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! 

The Ambiguity of Christian Zen

Is the practice of Christian Zen a step towards Christ or away from him? An enrichment or a distraction? 

This past week I participated, by Zoom, in a Zen "sitting" which honored a dear friend who recently passed away. Self-consciously Irish Catholic, Rosemary practiced her faith intermittently, but for decades zealously participated in the Zendo: working hard to organize it, participate daily, attend many retreats and nourish rich friendships. She had a curious, intelligent mind and memory; she was an encyclopedia of history and geography. But she couldn't explain Christian Zen. In part that is due to the nature of the thing: Zen is non-conceptual and anti-intellectual; it does not articulate truths or dogmas; it aspires to an "enlightenment" that is non-cognitive, mystical, intuitive. But in her case she suffered a deeper, personal wound: due to her parents' divorce, she attended Catholic boarding schools in the 1950s. She craved her mother and was hurt by Catholic teaching on divorce. She never recovered from that. As bright and experienced as she was, she suffered a deep incapacity to grasp the Catholic faith in its childlike simplicity. In that she perhaps resembles many of her fellow Zen practitioners: a restless, searching soul, allergic to the Catholic faith in some mysterious way.

I personally lack any expertise in or familiarity with Christian Zen. I enjoyed in college a course on "Oriental Philosophies" with an astute scholar from nearby evangelical Wheaton College, Illinois. At the time I was also reading Gilson and Maritain: I saw the sharp contrast between classic Catholicism and the Eastern religions and philosophies. I retained an urgent desire to go deeper into my own faith, but little interest in the alternatives. I was disappointed, for example, to see Thomas Merton, the great Catholic apologist of the 1950s, be distracted from his monastic vocation into the Catholic Left and dialogue with the East. Merton is perhaps also exemplary of the Zen Christian: sublimely gifted and insightful, he was a searching, restless spirit, incapable of rest and contentment in the faith and his vocation as given.

Christian Zen aspires to some synthesis of the two: it alleges that Zen practice does not contradict the Gospel, but can enhance one's engagement with it. So, I was curious to see if Christian truth was present in the meeting. I did not find much.

Demographics

Located in NYC and Jersey City, this community was what you would expect: older (mostly boomers), white (in the non-pejorative, non-ideological sense), educated, professional, affluent, liberal, and mostly women. {Aside: that last may have something to do with the Roshi: a tall, handsome, gracious, confident, charming, PhD in both theology and psychology,  nonagenarian Jesuit.} Many were raised Catholic. A small group retain Catholic zeal, observance and piety. More seemed to have replaced the practice of Catholicism with Zen mediation and community.

Catholicism and Zen: Incommensurate, Not Directly Contradictory

Catholic magisterium has been fairly gentle with Christian Zen. There has been no clear prohibition or condemnation to my knowledge. A 1989  Vatican document from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, warned about confusion and dangers. But it did allow for dialogue and some prudent use of meditation techniques and the  like.

This contrasts, sharply, with the way the Church handles competitive faiths: Islam, Mormonism, Marxism, Cultural Liberalism, radical Latin Mass traditionalists, and so forth. Zen is an entirely different thing. It is not a philosophy or religion in the Western sense. Mohammad, Luther, Joseph Smith, Karl Marx were all Christian heretics: they developed out of Christianity, but accentuated and denied aspects so as to propose an alternate faith. But Zen is something altogether different. It does not propose an intellectual interpretation of reality. It does not deny or affirm God, Jesus as Lord and Savior, our Bible, papal infallibility, natural law, the unitive/procreative nature of sexuality, or anything else in our faith. Zen theoretically can coexist with Christianity since it does not directly compete. It is a different game entirely. 

We see then that one might conceivably, without explicit self-contradiction, with caution, practice Catholicism and and some form of Zen. Thus the light approach of the Vatican. However, realistically, the two are incommensurate, not really compatible, if practiced with integrity.

Buddhism is an alternate path of life, an understanding of reality, a practice. Pursued in any depth and consistency, it leads not to the Person of Jesus Christ, but in a different, obscure direction.

 Non-Theistic

Zen does not cognitively assert the existence of a supreme, absolute Creator. It is not assertively-lucidly- militantly atheistic in the manner of Marx, Freud, Nietzsche and our Western masters of suspicion. It is probably closer to what we call pantheism or panentheism. God is for Zen the "null curriculum"...not mentioned one way or the other. In that way it is implicitly but really a form of unbelief as it offers a path to meaning devoid of God. The Buberian I-Thou that is the heart of Revealed religion is absent, and replaced by something else.

Anthropology: No Self, No Freedom, No Sin, No Salvation

Zen does not offer salvation as it does not believe in sin. It offers something else: release from suffering into peace by way of "Enlightenment" as freedom from the illusions of an autonomous Self. Suffering is an illusion because the Self is an illusion. Meditation leads to release from this. And it discards the entire  Catholic anthropology of the person as a image of God with freedom, intellect, will, and purpose.

No Revelation, No Event, No History

Catholicism is the reception, contemplation, and interiorization of a Revelation given over the centuries but culminating in Jesus. Zen knows no such thing. Rather the goal seems to be release from passions, concepts, aspirations.

Catholicism is eventful: it centers in the Encounter with Jesus Christ which saves us from sin. Zen knows no such thing. The "retreat" experience is different for the two. For Catholic many retreats resemble Cursillo in which there is a strong proclamation of the love of Christ in a way to radically change the lives of those listening. In the tradition of the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises, the retreatant is lead through particular meditations to an encounter with God's love that leads often to some form of life decision. By contrast, Zen practitioners can go to countless retreats but never experience a life-changing conversion, encounter or call. One gets the impression of a "groundhog day pattern": nothing new happens, but the pattern is repeated in accord with the cyclical nature of primitive religions.

History, salvation history, is the essence of Judaism and Christianity. God enters history; everything changes; we are on a journey to the Kingdom of God. Zen seems to be an escape from history and change into some state of non-binary tranquility. 

Content of Meditation

As we "sat" in silence, I kept wondering: "What is everyone thinking?" There was no content offered. In Christian meditation we focus on some aspect of life in Christ: events or teachings from Jesus himself or his saints. My understanding of Zen is that it observes, tolerates and detaches from the flow of thoughts and feelings. The end state is not clear. No external, objective gift is received. The goal is release from "self" but there is no one to effect that. Ratzinger has warned of a privatization, an enclosure of the self within itself. He spoke of an "auto-eroticism." It is puzzling: escape from the Self remains enclosed within that very Self. This is not promising from a perspective that looks for the self to transcend  in love for the Other, the Binary, for God and neighbor.

Broader Cultural Consequences

The serious, systematic practice of Christian Zen engages a very minute, niche demographic. As such it is not a prime pastoral concern of the Church. But Ratzinger said that a version of such may surpass Marxism as an alternative to Christianity. This would be broader, popular, less particular currents of spirituality that are very influential in informal, non-institutional ways.

We might call this: Therapeutic, Moralistic Pantheism. Zen aligns well with the triumph of the therapeutic: both focus on the Self. As there is no transcendence in God or the afterlife, there is concern for wholeness here and now. I would venture that many American practitioners of Christian Zen simultaneously are in private therapy. 

The goal of Zen is a moralism, similar to the Christian, of compassion and kindness, for the suffering. This is its most potent connection with Catholicism. But the mercy does not flow from a higher, supernatural source. Rather, it is an enlightened empathy, a sense of harmony, an overcoming of delusional self interests and a mystical communion with all of life.

Pantheism is not an organized religion in America, but is widely pervasive and influential. For example, Paul Vitz showed that lucid atheism is largely a male position associated with reaction against the father. Women, by contrast, lean less into assertive atheism than a pantheism that aligns well with radical feminism, eco-ideology, and nature mysticism.

Christian Zen may then be a clear, defined expression of a far broader, informal, influential, populist piety.

Conclusion

My observation: a consistent, vigorous observance of Catholicism and Christian Zen is an exception, an outlier, an eccentricity. More broadly, Christian Zen is a replacement, an alternative. It attracts a searching soul: sensitive, desirous of more, altruistic, possibly alienated from her childhood faith.  Christian Zen seems to be detached and ultimately distracted from the texts, sacraments, icons and practices that mediate our faith. 

It contrasts sharply with 12-step practices of AA which draw from our Christian legacy and pull in the same direction.  

It aligns with other dominant currents of middle class spirituality: individualism, the therapeutic, feminism, environmentalism, cultural and political liberalism, and the cosmopolitan sophistication of the upper echelons.

The question it raises is one that has haunted me since my youth: why is it that so many...intelligent, well motivated, good people...lack faith? We know that our faith is a gift from God; it is not merited or earned in any way. But why is it that so many have not received this gift? This is a Mystery...a sad and sobering Mystery! No simple answer presents itself.

Career-Free

It is not for everyone, that's for sure!  We are a rarity, an elite, a remnant. To be career-free is a kind of a poverty or deprivation, but is also a blessing, a charism, and a mission.

A career is, of course, a good thing. It is the way our complex, technological/scientific, bureaucratic, professional, managerial world works. A career is a lifelong occupation that requires education, credentialization, progression upward in responsibility and renumeration, social status, and economic security. It often entails a valued human service to the community so can be an expression of altruism. It is usually situated within a large bureaucratic network. It becomes a key aspect of one's social identity.  It draws upon a deep, broad body of knowledge, technology, beliefs, ideas and practices.  My seven children and their spouses all have careers: I am proud of them and happy for them and their families. 

But...within the Catholic economy it is very good for some of us to be career-free. This for many reasons:

Careerism is the belief that one's personal identity and worth flows from career status. Imagine a 20 or 30 or 40 year high school reunion: be honest...we size each other up on a scale of achievement, income, and status. This is normie, bourgie mediocrity at its worst. Some of us have to step outside the paradigm and simply say: "Career wise, I am nothing. I am a loser in that game. I am career-free and proud of it!"

Bipolar Class Structure.  In my lifetime, our society has become increasing polarized into the upper and lower classes. The upper class is professional, educated, successful, economically secure, more liberal (politically and religiously) and inbred as they marry their own. The lower class (of diverse races and ethnicities) is career-less, unschooled, financially precarious, MAGA-inclined, and more vulnerable to social pathologies of addiction, single motherhood, unemployment, homelessness, mental illness, crime, and violence. A blessing of being career-free is a certain transcendence of this divide: ideally, one is not entrapped within either world but free to navigate back and forth, a dual-citizenship of sorts. Such a person need not be a Trump-fan, but will sympathize with the motives of those who are.

Identity.  Unbound to a profession, one enjoys the liberty to explore identity in many alternate ways: faith, family, art, culture, service, study, and other. For the Catholic, one is free to explore and deepen one's relationship with Christ; to surrender to serendipitous movements of the Holy Spirit outside of the protocols of "normie-ness." Discipleship in Christ can, of course, entail a profession. But the Spirit does like to act in creative, transgressive ways as well.

Intellectually one's thinking is not pre-structured by some dominant academic paradigm so one is free to roam in and out of disciplines, movements, schools of thought and especially personal and communal encounters. This makes for creativity, cross-fertilization, synthesis, breath and depth of thought. 

Catholic Priesthood. In our Church, the priesthood is clearly a career. It requires extensive training across a variety of disciplines; it entails very particular capacities including prayer, pastoral-emotional intelligence, acceptance of celibacy, and a minimum of organizational and academic ability. Obviously, the cleric is part of a brOoader, indeed global institution. It is also a hierarchy involving higher positions. In this it can incline to a corrupt clerical careerism. Readers of this blog will know that the author has a special fondness for "maverick priests" who do not fit into the program, who fail in competence in some way, but often compensate with intuition, compassion, charity, holiness and eccentricity, as they give headaches to their ecclesial authorities. 

Religious Life by contrast is inherently, in form, career-free. Many religious are in fact professors, teachers, doctors and so forth. But that career or ministry is subordinate to the primary focus of the vowed or consecrated life: intimate surrender to the person of Jesus Christ. This takes a variety of forms, including the solitude of hermits and consecrated virgins, but more frequently it entails participation also in a community of prayer and charity. Normatively, the specific service or ministry of a professed person (teaching, care for the poor, etc.) is tertiary: flows from the primal union with Christ and the secondary engagement with a specific community.

Lay Movements. It is worth noting that contemporary lay movements differ in the value they place upon career, secular or religious. Opus Dei and Communion and Liberation see great spiritual value in ones profession or career. By contrast, the Neocatechumenal Way is more working/lower class and focuses upon family and Church and devalues career. Other radical, anti-bourgeois Catholic groups include Dorothy Dayu's Catholic Worker and Madonna House with Catherine Doherty's "little mandate." St. Charles de Focauld, in his imitation of the simple life of Bethlehem, has been an inspiration for Kiko Arguello and Catherine Doherty and others in their embrace of simplicity, humility and praise and detachment from the benefits of career profession.

Conclusion

Life in Christ is a descent...down into our baptism, into poverty of spirit, into humility, simplicity, service, charity and praise. A holy woman said: "I want to go to the poorest nation; find the most destitute province; identify the most deprived town; ask for an extremely suffering family...and serve them." 

The normal middle class career trajectory is different: upward...greater education, credentials accomplishments, status, celebrity, financial security and wealth. It is possible, but not easy, to pursue such a path and yet answer Christ's call to humility, simplicity, and praise.

But it is good for some of us to remain unprofessional...professing simply the love of Christ for those who are simple, poor and faithful. 

Mentors and Womentors

Mentorship is a specific friendship in which two share in some endeavor but one, usually older, is more advanced and therefore guides, corrects, encourages and sponsors the mentee. It is a one-on-one, exclusive friendship, not unlike romance, so that the two attain a degree of intimacy. In this it differs from teacher or coach as both these instruct a group. While there are formal "mentorship programs," normally the friendship arises spontaneously, organically, serendipitously. More often, the mentor initiates as he sees potential in the younger one who is largely unaware of it. But it is self-chosen by both. It is temporary and transitional,  as the mentee eventually achieves maturity in the field and so becomes equal in the friendship. It is a hybrid relationship: like normal sibling love or friendship, but there is a quasi-paternal/maternal element of authority and docility.

I suspect many live and die entirely unmentored. It is not a necessity of life. I entered adulthood, graduating college at the age of 22, aware of only one mentor. I grew up surrounded by uncles and aunts, older cousins, and hundreds of teachers (laity, Sisters of Charity, Christian Brothers, Diocesan/Maryknoll/Jesuit priests) . None were for me a mentor. I was never coached as I did not play organized sports. In my work life I fended for myself without mentors. As oldest son of nine children I was accustomed to being older brother. In my UPS supervision career of 25 years there was no mentor: the managers above my level were aggressive, competent men but insecure in their own position and therefore lacking in generosity to us below them. As director of a residence for women I knew no one who had done this before so I found my own way. One exception: in the catechesis of the young, I did enjoy one womentor.

These days, approaching my 79th birthday, I marvel at how blessed I was,  mostly in early adulthood, by a number of such mentoring relationships. Almost all were younger than my own parents, 5-20 years older than me, the "silent generation." These assisted me, not in a career, but the three fundamental foci of my life: prayer, catechesis of the young, and companionship with the poor. They fall into two categories: spiritual directors and big brother/sisters.

Spiritual Directors

This is a strong Catholic practice, common in priestly and religious life, but more rarely among the laity. It is a form of counseling which focuses primarily on one's relationship with God and prayer life, but inevitably reaches into practical and personal areas of significance, including vocation, ministry and sin. Often the director is also confessor although they can be separated. In the years since the Council increasingly lay people seek and some even are trained in direction. It is especially appropriate for those with an intense spiritual life, who require more direction and correction than is normal.

Direction is an option, but not at all normative for the Catholic laity. In this it resembles much of the rich banquet of Catholicism: pilgrimages, retreats, devotions, rosaries, novenas, men-or-women prayer or Scripture groups, sacramentals, icons, conferences, associations, movements and other available but not obligatory practices. 

In my college seminary days we were assigned a spiritual director whom we would see once or twice a year. These I recall as entirely inconsequential. That we were assigned was not a good idea. At the time Rogerian counseling was in fashion and our directors typically sat, waited for our input, and offered little or no direction. A plain, steady life like mine did not elicit energy in direction.  It was an awkward, tiresome exercise, although the priests were often good, holy men.

In early adulthood, I associated with Jesuits, the experts in direction by virtue of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, the gold standard of direction. And so, I got into the habit; I have been blessed by a litany of directors:

Fr. Neil Doherty S.J.  1972-4. My department head when I taught religion at Jesuit Xavier H.S. NYC, he was typical of many Jesuits of his generation: Irish, quiet, modest, intelligent, educated, holy, humble.

Fr. Paul Viale 1975-80. A dear, close friend; a priest in the Catholic Charismatic Prayer Group in Christ the King, Jersey City; Paul was a most holy, decent, gentle, humble, delightful priest.

Fr. Tim Tighe C.P.S. (Passionate) 1990-93). Gifted, dynamic preacher; quite a character; very familiar with the 12 steps, including the codependency part. He said he never lived anywhere (family, seminary, many rectories, etc.) where there was not an alcoholic. A "maverick priest": insightful, energetic, quirky, interesting.

Fr. John Wrynn S.J. 1980-89, 1995-2018). Irishman and Jesuit; an erudite historian; gentle, refined, holy. He led me through the Spiritual Exercises in daily life. To confess and receive absolution from him was to be transposed from earth to heaven!

Fr. John Wassel 2026-current. Actually a few years younger than me, he is also a charismatic of many years. Another man of prayer, humble, gentle, wise.

Normally the directee initiates the relationship by asking for direction. A good director (like a therapist) is not easy to find as it requires: holiness, wisdom, theological erudition, and compatibility with the one receiving direction. The session might be one hour perhaps once monthly. The content is generated from the directee. 

Big Brother and Big Sister

Lacking a big brother and sister biologically, I have delighted in these friendships. In contrast to spiritual direction, these involve no formal agreement, but emerge organically, fluidly, happily.

Pat Williams 1966-69. Layman, father/husband, librarian, pugilist, Marine, autodidact, catechist, insightful student of culture, Pat befriended and had a tremendous influence on me.

Sister Maria Martha Joyce 1972-6. Partner in teaching religion in St. Mary's HS, Jersey City, she was a dear friend, tons of fun, another salty character, prone to temper tantrums and so a good disciplinarian, Sister of Charity of Convent Station.

Sister Virginia Keane 1973-8. Another Sister of Charity, Convent Station, bright, confident, assertive, she lived in the housing projects and took me in as junior partner in service of the poor. 

Sister Patricia Brennan 1973-80. A third Sister of Charity, she is the closest I have seen to St. Paul, missionary and evangelist. She led group of women who brought Charismatic Renewal to Jersey City. She was our teacher but took a direct, mentoring interest in each of us.

John Rapinich 1973-2014. My little/big brother (I was his big/little brother); my best friend ever. We met in Charismatic Prayer Group. He lived in our house as brother and uncle to our kids. Artist, friend of beatniks Ginsburg and Kerouac, another insightful  autodidact. Precious friend and brother.

Brother Ray Murphy 1984-current. Brother of the Christian schools, fine history and religion teacher, holy and humble, role model and another little/big brother.

Sister Joan Noreen 2005-2022. Foundress of Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist, an outstanding teacher on the spiritual life, she was for us teacher and mentor.

Rev. Cindy Wilcox 2024-5.  Presbyterian minister, she is about 20 years younger than me but my mentor as she welcomed us into volunteer hospital chaplaincy. She opened up a new vista of ministry in the hospital by modeling how to witness to God's love, free of any religious trappings that might not attract. She brought me to the psychiatric ward where we offer sessions on spiritual care, much like the 12-steps. I would accompany her 6 AM on cold winter mornings in the ER overflowing with homeless folks as she easily engaged them in conversation and was soon praying with them, so fluidly and comfortably. This was a very unexpected (at my age, late 70s), delightful relationship.

Conclusion

It is remarkable that of the 8 mentors, 4 happened in early adulthood, in the 1970, my 20s. Three were Sisters of Charity: one guided me in prayer and the life of the Holy Spirit, one in service of the poor, one in catechesis of the young. It makes sense: if you are career-free and interested in these three arenas, who dominates the fields? Women. Later in life, I was again mentored in the spiritual life by Sister Joan and in ministry to the afflicted by Rev. Cindy. So 5 of the 8 were women; and so I have coined the word "womentor." I am deeply indebted to these five women, as well as many others (including Dominican and Felician sisters) with whom in later years I have shared friendship and mission. Blessed am I among women!

I invite you, Dear Reader, to consider those who have personally guided and inspired you over the years, as we surge with Joy and Gratitude to be surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses!

 

It's a Big Table

 Catholicism is an abundant table...nutritious, delicious, extravagant, costly, inebriating. I have myself dined sumptuously of the many flavors. And so I have become a quite distinctive Catholic flavor myself. I know no one like myself. Other than the Church herself, I pledge allegiance exclusively to no school, movement, or party. I am a complex compound of many. 

My background is standard: raised in a large, happy, pious, stable, working class family in the postwar Church, I came of age in the excitement of the 1960s, even as I was sheltered from the drugs-sex-rock-and-roll of the Cultural Revolution in a semi-cloistered college seminary. But the strongest influences on my Catholic thinking are:

Divine Mercy Revelations. Received by St. Faustina, they were propagated throughout the Church by St. John Paul II, specifically in his Encyclical Dives in Misericordia.

Charismatic Catholic Teachings. Our personal experiences of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" as well as the dramatic global explosion of the last half century were given authentic form, deeply Catholic and yet ecumenically enriched from the Evangelical and Pentecostal traditions, by Ralph Martin and his, largely lay, collaborators.

St. John Paul II Papacy. In addition to his teaching on Mercy, he focused on: the Person/Event of Jesus Christ, the inestimable dignity of the human person, a groundbreaking catechesis on sexuality, an anthropology of work, and more. Along with his teaching he modeled for us Christlike virility.

"Communio Theology" of Ratziner, Balthasar and others. The scriptural personalism of Ratzinger and the aesthetics/dramatics of Balthasar along with the thought of John Paul came to me largely through the American school of the David Schindlers, Hanby, Healy, Lopez, Prosperi, Walker and Co. In the partnership-papacy of JP/Ben we also receive the authoritative interpretation (of continuity) of the Council.

Culture War. Through the 1970-80s, as elite culture, including within the Church, became progressive, with many I reacted fiercely in defense of unborn life, masculinity/femininity, the family, religious liberty and other. 

Remaining Working Class Viewpoint.  As Catholic adult, I viscerally renounced the now sexually liberational Democratic Party, but as son of a union organizer I retained my allegiance to the worker and the underdog. Now a registered but dissonant Republican, I leaned moderate/liberal on economics.

Neo-Thomism of Gilson and Maritain.  In college, these two clear  thinkers fortified my Catholicism against the forces raging against it at that very time.

Jesuit Teachers Joe Whelan and Avery Cardinal Dulles.  Each is a stand alone: Whelan himself a mystic taught the theology of prayer; Dulles is the model of balanced, encyclopedic, deep Catholic theology.

Catholic Psychologists Including Paul Vitz, Benedict Groeschel, Joseph Nicolosi, Elizabeth Amberly, Conrad Baars, Fr. Charles Curran (not moral theologian), Richard Fitzgibbons and others helped me to harmonize Catholic basics with the emergence of the therapeutic.

12-Step Spirituality. This Catholic-friendly, ecumenical approach offers us a deep, thorough program to address deep addictions and compulsions. 

Mimetic Theory of Rene Girard.  As received through his remarkable American disciple, Gil Baile, this anthropological theory is Catholic friendly and deeply insightful.

Friendship with the Poor of Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty. These combined Catholic mysticism, closeness to the poor, brilliance and radiant femininity. There are many such: Madalene del Brell, Caryl Houselander, Heather King, and oldies like Rose Hawthorne, Cabrini, and Drexel.

Ivan Illich, again in my college years, along with Ellul and Schumacher, provided a deep critique of techno-bureaucracy that helped me keep my soul intact as I navigated a business career in UPS.

Neocatechumenal Way of Kiko Arguello and Carmen Hernandez. Walking in this way for several years, gave an added depth and perspective to my faith.

Communion and Liberation.  Through my daughter especially I am a friend, a "fellow traveler" and admirer of this wholesome movement.

First Things of Neuhaus/Reno encourages me in my moral conservatism against sexual license as well as my strong internationalism in defense of human rights against bad players around the globe. My economics is more left and working class, however, than that of most of the Catholic Neo-Conservatives, more like the New Right of Sohab Amari and JD Vance.

Jewish/Christian Encounter.  Reading of Monsignor John Ostereicher, studies at the Seton Hall Institute (with Fr. Frizzell and Rabbi Finkel) and random encounters over the years fed my fascination with Judaism and love for the Jews. 

These seventeen influences are a rich blend, you will agree Dear Reader, of the academic, populist, countercultural, mystical, eccentric and non-bourgeois. Strangely, the variety here contains (for me) no contradiction or dissonance. There is, to be sure, creative tension among them. It makes it all more interesting and fruitful. Most of these influences are somewhat dated: I am current or fashionable.

In any case, the six decades since the Vatican Council has been a great time to be Catholic! 

Thick Irish Catholic Melancholy of "State of Grace," the Movie

This is the most underrated mob movie ever! It was released in 1990 at the same time as "Goodfellas" which understandably grabbed all the attention. I would put it in a league with that, the Godfather movies and others as top ten gangster movies. (The singular masterpiece "On the Waterfront" stands alone as unchallenged number one.)  The ensemble acting compares with all the greats. The friendship between co-protagonists Terry Noonan (Sean Penn) and Jackie Flannery (Gary Oldman) is incomparable and heartbreaking. Penn quietly emanates the deep, restrained sadness and interior conflict of undercover cop Noonan who strives to be loyal to his friends as he infiltrates the mob. Oldman is outstanding as a wild, drunken, fight-loving, endearing Irish lowlife. This puts the film also in the top ten best buddy films. But there is more: rock solid performances by stalwarts like Ed Harris, John Reilly, John Turturro. The stunning natural beauty of a young Robin Wright only enhances the poignancy of her heartbreak as she longs to escape her family background with an "uptown job," therapy and her romance with Terry. By the way, the chemistry between Penn and Wright on screen is not artificial: they started an affair and conceived a child while making the film.

It may be the saddest movie I have ever seen. Even though my Irish Catholic world (devout, serene, respectable) is far from theirs, they are still "my people" so I took the movie personally. They felt to me like dear, doomed cousins.  The sadness operates at different levels, which indwell each other.

It is set in the lower Manhattan West Side, "hell's kitchen," in the 1980s as that world was disappearing due to gentrification. And so, there is a dense cloud of hopelessness about the entire thing. Much of Jackie Flannery's rage is against this loss. In this, the movie might serve as an enactment of the disappearance of the ethnic (in this case Irish), Catholic, working class neighborhoods that disappeared from our cities over the last decades of the 20th century. The sentimentality and nostalgia is heavy and very Irish. You feel like you are at a wake, you have drunk too much, and you are starting to cry. And the sadness is very specific, personal, concrete...in each character.

Oldman's performance as Jackie is off the charts: he seems so familiar. Angry, alcoholic, reckless, fearless, impulsive...yet you become endeared to him. And you don't know why. You just like him. Reilly plays their childhood friend: addicted to gambling, he is in big trouble but has a gentle heart that evokes tenderness from Terry,  Jackie and the viewer.

The Penn/Wright romance is flaming, tender, respectful, but excruciatingly poignant. Each is seeking to find..."the state of grace." They want freedom from a past of violence, inebriation, deceit, betrayal, crime, and heartbreak. They are desperate for peace, stability, integrity, loyalty and quiet. Terry is a conscientious cop. Kathleen has moved uptown (above the 40s), has a decent job, and is in therapy. Their attraction to each other is cosmic. But the situation is impossible: he is infiltrating her brothers' mob.

In the key, revelatory scene towards the end, Terry, with tears, reveals his soul to her. He explains that this entire idea of him infiltrating the gang was an enormous mistake. He unveils the meaning of the movie's title.  "You believe in angels or the saints or there's such a thing as a state of grace. And you believe it, but it's got nothing to do with reality. It's just a fuckin idea." 

Here we come to the heart, the tragedy of the movie. He, and she, and everybody really, is seeking for this "state of grace." But it is, for them, unattainable. Terry wears a cross around his neck throughout the entire movie. This is important. There is nothing in the movie faintly approaching genuine Catholic piety. But they talk about the Church: rosary, priests, etc. Two scenes unveil the Catholicism beneath and around the entire drama.

Terry and Kathleen are unable to find Jackie when he is in big trouble with the Italian mob and the police and is intoxicated and then they find him in the Church. They sit together and intimately recall as children hiding together in that Church. They grieve their murdered friend Stevie (Reilly) as Jackie stumbles around, damaging the Church irreverently in a drunken stupor, saying he is "making a saint out of Stevie." I confess that I wept in the scene. The feeling of loss, of sadness, of longing was unbearable. They long for a lost state of innocence and peace. Vaguely there is some sense that the Church is attached to this longed-for state.

The finale of the movie crystalizes this sadness. (Spoiler alert!) In the wake of so much violence and death, the St. Patrick's Day parade is passing St. Patrick's Cathedral, bagpipes playing, and Kathleen (Wright) is alone in the crowd, her lovely face blank and impassive.

The parade signified the tragedy of the Irish: the loss of faith. We see this in Ireland itself today. But also, largely, among our own Irish-Americans. This is the sadness of our time. The loss of faith.

It is my view that an Irishman or Irish-American who embraces his Catholic faith is a prince, a warrior, a sage...however flawed! But an Irishman without faith falls into despair. He is a nobody. Remember: we Irish were for centuries serfs, slaves under the English. 

{ Aside: contrast cinematic presentations of the Italian and Irish mobs. The former has about itself the elegance, the stature of Italy: fine wine and food; gorgeous women; the Renaissance;  stigmatists and mystics; the Vatican; the Roman empire. The latter are low class: drunken, fighting, crude, and low on class.  Contrast "On the Waterfront's" Johnny Friendly (loud, vulgar) with Pacino and Brando as the Corleone's. A small but telling scene in "State of Grace" has Frankie Flannery (Irish mob boss Ed Harris) at a sit down in a good restaurant with Italian boss Borelli (Gambino-Genovese type guy.) Frankie brushes the crumbs off his table onto the floor. Borelli calmly, authoritatively tells him: "Frankie, don't make a mess." By contrast with a classy Italian mobster, the Irish guy is sloppy, crude, loud, impulsive and usually drunk!}

Yes, there are Irishmen who are good writers. They make tough boxers. They do well in middle distance running. You do want them as police, firemen, soldiers, and FBI agents. 

But even at their best, they are a waste if they remain in the "state of sin." That is to say, in disbelief. That is to say: in toxic, dysfunctional patterns of betrayal, deceit, dishonesty.

The perennial appeal of the gangster movie is, in my view, that the drama always revolves around betrayal and loyalty. The magnetism of the mafia is the code of loyalty. But that code, based on the immoral, inevitably turns into betrayal. The mob protagonist always encounters a dilema of loyalty: Terry Malloy (Brando) turns against the brother and mob boss who betrayed him to be loyal to something good ("On the Waterfront"); the youthful protagonist in "Bronx Tale" finds loyalty to the mob boss (Palmitieri) contradicts his filial fidelity to his father (DeNiro); "Donnie Brasco" has the real life undercover agent "going native" and loyal to his antagonists; and of course the multiple drama lines of the Godfather saga. 

And so, theologically, we ask: What is the state of grace for a Catholic. It is fidelity. It is the fidelity of God to us: absolute, manifest in the crucifixion of Christ, in the abiding Eucharistic presence. It is our own flawed, often failing loyalty to our own: spouse, vows, family, our God and his Church. 

The power of the mob movie is the drama of betrayal and fidelity. 

The power of "State of Grace" is the longing for that fidelity.