In Defense of Irish Catholic Guilt and Hatred of the WASP

With his customary insight, reckless candor, playful irony, and mischievous affection, my Italian-Greek friend Steven Adubato scrutinizes us Irish on our toxic guilt, our historical bias against darker-skinned Italians, and  mimicry of the WASP. He argues correctly that stereotypes are largely true and helpful. So, I agree with his broad stroke indictment. By and large, Irish are bad drunks, hotheaded, good price fighters, middle distance runners, police, fireman, politicians, monsignors, and writers. I am none of these, except the last (obvi: what am I doing now?) Disregarding sociological statistics, I want to speak for one Irish Catholic: myself.

I Cherish My Irish Guilt

Irish guilt is focused on two targets: sex and missing mass on Sunday. We do not lose sleep over getting drunk, losing our temper, racial bias, homophobia, global warming or neglect in "synodality". We are guilty about what is sacred: family and faith.

Anecdote: June 1969 (height of the sexual revolution), age 21 and just graduated from college seminary, after hitchhiking from Chicago, I am stinking drunk from Hurricanes (the drink) in New Orleans with my buddy Danny Maguire. About 2 AM, walking to the rest room with a hurricane glass in my hand, I pass a pretty girl on a bar stool who says "Nice glass!" I say: "You like it?" She says "Yes." I say: "I will give it to you if you give me a kiss." She leans forward and gives me a tiny, quick peck on the cheek. I honorably give her the glass. For over half a century I have retained residual guilt, even though I am sure I confessed it. My logic: if I can prostitute my self for a kiss with a hurricane glass, I will likely do much worse if given the chance. Yes, I am in fear, not of women, but of my own concupiscence. A few hours later, Sunday at 9:45 AM I am knocking on Danny's hotel room door for us to get to mass at 10. He is hung over and furious that I am disturbing him. I am taken aback that he would miss mass.

My confessor told me I had a "sensitive conscience." He meant it neither disapprovingly or approvingly, but descriptively, like the fact that I have very sensitive feet but poor sense of smell. I would say it has served me well in that I enjoy a happy marriage and family. I wish everyone had this guilt.

Sex is not everything; it just feel likes everything about 93% of the time. Far more important, for the Catholic, is mass on Sunday. That is an ABSOLUTE obligation. Not situational. Not prudential. If you can breathe and walk you get to mass. My college age son told me "I may stop going to mass as I don't think I believe in transubstantiation." I responded: "It doesn't matter what you believe. You show up Sunday morning."

The difference between a practicing and a fallen-away Catholic is simple: shows up Sunday morning. Doesn't necessarily receive communion, or listen to the homily, or pray. You can be a hit man, a pimp, a drug dealer, a Marxist terrorist, but if you show up for one hour Sunday morning, there is hope for you.

Italians

Now, the Italian thing. Okay...coming of age in urban 1950s I heard WOP, guinea, dago, greaser, and such. That was standard low class tribalism, the "jets and the sharks." Italian bias against blacks was far stronger than Irish against Italians. The reality is that by mid-20th-century we Irish and Italians loved each other. We married and had beautiful kids. While ethnic parishes properly served the immigrants,  we were entirely congenial to the extent of our Catholic ("catholic") sensibility.

This leads me to scrutinize Italian Catholicism. It is vastly  superior in every dimension: far more saints, 70% of stigmatists are Italian, art, Dante, Rome, martyrs, Vatican, and so forth. So: why are Italians so cavalier about Sunday mass? I have known many passionately pious women...rosaries, statues of St. Francis and Mary, pictures of Padre Pio...who abstain from mass. This is Catholic insanity!

Consider Dolores (Mama) Gilli. Talented, saintly, she lived about a mile from my Irish parish (St. Johns) in Italian Mount Carmel in ethnic Orange, NJ. She was influential in bringing devotion to the Holy Face to America and was being considered for canonization at one point. Her construction business husband directed her to stay home from Sunday mass to care for the kids. She complied Her house became a center of prayer of the rosary for neighborhood immigrant women. But my point: no self-respecting, devout Irish woman would take such directions from her husband, not if he was John Gotti, Lucky Luciano or Benito Mussolini. Here we see the benefits of Irish guilt.

A strong, insightful theme in Steven's Cracks is that Mediterraneans make better "bad Catholics" than Northern Europeans with their moralism and compulsion to be good and pure. This is very helpful and very true!  And yet ... is there conversely a danger of becoming too cavalier, almost presumptuous in acceptance of our weakness and confidence in sacramental efficacy? Do not the great saints...Italians like Catherine of Sienna and of Genoa, Francis, Padre Pio, Gemma Galgani, Maria Gioretti...encourage us to despise and fear sin? Guilt is underrated!

WASP

In the postwar period, the Irish along with all ethnic groups were emulating the WASP elite. Everyone wanted to go to the Ivy's. This was pronounced at the elite level, especially academia and episcopacy. Since the Irish dominate the American Church at this level, their betrayal of working class Catholicism is striking.

Example: in 1967,  26 leading presidents of Catholic Universities signed the Land O'Lakes agreement in which they declared academic independence from Catholic magisterium and faith. At that very moment, Notre Dame and other prestigious agencies were hosting conferences funded by WASP institutions like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on birth control. The WASP perspective dominated: concern about global overpopulation (which has proven to be mistaken), the liberation of sex from procreation, and also racist (unacknowledged) anxiety about the increasing black and Catholic populations. Signers had names like Hesburg, McCarrick, Hallinan, O'Keefe S.J., Daugherty and such. These upwardly aspirational are the "lace curtain" Irish, who look down upon the "shanty" or working class.

I imbibed and retain a fierce hatred of the WASP. No, I for one do not emulate them. Actually, in almost 80 years I have known almost none. As a patriot I respect, with serious reservations,  Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Reagan,  and even the Bushes. Not so much Trump. But they are NOT my people. In my own family I learned almost zero ethnic/racial prejudice: but I knew very well I was Catholic, NOT Protestant; Democrat, NOT Republican; working class, NOT capitalist. The real enemy was, of course, Communism, and earlier the Axis powers. 

And so, even today I have affection for Judaism in all its forms, for Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism but very little respect for the WASP residues in mainstream denominations like Episcopalism.

The WASP elite has transfigured: secular, progressive, meritocratic, inclusive ethnically but contemptuous of any religious traditionalism. I  remain an anti-elite. working class Irish American Catholic.

I am proud of our grandchildren who attend prestigious schools (Columbia, Penn, Notre Dame, Fordham...and a different flavor,  Franciscan), but my hope is that they aspire, not to ascend the ladder of achievement/success/status, but to go deeper into their baptismal Catholic identity.

"Gay": Bohemian or Bourgeois?

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

What is "Gay?"

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

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

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

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

Born That Way?

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

Decision to Act; Sex is Not a Need! 

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

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

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

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

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

Bohemian vs. Bourgeois "Gay"

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

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

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

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

Hard Progressives and Soft Progressives

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male Postures Towards the Female: Misogyny, Femomania, Gynophilia

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

Misogyny

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

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

It takes myriad forms:

In Islam we have honor killings and polygamy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Femomania 

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

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

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

Gynophilia 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overcoming Femomania

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Top 10 American Catholic Prelates of the Last 80 Years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Cases 

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

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

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

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

Causes of Scandal

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

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

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

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

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

Archbishops of Newark NJ

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

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

Pope Leo XIV, Bishop Robert Prevost

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Afterthought

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

Top Antagonists and Protagonists of the 20th Century

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

Top Ten Antagonists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top  Protagonists: Political and Spiritual

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

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

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

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

Gandhi of India for his non-violence.

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

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

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

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

Spiritual Protagonists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Catholic Geography and a Eucharistic Prayer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus,

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

Present Eucharistically in the host...

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

Make me like Yourself...

    small, simple, silent, serene;

    poor, powerless, patient, persevering, pure;

    receptive of and radiant with Your holiness!

Amen!