. 

Here is a proposed agenda:

1. Chinese Catholic Church.  Do we abandon it to the Chinese Communist Party? Or do we renew our support for the underground, martyred, heroic Church and revive the warrior ethos of John Paul II? The question answers itself.

2. Sexual Revolution.  Do we further accommodate the LGBTQ militancy by blessing sterile, non-spousal sexual unions? Or do we proclaim the edifying, noble ethos of John Paul II? The question answers itself.

3. The Latin Mass. Do we allow it to flourish, along with the ordinary rite, in its appeal to youth and families as Benedict did; or do we repress it authoritatively, out of some confused anxiety, along with Pope Francis. The question answers itself.

4. War with Jihadist Islam.  Violent, imperialistic, totalitarian Islam is on the attack around the globe, especially massacring Christians across Africa.  Are we to launch a 21st century Crusade to protect human rights and innocent life? Absolutely. This Crusade must be primarily spiritual, then cultural, political, diplomatic and unfortunately militarily forceful. Here we will use our just war principles.

5. Just, Anti-Violent Use of Lethal Force. Do we uphold the traditional Catholic understanding of capital punishment as the responsible use of lethal force prudentially exercised as necessary to protect common good (deterrence, protection, rehabilitation, retribution...all good words); or do we accept Francis' authoritarian dictate that it is now forever and everywhere not permissible? Do we slip into sentimental, pollyannish pacifism that surrenders the use of lethal force to bad actors only and leaves the innocent, the powerless, the common good unprotected?

6. Catholicism, Gender and the Masculine Priesthood. John Paul asserted the inherent masculinity of Holy Orders with the highest level of authority short of an infallible statement from the chair of Peter. Now, after three commissions ruled out even the ordination of women deacons, the issue keeps coming back like a bad penny or some zombie. Perhaps it is time now for an infallible statement to put the issue to rest in the Catholic Church. Those unconvinced are always welcome at the Episcopal Church down the street. Along with this we can use an authoritative teaching on the Divine plan for masculinity/femininity that underlies the entire Catholic system.

7. Desperate Necessity of Small, Catholic Communities. Intimate, sub-parish, Christ-centered, family-supportive, countercultural, sacramental, orthodox and inflamed by charity, they are already flourishing in a world order dominated by mega-corporations/governments, devastated families/communities, and isolated individuals. This topic will be aided by leaders of the Lay Revival Movements. Two sub-questions: First, the significance of the Pentecostal gifts (the Pentecostal Release of the Holy Spirit with prayer in tongues, prophesy, deliverance and other). Secondly, the incorporation into the Church of the Neocatechumenal Way, particularly liturgically. 

These burning issues of our time are fiercely contested. It is essential, Holy Father, that you not engage them yourself, in the isolation of the Vatican, but look to the Holy Spirit, working within the college of bishops, the authentic apostolic authority. 

Please, in the Synod, no sensitivity-type, small, sharing sessions. Each bishop who wants to speak on an issue deserves five minutes for a succinct statement. Of course periti (experts) will be there to assist. But the decisions will be made by authoritative bishops. 

Please, stay directed to your mission; stay in your lane. Pragmatic policy questions...environment, immigration, media, technology, use of lethal force...are the competence of the laity. Your concern is proclamation of the Gospel and the Church's life of charity, worship and holiness.

Our Church and our world are desperate for clarity, decisiveness, courage. 

Come Holy Spirit, upon our Holy Father, upon all our bishops!

 

Left Brain/Right Brain; Ratio/Intellectus; Our Eucharistic Rites, Devotions and Wars

 Left Brain/Right Brain

Our left hemisphere is logical, verbal, mathematical, analytic, linear and more masculine. Right hemisphere is creative, imaginative, intuitive, mystical, musical and more feminine. Iain McGilchrist has famously used this binary to indict Western culture as being overly left-brained: activist, technological, and controlling; lacking the receptivity of art, contemplation and mysticism. Here we might apply it to contrast the Novus Ordo mass that emerged from the Vatican Council to previous Eucharistic practice and devotion.

The shift to the vernacular from Latin was the standout aspect of the reform. This was widely heralded as an enhancement of lay understanding and participation. What was enhanced, we now see in retrospect, was precisely verbal, cognitive, deliberative, left-brain engagement. With this came an unintended and largely unrecognized consequence: diminishment of right brain engagement as contemplation, receptivity, rest, quiet, awe, reverence, ecstasy, and surrender. 

The current appeal of the old rite, entirely incoherent to progressives, makes sense in this light. Today's young people are drawn to the solemnity, silence, reverence, receptivity and restfulness; to the sabbath release from cognition, deliberation, analysis, achievement, moralism, activism and too many words.

The new mass has too many words: readings, prayers, sermons, comments. There is no rest for the left brain; there is no engagement of the right brain. Additionally, there is too much attention to the priest. Rather than facing with the people towards the East, disappearing into worship, he now faces the people throughout the rite. We cannot get away from him.  This has led to narcissism on the part of the priest: he is under pressure to be funny, charming, witty, creative, inspiring, profound and yet  lighthearted. He has to have a good joke to start the homily. He has to be welcoming and warm. 

Contrast this with the TLM: the personality of the priest is invisible. He speaks everything in Latin, mostly in a low voice. The determining assumption: Ex Opere Operato...it is the sacramental act itself that sanctifies. This has nothing to do with the personality, intelligence, charm or piety of the priest. With the Latin, silence, ritualism, and garb there is an appeal to the mystical, the contemplative, the receptive right brain.  One is removed from the normal, the routine, the ordinary; moved into a realm of mystery, transcendence, enchantment. This is enhanced even more with Gregorian Chant, incense, and legions of septuagenarian altar "boys" moving about in perfect choreography (like the girls in a Radio City Christmas show) with candles, crucifixes, censors, missals and others. In addition, in a classic old church we are inundated with icons: statues, stain glass windows, paintings and other. The quiet, intuitive right brain is enormously stimulated by the corporal stimuli through eye, ear, nose and the entire human body.  While the clergy move about on the altar, the laity sit/stand/kneel over and over again, getting the equivalent of a good hour in the gym. This is deeply, intensely sacramental: the eternal taking flesh here and now. By contrast, liturgical renewal after the Council seeks to move away from the mysterious, the awesome, the sacred; it wants liturgy to be ordinary, relevant, secular...everyday-language translations, saccharine music, the priest as master of ceremonies, architecture mundane like a gym or auditorium. 

Ratio and Intellectus

An identical binary of the intellect is found in the classical/medieval contrast of reason as Ratio and Intellectus. Both are aspects of human intelligence, but ratio is deliberative, active, verbal, logical, linear, empirical, argumentative, problem-centered. "Artificial intelligence" (if it is intelligence at all, which I doubt) is closer to this form of reason. Intellectus  is receptive, immediate, intuitive, nonverbal, artistic, inspired, ecstatic. It is not calculative, but the immediate  apprehension of the actual given. It is not effort, work, achievement. It is a a gift of gentle, peaceful, joyous reception. It is fully human as personal, corporal, spiritual, celebrative...there is absolutely NOTHING "artificial" about it.

The primacy of intellectus over ration, of contemplation over action, of reception over initiative, of leisure over achievement, of being over having, of the sabbath over work, of the intuitive over the deliberative, of the festive over the efficient...has been proclaimed by Pieper, Heschel, Buber, Balthasar, Kierkegaard, Schindler, Marcel, Stein and a legion of wise ones. 

Here again we see that the ancient rite leans more into intellectus and the contemporary into ratio. In this it is entirely relevant and contemporary as claimed...in the worst way. It tends to the verbose, moralistic, histrionic, activist. It renders the left brain overstimulated and exhausted; the right brain remains dormant. 

Where to, Church, from Here?

Christ, alive for us in the Eucharist, is absolutely the ground, focus, destiny, pinnacle, and epitome of our Catholic life.

The Novus Ordo...in its poverty of form...is the authentic, efficacious, ordinary, valid manner of celebration.

There is a fittingness to the humility, the poverty, the psychological inadequacy of the rite. The core of the Eucharist is simple,  plain, humble. We confess and ask for Mercy, receive the Word; the priest offers the elements in memory of the sacrifice of Calvary, consecrates the elements; we receive communion. This is best seen when priests in prison are able to celebrate with the smallest drop of wine and piece of bread. Christ's heavenly presence from heaven is fully manifest in a few simple words, gestures and things (bread/wine).

The Catholic project is to build a life, a culture, a society, a history, persons and communities...in which all flows from and into the Eucharist...for the salvation of souls and the Glory of God.  For this we need to move beyond the limitations of the left brain and ratio... into the right brain and intellectus. 

To start:

1. Let TLM flourish in its ancient splendors. May it be complemented by other, reverent rites: Neocatechumenal, charismatic, ethnic, simple and elaborate, wedding and funeral masses, traditional and contemporary.

2. Clarify the sacrifice dimension: even the  Passover-family meal was a feast on sacrificed lambs.

3. Revive Eucharistic worship with silence, solemnity, high art, fine music, the sacredness of the Church building itself (no unnecessary talk or noise PLEASE!). Let's bring back "ad orientam" with priest looking East with the congregation so he is not distracting by drawing so much attention. Let's bring back kneeling to receive. Let's NOT clap in Church...not for the choir, not for the ushers, not for the altar boys, not for a good sermon...PLEASE! NO CLAPPING. PERIOD.

4. We genuflect (bend knee) on the right (not the left knee) to the tabernacle, and only to the tabernacle (with the exception of Good Friday/Holy Saturday).  Let's get this right. This is THE EUCHARIST! Traditionally, we bend the left knee to a human  like a king or such. The right knee is reserved only for Christ as God, in the Eucharist. We bow to altar, where the sacrifice is offered, which is a symbol, but not Christ's very self. If you are physically unable to do a full genuflection, a reverent bow from the waist serves. Spare us the half-curtsy...it is awkward, ugly, distracting. This is important. THIS IS THE EUCHARIT! 

For extra credit, dear Reader, google Fr. Mike Schmitz on "three reasons to genuflect." He recall "Lord of the Rings" at Rivendelle, the start of the adventure, when Aragon (the King himself) bends the knee to pledge loyalty to little Frodo Baggins: "Whether by my life or my death, if I can protect you, I will. You have my sword." 

5. Lets build an entire culture, a way of life around our Cult of the Eucharist:  sign of cross when passing Catholic Church, Churches left unlocked for frequent VISITS even for a few minutes, holy hours before the tabernacle, 40-hour-devotion, parish missions, pilgrimages, processions. If you are sitting at home in prayer, direct your attention also to the nearest tabernacle-in-Church. When you travel after you know where you will sleep and eat, learn where Jesus is present in the tabernacle. Read mass readings before, during and after mass. Go to mass daily as possible. Supplement with rosary, stations, litany of Divine Mercy, first Friday devotion, and other. Have masses said for the deceased. Pray for priests and for vocations.

Like Aragon at Rivendell, let us bend the knee, pledge our loyalty, offer our sword: "whether by my life or my death...to nothing and no one on earth, but to Christ, so simple, small, quiet, serene, peaceful in the Eucharist!

Jesus,

My friend and brother; captain and king; Lord, Savior and God;

Present in the Eucharistic Host...so small, simple, silent, serene;

Make me like Yourself:  poor, powerless, patient, persevering, and pure;

Receptive of and Radiant with Your holiness.

Why Such Hatred of the Latin Mass?

 Last week, Thomas Reese S.J., prominent Jesuit removed as editor of America at the insistence of the John Paul Vatican, penned a piece for Catholic News on "Why I Hate the Latin Mass." It is framed playfully, ironically as confession, with dialogue between penitent and confessor. He clarifies that he doesn't hate the participants, whom he condescendingly describes as "needing better catechesis." He admits resentment and envy of traditionalist activists who seem to him so effective compared to progressives. This is striking: the rite has been virtually suppressed by Francis and now apparently by Leo, but he and his ilk are the victims of an alleged bully. This brings to mind the insight of Jewish conservative Yuval Levin  that in the culture war (he was speaking of American, not Catholic politics) both sides  are evenly matched so that neither is able to dominate, but both see themselves as victims, losing the fight, and therefore are threatened and angry. 

Reese lays out his values reasonably: the standard stuff including lay participation, shift from temple sacrifice to Passover-type meal, urgent desire for more relevant translations and such. He adds that in the Eucharist we pray with Jesus, to the Father, not to Jesus. (That is another essay: Must it be either/or? When we pray to the Father are we not praying to the Son and the Spirit? Is Reese secretly Arian?) These, except for the last, make sense of course. He sees no value in the recovery of this rite, of the centuries, which he admits valuing in his youth. 

I felt an ambivalent  honesty in the piece. His ideas are sensible, but his emotion is overblown. He senses the dissonance. He seems to be confessing this, although obscurely and in humor. There seems to be some humility here...but the contrition is less than perfect. It is like the half-apology: "I am sorry, BUT..." 

This exaggerated, irrational resentment was shared by Pope Francis. When he suppressed the rite he claimed widespread support from the world's bishops. But investigative reporting by Diane Montana has revealed that the actual episcopal consensus was far more supportive of the practice. We all await eagerly decision from Leo: he is pledged to uphold the legacy of Francis, but he is free of that personal resentment and disposed to stability, continuity, compromise and peace.  He is like a young woman with two boy friends: we pray he will be decisive. Unfortunately, indecisiveness seems to be his constitutional weakness.

Is TLM a Threat? What is its Scale?

A recent Pew survey finds 2% of American Catholics attend TLM weekly. This may be an overcount; the actual amount may be closer to 1%. This is not a lot. But the survey also counts those who occasionally attend at 10%. When we recall that only about 20% of Catholics attend Sunday mass weekly and that there is an inordinate amount of young families attending, we see that it is significant in this country. BTW, there are more Latin masses offered in the USA than in the following three countries (France, Italy, Poland) together. 

The rationale Francis gave for the suppression was that TLM represents a deeper, schismatic rejection of the Vatican Council and the post-Council hierarchy. That is, of course, precisely the position of the Society of St. Pius X which is now in full, official schism. That would indeed be a serious problem. But that is not the case.

My own information is personal, anecdotal. I am friendly with TLM in Jersey City. They have been financially generous to our Magnificat Home Residence and to the parish. They are well within the boundaries of the Church theologically. I do not doubt that there are noisy, angry voices on the internet who disrespect the Novus Ordo mass and the broader reforms of the Council. But I don't think they are representative. I doubt that Francis personally knew, "listened to," or "synodally accompanied" any TLM folks. I expect Leo to do better on this. 

This group advocates for more conservative values, but well within the boundaries of Catholicism. It is not a threat to the theology or unity of the Church. It pales in significance and defiance when compared to the "synodal way" that has gripped almost the entire German Church.

Why not a "live and live" attitude on the part of "liberals?" The TLM folks do their own thing; they pay their own way; they are not imposing their way on anyone else. Why such rage? Such violent repression?

So, we return to the question: "Why this irrational fear of TLM?"

The Anxiety of the Progressive

Resentment and rage flow from a deeper anxiety. So, we ask: "What is threatening Reese, Francis and Catholic progressives?" A deeper question: "What is the defining value of progressives?" Obviously: Progress! The inexorable, salvific, providential efficacy of Progress. What scares the progressive? That progress might stop! Or worse, that it be retracted or reversed! That would be the death of God.

The Church emerged from Vatican II with three clear competitors. A minute, marginal group of traditionalists rejected the Council as a rupture with their idealized, static view of late Tridentine Catholicism. Organic conservatives, John Paul and Benedict, understood the Council as an authentic development, continuous with tradition, and soon took charge of the Church. Progressives, in the   so-called "Spirit of Vatican," agreed, with the traditionalists against the conservatives, that the Council was a rupture with the past, understood negatively as ignorant, static, repressive. It represented the triumph of progress over stagnation, the future over the past, the enlightened over the ignorant. They embraced or at least accommodated the Cultural Revolution of the time and retained hegemony over the universities and elite organizations. 

Three streams of progressivism exploded and merged violently after 1965. First, scientific-technological-Darwinian evolution (e.g. Chardin) claimed incremental, inexorable victory over ignorance. Second, Marxist-political-dialectic identified the never-ending revolt of the oppressed against the oppressor: worker/capitalist, black/white, woman/man, homo/hetero, Arab/Jew, and trans/cis.  Lastly, sexual liberation announced freedom of sexuality, into unhampered joy, with its rupture from fruition, marriage, family and the triumph of technology in reproduction.

That progress, in whatever form, might be stopped or reversed is inconceivable for the progressive; it is an "existential threat!" In lieu of the supernatural or transcendent, trust is in the "arc of history"...whether Marxist, Darwinian or Freudian...as inexorable, invincible, benevolent. Progress..."follow the science," anti-racism, LGBTQ...is the Higher Power. This can, of course, be commingled with a sentimental, diluted piety; but the energy and action is in progress. By analogy, in secular politics, D.J. Trump is such a transformational figure, for both progressives and conservatives, because he singlehandedly, stopped Progress: Dobbs, open borders, DEI, etc. This alone explains the inordinate resentment against TLM of Reese, Francis and the progressives.

Cardinal Sarah's Prediction: Hatred of TLM Will Disappear with "Generation of 1968"

Recklessly, refreshingly candid, Cardinal Sarah clearly renounced the suppression of Pope Francis and called for the retrieval of the tolerance of Benedict. He predicted that this hatred of the TLM will soon disappear as the boomer generation leave the scene. 

The "Generation of 1968" (climax of the Cultural Revolution) is best understood as parricidal.  In militant feminism it renounced maternity in favor of faux-macho promiscuity, abortion and careerism. But even more defining was rejection of the father. Ingrateful, narcissistic and grandiose, our boomer generation configured itself as better than our fathers.  We were educated, smarter, freer. Pampered and spoiled by privilege, prosperity and attention, we ignored the sacrifice, suffering, heroism, humility and perseverance of our mothers and fathers. We critiqued the institutions, renounced patriarchy, disparaged scholasticism, embraced the therapeutic, and celebrated the Sovereign Self. We immersed ourselves in fashionable psychology, cultural critique, political liberalism, sex, drugs, rock and roll. We ridiculed the organization man, the military-industrial complex, populist piety, ethnic racism, and ecclesiastical reactionaries. In  oedipal excess, we rejected the discipline, restrain, tradition and legacy of our fathers in favor of sterile sexual license. 

And so, hatred of the TLM, canon law, religious habits and the cassock all align with parricide, rejection of the father.  Fr. Reese does well to confess, although he may not discern the deeper oedipal roots of his resentment. 

Born in 1945, he is technically pre-boomer. His cohort, young priests at the time of the Council, enthusiastically embraced it in all its splendors: ecumenism, liturgy, scripture, role of the laity, respect for the Jews, significance of religious liberty and more. All this sunshine was, however, dimmed by the cloud of filial ingratitude, by an unconscious arrogance, an embrace of the idol of progress.

I know this cohort so well: for my adult life they have been my big brothers in Christ, mentors, confessors, spiritual directors, dear friends and theological adversaries. Maryknollers, Franciscan Friars, diocesans and especially Jesuits. The last are distinguished by erudition, intelligence, sophistication, and charm. They are loyal sons of the Church, but in the rebellious mode of an adolescent male.

Conclusion

Fr. Reese is quoted, many years ago, on TLM: "It is okay for the elderly who lack good catechesis, but children and youth should not be allowed to attend." The condescension and authoritarian intolerance are striking. But today, as we see the zeal of young families for this worship, what stands out is his entrapment within his own progressive bubble, seemingly clueless about what is happening around us. The sadness of "the generation of 68":  the failure of filial gratitude and trust leads to the loss of paternity. Many priests now in or approaching retirement do not like or trust younger, conservative priests. This is a heartbreaking rupture. Pope Francis favored progressives as bishops and cardinals, but priests leaving seminaries, even the Jesuit Gregorian in Rome, are overwhelmingly conservative. Liberal prelates are depending upon more traditional priests. 

There are very many good signs. Last week (Aug. 25, 2026) I happily read a piece in America on the revival of the cassock by Brother Joseph Hoover S.J. (Ok Mr. Know-it-all: How many Jesuit brothers do you know? And no, this guy is not fixing the plumbing!) He speaks glowingly...in terms of aesthetics, culture, spirituality... of the sight of a young priest in long cassock. Such a piece would have been unthinkable in that journal in the days of Fr. Reese. If a liberal stalwart like America is responsive to the fresh breezes of the Holy Spirit, then our Church is moving in the right direction!

Meanwhile we are stuck with a boomer for President, a boomer for Pope, and octogenarians still clinging to the reins. 

This too will pass!