The five worst happenings of the last century: 5 is the many outbreaks of ethnic and genocidal hatred and violence; 4 is Nazism, genocide of the Jews and World War II; 3 is Stalin and the reign of Communism for most of the century; 2 is the Maoist Cultural Revolution which destroyed a huge, ancient civilization; and 1, the worst which continues into the current millennium, is the Cultural Revolution of the West.
The first four share a similar type: hellish outbreaks of demonic, vile hatred that attempted to destroy entire peoples. The last, and worst, however is the most subtle, deceptive, pernicious and powerful. It peaked in the explosion of 1968, continues to spread around the globe even now. It masquerades as a pacifism as it systematically kills the most powerless, especially the unborn; it presents as liberation as it efficaciously destroys the human person as creature, relationship, community, and image of God. It is the confluence, a "perfect storm" of five diabolical developments.
1. The forgetting, explicit or implicit, of God and all that is sacred and holy.
2. The renunciation of authority, tradition and bonds of religious community in favor of the hegemony of the autonomous, isolated Self.
3. The release of sexuality from its unitive/fruitful nature and purpose.
4. Deconstruction of masculinity and femininity and the loss of filiality, spousality, paternity, maternity and fraternity in favor of the neutered individual as a unit of consumption and production.
5. The illusion of technology and technocracy as a divinity capable of saving mankind.
The net effect of these forces is to tear the person away from being embedded in family, faith and community (that reaches into past and future) as a gendered, relational creature and leave the individual alone, isolated, uprooted, without memory or hope, void of purpose and connection. It presumes to be the liberation of the individual and assumes a posture of superiority, righteousness, and arrogance. It has attained a mimetic, contagious ferocity as it sweeps over the globe and devours our youth.
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Can We Have Gay Priests?
A delicate, excruciating, polarizing question! The answer is clear: No! Even our allegedly gay-friendly Pope Francis has recently confounded his LGBTQ admirers by his clear, passionate disapproval. We cannot have gay priests but it is not impossible for us to have priests who suffer same-sex attractions if these are not "deep seated" (according to Vatican policy.) Key terms need to be clarified: "gay" and "deep seated" and "orientation."
"GAY"
1970, fresh out of college and the revolutionary 60s, I was teaching ESL to Hispanics in the South Bronx, studying (as a mendicant amateur) theology at Union/Woodstock, courting my wife-to-be on weekends in NJ and I was quite lonely...except for my dear friend George Lissandrello and his gay friends on the lower East Side. This is immediately after the Stonewall riot and the beginning of the gay movement. One day George quietly, somberly spoke: "The gay life...(pause)...is a very, very sad." It was delivered and received in reverent silence, like a divine oracle. I knew not to question or comment.. I let the sadness sit peacefully, wondering what he meant. Some time later George told me he had AIDs. We never heard from him and assume he died in that plague.
For sure he meant that "gay" is not gay in the sense of merry, happy, silly and light! Quite the contrary! The word is deliberately ironic, fallacious, contradictory, histrionic, and performative. This word means much more than "i am a man attracted to men." It means additionally:
- "I approve of the attraction, acts, lifestyle and culture. I intend to indulge and encourage others."
- "I identify myself by this attraction or "orientation" as expressive as my truest, deepest self."
- "I publicly announce this and demand social approval. I will rage at any disapproval."
EGODYSTONIC AND EGOSYNTONIC
"Egosystonic" is a condition, impulse or drive in harmony with the ego, ideal self, and moral principles. "Egodystonic" is, by contrast, an impulse dissonant with or contradictory of the deeper self of ego, conscience and values. So, an intense, irrepressible impulse to torture and kill Eritreans would be serenely egosystonic for a psychopath, but excruciatingly egodystonic for a sensitive, pacifist Catholic Worker.
Many of our best, holiest priests and religious have been egodystonic homosexuals. They gently, peacefully receive this attraction as a cross, a crown of thorns, a passion and a frustration to be suffered patiently as they grow in a love that is paternal, fraternal, and chaste. This weakness and trial opens them up to the travails of others. This condition also comes associated, as Jung said, with emotional, spiritual riches including compassion, aesthetic appreciation, and spiritual intuition,.
The egodysntonic homosexual will avail himself of resources to diminish the sexual compulsion, heal the underlying wounds that cause it, and strengthen himself in masculinity, paternity, chastity, gnerosity and interior serenity. This would include sacramental confession, therapy (reparative), sound friendships, support groups (Courage), spiritual direction and a deep prayer life. The egosystonic homosexual will self-declare as gay: adapt his moral views to his sexual impulses, judge them to be morally good, and harshly judge as homophobic, hateful and unjust those who disapprove of these actions.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and others who work clinically with egodystonic same-sex attracted men identify the underlying cause as a primal wound to one's sense of masculinity...gender self-esteem...rooted pl largely in a weak connection with the father and secondly a misattunement with a doting or distant Mom and thirdly an inability to relate and compete with boy peers. The young boy, distant from and threatened by his father's masculinity, feels an interior void, and emptiness, a longing for the Father which becomes eroticized later, in puberty, as the urge to quell the longing by physical reception of the desired (father-surrogate) male. The underlying need is emotional, not purely physical.
DEEP-SEATED ATTRACTION
What does the Church mean that it cannot ordain men with "deep-seated" same sex attractions? The phrase is happily vague and ambiguous as it allows for a prudential judgment, a modulated openness to men whose overall maturity, generosity and holiness countervail the attraction. "Deep-seated" would seem to mean: has lived a chaste, continent life for a long period; does not advocate gay culture or practice the lifestyle; is free from the bondage of obsessive fantasy and pornography; and demonstrates a mature paternal character including peace with authority, whether exercising it or obeying it.
ORIENTATION?
Derived from the word "orient" or "east", orientation refers to a sense of direction, purpose or order. Morally and spiritually, our "orientation" is simply towards, or away from, God and His Kingdom. "Sexual orientation"is a grave misnomer as it is terrible to think of one's life direction as determined by sexual feelings and passions. To identify oneself or another by sexual feelings is a grave reduction and indignity. Growing up I despised the word "queer" as an expression of contempt and an attempt to reduce and define a man. Currently, I dislike the word "gay" for similar reasons. I prefer not even to refer to someone as "a homosexual" as it seems to define the person by this specific quality. Much better to speak of "my friend who has same-sex attraction." This is factual and objective but does not define the person down to his sexual desires. Diabetes, hypertension, anemia or dementia do not define the essence of a person! Nor does homosexuality! What matters is the act of the will, the decision how to direct the condition.
BORN GAY?
No one is "born gay" just as no one is born a wife-beater, a pedophile or a terrorist. If science did uncover a "gay gene" or some combination of hormonal-neurological-morphological chemistry as a biological cause, consider a thought experiment. If a simple injection or surgery could transform the fetus to be homosexual or heterosexual, we would be left with a moral dilema: do we allow random chance to prevail? restore to "hetero-normativity? or indulge the parental preference? In short, the etiology (origin) of the condition does not resolve the moral question although gay militants insist on a biological origin to gain sympathy and affirm normality.
Nicolosi finds that normally the pre-homosexual boy has a tempermental sensitivity that makes him vulnerable to the attraction. So there is indeed a nature/nurture combination. The anxious, shy, fragiel and unathletic boy may have difficulty in bonding with Dad, especially if he is emotionally distant, nervous, insecure, distracted by addiction or work obsession, or unsettled in his own paternity and virility.
WOUND OF SHAME
The Reparative Therapy (of Nicolosi and others, as distinct from more problematic "conversion therapy") identifies a primal wound of shame underlying the same sex attraction. According to this narrative, a loss of attachment, primarily with the father, (but also with mother, older siblings and friends) leaves the boy with a feeling of emptiness, loss and unworthiness especially in regard to his own masculinity. The key reality here is shame: a trauma-based sense of worthlessness in the eyes of others, a deep and paralyzing emptiness in regards to ones own masculinity. This depletes the boy of all joy, assertiveness, spontaneity, and confidence. It ushers one into the "gray zone" which is a psychological fogginess, a loss of all emotion and passion, a pervasive impotence. Later in puberty, this inner emptiness and yearning for identification with virility can become eroticized into same-sex attraction. A glance at a handsome, confident, athletic classmate triggers a deep but swift dread: "he is everything that I am not! how handsome he is! how worthless am I!" Instantaneously and unconsciously this dread changes into desire: "Wouldn't it be wonderful to be united with him!"
By this account, the desire is a symptom, but not the root problem. The real wound is the underlying, unconscious shame, the sense of masculine inadequacy and loss. Healing involves getting below the surface to the pain of shame, the feeling of abandonment and rejection and re-experiencing, in the presence of a "salient" (strong and loving) man who is affirming and accepting and allows the pain to be suffered and then surrendered.
WHAT HAPPENED TO REVERENT PRIVACY?
Before the sexual revolution (1965) we entertained a discretion, a modesty, a reverence about sex. It was not spoken of. This could take a turn towards the negativity of embarrassment and shame but basically it expressed a sense of the sacred, wonderful, even Godly nature of masculinity and femininity in all their passion, fragility, delicacy and intimacy. The revolution changed all this: sexuality was unveiled, dis-enchanted and became commonplace, prosaic and improperly explicit. Gay militancy perpetuates this unhappy development with its narcissistic compulsion to talk about desires and actions that are best left to the confidentiality of close friendship, therapy and confession.
UNBOUND FROM SHAME
The primal, unconscious root shame underlying the attraction is quite distinct from the social stigma that society has always associated with the condition. Social disapproval, of course, lays another layer of shame upon the person, but it is crucial that we unpack the distinct layers of shame. It is a wholesome, healing development that social stigma be removed from same sex attraction, much like that connected to mental illness. It is not helpful, however, to affirm schizophrenia as a "normal" normal and healthy (remember Szaz?) Removal of the stigma is a good thing; but that is not to normalize the desire or the action.
Because of original sin, we are all of us wounded and disordered, in a mesmerizing variety of ways. This attraction is quite ordinary and prosaic. But the shame is a huge deal: that due to social contempt and that rooted in the primal attachment loss.
Shame is a vicious, toxic thing! It is endemic to our condition. It is the deep conviction that I am worthless and disgusting, in the eyes of others, and therefore in my very self. It contrasts with guilt which can be a wholesome and salutary awareness of specific wrong-doing and is easily resolved by contrition and amends. Shame surrounds the spirit and renders it impotent. It is not rational, not based on truth; but it is not irrational as it is responsive to the real views of others. So, the homosexual feels despised by society (not an illusion) but more deeply he felt (and feels) disregarded by Mom or Dad or significant other.
Healing from shame involves recognition of it, owning of it, conscious experience of it; and then speaking of it with others. Shame is fundamentally an attachment disorder, a sense of separation from others. Clearly, the antidote is connection with others. Here we see the healing dynamic of the 12-steps, of the sacrament of confession (which primarily addresses guilt, but helps with shame) and the importance of "coming out." Everyone, with whatever condition involving shame, has got to "come out" and talk about it...but not with everyone! Not with the entire world! But with a particular, safe, protective and accepting Other. So we have the seal of confession; the anonymity and confidentiality of AA; professional ethics of psychology; and the trust in a friend.
And so, returning to the question of the gay priest: we see that a homosexual priest needs a small, trusted circle of friend/family/counselor/confessors wherein he can disclose his struggles, desires and shame and thereby dispel the last. But a public announcement of one's self-identity as "gay" would be a glaring contradiction of the Catholic ethos of chastity.
TRUCE OF PEACE ON THE GROUND
In my world...urban, largely Catholic, ethnically diverse, working and lower class Jersey City...we have peace about homosexuality. We know each other, work together serenely, treat each other with affection and respect. We don't argue, manipulate or fight with each other. The issue does not come up. This is a good thing! The Culture War does not happen in my small universe, but I read about in the news, journals and on TV. There is an implicit truce: we respect you, and you us! It is like vegetarians and carnivores: I have my steak and you your salad. It is not a problem! It is like smokers and abstainers: they smoke in designated places and we don't judge, instruct or belittle them. We Catholics have a right to teach and live our ethos...an ethos of chastity, restrain, and "hetero-normativity." Others may live differently, without dictating to us their values. So, No, a Catholic school would not employ openly gay teachers or counselors...any more than it would someone who was openly a fornicator, a pornographer, or a contraceptor. Eventually I think this peace will prevail in the broader society. (By contrast, the war over abortion, infanticide, and the value of innocent life is irreconcilable!)
IN PRAISE OF THE HYPOCRITE
A preferred trope of the gay liberation movement in the Church is the alleged existence of a large number of covert, disguised clergy, especially in the Vatican. By this story line, open acknowledgement of this reality and acceptance of the gay lifestyle, even in the clergy, will be a major moral advance in that hypocrisy is overcome. It is true that lack of authenticity, of genuineness is a source of grave scandal. On the other hand, I prefer an authority who proclaims the truth but fails to live it to one who denies the truth and deliberately leads others into sin. Jesus admonished us to follow what the Pharisees teach, not what they do. We have heard: "Do what I say; not what I do." There is a humility and honesty here: A Christian is always a hypocrite, always falling far short of his ideals, ever in the tension of guilt, disappointment and shame. This tension is unavoidalbe and irrepressible. It is, in a way, wholesome and normal. We all have our hidden sins; that is why we have confession. Imagine two fathers, both are cheating on their wives: one upholds the ideal and teaches (hypocritically) his sons that they need to be chaste and faithful in marriage and to fail in this is a great sin; the second father coaches his sons that promiscuity is manly and acceptable. I prefer the hypocrite! So, in a strange way, it is better that a gay clerical culture is underground, in the closet: thereby they pay homage to the truth, even as they fail to live the gospel life because of deep compulsions and loneliness.
RHETORIC OF INCLUSION ; LGBTQ AFFIRMATION
Cardinals Tobin and Cupich, Father James Martin and their cohort, with the ambiguous support of our pontiff, are leading a drive to shift to a language of inclusion that welcomes the LGBT community and downplays language of sin and disorder. The intentions here are kind and compassionate. But there is a huge problem with this if traditional Catholic teaching on sex has value and if there is significant truth to the claim of Nicholosi and others that the attraction, and even more the gay identity, camouflage a deeper wound, a trauma of attachment loss, an inner emptiness a desperate longing for virility. If there is indeed a psychic wound underlying this attraction, than it is a denial, to simply affirm homosexual desire and gay identity as natural, innate, and wholesome. For our adolescents, particularly, the sponsorship (by Catholic high schools and others) of LGBT support groups is particularly toxic and unmerciful in that it enables and encourages a primal, but ultimately dysfunctional attempt to repair the wound to the young man's virility. On the first level it affirms the sexual desire as wholesome; on the second it confirms the gay identity as praiseworthy. In doing so, it unconsciously hides and, denies and intensifies the underlying wound of attachment loss.
In short: compassion, in truth, requires that we renounce gay identity and lifestyle as self-destructive and delusional. More importantly, it directs that we empathize with the deeper pain and longing that generate this tormenting desire. Thirdly, it urges us to work to become free of emasculating shame, not only social stigma but the deeper underlying trauma of attachment loss. Lastly, it leads us to joyously, gratefully welcome the immense emotional, spiritual and intellectual richness that commonly accompanies this attraction.
Full Disclosure: What follows are reflections of a grateful homo-phile. I have been blessed with delightful friendships with many homosexual and gay men. Happily free of phobia or resentment, I share with them so much in the way of sensibility, values, beliefs and longings; I delight in their intelligence, sensitivity, humor; I appreciate the suffering, frustration, shame and underlying longing of their attractions; and I identify because I experience my own disordered concupiscence and longing which is essentially similar to theirs.
"GAY"
1970, fresh out of college and the revolutionary 60s, I was teaching ESL to Hispanics in the South Bronx, studying (as a mendicant amateur) theology at Union/Woodstock, courting my wife-to-be on weekends in NJ and I was quite lonely...except for my dear friend George Lissandrello and his gay friends on the lower East Side. This is immediately after the Stonewall riot and the beginning of the gay movement. One day George quietly, somberly spoke: "The gay life...(pause)...is a very, very sad." It was delivered and received in reverent silence, like a divine oracle. I knew not to question or comment.. I let the sadness sit peacefully, wondering what he meant. Some time later George told me he had AIDs. We never heard from him and assume he died in that plague.
For sure he meant that "gay" is not gay in the sense of merry, happy, silly and light! Quite the contrary! The word is deliberately ironic, fallacious, contradictory, histrionic, and performative. This word means much more than "i am a man attracted to men." It means additionally:
- "I approve of the attraction, acts, lifestyle and culture. I intend to indulge and encourage others."
- "I identify myself by this attraction or "orientation" as expressive as my truest, deepest self."
- "I publicly announce this and demand social approval. I will rage at any disapproval."
EGODYSTONIC AND EGOSYNTONIC
"Egosystonic" is a condition, impulse or drive in harmony with the ego, ideal self, and moral principles. "Egodystonic" is, by contrast, an impulse dissonant with or contradictory of the deeper self of ego, conscience and values. So, an intense, irrepressible impulse to torture and kill Eritreans would be serenely egosystonic for a psychopath, but excruciatingly egodystonic for a sensitive, pacifist Catholic Worker.
Many of our best, holiest priests and religious have been egodystonic homosexuals. They gently, peacefully receive this attraction as a cross, a crown of thorns, a passion and a frustration to be suffered patiently as they grow in a love that is paternal, fraternal, and chaste. This weakness and trial opens them up to the travails of others. This condition also comes associated, as Jung said, with emotional, spiritual riches including compassion, aesthetic appreciation, and spiritual intuition,.
The egodysntonic homosexual will avail himself of resources to diminish the sexual compulsion, heal the underlying wounds that cause it, and strengthen himself in masculinity, paternity, chastity, gnerosity and interior serenity. This would include sacramental confession, therapy (reparative), sound friendships, support groups (Courage), spiritual direction and a deep prayer life. The egosystonic homosexual will self-declare as gay: adapt his moral views to his sexual impulses, judge them to be morally good, and harshly judge as homophobic, hateful and unjust those who disapprove of these actions.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and others who work clinically with egodystonic same-sex attracted men identify the underlying cause as a primal wound to one's sense of masculinity...gender self-esteem...rooted pl largely in a weak connection with the father and secondly a misattunement with a doting or distant Mom and thirdly an inability to relate and compete with boy peers. The young boy, distant from and threatened by his father's masculinity, feels an interior void, and emptiness, a longing for the Father which becomes eroticized later, in puberty, as the urge to quell the longing by physical reception of the desired (father-surrogate) male. The underlying need is emotional, not purely physical.
DEEP-SEATED ATTRACTION
What does the Church mean that it cannot ordain men with "deep-seated" same sex attractions? The phrase is happily vague and ambiguous as it allows for a prudential judgment, a modulated openness to men whose overall maturity, generosity and holiness countervail the attraction. "Deep-seated" would seem to mean: has lived a chaste, continent life for a long period; does not advocate gay culture or practice the lifestyle; is free from the bondage of obsessive fantasy and pornography; and demonstrates a mature paternal character including peace with authority, whether exercising it or obeying it.
ORIENTATION?
Derived from the word "orient" or "east", orientation refers to a sense of direction, purpose or order. Morally and spiritually, our "orientation" is simply towards, or away from, God and His Kingdom. "Sexual orientation"is a grave misnomer as it is terrible to think of one's life direction as determined by sexual feelings and passions. To identify oneself or another by sexual feelings is a grave reduction and indignity. Growing up I despised the word "queer" as an expression of contempt and an attempt to reduce and define a man. Currently, I dislike the word "gay" for similar reasons. I prefer not even to refer to someone as "a homosexual" as it seems to define the person by this specific quality. Much better to speak of "my friend who has same-sex attraction." This is factual and objective but does not define the person down to his sexual desires. Diabetes, hypertension, anemia or dementia do not define the essence of a person! Nor does homosexuality! What matters is the act of the will, the decision how to direct the condition.
BORN GAY?
No one is "born gay" just as no one is born a wife-beater, a pedophile or a terrorist. If science did uncover a "gay gene" or some combination of hormonal-neurological-morphological chemistry as a biological cause, consider a thought experiment. If a simple injection or surgery could transform the fetus to be homosexual or heterosexual, we would be left with a moral dilema: do we allow random chance to prevail? restore to "hetero-normativity? or indulge the parental preference? In short, the etiology (origin) of the condition does not resolve the moral question although gay militants insist on a biological origin to gain sympathy and affirm normality.
Nicolosi finds that normally the pre-homosexual boy has a tempermental sensitivity that makes him vulnerable to the attraction. So there is indeed a nature/nurture combination. The anxious, shy, fragiel and unathletic boy may have difficulty in bonding with Dad, especially if he is emotionally distant, nervous, insecure, distracted by addiction or work obsession, or unsettled in his own paternity and virility.
WOUND OF SHAME
The Reparative Therapy (of Nicolosi and others, as distinct from more problematic "conversion therapy") identifies a primal wound of shame underlying the same sex attraction. According to this narrative, a loss of attachment, primarily with the father, (but also with mother, older siblings and friends) leaves the boy with a feeling of emptiness, loss and unworthiness especially in regard to his own masculinity. The key reality here is shame: a trauma-based sense of worthlessness in the eyes of others, a deep and paralyzing emptiness in regards to ones own masculinity. This depletes the boy of all joy, assertiveness, spontaneity, and confidence. It ushers one into the "gray zone" which is a psychological fogginess, a loss of all emotion and passion, a pervasive impotence. Later in puberty, this inner emptiness and yearning for identification with virility can become eroticized into same-sex attraction. A glance at a handsome, confident, athletic classmate triggers a deep but swift dread: "he is everything that I am not! how handsome he is! how worthless am I!" Instantaneously and unconsciously this dread changes into desire: "Wouldn't it be wonderful to be united with him!"
By this account, the desire is a symptom, but not the root problem. The real wound is the underlying, unconscious shame, the sense of masculine inadequacy and loss. Healing involves getting below the surface to the pain of shame, the feeling of abandonment and rejection and re-experiencing, in the presence of a "salient" (strong and loving) man who is affirming and accepting and allows the pain to be suffered and then surrendered.
WHAT HAPPENED TO REVERENT PRIVACY?
Before the sexual revolution (1965) we entertained a discretion, a modesty, a reverence about sex. It was not spoken of. This could take a turn towards the negativity of embarrassment and shame but basically it expressed a sense of the sacred, wonderful, even Godly nature of masculinity and femininity in all their passion, fragility, delicacy and intimacy. The revolution changed all this: sexuality was unveiled, dis-enchanted and became commonplace, prosaic and improperly explicit. Gay militancy perpetuates this unhappy development with its narcissistic compulsion to talk about desires and actions that are best left to the confidentiality of close friendship, therapy and confession.
UNBOUND FROM SHAME
The primal, unconscious root shame underlying the attraction is quite distinct from the social stigma that society has always associated with the condition. Social disapproval, of course, lays another layer of shame upon the person, but it is crucial that we unpack the distinct layers of shame. It is a wholesome, healing development that social stigma be removed from same sex attraction, much like that connected to mental illness. It is not helpful, however, to affirm schizophrenia as a "normal" normal and healthy (remember Szaz?) Removal of the stigma is a good thing; but that is not to normalize the desire or the action.
Because of original sin, we are all of us wounded and disordered, in a mesmerizing variety of ways. This attraction is quite ordinary and prosaic. But the shame is a huge deal: that due to social contempt and that rooted in the primal attachment loss.
Shame is a vicious, toxic thing! It is endemic to our condition. It is the deep conviction that I am worthless and disgusting, in the eyes of others, and therefore in my very self. It contrasts with guilt which can be a wholesome and salutary awareness of specific wrong-doing and is easily resolved by contrition and amends. Shame surrounds the spirit and renders it impotent. It is not rational, not based on truth; but it is not irrational as it is responsive to the real views of others. So, the homosexual feels despised by society (not an illusion) but more deeply he felt (and feels) disregarded by Mom or Dad or significant other.
Healing from shame involves recognition of it, owning of it, conscious experience of it; and then speaking of it with others. Shame is fundamentally an attachment disorder, a sense of separation from others. Clearly, the antidote is connection with others. Here we see the healing dynamic of the 12-steps, of the sacrament of confession (which primarily addresses guilt, but helps with shame) and the importance of "coming out." Everyone, with whatever condition involving shame, has got to "come out" and talk about it...but not with everyone! Not with the entire world! But with a particular, safe, protective and accepting Other. So we have the seal of confession; the anonymity and confidentiality of AA; professional ethics of psychology; and the trust in a friend.
And so, returning to the question of the gay priest: we see that a homosexual priest needs a small, trusted circle of friend/family/counselor/confessors wherein he can disclose his struggles, desires and shame and thereby dispel the last. But a public announcement of one's self-identity as "gay" would be a glaring contradiction of the Catholic ethos of chastity.
TRUCE OF PEACE ON THE GROUND
In my world...urban, largely Catholic, ethnically diverse, working and lower class Jersey City...we have peace about homosexuality. We know each other, work together serenely, treat each other with affection and respect. We don't argue, manipulate or fight with each other. The issue does not come up. This is a good thing! The Culture War does not happen in my small universe, but I read about in the news, journals and on TV. There is an implicit truce: we respect you, and you us! It is like vegetarians and carnivores: I have my steak and you your salad. It is not a problem! It is like smokers and abstainers: they smoke in designated places and we don't judge, instruct or belittle them. We Catholics have a right to teach and live our ethos...an ethos of chastity, restrain, and "hetero-normativity." Others may live differently, without dictating to us their values. So, No, a Catholic school would not employ openly gay teachers or counselors...any more than it would someone who was openly a fornicator, a pornographer, or a contraceptor. Eventually I think this peace will prevail in the broader society. (By contrast, the war over abortion, infanticide, and the value of innocent life is irreconcilable!)
IN PRAISE OF THE HYPOCRITE
A preferred trope of the gay liberation movement in the Church is the alleged existence of a large number of covert, disguised clergy, especially in the Vatican. By this story line, open acknowledgement of this reality and acceptance of the gay lifestyle, even in the clergy, will be a major moral advance in that hypocrisy is overcome. It is true that lack of authenticity, of genuineness is a source of grave scandal. On the other hand, I prefer an authority who proclaims the truth but fails to live it to one who denies the truth and deliberately leads others into sin. Jesus admonished us to follow what the Pharisees teach, not what they do. We have heard: "Do what I say; not what I do." There is a humility and honesty here: A Christian is always a hypocrite, always falling far short of his ideals, ever in the tension of guilt, disappointment and shame. This tension is unavoidalbe and irrepressible. It is, in a way, wholesome and normal. We all have our hidden sins; that is why we have confession. Imagine two fathers, both are cheating on their wives: one upholds the ideal and teaches (hypocritically) his sons that they need to be chaste and faithful in marriage and to fail in this is a great sin; the second father coaches his sons that promiscuity is manly and acceptable. I prefer the hypocrite! So, in a strange way, it is better that a gay clerical culture is underground, in the closet: thereby they pay homage to the truth, even as they fail to live the gospel life because of deep compulsions and loneliness.
RHETORIC OF INCLUSION ; LGBTQ AFFIRMATION
Cardinals Tobin and Cupich, Father James Martin and their cohort, with the ambiguous support of our pontiff, are leading a drive to shift to a language of inclusion that welcomes the LGBT community and downplays language of sin and disorder. The intentions here are kind and compassionate. But there is a huge problem with this if traditional Catholic teaching on sex has value and if there is significant truth to the claim of Nicholosi and others that the attraction, and even more the gay identity, camouflage a deeper wound, a trauma of attachment loss, an inner emptiness a desperate longing for virility. If there is indeed a psychic wound underlying this attraction, than it is a denial, to simply affirm homosexual desire and gay identity as natural, innate, and wholesome. For our adolescents, particularly, the sponsorship (by Catholic high schools and others) of LGBT support groups is particularly toxic and unmerciful in that it enables and encourages a primal, but ultimately dysfunctional attempt to repair the wound to the young man's virility. On the first level it affirms the sexual desire as wholesome; on the second it confirms the gay identity as praiseworthy. In doing so, it unconsciously hides and, denies and intensifies the underlying wound of attachment loss.
In short: compassion, in truth, requires that we renounce gay identity and lifestyle as self-destructive and delusional. More importantly, it directs that we empathize with the deeper pain and longing that generate this tormenting desire. Thirdly, it urges us to work to become free of emasculating shame, not only social stigma but the deeper underlying trauma of attachment loss. Lastly, it leads us to joyously, gratefully welcome the immense emotional, spiritual and intellectual richness that commonly accompanies this attraction.
Full Disclosure: What follows are reflections of a grateful homo-phile. I have been blessed with delightful friendships with many homosexual and gay men. Happily free of phobia or resentment, I share with them so much in the way of sensibility, values, beliefs and longings; I delight in their intelligence, sensitivity, humor; I appreciate the suffering, frustration, shame and underlying longing of their attractions; and I identify because I experience my own disordered concupiscence and longing which is essentially similar to theirs.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
"Anything Worth Doing is Worth Doing Poorly"
This motto has served me well! It has helped me to do many good things, albeit poorly! I would not recommend this motto for all: Many might not need it. I need it because my primary vulnerability, my "Achilles heel" is: discouragement! I am prone to be weak, insecure and lacking in confidence. This is, for me, a grave interior sin! It is Satan's primary weapon against me. God's plan for me is that I be a strong man: courageous, confident, steady, zealous, calm and even fierce in His purposes including my marriage, family and work! Satan wants me to be a wimp. I have found that when my standards are high I am more vulnerable to discouragement: "I am a failure at this." So I have come to accept that: "when I lower my expectations, my performance rises." And so, I am sloppy, irregular, distracted and haphazard in: house maintenance, handy man work, paperwork, administration...as well as my prayer life, fasting, participation in renewal movements, service of the needy, and a laundry list of other efforts. Consistently, I do these good things, poorly! It is a great blessing to do good things, however poorly. Among the most helpful books I have read is The Spirituality of Imperfection by Ernest Kurtz. His thesis is that knowing and owning imperfection, weakness, frailty and specific sinfulness is a privileged pathway to genuine wholeness and holiness. This leads to a deep, passionate yearning for and trust in Jesus our Lord! It liberates from moralism and and a piety of "spiritual bypassing" that masks weakness and sin. As a release from oppressive conscientiousness and perfectionism, it is light, delightful and refreshing. You might like it! Do something good...do it poorly...but do it...and enjoy it!
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Tracey Rowlands on the Theology of Pope Francis
Tracey Rowlands, in a chapter on Liberation Theology in her recent Catholic Theology, opens a window on the thinking of Pope Francis by noting the influence of the Argentinian "People's Theology." Strikingly non-Marxist, this approach prefers "the people" to "class", claiming that the simple, uneducated, marginalized poor have an innocent, pure spiritual intuition that is denied the affluent, the educated and the powerful. Surely Pope Francis shares this view. Surely there is something to it: our faith is available to the little ones and often opaque to the learned. But I would suggest that our Pope is more complicated than this; indeed, Pope John Paul showed deeper reverence for the faith of the simple. In his very first address to the Cardinals after becoming Pope, Francis expressed disapproval of a "spiritual boquet" of thousands of rosaries sent to him by a group of the pious. It was a shockingly dismissive and condescending remark by a pastor of the flock.
Rowlands recalls his remark to a seminarian who was studying Fundamental Theology: "I can hardly think of something more boring." This gets to the heart of the matter: Francis is adverse to and incapable of prolonged, systematic theological thought.
She references a review he did years ago of books by Balthasar and Kasper in which he appreciated their shared sense that the Divine Mysteries far exceed any intellectual formulation. This, of course, is normal Catholic sensibility. But it is ordinarily wed to a deep respect for intellect and the sublime Truth and underlying logic of our faith. Francis, by contrast, is consistently disparaging of dogma and doctrine. He is a fierce anti-intellectualist!
Additionally, she highlights his failure to appreciate Balthasar in his assertion that logos precedes ethos: that action needs to be infused with contemplation; that pragma must express truth. In this she unveils Francis as a crude pragmatist, an irrationalist, an emmotivist. He exhorts the young to "make a mess" but provides no clear vision of purpose. Much like Trump, he is impulsive and unpredictable and lacking an overall strategic plan.
He is often referred to as a "Peronist" but in most ways he is a cosmopolitian, liberal elitist in his disgust for "walls" and his inattention to defending the local, the specific, and the national.He is at one moment friendly to gay liberation and the next hostile. He welcomes and praises the clerk who refused to issue licenses for gay weddings and the next day the entire Vatican back-tracks. He is most known and loved for his outreach to the marginalized but seems indifferent and dismissive of deplorable, Trump-voting rednecks, and their European counterparts, who are bereft of status, power and wealth but threatened by global change and immigration. In this he aligns himself with Western liberal elites in an uncritical manner.
So, again, he is not a consistent "popular" or "liberation" theologian: he is a rich, complex, convoluted bundle of often inconsistent and contradictory impulses. As a theologian, he is a catastrophe!
Rowlands recalls his remark to a seminarian who was studying Fundamental Theology: "I can hardly think of something more boring." This gets to the heart of the matter: Francis is adverse to and incapable of prolonged, systematic theological thought.
She references a review he did years ago of books by Balthasar and Kasper in which he appreciated their shared sense that the Divine Mysteries far exceed any intellectual formulation. This, of course, is normal Catholic sensibility. But it is ordinarily wed to a deep respect for intellect and the sublime Truth and underlying logic of our faith. Francis, by contrast, is consistently disparaging of dogma and doctrine. He is a fierce anti-intellectualist!
Additionally, she highlights his failure to appreciate Balthasar in his assertion that logos precedes ethos: that action needs to be infused with contemplation; that pragma must express truth. In this she unveils Francis as a crude pragmatist, an irrationalist, an emmotivist. He exhorts the young to "make a mess" but provides no clear vision of purpose. Much like Trump, he is impulsive and unpredictable and lacking an overall strategic plan.
He is often referred to as a "Peronist" but in most ways he is a cosmopolitian, liberal elitist in his disgust for "walls" and his inattention to defending the local, the specific, and the national.He is at one moment friendly to gay liberation and the next hostile. He welcomes and praises the clerk who refused to issue licenses for gay weddings and the next day the entire Vatican back-tracks. He is most known and loved for his outreach to the marginalized but seems indifferent and dismissive of deplorable, Trump-voting rednecks, and their European counterparts, who are bereft of status, power and wealth but threatened by global change and immigration. In this he aligns himself with Western liberal elites in an uncritical manner.
So, again, he is not a consistent "popular" or "liberation" theologian: he is a rich, complex, convoluted bundle of often inconsistent and contradictory impulses. As a theologian, he is a catastrophe!
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Open Letter to Police and Medics on Anointing of the Sick
January 22, 2019
Open Letter to
Jersey City Police and Emergency Medical Staff:
On Friday January
18, 2019 at 4 PM a patrol car and two ambulances responded to a
medical emergency here at 20 Greenville Avenue, Jersey City, our
Magnificat Home boarding home for single women. The team was entirely
diligent, focused and professional in reviving the patient and
getting her to the ICU in Bayonne. There was a problem, however,
regarding access for the Catholic priest to administer the sacrament
of Anointing of the Sick.
In their otherwise
correct focus, for over an hour, on reviving and sustaining the
patient, they firmly resisted access by the priest, on two occasions,
to anoint with the sacrament. Reluctantly, as the ambulance prepared
to depart, access was granted for the anointing on the forehead with
blessed oils, a process that took about 5 seconds.
Medics and police
need to know two facts about a Catholic who is in danger of death:
First, the emergency
anointing by a priest can be done in five seconds without
interrupting their work.
Second, for an
observant Catholic, access to this sacrament, when in danger of
death, is of absolute, ultimate importance.
Several comments by the medics and officers signaled that they did not understand what we wanted: "She may not be leaving here at all." "She is not dead yet." "We will let you pray before we leave."
Fortunately, the
patient was anointed and stayed alive another 36 hours before
expiring in the ICU. Had she, however, expired during that hour
without the sacrament it would have been, from a Catholic
perspective, an unnecessary tragedy and an unjust deprivation of a
religious right.
Experienced priests
and medics have assured me that ordinarily there is no problem as the
priest is granted access without any conflict and without disrupting
the emergency procedure. Surely, simple information on the two points
above (the brevity and gravity of the anointing) provided to medics
and police will suffice to prevent this problem going forward.
Thank you for your
attention to this!
Matt Laracy
Director, Magnificat
Home
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Ivan Illich: Prophetic Word for a Collapsing Church and Civilization
Hands down, number one on my list of "Most Underrated Catholic Thinkers of the 20th Century" is Ivan Illich of Cuernavaca: the learned, creative, anarchistic, controversial, eccentric genius, mystic and iconoclast. He is unknown today, except among a small group that recalls the fierce arguments he provoked in the 60s and 70s about Catholic missions, education, medicine and the nature of our entire bureaucratic, technocratic civilization. In the wake of the catastrophic summer of 2018 (death penalty revision, McCarrick, Pennsylvania report, Vigano), his message rings ever more lucid, profound, and inspirational. By a serendipitous, providential, personal coincidence, I recall, half a century ago, my summer of 1968 (the year our society imploded with the explosion of the Cultural Revolution) when I studied Spanish at Illich's center in Cuernavaca and was captivated by his breathtakingly radical critique of modernity and American Catholicism. Paradoxically, his critique was far more drastic and deep than anything coming out of the then-fashionable movements (anti-war, civil rights, incipient feminism, anti-capitalism, "Spirit of Vatican II," and the illusory sexual liberation of the pill); even as his was a deeply if eccentrically, really medieval, Catholic sensibility and spirituality. I am ever grateful that his influence on me was to grant some critical distance from the underlying pathology of modernity even as he deepened and enriched my Catholic faith. His message is essential for us for several reasons:
First, he called for a poor, de-institutionalized, humble Church...unburdened with schools, hospitals, and the entire complex of social agencies. In this vision, the Church (as hierarchy, as institution) could focus attention on the Word of God, worship, and simplicity/holiness of life. This vision appealed to me but for 50 years I rejected it, thinking of all the good done by Church agencies, especially for the poor and suffering. The events of Summer 2018 convinced me that the negatives of a bloated, bureaucratic Church outweigh the positives. The rise and persistence of Maciel/McCarrick/etc. is partly due to the big money they fed the Vatican bureaucracy and their expertise as ace administrators of mega-institutions. It is now clear that we will be better off as Church if the hierarchy releases control of the agencies of corporal mercy into the hands of the laity. Recall: the apostles surrendered custody of food distribution to the first deacons so that they could be free of distraction to attend to the Word of God! Something like that needs to happen today. Patiently, the laity have to take responsibiilty for acts of corporal mercy and justice and return the clergy to their proper work. Our own small Magnificat Home, in which we provide a home for 55 women, is an example: we have no organizational or legal tie to the institutional Church even as it is our faith that moves us. Similarly, Mother Angelica (as told in the biography by Raymond Arroyo) made a brilliant move some years ago when the American bishops and the Vatican were both considering moves to gain control of her television empire by invoking her vow of obedience: she convened an emergency meeting from her hospital bed and had control surrendered to an independent lay board. Whatever one thinks of EWTN, for sure it is better off free of episcopal or papal control and the pope and bishops are better off without that concern.
Secondly, as he became more controversial in his advocacy for drastic cultural/social revolution, he freely gave up his priestly powers for a deeply theological reason: he saw that the priest at the Eucharist convenes believers of all ideological and political persuasions: left/right, libertarian/anarchistic, socialist/capitalist, etc. If the priest is a fierce advocate for a specific policy or program, he becomes polarizing and divisive. Illich decided his vocation was to advocate his ideas and so he surrendered his liturgical privileges, freely and happily. He did, however, maintain his fidelity to his vows of celibacy and prayer of the liturgy of the hours. His lucid, definitive distinction between our Catholic faith and our political positions is sorely needed today when our Pope and his lieutenants have adopted a collection of policy positions (environment, immigration, death penalty) and consecrated them as sacrosanct in a leftist clericalism that is mercilessly divisive, arrogant and offensive.
Thirdly, in a broader, deeper critique of modernity itself he rejected the "giga...mega" nature of bureaucracy and technology in its cancerous overgrowth in that it inherently disables and dis-empowers the individual and local community in their own autonomy, agency and integrity. He advocate "tools of conviviality," preferring bicycles to airplanes and superhighways, face-to-face dialogue to school institutions, concrete and traditional self-care to technologies of medication and surgery. He saw that indigeneous peoples of Latin America were more active, free, convivial and communal in their traditional ways of housing, feeding and protecting themselves without the Western "necessities" of huge electrical, plumbing, and cultural systems. He understood that even those at the high end of our modern hierarchy...the rich, powerful, expert, credentialed...are bereft of the basic human competencies of caring for self, family and community. With Ellul, Schumacher and others, he called for an almost Amish or Luddite return to a humane smallness to restore agency and dignity. Surely, his diagnosis is pertinent to our current political-cultural crisis of alienation manifest in the Trump phenomenon.
Fourthly, Illich came to NYC in the 1950s and fell in love with the cultural, spiritual vitality of the urban, underclass Puerto Ricans. He seems to have also felt a contempt for the hegemonic Irish Catholic American Church that was so prosperous, fecund, confident and expansive at the time. This animus became pronounced and militant in the 1960s when he waged a fierce campaign against the North American (Cardinal Cushing, Maryknoll Father John Considine) plan to flood Latin American with missionaries. Enamored of primitive, Hispanic spirituality, Illich viewed the mission crusade as the crudest cultural imperialism as arrogant, superior Americans imported the church-rectory-convent-school complex and all the baggage of toxic American materialism, consumerism, and technology. Retrospectively, I for one see an exaggeration in his disgust with our own culture and his infatuation with that of Hispanics. Nevertheless, there is a powerful truth here: those closer to nature, tradition, family, location and tribe inherit an intuitive moral sense that has been largely lost in an industrial society of scientific control and arrogance. The Illichian perspective is especially helpful for those of my generation who grieve the loss of the flourishing Catholic world of our childhood and youth: full churches, large families, lots of vocations, expansive institutions. That Catholic world of 1945-65 was not as bad as Illich thought; but it is not as good as the nostalgic conservative imagination confects it. Illich is a positive correction: the Kingdom of God is coming, but not completely here; it was not here in the 1950s and is not here now; but it is coming. He helps us to cleanse our memory: remembering all the good but regretting the bad and hoping for ever more!
Lastly, his critique of modern medicine was the most drastic and problematic part of his legacy. I for one gratefully take my six daily pills (aspirin, Vitamin D, crestor, etc.) and appreciate the colon surgery that removed a cancerous growth the size of my fist. He refused medical care for his cancer at the end of his life. He suffered and died a "natural death" without the comforts of medicine. I cannot follow him there. But I admire his heroism and his belief that suffering is largely unavoidable and that we err in expecting complete relief from science and technology. He believed and lived the Gospel Truth: the resurrection comes through the crucifixion.
He was a great man! His was a magnificent intellect! May we emulate him! May his thought help us to purify our Church and heal our culture!May he pray for us!
First, he called for a poor, de-institutionalized, humble Church...unburdened with schools, hospitals, and the entire complex of social agencies. In this vision, the Church (as hierarchy, as institution) could focus attention on the Word of God, worship, and simplicity/holiness of life. This vision appealed to me but for 50 years I rejected it, thinking of all the good done by Church agencies, especially for the poor and suffering. The events of Summer 2018 convinced me that the negatives of a bloated, bureaucratic Church outweigh the positives. The rise and persistence of Maciel/McCarrick/etc. is partly due to the big money they fed the Vatican bureaucracy and their expertise as ace administrators of mega-institutions. It is now clear that we will be better off as Church if the hierarchy releases control of the agencies of corporal mercy into the hands of the laity. Recall: the apostles surrendered custody of food distribution to the first deacons so that they could be free of distraction to attend to the Word of God! Something like that needs to happen today. Patiently, the laity have to take responsibiilty for acts of corporal mercy and justice and return the clergy to their proper work. Our own small Magnificat Home, in which we provide a home for 55 women, is an example: we have no organizational or legal tie to the institutional Church even as it is our faith that moves us. Similarly, Mother Angelica (as told in the biography by Raymond Arroyo) made a brilliant move some years ago when the American bishops and the Vatican were both considering moves to gain control of her television empire by invoking her vow of obedience: she convened an emergency meeting from her hospital bed and had control surrendered to an independent lay board. Whatever one thinks of EWTN, for sure it is better off free of episcopal or papal control and the pope and bishops are better off without that concern.
Secondly, as he became more controversial in his advocacy for drastic cultural/social revolution, he freely gave up his priestly powers for a deeply theological reason: he saw that the priest at the Eucharist convenes believers of all ideological and political persuasions: left/right, libertarian/anarchistic, socialist/capitalist, etc. If the priest is a fierce advocate for a specific policy or program, he becomes polarizing and divisive. Illich decided his vocation was to advocate his ideas and so he surrendered his liturgical privileges, freely and happily. He did, however, maintain his fidelity to his vows of celibacy and prayer of the liturgy of the hours. His lucid, definitive distinction between our Catholic faith and our political positions is sorely needed today when our Pope and his lieutenants have adopted a collection of policy positions (environment, immigration, death penalty) and consecrated them as sacrosanct in a leftist clericalism that is mercilessly divisive, arrogant and offensive.
Thirdly, in a broader, deeper critique of modernity itself he rejected the "giga...mega" nature of bureaucracy and technology in its cancerous overgrowth in that it inherently disables and dis-empowers the individual and local community in their own autonomy, agency and integrity. He advocate "tools of conviviality," preferring bicycles to airplanes and superhighways, face-to-face dialogue to school institutions, concrete and traditional self-care to technologies of medication and surgery. He saw that indigeneous peoples of Latin America were more active, free, convivial and communal in their traditional ways of housing, feeding and protecting themselves without the Western "necessities" of huge electrical, plumbing, and cultural systems. He understood that even those at the high end of our modern hierarchy...the rich, powerful, expert, credentialed...are bereft of the basic human competencies of caring for self, family and community. With Ellul, Schumacher and others, he called for an almost Amish or Luddite return to a humane smallness to restore agency and dignity. Surely, his diagnosis is pertinent to our current political-cultural crisis of alienation manifest in the Trump phenomenon.
Fourthly, Illich came to NYC in the 1950s and fell in love with the cultural, spiritual vitality of the urban, underclass Puerto Ricans. He seems to have also felt a contempt for the hegemonic Irish Catholic American Church that was so prosperous, fecund, confident and expansive at the time. This animus became pronounced and militant in the 1960s when he waged a fierce campaign against the North American (Cardinal Cushing, Maryknoll Father John Considine) plan to flood Latin American with missionaries. Enamored of primitive, Hispanic spirituality, Illich viewed the mission crusade as the crudest cultural imperialism as arrogant, superior Americans imported the church-rectory-convent-school complex and all the baggage of toxic American materialism, consumerism, and technology. Retrospectively, I for one see an exaggeration in his disgust with our own culture and his infatuation with that of Hispanics. Nevertheless, there is a powerful truth here: those closer to nature, tradition, family, location and tribe inherit an intuitive moral sense that has been largely lost in an industrial society of scientific control and arrogance. The Illichian perspective is especially helpful for those of my generation who grieve the loss of the flourishing Catholic world of our childhood and youth: full churches, large families, lots of vocations, expansive institutions. That Catholic world of 1945-65 was not as bad as Illich thought; but it is not as good as the nostalgic conservative imagination confects it. Illich is a positive correction: the Kingdom of God is coming, but not completely here; it was not here in the 1950s and is not here now; but it is coming. He helps us to cleanse our memory: remembering all the good but regretting the bad and hoping for ever more!
Lastly, his critique of modern medicine was the most drastic and problematic part of his legacy. I for one gratefully take my six daily pills (aspirin, Vitamin D, crestor, etc.) and appreciate the colon surgery that removed a cancerous growth the size of my fist. He refused medical care for his cancer at the end of his life. He suffered and died a "natural death" without the comforts of medicine. I cannot follow him there. But I admire his heroism and his belief that suffering is largely unavoidable and that we err in expecting complete relief from science and technology. He believed and lived the Gospel Truth: the resurrection comes through the crucifixion.
He was a great man! His was a magnificent intellect! May we emulate him! May his thought help us to purify our Church and heal our culture!May he pray for us!
Friday, December 21, 2018
The Homo-erotic Clericalism of Maciel and McCarrick
Ironic, painfully ironic! Pope John Paul II in his life and work was the embodiment of holy virility and wholesome paternity: courageous, sober, generous, chaste, intelligent. But under his pontificate there flourished an ecclesiastical under-culture of corruption and predatory perversion...the infamous "lavender mafia." We now know that two titans of this underworld were Marcial Maciel and Theodore McCarrick.
The two were opposites theologically and politically. McCarrick was a closet liberal coming up the ranks under the conservative John Paul pontificate but he hit is stride when he got his red hat and became chaplain to the Biden-Pelosi-Kennedy Catholic wing of American liberalism. Even later, in his 80s, he was an important player in the Obama Iran deal and Pope Francis's regrettable submission to Chinese Communism. Apparently he continued to influence choice of American bishops as he remained in favor with Francis despite his informal silencing under Benedict.
Maciel was the opposite. He grew up in Mexico in the 1930s during the Cristero Revolution where his uncles were honored leaders: one a saintly bishop who has been beatified for his work with the poor, another an honored and heroic general in the revolt (Think the Andy Garcia character in the movie "For Greater Glory.") He internalized a fierce, militant anti-modernist. late Tridentine Catholicism. He loved Franco and hated Communism. He showed a genius in reviving elements of pre-Vatican II Catholicism and showing their vibrancy: marian, Eucharistic, enamoured of the religious and clerical states.
Under the theological and politcal contrasts, however, they are identical twins spiritually, morally, psychologically. ...in their homo-erotic clericalism. Each lived double lives: pious, Catholic prelates on the one hand; on the other villians of diabolic proportions. Each was an accomplished deceiver who could have tutored Bernie Madoff. Each had an uncanny ability to attract large sums of money and to form alliances with powerful figures in the Church and society.
Each exhibited a striking clericalism that was essentially perverse and homo-erotic. My memory of Archbishop McCarrick: intelligent, super-energetic, clever, charming...and obseesed with recruiting young men...especially the handsome, lean, intelligent type...into the priesthood. He invited my own son, an altar boy, to consider the priesthood...knowing nothing about him except his appearance. Both seemed to have a fetish about priesthood...and to an extent the consecrated life...but with a masked homosexual passion underneath. Strangely, there seems to be something about the Catholic clerical state that lends itself to be eroticized. This is evident, for example in the striking obsession of the Legionnaires with grooming and good looks. This contrasts sharply with more traditional Catholic religious (eg. Franciscan) tendencies to downplay sexual attractiveness.
Both achieved power in the mysterious corridors of the Curia by large flows of money to important people. Two stand out: Cardinal Solano, then Secretary of State and Dean of the College of Cardinals, seems to have been a protector of both, as well as other homosexual predators. Even more saddening is the fact that John Paul's personal secretary and "spiritual son", Stanislaw Dziwisz, also received large sums of money from Maciel and McCarrick and apparently funneled it to the freedom fighters in communist Poland. It is probable that he was influential also in "protecting" John Paul from the horrendous allegations about both prelates.
Each flourished under John Paul by showing him what he wanted, but each represented a theological alternative to his vision. Maciel was smart enough to pay homage to Vatican II and downplay his obeisance to an earlier version of Catholicism. But he pleased John Paul becaus of his fidelity to elements of the faith: Eucharist, consecrated life, prayer and so forth. McCarrick finally became an opponent of the John Paul - Benedict agenda as Cardinal of Washington DC. He infamously changed the meaning of a letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger regarding communion for politicians who publically support abortion. McCarrick was an accomadationist where Benedict and John Paul were both unflinching culture warriors regarding the value of innocent human life and human sexuality.
If John Paul (and, in his own modest key, Benedict) was a hero of epic proportions, Maciel and McCarrick are themselves fiends of comparable gravity. Indeed, McCarrick himself strongly resembles Senator-Emperor Palpatine (a.k.a. Darth Sidius) of Star Wars and rivals him in cunning, power, deceit and evil. Regnum Christi and the Legionnaires of Christ, the legacy of Maciel, seems to contain a treasure of spiritual riches in many of the people involved. It is hoped that the evil of that movement will be exorcized and the good strengthened. That of McCarrick is more troubling as he seems to have had strong influence on the Curia and choice of bishops. The "lavender mafia" under Francis has emerged with new strength and largely come out into the open even as Catholics around the world are sickened by the pestilence of pedastry. A poll by the L.A. Times of 15 years ago reported that 20% of priests are homosexual and half of that (10%) are practicing (or "gay"). That strikes me as about right.
The legacy of Maciel/McCarrick continues in our Church, alongside of that of John Paul II. Unfortunately, long-standing Catholic traditions of clerical silence and loyalty, which once made sense, now seem to serve to shield a pervasive culture of perversion. Clearly we are entering a period of profound purification. We need a smaller Church, organizationally, with less money and power. We need to recreate our clerical culture: more humble, chaste, transparent. We need more lay oversight and involvement of women.
We need to resist the effort of liberals to advance the very moral/theological agenda that fueled the surge of predatory behavior after the Council: the tearing of sexuality from fruitfulness, the separation of gender from spousality, chastity and paternity/maternity, Likewise we must resist the urge to destroy the clerical state. Catholic religion centers on the sacrality of the Eucharist and confession of sins. The clerical state serves THAT! The dissolution of the clergy and all that feeds into that (women, married priests, etc.) would create a low-church, iconoclastic protestantism void of the holiness that defines Catholicism.
In the face of a modern world that is both ppromising and threatening, the figutes of Maciel a, McCarrick and John Paul exemplify the three paths forward for Catholicism. Maciel is militant in defiance of modernity: phobic, cult-like, defensive, regressive, controlling, and allergic to anything not enclosed within a pious "regnum." McCarrick presents the opposite: uncritical, submissive accomadation ("accompaniment") to the West's Cultural Revolution, Iranian militancy, and Communist Chinese totalitarianism. John Paul (and Benedict and their view of Vatican II) remains the inspired, happy balance of embracing all that is good and resisting all that is bad in the broader culture, with firmness and clarity.
If the Church is the Body of Christ, then it is afflicted with a number of vicious infections, particularly homo-erotic clericalism, aggravated by an ecclesial culture of loyalty/silence; and a bloated, cancerous bureaucracy of institutions. In the midst of this, Francis is a confusing figure. He speaks clearly about the scourge of militant homosexuality even as his governance shows a consistency and fervor in advancing that agenda. He criticizes clericalism even as his cavalier dismissal of the dubia and the allegations of Vigano suggest a distance, indifference and arrogance and he pontificates on political/policy issues in a way that implicitly disparages lay competence.
Let us pray for the purification of the Church!
The two were opposites theologically and politically. McCarrick was a closet liberal coming up the ranks under the conservative John Paul pontificate but he hit is stride when he got his red hat and became chaplain to the Biden-Pelosi-Kennedy Catholic wing of American liberalism. Even later, in his 80s, he was an important player in the Obama Iran deal and Pope Francis's regrettable submission to Chinese Communism. Apparently he continued to influence choice of American bishops as he remained in favor with Francis despite his informal silencing under Benedict.
Maciel was the opposite. He grew up in Mexico in the 1930s during the Cristero Revolution where his uncles were honored leaders: one a saintly bishop who has been beatified for his work with the poor, another an honored and heroic general in the revolt (Think the Andy Garcia character in the movie "For Greater Glory.") He internalized a fierce, militant anti-modernist. late Tridentine Catholicism. He loved Franco and hated Communism. He showed a genius in reviving elements of pre-Vatican II Catholicism and showing their vibrancy: marian, Eucharistic, enamoured of the religious and clerical states.
Under the theological and politcal contrasts, however, they are identical twins spiritually, morally, psychologically. ...in their homo-erotic clericalism. Each lived double lives: pious, Catholic prelates on the one hand; on the other villians of diabolic proportions. Each was an accomplished deceiver who could have tutored Bernie Madoff. Each had an uncanny ability to attract large sums of money and to form alliances with powerful figures in the Church and society.
Each exhibited a striking clericalism that was essentially perverse and homo-erotic. My memory of Archbishop McCarrick: intelligent, super-energetic, clever, charming...and obseesed with recruiting young men...especially the handsome, lean, intelligent type...into the priesthood. He invited my own son, an altar boy, to consider the priesthood...knowing nothing about him except his appearance. Both seemed to have a fetish about priesthood...and to an extent the consecrated life...but with a masked homosexual passion underneath. Strangely, there seems to be something about the Catholic clerical state that lends itself to be eroticized. This is evident, for example in the striking obsession of the Legionnaires with grooming and good looks. This contrasts sharply with more traditional Catholic religious (eg. Franciscan) tendencies to downplay sexual attractiveness.
Both achieved power in the mysterious corridors of the Curia by large flows of money to important people. Two stand out: Cardinal Solano, then Secretary of State and Dean of the College of Cardinals, seems to have been a protector of both, as well as other homosexual predators. Even more saddening is the fact that John Paul's personal secretary and "spiritual son", Stanislaw Dziwisz, also received large sums of money from Maciel and McCarrick and apparently funneled it to the freedom fighters in communist Poland. It is probable that he was influential also in "protecting" John Paul from the horrendous allegations about both prelates.
Each flourished under John Paul by showing him what he wanted, but each represented a theological alternative to his vision. Maciel was smart enough to pay homage to Vatican II and downplay his obeisance to an earlier version of Catholicism. But he pleased John Paul becaus of his fidelity to elements of the faith: Eucharist, consecrated life, prayer and so forth. McCarrick finally became an opponent of the John Paul - Benedict agenda as Cardinal of Washington DC. He infamously changed the meaning of a letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger regarding communion for politicians who publically support abortion. McCarrick was an accomadationist where Benedict and John Paul were both unflinching culture warriors regarding the value of innocent human life and human sexuality.
If John Paul (and, in his own modest key, Benedict) was a hero of epic proportions, Maciel and McCarrick are themselves fiends of comparable gravity. Indeed, McCarrick himself strongly resembles Senator-Emperor Palpatine (a.k.a. Darth Sidius) of Star Wars and rivals him in cunning, power, deceit and evil. Regnum Christi and the Legionnaires of Christ, the legacy of Maciel, seems to contain a treasure of spiritual riches in many of the people involved. It is hoped that the evil of that movement will be exorcized and the good strengthened. That of McCarrick is more troubling as he seems to have had strong influence on the Curia and choice of bishops. The "lavender mafia" under Francis has emerged with new strength and largely come out into the open even as Catholics around the world are sickened by the pestilence of pedastry. A poll by the L.A. Times of 15 years ago reported that 20% of priests are homosexual and half of that (10%) are practicing (or "gay"). That strikes me as about right.
The legacy of Maciel/McCarrick continues in our Church, alongside of that of John Paul II. Unfortunately, long-standing Catholic traditions of clerical silence and loyalty, which once made sense, now seem to serve to shield a pervasive culture of perversion. Clearly we are entering a period of profound purification. We need a smaller Church, organizationally, with less money and power. We need to recreate our clerical culture: more humble, chaste, transparent. We need more lay oversight and involvement of women.
We need to resist the effort of liberals to advance the very moral/theological agenda that fueled the surge of predatory behavior after the Council: the tearing of sexuality from fruitfulness, the separation of gender from spousality, chastity and paternity/maternity, Likewise we must resist the urge to destroy the clerical state. Catholic religion centers on the sacrality of the Eucharist and confession of sins. The clerical state serves THAT! The dissolution of the clergy and all that feeds into that (women, married priests, etc.) would create a low-church, iconoclastic protestantism void of the holiness that defines Catholicism.
In the face of a modern world that is both ppromising and threatening, the figutes of Maciel a, McCarrick and John Paul exemplify the three paths forward for Catholicism. Maciel is militant in defiance of modernity: phobic, cult-like, defensive, regressive, controlling, and allergic to anything not enclosed within a pious "regnum." McCarrick presents the opposite: uncritical, submissive accomadation ("accompaniment") to the West's Cultural Revolution, Iranian militancy, and Communist Chinese totalitarianism. John Paul (and Benedict and their view of Vatican II) remains the inspired, happy balance of embracing all that is good and resisting all that is bad in the broader culture, with firmness and clarity.
If the Church is the Body of Christ, then it is afflicted with a number of vicious infections, particularly homo-erotic clericalism, aggravated by an ecclesial culture of loyalty/silence; and a bloated, cancerous bureaucracy of institutions. In the midst of this, Francis is a confusing figure. He speaks clearly about the scourge of militant homosexuality even as his governance shows a consistency and fervor in advancing that agenda. He criticizes clericalism even as his cavalier dismissal of the dubia and the allegations of Vigano suggest a distance, indifference and arrogance and he pontificates on political/policy issues in a way that implicitly disparages lay competence.
Let us pray for the purification of the Church!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)