To the Margins, the Peripheries with Pope Francis?

Maybe Not!

Actually, the trajectory of my life, identity and mission, as I understand and intend it, is in the opposite direction: into the Heart of Christ in his Church, with my family and friends. This is not a solitary me-and-Jesus thing. Rather, I am part of a rich network in which we draw each other deeper into the Mystery of Christ. Happily, some with whom I journey are from the margins. But it is not that I go out to them, but they come with me towards our center, our destiny.

In our work with Magnificat Home, a residence for low-income including special-needs women, we operate like Alcoholics Anonymous: attraction not promotion. We do not go out searching for people. They come to us.

The building we use is an old Catholic convent in which devout nuns prayed for many years. Women who join us are in a place that has been sanctified. They are living on holy ground. They are no longer out on the margins, they have come into the center. Even as they may not be Catholic and I have no intention to convert them. This building is owned by the parish; it was built with the pennies of hard working, poor immigrant, ethnic Catholics. Our residents are coming in from the margins, into a sanctuary.

The home is an extension of our family and network of friends. We are blessed by those who volunteer, donate money, and support the home. This home is not a social agency, or a state operation, or part of a safety network. It is a home, a place of safety, respect, modest beauty, wholesome nutrition, and above all a connection with a community of love.

Our residents love my family. My sisters come regularly with delicious, nutritious meals and they have become close to the women. My children and grandchildren are known and loved by them. They have a very strong affection and respect for my wife. She has, of course, been a support and partner from the beginning. But above all, towards myself, I sense a peace, an easiness, a trust in me as they see  a happy husband, father and family man. It is as if they enter under the mantle of my family...both extended and spousal...and share in a sense of safety and peace. 

At this point of my life...age 75 and half-retired...our marriage is blessed by a simple rule of life we received from Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist: daily mass, liturgy of the hours, rosary, (very, very light) fasting, and simplicity of life. This is the plan: that we as a married couple move every day closer to Christ, in the Eucharist and in all the practical invitations he gives us daily. But again: this movement is communal:sith our family and friends and others and the entire Church and world.

But Pope Francis is Right...

Life in Christ is a movement out of safety to rescue those endangered.

Our Lord left heaven to come and rescue us. And he returned to heaven, with us.

He sent his apostles out to the ends of the earth, to proclaim the Kingdom, to baptize, to cast out demons, to heal and bring liberty. They went out to bring all back into the heart of the Father.

Our heroes are those who went out: St. Paul; the Jesuits who went to Asia, Canada, and South America; St. Junipero Serra walking up the coast of California; St. Charles de Focauld in the Sahara; Maryknollers in Africa, South America and Asia; Kiko Arguello with the gypsies in Spain.

A holy woman said: "I want to know the poorest country in the world. And the most destitute region therein. And the most miserable town in that region. And the most afflicted, suffering family in that town. And I want to just serve them." THAT is the missionary impulse. THAT is the call of Christ.

So we see that life in Christ images that of Christ himself: we go out to the margins to return to the heart of the Church, with others. But not all are sent out in the same way.

Two Calls of Christ

It is puzzling: in the gospels, Christ calls some to come follow him and then go out as apostles. But others, who want to follow him, he refuses and directs to go home to their villages. Some are sent out; some are sent home. Balthasar, in The Christian State of Life, finds here the two Catholic states of life: the lay, married state stays home; the priestly and the evangelical lives are called to go out.

I myself am a missionary-want-to-be. I didn't make the cut and was sent home. In college I studied to be a Maryknoll missionary priest and serve the poor and suffering overseas. I found myself in Mexico, the summer after graduation, on a service trip. Unsure of my calling, I had decided to leave the seminary, work, date (I was horribly awkward with women) and find my way. I was welcomed warmly by the Mexicans in a village, but was entirely uncomfortable inside. I felt an aversion to a life of mission and a yearning for a sense of stability, place and peace. I went home, fell in love, married, and lived happily ever after. (Yes, I really did!) I have lived the life I wanted: stable, steady, serene. But I still feel within myself the missionary impulse.

I see that within the Church and in every life there are these two movements that imitate the "going out and coming home" of the Word of God. Clearly, some of us are called to stability like the Benedictine monks; some to mendicant wandering, pilgrimage, mission. But all of us breathe in and breathe out: draw to the center and move out to the margins, in distinct and specific ways.

Drawing close to Christ in the Eucharist and all the synergy, radiance, delight, stamina and exuberance emanating from him, we surge with an urgency to share this Joy. We are drawn to find those forgotten, abandoned, lonely, discouraged. We are impelled to move somehow to the margins, to the peripheries.

And then return again, with a newfound friend, to the center, to the heart of Christ.

Eve Tushnet Model: Gay, Catholic, Chaste...Can it Work?

It works for her! And this is good news...and not only for her! Her position as chaste-lesbian is puzzling, fascinating, paradoxical and very challenging. She is living sexual chastity as an observant Catholic and inviting other gay Catholics to the same. This is marvelous! She loves being Catholic, being gay, and being chaste! But is this coherent?

My answer: It works for a small niche and therefore is praiseworthy. But it is eccentric: neither practicable nor coherent as a broad cultural program.

Favorite Eccentrics

Eve reminds me of Dorothy Day. Brilliant, passionate, holy, and eccentric or off-center. In a beautiful way! Dorothy is on the path for canonization and may become our first post-abortive, anarchist, pacifist saint. Maybe Eve will one day be our first openly lesbian saint. That would be a good thing.

But the Catholic Worker and the Gay-Chaste-Catholic community are off-beat, anti-bourgeois, radical-bohemian communities. Outliers. Not part of mainstream Catholic life. Gay-orientation, anarchism and pacifism are all out-of-sync with normal Catholicism; but not impediments in themselves to Catholic practice as they are prudential judgements which can combine with other elements into holiness of life.

We Catholics cherish a rich legacy of such eccentric, brilliant, fascinating, holy, inspiring women: Elizabeth Anscombe, Adrienne von Speyr, Caryl Houselander, Catherine de Hueck Dougherty, Heather King, Sigrid Undset, Flannery O'Connor, Mother Angelica, Mother Theresa, Raissa Maritain, Edith Stein, (unbaptized) Simone Weil and many others. In brilliant, peculiar, sanctified passion they grasp their Catholic faith in a way that challenges mainstream bourgeois mediocrity and banality.

Ordinary Catholic life, as in a typical parish with normal priests, is mundane, prosaic, often boring. But the Catholic universe has all kinds of bizarre, extraordinary phenomena: mystics, hermits, anchorites, stigmatics, bi-locators, incorrupt corpses, mendicants, pilgrims, martyrs, consecrated virgins. Additionally, we have eccentric communities: Catholic Worker, Eve's network of chaste gays, Opus Dei, the Neocatechumenal Way, The Latin Mass sector, charismatic covenant communities, Hebrew-Catholic Alliance,  and a vast variety of religious orders.

All of the above combine in complex, marvelous manners some degree of disorder with God's mysterious grace. All of them are NOT "the way" for everyone. They are special missions, special calls. Extraordinary and yet needing to be integrated into the broader Body of Christ. When blessed with prudent leadership within and a discriminating welcome from hierarchy without they enrich our Church.

Redefinition of "Gay"?

Eve is challenging in that she is redefining "gay" in a Catholic-friendly manner and redefining Catholic chastity in a gay-friendly manner. This is good news. It promises to work, on a small scale; not as part of a broader Catholic culture. It does open us conservatives to a more positive view of "gay." She opens a window, however small, of dialogue between gay and Catholic.

"Gay" in ordinary usage entails three elements: First, homosexual longings. Second, these are so intense and deep that they come to define in an essential manner one's identity. Thirdly, the moral judgement that sexuality is not essentially connected to procreation so that same-sex activity is ethically good.

The third moral decision, the detachment of sexuality from fruitfulness, is the contradiction between Catholic and gay. The issue is chastity. Eve accepts Catholic chastity even as she upholds the value of "gay identity" and thereby reconciles gay and Catholic.

She agrees with the gay movement that sexuality is so powerful and interior to the human person that it needs to be recognized, accepted, communicated openly and not repressed and hidden. We can here identify gay liberation as part of the profound pivot in Western culture, radically in the 1960s, from an ethos of restrain, reserve, self-control to one of authenticity, transparency, openness, and acceptance:  the famous Triumph of the Therapeutic!  So is this a good thing or a bad thing? 

Conservative Catholicism stands against the now-hegemonic Cultural-Freudian-Marxism that heralds the liberation of sexuality from the bondage of repression-family-fidelity-procreation. But Tushnet is suggesting that this may not be an absolute black/white binary. There may be some good in this recognition of the power and importance of sexuality and the liberating value of acceptance and disclosure. 

A very close priest friend of mine came into his gay identity by way of the 12-steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. That dynamic encourages the move out of shame by sharing of secrets. Additionally, Father Mark joined closed gay meetings and there came into his new identity. He clearly experienced a release from shame and oppression. He embraced his new identity as a gay Catholic priest. Unlike Eve, he was in tension with Catholic teaching on chastity and I am uncertain as to his fidelity to his vow. The trajectory of his life (he died some years ago) was, for me, a sad one. He fulfilled what another gay friend said to me over 50 years ago: the gay life is a sad one. 

But I can imagine him under the influence of Eve and her group: embracing at once his gay personality and his call to chastity. He could have lived and died as an integrated, happy priest. 

The gay life and community (from what I can see) is not just about sex: it is a sensibility, a set of values, a taste for irony and humor, for art and even prayer. It is, in part, a life of compassion, of kindness, of delight in the beautiful, including same-sex loveliness and even in a chaste mode.

The Catholic intuition is to accept and affirm everything that is good, true and beautiful. In this new Tushnet model there is much to admire. We can welcome a cultural shift in which homosexuality in itself, as attraction and longing, is no longer stigmatized and shamed. And therefore, in theory at least, we can distinguish gay identity (element 2 above) as a sensibility-identity-culture from the anti-Catholic detachment of procreation from sexuality (element 3). Clearly, there is a positive dimension to gay liberation which a genuinely catholic Catholic wisdom will welcome. This is the challenge of Eve Tushnet.

Challenges

But there are challenges and limits to that reconciliation. Eve is sensitive to the positive dimensions of gay identity but may underestimate the negatives.

First, I suspect this reconciliation is easier for a female homosexual. Womanly sexuality is generally less explosive, compulsive, aggressive and imperial than that of the man. In her the emotional, psychological and romantic has relative more influence. I doubt there are many males who could so serenely reconcile gay with Catholic-chaste.

Secondly, she understandably despises the "conversion therapy," strong in fundamentalist and evangelical communities, which ambitions to change one into heterosexual. She doesn't seem (to my knowledge which is limited) clearly distinguish this from the more gentle, scientific and Catholic-friendly "reparative therapy" of Joseph Nicolosi and others. This last does not ambition a change of "orientation." Rather, it seeks to address any underlying wounds to the psyche that can be connected especially to the compulsivity and obsessiveness of same-sex cravings. These include: misconnection with father or mother, negative body image, abuse, poor attachment to same-sex peers, low gender-self-esteem and other. The intent here is not to erase same-sex attraction but, as in all good therapy, to reduce compulsivity/obsession rooted in anxiety, resentment, insecurity, isolation and enlarge the domain of psychological freedom. Understood in this way, reparative therapy is as valuable for the heterosexual who suffers similar wounds and the associated compulsivity and bondage.

Thirdly, the "pearls" that Eve wants to harvest from gay liberation are embedded in a highly dysfunctional culture. True child of the sexual revolution, this culture (although surely not everyone who participates) is saturated with: self-indulgence, histrionics, narcissism, entitlement, indignation over victimization (from a position of affluence, prestige and power), self-righteousness and moralistic rage against the traditional conjunction of sex with new life. Something like what St. Thomas did for Aristotle needs to be done in our day for the gay movement. This is a subtle, delicate task: to embrace the good but renounce the bad. Eve Tushnet is a big step in the right direction.

Fourthly, it would be imprudent to expand her model very broadly. For example, we don't want to encourage a gay culture in the priesthood and seminaries. This especially in light of the priest sex scandal wherein teen boys were overwhelmingly targeted. Under the Francis' papacy we see the unveiling of the strength and power of the "McCarrick Network." We need to seek and esteem in our priests/bishops a wholesome virility, chastity, paternity and fidelity.

Fifthly, even less do we want to encourage our young to precociously embrace a gay identity, particularly through LGBTQ support clubs in Catholic schools. Raised in a loving, secular, liberal environment, Eve came out as gay at the age of 13. We see that in the long run this served her well as she is imbued with a sterling moral compass. But this is not the norm. We want to discourage such sexual-romantic precociousness and protect the innocence of our young. We do well to maintain, in general, traditions of discretion and reverence in things sexual and allow the slow, steady, healthy blooming into feminine and masculine maturities.

Sixthly, the witness of Tushnet raises the broader philosophical question of desire: including the passion and depth of sexual-romantic longing. She would assert that even these homosexual longings, incapable of full satisfaction, are nevertheless in themselves good insofar as they can be directed to the genuinely good-true-beautiful. In other words, we need to disciple, direct and correct them; even as wee need to accept them with their hidden longing for God. In this she echoes, I believe, the invaluable legacy of Monsignor Luigi Giussanni who spoke so elegantly of the noble yearnings of the human heart as moving always toward the Good.

Lastly, the language of "disorder" in the Catechism which is so offensive to gay liberation. This is the heart of the antagonism between gay and Catholic. The Catholic position is clear: it is not the person, nor the attraction nor the condition that is "disordered" but rather that the inclination is towards what is itself disordered, sterile-non-unitive sex whether homo or hetero. The Church can never back away from this view of sex. But we can understand how the word "disorder" is entangled with stigma and shame. The word is troubled also as it suggest a psychological or emotional dysfunction. This is an issue that can hardly be discussed in the current field of psychology which is ideologically committed to one side of the issue. I prefer a stronger Catholic emphasis upon "concupiscence" as our shared legacy of sexual disorder from original sin. We know that many saints were tormented by disordered, lustful cravings. Many of the dessert fathers/mothers fought these for years in the wilderness. It is part of the ordinary itinerary to holiness of life. In this, homos and heteros are on even terrain. What is worse: voyeurism, pornography and masturbation by homosexuals or heterosexuals? Contracepted co-habitation by the straight or sterile sex of the gay? Morally, to my mind, they are equivalent. They both contravene our Catholic code. So we do well to uphold the code, renounce the specific shame of homosexuality, and move from the language of disorder to that of concupiscence.

To Conclude

This remarkable, refreshing young woman has a distinctive message for our culture: an inspired movement to revive chastity even as we welcome what is best in gay liberation: a release from shame, stigma, and isolation. In her company, we can relax in our culture war vigilance: agree in the beauty of purity of heart and mind; breath free of anxiety and resentment; and embrace our gay brothers and sisters in the very fragility, woundedness, reverence and tenderness they share with us. 

Benedict and His Critics

He always had more than his fair share of critics. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with John Paul, he stood his ground against the eruption from hell we know as the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. But his senior partner was so charismatic, dynamic, charming, brilliant and entertaining that no one could lay a finger on him, no one could land a punch. He was Achilles without the Achilles heal. So they went after the quiet, shy, gentle one. But Benedict was like Odysseus to Achilles. More human. But for that reason even more admirable in his courage, steadfastness, and interior tranquility in the face of persecution. 

With his passing, even those within his company don't hesitate to scrutinize him.

First things first: the red shoes. I had viewed this as a hint of metro-sexual vanity, relatively minor. But I learned that these red shoes have been worn for centuries by popes as testament to the blood of Christ's passion and that of the martyrs. He gets a pass on the red shoes. Part of his witness!

In  a piece in First Things, Monsignor Tom Guarino of Seton Hall gives a typically concise, accurate overview of his contribution to Catholic theology, especially his participation in and implementation of the Council and related themes including faith/reason, Church and State, etc. He does not mention the immense impact of his personal writings including Introduction to Christianity and the marvelous Jesus trilogy. Staying in his lane as an academic theologian, Guarino does not highlight the aesthetic, dramatic and inspirational quality of Benedict's work. 

Balthasar, Ratzinger's friend and collaborator, famously lamented the split off of academic theology from the more spiritual theology of the monasteries after the 13th century. Perhaps no one overcame this chasm as well as Benedict/Ratzinger. Even more than the more abstract, encyclopedic Balthasar, Benedict in everything he wrote has a pleasing, artistic touch; a crystal clarity and precision; and an understated sense of the ever-present Mystery of God in Christ. Only a handful of theologians have accomplished this happy synthesis: Schleeben, Newman, Guardino in the mode of  Augustine.

Guarino identifies four weaknesses in his legacy: his dismissal of the theological significance of national episcopal conferences, the overly narrow Dominus Jesus, his failure to strongly discipline McCarrick and his acceptance of the Dallas Charter in its abuse of priests. These points are well taken: moving forward as a Church, these are four issues that demand correction. And yet: I cannot help myself; I must defend Benedict.

These four were not academic statements in a book or lecture, but pragmatic, pastoral, prudential judgments by a Church authority. Such practical statements are always open to criticism, development and correction. But within the context, these can be defended. Given two hours in a quiet library, Joseph Ratzinger would develop an impeccable, balanced theology of national bishops' conferences. But he was facing the real world that demanded practical guidance. I give you two words: German Synod. I give you another two words: Dallas Charter. Ratzinger saw the obvious dangers of various nations going their own ways. Guarino admits that as he mellows the criticism. To my mind he gave us good advice to take with more than a grain of salt much that comes from these conferences.

Likewise, Dominus Jesus lacked the ecumenical graciousness that Guarino so appreciates in the Council. But in view of the widespread indifferentism, relativism and sloppy syncretism of mainstream theology, I would argue that such a firm word was much needed, even as it needs to be corrected by the kind of concerns dear to Guarino's heart. 

The failure to firmly discipline McCarrick is in retrospect a mistake.  But I hesitate to criticize. The information at that time was not clear; the worst revelations only came later. The prospect of a canonical trial posed difficulties, especially given the network of support McCarrick had developed in the Vatican. And lastly, Benedict was at this point fatigued and his gentleness of character no doubt reluctant to start a fight based on uncertain evidence.

On the Dallas Charter Guarino is on firmer ground. This is mostly the work of the American bishops but we wish the Vatican had intervened or would now do so to protect due process for accused priests. I just went back and reread the scathing criticism which Avery Dulles penned as early as 2004. He clearly saw the toxic dynamics unleashed by Dallas.  It is a tragedy that Guarino alone has taken  up the mantle of Dulles in defense of the priesthood.

A different analysis comes to us from the always observant Ross Douthat. With his generational cohort of conservative Catholics he grieves the implosion of the Catholic Restoration that seemed to have been accomplished by John Paul and Benedict. Douthat is accurate, from a journalistic-political perspective: the legacy so apparently fixed by the dual papacy has imploded under Francis. However, I view it from a different, more hopeful and philosophical viewpoint.

First of all, the culture war over liberal, progressive, late-modernity...accommodation versus resistance...is never-ending and endemic to the Church. It will never end. The impulse to a "concordat" with the broader culture (of Francis) is always with us. So the swing from "conservative" to ":progressive" is part of Church history.

More importantly: the legacy of Benedict and John Paul is firmly in place. First of all, their amazing teaching is with us: in their books, talks and writings. Secondly, several younger generations of priests are faithful to this legacy. They are the Church of the future. Thirdly, the lay renewal movements and newer religious orders are passionate in their allegiance. This legacy has a staying power!

At this point, a decade in, we can evaluate the pontificate of Francis. It is one of confusion and polarization as the "synodal" process promises more of the same. But on the positive side, (as noted in earlier blog): Francis has not clearly reversed any Catholic teachings. He is always vague and confusing. He has not articulated a theological vision. He will not be an inspiration to a new generation of young, progressive priests. Why would a devout young idealist give up marriage, family, wealth and freedom to campaign against capital punishment in the state of Texas, the Islamic and Communist countries? Or to open the borders of the wealthy North to the suffering South? Or to reduce global warming? 

Finally, we consider again the widespread conservative lament that Benedict abandoned us and our cause with his resignation. On the contrary: he demonstrated for us how to continue to wage the Culture War. calmly, prayerfully, joyfully, confidently, hopefully, soberly, humbly. He taught us how to hate the sin and the error but love the sinner and the one who is in error. We know from the new book by his secretary that he grieved the suppression of the Latin mass, the failure of Francis to answer the Dubia, and other actions of his successor. But amazingly, he maintained a mutually reverent and affectionate relationship with the new pope. His loyalty was impeccable. His interior peace unblemished by resentment, fragility, or vulnerability. He was a tough cookie! Brilliant! Holy! Humble! Gentle! Sober! Serene!

He is our captain, our leader, our commander. He, with John Paul, leaves us the content of our faith and also the manner in which we are to live it. He will NOT be missed because he is closer to us now, in death, than he could ever be in the flesh!

Renouncing Satan: Letter 23 to Grandchildren

Imagine:  A 16-year old woman...kind, sweet, sensitive...is being pursued by a creepy 20-something-year-old. She has told him she wants no boyfriend. She is kind. Does not want to hurt his feelings. Says they can talk sometimes but he can't be following her around and calling/texting at all hours. He is getting worse. What is she to do? Answer:  RENOUNCE HIM! She needs to definitively, decisively, fiercely, aggressively renounce him. Tell him: NEVER call or text or follow me again. NEVER!  Block calls, delete number and email, de-friend, avoid, absolutely detach. If that does not do the job, she gets backup from Dad, big brother, tough uncle, or friendly cop.

That is the only way to handle a creepy stalker. Otherwise he will persist, wear you down, exhaust you and eventually work his magic. You need an absolute renunciation.

That is the only way to handle Lucifer. He must be renounced...definitively.

In baptism/confirmation we do a threefold Credo ("I believe...") and a threefold renunciation of Satan and all his works and empty promises.  This is not a once-and-done thing. It is an everyday-of-your life thing. Today, for sure, Satan will come for you in some way. If you are tentative, wavering, or being-nice, he will persist and eventually prevail. You need to definitively renounce him and all his lies.

I realized this was an immensely important and missing piece of my spiritual life when I read and attended Unbound conferences of Neal Lozano and his deliverance team. Key steps are: repentance, forgiveness, renunciation, command and blessing. But the key one I needed was renunciation.

This is done "in the name of Jesus Christ." NOT in my personal power. It is done in the Holy Spirit. This is crucial. The demons flee before the name of Jesus. They are in fear of him. They are defeated already by him.

Specific demons must be named:  "In the name of Jesus, I renounce you spirit of...jealousy, self-hatred, lust, anxiety, resentment, gluttony, perfectionism...." 

This is as if your slothful, selfish guest crossed a red line and you tell him:  "Our of here. Get out of my house. Right Now!"  It is as if you terminate a relationship becoming abusive by "kicking him to the curb."

A priest in confession once exhorted me:  "In this combat you cannot be passive. You must ferociously, passionately attack the devil!"

Jesus told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. In this he implies: hell is gated in and defensive, the aggressor is the Church. We will, in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, prevail against the Dark Kingdom.

This cannot be overemphasized: By the graces of baptism and confirmation we are the aggressor! We are attacking the Dark Kingdom. Even from a distance: as I type this I am also quietly binding Satan in his hold over Putin, Russia and their military. If I hear a vile argument on the street in which strangers-to-me are cursing each other, I bind Satan as I walk by. And I think this works! It is all about the power in the name of Jesus!

The tactics of the devil are many: possession (very rare), oppression (rare: extraordinary assaults, physical and spiritual), obsession (common: compulsions and addictions), temptation (ordinary) and deception (widespread.")  His biggest, best lie is that he does not exist.

If you are not renouncing and defeating Satan, in faith, every day, than you are being played by him...conned, manipulated. You are what the Marxists used to call his "useful idiot."

In renouncing him, in the specific demons, we unveil him and disarm him. Renouncing is not exactlyh prayer as we are not addressing God. Rather, we confidently and assertively address the demons, in the name of Jesus, which is to say in union with Jesus by way of the indwelling Holy Spirit. So it is couched in prayer: before renouncing we invoke the power and presence of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Afterwards, we invoke a blessing of the Holy Spirit: praying specifically for the blessing that contradicts the curse of the demon. Peace in place of anxiety, serenity in place of anger, chastity in place of lust, hope in place of despair and depression, courage and zeal in place of discouragement. And, of course, we give thanks for the deliverance.

I encourage you, Grandchildren, today and every day to renounce...calmly, confidently, authoritatively, hopefully, definitively...Satan and the specific demons afflicting or tempting you. This is the way to freedom in Christ. And not just for you...for those you love...and for the entirety of Creation!

God Did Not Save the Angels: Letter 22 to Grandchidren

Yesterday's first reading from Hebrews is striking: Jesus saved us, not the angels. This is something to ponder. We are saved; are being saved; will be saved. But not the demons.

The demons are eternally damned. This is hard to comprehend. Actually, impossible for us to comprehend. How could a loving God condemn, forever, his creatures to hell?

The first thought: Mercy is NOT the only face of God. He shows no mercy to the demons. With them his face is Truth and Justice....and a harsh one (to our minds) at that!

A second thought: They must deserve that. They are not like us: they are not flesh, but pure spirits. As such, theirs was a pure freedom in intelligence and will. Their choice was not clouded or dimmed by weakness of the flesh, intelligence or will. It was pure freedom. So they knew what they were doing...completely. And they get what they deserve, in justice. Mercy is not at play here.

With us it is different. Adam and Eve in the garden were not yet wounded by sin but as fleshly beings they were vulnerable, fragile and prone to weakness. With sin this became more pronounced. But it seems that God has a compassion, a weakness himself for us in our weakness. Therefore, for us, his face is Mercy. But not without truth and justice.

So we know there is a hell; and it is populated, by demons for sure. And possibly by humans. 

This must give us pause. There is a Kingdom of Darkness. It is comprised of spirits, intellects and wills, who are intelligent and purposeful...in their intent to destroy the plan of God and bring our souls to perdition. 

This is serious stuff! We are living in a war zone: God vs. Lucifer; the angels vs. the devils; light vs. darkness. We need to get serious about this. 

When I was young we prayed the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel in every mass. That stopped with the Council. It is back...in many parishes. This is a very good thing.

The primary strategy of Satan in our time is his Covert Operation:  the Great Diabolic Deceit...that he does not exist. In earlier times he preferred to manifest his power and intimidate. But now he operates in secret, deceiving us that he does not exist. The Superior of the Jesuits recently stated just that: Satan is a myth, a symbol of the darkness within us. He thus endorsed a Jungian, psychological view that denies the supernatural. This is a huge victory for Lucifer.

Calmly, soberly, realistically...we need to gird ourselves for spiritual battle. We need to pray for Divine and angelic protection. Especially for those we love.  We need to examine our consciences and confess our sins. We need to invoke our guardian angels. We need to do acts of charity. We need to seek the Eucharist, penance and all the sacraments.

The trials and sufferings of the present are nothing (today's reading states) compared to the glory that awaits us. But now we need to stand our ground. Encourage each other. And prevail in combat to the end!

Faithful, with Benedict, to Pope Francis

Since his passing on the eve of the New Year (new era?), Pope Benedict has been constantly on my mind, but especially his last decade, his retirement. When I get big and retire, I want to be just like him.

He was: quiet, peaceful, prayerful, steady and stable, reserved, humble, joyful, and unwaveringly loyal to the Church and her Pontiff. He was this way his entire life, but these last years are striking.

He watched his successor systematically, over ten years, assault his legacy:

1.  The "Communio" school he founded was ignored and then assaulted as the John Paul Institute in Rome was destroyed.

2. The traditional Latin mass which he treasured was repressed.

3. The resistant Catholic Church in China of Cardinal Zen, which he supported in their persecution and allegiance to Rome, was abandoned into the hands of the Communist Party.

4. The classic Catholic and yet contemporary synthesis of faith and reason he advocated (e.g. Regensburg Address) was replaced by an incoherence of emotion and sentiment.

5. The delicate, sophisticated hermeneutic of reform, of discontinuity within greater continuity, by which he interpreted the Council and confronted Modernity, even as he embraced what is best within it, was replaced by volatility and an unrelenting harangue about  rigoristic dogmatism and legalism.

6. Love for the priesthood and inspiration for young priests was replaced by a resentful anti-clericalism.

7. Moral clarity/certainty were replaced by ambiguity/confusion as moral absolutes became relativized and prudential judgements became absolutized.

8. Steadfastness and stability were replaced by unpredictability. 

9. Quiet and discretion were replaced by spontaneity, garrulousness, and subjectivity.

10. The subtle but significant distinction between Catholic Social Teaching and partisan politics was replaced by the ideological preferences of Western liberal elites.

In the face of such systematic assault, Benedict remained quiet like Christ before Pilate and Herod. No complaint; no argument; no resentment; no victimhood. Serene, confident, steadfast. Better still, he was impeccably loyal to Pope Francis, his nemesis. This is the young David protective of murderous King Saul. 

Not only did he honor the papacy and protect his own integrity and holiness, but he protected the unity of the Church. He served, silently, as shepherd, precisely by supporting the new pope. He has been this Pontiff's singular friend. Francis has disappointed the progressives and is facing a revolt out of Germany and across the globe. This is looking like a real schism. But on the other side he has alienated  traditionalists, Coummunio's, the persecuted Chinese Church, conservative young priests, and so many of the most pious and practicing whom he disparages as "backward-looking." These groups, most fervent in their love for the Church of memory and of the actual present, (in contrast to the utopian fantasy of the progressive imagination), remain, nevertheless, loyal to their Pope. He has Benedict to thank for this. There is not a whiff of real rebellion from the right. This is because we have been quietly schooled by Benedict to remain loyal, peaceful, humble and hopeful.

As I was ruminating this week about these two popes I received in my intellect a simple, clear thought...from heaven, I believe, and specifically from Benedict. Clear as a bell I thought: "He is faithful. Substantially, Pope Francis is faithful to the faith." This did not seem to come from me, but from above. I pondered this word. True: he is a man of faith, of prayer, of the Church, of the poor. More particularly, he has basically (if erratically and contradictorily) protected Humanae Vitae, the celibate-male priesthood, the nature of marriage and the preciousness of incompetent human life. In this he has fundamentally renounced the Cultural Left. He has been faithful. 

It felt as if Benedict, by way of ten years of quiet, had clarified: He is faithful. I felt a great joy and relief. Francis may well be, as I think, breathlessly incompetent in theology and Church governance, but he is faithful. The bark of Peter is rocking in the waves, but he is (with help from above) keeping it afloat. 

With this guidance from above, I renew my allegiance to Pope Francis. Since his death, I have changed: more interior peace, confidence, strength. I NEVER make New Year's Resolutions: they are futile frustrating delusions of moral agency. But Since January 1 I have felt Benedict as a gentle presence in my life, fortifying my faith and enhancing my peace, patience, clarity, confidence and hope.

He wrote of the Ascension of Christ (I paraphrase from memory): "This was not so much a departure or separation as a new mode of presence whereby Christ was even closer to us, through the Holy Spirit and the sacraments of the Church."

I will not miss him. I expect to experience even more of his influence and assistance as he smiles quietly down on this Church he so loved.

Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict: Icon of Christlike Virility as Gentle, Strong, Humble, Chaste, Wise

Virility as Gentleness and Strength

The heart of virility is gentleness in strength and strength in gentleness, both in humility and chastity.

Every man is destined for gentleness-in-strength-in-humility-in-chastity-in-Fatherhood: the giving of, the provision for, the protection of, and the reverent tendering of life.

We might contrast two types of boy by physicality and temperament: the tough and the tender. The tough is muscular, energetic, athletic, aggressive, confident, combative, boisterous, and fearless. The tender is sensitive, gentle, quiet, reserved, thoughtful, artistic, receptive, insecure and anxious.  These are clearly abstract, ideal "types" not a binary reality like male/female. Each male exemplifies both types in multiple and complex ways, as on a spectrum. However the form and final purpose of virility for every man is the capacity to give and cherish life in fatherhood, in gentleness-and-strength. So the tough guy has to become gentle and kind; the tender guy has to become strong and fierce. At the end, the strength of the tender is morally superior to that of the tough because he has overcome his congenital weakness. The tenderness of the tough is morally superior to the gentle because he has overcome his temperamental crudeness. In both cases, the virtue is not natural, but the fruit of moral effort and divine grace.

John Paul epitomized masculinity as strength: athletic, confident, charismatic, magnetic. He strode the earth like Samson, King David or El Cid. This ferocity was leavened by gentleness: poetic, philosophical, sensitive, tender and kind. Joseph Ratzinger was a contrast: by constitution retiring, quiet, shy, sensitive, thoughtful, sedate. But beneath that calm exterior: an intellect and will of iron. Both were masterpieces of iconic virility flowering out of native talent, human freedom and divine grace.

Strength-in-Gentleness

Joseph Ratzinger, when alive, may have been the meekest man on earth, like Moses in his day. If you have read a single page of his writing, or watched him on camera, or heard him speak then you know what I mean. He simply exudes gentleness.  But he was known as "the Rottweiler" and "Ratzi the Nazi." Mocked and despised by his critics, he never answered in kind. He never said an unkind or emotional word about anyone. In speech and deportment, he was unfailing sober, charitable and professional. He did not dwell upon his own feelings, but upon the task at hand, his mission. Here again he was quintessentially masculine. But we ask: why was he hated so?

Paradigmatic Father: Clear, Strong, Authoritative, Traditional, Demanding

In life and teaching, he was crystal clear, firm and unbending, steady, demanding, and drawing always authoritatively from the Church and God's own Revelation. He stood firmly upon Tradition even as he expressed the abiding Truth in fresh, restorative ways. As the quintessential father figure he was a lightening rod for the Catholic Progressivism so eager to embrace the sexual liberation of the Cultural Revolution of the 60s. That momentous historical happening combined two interrelated energies: the lustful demand for sex free from fatherhood/motherhood and the rejection of fatherhood as authority (from God), tradition, sacrifice, and accountability to the moral order. Catholic progressivism, like the broader Cultural Liberalism it apes, is fundamentally oedipal rage at the frustrating father and infantile demand for unhindered erotic pleasure.  As such, Ratzinger is everything they hate: chaste, demanding, unbending, clear, humble, sober, objective, traditional, manly. All the demons behind the Sexual Revolution find in this gentle, quiet, studious man their Antagonist, Nemesis and Foil. No wonder they aroused such hatred and contempt for him. He received it in quiet serenity and fortitude.

The Priest Sex Scandal: Blaming John Paul and Benedict

The very critics who fault his sexual ethos as overly rigorous like to blame him and his predecessor/partner for failing to rapidly, firmly address the priest sex scandal. This merits consideration. Retrospectively we all wish more was done sooner by the hierarchy. But this blame game is too easy for those removed to play so moralistically. The apparent omission of firm, early action should be understood in the context of three realities.

First, John Paul and Benedict are both naturally and supernaturally innocent in sexuality. The virtue of chastity is in every breath they breathe.  They lived among the hellish evils of Nazism and Communism but within Polish and Bavarian Catholic communities centered around wholesome, holy spousal fidelity. The grotesqueries that exploded on the West in the 60s were incomprehensible to them, as they were to the entire Great Generation of our own nation. Our own parents, prevailing against Nazism and Communism, were unprepared for the Culture War. John Paul and Benedict were singularly prepared, intellectually and spiritually, as they together articulated a fresh-yet-ancient ethos of chastity and fidelity. But pervasive perversity within the priesthood took them entirely by surprise, as it did the entire Church. When the facts became fully evident, Cardinal Ratzinger was assigned a key role in addressing it and he did this in his customary conscientious manner. He gets high grades for what he called his "Friday penance" (as he worked on these horrific cases every Friday.)

Secondly, the Catholic Church is mostly run out of parishes and dioceses, not out of central headquarters in Rome. I was surprised to see how small Cardinal Ratzinger's offices in the Vatican are. The town hall of a small American municipality is larger. This office for the Faith has responsibility for Church teaching, but could hardly monitor an investigate every allegation of wrongdoing. In many ways, the Church in operation is decentralized.

Thirdly, Ratzinger was a competent administrator, probably better than John Paul. By nature he was not a bureaucrat; John Paul even less so. Both were priests, prophets, wise men. Above all both were Protagonists of Freedom. For this they fought Nazism, Communism and later Cultural Liberalism. By freedom they understood not negative "freedom from" but "freedom for".  It is not opting out but opting in: voluntary engagement in the True, the Good and the Beautiful. Their mission was to proclaim the Gospel of Freedom. This demanding task left little resources for micro-management of dioceses defaulting in their duties.

Greatest Catholic Theologian of the 20th Century

I agree with this widespread assessment, even as I suspect he would happily share this accolade with his two older brothers, friends, collaborators: John Paul and Balthasar. The work of the three reinforce and complement each other and together compose a three-part Catholic synthesis unequaled in our history as it preserves and enriches the singular accomplishments of Augustine and Thomas. Ratzinger was less innovative than John Paul in his catechesis of the human body and Balthasar with his magisterial dramatics and aesthetics. He was more simple. More conservative, as he drank deeply and directly from he sources, the fathers and doctors. His academic life built upon dissertations on Augustine and Bonaventure. With everyone else he imbibed the Thomistic synthesis but enriched it by depth study of the other fathers/doctors and broad study of modern culture. He was the most traditional in that sense, yet current in scholarship. Everything he said and wrote had about it a freshness, vigor and vitality...always something old but in a new dimension. His particular genius, in which he surpassed his two elder colleagues, was the crystal clarity of his thought. His thinking was easily available to any intelligent adult, even as it expressed the deepest insights and drew from a wealth of erudition, ancient and contemporary. In this he was the unequalled, master catechist of his time. A German predecessor and mentor, Romano Guardini, displayed a similar charism. Every word they write is so simple, so clear, and so luminous with Truth as Beauty. His catechetical legacy will stand with the speculative genius of Balthasar and the philosophical brilliance of John Paul as an everlasting heritage of the Church.

Agonistic Combatant with Modernity in the Culture War

Having prevailed against German Nazism and Russian Communism, Ratzinger was, with John Paul, the primary Culture War combatant against modernity understood as a society-without-God. His brilliant intellect pierced to the heart of a secular society, despairing and suicidal in its destruction of the fathers, surrender to Dionysian indulgence,  and detachment from our heavenly Father. This was his particular genius. As noted he was immensely steeped in the fathers, but broadly fluent in historical and current cultural studies. He understood, not only Scripture and Tradition, but the contemporary intellectual world better than anyone else (except Balthasar of course.) He understood the modern world so well, that he also appreciated what is best in it and loved that. With  unparalleled nuance, subtlety, and sophistication he distinguished all that is worthy and beautiful in modernity and cherished it. And so, during the Vatican Council he was the singular most young, brilliant and reform-minded theologian. Within a few years, he was the great antagonist of the Cultural Revolution. He had not changed his view: the Church and world around him had been revolutionized. He (with a small elect) was the steady, stable point of a now uprooted and dizzy universe.

Priestly and Clerical

Ratzinger was the most priestly and clerical of men. "Clerical" has become a term of disparagement, especially under Francis. But Catholicism is inherently clerical: our faith is in the sacramental and evangelical ministry of our Clergy. If clerical is bad, Catholic is bad. And of course, many believe that.  Our reverence for the clergy flows from our love of the sacraments and the Word entrusted to the hierarchy of the Church. We kiss the hands of our newly-ordained: not because they are a special caste, but because they have given their lives away, for us, in celibacy and obedience, to feed us with sacrament and Word. Ratzinger is the epitome of the clergy at its best: in style, thought, demeanor. He is humble before the Mystery entrusted into his hands and mouth. He is innocent and chaste. He is kind, pastoral, paternal, kind, patient. He is a scholar of the past and future; he is wise; he is insightful and inspiring. Balthasar wrote about the "clerical style;" perhaps he was thinking of his younger friend and protege Joseph Ratzinger. It is a happy reality that an entire generation of young priests are imitative of this exemplary priest.

Did He Abandon Us by Retiring?

In today's Crisis, editor Eric Simmons speaks of his exuberant love for Ratzinger and his theology and his disappointment and grief at what he describes as Pope Benedict's abandonment of us. As we moved deeper into the volatility, instability, polarization and confusion of the Francis era, the feeling of abandonment became overwhelming. We no longer had a steadfast, protective Father. We lacked a steady point of light, stability, guidance, encouragement. We were orphaned. I share and affirm the feeling of abandonment. But not the judgement against the Pope.

Robert Royal in today's Catholic Thing recalls that the Swiss Guard told him that Benedict was blatantly, extremely exhausted. That was clearly the case. There is no cause to suspect his own account: he had become weak, exhausted and not competent for the task. His admission was simply, like his entire life and thought, an affirmation of truth. He was too tired to perform well. It was an action of humility.

His departure surely contrasts with the ending of his predecessor. They are not contradictory. Perhaps they point to the temperamental endowment of each: the one inherently tough and resilient; the other sensitive and fragile. Neither is superior. We need the humble, truthful witness of both. There are times when we must soldier on, to the end, enduring what comes. There are times when we must admit our limitations and hand the reins to another. We must know when to hold them and when to fold them. There is no magic formula. Each must take measure of ourselves and look to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that both of these saintly geniuses were docile the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

His Last Silent Years

Benedict bears no responsibility for the Francis pontificate. His last, silent years are noteworthy. He remained...patient, hopeful, confident, serene, prayerful...as his successor systematically deconstructed his legacy. He never complained, criticized, or played victim. His silence resounded that of Christ before Pilate and Herod. I attribute it first of all to his confidence that God and the Holy Spirit continue to look over the Church. I attribute it secondly to his noble, patient, serene, sober, virile character. I attribute it lastly to a confidence that whatever was of value in his work, his thought, and his mission would be preserved by the Holy Spirit, in the Church. That confidence is well-placed.

The Blessings of Benedict

- His profound, passionate love for the person of Jesus and this event of our salvation.

- His deep love for the Church, her legacy, her destiny. His humble, sacrificial service of her.

- His brilliant intellect including his grasp of the depth and breath of both reason and faith, their inherent harmony and mutual fruitfulness.

- His profound grasp of Modernity, in it richness as well as it pathology. His depth understanding of history, tradition, and Revelation...in all their richness and fragility.

- His love for the liturgy of the Church as the lifeblood of the Church including his restoration of the Latin Mass, welcoming of the Anglican community, and balanced appraisal of Vatican II and its implementation

- His prayerful, holy, pure life of priestly witness.

- His virility, silence, serenity, patience, sobriety, prudence, wisdom, and fidelity to his mission.

This is the most happy of deaths. His long, fruitful, faithful life was a beacon of light, clarity, certainty, stability and encouragement. He lived and taught the Truth in Love. We rejoice and bask in the light he reflected to us.