Catholicism, Scholarship, & Fun!

I Am a Catholic. I Fear for My Civil Rights!

2011-12-08T08:15:00.000-08:00

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York in a television interview (EWTN, 8/7/11) spoke of the frightening, chilling and unpublicized dimensions of the recently passed Same Sex Marriage law in New York State. He and other New York state Bishops had been calmly assured by State officials (some Catholic) that the new Law would have no real impact on the Catholic community in the State. It was just about the private needs of the Gay community, nothing more. They were told not to “worry about it.”

It would have no impact, they said, on forcing priests and deacons to perform such ceremonies nor on anything else the Church does officially. Even some Catholic lobbyists, whether innocently or not, seemed quite sure that 1) the bill would not pass and 2) even if it did there was nothing for the Church to fear.

Yet, barely three weeks after its passage, said the Archbishop, the rumblings are audible. There are noises indicating that pressure will be brought to force Catholic institutions, for example, to cave to the requests for adoption from Homosexual couples. This would be making the Catholic Church, in her own mind, complicit in sin. Patently, such a coupling (active homosexual and active Catholic) is oxymoronic. Such a phrasing is blunt yet completely consistent with the Official Catholic position that “…under no circumstances can they {homosexual behaviors} be approved…” (#2333 Catechism of the Catholic Church). Same Sex “marriage” and Catholicism are contradictories. Hence, the so-called “innocuous” law could attempt to force the Catholic Church to deny itself.

Yet, it is now becoming possible that if the Church fails to comply, lawsuits very probably can follow. There looms the unbelievable possibility that, in effect, the Government can restrict or take away the freedom of Catholics to follow their consciences. We have already seen the pressure on Catholic physicians and nurses to engage in procedures which clearly violate their personal consciences. There is apparently little room in modern medicine for the young doctor who will not perform abortions, tubal ligations, assisted suicide and the like. The Catholic nurse who wishes to follow her own conscience is told to seek employment elsewhere. Such advice was given by a politician in Massachusetts to young medical people who wish to be authentic Catholics and as well as caring health workers. The Archbishop cited the judge who recused himself from a case involving practices which are unacceptable to Catholics and who was given his walking papers soon afterwards. How far can this inroad go?

The very first point of the First Amendment is not freedom of speech nor of the Press, but freedom of Religion. This surfaces a smoldering outbreak which has been tightly controlled by a kind of mutual agreement. There has been a conspiracy of silence on all sides to avoid the inevitable conflict between Americans about what religious freedom really means.

What happens when the Church refuses to submit to the demands of what we consider evil? Are we shut down? Our charity projects, our institutions even our churches? Does the New York Times chastise us in a lead editorial while Bill Keller chuckles away? O tempora! O mores! How dreadful that would be! Are we terrified lest we “lose” tax exempt status—even though such status has been granted by statute and cannot be withdrawn by the IRS? Does the Catholic plight go to the Supreme Court? Does occasional Catholic impertinence cause some Catholics to whimper and whisper that perhaps we should “give in” and have some Peace at any Price or just settle for whatever we can get from the “Massa’”? What is happening to us? Are Catholics becoming wimpy? Have we forgotten the courage of our Forefathers who sang and meant “Faith of our Fathers—we will true to thee unto death”?

We have heard the endless cautions and analgesic nostrums that “ at least we have Catholic politicians-----“ I have been told that “don’t make waves…” is the politically wise route for aspiring Catholics to follow. As some wit has pointed out we would do better with Mormons representing us in Government. Many of these so-called Catholics whip out their Rosaries and Ash Wednesday smudge only when convenient and helpful for their careers. Otherwise they are indistinguishable from outright secularists in their contribution to the Nation. Serious Constitutional scholars are pointing out more and more that religion has a legitimate and historic place in the Public Square but the trend is to make the Square truly Naked of religious thought. This is a thorough misreading of the Constitution. But more frighteningly, there is arising a trend to forbid us from speaking within our own Churches themselves on matters such as homosexual behavior and coupling. We are challenged thusly: What has that got to do with religion?”

What happens if I preach, write or argue that homosexual behavior is sinful, unnatural, self destructive and toxic? What if I protest the manipulation of young minds when the Government will insist on teaching children in the 6th grade the correct techniques of using condoms? And using bananas or cucumbers as teaching props? Or that having two mommies or two daddies is just as good or the same as having one of each? Will I be arrested for breaking the “law” when I protest such brutal mental seduction on children? It has happened in Canada where a Catholic Bishop was threatened with Government censure if he continued teaching in the Media what his Church holds about homosexual lifestyle. Is there a budding American style Gestapo? What do I do when I am instructed by the Government to pay the benefits for the “partner” of my homosexual employee? Are we to be reduced to puppets? To quaint museum pieces of an ‘earlier and less enlightened era”? Or just to obey our neo-Fascist leaders. Our modern “with it” criterion sounds alarmingly like “Do what you want in the privacy of your home. Don’t make it public because it might offend some one.”

When I am told that other religions have no problems with such trends, I have to say that my conscience cannot agree with what I see. So does my Church which teaches that some current teaching and behavior mock and irreverence God Himself. I must say that, in my eyes, these trends are poison for my countrymen and the ideals of America. I cannot uphold them. Should I, consequent to my preserving my principles, fear for my religious and civil and constitutional rights? It looks like I, at a heavy price, shall have to defend my values and hopes, I and all others who see what I see. Am I to be forced to repeat the principle of St. Thomas More with his “ I love my King, but I love my God more”?

Let me be on guard and defend my Country, my God given rights of worship and speech and what we really[1] stand for.
__________
1. The Constitution, the Declaration of 1776 and the historic beliefs of the Founders like G. Washington, John Adams and J. Madison.

You Think You Have It Bad?

2011-12-08T08:12:00.000-08:00

“I thought I had it bad with my bunion until I saw a guy with no feet.” Maybe it is still my headache and it hurts but it is a mosquito bite compared to the unbelievable suffering of others. Let us take an example.

Tom was his name. Tall, handsome, intelligent, he was at the top of his game. Being highly educated he had a great job. He dined and danced at least twice week with beautiful New York women. He was witty, quick and charming. He had his own classy bachelor pad. He knew wines, both red and white. He was the proverbial life he party. At 33, he had it all. Or so it seemed.

He was delighting, one evening, in a glorious dinner with a lovely woman when suddenly he dropped a glass of red wine as he was “toasting ”her loveliness.” There was no warning. There was no symptom. This was the beginning of a 25 year crucifixion of what he calls the “insidious” nature of a breakdown called Parkinson’s Disease or PD for short. This is a very serious, progressive, neurologic disease involving extreme rigidity of limbs, uncontrollable shaking, difficulty in walking and loss of speech.

There was much experimenting with medications, dosages and mixtures. Much consultation. Much testing. Finally, the complicated surgeries with their tensions and fears, with their sometime relief and improvement. There was the exultant hope that the scourge of PD was controlled. He had temporary relief and was able to resume his life somewhat as previously. But it struck again and again until he had to resort to “walkers.” No more job. No more joyful events as of the past. His ability to negotiate by speech was gone. With his superior intellect he had been able to persuade and negotiate deals and contracts. Now he cannot speak. It is as if that great mind and great vision are locked and trapped within outside walls. Are they prison walls that seal him in? That capable mind, however, refuses to be conquered and continues to work and function as he remains a master of the computer through which he is able to communicate all his thoughts, feelings and fears. He bravely faces, with his halting gait, the terrifying task of maneuvering the wild pace of New York City. He reads and researches the latest work relative to his malady. He simply does not quit.

Somewhere we read that God fits the back to the burden. At least my Irish grandmother told me that many times. As I look at Tom and marvel at his courage and Faith, I tremble interiorly as I doubt my own inner strength to cope. I think I have crosses. I am humbled and awed by Tom. Wouldn’t anyone? Where did he get his strength and persistence? Where did he get his resourcefulness so to adapt that he has meaning in this Cross?

Is it temperament? Or fatalism? Or some series of humanistic/social aphorisms? Or intelligent realistic assessment and resignation? Or what? Perhaps each of these might play a part in Tom’s attitude. But none seems strong enough to explain his remarkable adjustment and never ending sense of hope.

It seems to me that the most significant factor in this man’s remarkable coping is his Faith. He has a profound awareness of God’s Presence. He has a striking sense of God’s Will---that difficult to understand dimension for which there are rarely satisfying answers. It is his enormous trust in the loving God that carries him through. Sophisticate that he is, like the great spirits of history, he possesses the difficult virtue: child like (not childish) Faith. He knows somehow that there is a purpose and meaning in his suffering. But not knowing why makes it harder. That the God Who loves him would allow this to happen is difficult to fathom.

How much more difficult it must be for those who have no Faith, no sense of deeper meaning. Does life have anything more to offer than the stressful treadmill of competing for a promotion? Or a bigger house? Or a fling at Club Med? Or heavily troubled by the unending financial demands of life? Why is Tom’s attitude so much more rare than it used to be? Has society become too secularized? Has the ACLU’s anti-religious stance subtly become the norm?

To cope with such crushing physical suffering like Tom’s is bad enough but to be without the strong support of knowing the Lord would be misery multiplied. To base one’s life on an eternal surety is one way of making sense out of inexplicable tragedy.

What is Healthy Sexuality?

2011-12-08T08:06:00.000-08:00

Some years ago two Paulist priests, in separate radio encounters, debated Al Goldenstein, the publisher of a “newspaper” called “Screw”, which in today’s rating system would probably be XXX. Both priests later described their opponent as surprisingly respectful and cordial. ‘Surprisingly” because Goldstein advocated the absolute contradictory of the Catholic Church’s stand on sexuality. Al had contended vigorously that for good health, man should feel little restraint about acting sexually in whatever form he wished. There should be few or no limits, few or no boundaries. Any desire, any sexual fantasy could be acted upon, whenever possible. Thought, word or deed. It was hopefully within the law. Any restraint or denial could lead to a neurotic consequence and result in what his crowd called “sexual repression.” This was apparently a horrible condition which exceeded things abysmal.

The ends to which such a viewpoint might lead seemed not to bother Al a whit. The terrible, inevitable emotional and spiritual consequences, strewn all over the human landscape, seemed to be utterly out of his intellectual ken. However, Al, the great advocate of “no holds barred living”, is rumored presently to be in “disturbed emotional straits”. If the rumor is true, it would be highly consistent with what society has seen over the centuries to be the fate of undisciplined living. The libertine usually pays a depressing price. But should we be surprised when we have created an environment of sexual confusion?

If it weren’t so truly sad, one might get a laugh out of a depressing news report concerning the Big Pooh Ba of sexual self indulgence, Hugh Hefner. Poor old Hugh, in silken smoking jacket, and with mottled old face, tries to laugh off the supreme embarrassment of a libertine. Some girl (apparently decades younger than he) had either called off or left a “marriage” with Hugh because he was unable to meet the basic physical requirements for marital coitus. If life’s meaning is primarily linked to one’s genital prowess/experience and linked to the untrammeled, promiscuous and prodigal use of those “faculties”, and such a one becomes impotent, unable to fulfill the act of consummation, then we have classic irony.

One wonders whether the frenetic behavior of the libertine is an unconscious attempt to reassure the self that ‘I am really sexually capable in spite of my secret misgivings. I am not impotent. I do have power.” Is sex being used as a tool, not really valuable as an expression of authentic love, but largely as a personal sedative for one’s own shriveled psyche? Or even for personal narcissistic “good feeling”? Is the problem with the Als and Hughs of our confused society not sexuality but self esteem? It is more than that “it feels good.”

I personally watched one of the night time Network Television shows which, in the often feeble attempts of that medium’s thrust to influence national interiority, presented a hospital death scene of an old man. As a sympathetic nurse listens, the man sums up his resignation to the Final Experience by saying, “I’m ready. I can’t have erections anyone.” No meaning beyond that? With no sexual pleasure life is not worth living. What about Honor? Love? Loyalty? Obligation? Intellectual excitement? Joy in simple living? Loving relationships? Others? God? Is viewing life through one’s genitals ultimately superficial living? I think there is a deep, transcendent awareness in human beings that the view espoused by Goldstein, Hefner et al. is inaccurate, imprudent and non-pragmatic. Human beings feel that there has to be something more! How often there arises the pathetic and frantic cry” of young experimenters-- “Is this all there is?” It has never permanently worked even with its charismatic and slick champions. It never really profoundly, lastingly, satisfies. The Don Juans, the Casanovas and the Romeos of history have, most often, been, not happy figures, but tragic ones.

Regardless of the heated and sometimes clever presentations of libertine leaders, we know in our honest moments that the above does not truly describe what is meant by “healthy” sexuality. The sadness which follows sexual scandals in education, religion, Penn State, medicine and law is inherent in sexuality gone astray. Yet, one might ask again why we should be surprised when we ourselves have created the field out of which has come this madness. Destruction of boundaries to contain the power of sexuality are omnipresent. The shallow insistence that unrestrained sexual behavior is grownup and mature is clearly a mask or pretense to cover the desire to act out primal interior drives like lust. Patrick Carnes who entitles his famous book “Don’t Call it Love!”, rips off such masks even by the book’s title. Sheer sexual satisfaction alone doesn’t deserve to be named Love! There are adult males driven to molest young boys who have organized into what is called “Nambla” or a national group for man/boy love. On the face of it, one immediately thinks “oxymoron.” This is an extremely lame attempt to justify a particularly virulent form of lust. Calling it “healthy” is way beyond even the murkiest concept of maturity.

The spokesmen of sexual non-restraint level the criticism that proponents of traditional sexual maturity somehow neurotically fear or hate sexuality. This is, of course, absurd when one studies the teachings and suggestions of authentic champions of the beauty of real sexuality. Pope John Paul II and the scores of adults who understand his insights about Love and Responsibility are the real champions of the Sexual. They understand that sexuality is a beautiful gift from God which is to be fully enjoyed and cherished as a priceless blessing within the Covenant of Marriage. The physical, as component of the nature of “person”, is beautiful and admirable, and meant to be respected. Much human experience attests, however, that, outside of marriage, deep sexuality fulfillment generally does not come anywhere near the joy intended by the Creator. A little honesty would be so welcome after one consults the depths of one’s psyche. Besides, one might recall that marriage is meant not only for the enjoyment and needs of the couple. There is also a serious social concern: the matter of children! That would make a great debate!

In any event, what is abundantly clear is that the messy and drab description of sexuality used to begin this essay is certainly not healthy. Nor is the opposite extreme. The stern joyless Puritan who sees the Devil in every natural admiration and appreciation of physical beauty is hardly healthy. That uptight person needs a balanced therapist to help him reach for sexual balance, not the wide eyed Al Goldsteins of any era. While Hollywood generally glories in unfair exaggeration to hold an audience, the movie “The Dirty Dozen” depicted the character Maggot (as ably portrayed by Telly Savalas) in a revolting and yet dimly clinically accurate manner. Maggot was consumed interiorly with burning lust for beautiful young females whom he could never attract or win. Yet, in the anger of his perceived rejection, he spouts Scripture, calls women harlots and wishes them ill, even death. All the while posing as the upright and worthy citizen, the emissary of the Most High. Such a personality (even if exaggerated for dramatic purposes ) while purporting to be the upholder of social mores and purity is a sick and sexually obsessed soul. Perhaps some of this pathology creeps into the drum beating of some alleged defenders of society. If there are screaming, wild eyed Carrie Nation types with their symbolic axes out to destroy what they consider to be immodest or excessive expressions of sexuality, one can marginalize them intellectually as relatively unbalanced. This is not healthy sexuality. Having some mediocre “artist” attach “fig leaves” to great works of art (in the name of “Purity”) is hardly “grown up.”

Well then, what is healthy sexuality? After centuries of debate with Plato and Augustine and Sappho and Aquinas, experimentation, failure, witch hunts and book burning, human beings still argue the question in terms of their own opinions, bias and subjective conditioning. Certainly this writer, after ninety years of living, is the same. I have a view largely based on my Faith (as I believe revealed by God Himself) and my own experience both as a psychologist of 45 years practice and as a priest of 63 years as a confessor. Most of my “subjects” have been Catholic (with a few priests) , a sprinkling of Protestants (and some Ministers), a small Jewish clientele ( with one Rabbi) and an occasional unbeliever, probably agnostic (a term basically meaning “ I don’t know”).

While Pope John Paul II was probably the best and most profound articulator of the beauty of sexuality, his profound and scholarly style did not touch the Beer and Bowling crowd. The sweaty, T-shirted, loudmouth types hanging out in bars and backyards were probably more touched by the thinking of a gentle Italian Bishop right out of the Brooklyn sidewalk. This successor of the Apostles was able to convey the astonishing fact that sexuality is more than sex! And even that sometimes sex is not about sex at all!

Bishop Francis Mugavero, with many, many years of Social Work experience, wrote an epic pastoral letter to the Catholics of Brooklyn detailing insights into sexuality both from a Catholic and psychological point of view. He made a distinction between sex and sexuality which struck me as novel but enlightening.

The former (sex) concerned behavior and physical dimension the latter (sexuality), spirit and dynamism. Sex would be the various intimate and physical expressions of love between husband and wife while the latter focused on the drive (and need) within all human beings for closeness, friendship, empathy, affection, love and understanding.

Within this type of thought, Jesus, Himself, would possess in His human nature true sexuality which He offers to the whole human race. It would be the bond that ties humans together. It would be the charity ( agape or love) between parents and children, grandparents and grandparents, and close friends. It would be the filia so beautifully described by C.S.Lewis in his famous book “Four Loves.”
It does, at the same time, indicate the difference between the sexes and allows much for the important and basic factor of self identity. Of course, sexuality makes men and women different. Vive la difference! Extremists who say men and women are just the same should open their eyes and take a “good look.”

Genuine sexuality would generally be non-physical, although it could include modest kisses and fraternal hugs. The God given drive would be properly directed by the virtues of continence and chastity. It would be warm and unafraid. The additional dimension of eros (again delineated by Lewis) belongs to the holy state of Marriage where the complete pleasures of sex are blessed under the Divine Smile. Does one need to consult Biology 101 to understand that complete sex is intrinsically linked to the pro-creation of a human being under God? Does Dr. Stork bring babies in his little black bag? Perhaps, the modern sophisticate could benefit from a heart to heart talk on the Birds and the Bees! Are we floating in an ocean not only of selfishness and immaturity but of an incredible film of ignorance and superficiality?

True sexuality would have the ability to give and receive love. It would be understood as a reflection of God’s love for all. It would be highly seasoned by the profound awareness of one’s own infinite value as validated by the supreme sacrifice of Jesus for each and every one of us. Its hallmark would be interior peace and a cleansing sense of walking the walk of the Lord! The non-discipline of the libertine and the icy aloofness of the “Puritan” would be unwelcome in such a spiritual/psychological home. How could the phony faces of sexuality interface with I Cor. 13 of the blessed apostle Paul? It might be a helpful measure when one searches for Healthy Sexuality!!!

Historically, the Catholic Church which vigorously defends the beauty and good sense of chastity, can exemplify by its own membership the balance we seek. We have seen pathetic examples of the two extremes listed above—and on every level. We have seen corruption and hypocrisy. We have seen rigid, unloving, revolting personas masking as “Pure.” But we have also seen unbelievable examples of the beautiful balance of the many inbred drives woven into the glory of chastity. We have seen liberating examples of sinners becoming warm, repentant and loving saints. From Mary Magdalene to Augustine to the killer of Marie Goretti, we see the Constant Resurrection through the powerful help or grace of the Almighty Himself! We have seen literally millions of woman and men find the balance so ardently desired! Further, appropriate fun has always been the hallmark of the sexually healthy.

There is always hope. But the one entrapped in unhealthy life styles has to see and hear it first! How does one who feels so caught in the vicious web of merciless sex gone wild, hear, even faintly, the words of liberating Hope? People who can really love and really care for fellow human beings can only hope, themselves, that by prayer and example and judicious words, they may aid some poor soul to find the peace and fulfillment of healthy sexuality.

New York City , Dec. 2011
Advent: Meditating on the glory of the flesh within the Incarnation of God.

Women Are Beautiful

2011-11-05T12:23:00.001-07:00

In the old Jewish tradition it was considered proper and mandatory that a bride should wear a face veil at the Wedding ceremony. Actually, much more than proper because the clear message was that the young woman was declaring to all the assembly that there was more to the gift of herself than her physical endowments which could be considerable. It was publicizing the great Biblical belief that the “beauty of the King’s daughter lies within.”

Such an understanding was expected to transcend the ceremony of marriage and to pervade the woman’s very self concept throughout her whole earthly experience. Such a belief spoke to the sensitivity, charm and gentleness so effortlessly bred into her gender which no man could truly match. It echoed the Scriptural allusion to the “graceful slender column” in describing the way she walked and carried herself. It spoke to the profound maternal instinct interwoven only within the female psyche by the Great Designer, God, Himself. Only she could bear a child. Shades of the great Pope, John Paul II, who constantly reminded us that the human being can be not only physically beautiful but also spiritually and emotionally so. In a word, the “Person” is not merely external, an aggregate of eye catching dimensions, but is also a deep interiority which ultimately serves as the primary dynamic of human existence.

One can wonder, of course, how such an exalted view of women in the Jewish world could exist simultaneously with the old wives’ tales which have trickled through history such as the alleged Jewish prayer which so pleases misogynists. “I thank you, God, that You did not make me a woman.” Old wives’ tales or not, women were valued and respected for more than the possibility of physical charms. Even in the touching Broadway production of “Fiddler on the Roof”, the harried wife, Golde, muses whether or not she loves her husband. Golde who toils away at domestic chores for years, raises children and warms his bed, says “I guess I do.” It would be the superficial who cannot understand what Golde-types get out of life by “merely” being a housewife. The depth and love of a woman make such sacrifices not only a possible but most meaningful routine. It would be the rare male who could or would fill such a domestic role.

In a recent interview on the Catholic network EWTN Colleen C. Campbell, herself an example of the beauty of women, quizzed a gorgeous young woman who had left a promising career in the modeling profession to become an activist for the “Women are Beautiful” movement. This young woman, stylishly and modestly dressed, was alert, articulate and “now.” She described her disillusionment in the fashion world with its heavy accent on the body, clothes, sex, even drugs and booze (cooperation with which sometimes becomes almost mandatory for a successful career in that world). This young woman, velvet voiced, crusades to educate women about their own unique beauty and their fundamental need to respect themselves.

She points out that women have intelligence, good judgment, accurate instincts and intuition, healthy humor, incredible generosity for loving, charming gifts for human relationships with a very special God-given dimension for complementarity with males plus an exquisite “feel” for spirituality. Women are gifted by God in a way males are not. The great maternal instinct women have often stuns the masculine psyche. Invariably, women treasure babies in a way inaccessible to males because only a woman can carry a child in her womb. (Obviously, males similarly have gifts not given to women.) Beautiful clothes, reasonable cosmetics, attractive hair, jewelry, are all consonant with a woman being appropriately beautiful. To augment the beauty of God’s creation is neither criminal nor sinful.

However, on the other hand, can anyone doubt that human history fairly shrieks volumes of the ugly woman?[1] The nagger, the harridan, the perennial coquette, the excessively vain, the selfish, the egocentric “witch”, the unreasonable, the ruthless calculating female climber have ever been with us. Women have broken up happy marriages and ruined families. Women have been devious and scheming. Women have seduced vulnerable men. This is ugly. But God did not make women to be ugly. Women become ugly through their allowing themselves to become ugly. Even on the superficial level one might make a relevant observation. Take a female face. A face beaten into neutrality through years of oiling, patting, kneading, painting until it has almost no feature of its own, loses much of unspoiled beauty. No real natural expression but only blankness. This is ugly. Or take a feminine soul loaded with a history of poor choices and blind alleys. The application is, I think, obvious. An ugly outcome. But how does this all square with what is going on in contemporary society?

When one contrasts an altruistic even theological view of the female gender with much of what transpires today, one is struck by shocking insights. The scantily clad woman who moves throughout her “hip” closed society, can well be using her near nudity as a mask! Her state of undress could symbolize her hope of covering over what she unconsciously believes about herself. This is all she has to offer! She might well feel that she is hollow within. She is a female “empty suit.” It would seem that an inevitable, if unconscious, personality factor of poor self esteem would invade and pervade the depth of such a woman’s soul. Is it only her physical attributes which make her valuable in others’ eyes? If so, she has been sold what kids on the street call “a bill of goods.” She becomes a harried, bitter, desperate and unattractive person. Ironically, there is a mysterious power of attraction in “goodness.” The “beautiful” woman described above who is loving, sweet and chaste (physically striking or not) has a certain nescio quid quality of drawing others to her.

Sheer invitation to lust while potentially arresting in the moment, becomes in time even repulsive. I recall a young priest friend of mine sharing an experience relative to this point. A woman of his parish who was probably struggling with inner demons, had developed a rich fantasy about this priest who was handsome and personable. One evening she rang the Rectory doorbell asking for the young priest. When he appeared, she opened her coat to reveal her total nakedness—apparently in the delusion that such behavior would instantly capture the priest. When I asked him his reaction at that point, he replied that he almost vomited on the spot! Another validation of the standard seminary analysis that a priest need not worry for his chastity when he meets a slut! Goodness and inner beauty surprisingly might pose a greater threat.

The Hollywood genre, and I suppose the “hook-up society” as well, is deep into beautifying the body, with botox, very white teeth and posturing to highlight the physical, preferably with an audience. However, coterminous with this heavily physical "perfection" is a terrible record of relationships. “Commitment”, “exclusive”, “permanent” are adjectives seemingly foreign or quaint to that cadre. Marital and cohabitating (unmarried) dyad breakups fill the pages of the Hollywood/Broadway gossip writers. All this in the face of the unrelenting lesson of history that any relationship founded exclusively or primarily on the external is self limiting and bound to founder. In a word, to ignore or neglect the inner beauty of women exacts a profound and scarring price. External beauty is phenomenal but when does one grow up to realize that true adult balance appreciates both the body and the soul.

It was the late movie Queen, Marlene Dietrich, who quipped as two males who, with an adolescent like naiveté, were ogling the chest dimensions of some physically attractive young women, “Those guys don’t know much about what engineering can do.” Wires and strings, shrewdly used, can produce great illusions. From my own years visiting African villages where women routinely traipsed about topless, it does seem that women are better looking with clothes on.

Fantasy, to those past the adolescent phase of development, is far different from reality. Perception has its place but for emotional and spiritual health the real should dominate. In the Plan of God, clearly, males are made to be attracted to females through the senses but they are also capable of appreciating the spiritual depth of the female person. Of course, the powerful drive in humans to perpetuate their DNA is not and cannot be ignored. But the Plan goes obviously farther. Women have been called the very “heart” of any family and in fact have a major role in enlivening the spiritual tone of the average family. If the sensitive and spiritual powers of women are activated, everyone benefits and in fact fulfill the Plan of the Lord.

As we learn through studies in anthropology, Society, for its own survival, has generally supported over eons and through tribal norms and courting rituals, the understanding that mating should be long term and exclusive. To function only on the external and immediate physical return is to function far from one’s potential as well as to punish society. There are many levels to the human being which are lost if one's focus is primarily on the sexual. If such a functioning level is my style, then, I am a superficial person. For real beauty and truth, one must go deeper — way beyond the frizzy hair and the frozen look. If the old adage teaches that “beauty is only skin deep”, we must slightly rephrase and say that external beauty is skin deep but the real Beauty of Women is for eternity.

____________________________
[1] Interestingly, Sigmund Freud, (the great analyst of things human), puzzled over his difficulty in understanding women and mused: “ Women…..what do they really want.” How much more difficult for those of us less gifted in depth analysis to answer that question! Could it be so simple that fundamentally women want to love and be loved for themselves?

How Do You Say Good Bye to the Dying?

2011-10-15T10:39:00.000-07:00

The dying priest was about to be taken, from the Religious house where he lived, to a Live –in hospice where he would be prepared to leave this life and meet his Maker. Fifteen priests, the House managerial staff, the housemaids and the Mexican Sisters who lovingly cooked for him, did his laundry and prayed for him, were all gathered in the house chapel awaiting his arrival so that we could all, in the ancient and moving language of the Catholic Church say “Good bye and Godspeed.” Most of us would never see him again.

The silence was thick. Perhaps profound, certainly meaningful, in the face of Death, the inevitable. No one made a sound. No one moved. We were all engrossed in our own thoughts and feelings. Some one we knew well and for whom we had varying affection was dying . Each of us knew that we all would follow him—quickly or over a long period of time. But we would follow hm.

Finally, he was wheeled into the Chapel and positioned so that he could face us. He lifted his pale, pain stained face and said “Good morning”. That was all but, in those words, it was as if he spoke his gratitude for such genuine and heartfelt presence in the face of his coming encounter.

The presiding priest, vested in alb and stole, reminded us of St.James and his instruction to have the priests of the Church pray over the sick one and anoint him with oil. We were invited to lay our hands upon our sick brother and all did. Priests, sisters, managers and maids in a deep and touching silence. No music. No talk. There was no need. Indeed, such accessories would be almost painful and certainly intrusive. The compassion, the support, the Presence of the Holy Spirit were palpable. The dying priest was given a tiny particle of the Blessed Eucharist as Viaticum or Food for the Journey. The ancient theology is obvious. It is the sacrament Itself Which basically provides the Care. The traditional insights of Opere Operato apply. The Sacrament, not the trimmings or adjustments to modernity, gives life and courage and strength. Jesus supplies us once more with what we need.

We heard the Church again come to the priest’s aid as the Presider said the final blessing:

“Lord Jesus, Christ, You chose to share our human nature to redeem all people and to heal the sick. Look with compassion on this Your servant whom we have anointed in Your name with this holy oil for the healing of his body and spirit.
Support him with Your Power, comfort him with Your protection and give him the strength to fight against evil. Since You have given him a share in Your own Passion, help him to find hope in suffering, for You are Lord for ever and ever Amen.”

He was wheeled out of chapel to meet the “transport” to his “End Point.” Most of us, though saddened, thought we had made a proper good bye! So, in fact, he moved out of our lives. The next Community encounter with him will be his funeral and burial. And on it goes until the next one of us goes. Most of us move amazingly quickly into the parameters of our own personal lives with our obligations and our needs. But so is the nature of existence.

“Out of sight, out of mind” is not necessarily a pejorative statement as it might be a descriptive one. Some years ago, probably the Paulist most widely viewed as our one true saint, Fr. John Buckley, was buried in the crypt below the great Church with proper liturgical pomp and correctness. The right things were said. The appropriate gestures were made. Due respect to his holiness was observed. Then the local community, very large at that time, went into lunch. There was not a single indication of grief or remembrance of the saint. It was as if a job with its requirements was well done and safely tucked away in the “completed file.” His name was never mentioned. Light laughter, political debate, sports talk filled the room. Was it a form of the “Irish Wake” whereby the verbalization of deep feelings is buried under the false fronts of bravado and excessive masculinity? Is it a denial of the fear of Death? Was it that the Saint’s fate was self evident (being with God hic and nunc) there was no need for concern, only certitude? It is at once mephitic and cloying. One can be grateful for the Catholic custom of devoting the month of November to remembrance of the “Poor souls” in Purgatory! How easy it is to forget!

But there is probably another factor involved which is subtle and very powerful. Perhaps instead of contemplating how we say good bye to the dead, it might be more sagacious (or honest) to wonder how we say good bye to life as we leave it ourselves. Perhaps, that is the true underlying dynamic in all the silence and denial and tears. Perhaps, the real question is how does one deal with death? Perhaps, the question really is: How do I live my life in the present moment? Perhaps, I should second guess the common wisdom and live not that “they” might speak well of me after I die but that I follow , within appropriate boundaries, the joys that God places in my own lap and not some one else’s. Perhaps, we should revisit old St.Irenaeus with his joyful admonition. To be fully human and fully alive is the best way to please God. Maybe that is the way to live so that one may die well and see the Face of God.

It would be fun to discuss this viewpoint with Hilaire Belloc who pretty much knew it all! Remember his gleeful little insight?

Wherever the Catholic sun doth shinie
There’s laughter, dancing and good red wine
At least I have always found it so
Benedicamus Domino!

I have a bias.. Being Catholic is a great way to live but when it comes to dying there is no contest. It is the best way to make one’s good byes.

The Cyrano Syndrome or Who is Really the Beautiful One?

2011-10-15T10:29:00.000-07:00

He had a nose describable as huge, ugly, repulsive and peninsula-like. But he had a heart of a poet, the courage and skill of a master swordsman and the tender compassion of a saint. He was called Cyrano and was secretly enthralled with a beautiful maiden called Roxanne whose charms could match the fabled Helen of Troy. His love for her was so burning, so passionate, pure and undying that he would skewer any imprudent loudmouth for even a hint of disrespect toward the Lady of his heart. He, with this deep love hidden in his being, never revealed his ardor for her, fearing rejection and humiliation. How, he thought, could she, this angel, this unique flawless jewel, ever view me romantically when I am so very ugly and repugnant—even to myself!

But her eye was caught by an incredibly handsome, utterly empty headed soldier, Christian, who could barely articulate his own name. Ironically, this underdeveloped bovine like near Cretan, this stammering verbal oaf, won the hand of the gorgeous lady through elegant words supplied by Cyrano. Christian was the mouthpiece, the front, the persona while Cyrano was the heart, the soul, the mind, the poetry, the enthusiasm behind the words. Without the dynamic words of Cyrano, Christian would balk, panic and blush. He would irritate the Lady who impatiently demanded the moving words of love she thought he was so capable of delivering. Thus basically Roxanne, unknowingly, fell in love not with external physical charm, as attractive as that was, but with the internal and lasting beauty of real Love. It resonates Holy Scripture which reminds us that “the beauty of the King’s daughter is within.” It is physical beauty which is only skin deep.

Human history is replete with illustrations of the human capacity to be seduced and indeed deceived by the superficial. Obviously, on the sexual level, we (dominantly, in all probability for males, at least) are, initially, visually attracted by the physical form or style of movement of others. The engine of involuntary and universal attraction is pleasure. Such wiring by the Creator is good and intentional for species survival. But to the dismay of inexperienced and naïve newcomers to the delights of the flesh, sex, alone, usually, if not invariably, leads to satiation and surprisingly, sometimes, revulsion. The limitations of sex by itself, unaccompanied by authentic love, are fairly obvious. However, their search for joy is normal and legitimate. But their means of achieving real joy is mistaken. They have been seduced by the Cyrano syndrome or (put otherwise) they have been living with and for the superficial.

The delusion of many moderns can be illustrated by current studies on the rise of sexless marriages, coupled with the frantic Orgasm Hunt so popular with the “First avenue Bar” types and the high rate of divorce. Ad agencies scramble to outdo each other in pushing sex aid devices for frustrated males. The human landscape is more than dotted with bored, angry ex-partners. And how many males have experienced self revulsion immediately after using the services of the daughters of night! So often disappointed at the disparity between the reality and the fantasy expectation! What goes wrong century after century with human beings in our repetitive faulty choices and judgments? How explain the widespread delusion so often accompanied by feelings of interpersonal betrayal? “You” promised me a Rose Garden!!! Instead, you gave me an empty reed! Would it be gauche even to suggest a little factor called Original Sin as an explanation? Catholic teaching holds that by that Primordial event, our human intellect has been darkened and our human will has been weakened leaving us vulnerable to deception and bad choices. It has ever been such!

The ancient folk lore still teaches the old song of “Natura humana non fallitur”. No matter how elegant and sophisticated we become, human nature never changes! And humans sometimes “go for” the external and the superficial, totally blocking out consequences of behavior. And the disillusion and anger follow! Certainly, it is not only on the sexual level that the “Cyrano Syndrome” operates. It can take many forms. Misjudgments about others is obviously commonplace. Since none of us has complete data about another’s interiority, we are in no real position to be apodictic about another’s inner value or beauty. Let alone their motivation. Mere externals can be egregiously off base. Nevertheless, our tendency is to be captivated by the “outside” where, alas, unfortunately we often halt!

There are two big lessons to be gleaned from a reflection on the Cyrano Syndrome.

First, there are huge deposits of generosity, compassion, depth, love and courage deeply embedded within the souls of others and which are not easily accessible to hasty observation. To be superficial in assessments of the “other” leads to being superficial in human relationships. To neglect to see the whole person is a fundamental disadvantage. Human happiness is heavily dependent on full and deep interpersonal relationships which take time to build, to understand, to appreciate. For example, there have been numerous marriage unions which have foundered because of the failure to “behold” one’s spouse as a person, one of both soul and body. The lovely old love song “Believe me if all these enduring young charms….” highlights the lasting loveliness of a person whose young physical gifts fade with age. But, the beauty of the personality has deepened and grown while bravely/ virtuously withstanding the trials and pains of a lifetime. To miss this point is to go through life half awake! Assessing a person solely in terms of a big nose, bald head or a wrinkled face is to go through life half asleep!! Who is the really beautiful one? Is it the wrinkled, shrunken, pale Mother Teresa or is it the manicured, festooned, frozen faced, gaudily dressed, non-entity of tabloid’s page six ? Is it Hugo’s Quasimodo or even Dr. Frankenstein’s Monster with their surprising capacity for tenderness? Or the botoxed freneticist of Hollywood? The questions are obviously rhetorical.

Second, the one with the big nose, the bald head and the wrinkled face can, likewise, fall prey from the opposite direction. Cyrano was deeply convinced that the beautiful Roxanne could never see past his physical deformity. His confidence in his own abilities was enormous in all things but this. He was revolted by his ugliness, incorrectly thinking that the source of human beauty is physical. His self revulsion left no emotional room for the one powerful factor which is his real ultimate answer. In his view, the negatives of physicality can trump all the inner positives of virtue, charm and character. Such a view could be habitual unless one recognizes the basic fact that the human being, any human being, with big nose or not, is of infinite value to the Lord, our God.

It is alleged that the great St. Thomas Aquinas who was called “The Angelic Doctor” would take a crucifix, hold it in his hand and note that were he the only person ever to live, the Divine Jesus would have gone through all that terrible Passion and Death—just for him. The obvious lesson is that any human being is loved implacably by the all-loving Lord. Such love is not dependent on good looks, youth, intelligence, charm, power or achievement. Just being human is all it needs! This love, likewise, is not dependent on the assessments of others. The very substantial bonus to understanding God’s love for us is ---- freedom. Freedom from “human” respect. Freedom from the paralysis of “How do they see me?” Freedom to be the person I truly am.

What would it take for a Cyrano-like person to incorporate this fact? What risk would be involved for a person with shaky self esteem to open his heart and trust Jesus? What more can He do to show His love for us, in our own beauty, than to give us His constant companionship, forgiveness and compassion? The answer one gives might reveal one’s personal answer to the question which opened this essay. Who is the really beautiful one?

Shrieking in Restaurants

2011-10-15T10:14:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine, a retired NYPD chief, and I were entering a charming Italian restaurant on Manhattan’s fashionable East side, and looking forward to a relaxed Sunday Brunch, when we were assaulted by a wall of loud, brassy, screaming, shrieking humanoid sounds. There were groups of youngish people, mostly female, who seemed to be competing with each other in advertising to the world how happy they were and what a great time they were having. It thrills me to see human beings enjoying the gifts of God. But must it be on such a painful decibel level? It was as if we were hearing Shakespeare pondering again that "...me thinketh the woman protests too much..." If one is profoundly content, must such a person loudly broadcast his great inner contentment with self and life? Whom is he trying to impress or persuade? A further sadism occurs when some people periodically pierce the shrieks with a weird high “C” screech which is apparently meant to be some kind of quasi orgasmic laugh signaling, I suppose, the height of delight at being the center of attention.

Why, in heaven’s name, is there existent such a most repulsive human trait which is so given to posturing and fakery? Does it really shout out how much interior human shakiness pervades our societies? What drives a frail self esteem to plaster onto its most visible component--the face—the phony persona of exuberant joy? It becomes particularly nauseating when the plasterer is a female on the brink of early middle age desperately trying to play the role of the ingénue. One of the shriekers had a persona so beaten into facelessness by frantic years of oiling and creaming and manipulating that she had no authentic or real look. She had only a kind of “tabula rasa” onto which she was straining to paint the image of a bright carefree delightful young thing. The only reaction I got was an impulse to upchuck!!

However, when one observes the current social ills of booze, drugs, obsession with the sexual, consumerism expectation, craving to be “hip”, self fulfillment psychologies, superficial commitments, one further speculates on a possible link between two areas: 1) the myopia of the Page 6 mentality of the modern media and 2) inappropriate behavior like Restaurant shrieking.

Do they feed on each other? I recall that when the Soviet Union was at the zenith of its influence, Stalin’s Propaganda minister noted that "he who is in control of the mimeograph rules society." Update "mimeograph" to Internet, sitcoms, computer and major media and you may have the unhappy application and consequence in this era. Even social behavior is determined by the modern "mimeograph." What’s in? What’s acceptable? What’s the present fad?

Does modern media promote or feed into an excessive dimension of the narcissistic? Are we nurturing a "me first" mentality? Are we dumbing down to a national level of low frustration? Is it the rule of "I got mine, Mac"? I am very well aware and deeply impressed by the pockets of generosity and bravery and sacrifice and industry and chivalry in our country. I know and have been the beneficiary of goodness of fellow Americans. Yet, I have a most uncomfortable sense of a growing impatience with the "other guy"—especially if the other guy is just a "little" guy. The little guy can be the poor or the meek or the old or the uneducated or the gullible or the weak. But I am getting a general sense of non-concern about others or future generations. A sense of selfishness seems more apparent to me than in the previous generations I have known. Is it that I am 90 years old that I write this? Or is it possibly the factual case? Was it like this in 1930 in the depression? Maybe, but there was, I recall, greater sense of the other guy . There was ,I think, more generous sharing of the little we had. Was it like this in the greatest generation in World War II? Maybe, but as I recall my past in that era I think it was generally more caring and helpful for the "guy who was down."

But is my own impatience with the shriekers in restaurants a sign of my own narcissism? When I hear that some restaurants are barring children under six years of age because the kids’ screaming bothers some diners, I feel a sense of agreement. Am I just as bad as the ghouls I met at brunch? Does the kicking, complaining and whining of the little kids at the next table get to me and decrease my enjoyment of my meal? Am I justified or am I slipping into Page 6 myself?

Of course there is a substantive difference between the normative squawking of babies and the nauseating falsity of inadequate young adults even if the external symptom is similar. Little kids are congenitally and understandably narcissists but adults are supposed to have outgrown the "id" drives which Freud so brilliantly illustrated. Is a quarter of a century enough time or does it take a lifetime to grow up?

What does all of this mean? Is it signaling a massive—perhaps—global immaturity? A massive generational arrested development? Or is it endemic? A constant reminder of the residual of Original Sin? Or has this tendency always been there? Does it just assume a different form with each successive generation? If the Catholic Church is right in her anthropology or understanding of human nature, then the answer lies somewhere in the spiritual life. In the awareness of God’s love for everyone. That the love cannot be earned but only responded to! That there is no need to convince everyone that one has value. The fact of being alive is proof enough and should be enough for the adult thinking person. There is no absolute need to have the world acknowledge one’s worth. While it is pleasant, approbation of others is simply not enough. It is, rather, the deep sense of inner peace that God the Father loves me and that God the Son died for me personally and that God the Holy Spirit is with me always in my inner self guiding, directing and loving me.

With such an understanding of reality, one has a reasonable shot at reaching that wonderful state of being which is difficult to define but is usually called happiness. Perhaps no word really can describe it—only feelings can know it. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich when asked to describe why he became a Catholic simply said that after he received the Eucharist, he experienced the deepest inner peace he has ever known. Is that it? Does a deep feeling of being loved by the Almighty alleviate that deep wound of narcissism? Is that wound healed (somewhat) by a pervasive awareness that one’s value depends not on what one does or what one has but basically on what one is? Would my shriekers and whatever human repulsive tendency any of us might have be softened by such an experience? I suspect so but maybe, in the spirit of brotherly love, I should suggest it (to myself) the next time those louts disturb my meal! It would be probably better for me and my gastric juices. I’ll bet I would enjoy the pasta even more so! Once again God’s way pays off!

The Meaning of Forgiveness: From the Perspective of an American Catholic Priest Psychologist

2011-01-12T16:57:00.000-08:00

Even though it is difficult to define, most human beings have an intuitional awareness of what is meant by the word--forgiveness.[1] It is much the same cognitive mechanism as the response given by the United States Supreme Court Justice who, when asked for a definition of obscenity, replied: “While I can’t define it, I know it when I see it.” To fit obscenity, with universal agreement, into every legal, theological, sociological and psychological category is probably far beyond the dimensions of reality. My psychological training suggests to me that “it all depends.” This, at least analogously, applies to the notion of “forgiveness.”

The Major traditional religions of human history have generally taught Forgiveness within the context of real or perceived hurt/injustice from another. The spirituality of religion deals with the consequent anger and urge for revenge. All these Religions necessarily, by definition, have, more or less, required from their congregants some form of forgiveness in order to remain in “good standing.” My own religious tradition constantly reminds Catholics of the Command of Jesus Who insisted that should I have a gift-offering for the altar but retain in my heart something negative toward my “brother”, I must postpone the giving of the gift. I am to seek reconciliation, first, with my brother and then return to offer the gift. This is an internal priority which I am to develop so that I can more properly confront obvious social ills and be on “good terms” with my God.

Whatever form the mechanism of forgiveness assumes, most human beings find it easier to talk about it than to dig deeply into one’s generosity and actually forgive a transgression. Talk can be cheap. However, some of us apparently can forgive another’s transgressions fairly easily. Others will struggle for years to approach even a semblance of forgiveness. How can we explain this? Is it temperament? What is it? Obviously, we differ from each other. It is important to remember that we all are the product of nature and nurture which, on several levels, make each of us so different from everyone else. It may be partly genetic and partly environmental. These differences can strongly influence our emotional growth, and feed into “whether or not we forgive those who treat us badly.”

The term “nurture” (or environment) includes the educational matrix as well as the familial and religious core from which we come. Here is where we find the genesis/formation of most of our attitudes. Even in religion one can find surprising “penumbras” which allow, at least passively, their adherents to punish others who offend in some way or another. Decapitations and enlisting the Lord to crush foes with His heel and hurling babies of enemies against the wall are, at times, justified by a religious interpretation in dealing with one’s “enemies.”

It is probably a truism to say that the Lex Talionis (Law of the Jungle) is deep within all human beings. There is a kind of unlearned reflex in all of us which tends to respond (in kind) with a basic dynamic. “You strike me. I will strike you back. You lie about me. I will lie about you. You push me. I will push you back. You hurt me. I will hurt you.” The somewhat naïve notion of the “Noble Savage”, as espoused by some arm chair anthropologists, is an illusion. If we are left in the “forest”, untrammeled, with no laws or restraints, we will, not love one another, but ravage and destroy each other. The Catholic notion of human nature is clear: we are all wounded but not corrupt—but still tempted to evil. We are basically good, though weak. We are all tempted toward that which is not Godly. “To forgive is Divine”, we are told and we sincerely strive for the ideal. At the same time, we are all tempted to withhold the forgiveness so required for true spirituality.

The Catholic approach to Forgiveness, then, is two leveled: natural and supernatural. First, it is natural to be hesitant to drag one’s emotional feet in the matter of forgiveness. But it is essential that one admit especially to one’s self that he/she is hurt and wants to strike back .To pretend that one’s emotional life is like a great, placid lake when one has been insulted or degraded, is to resort to some kind of primitive denial which is obviously unhealthy, both spiritually and psychologically. One must admit the truth.

One can sense this very point in the Biblical instance when Jesus instructs Peter on the extreme requirement to forgive “seventy times seven”, an obvious metaphor for unending forgiveness. To forgive again and again without limit. Without discrimination of the level of transgression. Is this not simply asking too much of the human being? Is this the truth? Is one to be a doormat who practically invites others to stomp all over him? Is this not some kind of disrespect and irreverence to the human being- emanating not only from others but from oneself ? Understood properly (with sharp qualifications), this is the requirement. Peter is rightfully staggered, he who had described himself as a “sinful man.” He understood very well the rigor of the command of Jesus. How could anyone—even the most sincere among us—ever fulfill the 70 times 7 command?

The Catholic resolution is strikingly similar to the famous First step of A.A. which postulates that, for success with personal problems, one must admit that he has a certain powerlessness over his own difficulty---be it alcohol, food, sexual aberration, gambling or inability to “let go” of one’s grudges, angers and hatreds. This, clearly, implies the need for help from “Higher” Sources. Religious spirituality calls this help “the grace of God.” In effect, if one is to be a “forgiving” person, regardless of genetics or background, the seemingly impossible becomes a reality. With the help of God’s grace I can release urges within me for revenge or retaliation. However, profound forgiveness is extremely difficult (some say impossible) without the help of the Almighty. Yet, such an approach has been a workable staple in the spiritual experience of Catholics for centuries. Many non-Christians have found functional modes of forgiveness. Gandhi is an outstanding example of non-violence in the face of injustice and oppressions. He was a master in what Catholics call “turning the other cheek.” We would maintain that he did it “with the grace of God.”

For the most part, the forgiving experience does not erase the memory of the transgression. While we read in the Canticle of the Jewish prophet, Isaiah, that God casts our sins behind His back, the same is not true of us humans. Whether we are the sinner or the sinned against, we do remember. To pretend that negative experiences never happened is to slip into denial or delusion. It is the letting go of the anger and the desire to retaliate, in varied forms, that constitutes the essence of forgiveness. It is this very “letting go” that brings us peace and fuller human functioning which is so helpful for happy and productive living. The experience of human history generally attests to the pragmatic value of forgiveness. Basically put, I am happier if I can forgive those who have hurt me. Spiritually, it is obvious. Jesus taught Christians to pray thusly: Father, forgive us our trespasses as forgive those who trespass against us. We are forgiven our sins to the extent that we forgive others who sins against us. One, then, can live with the memory of the hurt but without the bitter, corrosive dimension of withheld forgiveness.

It is also important to consider the forgiveness of oneself for one’s own failures. Sometimes, human beings will be expansively forgiving of others but not of themselves. Great thinkers, like Martin Luther among others, are cited as being quickly forgiving and generous with others while at the same time being harsh and super demanding of self. The psychological underpinnings of this dynamic are fascinating. They are described by Erik Erikson in his work on The Young Luther. Like all withheld forgiveness there is present a strong psychological reason for such self punishment, notably the strict enforcement of self perfection which brooks no failure or imperfection. Others may fail but not I. It is not permitted by my own pride or self deception.

In the Catholic tradition, one ‘goes to confession” whereby he confesses one’s sins to an ordained priest and receives absolution from that priest. He, in his belief, is then forgiven by God of all personal transgressions. Catholics, post confession, generally experience a euphoric feeling of being relieved of a heavy interior feeling of guilt and shame. It is called: “The greatest feeling in the world.”

There is a further point to be noted in forgiveness. That of the psychological mechanism of projection. It is held by certain schools of depth psychology that we tend to criticize the failings of others which somewhat accurately reflect our own. In effect, rather than admit to me that I have failings, I attribute them to others and then can freely criticize without discomfort. This same mechanism can be used profitably in forgiveness. By forgiving the hurt I have received from others, I might be more able to forgive myself since I unconsciously recognize my own meanness in “the other.” In forgiving them, I forgive myself. Even from a pragmatic point of view, one might argue for the advantage of a forgiving stance in the search for personal happiness. Large spirited people who have learned how to forgive (according to some researchers) seem to be more productive, more creative and relaxed than those who hold grudges and fantasize about means of retaliation.

It looks like the teachings of Jesus and whose who teach similarly that forgiveness is a basic for good living. One of the last remarks of Jesus before His own death on a Cross was an appeal for the forgiveness of those who killed Him. “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.”

Do we really know how much we hurt each other? When one considers the depth of the human personality and its endless complexities and impenetrability, good sense shouts out that we should learn how to forgive.

[1] Cf. Leach and Lark; Personality and Individual Differences. Science Direct. Oct .14 2003 “No agreed upon definition of forgiveness exists.” P. 2

Theism or A-theism: Psychological, Spiritual, Intellectual and Sociologic Perspectives

2011-01-12T16:46:00.000-08:00

It has always been a wonderment to me why those, who screamingly assert that there is no God, spend so much time, effort and money to rail against that which they say does not exist. Is it a deep sense of reverence for others , a drive to help others, some kind of wish to share the joys and peace of atheism which drives them? Some kind of profound wish to serve mankind which ultimately will focus on building hospitals, old age homes, schools and clinics for the crippled and infirm---? Ultimately, that is, as soon as this nasty God business can be put to rest !

While the Psalmist says: “ The fool has said in his heart: There is no God”…and while every culture in the history of man has believed in some sort of Divine Being, there have likewise always been those who have shaken their fists angrily against Him Whom they aver does not exist and who shriek “ I do not believe in You..” I recall my years as a Missionary in South Africa where I learned from the Zulu people their concept of a Supreme Being Whom they called Umzimkulu. It was the One above all others. I never met anyone of that noble group who was “a-theist.” They had no sophisticated theology or scripture. Just a deep sense of Reality which led to a profound belief in some kind of Higher Power.

It does appear that most (if not all) cultures incorporate at least an inchoate awareness or sense of God. And there always seems to be a life instance where, in moments of terror or panic, a person instinctively shouts or whispers or interiorly pleads for God’s help. How frequently this happened in “my” war (WWII) when the common slogan was: “There are no atheists in foxholes.” Justice William O. Douglas in Zorach vs Clauson wrote the obvious that “ we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Such a belief has been dominant in the belief systems of cultures as far as history has existed. So, how does one understand or explain “a-theism”---- this away from Godness? How does one empathize with the atheist?

When I was a very young priest, I was assigned to teach the Catholic theology to those who sought information about my Faith. I encountered a difficulty I could not explain. I would present the Catholic position with all its intellectual power, tradition and history but be rejected many times. My logic was impeccable. My major premises were rock solid as were my minor ones and my conclusions were inexorable. I used Aristotle and Aquinas and Augustine. But still there was no easy agreement. Granting differences of opinion about the premises and differing opinions about historical data and interpretations, I could not understand the difficulty.

I was a young priest and knew very little about human functioning. That is until I listened to a lecture by a Catholic psychiatrist who argued that before the cogency of the human intellect can fully function, emotional (or feeling) factors must be “managed”. In effect, he maintained that emotions, run awry, can block, impede and cripple the soaring capacity of human thinking. Being the young pragmatist that I was, I immediately immersed myself into the world I knew little of, namely, psychology. I became a licensed “shrink” myself with a Doctorate in that interesting study. My evangelical approach changed mightily. No longer did I consider myself the young St. Athanasius, the modern Hammer of Heretics who tried to bludgeon others to my point of view. I became open to the thinking of the other. I focused not only on syllogisms but also on hurts and pain and needs and longings. Primarily I presented the love and warmth and acceptance of the loving Father in Heaven.

Surprisingly, people , then, seriously listened to the invitation of Christ’s own Church---on intellectual and historic levels. Distortions were put aside and many embraced Christ. It was paradoxical that by putting sheer logic in the background of dialogue, I became more effective than I had ever hoped. It was Fulton J. Sheen , a great convert maker, who said : “ Win an argument. Lose a soul.” Obviously, I did not understand his point at all. Yet it is as old as thinking. For example, Origin, one of the very early Church Fathers, wrote: “…hearing alone is insufficient to accept the invitation to prepare the way of the Lord…….an inner listening is necessary for the invitation to be effective in our lives and the lives of others……..” Truth has two levels. One is spiritual and the other is inner willingness or freedom to be open. Differently put, there is a Supernatural level and a human one.

We humans are multileveled complex beings. We are body and soul, emotions and biases, oriented profoundly by our environment, principally by our familial matrix and early life experience. All woven together in the human mystery. Further, we are all wounded by the primal sin of Adam and Eve which darkens one’s intellect and weakens one’s will. We may like to imagine ourselves as pure, noble intellect, unaffected by externalities, fair, honest, and open. In fact, there is probably no human being alive who fits that description perfectly. Alas, we all have some tinge of emotional brokenness.

Take, for example, my dear cousin David, ninety, intelligent, educated who sees himself as sheer logic and fairness. He and I, both with rich Jewish blood flowing through our veins, differ (and agree) on a plethora of important factors. We find it difficult to put aside the history of Pogroms and certainly the horror of the Holocaust. But, he, unlike me, cannot see the existence of God alongside such brutality. How can there be, he asks, a good God Who allows such degradation? Good question. But his deep feeling blocks any kind of significant exploration of Theism. Such a block makes any kind of rational and quiet discussion unlikely.

He claims that, as a kid, he was beaten up by a bunch of Irish Catholic kids in the Bronx because he was Jewish. Whether this is true or not (in this context) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he believes it to be true. This relevance affects his attitude towards things Catholic, making him dismiss all the intellectual cogency of Catholic theology, logic, history, art, drama and good works. This inductive leap from bullying to anti-Catholicism and ultimately atheism would make an interesting study for a cognitive psychologist. Following such thinking , had he and I been born into each other’s life matrix, possibly, he would have been the believer and I the non believer.

I say this as I hold that atheism is not really an intellectual stance. It is primarily a psychological one. Is this true of Theism? Probably, in part, yes, even though atheism is negative—against Something while Theism is positive—for Something. Yet, I find after years of living and thinking and praying as a theist, I find ever more clearly that pure atheism is even non-persuasive to whatever intelligence I have. There are simply too many factors, social, biological, personal to be dismissed as merely coincidental or random. I have a brilliant Jewish friend who says with great jollity : “I am too intelligent to be an atheist.” May God forgive any personal intellectual arrogance when I say “Ditto.”

Two great thinkers of the world, Aristotle and Aquinas, one a Greek pagan and the other an Italian Catholic priest, centuries apart, presented a set of demonstrations which form the basic line for intellectual theistic assent. These demonstrations are called the “Quinque viae” (Five Ways) and include practically all the “rationales” of human history for believing in God. Their aggregate intellectual cogency is considerable. The Catholic Church has similarly held that the human mind can arrive at Theism by the power of the intellect. The unspoken caveat, however, is the point made above. Clear away the emotional “brambles” first. Otherwise, the age-old feeling blockades will continue to thwart a direct look at Reality. It is our human experience that clear headed decision-making is not congenial with interior fury! It is difficult to see the whole picture when one’s interiority is fragmented. And it should be noted that education and intelligence have nothing to do with the desired authenticity. There are some “emotionally” stupid Ph.Ds around in addition to some well balanced illiterates.

While I have not met enormous numbers of atheists in my life, the ones I did meet seemed driven by a certain kind of anger. Of course, I have met theists who are likewise angry, even surly and turbulent. Yet, the quality of a non-believer, I sense, has a specific dimension. For example, the sad eyed and verbal Christopher Hutchins (sp.?) of Vanity Fair, and a self identified atheist, displays an insensitive, even brutal anger. He refers to Mother Teresa of Calcutta as a “Fraud.” I have met this holy woman several times. One thing she certainly was not was a fraud. This woman, driven by love of God, would search the grimy, filthy back streets of Calcutta to find the despised and unwanted poor, not so much the clean, respectable poor but the poorest of the poor. She helped life’s unfortunates live and die with dignity and at least a sense of being loved. She clothed and washed and fed life’s losers. A fraud? Hardly.

The application of the term “fraud” is inapt . Perhaps, it is more apt to apply it to the sunny patios of Hollywood where superficial heads rule or perhaps to the wall to wall carpeted condo types of Manhattan who swill down martinis and raw oysters, and get all fired up to hug trees. But to the atheists. Why are they (and especially “professional” atheists ) so angry? Perhaps, Bill Buckely of National Review gives a special insight to this question. I interviewed him on my WNBC television show on The Morality of Nuclear Warfare and was appropriately stunned by his polysyllables and the depth of his thinking. He and I were both horrified at the possibility of mutual nuclear destruction of nations. But he noted the particular terror of atheists he knew. Their view? This life is all there is. This world is all they have. There is nothing more. There is no exit. There is no real meaning beyond this. Life is a cold, remote, stupid, meaningless span of years to be extended at all costs because there is No Tomorrow! It is “brutally short.” If such “affect” colors one’s life, there is no real peace. This terrible emotion could be painfully felt (even unconsciously) inclining the unbeliever to strike out in anger even rage –particularly at those whom he envies so desperately. Those benighted souls who believe in God and a glorious after-life! I recall poor old Larry King , on one of his broadcasts, mumbling---piteously, it seemed to me---that he wished he could so believe in God and in life after death. (the two are intrinsically linked). I know there are good, generous interesting and fair-minded atheists like Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice, of course. But they “carry”, I sense, a deep void.

Further, the atheist, unlike the believer, has no structure with which to deal with suffering. He does not know what to do with pain except to use pain killers. He must endure misery as meaningless and utterly valueless. The believer has a whole approach to make sense of absurdity and pain. Linking pain and suffering to the Cross of Jesus and His suffering gives an entirely different approach to the inevitable negatives of life. Sharing Redemption through personal agony not only gives meaning to the absurdity but gives a certain strength and even a kind of joy to bear the suffering.

To get some remote, if analogous, feel for this anger (or repressed despair), one might study the experiences of Catholic mystics who speak and write about the “Dark Night of the Soul.” They testify to the painful, excruciating feeling of the absence of God. The Away-From-Godness feeling. The mystic, though in temporary darkness, has the comfort and peace of Trust in the Hidden God but the atheist, in his perceived eternal darkness, can be wrenched and tortured with what he sees as Nothingness. To be totally separated from Meaning Itself can lead to the anger so noted in this paper. What can he do but reach desperately for some twig of the Great Religions. “Do unto others…” “Golden Rule and the rest”! Without God, such stretches rest on the quaky, insecure, changeable foundation of “Consensus.” Or the whim of the era. Consensus morality is vulnerable to whatever is the will of the majority.

What probably follows is a deep sense of loneliness. This might explain the almost fanatical zeal of the atheist to “have company” in his loneliness. His hopeful aim is to have as many fellow travellers as possible. Perhaps then his anguish might be assuaged! The more, the better. His fantasy is that many people actually are atheists but are pretending to be believers. The many and frequent polls showing the overwhelming numbers of believers can be a problem for him unless he can claim that they are Liars who, he dreams, really agree with him. Realities are not available to him because of the “other” emotional and environmental factors mentioned above.

One of the many attractive dimensions of Jesus and His very pragmatic teaching is that we shall know “them” by their fruits. Is there any way to evaluate happiness? Peace? Are believers more content and interiorly joyful than unbelievers? Searching the writings, speeches, life styles of the two might be very interesting and overwhelmingly indicative of how significantly the factor of a “religious base” feeds into a fundamental happiness. That might mean the endless and non-persuasive countering of one anecdote with another. This might be enjoyable cocktail conversation but it basically ends in a mutual stone wall. Still, it does appear that there are numerous indices of peaceful and meaningful lives in so many believers. The comfort and the trust arising from a belief in God is endlessly recorded.

A study at the University of Kentucky (Danner, Snowdon and Friesen; 2001) studied longevity and its correlation with positive emotions. 180 Catholic nuns, aged 75 to 95, tested out a very high correlation between their long years and the positive emotional orientation of their very early years. These nuns, all believers from early life, developed a sense of trust, gratitude, contentment, hope, love and even amusement all of which grew within the matrix of belief. This means, when the airy persiflage is dissipated, God. From a pragmatic point of view belief in God helps one not only to a long life but also an enjoyable and interiorly peaceful one. I am 89 years old myself and align myself with this study. I, and myriads of others, have found this to be so. However, I also have good genetic endowment from both sides of my humanity.

Obviously, one might argue for either position. This is clear. However, a recent article in the New Yorker magazine (12/13/10) makes this point relative to scientific research and opens up all kind of “doors”:

“We like to pretend that our own experiments often define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it is true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose.”

The atheists shout: You can’t prove the existence of God. The theists shout: You can’t prove He doesn’t.

Which is it? The little secret is this. Faith is a Gift from God Himself. God gives it to everyone. But every one does not accept it! If you have it, thank the Gracious Lord. If you do not, (and want the Gift) are you open enough to clear away the emotional Brambles described above? Are you willing to take a certain risk described below?

In my years in South Africa, I had lengthy conversations with a brilliant English scientist who could not decide whether he was Agnostic ( I don’t know) or Atheist (I do not believe). All the fancy intellectual interaction was fun and probably a necessary preamble. But it was simply not enough. When I thought I was a complete loss to him in his search for the real Truth, I made the last attempt. I asked him to pray each night in this Fashion. “O God, if there is a God, help me.” He agreed.

He became a believer until he died. How come? Was it Intellectual? Emotional? Social? Psychological? God’s grace? I am not smart enough to answer. All I know is that he became a believer. Let me cop out and say “All of the above.” Some of the conclusion was in his hands. Some of it was in the hands of the Good Lord Whose ways are so mysterious.

As the New Yorker article states: “We still have to choose.”

On Columbus Circle in New York or "The More Things Change..."

2010-09-28T19:38:00.000-07:00

It is the last day of summer in New York. I am at Columbus Circle on Manhattan island. The sky is crystal clear, sharp and joyful. There are no clouds. The air smells sweet and I am stimulated. Good old Christopher Columbus is still there, high up on his pedestal, as he was when I was a 19 year old enthusiast in the ROTC, passionately involved in debunking Communists and other enemies of the Republic. He still looks confident, even defiant, as he looks slightly south east looking for adventure and new worlds. I am sitting before the refurbished Huntington Hartford Museum building , now a classy center to Arts, Science and expensive restaurants for the uber chic. As is my custom, I, at 89, stop occasionally to “see” what goes on around me (as well as to rest a pair of creaky legs and panting lungs). Sitting here, I recall that, in the Cold War era, it was rumored that the statue of good ole Chris was the planned pinpoint target for the Soviet ICBM designed to destroy the entire Island.

How different things are now at the Circle! For example, traffic, since Rudy’s Guilani’s Mayoral tenure, goes around the monument in a one way free flow. Yet, I recall that, in my time, trolley cars, with clanging bells, went both ways around the statue. One of my neighbors, Mr. McBride, drove the trolley on the East-West axis, working his vehicle with a big iron Key. He raised 12 children on a menial salary and jammed them all into a tenement flat in our street. His kids, however, were pretty or handsome, showing no indication of the deprivation I read about in Social Worker journals.

I look at the Monument now. Instead of the plain tarred street, there is a beautiful little park, with benches, many flowers and water fountains surrounding the Great Explorer. Every night in summer, with bright lights bathing everything with artificial freshness, there is a great gathering of young people as well as contented oldsters, just hanging out, reminiscent of the Spanish Steps in Rome or the Bario Gothico in Barcelona.

My mind goes back to the days, 70 years ago, when the “Circle” was the great debating place for all kinds of differing viewpoints. This was the midtown version of Union Square where the American “Reds” were clamoring for a Second Front to relieve their beloved Mother Russia from the attacks of the Nazis. It was the counter part of Hyde Park in London where soap box orators fiercely shouted their personal and opposing agenda. We had no television facilities then. Movies were expensive for us unless one “went” before 1 P.M. when the entry fee was 10 cents. Most families had only one small radio from which came scant information with a plethora of silly serial stories like “The Life of Helen Trent. Romance Need not be dead for women over 35” Of course, home air conditioning was unknown. So, the “Circle” was a great place to spend a couple of evenings a week. It was stimulating, free and fun.

The uninformed, the uneducated, the college professors, the religious, the unbelieving, all mingled in the equality of the streets. It was sheer democracy where everyone had a voice, where any one could mount a box and proclaim his particular set of beliefs. This School of Hard Knocks offered street courses in Foreign Policy, Religion, Psychology, Ethnics, Sports, and Finance. My Uncle J.J., a regular denizen at the Circle, who might have, at most, completed six years of elementary school education was a case in point. J.J., like many Catholics, of every era, was poorly schooled in the intellectual dimensions of the Faith but completely devoted to the Catholic Church (probably without really understanding the “why” of it). Mass and confession and daily prayer and loyalty to the “Catlick Choich” were simply woven into his very being. No questions asked. One simply believed without cavil. J.J., with ease, offered his Faith viewpoint with little fear of retribution.

For him, it was simply the right thing to do. So, when some imprudent “Circle debater” made a lewd slur about the Blessed Virgin Mary, J.J. instantly confronted the unwary chap who, foolishly, challenged J.J. to physical “expression”. It was foolish because J.J. was incredibly physically powerful, able to tear the telephone directory in half. J.J. invited the lout to come behind the Maine monument (which still stands, though now gleaming white with gold gild touches, through the benefice of Public Works Programs). His challenge was accepted. So, accompanied by a large enthusiastic crowd eager to witness some bloodletting, the two gladiators strode to the designated battleground. Suddenly, the Debater saw the light and suggested “forgetting the whole thing.” Wasted words on a guy like the uncomplicated J.J. who, with one powerful blow to the head, dropped his opponent, unconscious, to the ground. In describing the event to us later, J.J. said the chap spun around like a top on his way down. Anti-Catholic criticism was rare, thenceforth, whenever J.J. was around.

Today, my eyes wander to the gleaming, sparkling, splendid Time-Warner building, a miracle of architecture filled with super chic shops equaling the haute couture of La Rue Ste. Honore in Paris. The upper floors are apartments owned by the very, very wealthy of the world, Arab emirs and high profile athletes and Rap entrepreneurs. Its two glorious towers could meet every fantasy of contemporary Terrorists of the Middle East. What a target for a high jacked airplane! The previous occupant of that site was the Coliseum, a complex of offices, garages and media centers. It was then considered the absolute top level for modern urban buildings. It, in turn, had replaced the west side of the Circle of my youth.

My Circle, (of 1940) had a Chinese Restaurant called “The Far East” where our crowd went to dine (with our limited incomes) on very special occasions. It had a vast supply of Chinese tea and offered us the fun of trying to eat with chop sticks. There was the Circle Theatre where we could live out the fantasies of Hollywood while getting some relief from the economic harshness most of us endured. The jewel of the Circle, however, was a hardware store with a huge sign declaring: ‘Handy Harry’s. I can Fix Anything.”

My Irish Grandmother who apparently felt that part of her life mission was to charm every male on the West side, developed a laughing, pragmatic relationship with Harry. She would bring over to his (nearby) shop anything in her flat that needed “fixing.” She often tried to disprove his self proclaimed “omnipotence”. He always won. But, apparently, Harry thoroughly enjoyed her visits even if he was just one more of her conquests. Such an anachronism like Handy Harry’s is unthinkable today—at least in locations like today’s Circle.

Instead of Handy Harry’s on the Circle, we have Trump International Hotel soaring into the sky, all glitter and glitz with snooty doormen and imperious reception clerks. Near that site stood a building with the B and O railroad Office and the WINS radio station from which I used to broadcast. Just beyond the hotel begins the posh row for Central Park West, loaded with mental health practitioners, the rich and famous, and stars from the entertainment world. The entrance to beautiful Central Park, our playground and vacation place, is still there, untouchable and assuring. There still stands an apartment building, beginning the exclusive Central Park South section, which was erected around 1940 and described in those days as the ultimate in luxury. It was a point of great pride for the parishioners of St. Paul’s parish that Judge James McNally of the State Supreme Court, a daily communicant, lived there. The Judge was an outspoken Catholic, non-hesitant to articulate Catholic values in the Public Square. And, besides, he wore a fresh carnation in his lapel every day. Wow!!! Were we impressed! And he had a bald head as clean as a peeled egg.

So, apart from the Park itself, the 1940 building and the statue of “Cristofo Colon,” the “Circle” is unrecognizable to an “eye” which had been formed by the Depression, World War II and Joe diMaggio. Oh, how it has changed! But at the same time, there is a factor of permanence and sameness which is palpable. What is it? It has to be people. Human nature never changes. Human needs and human wants transcend all historical periods.

People! People! People are the same under it all. I see them rushing by my observation post. They are young and aging. They are all colors. Some smile and laugh and look around. Some look harried and worried. I see a few “street people” using their skills to sense the “pigeon” who might supply some Moola for a needed fix. A few are dressed with pride and class. Others are the slobs one meets in any era. Yes, my mind runs back 70 years and I see the same crowd. A little more frenzied looking. A little more harried and worried looking. But underneath it all are the same Joes and Janes.

Yet, I see all of us, today and then (and centuries past), needing and wanting to find love and intimacy and security and joy and meaning and trust and authentic laughter. Catholic anthropology over arches it all. The ancient truth shouts out! It all can be found in St. Augustine’s incisive prayer. “Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord and our hearts are restless until (unless) they rest in Thee.” Everything ultimately founders. Everything but God, the Changeless. Strange although there have been enormous cosmetic changes and changes to make life smoother and easier, it is still the same old “C’est la vie”.

Funny but a guy like J.J. who was almost illiterate knew this clearly while the literati and the illuminati are still thrashing around looking, looking and looking. I guess brains and education are not always the way to personal happiness. Well, I am rested now. Might as well get up off this bench and stagger over to the Paulist Mother House. Hope it’s a good lunch.

An Ultimate in Absurdity: Celibacy and Molestation

2010-07-13T20:33:00.000-07:00

Some years ago, a noted comedian declared, with a straight face, that the 1969 landing on the Moon was a fake, a complete farce. Some gullible folk believed him. The scenario he painted---“it was all done with mirrors in the desert of New Mexico”—was enthusiastically gobbled up by those unsophisticated or intellectually lazy ones who are prone to have others do their thinking for them. The more bizarre the “picture”, the more delicious the gobbling. Most persons scoffed and dismissed his absurd fantasy as something frivolous at best and harmful at worst. Could anyone come up with something even more bizarre?

Well, since apparently there is no end to the human capacity to swallow the “nutty”, there is an even more wild claim. This one, likewise, non-rooted in fact, is fuelled by fantasy, and by personal agenda. It is usually verbalized in some form as the following: “If those priests who molest kids were allowed to marry, they wouldn’t molest these kids. Celibacy is the cause of the whole thing. Let them marry, have sex and molestation will stop.”

Such a perception is so unbelievably out of touch with reality that it is difficult to take it seriously. I would dismissively laugh at such an absurdity were it not so harmful to so many good living but innocent people. The absurdity lies in the colossal “non sequitur” or illogic of such an assumption. The hard fact is this. Those unfaithful priests who engaged in such filthy behavior (filthy is Pope Benedict’s word to describe their actions) were at least 80% homosexual. Generally, homosexual males are not the least bit interested in having sex with a woman. They have no interest in marriage. Homosexual predator priests usually so self-identify. Should only the celibacy ban be lifted with nothing else being done, the pattern of molestation could remain unchanged. It would be relatively the same as of the last 60 years.

And such a lifting of this ban would have relatively insignificant impact on the dedicated heterosexual priest who would continue his commitment to Christ and Christ’s people regardless of any statute. The essence of the sick behavior centers on the male/male sexual interaction which is essentially homosexual. The clumsy attempts to explain away such an identification simply reinforce the obvious fact that when men have sex with men, it is homosexual or same sex behavior. It is not merely that women are not available as in prison or military [1] situations. For the homosexual male, the sexual drive is towards males and not females—regardless of availability of attractive and good women.

It is important, if one wishes to understand what actually has happed, that one knows a basic distinction about age range. I am surprised that the media and others continue to refer to those “filthy” behaviors as “pedophile.” I say surprised because pedophile explicitly means those who are pre-pubertal, which is approximately under 12 years of age. The specific about these behaviors is that (approximately 80% of the time) the victim persons involved with these situations were adolescent, not pre-pubertal. The distinction is basic. The psychological harm is extremely significant. And different. The impact is far more scarring on young children than on teenagers. The public outrage erupted when the public perception arose that these terrible crimes were generally perpetrated on little children while in fact the crimes involved older persons. This is in no way an attempt to whitewash the evil behavior of these erring clerics but it is necessary to clarify these various factors.

When the crime involves adolescents the term is ephebophilia and can extend to include those who are up to nineteen years of age. The crimes are principally, but not exclusively, committed by those with the homosexual tendency. Since pedophile crimes are committed by both homosexual and heterosexual persons, some special interest groups try to lump all the crimes under the umbrella of pedophilia and thereby attempt to dilute the real source of most of these crimes. And the other 20% of these cases? They were heterosexual as well as homosexual. The 20% include clerical abuse of young girls and various sexual deviant behavior. All of it wrong, inappropriate and sinful. There can be no defense for any of it and it must be stopped.

The only real way of preventing such evil behavior in the future is through the recruitment process. The Vatican has, for over 20 years, insisted that admission criteria be scrupulously observed. In spite of stringent testing, the unfit have sometimes fallen through the “cracks.” This is the challenge. Make the entrance requirements strict. Set the bar high. Exclude any candidate, heterosexual or homosexual, who shows any sign of undisciplined same-sex tendency or ambiguous understanding of sexuality. Fewer are better if it means that we have good, dedicated priests who understand the Cross as the meaning in their lives and who come to serve and not be served and who are capable of profound and loving sacrifice.

For centuries, high ideals, high protocols have been articulated in seminaries and in annual priests’ retreats. For the most part, as the statistics indicate, the ideals and requirements have been remarkably and comparatively well observed. Most priests of the past 60 years have been good men whose memory has been unfairly besmirched by the terrible behavior of a comparatively few unfaithful clerics [2]. There are many problems intensified by the stresses of modern living. But to associate the two words “celibacy” and “molestation” as if there were some intrinsic connection between them is not only absurd but approximates the oxymoronic. Clearly, within the human matrix we will always have disappointments but abolishing the celibacy requirement would be the wrong and useless road to follow. It is nothing more than the proverbial “red herring.”

[1] Napoleon wrote that on some of his campaigns, his men “satisfied each other…” However, when these men returned to civilian life, they resumed their sexual lives with the opposite sex. This is a classic example of what Dr. Lionel Ovesy of Columbia University called “Pseudo-homosexuality.” This is not true of the homosexual.

[2] Statistically insignificant but horrendous in the actual quantity. One molestation alone is outrageous but several hundreds—even over a 60 year period—cries to heaven for correction. Over that time period, however, there were thousands of dedicated priests who were chaste and faithful . Out of this large N, on a statistical level the predator numbers were insignificant but enormously destructive in the harm they did to individual persons.

My Jewish Father and the Three Rabbis OR How Parental Love Transcends All

2010-06-01T20:11:00.000-07:00

When I was a very young priest in the fifties, the Catholic spiritual climate was intensely “apostolic.” The walls of the Paulist House of Studies in those days were papered with bright slogans goading students on, inciting us to be apostles. “Make America Catholic” shouted the cheerleader’s banner. Everyone was fair game. Baptize all the African babies. Bring everyone to “Rome”. It is God’s Will! But over the years with the arrival of Vatican II, the computer, television and the Pill, the sharpness of such enthusiasm became dulled and re-directed.

The contemporary softened insight of “fullness” of the Faith has a different flair. Today we all agree that good and fair minded people of every religious stripe have their own kind of true path to God and salvation. However, in spite of the polish of modern social interactions, informed Catholics still believe in the gifts unique to their Church. I suspect that should one dig vigorously into what such Catholics really believe, we would find that many would wish for everyone the gifts specific to the Catholic Faith. But modern sensitivities restrain the ebullience of the behavior so emblematic of the past. Today one doesn’t speak that bluntly and directly as we did in “the old days.” But that really was how it was. Out front. Open. And slightly combative. For example…

I, as an enthusiastic and utterly committed young priest, instructed, baptized and officially received into the Catholic Faith a young (23) Jewish woman whose father and two brothers were Orthodox rabbis. I had, unknowingly, stepped into a theological, sociological, psychological and political mine-field. The young woman had under gone a long series of instructions from me and a staff of lay volunteers. She met all our criteria and we were all agreed that she was ready for Reception into the Faith. Years later she even tried the life of the convent. But I was reported to the Cardinal (Spellman) as an over-zealous cleric. I was criticized for un-ecumenical behavior and in effect should be severely walloped by proper Catholic authorities. When no official sanction came, the three Rabbis demanded that I meet with the three of them for proper discussion of the situation. I couldn’t imagine for what reason. After the fact, the Baptism could not be reversed. Her religious Reception had been concluded. The Freedom of Religious Choice seemed to be set in concrete in the then American framework. What did they want from me?

In any event, the angry insistence of the Rabbis made it impossible for me follow my immediate feeling--to run for the hills! I was still a relative “kid” in the priesthood, awkward and insecure. I could hardly hold my own against fellow priests with whom I had frequent differences of viewpoint. Yet I found myself locked into a meeting with this fearsome trio in the Paulist Rectory. Nervously, I sought some kind of support from my Religious community which apparently looked on me with awe. I felt as if I were going into a boxing ring (all alone) against the World’s champ with throngs of well wishers cheering me on. Well wishers who were “Outside” the ring! It was as if they were chanting “They can’t lay a glove on you…Go for it” That some more experienced and older priest might accompany me into the fray was never a question. The complete assumption was that I was going it by myself!

Well, not exactly! I knew the Holy Spirit was with me and generations of the members of the Church Triumphant were behind me. But my knees were still very shaky and my mind was racing in an indefinable fear. But there was one more support system I never imagined. My Jewish father! I had told him of my quaky spirit in meeting this challenge and he, without solicitation, offered a backup system. Himself. He would show up at the Paulist Rectory on that “Night of Confrontation” and be available should I need him. For reasons of his own, he was incensed that I was being so challenged.

So, they all showed up. I ushered the three black clad, bearded men into a meeting room which was adorned with a crucifix on the wall. Two of them seemed nine feet tall, glowering and itching for a fight. The third, the father of the girl, unexpectedly and profoundly touched my heart. With his long white beard and his wide black hat, he rocked back and forth. With his hands on his cheeks, he moaned and moaned apparently in great pain. Was this moan the traditional Jewish sound of despair—“oiy oiy oiy”? He said practically nothing. His pain, his disbelief were clear. It was as if he were murmuring “How can this be happening?” His distress was patent. He was muted. It was heartbreaking. So, the battle with me was left to the two giants, both PhDs. Meanwhile, my secularized, finger-snapping actor father was “keeping guard” outside the meeting room should those Rabbis step out of what he called “the line.” That I could survive on my own was irrelevant. He was there to protect his “little boy.”

The girl had previously told me of her feeling of family gender discrimination whereby the males in the family were highly educated while the females had preparation suited more for clerking in a large office or bearing many children. Her frustration was more than minimal. If, in those days, I had had the analytic training I now own, alarm bells and red lights would have gone off alerting me to the unconscious motivations possibly operating in my “convert.” What an effective maneuver it would be for her to confront the centuries old traditional Jewish system, the fortress of the ages, and emerge victorious even if it meant the psychic castration of patriarchs in the most vulnerable area possible--- ancient and basic religious beliefs. And in spite of this, did I not see a parental love, even if familiarly undemonstrated, come forth from father to daughter? Did he disown her? Did he throw her to the wolves like Teviev in “Fiddler on the Roof”? Not at all. She was his child regardless of what she did even if it brought him profound pain.

This is not to deny the real possibility of a multiplicity of motivations operating in this young woman. Some noble, some narcissistic. But is this not the way of the human being? Could it not be that the Holy Spirit was truly calling her while at the same time her human frustration fashioned the mode of her decision? I am painfully aware that the Mother Teresas of this world are not plentiful.

And my own father, Morris, eldest son of Shumle and Hannah Rosenbloom, originally from Bialystok of a Polish/Russian environment. What of him? Reared with tales of pogroms and weird folklore, how could he take my side against all his genetic makeup, his history and family tradition? The answer seems to me to be a question of the profound love and feeling a parent has for his child. We had fought heatedly many times about belief and doctrine and religion and life after death and Jesus and Holy Water. He apparently disagreed with almost everything I stood for. My life decisions were criticized. My choice of priesthood was an occasion of near fury. But no matter what, everything is irrelevant when it comes to how a parent feels about his child. Rabbis or not. Pogroms or not. I was his son. This trumps everything. Would he have felt the same about me should I have become a Wall Street Robber Baron or a Crooked Cop? Does the Sun rise in the morning and set at night? The mother of the notorious cop-killer, Larry Davis, after his conviction of shooting seven police officers, poignantly said: “My son is a good boy.” Parental love and loyalty is usually unconditional and unswerving. Even the factual can become irrelevant and a far second when such a conflict occurs.

And of God? God the Father of us all? Does the same dynamic apply? Unless one is utterly unschooled in things spiritual, the conclusion is obvious. Rembrandt, in his famous painting of the Prodigal Son, visualized and pictured the mind of the Loving and Forgiving Father. No matter what you have done, the painting says, you are My Son. Let us celebrate your return. Let us not focus on you failings, your faults, your sins. You are My Son, My Beloved. And we shall celebrate and rejoice that you have given up your wrongdoings and returned to where you belong. With Me.

And perhaps our vision and understanding of God stems quite substantially from how we perceived and experienced our parents. I know I am a maverick. I think my own thoughts and make my own internal decisions. I like and dislike as I feel. My father, Morris Rosenbloom, allowed me to be an Odd Man Out, differing from him (and indeed from anyone without guilt) and at the same time gave me the Message: “No matter what you do or don’t do. No matter what value you espouse, you are my own son. And I am always near should you need me.”

Did I not confidently incorporate such a spiritual and psychological world view into my own life and into my Catholic stance all these years? Into my work as a psychotherapist and confessor? After this “Rabbi” incident, my relationship with my father became warmer and closer and more relaxed until he died. The Rabbis, my brothers in the Spirit, helped to surface such a realization in me. While I grieve with them, I also delight in the clarification they helped me achieve. I am forever grateful, even with my divided heart because I know in many instances, especially in mine, omnia vincit amor!

The Meaning of the Attack on Pope Benedict XVI

2010-05-31T19:47:00.000-07:00

How does one appraise a shy, brilliant, holy, transparent Pope in the face of innuendo, desperate attempts to link him with evil, half truths and skewed “journalism”? Especially, one might ask, when a national magazine, Time, features a six page article (with pictures) skillfully insinuating that Pope Benedict XVI was complicit in what he himself called “filth” when discussing the horrific behavior of unfaithful priests.

While the article is replete with vague inserts; e.g. “may” “appears” “seems” “some” and “seems to hedge”, it takes factual material and presents a view which could easily leave the impression that the molestations are current. There is little indication in the article that the terrible actions of some Catholic clerics occurred twenty, thirty or more years ago, that the victimizers have been dismissed (unfrocked), are dead, in nursing homes or living in perpetual atonement. There is little assurance that such behavior is highly improbable today[1] or that serious steps to prevent reoccurrences were put into place twenty years ago. Such vagueness would leave the Time reader with the false impression that such dangers lurk currently behind every clerical collar.

While the article does not accuse the Pope of any personal misbehavior, it clearly implies a possible lack of responsible leadership. The very cover of the issue (6/7/10) sets the tone. It blares out “Why being Pope means never having to say you’re sorry” with the inevitable secondary title “The sex abuse scandal and the limits of atonement.” The Pope is viewed from the rear where one’s eye is riveted to an enormous mitre obviously signifying the pressing need for this disclosure over other stories whose titles are scrunched into the top few inches of the Cover. The oil spill, worst in American history, the broken relationship between Obama and Bibi with the terrible consequences it could entail, the turbulent effect of the Tea Party are all considered less noteworthy than insinuations of possible Papal skullduggery. This juxtaposition insults much of Catholic intelligence but also surfaces the old dynamic. It is what Jenkins calls the “Last acceptable prejudice.”

The article is not satisfied that this Pope has not only publicly addressed the shame of the scandals but has met personally with victims, wept with them and apologized for their pain, suffering and disillusion. Never have to say you’re sorry? Have these writers heard Pope John Paul II? Or are they confusing theological Papal infallibility with human limitations? Or shading a word nuance to make a point? The article itself quotes Pope Benedict in his words to Irish Catholics …” I am truly sorry …I openly express the shame and remorse we all feel” The writers respond by saying “words may not be enough”

The strong correctives in formation, recruiting and supervision are never mentioned. While the terrible emotional scars can never be removed, reparations have been made to victims as much as is possible. I served for five years on a Board in a large Archdiocese handling priest/religious molestation charges and I have seen the extent to which the Church will go to try to atone for the vicious crimes of some priests [2] with counseling costs, educational tuitions, even automobiles. Today, scrupulous cooperation with civil authorities is a given in the Church. While such gestures can never be equal to the hurt, the intent is present in the Church to try to atone. However, I never got the impression that “knee jerk priorities were church and clergy, not the welfare of children.” There was tremendous concern for the suffering of innocent victims. False charges of opportunists, including some lawyers, with the allure of the “fast buck ”certainly surfaced but these are not my point. Blackmail, under any name, is blackmail and does not command my attention at this time.. But unfair attacks on good men and untruth do.

It is interesting that the highlighting of the abuse factor , in the article, is on children. It is difficult to fathom psychological ignorance in modern journalists. Is it possible that they don’t know that the majority of abuse cases (over a 60 year span) was not of pedophilia(pre-puberty) but of ephebophilia (adolescence)? Approximately 80% of all cases were male on male (homosexual) involving not children but persons ranging from 15 to 19 years of age. Was this unaware omission or intentional skewing of data for purposes of coloration of a point?

What do” they” really want? There is a hint when the writers note: “What is still missing, however, is any mention of the Holy Father’s alleged role in the scandal.” Is it some kind of public Papal groveling which is sought? Will that help the victims? Or is there a deeper agendum? The insistence that he enabled the “rot of clergy abuse that spread through the church in the past half century” is odd in the light of his forceful denunciations throughout his career of sexual abuses. He, personally, the article demands, must atone and admit his own sins not those of others. This is a weak long shot. Not even a nice try. It is beyond that.

The article describes a heart breaking story of Bernie McQuaid. Heart breaking and infuriating at the same time. It would make one want to throttle that priest and insist on some kind of appropriate punishment. The Church surely agrees and will continue to press (in all such cases) for stricter supervision and accountability. We are all agreed. But are we?

The attack on the Pope is actually a stepping stone for “something else” by some who arch far beyond the present data. The allegation against the Pope is absurd in itself in that the case in question happened years ago in the United States. It was handled, probably badly, by American officials (the infamous Archbishop Rembrant Weakland was rumored to be involved in the handling). Not by Ratzinger who knew nothing of it. In the nineties when the fallen cleric was dying, he petitioned for a priest’s burial. Were one to grant the request, would that mean “cover up”? When Dismas petitioned Jesus on the Cross for forgiveness, was it a “cover up” that a thief stole Paradise? When “Dutch” Shultz, the notorious Mobster, sought reconciliation on his death bed, was it a “cover up” to grant that request? Whether Ratzinger did or did not grant that favor is unknown to me. The allegation, based on that issue, however, seems to me to be frivolous. The real story is what lies behind the turbulence the Time article is making?

The article, quoting Alberto Melloni, rejects the Standard operational Psychological Procedures of the 70’s : “To say he didn’t know is not a defense; it’s the problem.” I, personally, practiced psychology in that period and worked with several clerics who were molesters. To say that we depended on the protocols of the profession is to state a given. We treated patients in the light of the knowledge of that period. It was not considered to be poor practice to recommend to religious Superiors that the patient be admitted to a rehabilitation facility for an indefinite period. When the secular experts, the professionals, after what they considered adequate time and treatment, made the recommendations for re-turn to limited ministry, superiors usually followed such guidance.

The article states firmly that modern thinkers do not accept such practice. Neither do I—in the light of what we know today. 30 years of experience and research later. Again the secular experts of today tell us that pedophilia is largely incurable. We did not know that in 1970. We accept their protocols today as we did 30 years ago. It is juvenile to make assessment of the past in terms of the knowledge of 2010.

The presentation of the Church as a blunderbuss trampling all who flaunt her own self concept is likewise unfair and irritating. A biblical text in which Christ beautifully and compassionately grants, to His Church the power of forgiveness of sins, is paraphrased in the article as “---in rough terms the church’s ability to open the gates of heaven to you or damn you to hell because it will always be holier than thou.” We begin to get more than a hint of the agenda when we hear a “victim” say that this is the people’s church and “we have to take it back(?)”

On the final page of this article (in the very last column) we read: “….the crisis over sex abuse is a chance to argue old questions of dogma and discipline once again: for example to address the necessity of celibacy [3] and the church’s view of sex, to expand the role of women and to define the status of Catholic homosexuals… the authority of the bishops—and the pope—must now be shared with the faithful…” Perhaps, while surely granting the horror and the pain and shame we all feel and the need for atonement and prevention in the future, at least some of the unparalleled negative energy stems from nonverbalized desires to change the Church into something she isn’t. Perhaps now we see “something” which was carefully hidden. The “Church” these people seek does exist. It is called the Unitarian or Universalist Church where two beautiful and only two doctrines are required: a) Fatherhood of God and b) brotherhood of man. The Catholic Church is unique and will remain so regardless of magazine articles and demonstrations.

Time itself gives the answer in its article. Cardinal Consalvi instructed Napoleon (who wished to destroy the Church) thusly. “He will not succeed. We have not managed to do it ourselves.” The reason is simple. Jesus Who is God founded the Catholic Church Himself, in person. He promised it would endure until the end of time. Even the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it.
That includes Time magazine.

____________________________
[1] It is clearly understood today that any priest deacon or religious who “acts out” would commit clerical/religious suicide.

[2] It is remarkable that the results of the studies on this sad topic are not more widely known. John Jay, USA Today, Rockville centre report and others report that the victimizers since 1960 account for 2-4% of the total priest population. One is too many and the actual number is appalling. Yet, The percentage is far less than secular groups and some other religious institutions. The New York city Board of Ed is reportedly many times higher in molestation than the Archdiocese of New York. It receives relatively less publicity. T here is a reason for this. But to equate failed priests with the general priest population is not only unfair and dishonest but bespeaks terrible statistical incompetence.

[3] This becomes, in the light of the crisis, academic since most of the priest victimizers are homosexual and have no interest in marryng. Celibacy has been a convenient cover for them. Lifting the ban on celibacy would do little to stem the male on male behavior

On Congressman Bart Stupak: Like Christ or Neville Chamberlain?

2010-04-27T16:18:00.000-07:00

When I was a ferociously political teenaged Nerd, the Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, deplaned in London after a person to person meeting with Adolph Hitler. Der Fuerher was then threatening the whole of Western Europe with the frightening sounds of war. At the airport, Chamberlain waved a piece of paper (signed by Hitler) as he shouted with delirious joy “ Peace in our time. Peace in our time.” He, the experienced sophisticated diplomat, really believed that he had made a peace agreement with a man he could truly trust, the author of Mein Kempf. Within a very short time, thereafter, Hitler’s armies stormed across the Polish border to throw the world into the most terrible and violent war in human history. The famous piece of paper was no more than that, a mere piece of paper, the so-called “agreement” not worth the paper itself.

While there are enormous irreconcilable differences which cannot be even implied, the above is a faint analogy of the recent “cave-in” of Congressman Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan. For over 30 months he had been leading other members of Congress who are called “Pro-Life” Democrats in what looked like a heroic defense of the vulnerable unborn. He had introduced an Amendment explicitly banning the use of any Federal funding for abortions. He rejected promises that at some future and indefinite date the defenseless unborn children would be fully protected “if only he would back the President’s bill for passage”. He, so it seemed, bravely resisted pressure, the political arm twisting and what he called the “tomorrow never comes” promise. This position of his seemed unwavering and steady. Until……..

On the day of voting for the Bill, Bart was “mysteriously” called to a meeting with the President who was showboating his fear lest his whole legacy be flushed away should the Bill fail to pass. The Congressman, within a few hours of the vote, then announced that he would reverse his previous position and would support the Bill. His personal followers would do likewise and the Bill passed that day by a close vote. Like the unbelievable nuns who vigorously supported the bad bill with its loopholes for abortion on the grounds that there were good things in it, Stupak abandoned his integrity.

Stupak, looking embarrassed and uncomfortable claimed that all would be well and that the babies would be safe. The President had promised that he would sign an executive order banning federal monies being spent on abortion. Interestingly enough, the President did sign such an order without fanfare and almost “behind closed doors.” We learn from people like former Senator Rick Santorum that such an order is immediately rescindable either by a sitting president or by any of his successors. In effect we are told that such an “order” is not worth the paper it is printed on. There was no outcry of rage from extreme feminist groups. No protests. No demonstrations. It is quite clear that Law, i.e., the new Bill, trumps executive orders in every instance. The new Bill provides, de facto, all the opportunity pro-abortion people want.

Bart Stupak, shortly thereafter, announced that he would not seek re-election in November. A realistic move since he would be trounced or massacred by his local constituents who, like so many other Americans are weary and disgusted with the back room sleazy politics we have seen in Washington in the past year. Whether or not he is a kind of traitor is difficult to know. We do know that he caved in. And for what? Airport facilities or roads or new office buildings? Whatever the reason, millions of human beings will never have the chance to root for their favorite baseball team. Compared to this the fuss to arrest the Pope in England seems like a bed time story. Did Stupak act like Christ or Chamberlain?
I can answer that question. Can you?

The First Nine Months of the Obama Administration - My Impressions

2009-12-01T21:23:00.000-08:00

When Barack Hussein Obama was elected in November, 2008, my first reaction was one of delight in that our Country could finally put to rest the shibboleth that a Black could never be elected President. We had elected a Catholic to that high office and walked taller for it. Now we said, Jews and Blacks and Women. Obama was bright and likeable, possessing a spectacular gift for public speaking and stated concern for the “little guy.” I had a few repressed intuitional fears but I thought “ Give him a chance beyond the classic honeymoon period. Let’s move on…!” Let us forget what skin color he has. Let’s judge him on his actions! Is he white? Or black? Who cares? My immediate question was: What kind of leader is he?

I remember that Secretary Eagleberger of a previous administration had labeled him (before the election) a charlatan. I remember Dennis Miller, the radio talk show host had joked: “To call him (Obama) an empty suit is to insult the clothing industry.” I remember the African American author, Shelby Steele cautioning us that Obama was all flowery generalities with little specificity. I remember hearing all kinds of warnings that he was inexperienced in foreign affairs, that he was a near Socialist, and the most liberal Senator in the Senate, that he had very thin knowledge/experience of running any organization, that he had little interest in building national defense, that he was a Giant Government advocate, that he was for redistributing personal holdings, that he was soft on extremist Muslims, that he came from a questionable religious background, that his early life was a strongly protected mystery, that he was Pro-abortion even pro late term abortion and on and on. But—I insisted—Give him a chance. He eloquently promises much after the ordeals of a wearying war, a threatening economic state and a President who fumbled on his words. Fresh. New. Young. Promising healthy change! Go for it, Hussein!

What happened?

Little by little it became uncomfortably clear to me that this man is an American disaster! How did I get so snowed? I am reasonably intelligent. I have a Ph.D. in Psych. I have taught college level for many years. I think and keep up with current events. How did I get so confused? If so for me then how much more for those Americans who respond with a knee jerk obedience to either a Party line or to “pretty” words delivered with a pre planned smoothness and confident tilted chin! Even those Americans who have a profound wish to be of help to the “underdog” whatever form he assumes.

My initial uneasiness, coming from somewhere deep within me, had centered on Obama’s view of abortion. He voted always with the Pro-abortion group even voting against saving the life of an unwanted child who survives a botched attempt to send him to the trash can. He seemed to be open to rational discussion about this fundamental aspect of life. He seemed to be fair—until he pulled the same disingenuity even with the Pope when he promised to work to limit abortions in the USA. A week after meeting with the Pontiff I was told he was preparing to sign a Presidential decree making funding abortion practically mandatory. All with public monies. I became more uneasy when I heard Dr. Charles Krauthammer, psychiatrist turned public commentator, refer to Obama as a “classic narcissist”. Kraut hammer urged us to judge the President on what he does and not on what he says. So I looked and was aghast at what was right under my “nose.”

It had been loudly trumpeted that , in compliance with a promise he made to NARAL, that the first ting he would do , would be to sign into law the infamous FOCA act which would remove all restrictions on abortion. NARAL was strangely quiet during the Health care debate. There was a reason for this reverential hush. All they could wish for in making abortion completely unrestricted was already in the Bill. There was no need for them to do anything. Yet Obama smiled and talked of a rational common ground for this evil. Compromise? Can one be Half pregnant?

Some of my colleagues in religion and psychotherapy speak of how brilliant he has been so far. I am astonished. Brilliant? I found some of his behavior either stupid or terrifying. His meeting with the Queen of England was, in my view, naïve and clumsy, making Harry Truman look like Beau Brummel when he attended the then young Queen. Why did he have to make a grovel-like gesture before the King of Saudi Arabia? Or the Emperor of Japan? Why praise the Marxist Ortega? Why kiss Socialists Chavez on the cheek? Why endorse Socialist Morales of Bolivia? Why this repulsive apologizing for America? What benefit does the USA gain from his adolescent need to be loved by the World? How is human tolerance and forbearance furthered by his rolled up shirt sleeves/ beer-drink scene with the boys –with careful pre planning of the inevitable camera ?

In fact, I am embarrassed at his naiveté in dealing with seasoned and pragmatic world leaders. I feel we are a laughing stock behind the closed doors of diplomacy! His Nobel Peace “Prize” is a farce. He is awarded an egotist’s bone. Not for what he has already done but rather for some Christ-like feat he might hopefully do in the future! Further, he is becoming—to me—more mean spirited when I see his reluctance to praise others who are not his lap dogs. The “Surge” which ultimately set us winning in Iraq can never get his approval. It came from the plans of others. He seems utterly incapable of listening openly to others. He goes completely berserk when others blatantly criticize him. Fox News which broke many of the corruptions of his administration has become an obsession with him. When there is a White House meeting for Media, everyone is invited except Fox News But during his campaign he boasted that his groups would be transparent and open to all. He is a boy-man way out of his league but still titillating young women and still cheerleading as if he were campaigning for state senator! After the election, he states in an interview on Television (which I have filed on my computer) that he is grateful that, during the campaign, John McCain didn’t not bring up the matter of “…my Moslem Faith.” Transparency? Moslem? He has as the right, under God and elsewhere, to adopt any Faith he chooses—or none at all. But in the face of his oft repeated promise of transparency in his administration, his disingenuous behavior in this and other areas becomes a real characterological flaw. It further annoying to be duped again by smooth talk which is really hiding “something else.”

Even granting that the previous administration was responsible for some of the contemporary financial mess, he has doubled the national debt. Is there ever an end to his school boy practice of blaming some one else for his woes? Did he have anything to do with the sad state of economic affairs we now face? No uneasiness for him yet he urges more and more trillions/ burden for the future. We were told that unless Congress passed his Trillion dollar Stimulus Bill, our economy would falter worse than in 1929.So we tremblingly passed his Bill. Result? Almost nothing. Don’t bother to read it, he says. Just pass it. He promised unemployment would never go beyond 8%. It is now at least 10.2% Trust me, he says, and in effect. I know better. Further, why does he terminate our new missile system after North Korea launched an ICBM? Our European allies are troubled. Many American patriots are troubled. Why does he so act ? Why? Why?

Why am I so troubled about his association with people who represent what is abhorrent to me? A rhetorical question! Van Jones, a near Communist? Lloyd, my namesake who advocates repression of a free press? And Ayers, the bomber terrorist, who attempted to destroy American life and American property. Pastor Wright who bellows in a church service God damn America and reiterates the same message everywhere he goes? And Obama after sitting on front of this rabble rouser for twenty years claims he never heard such talk! He has divided the country, probably into worse racism than before. He has terrified Citizens about their future—especially for their children’ s future.

My simplistic naiveté of last November exists no longer. And apparently it is the same for multitudes of Americans. On November 3rd of this year two State Governors favored by Obama have been defeated by the people at the polls. An unknown Conservative, a meek looking accountant, in the 23rd Cong. District of upstate New York came out of nowhere and almost defeated the Obama-like incumbent. After a squeaker which had the Liberal Democrats tweaking their noses at the prospect of a defeat by an uncharismatic, politically inexperienced Conservative, the message has gone out. Americans are beginning to see something. To wit! Even his beloved Health care project came hobbling through a Congressional vote of 220 to 215! A squeaker for sure. Jobs mean little to him, apparently, as does the fate of our beloved men and women overseas fighting to protect our way of life.

His own hand picked top General, in the field in Afghanistan,, urgently requests more troops and the President, the military Commander in chief ,“dithers” for four months without a decision. With the military situation worsening and our fighting people becoming more and more stressed and vulnerable.. His limited political history has shown that he is a fence sitter. Like any classic narcissist he wants to look good to everyone. However, Americans are beginning to speak up. But he cares not. He has total power and plans to use it his way. Polls show that more and more Americans disapprove of his mode of handling the country. His approval ratings plummet. Damn the people. Full speed ahead to Socialism!

Incidentally, Sarah Palin is not completely wrong when she speaks of “Death panels”. It is debatable what he really feels but it looks like the old and the terminally ill are apparently disposable in his eyes. The carefully worded handbooks in VA hospitals insinuate “oldies” might be sacrificed in favor of younger ones who can contribute more to society! How this bothers my deep rooted and inflexible feeling that all human life at any stage is precious and is to be protected---by any means available!

Don’t give me rhetoric and classy phrases, Mr. President. Do something. Something American. Most of all, get out of my way. Let me fare for myself. I don’t want your political fish. I want my own fishing rod without inappropriate interference from you. Let me bless my God and be proud of my Country, both historically and currently. Go back to Chicago, Hussein, and do your Un American ward heeling there.

_________________
[1] This is so unlike me who trusts his own initial instincts or “gut" reaction.

When Was I Most Happy In My Life?

2009-08-31T17:20:00.000-07:00

A former sixty-ish American President, of the early Twentieth century, was asked at a formal White House dinner, when did he think his wife was “the most beautiful.” Without a moment’s hesitation he replied: “why----right now.” No doubt his “bride” must have beamed with radiance and pleasure. Yet, in effect, that moment was the only real slice of Time that existed! The past did not exist except in memory and the future had not yet come. Or might never come. Such a perception of Time is essential, I think, for us human beings who desire to exploit properly the priceless gift of the gracious God which is, of course, Life. Life which includes the dimension of appropriate fun among others. It would be difficult to live a “full” life if one were plagued with resentments, angers, guilt, and self depreciation about one’s past history and concurrently worried about unlimited fearful possibilities of the future. How could one experience the needed “playful”[1] dimension one finds in the mature, developed personality (of any age) if one is emotionally constricted by living in any time zone but the present? In a conversation with his alcoholic brother, a friend of mine (likewise alcoholic) discovered all they were talking about was the past and the future. The “present” had no rooting in their psyches, which significantly contributed to their current unhappiness.

With the lead given by Jesus Who taught us that “evil for the day is sufficient thereof…”, serious practitioners of the Art of Living such as the 12 step program leaders, have trumpeted the Mantra “One day at a time - One day at a time - One day at a time” with startling good results! Most of us do feel capable of tolerating pain or misery or heartbreak for a day—especially those who believe that God helps all of us with His “amazin’” grace. And even more especially for those who believe that God never gives us more than we can handle since His grace is always at our immediate disposal. From a theological standpoint, God gives grace only for the present moment since with God there is neither past nor future but only the eternal Now. Consistent with this view, the outspoken St Teresa of Avila wrote that for her, it had to be one minute at a time. Anything more would be too much to ask.

Obviously, almost any attitude can be carried to extremes. Sorrow for past misdeeds or sins is clearly appropriate. A sense of atonement coincides nicely with a healthy spiritual life. Making amends for past misdeeds is appropriate not only for A.A but also for an appropriate approach to God. Sensible prudence for the future is wise. Indolence of any kind is hardly consonant with an elegant life of the Spirit. In the Catholic spiritual tradition, the laid back, laissez-faire view tumbles dangerously close to the heresy of Quietism which leaves much of personal responsibility to others especially to the Lord. There is much of our own destiny which is in our own hands.

And of course one can wander pleasantly back to the “Good ole’ days” which have been decorously festooned with the passage of time. Most of us are inclined to re-do our own histories in the light of our present state of mind. I can do that. I can re-do my history so that it cannot compete with my present! I can remember my sense of well being as I, a youth given to contemplation, sat in a row boat, alone, in the middle of gorgeous Lake George in New York state. The sense of peace and closeness to God were priceless. The mountains, the clear fresh air, the comforting warm breezes combined in my soul to allow me to feel something of that elusive quality---happiness. I remember the soaring sense of joy I felt as I raced over cold snowy streets to the Lake on Fifth Avenue and 59th Street to ice skate. The feeling of free movement, the sparkle I felt from the stinging weather, the joy at being part of a laughing and deliriously youthful crowd - and so much more - gave me what I thought was happiness. I won a gold medal for achievement in grammar school. I walked on water emotionally when my family seemed so proud of me. Being in the “bosom” of family brought so much warmth and love and acceptance that one could easily say that human intimacy is the basis of happiness. But with whom? I scored 100% in the State Regents exam in Geometry. I was exuberant! I was accepted into the exclusive honors club in college and given a golden key which I still cherish. I was in 7th Heaven when I made my First Holy Communion. I was euphoric and certainly on the edge of ecstasy when I was ordained a priest.

I thrilled to the beauties of Europe sharing those delight with dear friends. I so enjoyed being at sea with the endless horizon always beckoning me to gaze at infinity. I almost burst with “happiness” when my public speaking stints brought me applause and praise. Oh yes, I keenly appreciate how satisfying it is to look back on one’s life, with satisfaction, and “enjoy” pleasant memories. The list of positives for any human being can usually be substantial if one wishes to float in re-painting history. But I, like most people, am inclined to eclipse the difficulties which I had in those days. Gilding the lily is everyone’s choice. But, nevertheless, nothing is so dead as yesterday’s news. It all passes. Or does it? What really does not change? The eternal Now never changes. I mean God ----- with me at this very moment.

The past is over. It does not exist and can never come again. There really is only now. As stated above, the Catholic Faith teaches that with God there is only the eternal Now –all is before Him—what we call past and present and future. Jesus, it seems to me, is telling us “Carpe diem” or seize the day! This day.

To exploit appropriately. To drink deep of the Nectar of God’s world. When was Life most beautiful for me? If I really could hear the Lord’s Voice in my soul, I would say “right now”!

________________________________________
[1] How often spiritual writers and mystics write about God’s pleasure on seeing His children laugh and sing and dance and enjoy life according to His Will!

Obama-Care for Dummies

2009-08-30T17:17:00.000-07:00

Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News who identifies himself as “The Factor,” recently made a most unusual (and for him, humble) admission. He said that although he was a graduate of Harvard, he could not understand Obama’s Health Care bill. So, with a subtle tinge of intellectual snobbery, O’Reilly in effect asks how could the “dummies” of the nation possibly grasp what the President had in mind! If the top 1.2% of intellectuals in our midst are confused, especially the cognitive giant we have at Fox News, what must it be like for intellectual pygmies? Like me. How could I ever read a House Bill of over 1,000 pages or a Senate Bill of over 600 pages when most of Congress, who have been pressured by the President to sign these Bills unread, don’t even know what is in the Bill? Am I just one of the many Americans burdened with naiveté? I want reform in Health care. I want every American to have access to medical and pharmaceutical help. But I suspect Obama’s way is the wrong route.

Somebody Help!

Even though I am a political dummy[1] it seems to me that we have a quantum or space/time problem. Presently, we wait in a Doctor’s office to be seen --- for hours after our appointment time. Emergency rooms all complain about the glut of patients to be seen. Nurses are frazzled. The whole system is groaning under the weight of health care need. And our Omniscient President Messiah plans to add up to 47 million more persons for Health care with the same number of Health care professionals or possibly less. Is there some kind of misfit here? Doesn’t it seem that the numbers do not add up? How does one squeeze so many into so limited a “space”?

As a consequence of this misfit, the time spent on patients simply has to be more limited than at present. It means longer waits for appointments, for MRIs, Ct scans and all the items of health care. In effect it is time which cannot co-exist with the problem raised in #1. This probably means worse care for all than we now have. It necessarily means the implementation of the frightening horror: Rationing! I can make an analogy to priests hearing confessions. When there are long, long lines of Catholics waiting to make their personal confession, the confessor becomes stressed and is inclined to rush the penitents in order to serve all. The quality of his spiritual care necessarily becomes minimal as he attempts to serve everyone. There is no way that care can improve under that restriction. It can only slump. And who declares who needs care the most? It isn’t even physicians. It is, probably, a Board of “almost clerks” who make decisions without ever seeing the patient but who work from protocols in some office far from the scene. What openings this leaves for corruption as well as political nepotism!

The panels of death: It is alleged that persons of advanced age with serious medical problems will be seen by a physician (paid “adequately” by the Government) who will assist them in arranging for their final hours with “dignity.” In plain language this means ending the life of the senior by pill or injection. This makes great sense if one shares the slant of the Speaker of the House who explains away funding abortions as “cost effective”. A significant amount of health care costs does center on care for the elderly. So why not cut down on elderly care and save huge amounts of money which then would be available for younger and more productive members of society? This is excellent thinking if one espouses the Communist, Socialist secularist ideal. But for people who believe that life is sacred from conception to natural death, this is the acme of immorality. The lame defense by “Mug wump”[2] Catholics that Catholicism already allows such dialogue with the seriously ill, is absurd in that we strongly prohibit any active move to hasten death. To any experienced therapist it is plain that by carefully chosen words one can influence a vulnerable person to one direction or another. Such skill used for “dignified death” is seriously immoral. Who is more vulnerable than the sick, confused, weakened, frightened senior person before the calculated approach of a professional who might be at that bedside to influence a quicker solution than a drawn out illness which is costing the Government more money? I don’t think Barack has this in mind, but once we open legislative doors it is difficult to stop excesses.

My conscience as a health care person: There is very strong pressure to remove all conscience clauses from the Bill. In effect, if I refuse, as a physician, to perform or assist in something I find utterly unconscionable (e.g. abortion) I will be chastised or fired or blackballed. Nurses, aides, and others who find the dismemberment of a child monstrous will have no protection. (This is already happening. N.B. Nurse at Mt. Sinai in NYC)

Hospitals and other health care centers which do not abide by mandatory abortion requirements will be refused funding. This clearly points to Catholic institutions. To my simple mind this means closure of these centers to the detriment of the public which is heavily served by Catholic run institutions. Is this true? If the President signs the FOCA act (which he promised to do when addressing the NARAL group prior to his election) does this not mean the end of Catholic health care as we know it?

The assertion that it is better to go along with the immoral dimensions of the Bill in the hope that “common ground” might be found eventually, not only limps but is a fantasy wheelchair. It is obvious that the Administration with deep obligation to the extreme Left of this country has every intention of implementing forced abortion, assisted suicide, and experimentation with human embryo stem cell research. It is oxymoronic to speak of a “common ground” when one discusses abortion. How does one dialogue in this case? Is it like being “half pregnant”? Does the King have any clothes on? Or are hordes of us, including well meaning Catholics, even nuns and priests, well intentioned but seduced by high flown rhetoric and the ever elusive carrot at the end of a stick?

The question of real cost: I am staggered when I hear of the 12 zero figure called “a trillion.” It is beyond my capacity to grasp the unbelievable financial burden to be placed on the shoulders of ordinary (?) hard working Americans of two generations who follow us. When we are experiencing economic strictures of a major sort it seems totally irresponsible to raise serious financial prisons the like of which we have never seen! Is it because of the 10 million illegals we have that we re-design the American system of Life? A solution is needed there but not the one which cripples the Country for generations!

Finally, I am aghast at the thought that this highly skilled American medical establishment is about to face demolition and about to be reduced to the level of Sweden, Canada, or England which groan against the bureaucratic limitations shown by history to be unable to serve everyone as they had hoped. The statistics of waiting time in Canada (for example, for a knee replacement) are unbelievable - 12 months on the average!

Conclusion: It has been noted that the Bill 3200 is not basically about health care. It is about Power. It is the strange drive of some extreme “leftists” to control our lives. I am now becoming alarmed. Our Founders believed that when Government fears the people, it is democracy. When the people fear the Government, it is tyranny. No wonder there are Tea Parties and outraged Town Halls!

________________________________________
[1] Even though like O’Reilly I am educated (perhaps beyond my capacity) with a PhD in Psych from NYU and a license from New York state to practice, I don’t get it either!
[2] In the early American political scene the term “Mug wump” was coined to describe those who refused to take a stand. Their face (mug) was on one side of the fence and the rest (wump) on the other. Their studied non-position was supposed to protect them no matter who won the election. Like Senators who vote “present”—(not yea or nay) lest they be tied to a specific position.

What Does "Practicing" Mean, As in "Practicing Catholic"?

2009-06-20T14:58:00.000-07:00

The speaker was discussing his own book called “The Practicing Catholic” in a midtown New York City parish. He is an ex-priest, married, living a most comfortable life with the proceeds from his books and many well-written articles. Because of his stances, sometimes antithetical to and widely dissident from traditional Catholicism, he has been classified a “fallen away” Catholic. Yet he strongly insists that he loves the Church, cherishes rich emotional memories of his childhood and is practicing the Catholic Faith.

It leads one to wonder what is a “practicing Catholic”? How big is the Big Tent of this religion? One of the many strengths of Catholicism is its flexibility and breadth of embrace wherein one finds the simple but powerful influences of Mother Teresa, Mother Angelica and Padre Pio uplifting thousands of devout Catholics to meaningful, beautiful lives and at the same time one can find slightly cynical, semi-doubting, irreverent, hostile Catholics who would never “leave” the Church they criticize. Mysteriously, the latter group would be affronted should anyone dare to suggest that some more “modern and liberal” denominations might be more congenial to their views. However, such persons might have more direct Faith in basic Catholicism than they admit even to themselves. Perhaps, since many of this group have been educated beyond the level of their parents, we might be observing an interesting situation of non-resolution of an oedipal conflict. In fact, this speaker acknowledges that his personal relationship with his father (although a well educated brigadier general of the Vietnam era) was one of long term conflict. Could this be transferred unconsciously to a conflict with “Mother” church? Are dissident Catholics really fighting their Parents?

The man in question allegedly held at various times great differences with his own Church. He argues publicly, so goes the scoop, that women should be ordained priests, that there must be married priests, that gay marriage must be accepted, that opposition to contraception must be dropped, abortion should be allowed and roughly do away with the whole Bishop thing. The Church must be continually castigated for anti-Semitism, for the Inquisition and the Galileo affair. It seems odd that either he didn’t know of the many statements of Pope John Paul II on this subject or else he deliberately glides over the truth. I would prefer that he be ignorant than malicious. Some wit suggested that there is already such a Church which the speaker seeks. The Unitarian church where all his values are preached and upheld where it seems almost anything goes, doctrinally speaking! But he wouldn’t leave this Church---ever. Why not?

In his talk he referred at least twice to the crowd rouser mechanism of “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” It was as if he was blasting the Church for holding such a barbaric stance. The penumbra, the nuance, the unspoken, was that Catholics teach the damnation of all people—except themselves. He knows full well that is simply not true. What is true is that the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople articulated the belief that it is only through Christ that one can be saved. This is vastly different from what he said. Every Hindu and Buddhist and Jew and Methodist can be saved but ultimately only through Jesus. If certain unsophisticated persons spouted such distorted and misinterpreted views as he mentions, then, it was not the Faith talking. But individual dissenters!! He knew the clarification of Pope Pius XII in his monumental encyclical, Mystici corporis which taught that anyone in good Faith belongs to the level of salvation. His statements bordered on the dishonest or disingenuous which perhaps may be explained by the impromptu question and answer style he was using at that moment. Perhaps, his shooting from the “hip” would not surface if he had a quiet moment to think. He surely must have heard of the Jesuit priest (Fr. Feeney) in Boston who was “excommunicated” for holding exactly what the speaker claims was authentic doctrine. One would hope that on review and with the grace of God, he would revise his sloppy use of terms.

Relevant to his rants about Jews, it is interesting that the many converts of Jewish background didn’t seem disturbed by the use of the word “Perfidious”. The word means “unbelieving” as describing those who have not accepted Jesus as a Personal Saviour. Any amateur theologian might easily make a powerful case from Scripture Tradition and Reason that any one who does not accept Jesus is “unbelieving.” But since Perfidious has developed an “emanation” of insult, most of us are pleased with the Church’s deleting that word from our sacred Liturgy. But I, as a Catholic Jew, am not sent into some kind of frenzy by the word. Jewish converts like Edith Stein (St. Benedicta of the Cross) or Raissa Maritain or other intelligent Jewish converts do not miss the forest for a tree! A mature approach to the Catholic Faith is highly preferable to the vitriolic obsession of the speaker with this subject.

In his relatively small audience sitting in the front row was an older man who self identified as an ex-priest with deadened and lost ideals. He described himself as being reared in the era where Pat O’Brien and Spencer Tracy were omnipotent and noble screen priests, way above the maddening and mediocre crowd and whose role he wished to share. His real life priest experience never matched his fantasy so he left the priesthood. Then he could be “honest”. (?) His voice was full of hurt and anger but with the accusing tone of the typical aggressive dissenter (typical, that is, of my experience). A woman stridently criticized the American Catholic Church of dragging its feet while justifying her right to criticize since her husband had founded the National Catholic Reporter, a liberal organ for Catholics unhappy with the history of the Church in this country.[1] She asked “Where are the leaders?” To my ears she was asking for enthusiastic dissident Catholics who would challenge and change the Church in ways congenial to the Speaker’s views. He replied that she could find such leadership in the Paulist Fathers whose company he had left for “truth and honesty” and even beyond that for money and a wife. I was personally piqued by this recommendation since I myself am a Paulist Father and I have found in this Society strict loyalty and devotion to the Church. I don’t enthuse by being grouped with some unhappy critical clerics who remain “on the job” with lukewarm adherence.

Even though the word “myth” is a legitimate one for historical research and analogic illustration, the speaker noted practices of some Catholics, less articulate than he, as being naïve and sheeplike. Again, he underscored all religion as principally how one treats the “neighbor.” I found little, if any, reference to God in his remarks. Indeed, a psychotherapist colleague who saw the same Television presentation thought that the speaker “hated the Church.” I am hesitant to go that far even if a case might be made in that direction. And I presume should that be the case his “hatred” would be unconscious.

It brings one back to the primary question: the clarification of the meaning of “practicing”. And the viewpoints are highly variant. Some are content to say that making one’s Easter duty suffices to meet the requirement of the practicing Catholic. Personally, I find such a stance highly inadequate and almost insulting to those fervent ones who struggle, often at great emotional and physical cost, to maintain their Catholic identity in an open and persistent fashion. As I recall Jesus said something to the effect that not those who cry “Lord, Lord” enter the kingdom of heaven but only those who do the Will of My Father…….

There are others who occasionally attend Mass, some what mechanically, want their children baptized as Catholics and who certainly want their weddings to be in a Catholic church especially if it is “pretty.” They are, however, tepid in their support of Catholic views in “the public square” and glaringly superficial in their knowledge of Catholic fundamentals. They simply don’t know. The knowledge of the Faith was not the speaker’s deficiency. His was, rather, one of deep emotion (and which perhaps, in nature, could be redacted, unfortunately, as spiritual). Yet, the huge majority of these tepid ones hinges, I think, on poor catechesis and unlovely example.

Some Catholic leaders, of course, suggest that we should simply adopt the dissenters and those who pick and choose Faith ----- in the hope that they will come back. Unfortunately, it rarely happens the way some would wish. Besides it does not take much energy for that stance. Read the paper. Watch TV and see what happens. Leave it to God.

Yet, it would be likewise superficial, in my opinion, to portray the practicing Catholic in mere measurement or statistics. It is not about how many schools and hospitals we have. It is important to see that Numbers are not our goal here. It is something far deeper. It is about identity, belief self concept. In my work with converted SSA people (homosexual persons) I have been struck by their recalling their active “gay” days when they saw all things through a kind of gay lens. Everything was understood and interpreted in terms of gayness. In a sense, the “practicing” Catholic sees, similarly, all things through a Catholic lens. The real Practice does call for a permeation of the faith through one’s very being. Catholicism is, indeed, in a sense “totalitarian”. It is supposed to affect every area of our lives. This explains, at least in part, the enormous negative reaction from the believing Catholic community upon the bestowal of high public honor by the University of Notre Dame on the Number 1 political Pro-abortionist in the country. It seemed as if the academic community did not care at all for Catholic principles. This was not a case of not knowing any better. It was worse. It freely and without hesitation ignored or dismissed Catholic teaching, practice, history and authority as irrelevant.

In all our Catholic history, we have observed the norm of true Practice: “Sentire cum ecclesia” or think with the Church. Feel with her. Obey her official teachings. Remember where the “Church” is. We have always believed that “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia” (where you find Peter ---and his successor--- you find the real Church). There is no room for the cafeteria Catholic in this structure. When one disbelieves a single basic Catholic teaching, it is no time when he believes nothing, practically speaking, of the Faith. On the other hand, practicing the Faith means more than the external. It is the interiority, the wholeness, the submission to God, the living it out in all things that makes the term “practicing Catholic” meaningful.

Archbishop C. Chaput noted in his article in First Things (June/July 09) that Catholics have to begin admitting that we have been lying to ourselves, to each other and to God by claiming to oppose personally some homicidal evil--- and allowing it to be legal at the same time. Strong words and yet worthy of serious consideration. He fears that many of the 65 million American Catholics simply do not care. Such an assessment is more frightening than mere ignorance. If we cared, he claims, we wouldn’t be wasting our time arguing whether legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow balanced out or excused by other social policies. He startles the Catholic reader by accusing us of forgetting how to think as Catholics. And that there is nothing more empty headed in a pluralist society than telling citizens to keep quiet about their beliefs. A healthy democracy requires the opposite. It is not of the practicing Catholic’s world to create one’s own truth and then baptize it with an appeal to personal conscience.

St. Paul, the apostle of Truth, was ready to pay the price for his fearlessness and fidelity to Christ. We do need the sense of his urgency. This cannot be a question of elegant academic discussion or smooth public oratory. The only thing that matters is truth. Obviously, it is painful for the millions of truly practicing Catholics to watch so many persons who call themselves Catholics compromise their Faith. To see them submit their hearts and consciences to the Caesars of our day is not only sad but burdensome. We feel like St. Paul that “we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles—but God’s folly is wiser than men and his weakness more powerful than men” (1Cor:23). May the remnant of truly practicing Catholics become the ultimate beacon in the darkness.

________________________________________
[1] I had interviewed one of the founders of the Reporter on Television and had indeed found him critical, unsmiling and unhappy with the Church in those days. Apparently the emotional level at the paper remains about the same today.

The Mafia and Those Who Mess Up Their Chance for Happiness

2009-04-19T21:31:00.000-07:00

Joey Columbo, the Mafia guy, had just been whacked near the statue on Columbus circle. There was a flurry of gunfire in the dense mob which had gathered to celebrate an “Italian” awareness day. The “shooter,” a black man, was instantly killed by some one unrecognizable in the crowd. Joey was rushed to nearby Roosevelt Hospital for treatment where “shrines” of endless votive candles were lit around the hospital. No one dared to protest. Near my Rectory (opposite the hospital) a “watch dog” group set up camp. The “soldiers” were haunched on boxes and foldable camp chairs in crushing New York heat. Some were bare to the waist. Others were slicing up cantaloupes with huge scary looking knives.

An anxious looking woman, obviously a member of the “family”, seeing me and my clerical collar dashed to me and tearfully said “Please pray for Joey, Faada.” With my fearful heart pounding away, I hurriedly assured her that I would approach the Almighty immediately and tried to run as fast as I could. But one of the soldiers, with a bared hairy chest and a Bowie like knife, said to me, “Have a piece of cantaloupe’ with a menacing wave of the knife. “No, no thanks,” I said as I started to move away. He raised his voice and shouted “HAVE A PIECE OF CANTALOUPE!” Suddenly I found my taste buds craving for cantaloupe. I gratefully accepted the grimy slice, wolfed it down and mumbled excessive thanks for a crummy piece of fruit.

In back of my semi jocose remarks is a serious observation. There was a complete lack of happiness in that crowd. No one smiled. There was an air of suspicion, defense and paranoia. No one seemed happy, even granting the sadness of Columbo's assassination. These people had money, power, control, expensive clothing (when they wore them) but they had an air about them which just shrieked "incompletion". If they showed me anything, it was the ancient rule that the elusive "something" called happiness is more than these baubles.

I recall the gruesome movies about the Godfather, and Donnie Brasco and the Goodfellas and of course the unending saga of The Sopranos. They all depict the criminal story of unbelievable violence and vicious selfishness and lechery and foul mouths and lies and degrading control of others and basic hidden self loathing. They care little for love, only lust. Their notion of God surfaces only at weddings, baptisms and funerals. Having a mistress is matter of fact. "Whacking" a recalcitrant soldier is no problem. Just business. There are no morals. No spiritual norms. Only insatiable wants. And their lives add up to one huge misery and profound sadness.

Not just sadness but pain, disillusion, confusion, rage, loneliness, paranoia and guilt. Does this observation not coincide with the basic and unfortunately forgotten ancient rule? Love God. Do His will and you will find peace and contentment in this world and happiness for ever in the next? Flaunt His Will and ultimately you will destroy yourself.

This dynamic is deeply etched in the human reality----even if unrecognized. It is not just Mafia types which offend and consequently suffer. It is the ordinary Joe or Jane who shows up at counseling centers and mental health clinics seeking some kind of emotional relief and rescue from disorientation/alienation. And their number is legion. Part of the experience of human misery is the good old fashioned trick of rationalization; namely, the attempt to impute goodness and nobility and right to intrinsically evil behavior. We all engage in kidding ourselves in order to justify what we are doing or what we want. Usually little things with little cosmic consequence. However, it can go much further. Disaster often follows just "little" things. The slippery slope is probably the experience of us all.

For example the wife who at 35 with four children decides that she has been emotionally abused by having to do what she did for the children or what mothers traditionally do. She suspects that she has missed the fun of being with young people. She decides for her own good she must "find herself"[1] and begin living out who she really is. With the encouragement of an extreme feminist therapist, she starts her search by hanging around with 20 year olds, staying out until 3 am, by neglecting her children, by gym exercise two hours daily (to restore her figure to her fantasy), by spending prodigious amounts of money on her cosmetics, by buying lacey lingerie, by carrying birth control pills in her hand bag (allegedly for acne) and the like. She buys herself $240 dresses while the family struggles with huge debt. She lies about her whereabouts when she is missing for many hours. Obviously and ultimately she has to confront the "bad guy", the husband, the guy who is responsible for all of this. The "abuser." This becomes her crisis.

How can she square things within her own head when she has graduated from a prodigious Catholic college and taught NFP[2]? Festinger, the famous psychologist, coined the term "Cognitive dissonance" to describe a situation wherein there are two or more conflicting factors in one's life. It is necessary to drop out the conflicting factors and go with one. Otherwise one is driven to extreme guilt and disorientation. Which factor is chosen? The one I think I want the most! Or is it simply that this woman's emotional structure is weak and vulnerable?

Clearly, most relationships are "two way." No one spouse is totally responsible for a marital breakdown. For example, the husband who constantly works over time - probably, among other motives, to give a good life to his family. But he is away! The burden of raising young children falls to his wife who tires of little kid babble (even if charming) and longs for adult conversation. If he is over expectant of what his wife does or can do (in his mind), if he imposes his viewpoint when he is home without seeking hers, if he forgets that all human beings need to be praised at times, (especially young wives), if his vocal tone is dictatorial and businesslike to an emotionally fragile wife, she will begin to experience the devastating feeling that she is basically unlovable and worthless, especially if she has a foundational problem with self esteem. She will turn elsewhere for consolation and down the slippery slope she goes.

They are both wrong and in some ways both right. But nothing justifies the breaking of God's law. He might very well believe that he is keeping God's way by forcing the children to say the Rosary with him each night which the wife refuses to attend. She might consider her coldness to him (and certainly her rejection of connubial rights) completely justified. She might feel perfectly "right" when she refuses to let him meet her "friends". She might go so far as to reject her own religion which conflicts with what she wants to do! However, she says that her new religious stance is totally intellectual. Such a statement sounds hollow in the face of the enormous data amassed over the last 50 years indicating that most of human behavior is largely emotionally based.

Is the Mafia misery much worse than this? Two young people with a reasonable hope for a happy future mess it all up and dedicate themselves (and their children) to suffering not intended by the Lord but also basically avoidable. What is this so common phenomenon in human affairs? While we can safely assume that most human beings seek some kind of "happiness", an incredibly large number of us almost deliberately sabotage a truly good life. Is it Original sin? Is it an unconscious feeling that we do not deserve happiness not matter how much we yearn for it? Is it just plain stupidity? Is it infatuation with fantasy?

The Lord has made it known. Keep My commandments. Do the Will of God and your reward will be great. But the Lord teaches also that along with the Good is the need to carry the Cross which repulses the human being existentially. We want it comfortable and pleasantâ€”all the time! Is there an evil force obscuring the "Good" and masking what is evil by presenting it as most desirable and productive of this happiness we seek? Whatever it is, Pogo said a long time ago, "We have found the enemy and it is us..." And Caesar in Shakespeare's language suggests that "The fault, my dear Brutus lies, not in the stars, but within our selves." Certainly, it does no good to blame others for our woes and pain. The human struggle cannot be resolved by blaming parents or church or government or climate. The real question is what do I do now to help my life? The directive for the mature is: Seek solution, not blame.

The dilemma is: On the one hand, I wish this which critically undercuts the clear will of God, indeed is antithetical to it and on the other hand, if I follow the Will of God which makes me feel peaceful and right, I must give up that which I am drooling for. In effect, no one can have it both ways. No one has it all. Ultimately, one must choose: "Choose life and live..." or choose the unholy and be alienated. It is the all too present human drama out of which great theatre is made and great novels and even great prayers.

Two Catholic men, intelligent, spiritual, generous, deeply involved in their respective professional expertise, "fall in love" with each other. While an overwhelming majority of American people finds such a statement either perplexing or revolting, there is a noisy minority fiercely campaigning for accepting same sex "love" as normal, healthy and even holy! To be perplexed or revolted is unacceptable to this group which almost gleefully labels such dissenters "homophobic." The use of this clumsy term usually is applied to anyone who does not find such same sex behavior as beautiful, or an obvious healthy variant of the traditional coupling, normal, and utterly American.[3] The average reaction, opposed to this view, is neither one of fear or hatred - but perplexity. From one's earliest years, we have heard, in effect, that the parts simply do not fit. One simply "knows" that the anatomical, biological, physiological, even the psychic differences between males and females are "wired" by nature and nature's God. What could be more obvious?

But to place this "anomaly" within a more powerful matrix for these two men, traditional Judeo-Christian life would label such SSA[4] behavior as intrinsically evil and which never can be approved.[5] These two men are well-read in their Faith. They know that if they "marry" they are no longer Catholics in good standing. This would mean a great sense of privation for them who depend on and delight in the Eucharist which would be absent from their lives immediately. Yet to forgo the SSA relationship (read: sexual behavior) would be a great hardship for both who seem to have a powerful need for the physical. The fatuous advice given by ill informed and overly sentimental well wishers that they should become Episcopalian[6] does not resolve anything for them.

Their attempt at resolution is "rationalization." God wouldn't ask this of us! How can it be bad when it feels so good! I am 98% sure that God understands! I have never had so transparent and loving relationship in my life before! It's not hurting anyone. I am only looking for happiness and so on and on. Each of these men has had wide experience with same sex behavior. Both of them have attested to empty and debased post-experience feelings. They both know that sinful behavior brings only misery and sadness. They know better but still do it. How come? How many eminent Media preachers in spite of their noble rhetoric, and their knowledge, have muddied their lives by totally inappropriate behavior? Remember the sadness of Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Baker who patently, but secretly, turned their backs on the God they so devoutly preached?

Why do we do "things" that make us miserable even though we know full well that the consequences can be nothing but miserable? How many times have I said "How stupid of me" or "Why did I do that?" after behaving in some utterly irrational manner? Isn't it once again the ancient truth that what we do, we don't want to do, and what we want to do, we don't do? Isn't it once again the presence of Original sin in all of us, giving us limited or darkened conscience? Isn't it the surfacing of the Catholic anthropological insight?

The great apostle Paul wrote that we seem stupid and foolish to the world when we do God's Will and carry His cross with him. In the long run the holy (and pragmatic) mode is to do His will - as painful as it is. The positive consequence of such a decision is peace of soul. And that is not something to be scorned. The forbidden "goodies" of temptation seem Edenic but two people found out a long time ago that things are not only what they seem. There is often enormous and senseless pain in following one's own instincts when they are conflictual with the Lord's will. It does seem more sensible to trust God than the comedians on late night television. No matter who is involved, we are better off following the painful way of the Cross than ingesting the neologisms of Page Six or the way of Madonna.

________________________________________
[1] Jack E, Leonard startled a beautiful immature ingenue who was gushing on the Tonight show about "finding herself". He told her that after years of searching with psychiatrists and others she would find herself and be very disappointed. Common sense from an old raconteur?
[2] Natural Family Planning
[3] According to their categorization, Pope Benedict XVI, Mother Teresa, Ronald Reagan, Laura Bush and 90% of the world's population must be homophobic.
[4] Same sex attracted rather than homosexual or gay. Both these latter terms have a disrespect attached which is not found in SSA.
[5] Catholic Catechism
[6] Episcopalians have no difficulty in admitting practicing homosexuals to their form of Eucharist. These two men know the dubious nature of Anglican orders and reject the suggestion out of hand.

The American Catholic and His Problem With A Secular Culture

2009-03-18T19:45:00.000-07:00

George Weigel, the author of the monumental biography of Pope John Paul II, wondered whether Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House and Pope Benedict XVI attended the same meeting (Feb. 2009). She had requested a private audience with His Holiness since she considers herself a devout Catholic. Weigel’s wonderment is quite understandable when one exams the after-meeting statements of the speaker and Pope. These statements are in complete disconnection from one another.

The Pope’s statement with his usual clear and precise language spoke of the obligation of Catholic public servants to ensure the well being of the unborn and to follow Justice as is taught by the Church. On the other hand, the speaker said they talked about climate change, social work and the like, with absolutely no reference to the central point of the meeting. It was as if she never heard such a statement or that he never made one. Weigel and thousands more most certainly question the legitimacy of her “statement”.

The Pope’s statement was in writing and made public shortly after the meeting. The Speaker never put anything into print but only gushed to the media that it was a wonderful experience for her and her family. Was it just that she dozed off when the Pope spoke or was she distracted by the attire of her family or did she shut out his teaching for fear of any possible interior conflict for her? Or was it that Catholicism can be interpreted her way—or what she deems the American way? Is she saying that she can select what teachings she will follow and not others? Or is she lying? Or suffering a temporary mental problem? Or simply has a “nostalgia” for the Catholic memories of her childhood? Or was she enveloped in the misunderstood and distorted notion of “separation of Church and State”?

Actually, she and the other “Catholics” of her ilk may have serious difficulty reconciling their personal interpretations of Catholicism with the basic teachings of the Church. As one witty television commentator said (after the meeting) “The cafeteria[1] is now closed.” One basic position of the Catholic Church is that God’s Will is primary and must be followed as best one can. The clarification of God’s will (for Catholics) belongs to the Church through Tradition and Scripture and which is articulated by the Bishop of Rome (read: Pope) together with Bishops, particularly in a General Council. The Nancy Pelosi type Catholic does not accept the Church’s articulation of God’s Will, but prefers her own view as the basic criterion of what it means to be a Catholic in modern America.. They, themselves, will decide what is God’s will, which is usually compatible with their personal objectives, aims and personal gain. Hence, the criterion of truth and morals is whatever they wish. Such a position certainly shouts at least the traces of narcissism and arrogance. It is precisely what Pope Benedict XVI has been teaching for years i.e. that the enemy of God and holiness is moral relativism.

Apparently, until recently, the American Bishops have been slow to point out to Catholic politicians their obligation not only to not support immoral injunctions but also to work to change whatever evil may exist in their world. While this applies only if it is possible, it is this very loophole which has made it possible for many to avoid confrontation. The Pope’s statement to Pelosi, however, may ultimately be the death knell for those Catholics who may, for political reasons, support and articulate agreement with intrinsically evil measures. While the choice is theirs, choosing the evil puts them in effect outside the Church. This even if they attend Mass with prayer book in hand, show up on Ash Wednesday with ashes on their foreheads, always have their Marriages in “pretty” Catholic churches and have parties for a baptized infant. So, they consider themselves “practicing” Catholics. I wonder what genius instructor laid out such a life plan for them?

Once, in a jocose mood, I raised, at the common table, the question with fellow religious whether a famous Senator from New England was a Catholic. The responses ranged from indignation to patronizing instruction that, of course, the Senator was a Catholic who went to Mass, had his children baptized as Catholics and probably gave “something” when he was at the Holy Sacrifice. However, in back of my apparently light hearted statement, I was raising the fundamental question beyond the cultural and social appearances:

What is a practicing Catholic? Or is that view an abstraction that has no image in reality?

One clue to the correct answer lies in the recent situation in Kansas. President Obama (who has been called the “abortion” president by Cong. Smith of New Jersey) appointed the Governor of Kansas, K. Sibelius to the Cabinet post of Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is a pivotal appointment since it controls, to a great extent, hospital regulations and certain forms of Health care relative to abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research[2] and other such items. Gov. Sibelius has been notorious in her support for abortions[3] in her state and has publicly posed with the grisly physician who has the Moniker of “Dr. Abortion.” This “Doctor” will kill a baby at any stage of development. His gruesome practice is well known in the State and there was no move from the Catholic politicians to protest his practice. Certainly not from the Governor. Yet she considers herself a devout Catholic and had been receiving Holy Communion at her parish openly without any question as to her right to receive the Lord.

Ignoring possible secular disapproval, her archbishop, Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, courageously confronted her. First, he called her in for a private conference with him where he outlined the Catholic positions relevant to her situation. She disregarded his teaching and continued her previous behavior. The Bishop, then according to our protocol, publicly stated his opposition and told her not to present herself for Communion until she would accept Catholic teaching and morals. Reading between the lines in the diplomatic wording of the Bishop, it is, to me, patent that she has been “excommunicated” from the Catholic Church. Even perhaps she knowingly excommunicated herself. My observation in the light of this development is that Gov. Sibilius is not a practicing Catholic regardless of her personal view. Factually, to her credit, she stopped going to Communion. The Archbishop’s action was highly influenced not only by concern for the spiritual fate of Gov. Sibelius but also for the Faithful Catholics who are often confused by ambiguous clerical mouthings and who can be profoundly scandalized by such flagrant violation of God’s Law. In my view, to keep silent would be negligence.

This procedure is gaining more and more support among those Catholics we consider “practicing.” In a recent telecast on Fox News a senior business manager, Neil Caputo, interviewed Archbishop Chaput, the Archbishop of Denver. The Archbishop discussed what he would do should there be a “scandalizing” Catholic politician in his archdiocese. He replied in a way that seemed a copy of Archbishop Naumann with Sibelius. First, he said, he would invite the person for a private conversation in which he would outline why it was so serious a problem. If the person refused to comply and continued in his/her defiant behavior, Chaput said that he would then publicly suggest that the scandalizing person refrain from receiving Communion. The choice and consequences obviously belong to the Politician who might choose simply to ignore the Church’s teaching. What would not be acceptable would be that such a person would describe self as a devout and practicing Catholic.

Catholicism is a “totalistic” religion requiring its adherents to accept all that is in the C reed and the Councils of Catholic history[4] at least in matters of Faith and morals.. That is why the term “Cafeteria Catholic” is oxymoronic. Such a stand contradicts itself. As with the unbelievable attempt to give abortion via Catholics for a Free Choice, a good name, so is it with those in public life who opt not to believe certain doctrines and positions of their own Church. These people try to justify their behavior by appealing to “Separation of Church and State”, thinking that such an appeal immediately shuts off all criticism. Perhaps there ought to be a Seminar on this subject for members of Congress. Apparently, few officials understand the meaning of the term “Separation of Church and State.”

So far, cafeteria Catholics self identify as “good” Catholics. Of course, legitimate dissent and challenge are appropriate from the members of this Church about practices and attitudes around the world. Supportive challenges are rich and useful. But no one has the right to dissent from the basic teachings of our Faith.

For example, a priest from my own community left the priesthood, married and pursued a successful career in writing. So far, so good. For some reason he became an activist ‘left winger’[5]. While he passionately declared his love for the Church, he began a crusade of attacking the Church he allegedly loves. Because he loves the Church, he says, he will crusade for reforms within. These include accepting same-sex marriage, ordination of women, the abolition of all Bishops, turning over all authority to the laity, and other measures so antithetical to Catholic thinking. It has been suggested to him that the church he envisions as more perfect and superior already exists and it is called the Unitarian Church. He could hardly be called a practicing Catholic, in my mind.

It is interesting to note that strong unwavering Catholic positions have occasioned some commentators to make the unmentionable observation that Catholicism and the American political structure might be incompatible. There may be some truth in that wonderment even though we have been enormously successful in this country, prospering in an environment not always favorable to us. How does a ‘Monarchy’ like Catholicism meld with a secular Democracy and still maintain its personal identity? Some observers believe that balance has already been achieved in spite of Pelosi and her “Catholic” colleagues.

John Courtney Murray, of the Jesuits, made a monumental attempt to reconcile the two dynamics in his book “We Hold These Truths”. His work was admirable and pragmatic but it is being challenged in the modern era. Mario Cuomo as Governor of New York State apparently without guilt approved some legislation on pro-abortion approval. His rationale was that he represented all the people of the state. Democratically, by vote, he said, they had indicated their wishes about abortion. Hence he voted against Life, representing (he said) the people of New York. He came up with a Janus-like accommodation whereby, he said, while he was personally pro-life, finding abortion gruesome and wrong, he approved abortion as a state executive because he represented the people, not the Church.

Such a questionable stance was decimated by the now Judge John Noonan in California. When he was at Notre Dame, I invited him to appear on my TV show, Inquiry to discuss the whole abortion and contraception matter. He was clever, knowledgeable and articulate like Cuomo. He demonstrated how impossible it is to function in the manner described by Mario Cuomo who was not personally in favor of capital punishment while the overwhelming public vote was for such a measure. He overrode the people’s choice and refused to implement capital punishment. While most of us hold the same position, his contradictory thinking was difficult swallow. He had no problem attacking that which he considered wrong---i.e. capital punishment but was reluctant “ to impose” his religious view regarding abortion. This is disappointing to me since I recall his Diary in which he said that the most important thing to him is the salvation of his own soul. I wonder, then, what mental mechanism he uses to justify his apparent disobedience.

I wondered how his thinking, as an American, would fly in the matter of slavery. Would he say “I am personally opposed to slavery, but as Governor of some State, passionately pro-slavery with the overwhelming electorate finding slavery a needed good, I officially approve of slavery because I represent the people, not the Church. Whether or not slavery is immoral is academic. The people want it so I have to give them what they want, regardless of my personal values. This is America where the people decide not the Church"?

The conflict will arise. How will it be settled? Accommodation or enculturation? Will more and more Catholics excommunicate themselves as they pursue the Faith in “The American Way”? Will Catholics insist on Cafeteria Catholicism or on the Catholicism propounded by Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John 23, St. Pius X? It has been said that everyone has a right to his opinion and to change it should he so will. But no one has the right to change the facts. The facts about Catholicism are what Catholicism teaches and believes independently of any culture or trend or political affiliation. Our definition of practicing Catholics stands regardless of appeals to contemporary viewpoints. The number of committed and practicing Catholics may become small but this would symbolize the notion of the Remnant, so frequent in Catholic history. Practicing Catholics who are in public life, must try to persuade others to the good and moral and to oppose the wrong and the evil. There is a need to verbalize not impose. Silence is unacceptable.

It has been said in objection to this point that should Catholic politicians follow the norms outlined above, their numbers would diminish and the Church would be out of a Voice? But one asks what voice? One political commentator noted that although Congress has a high percentage (40?) of Catholics, their impact on implementing the Church’s social policies is unremarkable. He noted paradoxically that should all these Catholics be replaced by Mormons the Catholic programs would be far better served.
We are in a dangerous time. Let us pray for the intervention of the Lord, His Blessed Mother and the saints and angels of heaven. We need it.

________________________________________
[1] Those Catholics who believe that they have the right to ignore or deny some basic teachings of the Church want to pick and choose what suits them. Hence, the term “cafeteria” where one can chose a doughnut rather than an éclair. This selective style puts the person in a shaky position as to whether or not he/she is a practicing Catholic.
[2] The Church is completely in accord with 4 of the 5 possible procedures with cell stem research and treatment. The medical potential is enormous. Using embryos for research is unacceptable because it kills the human in the process. Nothing has ever been proven about embryos having any more impact than the other 4 procedures.
[3] Official Catholicism considers abortion the primary, most profound moral problem of our time. The Church is deeply involved on programs for the poor, health care and universal education. Abortion trumps all. Without life, what is there?
[4] This does not mean that all Catholics must believe in Fatima or any thing like it. The Church insists on basics on faith and morals.
[5] That he never resolved what looks like an Oedipal conflict with his father, does suggest some dynamic for attacking any kind of parent figure. Mother Church, for example.

Will Those Catholics Who Voted for Obama Have "Second Thoughts"?

2009-02-10T15:52:00.000-08:00

Many Catholics were amazed, even appalled, when they discovered that a large percentage of Catholics voted for Barack Obama for President of the United States. It was startling that fellow religionists would support a candidate who so clearly ( even if with clever and studied ambiguous rhetoric) advocated positions antithetical to Catholic teaching and tradition. His first few days in office saw him shedding his planned cloudiness to blatantly (by Executive Order) implement some of the most “far left” political, cultural and moral stances in the country’s history. Some of his “vision” seems exciting and right. But others are frightening and dangerous. The new President approaches his role with a quasi majestic, almost canonized tilt of the jaw, slightly reminiscent of Il Duce in Italy. His self concept conveys a sense of an all knowing, superior, all powerful, benign, elitist Father Figure. It seems that he, in his own mind, knows what is best for the rest of us (the masses?). Perhaps, this is the earmark of History’s successful Dictators.

Obviously, the chief concern for practicing Catholics would be Obama’s position on abortion. During the Warren debate in California he did a verbal tap dance which could make Professor Irwin Corry[1] jealous. He was responding to the question of the beginning of “life” but gave us the old routine of “Some say this and some say that” never pointedly saying what he really believed. To those, however, who listen well and who can read between the lines, the message was clear. He was not Pro-life. Politically and culturally, he is the opposite. Such a conclusion is easily reached when one reads his statement to NARAL prior to the election, promising that one of the first things he would do, on assumption of office, would be to abolish and abrogate all restrictions on abortion.

A 13 year old girl needs no longer to get parental permission to “terminate” her pregnancy. Botched abortions will legally allow the child to die without help. The barbarism of late term abortion is to be fully lawful. The inconvenience of an unborn child can now easily be handled by quick and available recourse at all institutions funded with Government monies. There is now no limit to what one wishes to do relative to abortion. Kill the unborn child with impunity. “It” is not a person legally but only some kind of cluster of blobs and cells. Further, in effect, Obama and his policies will mean the probable closure of all Catholic hospitals and medical facilities. If Catholic hospitals cannot, in conscience, provide abortion services, they will then be ineligible for government funding without which the facility cannot continue. Did Catholic voters know this?

One concrete example of the force of “funding” is that of the Archdiocese of Boston, where adoption agencies which refused to provide adoptive children to same sex couples, were denied public funds for their religious beliefs. There was no option for the Archdiocese but to close the facilities thereby depriving the Public of the valued services previously supplied by Catholics. How can any Catholic square his euphoria at Obama’s election with the recent Vatican statement certainly implying that the American political scene is one of the most perilous situations ever. The assumption that Obama will support embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is widespread. Cloning research is not far off.

Further for decades the Catholic Church has stood hard and fast against the political philosophy called “Socialism” because it devalues the human being. If one digs deeply enough, one finds the Nazi horror to be, at base, a Socialist society. Such a society, in effect, owns all modes of production and, practically, controls the lives of the members of that society on most levels of function. The many faces of Communism have frightened us for years as they devoured more and more of our individual freedom. To Catholics this philosophy is inimical to our Faith. It assaults our key notions of unique human value and the free will to make decisions for ourselves.

The seasoned political commentator, Dick Morris recently likened the Obama victory to a “Trojan Horse.” The application to modern politics is that, like the huge legendary animal which contained a hidden group of Trojan soldiers who would leap out (once the horse is within the walls) and destroy the defenders, Obama might have pretended that his interests are just for the common man and for a more equitable redistribution of wealth. But once inside the ‘walls’, he will drop the mask and expose his full program of total control and loss of freedom. He did subtly warn us of an intent take over our lives but few heard him. An end unattainable by millions of sophisticated and deadly foreign military but reachable by the art of rhetoric and political dexterity! This was and will be done, however, on an incremental basis with the public being relatively unaware of what has happened. Recall the story of the frog and the boiling water? Put the frog in lukewarm water first. Then increase the temperature gradually and soon the poor little frog doesn’t even know he is being boiled alive!

.Of course one might note the incredible tax burden he is placing on the shoulders of future generations among other perceptions. But the personal concern raised here is the opaque (or puzzling) viewpoint of the American Catholic who voted for this man. But is he to blame? The American Catholic is not guiltless! How does one explain a Catholic Vice President who speaks not only with substantial ignorance of the Catholic Faith but who defends values utterly opposite to our Tradition? And who is applauded when he goes to Communion in his local church? Who is this Speaker of the House, allegedly a Catholic who blandly holds that the Catholic Church is unsure as to when life begins? Are we weasels that we grovel before political power and pretend that there is no disloyalty to the Faith? How do we explain anti-Catholic behavior of the Pelosis, Harkins, Leahys, Durbins, and that 50% of the Congress which is nominally Catholic? At least, Obama never claimed allegiance with Catholicism. These others indignantly profess deep love and appreciation of the their “Catholic” Faith while at the same time supporting, protecting and applauding positions utterly counter to our Identity. “My patriotism allows me to represent those who do not share my faith, standing with them in matters my Faith says are evil.”

How explain this strange dissonance? Immediately before the election in November of 2008, a Catholic magazine, run by a prestigious religious Order published an article which ought to create an uproar! It held that allegedly a Catholic can vote for a candidate who upholds intrinsically evil programs--- this was to be done by the great art of “Distinction.” It is moral “providing some essential factors are present.” It struck me as sheer balderdash and a lame attempt to persuade “undecided” voters to back the Radical. “See the other side.” In some situations, there is no other side! Nazi genocide, South African Apartheid, destruction of defenseless human beings in abortion! What other side?

Did Catholics not know this? Or is it that Catholics are ignorant of their own Faith? Apart from massive Diabolic intervention, massive ignorance seems the only believable answer.

It might originate with the foundational work of John Kennedy whose identity as Catholic seems much more cultural and social than spiritual and theologic. The “acceptable” behavior for the Catholic politician apparently means that one can jettison values when necessary. The goal is to win the campaign. No matter how one wins, one must win. Winning is everything! Does Right matter? Does Truth? Or does loyalty to a political party trump everything –including God’s Will?

Who is this “average and nominal” Catholic who while blaming others for the ills of the world, does not feel any obligation to articulate his Catholic Faith? Perhaps it is we who are really to blame. Perhaps it is we who have lost our identity as Catholics. The facile dismissal of Catholic thought as an attempt to ‘impose’ our values on the Country sounds hollow here!

My guess is that within one year into his presidency Obama will lose the support of those millions of Catholics who somewhat blindly jumped onto his bandwagon seduced by a strong speaking voice, rhetoric and the promise of earthly paradise. Let us hope that our country and our Faith will not be permanently devastated by an acted out fantasy! I hear as of date (2,3,09) a faint hint that the Honeymoon will dissolve faster than is usual.

________________________________________
[1] “Doctor” Corry made a fortune in show business pretending to be an intellectual by using a combination of nonsense syllables and meaningless word formations. He drew up a complete miasma of word fog and fast talk. He was funny but he was not running for public office.

Was Michelangelo a Homosexual?

2009-02-04T19:02:00.000-08:00

I was sitting in a little Italian bistro with my longtime friend, a Retired Big Shot in the NYPD whose marriage I witnessed and whose kids I baptized into the Body of Christ. While enjoying s bit of pasta and glass of Chianti, I found myself defending those historic figures (like Michelangelo ) who, for one reason or another chose not to marry. The assumption, in the mind of my friend, was that “non-married” translates into homosexual. Starting with Jesus, through Paul and the long line of saints, I argued that, while marriage is the right and ordered pathway for the overwhelming majority of the human race, celibacy can be a healthy option for some people. Being unmarried does not, ipso facto, necessarily indicate a same sex proclivity. It, in fact, might mean something else. But in certain walled off bubble cultures, it is thought that the Catholic priesthood, for example, means homosexual, and that the majority of priests have the same-sex orientation. “They simply are not interested in women, they have no feeling for marriage and hence they become priests.” This is so absurd that I would belly laugh if it weren’t so damaging. I know there are homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood. I know that most of the hurt from the scandals came from the repulsive behavior of homosexual priests. But I also know that the overwhelming majority of priests is striving for holiness with a sexuality attuned to God’s Will. My observations are confined largely to this slice of the population. So, these observations are basically to challenge the facile notion that “unmarried equals homosexual.”

When I responded to my buddy, I did not argue that all unmarried and celibate people are healthy, peaceful and enjoying life exceedingly. However, I related a story about one of my students from a large eastern major seminary. As he was nearing ordination and wrestling with the reality that he was about to promise publicly that he would never marry, he began to feel nagging doubts. Was this pattern-style for all candidates for the celibate life? Does every one go through such a soul searching process? My young student friend was fearful lest he might be unable to “handle” celibacy and perhaps would forever be regretful of his choice. In effect, he asked “Will celibacy hurt me?” His very question signaled his vibrant attraction toward females. This was a full blooded young American with a full supply of testosterone as well as a mature appreciation of female beauty. He had, in lay life, practiced as a lawyer, dated attractive women and lived the free life style of so many young people in New York City. Today he is the Pastor of a flourishing parish and continually delighting in his choice to be a priest.

The real underlying notion of the doubt can be both psychological and spiritual. Will a life of celibacy “hurt me?”—“will it make me unhappy?” As a reasonably experienced psychologist, I had to reply: “It might.” The reason for my caution centered on his (or anyone’s) state of legitimate self regard---how did this young man view himself? This is basic. If he viewed himself as significantly inadequate on the profound level of “Can I find a mate who would deeply love me”, he would probably have interpersonal trouble, homosexual or otherwise. He would have the underlying inferiority feeling that no woman would want him! He would constantly be using the privileges of the priesthood to assure himself that he is lovable and worthy. His insatiable needs of assurance could be so great that he would “use” others, young or old, not for spiritual motivation but for selfishness. This unfortunate tendency can, of course, occur in the psyches of heterosexual as well as homosexual people. They all should be discouraged from entering the priesthood. However, on the other hand, if the candidate for priesthood (even unconsciously) knows and accepts his own personal gifts, particularly his confidence that he could certainly find and mate with a wonderful woman, he can make a healthy choice for not marrying. He makes the Promise or Vow of celibacy sure of himself. He chooses to be a chaste celibate. The fearful, insecure person makes, not a choice, but fearfully backs into a way of life which does not really suit his psychological structure. Since he, on his own, doesn’t usually “Make it” with others, (given his personality and character) he enlists in a structure which does it for him! His low self esteem does reduce his freedom but which, at the same time, might seek some kind of sexual satisfaction. In a sense he is unable to do otherwise. In this case, my friend is right. The man who fearfully becomes a priest because of his own sense of inadequacy, particularly with interpersonal relationships with women, does contribute to this distorted perception of the ‘unmarried.”

And of course there is a high possibility (in this case) that such a Priest will be same sex oriented. Yet, it must be insisted. Celibacy can be a healthy and joyful way of life—for some! The late Dr. Helen Singer Kaplan, psychiatrist, of the Identity Clinic of New York Hospital made this point again and again. From a psychological point of view, there was no argument!

How many priests I have known who become priests with strong attractions to females! How many of them value the innocence of children which they desire to protect! How many of them believe in their own physical possibility of grandchildren and the delight of owning one’s own home! It is not fear of women which induced them to become priests but rather an overwhelming sense of God which gradually clarifies and strengthens as time goes on. This is a free choice between two goods! This is not homosexuality. This is a huge expression of love for the beautiful God. Whom he senses but cannot see. Such men are not homosexuals. They are in Love with God. But probably unless one has been there such a statement is incomprehensible.

Persons making vows of celibacy and chastity (there is a difference) believe that this donation of self is by invitation from a Higher Power (God). They believe they have a “call” or vocation to the celibate state. Implicit in this belief is the conviction that God will help them, with His powerful Grace, to fulfill their vows with generosity and joy. There is Grace for every life call for all of us, regardless of the type of call. Holy men and women live in different times and places and speak different languages. Each found his “home” in a place suited to his desires. Mother Teresa once advised a candidate to seek “your own Calcutta.” You don’t need to come to India to be holy! We don’t have to be like any one else. We have to be who God intended us to be. We believe that the Lord made us in His image and clearly He demands chastity from us all. If God expects us to be chaste (and we believe that homosexual practice is unchaste) then chaste is what we must be.

Certainly, such a call is not fully answered solely by one’s own strength. It is with the power of Grace that one “does it.” The clenched white fist approach generally and understandably fails. There are two basic points at issue here: a) authentic celibacy can be healthy[2] and b) authentic celibacy flourishes with the help of God’s grace. The history of the priesthood, for example, is replete with data. In the scandals of the early 21st century, it is interesting to note that over a 60 year period, the data suggest that of all the outrageous behaviors of delinquent priests, over 80% were from homosexual priests. Obviously, some infidelities were from heterosexual priests. Whether these falls came from sexual orientation or not, is difficult to discover and may be moot. However, despite the unhappy and crushing reality of these infidelities, the dominant history of the priesthood has been one of love, fidelity and respect.

Dr. Freud significantly pointed out that the sexual drives of the human psyche can be healthily and productively redirected in ways other than genital discharge. This is called the mental mechanism of Sublimation. The non-use of the genital power does not, in itself, demonstrate that same sex attraction exists in any given person. Such an assumption would be a monocular view. In fact, some authors suggest that Freud himself, some time after his fortieth year, became celibate in order to invest himself totally in his work. In my own work as chaplain of the Retired Detectives of the NYPD I met more than a few men who, totally dedicated to law enforcement, were unmarried. These men were so involved in the fascinating work of investigating crime (getting huge emotional and spiritual reward thereby) that, in a sense, there was little room for the “goods” we associate with marriage. These were masculine males with minimal self centeredness but with strong outgoing dynamics for the social good (and often spiritual development). Deficiency of testosterone and fear of women simply do not apply here. Their basic fulfillment was elsewhere.

But much of real discovery and understanding depends on securing authentic data. While jumping to conclusions might be fodder for late night comedians twitting exercise, serious students of human behavior know that no one has X-ray vision. Much of what drives human behavior is not easily available for scrutiny. It is risky to say (especially when said with supreme confidence) that artists such as Michelangelo were homosexuals not only because they were unmarried but also because many of their male models were handsome and lean while their females models were muscular and masculine. It might be true—maybe these people are same-sex attracted! But for reasonable certainty more factual evidence is needed to justify such “shooting from the hip.” If we believe we argue from a scientific point of view, it is essential that we know the difference between correlation and causation! Even a casual knowledge of history shows that often “apprentices” lodged with a Master of a specific Genre---Paint, stone, sound, architecture---- in order to gain as much expertise as possible. To assume that it meant more easy access to sexual deviance is really “drawing on the long Bow” as is said in County Cork to describe the process of reaching conclusions beyond premises.

Answering the question opening this essay requires some serious thought. And some modest caution. While, one can honestly argue about the complex nature of homosexuality, there is no other side to the implication of my friend. Non-marriage, per se, does not equal homosexual. To insist on such an awkward conclusion is not only intellectually cloudy but is basically academically dishonest.

________________________________________
[1] Michelangelo may possibly have been SSA but that is as now speculation. However my point is to challenge the immediate assumption that Unmarried means homosexual.
[2] It is the Catholic contention that, regardless of the 1973 APA statement, the homosexual or same sex attracted person has an intrinsic disorder.

On the Need for Implacable and Unconditional Love

2008-11-03T19:04:00.000-08:00

In one of his many hit songs, Tony Bennett poignantly warbled about his need to be loved. So, he emotionally asserted “If I have love I know I can make it.” Tony, notwithstanding his secular values, does have something to say about human nature. Even in the world of pop music, musical comedy and Rap, one can stumble on truths to live by. Popularization does not necessarily mean superficiality. Yet if anything is universal and clear, it is that all of us have a profound longing to be loved with no conditions. In the human heart there is an unbounded desire to be uncritically esteemed and valued. The bravado one meets in life—such as: “I don’t need anybody!” (in the case of the uneducated the statement becomes “I don’t need nobody”), or “Who cares?” or “Who needs it?” or “I take care of #1 — me!” is really a mask or pose to disguise, even from himself, the terrifying suspicion that he is basically unlovable. One can expend enormous energy, perhaps even a lifetime, avoiding a real self confrontation lest his suspicion might be true. As Bennett implies, anyone who truly feels love will be open to the real basic joys possible to the human heart. Contrary wise, the feeling that no one really loves me, inevitably leads to anger and bitterness and sarcasm. Without love, life is misery. The blessed Apostle Paul put it brilliantly in his 1Cor.13 when he wrote “If I have all Faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.”

When I began the study and practice of clinical psychology 36 years ago, I was often perplexed with the inconsistencies of human behavior. The strange self destructive dynamic which I saw so often was very difficult to understand. My philosophic background strongly suggested 1 plus 1 invariably produce 2. I had naively assumed that human beings want the best for themselves. But, to my dismay, I found, in the psychological world, the result of 1 plus 1 is often unrecognizable and even repugnant. The cartoonist, Walt Kelly, had his guru, Pogo, make this all wise observation: “We have found the enemy and they are us”. Apart from the questionable grammar, Pogo articulates, in his own way, the age old truism that “I am my own worst enemy.” [1] No one savages me more fiercely than do I. But why is this so? Catholic theology teaches that there is an original “sin” in all of us with powerful tendencies toward evil. But nowhere is it written (except in rigid religious groups who teach that evil is the very core of the human experience) that because one has tendencies, he necessarily is “bad.” Rather, we teach that the human being is “wounded”, not corrupt nor intrinsically bad. We believe that the human being is, with the help of God’s powerful grace, capable of beautiful and generous unselfishness.

Yet, if one feels unlovable, it is an easy, if unconscious, progression to “I must be bad since no one really loves me.” It goes further to the strange conclusion that bad people must be punished in some way for being bad—even if the concept of “bad” is unclear. So should the external world not punish me, I must punish me. This gives some understanding to the weird self destructive dynamic wherein the person says: “I know this is crazy up here (in the head) but I must do it anyway. My heart doesn’t really believe that anyone really loves me! I need to be punished.” I have seen persons with SSA (same sex attraction) while knowing that homosexual behavior goes nowhere but down, destroying the person, nevertheless, will engage in promiscuous sex in tea rooms, bathhouses, cruising and the like. This behavior will be followed by huge self loathing and disgust but nevertheless will be repeated cyclically and periodically. He will have a great need to punish himself in the worst possible way proportionate to his perception of “how bad he is.” He believes, again unconsciously, that his defect is so serious that he must be punished in the most painful way. Hence, his choice of behaviors which meet his perceived evil and which call forth his debasement as appropriate punishment.

It is an easy progression to see that when one truly believes he is unlovable, he concludes that he must be bad. Even intrinsically corrupt. The self loathing that comes from a feeling of being unloved and being basically unlovable—unconsciously—will produce the enigma of 1+1 equaling the appalling and the unrecognizable. One might spend not only years but much funding in assessing the “why” of this unhappy situation. Why do people dislike me? Why do I dislike me? Why do I feel my family dislikes me? Why am I so lonely? Why have I such few friends?” (Relative to human relationships, it might be noted that true and lasting friendships usually require a reasonable self regard within the psyches of the friends.)

While for some people, such research might be fascinating with its concentration on the self,( talking about oneself is usually pleasurable) it is sometimes counterproductive and often minimal in its results. In the immediate present, there are scores of unhappy suffering people who are tortured by this pervasive feeling of being unloved. In Pogo’s thinking they harm themselves with their distortions. What, then, can such afflicted ones do? The answer to this question, basically, has been the work of the whole field of therapy for decades. Secular people of good will, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, even pastoral counselors, have striven mightily with all kinds of techniques to ease the pain and to reconstruct the psyche with more healthy self concepts. And to some extent, they have been helpful. However, self deprecation and even self loathing abound. And perhaps there will always be such negatives to some extent. If there is no “cure” there certainly is possible improvement. Freud thought that the human personality was basically unchangeable but he always taught the possibility of making a bad situation turn into a better one with more peace of soul and meaning in life.

I, as a licensed psychologist with 30+ years of experience will always argue for the positive values of psychotherapy but as a Catholic priest, ordained 60 years, I am keenly aware of “Something” else. That Something else involves the loving Creator of us all. It involves the truly amazing power of the grace of the Lord. For one thing, the loving Creator has made each of us His children. Each of us is unique. The Catholic Church teaches that one’s value is not in orientation or race or gender but simply in being a Child of God Himself. Of course, it is wonderful to have money, to travel where and when one wants, to acquire all kinds of gadgets and playthings, drive fast cars and party enthusiastically and extensively. Of course it is great to have talent and youth and health and wit and education and athletic ability. Such factors are valued and desired. But experience teaches that one needs more than that! Without a deep awareness of one’s self worth, one will ultimately ask “Is this all there is?” Or perhaps engage in the futile chase for some elusive (and non existent human) “Perfection.” Movie buffs can remember the powerful scene in Tennessee Williams “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” wherein the dysfunctional son, played by Paul Newman, castigates Big Daddy (Burl Ives) for giving him things in abundance but not the love he so desperately needed for his sense of self! Family therapists can attest to the mistakes of many well meaning parents or parent surrogates who miss a vital point by making self worth (and love) depend on the material.

What Freud and hundreds of other well meaning professionals did not know or accept was the saving power of God. They worked under the disadvantage of secularism which has limited tools. If there were one magic wand I could wield or as Tony Bennett fantasizes “If I ruled the world”, I would move all the world to relax in God’s love and feel His affection and care flowing over one’s soul. On the beach, in a silent Church before the Eucharist, in bed, at Holy Mass, at work, on a walk through the City, anywhere. So, is there a need for unconditional love and implacable love? I, in consort with most of the human race, think there is such a need. And I have a profound confidence for its attainment -----clothed in the implacable love of the good and gracious God. And I think I know how to find it. Re-read the previous paragraph. You don’t need to be an intellectual or bookworm. Just be open to His love. If you let Him love you, you, too, will say that His grace is powerful and amazing.

________________________________________
[1] Probably we all recall Shakespeare’s Caesar with his reminder “The fault, my dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves.”

Am I Racist If I Vote for McCain?

2008-09-28T23:00:00.000-07:00

When I was a little kid in the parish school of St. Paul’s, the Holy Cross Sisters taught us, among many things, the old adage “What you are speaks so loudly to me that I cannot hear what you say.” I thought that Sister was telling us that no matter how fancifully we might speak, if we were not open and honest, people wouldn‘t listen to our high flying rhetoric. Somehow the real “me” would come across regardless of my fancy talk. I, personally, had some kind of penchant for using big words, usually incorrectly, and I never seemed to convince anyone of almost anything. However, in the course of my long life, I have come to see how wise my teachers really were. In my studies to become a clinical psychological, I read, of course, many of Freud’s works and was vastly impressed by much of his insight. Once, he wrote that his patients, no matter how clever and evasive, would ultimately tell him who they really were by communicating ““through every pore.” He, like many of us, could read between the other’s lines.

A variation on Sister’s adage, for me, has become “What you stand for comes across so loudly that I can’t see your race or your gender.” My refusal to vote for Barack Obama has nothing to do with his race –or gender—or any such factor. It has to do with his value system and norms. To imply that my decision is based on the color of his skin is an insult not only to my integrity and my relatively high I.Q. but also to my religion which specifically teaches that discrimination is sinful and needing absolution. It is also demeaning to my many African American friends with whom I have close, trusting and warm relationships. We have no hesitancy disagreeing with one another since our disagreements are generated by the issues not by race or religion or gender. But our friendship has nothing to do with one’s race or religion. Rufus and Violet whom I have known for forty years, Brother Jude who steered me through the preps for my Ph.D., Jim B., retired army staff sergeant, who has laughed with me about many funny things, John C. who joined my religion which we share joyously. The vast list of my African-American heroes who have inspired me---Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes---and on and on. All of these superior people would be stunned if I ever were to descend to the despicable level of the racist, whatever his race might be. I disagree with Obama because of his values system with which I profoundly disagree.

Obama has much about him that is charming and attractive. He has a wonderful and friendly personality. He is a very good public speaker who holds my attention through his voice and his mastery of speaking style. He has really good teeth and a radiant smile. For his age, he shoots basketball hoops surprisingly well. He seems like a good family man with affection for his wife and children.

However, there are basic factors in him which instantly conflict with my own value system. I have been told so many times that I must not vote for a candidate unless he reflects my own values. For good or ill, whether I am right or wrong, I have come to believe that the first of all values is life itself. I cannot support anti-life which I believe Obama does---from the view point of unborn babies. They have no say as to their future. He has consistently voted pro-abortion (anti-life as I see it) in his legislative career. He is 100% supportive of aborting babies------ from a legislation standpoint. He has even thrown his support to the grisly partial birth abortion practice opposing any ban on it which even the perennial anti-life people find gruesome.

It has been reported in print that when speaking to an assembly of NARAL supporters, he promised them that the very first thing he will do, if elected President, would be to sign the Freedom of Choice act, thereby, in effect, removing any restriction on abortion at any growth level of the child in the womb. He has never denied this allegation. This “value” inclines me not to vote for him. When a bill was proposed to protect babies who survive a botched abortion, he voted against protecting these new citizens and against procedures meant to help them live.

I believe this man, voted the #1 liberal in Congress, is a socialist who speaks in a coded language. He is a radical of the most divisive sort and in fact a racist in his own right. His mentor was Frank M. Davis, an avowed Communist sought for years by the FBI, in whose bungalow in Waikiki, he attended nightly bull sessions drinking and sopping up “advice.” His father, Barack Hussien Obama Sr. was a brilliant Kenyan and Harvard educated intellectual who held that there should be 100% taxation on “Asians and Europeans.” The tax burden would be back breaking making the present economic crisis seem like a Sodality party. His notion of healing our economic woes is to re- distribute wealth a la the African method which failed so dismally, as in Rhodesia or modern Zimbabwe. His notion of meeting the energy crisis is to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. How this solves the oil shortage escapes me. This “value” inclines me not to vote for him.

His guarded ambiguous attitude to the American military is a puzzlement. Why would he not wear an American flag on his lapel when he is a member of the United States congress? Why would he not place his hand over his heart when the National anthem was played? Does he show contempt for those of us who follow those behaviors? Or does he say by his actions that he is the patriot not we? Further, with his 173 days in Congress, I do not believe that he has the experience to deal with sophisticated world powers. His absurd notion that he will meet with anyone without preconditions speaks to me of the highest naiveté.

Further, I am disconcerted by his association with questionable people. His claims that he sat for 20 years before Pastor Wright’s fiery denunciations and revolting speeches attacking this country and never heard anything inappropriate seem wildly disingenuous. The clear “God damn America” was a symbolic slap in the face to simple people like me. His association with Wm Ayres, a man with a terrorist history which he never seems to disavow is disturbing to me. What is this mysterious “Acorn” society he belongs to? I believe that association tells us much about each other. I recall my childhood warning: Birds of a feather flock together.

While I am not enamored of the maverick, John McCain, I am forced by conscience to vote for him. McCain’s bland manner and sleepy style bore me but he has substance. If perception differs from substance, McCain is a prime example. Besides his heroic and unbelievable POW experience, he is an avowed believer in life—as am I. He is a patriot and prefers to lose a political battle than lose a military one. He believes in the American spirit of self reliance. He has real plans to solve energy crises and is not awed by the dumb protestations of those who chain themselves to trees in the name of Environmentalism.

I like being left alone to do my “thing.” If I need protection, let my government give it to me. Big Government becomes the real Big Brother which can really stifle my freedom of speech and religion. There are more than hints that Obama means restrictions on my personal life. I like freedom. I sense Obama threatens it. I can’t vote for him. He is too dangerous.

The maverick is not the same as the present administration. He is very different. And besides I am in love with his vice president.

Can I Be Pro-Choice & Catholic at the Same Time?

2008-09-01T08:23:00.000-07:00

In trying to figure out the mysteries of life with its penumbras, emanations and conundra, I have always found it necessary (whenever possible) to reduce everything to its simplest level. For example when I think of a pregnant woman with an unborn child within her, I think of two possibilities. One: she lets the kid live. Or, two, she kills it. In my simple way, I can think of no other option. Can anyone? It seems to me that this term, abortion, really means a kind of “killing field.” Abortion (or whatever modern euphemism calls it—termination or choice) is simply killing human beings—and the most defenseless of all of us and the most innocent.

Even if pragmatists say “it is only potential human life”, my own limited study in physiology and biology indicates that, like a hyperbolic curve with precision accuracy, the life within this pregnant woman will generally and inexorably develop heart and lungs and cerebral cortex and be born basically a full human being like me and you and everyone else. It is simply impossible that she will give birth to a lion or hawk or Martian. I say “basically” because I know of the possible mishaps in the gestation process like Down’s syndrome, webbed hand and the like. For the most part, however, human beings have generally been born, over the eons, fairly healthy, with ten fingers and ten toes, well equipped for the life journey. And since I am one of those Romantics who believe that life is great and wonderful and meant to be enjoyed, I find myself profoundly revolted with the human carnage which occurs every single year in my country and the world. It means that literally millions of persons without personal fault will never see a sunset or enjoy great music or laugh at funny jokes or sit on a summer’s night in a Roman bistro sipping a cappuccino.

I am amazed, astonished and delighted with the new technology of sonogram whereby prospective parents can literally “see” the little heart, the formation of limbs and even the sex of their child. It is unbelievable that with such visual information, anyone could destroy that child. Such callousness flies directly against not only basic human decency and compassion but also against the guarantees of the American tradition: the self evident truth that everyone is entitled to life, at the least. It clearly and directly contradicts the holy Will of God—at least in the Judeo-Christian and Moslem Belief. For example most Americans believe, along with the late Senator Patrick Moynihan, that the procedure called “late term abortion” is not only barbarism but factually infanticide. This is the unbelievable procedure in which the child is turned around, in utero, to allow the abortionist to extract the child by the feet and then puncture the base of the skull (as this point still within the mother’s body), suction out brain matter and pull the now dead child completely out for disposal. How irreligious and jaded can one get?

However, in a recent televised “debate” two political candidates were asked the same question: ‘When do you think life begins”? One candidate replied with immediacy and crispness “At the moment of conception.” The other responded with a sonorous and elegant ambiguity. “Theology has a viewpoint” he said. “So does biology” and he spent a whole series of open-ended maneuvers almost frantically avoiding the direct question. He did not say what he thought. He is, regardless, on record, vigorously supporting the abortion movement, even to the extent of partial birth, as described above, and opposing a ban on allowing children, born from botched abortion procedures, to die. Yet, he clearly, without ambiguity, totally supports all movements meant to protect the Roe v. Wade decision which, in its ultimate effect, means that the life within the mother (the unborn child) can be terminated anytime during the pregnancy. Even understanding that, at times, medical limitations might make this literally impossible, the concept of “license” to kill for any reason stands. Such people can disregard the implications of the 14th amendment and insist that until the child can live on its own (i.e. be viable) it is not a person and therefore has no rights. It was rumored on Talk Radio that this candidate promised NARAL that the first act of his presidency would be to remove all restrictions on any level of abortion.

Both of these candidates are Protestant and as such are beyond the parameters of this paper. It is the Catholic whom we consider. Views among Protestants vary greatly. Rarely does one find a Church which specifically condemns abortion as a matter of Faith and Doctrine. It is highly personal and subjective unlike Orthodox Jews, Catholics and strict Moslem sects who recognize the evil of abortion in general. Seeing the abomination of abortion would, one would imagine, be sufficiently cogent for a practicing Catholic (with an informed conscience) to support the right to live for infants. This should occur regardless of one’s political affiliation. I am embarrassed, as a Catholic priest, to find in the Protestant world, as described above, and not among Catholics, the politician who declared that he would sacrifice his politician career rather than support the abortion movement.

The truth –alas—is that we have so-called Catholics trumpeting positions antithetically opposed to the teaching of our Religion. Catholics for a Free Choice is a prime example of using the Catholic name to cover evil practices which we unequivocally condemn. Such blatant hypocrisy is easier to handle than the subtle smooth talking politician who can mislead millions of well intentioned Americans. The Catholic stance is beyond interpretation and speculation. For example, in the 2001 Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities, the American Catholic Bishops wrote:

“Abortion, the direct killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral[1]. Its victims are the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family. It is imperative that those who are called to serve the least among us give urgent attention and priority to this issue of justice…..”

In effect, no serious Catholic can become engaged in or support the abortion movement without incurring serious consequences and guilt. When the allegation is raised that this type of Catholic insight is a single issue policy, I hasten to remind such opponents of some reality factors. I, as a half Jew, know that had I been in Munich in 1938 at the age of 17, my inexorable destination was Dachau. It would be singularly reasonable for me to face this immediate issue: my life. Was this single issue thinking? When I went to Johannesburg in 1948, had I been non-white, my destiny would have been discrimination, poverty and humiliation. Was such concern to be dismissed because of “single issue” thinking? If an infant in the womb could speak, would it be single issue thinking if the child struggles for survival?

Realistically, there is no “other side.” Slaughter of “non-Aryans” is flat wrong and can never be justified. Nor can the brutality of apartheid. Nor the slaughter of millions of innocent infants. If one is on the receiving end of such barbarism, it is impossible to see the “other side” or other issues. If only the child in the womb could debate, perhaps he might have a chance of survival. The child will never get that chance. The child will be killed. Only in the “bubble” society of Hollywood and East side New York City (maybe west side too) is the infant butchery clothed in the mantle of the “good.” This is the style of the Demon.

When Catholic politicians follow a Party line which seriously violates the Catholic principles of the fundamental justice, the right to life, they cannot in conscience use their Faith to bolster evil behavior. Unless, of course, they are totally ignorant and uniformed about their own Religion. In my years as chaplain in the NYPD I heard many times the dimension of crime called “aiding and abetting.” To support and help some one commit a “crime” even in a remote way, is to make one guilty proportionate to levels of involvement. I believe there is a “spiritual” crime here when we deprive innocents of the most fundamental right of all: LIFE. I hold that prominent Catholics (even if well intended), particularly those in public life, aid and abet this crime. However, I prefer to view these “Catholics” in the light of stupidity rather than malice. I pray that I am right when I say that.

When a so-called Catholic, high in public office, insists that her faith justifies her unbelievable support of outright evil, I prefer to classify her as ignorant rather than evil. When she does not know what she believes about the Blessed Eucharist (the Core of Catholicism), I am forced, by charity, to believe that she is operating without a full deck of faith. Yet, I am also forced by the pressure of Truth and the Revelation of God’s will through His Church to point out her error and pray that she will amend her life (which might be well intentioned even if incorrect). Her possible Good Will is not sufficient to allow her to go unchallenged when she uses the Faith to advance her political position. Even her own pastor publicly challenged her and suggested that she stop calling herself Catholic since she so clearly speaks in a way which is not only non-Catholic but even anti-Catholic.

This person, holding the third highest office in the United States, completely misrepresents the Catholic doctrine when she says that the Church has not been able to agree on when life begins. Church leaders on the contrary say that since the first century the Catholic position has been to affirm the moral evil of abortion. Her notion that some theologians over the centuries have had hesitancy about this point is again revealing her ignorance. Theologians do not establish Church teaching. The official Church does. The Jesuit priest, John McGarry, years ago, jocosely remarked that he has nothing against theologians. Their study keeps them off the street at night! An obvious reference to the Catholic notion of who, officially, “teaches” the Faith— It is specifically the Magisterium, not individual theologians.. When she says that the Church could not agree on when life begins, she is clearly rebutted when Bishops state:

“While in Canon law these theories led to a distinction between very early and later abortions, our teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.” (Rigali and Lori, both Bishops of the Church)

Like Cardinal Egan we are shocked to hear that this so-called Catholic would make such uninformed remarks as if she spoke the Catholic stance. (Rep) Robert Dornan, Calif., wrote in a public essay that she derisively dismissed his unyielding opposition to Abortion on a legislative level. Yet she uses the Persona of “Catholic.” It is incredible in this Age that she would be unaware of what her own Church teaches. The Cardinal notes, incidentally, that unborn children are NOT part of the mother and what they are does not depend on the opinions of theologians of any faith. He also articulated where Catholics stand:

“Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”

She is fairly representative of other alleged or so-called Catholics in public life, especially those in the world of politics. The Kennedys, the Leahys, the Durbins, the Bidens, obediently toe the Party line and chant Pro Choice--Pro Choice--Pro Choice --- while shouting to the World that they are devout Catholics. How we pray that public servants would live to help others, follow what they secretly know is God’s Will and not put their personal careers above what is right. At the very least, could they stop pretending that they are Catholics in good standing? Could they stop seducing simple Catholic Americans with their fake religious allegiance?

The answer to the rhetorical title question of this essay, after all of this, is obvious. No serious Catholic can be Pro-Choice. Like the work of the psychologist, Festinger who researched “dissonance,” namely the impossible co-existence of two conflicting but antithetical factors, the thinking person must confront this impossibility. One must go. It is impossible to be both. Either I will be Pro-Choice or a serious informed Catholic. There is no “middle ground” or other side. May the Holy Spirit guide the Catholic people to see God’s Truth through all the mist and haze of modern politics.

________________________________________
[1] That is objective Mortal sin. Subjective implications are of a tricky nature.

How Much is Enough for S.N.A.P.?

2008-08-26T17:35:00.000-07:00

In the winter of 1986 I suffered what is technically called an M.I. (myocardial infarction) or heart attack. For several months I underwent the slow, discouraging and sometimes painful routine called cardiac rehab. On one of the hottest and most humid days of that July, I was scheduled for one of my periodic stress tests in a clinic on Manhattan’s fashionable East side. It was so fashionable one of the Directors decided to close the facility because of the uncomfortable weather conditions. Alas for me, some one “forgot” to call me about the cancellation. I showed up, on time, after a wearying trek across town, sweaty, heart pounding and exhausted only to find posted on the front door a sign that was, to me, horrific. ‘Clinic closed today.”

The following day, with a huge sense of justified ire, I called the clinic on the telephone and chewed out the charge nurse. I ranted. I raved. I fumed. She listened to me somewhat impatiently, then replied with a jaded, bored tone: “What do you want me to do?” I was temporarily stumped for a reply. In my visceral self I knew that the error or misjudgment or irresponsibility was now historical. There was no way the past injustice to me could be replayed for correction. I had to accept the historical fact that I had been mistreated. I had been treated poorly. While it could not be honestly excused, my remonstrations and criticisms were useless. There was nothing I (or anyone else) could do to eliminate my inconvenience. I had to swallow hard, make another appointment and go on from there. It became apparent to me that my anger and fury were hurting no one but me. The methodology ultimately worked. In time, I found peace and forgiveness which benefited me.

To equate such an experience and its resolution with the sexual molestation of a teenager by a cleric who is probably homosexual, is, of course, absurd and sheer nonsense. Yet there are several common factors shared in both experiences which might be analyzed with some profit. One: in both instances, a person has a painful and negative experience. Two: there is difficulty healing from that painful experience. Again this is not equation but analogy. It is the principle and dynamic which presently are of primary interest to the writer. Healing is necessary in any event for all human beings who have been hurt on any level. The magnitude of the pain of molestation here is obviously different from a broken medical appointment---astronomically so but the dynamic for healing might be similar. It is patently clear that there can be no equality between the two “pains.” However, the intention of this paper is to analyze the principle of forgiveness and its consequence of inner peace.

Let us examine some background. Church records show that for over sixty years, certain Americans, mostly male and adolescent, have been shamefully misused by selfish, ego-centered, (usually homosexual) clerics[1] who exploit their own exalted status to sear and ravage young people. Recently, the New Oxford Review published an article describing the shameful and disgusting behavior of these unfaithful clerics. The article was indeed helpful for those trying to understand this clerical phenomenon. In the Catholic lay and clerical groups there were clearly feelings of shame and disbelief and anger. There were justified protests and demands that this type of behavior must be stopped. However there was a “tone” to the article which bothered me—as much as I agree with the expositions and outrage stemming from a disgrace which wounds all Catholics. This tone could in the long run actually hurt those wounded ones who are seeking the priceless gift of peace of mind—to say nothing of maintaining their Faith. The article, I thought, too facilely discounted what has been done to help the healing process and by so doing contributed to the pain of the victims.

To discount the strenuous efforts of the Church is to do a disservice to those who try to recover from a terrifying and perplexing experience. Their Faith should not be torn from them as well which is what a skewed focus could bring. It is important, for healing, to recognize and strengthen the efforts made to “clean it all up.” It is also important to recognize that the sinful behavior of those clerics was blatantly and totally at variance with their own Church’s teaching. In effect one must not throw out Christ’s Church but only the erring and unfaithful clerics. During his recent visit to the United Sates Pope Benedict XVI adverted to this terror at least five times, apologized for it, saw several of the victims personally and admonished Catholic leaders to “do the right thing.” Seminaries must be tightened up. Admission procedures must be strict. Bishops must be fatherly but insistent that priests be priestly. There are to be no “cover-ups.” There must be complete cooperation with criminal justice systems in this matter. Recruiters must be determined to reject practicing homosexuals[2] or those who are “gay-friendly” (which means accepting homosexual mores and looking the other way when there are Caution lights in abundance.)

However, is sometimes sad to see the results of the very strict Regulations presently in force. Even a single allegation can result in an innocent priest’s removal, “temporarily” but immediately, while an investigation is carried on. There were several instances of false charges wherein the priest was removed and later re-instated but with enormous difficulty since the rumors floated—“where there is smoke…….” The priest’s life was substantially destroyed. Dioceses made terrible mistakes trying to “buy off” accusers, giving out large sums of money hoping (foolishly) that maybe they will go away and the scandal will never come to light. Anyone dealing in law enforcement would smell the nasty aroma of Blackmail.

The NOR article blithely discounts the statistical fact that fewer and fewer charges are being made. Such a statistic is dismissed as “…simply because they are not reported.” It would be interesting to learn how the author of the article would disprove this negative. Speculation is not highly regarded in sociological or psychological research.

In fact, there has been enormous correction by the Church. In the cases of the unfortunate victims of molestation, there has been super extensive effort to help them heal. It is common knowledge that Dioceses in this country have gone almost bankrupt in giving great sums of money to victims. This has often resulted in major cutbacks in pastoral services for some people in desperate need. It is reasonable for Bill Donahue, of the Catholic League, to raise the legitimate Caveat about the possibility that some charges might be untrue. There are known lawyers who publicly state that there is much to be made off the Church in these terrible cases—even if the charge is false. We had had the scam-like behavior of those who falsely charged Cardinal Bernardin and Cardinal Egan of improper behavior while lesser known clerics have suffered the same indignity without the support of the larger public.. Unfortunately, there are some people who do make allegations, without substance, in the hope of the “quick buck.” There are people in society who plan the “deep pocket” possibility without shame.

I, myself, spent five years, as part of a committee to assess priestly misbehavior in a large Catholic archdiocese. Most of the cases presented to us were real cases of revolting sexual violence done by clerics and religious (occasionally female). In all legitimate cases, the victims were treated with gentleness and understanding. Counseling fees were paid. Academic tuitions were paid. Automobiles were purchased for them. All efforts were made to help them heal even if their experience was from long ago. Even to 20 or 30 years prior[3]. Many authentic victims do seem to get some kind of healing reaction by making their misuse known even if kept secret for years. Many were given large sums of money --lending credence to Donahue’s point of perceived “deep church pockets”. There were actual cases presented to us which were not credible but were spurious/ frivolous, relatively few, but nonetheless presented to the Board as if factual. If there is some cynicism in investigators, it probably stems from the knowledge that there are occasional fakers.

Some victims, in response to the question whether or not they want money, reply vaguely that all they want is that this doesn’t happen to others or that the cleric or religious get some help or how can you measure money with my pain, or the cost of living is high and the like. But, at the same time, goaded by their lawyers, they sometimes ask for enormous sums of money, millions, allegedly “for expenses.” One does begin to question, like Donohue, the authenticity of some cases.

However more relevantly, while the Church is doing everything possible to help the victimized, there are still shrill voices demanding more and more and more. How much is enough? I have counseled one legitimate victim (without fee of course) who was utterly insatiable regardless of large financial compensation and the emotional assistance and support given to him. Interestingly, he had a whole series of emotional disturbances which existed side by side with his true victimization. He was vulnerable. Predators have an uncanny sense of such vulnerability and vigorously prey upon the unsuspecting victim. The results can be disastrous, depending on the ego strength of the victim. Yet it is a factor rarely considered by those who denounce the Church so vehemently.

A group of Catholic psychologists testified at a professional seminar that if the person is relatively well put together (emotionally), a single pinch on his bottom will be sloughed off. The “prey” sees the perpetrator as a “nut.” But if he is already wounded by previous environmental experience (with which Church had nothing to do), he will be harmed. It is my opinion that, in most of the cases I have seen, the victim is already set up to be hurt. And, as is stated, the predator, cleric or not, will sense by a kind of instinct that he can “have his way” through some perceived emotional Achilles’ heel. Such perspective does not justify sin but it does broaden the picture.

What more does S.N.A.P. want? What more can the Church do? Is it the victimized ones which is their concern? Or is it something more? Is it really a case of a desire to share power using this unhappy era to be the stepping stone to a control position? Is it revenge they seek? Was it not written in the Word of God “Vengeance is mine……says the Lord”? Do they want money? What do the agitators want? I suggest if it is really the good of the victims we seek, we should laud the work of the Church to thwart such evil possibilities in the Church---by anyone----. We should support efforts to choke off all opportunities for predators in Christ’s own Church and get on with the basic business of the universal search for holiness and eternal salvation.

________________________________________
[1] Practically all major scientific studies report a significantly higher percentage of homosexual predators over non-homosexual ones. John Jay Report, USA Today, Rockville Centre diocese, among others, report a dominance of homosexual to non-homosexual up to 80-90%.
[2] One of the Paulist recruiters of the past was ordered by the then Superior General” “Keep the bu----ers out.” It looks like a prophetic view in the light of the unhappy history of molestation.
[3] It is most regrettable that some cleric did indeed commit one evil act, years before, in his career, truly repented, made atonement and performed marvelously well for 20/30 years but whose unhappy past behavior surfaces in the present. How much damage does this do to devout Catholics and how destroyed is this priest in his old age? One wonders about the psychological status of the accuser. This occurred in New York City recently and has caused nothing but pain for all.

What Does the Eucharist Mean to You?

2008-08-17T20:50:00.000-07:00

In the year of Our Lord, 1928, on a bright Saturday morning in May I made my First Holy Communion. At the eight o’clock Mass in the great Paulist Mother Church, St. Paul the Apostle, I knelt at the altar railing and received Him. As the priest placed the Sacred Host on my tongue he said:

“Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam”
(May the Body of Jesus Christ protect your soul into life eternal…)

Even though I did not know a word of Latin, I was acutely aware that something very important was happening to me. Even though I was trying scrupulously to obey Sister’s stern command “Don’t let your teeth touch the Host”, I just knew that I was experiencing something very significant. Dr. Robert Coles, the eminent child psychiatrist from Harvard, has done extensive work indicating that young children can have profound awareness of “reality”, uncontaminated by the immersion into the “practicalities” of adult life. Even though children commonly indulge in fantasies and even white lies to support the fantasies, they are capable of amazing insights into what really “is.” At the age of 7, I was in touch with the Reality that my Saviour Jesus Christ was extremely close to me at that moment. It was only in retrospective adult life with God’s help (and the help of my avocation as a psychologist), that I was able to put words onto the “feeling.”

Euphoria with a touch of ecstasy

By some kind of blessed dynamic I have had the same basic experience for over 80 years--- with the expected and predictable emotional variations and vacillations---soaring, at times and dry as dust at others. But always with the same childlike trust in and attachment to the Eucharist. Such an attachment has taken me through painful periods of failure, loneliness and confusion. Not only I, but multitudes of believing Catholics over the centuries have experienced the same dynamic. One contemporary of mine comes instantly to mind—Cardinal JJ O’Connor who beautifully described the role of the Eucharist in what he called the greatest temptation of his life: a trial of faith. In Okinawa where he was a young Naval Chaplain, he spent many hours alone in the Quonset type chapel—wrestling with the Lord before the Eucharist (called the Blessed Sacrament by Catholics). Only the flickering Sanctuary candle punctuated the intense darkness. But in time the young officer arose stronger and clearer to become ultimately the Premier Prelate in the American Catholic church.

This experience is well known to Catholics across the board. G. K. Chesterton, the towering English genius, Claire Boothe Luce, the American intellectual, Jacques Maritain, the French philosopher and scores of high level Catholics, all have responded the same way. It is core to the Catholic experience. Fr John Catoir, the respected host of the Christophers, when asked why he is a Catholic, responded in a mille second: “because of the Eucharist….” He, the famous TV host, the lawyer and theologian, knows full well that other Christian groups do offer a form of “Communion service.” But he also knows none, save the various “Orthodox” churches, holds the same belief as Catholics. When the Catholic “receives” the Eucharist he really believes that he is receiving into his own soul Jesus Christ, i.e. God. While receiving the Host under the “appearance” of bread and wine, the Catholic believes that he actually receives the Lord Himself. This is neither symbol nor memorial nor transient reminder as is more common in Protestant churches. Hence, the Catholic usage of the term “Real” relative to the Eucharist. The Lord is really there deep within my soul! Hence, on entering any Catholic chapel or church where the Eucharist is reserved in the Tabernacle, Catholics genu-flect ( bend the knee to the floor) or make some sign of obeisance and adoration to the Lord before them.

From my days in Africa, I recall the Protestant minister acquaintance saying that if he believed what we believe, he would crawl on his hands and knees to the tabernacle to adore his Lord. He, like anyone, could read the biblical basis for Catholic belief in Luke 22, Matt 26, Mark 14, John 6 and 1Cor 11 but he could not accept the “hard” saying in John 6. Some people can. Some can’t. Of course all believers of any group believe that God is transcendentally present every where. In the scripture, prayer groups, charity behaviors the Lord resides. Everywhere. However, the Eucharist is unique in a super special manner. This is a personal and unique mode of Presence. Some years ago, the then American president attempted to defend his sexual exploits by saying that it all depended on what is means. When is “is” is? The late night standup comics had a field day with semantics. But we Catholics explicitly state that Jesus is there in Person. This astounding statement is symbolized in the Sanctuary lamp which burns 24/7 signifying His quiet and awesome Presence.

But one doesn’t need an IQ of 140 to see and practice this Catholic “thing.” In my own family, working class and fairly low on the socio-economic scale, it was rare to find anyone with a high school education but devotion to the Eucharist was pervasive and matter of fact. It is a truism that some people are educated well beyond their intelligence but it is also reasonably obvious that the reverse can be true. An uncle (called J.J.) never finished elementary school (for economic reasons) and was literary-wise, profoundly limited. But he “understood” the Eucharist, at least viscerally. In his last days, seriously ill in the hospital, he pleaded: “I gotta have Holy Communion…” Devoid of a college degree and association with intellectuals, he, nevertheless, had an almost pragmatic grasp of what the Eucharist means ---particularly when we suffer the various “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” He “knew” what the Eucharist means. A friend of mine, in the investment business and an honors graduate of a prestigious Catholic University, told me that in his highly stressed life there are only two instances when he experiences “ecstasy.” One, having sex with his wife and, two, when he receives the Eucharist. How that statement would please Pope John Paul II.

In my years as a Police Chaplain, (NYPD-retired Detectives division) I met many striking examples of men with limited classical education who were endowed with clear and practical vision into the vital matters of living. One of my detective friends who had strayed from the Faith for years, was attending the funeral Mass of a colleague slain “on the job.” He insists, without qualification, that as he entered the Church he “heard” a voice saying to him: “I have missed you.” Shortly, thereafter, he went to Confession and has been attending Mass daily ever since (a two year period). I wonder whether or not the voice in his head was his own soul saying to the Lord in Eucharist, “I, the detective, have missed You, the Lord.” Still, meta-verbal speech is not uncommon. I recall the famous incident when Francis of Assisi heard the Lord speak to him with the command “Re-build My House.” The Lord may really have spoken to this cop but who knows! We can only assess the truth by its fruits. The Lord speaks in many ways under many guises.

A most illustrative example comes from the remote parish of Ars in France where the sainted cure, John Vianny was parish priest. Vianny questioned a retired, old farmer who spent hours in the church each day. He asked “What do you say to Him?”, a question which implicitly states deep belief in the Eucharistic Presence. The retiree, knowledgeable in raising crops but untrained in theology, said “I look at Him and He looks at me.” This is the deepest form of prayer. It is mystical. It is without words but profoundly unitive with God. While most of us cannot reach the sublime level of this holy man, most of us can find deep peace and calmness in just “being there.”

This Presence, even if misunderstood, has been utilized by Hollywood and modern literature. I recall the powerful sequence in ‘The Informer” when Gippo, (played so marvelously by Victor McLaglen) staggers to the Catholic Church, to drop before the Eucharist to die, his body riddled with bullets and his soul pleading for forgiveness from the Lord . Who can forget the dialogue, in Beckett, between the Archbishop of Canterbury (played by the incomparable Richard Burton) and the Lord present in the Eucharist? Or the final and moving scene in “The Fugitive” in which the priest (played by Henry Fonda) goes to the Church to die in the Eucharistic Presence? Or the touching scene in AJ Cronin’s “Keys of the Kingdom” wherein Fr. Andrew Chisholm, the young missionary (played by Gregory Peck).arrives in China, alone and desolate? He says Mass, alone, believing that the Whole Court in Heaven is with him---but especially that Jesus is Present right there! The Eucharist is right there with him! He is consoled and encouraged. How I can relate to that! How many times in my tour of Africa, I felt so far from home and family and all those things so valuable to me. But it was the Mass and the Presence of Jesus in the Tabernacle that sustained me. All the fancy high level talk couldn’t reach me. But the Eucharist could and did.

We find a huge belief in the Eucharist in Graham Greene’s works—“Heart of the Matter”—“The Power and the Glory. The blockbuster hit by Evelyn Waugh, “Brideshead Revisited” was lavished in Television, movie and novel. A central theme was, of course, Catholicism with all it mystery and awe and confict.. The Eucharist is so important to this wealthy family that a chapel is in the house itself with Jesus residing in the tabernacle! After each meal they process to thank Him for His gifts to them. All levels can find this Gift. The normal and healthy. The neurotic and self seeking. The wounded. The very poor and the very rich. The perplexed and the confident. The lonely and angry. But those who find it, find the ability to be grateful. The very term Eucharist derives from a Greek word meaning “Thanks.” When I visit my Greek dentist, we have fun when I say what sounds like “Ef-cara-sto” to thank him and he replies what sounds like “cala calor” which means you are welcome—all based on the traditional ancient Faith in the Eucharist!

Whence this prize? This Eucharist? Is it family matrix? Social structure? How come I, the priest with an Irish mother and a Russian Jewish father have this gift? Why do not my Jewish cousins (who are smarter and probably better people than I), have it? Why is this? I say Gift because I think the capacity to believe is part of God’ grace. But a gift can be lost or mistreated. It must be nourished and guarded and loved. I know that even if the classic Eucharistic understanding eludes me and even though I am highly educated with a high I.Q. and it eludes me intellectually, still, it suits me and helps me. For this I am filled with gratitude and like the poor old farmer in France, I just want to look at Him and have Him look at me. After 80 years with the Eucharist, I have reached this plateau of love and gratitude. But what does the Eucharist mean to you?

Could It Be The Water That Makes Californian Craziness? Or What?

2008-08-17T20:46:00.001-07:00

Some years ago Truman Capote simultaneously delighted and upset his fans by asserting that “for every year you live in California, you lose one point off your I.Q.” Some excoriated him while others applauded for articulating what was in their own minds. It does seem that in spite of its beautiful weather and its relaxed rampant lifestyles, the Golden State produces more zany types of flower children, bizarre religious fanatics and off-beat dropouts than any other area.One can recall the somewhat extremist behaviors of the Big Sur era with its encounter groups and Tim O’Leary’s enthusiastic fantasies on LSD as the answer to all of life’s problems. I remember the bizarre teachings of Matthew Fox and the New Age theology of a popular Californian nun (like some Modern religious) who saw Jesus as just like us—purely human. Nothing more. Yet, whether or not Truman speaks tongue in cheek or seriously, it is fairly clear that any position, opinion or stance for anyone is strongly influenced by one’s own personal experience.

Some recent personal experiences of my own almost replicate Truman’s assertion. In the last three months I have been consulted by several human transplants from California, specifically, from the “Progressive” Berkley(?)/San Francisco area. Three are women who, not knowing each other, have been referred to me by some local clergy (who generally are uncomfortable and untrained in dealing with a-typical personalities). They are largely unhappy with what they call the “Conservative” Catholic church in this area and are predictably vocal in their support of woman priests, gay marriage, more lay control, more “flexible” rules of spirituality—especially for sexual behavior-- and of course tepid support for the Pope whom they consider a Teutonic near Neanderthal.

With hyperbolic predictability any experienced clinician could see “shambles” written big and clear in their stories. All three were personally out of sync in their marriages. One was particularly “interesting.” Her father wouldn’t speak to her. Nor would her mother or brother. She so irritated her husband that he came after her with a Knife leading her to get a court order of “protection” from her own husband. This was one of those “…the fault, my dear Brutus, is not in the stars but in ourselves…” She found it exceedingly difficult to own any responsibility for her unhappiness or to admit that all relationships are a two-way street. In desperation, such personalities resort to “magical” solutions which will (in their minds) hopefully give them instant Paradise.

They all say they come for “spiritual” resolution of their life difficulties (in this case read Magical) and would be incensed at any suggestion of personal or marital therapy[1]. In fact, they consulted their Californian priests not for solution of problems but to vent [2]and apparently with the hope of unending catharsis (without fee, of course). They used the unsuspecting priests as “sounding boards” not as guides to a life with God. It was the old story. The presenting problem seems spiritual but the latent and real problem is psychological. Unconsciously the innocent clerics are “enablers” who think that they are pastoral and “with it.”

All three were loaded with repressed anger which was displaced to some target other than themselves---preferably one which does not retaliate but accepts anything—like a non-judgmental Church which is committed to compassion and long suffering patience. It might be group or area thinking but it is more probably caused by negative human [3]interaction. In effect, it is not the water or weather or California or a “Conservative” Church which is the “bad guy”. Beyond the elusive and difficult to demonstrate gene theory, it is most probably how we think and feel about ourselves (and life itself) that determines much of human happiness. It is really a toxic human environment, both interior and exterior which is the enemy. One’s interiority is certainly a factor in human happiness but so is one’s exteriority; the places, the people, the things--- as so carefully described in 12 step recovery programs.

For the priceless peace of soul (which these three women are really seeking) it is necessary to clarify and answer honestly (to themselves) the great questions of human self discovery. What do I really want out of life? (A surprising number of people do not know). How much am I prepared to pay and sacrifice for its attainment? What are my fantasies? What do I think about? Whom do I hang out with? The recently deceased Fr. Paul Keenan of the New York Archdiocese used to preach “you get like what you pay attention to…”[4] Narcissistic fantasies, unhealthy reading, depressing comrades, sarcastic conversation, immodest behavior, porno all affect the human being who, trance-like might engage in the old rationalization process that it is only a little peek or look at the salacious or anything experienced spiritual directors call the near occasions of sin. There are extensive data about the misunderstanding of “the slippery slope.” One little step and you are gone—right down the mountain!

Catholics believe that God’s grace operates on human nature. We believe that one confronts and manages human obstacles first. The persistent idea that religion can have a thunder bolt solution—as if there were some kind of Merlinian[5] formula---is probably infantile thinking. The truth is that growth and maturity are slow and incremental requiring the free cooperation of the human being. It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church has condemned not only Pelagianism which believes that man can handle his problems alone with human solutions but also Quietism which believes that God will do it all with little or no human input.[6]

Bill Cosby, the noted philosopher/comic/social observer recently opined that it does matter with whom we associate. This was occasioned by the allegation of a prominent politician that he was not influenced by the offensive public remarks made by his Pastor. For 20 years he listened to the degrading presentations of his spiritual leader insisting that even though he remains a close friend with this man whom he deeply admires, the repulsive value system will have no effect whatever on his own way of thinking. Cosby ridicules this allegation as unreal. I must agree. You get like what you pay attention to!!

A famous baseball player with great family problems has some kind of need to “womanize.” One of his teammates refused to associate with him in social situations because the “Romeo” most probably would exhibit his embarrassing sexual tendency. The second man knows that one is easily affected by his comrades. He values his own integrity and understands how we affect each other. It does matter with whom we associate.

Coming from a slightly Puritanical home where I never heard my father utter one “street” word was not enough to offset my twenty one years as a Police chaplain. I was appalled to find myself effortlessly using the language of the streets. I had picked up that verbal behavior from the people (good --even if rough-- guys) I “hung around with.” I recall my sincere intentions to fight the iniquitous social policy of apartheid on my arrival in South Africa and my intense fright on discovering that I hardly thought or mentioned my Christian responsibility after some time there. The white South Africans took such evil as part of “practical” living. With out realizing it, I, the Missionary with Christ’s message was accepting the unChristian values and views of those I “hung around with.” This is the power---plus or minus--- which is attached to human association. Even the great Apostle Paul endorses this point in his First letter to the Corinthians, 5,9. “I wrote to you …..not to associate with immoral people…not to associate with the immoral, greedy, drunkard or robber… not even to eat with such a person….”

In my own pastoral work today, I am quick to point out this obvious (but apparently misunderstood reality) to those under my spiritual care. If a person with Same Sex Attraction really wishes to gain reasonable chastity, he must avoid those people who are either active in or tolerant of same sex behavior.
The Gay Bar might lure him with promises of “just enjoying the music.” But the psychic climate is dangerous for him. He, as a human being, is susceptible to the confidently spoken homosexual mores so rampant in Gay society. You get like what you pay attention to. You are influenced by those you “hang out with”. Going to gay bath houses for the alleged purpose of “health reasons” is not only lying to oneself but, at the very least, exceedingly toxic to one’s spiritual health. Looking at porno of any kind can be destructive and addictive which only re-enforces the SSA disorder.

In Catholic circles, this is all summed up in what is called the “Near occasions of sin.” It still is people, places and things. One finds human unhappiness or nuttiness not only in California and North Carolina but in Ireland, Hong Kong and Sicily---wherever there are people. Granting the possibility of organic damage, it is mostly attributable, I believe, to poor psychic environment. It comes down regardless of environmental negatives, under God, to refining the point of what I want in life! What do I want? If my goal is clear, I will, with God’s help, do what is necessary for that attainment and vigorously avoid what endangers what I want.

The mantra is: “You get like what you pay attention to.”

________________________________________
[1] Apparently, seeking out a therapist is somehow degrading but looking up a priest (who happens to be a licensed shrink) is considered acceptable since the resolution in their minds is “spiritual.” Is psychotherapy some kind of symbol of failure in life?
[2] Venting for its own sake is useless and unhealthy. As a part of the therapeutic process it has credence.
[3] The biological influence of hormones and genes obviously has some significance but dominantly it is the psychic human factor which is interesting to my hypothesis.
[4] I am familiar with the grammar purists who go ballistic when a writer ends a sentence with a preposition. But I am more impressed with Winston Churchill’s derisive dismissal of their rigid insistence on grammatical clumsiness when he said: “This is something up with I will not put.”
[5] Merlin was the fabled magician of King Arthur’s Round table gang.
[6] The spiritual axiom is: work as if everything depended on you but pray because every thing depends on God.

Will I Be Punished If I Speak My Truth?

2008-04-15T20:02:00.000-07:00

When the Archbishop of St. Louis announced that, in his Archdiocese, those self-identified , alleged Catholic politicians who, knowingly supported legislation antithetically opposed to Catholic teaching, would be denied the Eucharist, the prototypic howl of protest swept the land. He was called Fascist, overbearing, un-American, and even Conservative or Orthodox. (Heavens!) A group in Congress issued an indignant statement angry that their Catholicism should be questioned. They stridently pointed out their, at least occasional, Mass attendance as an index of the vitality and knowledge of their Faith. Severe ACLU-like criticism came from many non-Catholic quarters advising the Archbishop (and, by extension, all Catholic leaders) how to run the Catholic Church in the United States. On NPR the threatening axe was dangled: “Stay out of politics or give up your tax-exempt status.” And “Catholic Bishops should stay out of politics, clean up their own house……..” Another blog suggested that “the Church hierarchy’s meddling into electoral politics (has brought it) to a disturbingly new level…” The reaction was massive. There is, factually, enormous pressure to go with the tide. The not-so-subtle message is: Conform or else you will be punished in a way which we will devise.

Surprisingly, some criticism came from ostensibly impeccable Catholic sources. A priest acquaintance confidently assured me that statements such as that of the Archbishop were really useless and possibly even counter productive. He preferred that we “just go along” and make no trouble. He, not surprisingly, had a comfortable way of life which he apparently wished to be protected from any “rocking of the boat.” I wonder what “they” really could do or would do should our Leaders truly lead by speaking out. At the worst, we might ask ourselves: Is tax emption worth the loss of our very selves?

When a committed American Catholic considers the ugly list -- physician assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, legal pornography—it is difficult to understand the mindset of those who choose to look the “other way.” We have apparently forgotten the English observation of “The easiest way for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” Even a superficial knowledge of history indicates that evil penetrates “little by little.” The old Arabic parable of the Camel’s nose is always relevant. “Just a little bit”—“every one is doing it.”— “let us be practical.” Surprisingly soon, the Camel is inside the tent and the Rider is shivering in the outside cold.

Has the American Catholic Church succumbed? Have we, instead of accommodating to our culture, been converted to it? After all the high pressured “accommodation” we can still ask the practical questions: Are we Catholics (especially our leaders) any different in value judgments from our fellow citizens whom we allegedly commit to influence? Are we any braver? Wiser? Holier? Closer to God?

My concern is specifically the Catholic clergy and how consistent are we in our call to participate in Public Life? An immediate aspect of the priesthood, it seems to me, is that of the prophet. It is not to foresee and predict the future but to courageously point out in this moment in history the Will of God and any possible deviance from it. It seems to me that we have become timid and afraid. What ever happened to the idealism of Thomas More who, though not a priest, was more courageous and prophetic than any cleric? It is easy to recall his famous statement: “I love my King but I love my God more.” Where is the “in-your-face” directness of Ignatius the Martyr as he faced down the insults of the Roman Emperor? Where is that traditional Catholic bravery of the ages which scorned bootlicking and popularity for its own sake? Where are the Gregorys and the Bonifaces and the Pius Vlls? How I miss the “gorilla-like” thumping of the religious chest wherein those unapologetic preachers of my childhood bravely preached the Word of God as compared to the modern anemic homilists with their metaphors of waving wheat and shimmering mountain streams! Alas, political correctness has sneaked in everywhere—even into God’s own people!

While for the most part, American Bishops disappoint me[1] in their “rush” to please the liberal media, there are several leaders who do “draw the line”. Specifically, besides the gallant man mentioned above, the gentle, quiet Catholic leader of Boston, Cardinal Archbishop Sean O’Malley, has, in effect, challenged the so-called party of the people (so-called because the only remnant of the true Democratic party is the name) on its acquiescence to become the party of abortion. Further, the Bishops had issued in 2007 a document called “Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship” which addressed the political responsibility of Catholics citizens. One area of concern was Massachusetts where most Catholics support what the Catholic Eye calls the Abortocrat party[2] (i.e. Democratic party). So the Cardinal, as a member of the Bishops Conference, commented thusly: “I think, at times it (the Massachusetts situation) borders on scandal…” It, of course, caused a Boston uproar since Catholics have the power to transform the local politics.

I believe that there is a serious obligation to inform and not malform Catholic consciences. The liberal Catholic says: “I must follow my conscience.” We re told we must be “tolerant.” Part of the confusion stems, I think, from a misconception of the meaning of the world “Tolerance.” What does that word really mean? A popular Protestant preacher in Florida, James Kennedy, taught that “tolerance is the last virtue of a degenerate society.” This is perfectly true if tolerance means accepting anything anyone does without judgment or challenge. This clearly would lead to chaos and anarchy. The Catholic Church has been accused of “intolerance” in that we will not yield on matters of what we call Truth. Father Doctor William Martin holds that “Tolerance applies only to people, never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, never to people.” Father Joseph Kiturski S.J. says that we cannot simply pick our own Morality as we wish but rather that we must follow the morality as given by God. This is not a spiritual supermarket to shop randomly for “that which pleases.”

Are erring Catholic politicians punished for following “their” truth? Certainly not in this world or day…but there is another day and another world—i.e. that in which one faces God. There is objectively[3] no freedom for these pols to disagree with and even work against their Church’s teaching through an appeal to “conscience.” We believe that there is a right and duty that the Church through Bishops is the authoritative interpreter of moral principles for the formation of conscience.

A Director of Religious Education in a Catholic parish in New Hampshire wrote: “……..I work for the Church…I balance my freedom as an American to vote. I choose my own decisions. I don’t vote the way someone tells me…” It is important to reply to this misperception. The Bishops had no intention to tell anyone how to vote. They said: “...in today’s political environment...Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party and too few candidates fully share the Church’s comprehensive commitment to the life and dignity of every human being from conception to natural death…”

However, they are telling us that the issue is not so much whom we vote for as to why we vote for him. They are telling us that there is a moral responsibility of each Catholic to hear, receive, and act upon the Church’s teaching in the lifelong task of forming his or her own conscience. With such a foundation, a Catholic would not fall prey to braggarts like John Kerry who during that presidential campaign proclaimed himself an authority on Church doctrine, contending that he (and hence Catholic voters) could support abortion and all the other evils mentioned above. The Bishops had no choice but to denounce this catechetical calumny. This is not meddling in politics. This is teaching the Catholic Faith. To let this pass without challenge would be monstrous and cowardly.

Pope Benedict XVI sent a memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick called “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion” in which he stated, to the dismay of “liberal” Catholics, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.” The seamless garment disciples have gone a bit bananas since they heard that “…….the destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception to natural death is always wrong and not just one issue among many…” So they dismissed it all as “political rhetoric.”

The noble American notion of free speech guaranteed to every man coupled with fair listening goes somewhat out of the window when it comes to abortion. Raging attacks, personal smears, harmful innuendos, mockery, shunning, and the like are all to be expected. There are no rules except to destroy the outspoken ones. The great Congressman Henry Hyde, champion of the innocent unborn, was, in his old age, the victim of a vicious whispering campaign. In his twenties, he indulged in a “youthful indiscretion” (one “count”). In his eighties, when he advocated compassion for the unborn, he was reminded publicly of this mistake of his youth. Was it mere coincidence that he was, at the time, defending the right to life of soon- to- be- born infants?

Can I speak out against the modern cultural machine which aims at de-toothing my Religion? Oh yes, I surely can but I, alas, must face the music of some form of punishment. Am I up to it? Am I too afraid and timid? God help me and all those disenfranchised ones who are threatened by the mask of smiling Evil which is so calculating and shrewd.

________________________________________
[1] I am pleased with the release of the USBC’s statement on conscience of Nov. 14, ’07. More of this is needed.
[2] Nov.30, ’07 #262
[3] How God judges a soul is not easy to ascertain. This is beyond the ken of the human mind.

Pope's Visit

2008-04-14T11:14:00.000-07:00

The President can't be all bad. He is meeting the Pope at the airport and is not delegating to the VP. This has never happened before-- Queen of G.B. empire, Dalai Lama or anyone. But they say the Catholic Church is dead. Looks pretty much alive to me.... the Churches I know are not dying. Put your money where the smart guys are. With Jesus Who promised His Church would never fail or end. Even to the end of the world. The symptoms of imminent death seem to be quite absent --but please don't tell me the tired old line of the priest crisis and low attendance and vocations. We are deeply concerned but NOT anxious. See Matt.16 for enlightment. Tell me more. Fr. JBL.

Porno and National Well Being

2008-04-10T20:11:00.000-07:00

Can you imagine what fun and excitement it would be to moderate a debate on Porno between the charming, intelligent, lively, liberal, confused Norman Mailer and the cool, intellectual, precise, conservative, Ernst Van den Haag, the Dutch psychologist/attorney? I had that privilege and good fortune some years ago taping that debate for airing on national Television. We were introduced to the viewing audience by Alexander Scourby, the actor, who, with a magnificent voice and intelligent verbal emphases, set the “stage” with a frightening description of the garish, ugly secret world, not only of the porno addict but even that of the periodic user.. Using powerful graphics to illustrate his point, he suggested that there must be an enormous national sexual appetite for illicit and deviate sex. He also wondered about the financial interest of certain Business types since Porno represents not millions but billions of dollars in “investments.” From other sources we discovered that the “mob,” or organized crime, is likewise interested in the exploitation of sex gone awry.

Norman thought that the proliferation of plastics was far more debilitating to the national well being than the porno of the movies, newsstands, computer or after hours television. He thought, as a former boxer, that it was helpful to watch boxing movies to learn “new moves.” He equated watching porno movies so that similarly he might learn new sexual moves. He did explain that he had been married multiple times and was always learning! Somewhat in contradiction, he declared that he is a puzzlement to his liberal friends when he opposes the practice of masturbation—which he calls “that dreadful habit” and which, he claims, leads to insanity. When he has discovered his children watching porno, he “hit the roof” because he believes it will lead them to masturbate and hence, in his view, to madness. However, every savvy porno marketer knows that successful porno is inextricably linked to masturbation which reinforces every episode and sets the Victim up for further purchases in an unending, plane-like, insatiable search for “something” Edenic.

Ernst Van den Haag thought that apart from the financial dimension with its criminal involvement and the rest, Porn was a destructive force for the Individual, the family and ultimately for society. He was more concerned with the vulgarization and the coarsening effect on society in general. He, as an attorney and psychologist and a strong supporter of public morality, was used by law departments to assess the “obscenity levels” of publications and movies. The Movie folk with their usual acumen knew that if they changed one tiny piece of the movie in each state, legally, the movie would then, in effect, become a new movie and in need of further evaluation. Ernst was assigned to assess a then hugely successful porno movie called Deep Throat. As he traveled to each state to assess this blatantly obscene flick, watching it day after day had a serious negative effect on him, the strong willed and moral man. He was, for six months, unable to fulfill his virile role as a husband. His argument, counter to Norman’s, was that porno will diminish healthy energies rather than embellish them.

I volunteered that porno actually plays into fantasy, not reality, and consequently will create real vulnerabilities for the mind in its search for balance and reality integration. I suggested that the good looking young models are photographed in provocative poses (after many shoots for the most seductive portrayal, and air brushed, of course), with the best of makeup and lighting to convey the fantasy of female perfection. The married man, for example, who loads his imagination with such unreal images can turn to his wife in bed and find someone slightly blubbery, lumpy, halitosis-ridden and who occasionally belches. Conflicted between his reality (his wife) and the young model who doesn’t even exist ---at least, in the fashion portrayed by the astute marketers of porno---he will often turn away from his wife to chase a kind of sexual “will o’ the wisp.”. Sex centered, such a conflict becomes even more debilitating when his evaluation of his wife’s virtue and goodness becomes secondary to their relationship. It does appear that a destructive component of porno is that it inclines the “viewer” to relate to a picture fantasy) rather than to a person. Good interpersonal interrelationships need total “beholding” of the person, not a picture.

Sometimes, porno users are unconsciously seeking some kind of intimacy or love with some one, almost anyone. Such a goal is normal[1] but the illusionary means to reach them are sick and objectivity stupid. This was clearly illustrated at a meeting of homosexual males who are seeking a life of self respecting chastity. One chaste same sex attracted person described his past in which porno played a great part, as is often the case with the same sex attracted person, perhaps slightly more so, proportionally, than in the Opposite sex attracted group. He places his porno “pleasure” in a tiny booth, with the blaring music and an ejaculate splattered floor, on the absolute furthest pole away from intimacy. He never felt lonelier. He, in fact, was conditioning himself to be unsuccessful in the very behavior which would help him be fulfilled. Attention is needed, not to fantasy images, but to live, interesting human beings!

While Ernst correctly disagreed that my argument goes too far in its implication, it is still true, however, that porno rather than equip one for dealing with life, in fact, dis-equips healthy functioning. In core, it amplifies the conflict between fantasy and reality which every knowledgeable psychologist understands, forms one major component of mental illness and much human unhappiness. As a professional psychologist, I have counseled several maritally troubled couples wherein the precipitating factor for dissension was the use (usually secretive) of porno materials by the husband. Automatically, if even unconsciously, she feels betrayed and deeply hurt by a kind of emotional adultery.

It is as obvious as the “Noon day sun” that porno usually disrespects females. Years ago, Pope John Paul II taught that a man cannot lust even for his own wife. Those old enough might recall the furor from unenlightened media which apparently did not know the meaning of Lust! The Pope taught that all persons must be treated with respect and cannot be treated as objects or things (which is exactly what porno does).Lust means that persons are reduced to things or re-ified. Legitimate passion is part of the sexual dimension but not lust! Porn feeds into lust and not loving passion.

And, obviously, for that male[2], married or single, who is more sexually driven and genitally centered, such a conflict becomes even more debilitating in heterosexual relationships again when his appreciation of a woman’s virtue, goodness and generosity becomes secondary. His interest is heavily physical. Experience seems to indicate that, despite the need and value of a sexual component, a relationship founded principally on the sexual, doesn’t stand the tests of time well.

Students of human nature can make a strong case to show the negatives of Porno. Edwin Meese, former Attorney General did a huge study showing the devastation from the use of these materials--- with strong expected protests from Special Interest groups. Yet, truthfully it is difficult to define exactly what Obscenity is. What does it mean to say that something is pornographic? Right up to the United States Supreme Court, through lower courts, through colleges and churches—the attempt has been made. There is not really a satisfactory definition. Interestingly, one Supreme Court Justice remarked that though he couldn’t define it, i.e. porno, when he saw it he recognized it as porno, obscenity, filth. Aren’t we speaking here of plain common sense and honesty?

However, if one places the sexual faculty and urge within the context of an Eternal Plan and a Divine Planner, it is possible to make some intellectually symmetric sense out of the mess. Pleasure is part of that plan and intended as an enjoyment granted by the loving Father of all. (Some commentators suggest that sexual pleasure is a kind of reward from the Lord for all the sacrifice and pain which parenting brings.) Such a component is common to all of us. Deep within the human being is an involuntary and powerful urge for the use and enjoyment of the sexual on physical and emotional levels, with pleasure being one of the main drives. The opposite sexes, providing all the “wires” are correctly lined up, will find an automatic attraction, interest and pleasure in each other, not only emotionally but physically. Such a dynamic can last life long—even when there is Snow on top of the Volcano! It is part of the Divine scenario.

So, a vulnerability to the pornographic is “there” both in its destructive power and its evil because it is pleasurable! Certainly, most healthy and normal male eyes would be drawn, even automatically, to the appearance of a beautiful young woman in the Buff! Yet, one wonders, if we can appreciate human beauty in classic art, (e.g. in the Vatican museum, loaded as it is with marvelous statuary and brilliant paintings of nudes without crossing the line of exploitation), is it not possible to “contain” the pleasure drive within the boundaries of modesty and true appreciation? Isn’t it possible for a male to enjoy the beach in those summer days where young women flounce around in very scanty bathing togs---without lusting? Or ogling and leering? Can one not enjoy physical beauty without lust? This is very far from the puerile allegation that the Catholic Church is opposed to pleasure and human beauty and is merely a gloomy and repressed enemy of human joy! The allegation apparently does not understand that joy is not only different from sexual pleasure as such but is far more profound in its satisfying potential. Some teenagers, (of any age, chaps like poor old Al Goldstein of Screw newspaper,) get their sexual “kicks” by writing their porno on bathroom walls and say they are just having fun. Does anyone think that such a practice (particularly in adults) is to be encouraged in the name of sexual maturity?

The sexual has the greatest sensual/emotional fulfillment possible. Coupled with profound curiosity, sex draws all people to itself. It is biologically and psychologically based and hence has enormous power. And this is good. It was so planned by God. However, as both Rollo May, the eminent American psychologist, and Plato, the Greek philosopher, remarked: Sex is like a powerful steed which must be kept reined in under the control of the rider. Such self control is what Christians call the virtues of Continence and chastity. Self control under God. But why should the May/Plato observation be taken seriously?

The Believer believes that this profound sexual pleasure is substantially linked to the procreation of children, not only for biological, physiological and social ends, but also for the reward to the couple for their sacrifice and love in rearing a child. Sexual pleasure, to a believer, belongs exclusively in marriage between a man and a woman. That pleasure belongs to spouses alone. Isn’t it fairly clear that parenting is the most enduringly demanding task of all human endeavors? It is the separation of pleasure from the reason for the pleasure that makes for human degradation. Sheer pleasure for pleasure’s sake can become disordered and inversely dissatisfying. And this is simply because the Creator lovingly designed it so. The human being functions more humanly and more happily if he follows the Plan which is deep within the human psyche, so often covered over by illusion and deception. Centuries of human experience attest to this point but mere knowledge never did make much sense. It is a deeper element than knowledge which sheds light on such a huge problem. That element is the Plan of God.

Still, the temptation is to divorce pleasure from its meaning and to seek pleasure for itself since it is so powerful and falsely “promising” in its sensate reactions. Every one is vulnerable to this temptation. Yet, Pope Paul VI long ago noted with exquisite prescience that once you separate love from sex, you open the doors wide--- for enormous destruction of the beauty of the sexual. Humanae Vitae has been furiously attacked as anti-love and anti-joy but in hindsight appears now to have been “spot on.” Sex has become trivialized and neutral while the Plan of the Creator is that sexual love is priceless and beautiful for use solely according to His plan. Porno is not real but what the psychologist calls the “ir-real”. It has no true place in the life of the Real Lover who understands reality or the Plan. We can probably never extirpate porno from society but we can, with God’s help, act with chastity and continence and substantially reject the Pornographic. Not only is the individual benefited but also the family and finally the National Well Being. This is a story which should be told.

________________________________________
[1] Normal for true interpersonal relationships but certainly not for anything that just comes along!
[2] Female “porn” has a different complexity and a different pornography. It focuses more basically on relationships, “romance” and feelings.. The above clearly adverts to the male who is the major consumer of porno.

Catholic Politicians Who Vote for Anti-Catholic Legislation

2008-02-09T08:02:00.001-08:00

This is not separation of church and state but separation of religion and state. If these people really believe in Catholic values it is phony mental tricks to try to justify anti Catholic or anti religious voting. Partial birth abortion (really infanticide) is anti religious barbarism,and no baloney about free thinking will make this right. I don't want to tell any one whom he should vote for but I do wish we knew WHY we vote as we do! Not mindless. automatic pulling the lever-- but reason enlightened by God's law--wht do you think? Fr Jim Lloyd

The Melting Pot Effect and Cultural Damage

2008-01-10T11:57:00.000-08:00

It was early on New Year’s Eve last that I was walking past a beautiful Slavic Church when I decided to pop in to visit my Eucharistic Lord. An Eastern European type edifice with resplendent mosaics, colorful and gold gilded, the Church was enhanced by the usual holiday Christmas decorations . Very prominent were two flags. One, American, was displayed proudly, and the other, the Flag of Slovokia, seemed inherent with love of the Homeland, the old country from which they came. On the Baldachin above the altar was the image of the Patron saint of this Church, a Slavic priest whose tongue was ripped out because he would not break the Seal of Confession. Interestingly, above the Image there was written in gold letters the word “Tacui.” I have kept silent. The place almost reeked with a pride in the Faith.

I stayed for the 6:00 P.M. Mass celebrated by a young freshly minted Slavic priest who, with great reverence and devotion ,called down Christ, the Lord upon the altar. Since there was no choir, the “music” was supplied by another Slavic priest who was old, bald and who sang Slavic hymns with a terrible, ungifted but sincere voice. This Mass was as valuable before God’s throne as any magnificent Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica or St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

There were about 30 Catholic attendees, oldish, graying and well dressed, all of whom fairly shrieked of Central and Eastern European ancestry. There was that unmistakable emanation one senses from another culture. The homily was entirely in Slavonic of which I understood not one word.

Somehow it didn’t matter. Instead of discomfort, I felt a vibrant spirituality rise in me as I watched my fellow Catholics from another culture drink in words of praise and love for the Creator. They were all deeply involved. The males, so unlike their American counterparts, responded enthusiastically to the Mass prayers in the deep tones one associates with eastern European liturgy. At the conclusion of the Mass, this little group gathered at the rear of the Church for what seemed an almost Biblical Koinoia ( or fellowship). They chatted warmly with each other and seemed eminently comfortable with their ethnicity. They greeted me, so obviously non Slavic, with warm smiles and hearty handshakes. The ambience seemed natural and non-forced.

I left them with contradictory feelings. It was so beautiful to be there with them but I wondered why are there so few of them? Where are their children and grandchildren? Is this different from the widespread phenomenon of the “falling away” from the Faith reported of all ethnicities and areas? Are some young people ashamed of the “Old World” manners and customs of their older relatives? Is there some kind of pressure to shed the past? Is there some kind of revulsion to history? Is there some kind of discomfort being who one really is? Am I not good enough to be a Slovak? Or Jew? Or Irish? Or Portuguese? Or Asian?

As I walked away I passed a group of youngish people waiting to enter a nightspot with a famous standup comic’s name. Their big value for this night was to get bombed, blow on paper horns, perhaps “score” and pay big bucks for the privilege. My impression was that they were brassy, superficial and tasteless. The girls were “overmadeup”. The boys were baggy panted with ugly hair does. And loud. Coming from such a classy experience with the Slovaks, no doubt influenced my involuntary negative comparison. It almost seemed to me that their models were not their elders with their probity and class, but rather Britney and Hilton with their unbelievable ugliness.

However, I know an Albanian waiter working his way for an engineering degree who has similar insights. Just back from a Christmas visit to his family overseas, he speaks of the closeness of families in Europe. Of the communal dimension of Albanian life in spite of their comparative poverty. While we ( and I certainly do) revel in our sense of the individual in America, we seem to have lost something
in our global greatness. I have lived overseas for years and deeply appreciate the American scene ( and would live nowhere else) but I also know that we are becoming desperately weak on some emotional or spiritual level. Europe has its scum level and counting. But they fiercely retain their ethic identity. We have been trying for years to establish what we call the “American identity.” While we have had some real success, there is a Caution flag flying somewhere. Beware of the corrosive effect of the Melting Pot syndrome.

My own Russian Jewish grandparents came to New York with heavy accents, beards and unusual cuisine. Obvious outsiders. They located at the lower East side huddling among their own people in a protective ghetto trying merely to survive. Their children, “to a man”, jettisoned the “old way” and became strident Broadway Joe types, anxious to get out from under the label of “Dirty Jew.” Religion, Language and custom all went into “deep six.” They became the liberal, somewhat agnostic, “slightly” Communist, finger snapping modern of the early to middle 20th century. They yearned to be accepted in the New World, to be like everyone else (or so they thought in their “perception” of what everyone else was). Consequently, much of the rich tradition of European Jewry was lost. My family type of Jew melted into the general population losing one’s “face” and possibly one’s cultural soul in the meantime.

The American political system is the greatest in human history. This is an unqualified statement. Yet, with all the magnificence of the American way, we have our pitfalls. One of which is this artificial “Melting Pot” notion. We will all be the same. We will all equal rights. There will be an equal playing field. Everyone will be treated the same way! Pragmatically, we know this is illusion. Our history in spite of much good will and intent tells us the harsh truth. While we are all Constitutionally equal, some of us are more equal than others. Perhaps this is consequential (and even inevitable) to the now obvious presence of the Great Aboriginal calamity within all of us. Original Sin, in Catholic terms, means, that the human nature will always “tend” toward the less than perfect. There are and always will be inequalities. Some born and some manufactured. To pretend otherwise is be dishonest with oneself.

However, rather than help me to reach my real personal level of who I truly am, the Melting Pot insinuates that what I am, is not good enough and I must change. I must reach some kind of communal faceless Persona and Behavior. I am pressured to be like “every one else,” to lose my own “face” and adopt some one else’s. Fortunately to my mind, the rebellion against such an assumption has begun. The black American community, for example, keenly aware of their interior problem of identity, has worked assiduously to clarify and ingest the correct notion of “blackness. The African-American knows full well the emotional disaster that comes with poor self image. To a very great extent their efforts have been successful. But neither black or white is superior. Nor English over Irish, Hispanics, Greeks, Turks. Nor any one group over another. Buddhists, Hindus, Moslem, likewise. We all have traditions from our pasts.

My fantasy is that we would all, as fervent Americans who love our Country, keep very much alive our relatively diverse and rich backgrounds. No apologies. No shame. No inferiority.

But whatever it is, we need some kind of modern Paul Revere who can wake us up with an alarm cry of some kind!!

The American ideal obviously must encompass a common acceptance of American law and ideals. Yes. But it must also continue to encourage all of us to be transparent about our traditions and grow out of the immature belief that others are always better than mine. Ethnic shame has no place in America life. While our official language is always English rightfully reflecting our history, Yiddish, Hindi, Spanish, and Gaelic have their appropriate place. The delicate balance between the proud declaration: “I am an American” and “My roots are from Africa (or Norway or Mexico or Slovkia) is indeed difficult to maintain or even discover. But it must be done. Not overdone.

Welcome to my Blog!

2008-01-03T18:30:00.000-08:00

Hi to everyone who might reach me ! I am an old timer WWII type! Psychologist and bridge player. Old time Television and radio career. NBC, ABC and CBS. Love my Faith and laughing .Retired police chaplain. Love to talk with others who agree or otherwise. Half Irish and half Jewish (Russian) Swimmer and former basketball player. Want to talk theology? Psychology? Baseball or Pro football? Gimme a "ring." Fr Jim Lloyd

The "Plaything" of the Show Girls: Fr. John Reynolds

2007-08-16T20:29:00.000-07:00

OR What it Means to Be A Star in the Priesthood

It was the custom, in the “old days” of seminary formation, for the incoming new students to needle or roast the revered upper classmen in a kind of Vaudeville revue called a “Slop” show. It not only gave the entire academic community an idea what they were getting in the new crop but it also gave the “kids” a chance to let off some nervous steam and to test their wings as “clerics in training.” I, as an incoming Paulist student, a dirty necked kid from Manhattan’s West side with a limited show biz background,, was given the favored task of mimicking the Big Man on campus, a guy they called “Handsome Jack” or more simply Jax.

He was a tall fellow who demurely described himself as six feet one of bronzed, indolent charm. He had worked at the New York World’s Fair lecturing on Sidereal Time giving a memorized speech written by some one else. He reports that he had no notion of what he was saying. But he said it so well he dazzled his listeners including the show girls [1] of Billy Rose’s famous show, Aquacade. He had an aura of the Great Athlete since he had played Varsity basketball at some obscure college in New York City called Manhattan college. He had also played under an assumed name in the Wall Street league where he had been a messenger for a Brokerage form and had broken all records for points scored, in any one game, up to that time.

He was easy to mimic since he held himself very tall, walking erectly as if he owned any fortunate Boulevard he confidently traveled. He was famous for his withering, lightening fast wit and gift of extraordinary repartee. He admits that this gift is “pre-cognitive” (author’s extrapolation) and that his speedy verbalizing comes from somewhere unknown within him and often operates without his calling it forth. He was the Fastest Verbal Gun around which, of course, attracted brash minor types to fruitlessly take him on. It was somewhat like the great John L. Sullivan, the Irish Brawler and Heavyweight Champion, who always shouted that he could beat any man in the house. Many a imprudent bar fly nursed a swollen jaw and a fierce headache for even attempting to match the power of John L. Likewise, how many young punks ended their short lives in the local Boot Hill cemetery for daring to take on the speed of Wyatt Earp or Billy the Kid. There are scads of folk around even today who would never again dare to try to best John Charles Reynolds after their skewering of times past.

He has a unique talent for telling amusing stories which one can hear over and over again and still get the precious belly laugh we all need. He has a Zero Mostel skill whereby his face will change to become a drunken Irishman, a flighty Chinese gent, an old Jewish woman from the Bronx or an illiterate lout trying to sound educated. He has remarkable and hilarious routines imitating great public figures of the past, somewhat wasted, unfortunately, on the present generation which apparently isn’t interested in the historical meaning and affect of FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, Churchill,. Fr Coughlan or General Mac Arthur.

However, on his entrance into Religious life, he practically (emotionally) carried on his sprightly shoulders a whole Novitiate class during a desperately barren year on the top of a mountain somewhere in the New Jersey hills. In a depressing pall which hung over the facility, every one looked to Jax for the lightening of spirits, including the miscast, ill Novice master whose only joys were smoking foul smelling cigarettes and cooing at a huge, ugly, sloppy Newfound hound, comically named “Jiggs.” While he was in Washington D.C. propping up some of his wounded, bruised and unconfident schoolmates, Jax gained a Master’s Degree in history at Catholic University. This was probably intended to balance off the polyglot, haphazard, somewhat absurd program at his own college, St. Paul’s, where the foundation for his later-in-life view of theology was laid. In the heady days of Vatican II, he was asked what he thought of the “New” theology and whether he had any trouble adapting to it. He instantly replied: “ I have no trouble with the new theology. I never knew the old one.”

Such a response for Jax was a jocose sounding but terribly serious appraisal not only of the superficial theological training we received at that time but also a prescient look at the nonsense and excesses that were so rampant in the sixties and seventies. Adult men and women outdid themselves in trying to demonstrate how avante garde [2] they were. Retrospectively, their solemnly pronounced predictions and analyses now seem incredibly juvenile. How we were urged to accept the New Theology and the New Look of Catholicism! This was particularly tinged with a kind of battle cry or mantra, “in the spirit of Vatican II” which became a catch-all to justify some weird and, fortunately, now forgotten enthusiasms.

There were strong movements to downplay the Rosary, de-emphasize Mary and her role in Redemption, give up the holy water stuff, forget about the sacrament of confession, there really isn’t any sin after all except polluting the environment, all religions are pretty much the same, a little sex never hurt anyone and it is probably helpful to ward off neurosis, liturgy (never say Mass) should be an experiment with dance and popular song, after all it is theatre and on and on.

Such lofty balderdash never made it with handsome Jack. To assess him merely as a very funny guy with a great gift of storytelling and wit, would be to do him a terrible injustice. He is far deeper and more intelligent than just being a clerical Henny Youngman or Don Rickles. Discounting the new theology and never knowing the old, allowed Jax to stick with basics. He says (even today in his early nineties) that his spiritual life consists of the following: Daily Mass., daily rosary, stations of the Cross, visits to the Blessed Sacrament and solid spiritual Reading. In spite of his alleged ignorance of theology, he knows that saying Mass in his room at his desk is not saying Mass alone. There is no such thing as a “private” Mass. Jax knows that the whole court of Heaven with God the Father presiding, celebrates with him every day. Another non-hip [3] priest, Pope John Paul II, urged priests to celebrate Mass every day—even if there is no one else physically present.

Jax always knew that he wanted to be a priest, unlike many of us who doubted and twisted and evaded . He, unlike many of us, never considered marriage as a life style [4]. He wanted to be a priest of God. But a priest who preached God’s Word. It was preacher, not teacher nor pastor nor even convert maker. So he chose a religious group known for its eloquent preaching. And what a fortunate choice he made!

He became one of the greatest preachers in the United States. His style was elegant, even at times, Shakespearean. Interestingly, to this day, he insists that Fulton J. Sheen was the greatest preacher of the 20th century. One could easily see the influence of Sheen upon his own preaching. (Jax called him “Full tongue”). For many years he traveled sometimes alone, sometimes with colleagues, to preach the deep riches of Jesus Christ throughout the whole country. The Governor of California, Pat Brown, heard him on the radio and expressed a wish to meet him personally. This was replicated often, time after time. One particularly memorable feat was his TV debut with a colleague, Fr J. F. Finley, another preaching giant, in a presentation of the famous Pulpit Dialogue on a National Television hookup for four consecutive Sundays. It was, in show biz terms, a smash. Further, Parish missions, retreats to priests and nuns, Three Hours’ Agony Services, all were venue for his talents. He was always a Star—but it was his inner life as much as his natural gifts that made him such. One can hire talent but the combination of such superb natural gifts plus the highly refined intimacy with Christ is indeed rare.

While his great preaching days are over, due mainly to severe hearing loss, he still serves God in prayer and good humor. He tells us that his three major assignments now are breakfast and lunch and dinner. He tells us, somewhat unnecessarily, how tough it is to grow old. This is inevitable of course, but his spirit never gets old or bitter. He still offers his experience and friendliness to all. He still makes others laugh. He never laughs at others, always with. He still says his prayers. Perhaps, it is easy to mimic his external behavior. It is a lot more difficult to imitate his spiritual life. Yet, how to be a star in the priesthood? Follow Our hero, Big Jax. Keep to the basics----Any of us can do that. One can never go wrong that way but beyond just being right---it is really the way to God.

_________________

[1] He is insistent that the “category” was show girl and not chorus girl. The former group was tall, Stately, beautiful and reasonably intelligent. The latter category referred to shorter girls who danced, were muscled and not too interested in things intellectual.
[2] The term “Avant garde” originated in the French military wherein the idiots, unskilled useless peasants and the socially inferior were placed on the front lines to absorb the ferocity of the enemy. The superior types were held back until the avant garde were slaughtered.
[3] Non-hip according to certain “modern” priests who celebrate Mass only when there is some one there to listen to them. JPII taught that Mass is for worship of God—not in any other direction.
[4] One natural reason for aversion to marriage was his distaste on seeing his sisters’ nylons hanging in the shower each morning.

Can We Communicate Without Understanding?

2007-06-30T20:24:00.000-07:00

In my early years as a missionary in South Africa I would be asked, occasionally, to hear the confessions of some Zulu Catholics in the beautiful city of Durban. I knew approximately 20 words in Zulu and my penitents knew slightly more in English. Yet somehow we both knew what was happening. We knew that this was a spiritual moment --- an encounter with Jesus. With the aid of a bi-lingual chart, showing, on one side, in English, the Commandments of God and the Church and, on the other side, “sins” written in Zulu, the penitent could point to the sin and I could easily understand its translation by consulting the chart. Even apart from the chart, we both understood and believed that once I, the priest, pronounced the words of absolution in Latin, [1] the soul was cleansed of any sin and reconciled to the love of the God in Whom we both passionately believed. The One they called Umzimkulu ( the One Who is above all others). We were communicating even if we didn’t understand each other’s language. This type of communication practically shouted a mutual belief that sins are forgiven even if the priest doesn’t get the exact drift of the confession or is a dullard or a cad. Evidently, there are methods of communication which do not require any understanding of words.

In fact, I was well prepared for such interaction by years of attending Mass in the huge Paulist church in New York City prior to Vatican II. Each Sunday, I attended Mass, usually, with at least 600 people. We worshipped almost in total silence except for the periodic ringing of a beautifully toned bell signaling various levels in the service. We all knew exactly the Liturgical “place” of the service. We all knew when to stand or sit or kneel. This was so even though the priest had his back to us facing God, almost as a Regimental commander leading his troops as he stood before a Divine Five Star General. Amazingly, while the Mass was said entirely in Latin with no microphones present on the altar, no one seemed lost. There were “Missals” available with English translations alongside the Latin text, in the fashion of the “Pony –trot” handbook many of us used while studying Greek or Latin. Mostly, however, we concentrated on what was “happening” on the altar. The bottom line was that we were deeply involved in worshipping the Lord without necessarily understanding the meaning of “suscipiat” or “juventutem”. The God message came through “loud and clear”. We were not there to be entertained. We were there to meet our basic obligation to the Lord. And, for the most part, it clearly succeeded. But without understanding the Liturgical words, we approached God with awe and respect.

Even though we were all poor and culturally limited, the sense of Community for my group was palpable. Perhaps, the community feeling stemmed from the common socio-economic poverty level of that period but more probably we were bonded by the Depression, World War II and the notion that the parish Church was the center of our universe. That “center” surfaced in the Mass which hardly any one intellectually understood but practically all deeply comprehended—Faith wise. We all knew and lived under the penumbra of the Great Truths: life and death and Salvation. Jesus and God’s grace. Mother Mary and her love for us. The Ever present second chance. The hope of eternal life exemplified in the dazzling array of saints who were just like us.

Even today when I meet an occasional dinosaur survivor of those days, I am impressed with the clarity, strength and beauty of his or her practical Faith. With them, there was (and is) little ambiguity about the Catholic way of life. Of course, it is inevitable that anyone from that era would almost automatically make comparisons. Today’s disarray and theological dissent within American Catholicism with its anger and power grabs is painful for those of us who knew the pre-Vatican community and unity. In spite of the use of the vernacular, there seems to be less Faith and unity than before. It is startling to learn that there is disagreement among Catholics about the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example. It is even more distressing to learn that even some priests doubt the efficacy of their own priesthood and question Christ’s presence under the form of bread and wine.

Of course, it is preferable, in my opinion, to understand what one is saying. I like saying Mass in English but would celebrate in Latin if asked to. I like saying the Divine Office in English whereby I learn more of the Scriptures daily, and savor the beautiful Psalms of David. One of the older priests after the introduction of the vernacular, remarked that saying his Office in English distracted him when he found out what he had been saying all those years in Latin.

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI has opened the door for the celebration of Mass in Latin. He should be applauded for his courage and vision in offering such diversity to those Catholics whose liturgical taste reaches for the graceful solemnity of the traditional ritual. The argument that Catholics, not understanding a strange language, will fall away from the Church, rings hollow in the light of the history of the last 40 years. The emptying of our Churches coincided with the use of words people could “understand.” The translations into English have often been banal, vulgar and even excessive. Some commentators have even suggested that an unhealthy familiarity has arisen to replace the sense of awe so valued in the Pre-Vatican II era. We have paid the price!

However, sometimes, understanding does lead to greater devotion (as in my own case). But, some Catholics, clergy and religious included, testify that sometimes the understanding leads to distraction and less devotion, less awe, less respect. In the instance of the puerile attempt to make the Sacrifice of the Mass attractive to young people, some zealots introduced what has been called “ghastly music” into the service. The inept twanging of poorly tuned guitars, the nasal rendition of modern hymnody and the clumsy positioning of these “pieces” into the Mass structure is dist- racting to many faithful Catholics who endure these cultural barbarisms only with their own insight into the meaning of the Mass. The glorious music of Palestrina and Mozart and Bach even if not understood by the Catholic, communicates a great message of God’s presence and Love to him. Communication without understanding again! But perhaps the Lord speaks to some via the leggy, adenoidal genre. Ah! The beauty of diversity!

How often in my life, when I have admitted my inability to understand much of Sacred Scripture, I have been urged to believe that the Lord speaks to me even though I do not understand! The Holy Spirit would instruct me through the very sacredness of the words I did not understand. Even if I am deaf and/or blind. Fair enough but why can not the same Holy Spirit speak likewise through the greatest form of worship possible, the Mass? As with my Zulu penitents, God speaks His own way through any medium He chooses. Can I find like minded questioners like myself among the Pentecostals and the “Gift of Tongues” folk? Or anyone who believes in meta-verbal communication? God speaks to us in many ways, a beautiful way is the Latin Mass. Good for Pope Benedict XVI!

On Narcissism OR Why Doesn't the World See How Marvellous I Am?

2007-06-27T20:42:00.000-07:00

In a recent public lecture an eminent New York City cleric, while musing on the famous John Donne quip “No man is an island”, perceptively opined that, today, everyone is an island. He suggested that the “ modern” is so turned in on himself that he becomes the center of all things. Everything is measured in terms how “things” affect him personally. He is deep into “peak experiences” which might be rollerblades, trendy restaurants or BMWs. Because of his involvement with himself, he is increasingly alienated and lonely in the superbusy Megapolis which is “Today.” In spite of the numerous gadgets and technical toys he may have, the Modern is often markedly depressed and unhappy. Why is this? Conrad Baars has suggested that the culprit may very well be Narcissism, the modern day disease. Quite correctly, I think, the twentieth century has been called the Age of Narcissism with its intense self centeredness and hedonistic questing.

The term Narcissism comes from an old myth wherein a handsome youth, Narcissus, falls passionately in love with his own image reflected in a pool. Because of his preoccupation with himself, he is unable to hear anyone else say to him “I love you.” He ultimately pines away and dies. He, however, leaves behind a recognizable blueprint for an unhappy psyche, which has been seduced by an infatuating self love and which is accompanied by a tragic unrequited hunger for the ideal lover whom he can never find. Contemporary psychology uses the term to describe a vain preoccupation with self or a preening self centeredness, even slipping sometimes into the auto erotic. The usual triad is vanity, exhibitionism and arrogant ingratitude. Look everybody—here I am! Look, everybody, watch me perform! Why should I be grateful? The world owes me. I deserve it all. And everybody has to like me! I am “teed off” if they don’t pay attention to me and appreciate me! Take care of me, first!

How many times I, like so many others, have seen the juvenile behavior of a 50 year old teenager demanding attention, grabbing the social spotlight or raging because of some kind of “perceived” slight. As one such narcissist told me once, “Say anything about me when I am not here, but don’t ignore me when I am here…” Perhaps such behavior stems from a deep and underlying sense of insecurity. Perhaps, the “bad guy” was poor mothering. Or a poor sense of self esteem and self value. Or perhaps it is as H. Kohut (1977) taught. It is a failure in normal development of the earliest internal images of self and significant others. And there is always the real enemy. Inordinate pride. Or put differently, it means that the narcissist needs some deep instruction and guidance on the meaning of the basic virtue of humility. There are clear parameters of reality, even if unclear to the narcissist, which were established by God Himself. If the Lord’s Reality is not seen, personal chaos necessarily results. It is absurd to believe that I am the Center of the Universe. Yet, in effect, this is the emotional position of the one who suffers (and inflicts suffering on others) because of a narcissistic orientation. He doesn’t seem to know that God is the Center, not the human “I”.

What impels, for example, the high powdered A-type personality, the business tycoon, the educator, the cinema star, the cleric to rush to the “booze” in times of stress? From my own practice dealing with such people, it seems to me that there is a real correlation between heavy drinking and some kind of subjective belief that he is not being sufficiently appreciated, loved or acknowledged. What drives the seductive and insatiable behavior of the person who is competing for the affection of the world? Even his own circumscribed world? There seems to be a huge need to be constantly reassured that he is loveable or capable or appreciated. Narcissism or the exaggerated sense of self importance might well be the villain.

If, in an earlier age, society believed that we are all responsible to some degree for each other in that every word, deed, thought [1] and omission somehow ripples out and affects everyone we meet, the today theme is more “I don’t want to get involved” or “Let George do it” or “ I got mine, Mac.”

In today’s society, it is almost axiomatic to hold that each of us has the right ( by some kind of cosmic, consensual dynamic) to say or do or not to do or think or desire or ignore ----anything we want , whatever we want —regardless of any impact on others. It is almost enough justification to say merely that I desire something to make it acceptable. If I want it, I should have it—otherwise I will be damaged emotionally. The old fashioned but healthy principles of “waiting” for the fulfillment of one’s needs with self restraint and of understanding the notion of delayed gratification, seem quaint and out of step. There is a powerful demon in our midst which demands, not delayed gratification, but instant gratification. Despite the bleeding heart “Human family” drumbeat and the pious lipservice (usually done on the high flown abstract level mode [2]) there is a widespread culture of frightening self centeredness in our Land. We suspect, in agreement with Baars, that the damaging Enemy is Narcissism.

As always, however, there are the beautiful social pockets of altruism which reject selfishness and inspire others to the doing of the “Good.” For example, where we have legal support for abortion for those loathe the inconvenience of birthing and rearing a child, we also have the multitudes of women who unselfishly and lovingly give life and love to little kids who will live forever. Generous and unselfish people? See the Sisters of Life who lovingly take care of the losers and the unwanted. See the Friars of Benedict Groeschel with their youthful, enthusiastic and generous care of the poor, the unwashed and angry poor. See the many volunteers for soup kitchens, nursing homes and meals on wheels. We have the candy stripers in hospitals and high school students who read to the blind. We have the Habitat for Humanity. We have the young undergrads who pray outside abortuaries, risking insult and arrest because they care for others.

So even though Baars is probably right, not everyone is an island. There is great hope under God for altruism because there are good people in our World and God’s Grace is ever available. Nevertheless, Baars is right in positing that something has happened to the “Western” Judeo-Christian soul to make so many of us turn back into ourselves where things are evaluated, basically and concretely, in terms of “Me.” In my eighties, I was saddened (and even shaken) to note a news story about my old alma mater, NYU, in the Village. A survey taken shortly after 9/11 indicated that a large sample of the student body definitely avowed that, even in extreme war circumstances, they had no intention to serve their country. The common theme was “Let someone else do it.” And “ I have to take care of my own career..”

While in my youth (the Pearl Harbor era), there were some scattered “Gold brick” types who personified the “Let George do it” mentality, the overwhelming majority of the population was eager – in some way—to give of themselves to help others. Even to the point of serving in the military. Today we have truly magnificent volunteers in the service, female as well as male, who are willing to donate some years of their lives ( even under very dangerous conditions) to protect God’s good world. However, their numbers are comparatively few.

Narcissism is hardly confined to military service. It is everywhere. In families. In schools. In the pulpit (with the built-in stage for exhibitionism with the startling success of many preachers and evangelists). In offices. Extraordinarily in the theatre. In politics. In the athletic world. In short, wherever you find human beings, you will find selfishness, self magnification and self involvement. And all human beings are flawed and self -concerned because of a great aboriginal calamity that occurred long ago in the beginning of the human race. Catholics call it Original sin. As Captain McNeill told his brilliant, bald Lieutenant in a episode of the TV series “Kojak”, “Theo, this is an imperfect world and I have a lifetime membership in it.” So, of course, our concern is more with degree than with “kind.” Obviously, Narcissism exists in all of us but hopefully might be minimized for everyone’s benefit. But what is possible?

Some analysts suggest that Narcissists contribute a measure of sparkle and wonder to life and should we restore them to the elusive criterion of “ normality,” we would lose their electric contribution to our world. Such advisors counsel that we should accept these persons as they are, love them and appreciate whatever great things they actually do. A colleague of mine suggests that, with an elastic concept of “normal”, they should be considered “normal” if they can keep their “abnormals” to a minimum. Nevertheless, narcissists are not as happy as they seem. They often feel empty and frustrated because of their unfulfilled longings. Psychotherapy is marvelous up to a point but is certainly limited since, by a Catholic definition, it merely clears away the path for further and higher growth. Counseling and therapy should be “vestibule” work. The real answer, as implied above, is in the spiritual world.

How to proceed? Can I get my Narcissist to want to grow out of his misery? Can I get him to pray to Jesus for help? And to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment? Can I introduce to him the concept and later the affect of the Cross of Jesus? And its meaning and its liberty? How can I help him see that there are others in the world, often far more destitute (which can take many forms) than he? How do I get him to see that his glass, like everyone else, is half full and is usually right under his nose as he keeps looking for greener fields? How can I help him to be content (not smug) with his life? How can I help him understand the joy of empathy wherein he might see things through another’s eyes? How can I open to him the joyful glorious feeling of helping others? How can I get him to see/feel the profundity of gratitude? How do I get him to relish the simple things of life, the walking, the smelling of the Rose, the feel of rain on his face, the beauty in so many things, the Presence of God? How do I get him to learn the great art of “offering it up”? The Art of freedom from others’ approval? The art of knowing that ultimately only God’s approval matters?

How do I help him see the suicidal results of living in the “entitlement” mode? How do I get him to sense –even remotely—that God, His Father, loves him with an implacable love even though he is often such a complete schlep? How do I get him to see that Home Runs are not necessarily what make people happy, but rather simple contentment with the deal given them by the Lord of Life? Bottom line, how do I get him to appreciate Reality and its limitations? Or in my terms, how do I get him to see, not only by the aha phenomenon, so beloved by shrinks, but also by the eyes of Faith that he has value—eternally—proven by his Lord dying for him in a terrible, incredibly painful way? This is the Humility we all need. The truth of ourselves with our plusses and minuses but with our beauty before God.

Such idealism! Yet that is the goal. If you know how to implement these ideals as stated, please instruct me. Mean while, I shall pray that the narcissism we all share will be, as my colleague suggested, kept to a minimum.

________________________________________

[1] Contemporary psychotherapy, unconsciously or not, underscores in a subtle way the Jesus observation that merely lusting for another without external actions is certainly a form of “behavior” which has consequences.
[2] It is usually safer to espouse causes away from the actual site problem. The arm chair and the martini make for comfortable and uninvolved Social Indignation. The limousine liberal in Chappaqua is a good example.

Say Either Yea or Nay - The Nauseating of Christ

2007-06-27T20:36:00.000-07:00

“I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit [1] you out of my mouth.” Rev.3:21

It is a contemporary truism to say that we live in a litigious society which is ever searching for any possible chance to sue. Attorneys nearly salivating at the wide range of prospects, look for the quick and easy “Buck.” In such a threatening legal climate, restrained and super cautious expression of one’s values and ideas is understandable, especially if one espouses an unpopular cause. Augmented by a near hysterical need to avoid trampling on almost [2] anyone’s sensitivities, modern discourse is heavily characterized by ambiguity, circumlocution and overuse of the word “alleged.”

The high level magazine NEW OXFORD REVIEW published an item concerning a Catholic Bishop in Colorado who stated that from henceforth he will make no comment on the behavior of homosexuals lest he might offend some one’s sensibilities. The editors of NOR rightly confronted the Bishop wondering whether such a constricted verbal prison might not logically inhibit him from commenting on any kind of sinful behavior. They asked whether such timidity would not factually reduce him to the level of a weak and ineffectual spiritual leader.

However, speaking “plainly” without ambiguity and with courage does exact a price. Another Catholic Bishop in Canada who writes a regular newspaper essay, often simply stating (without festooning) the basic Catholic teaching on sexuality, was threatened with jail time by the previous Prime Minister. His offense was to be categorized a “hate crime.” If the PM’s viewpoint were universal every Government would need many more jails since this crime is regularly committed by every loyal Catholic teacher of the Faith throughout the world. Fortunately for everyone, the threatening PM was not re elected and his successor adopted a more adult view of Freedom of Speech and expression. In some societies, however, telling the Truth puts one at great risk. Following Christ’s injunction, quoted above, might exact a great price from many Christians.

A particularly debasing motivation for shading the truth is the insatiable desire in some human beings to be liked by everyone. This is obviously an illusion more suited to the dreamy fantasies of adolescents than adults. Some such emotionally retarded adults are devastated if some one dislikes them. Their criterion for living becomes, not truth, but the quicksand of “ being liked.” It was said of a popular politician that he agreed with the last person he spoke to. He was exceedingly “ well liked” because he said what he thought the other wished to hear. He had little integrity but plenteous admiration.

While the modern fear of some kind of retribution is more intense, there has always been some kind of “watching your tongue” in human history. I remember the well known custom in Ireland of never answering a direct question. Better, we were told, to answer with a question, lest your answer be used some how against you. So, when I was seeking a relative in Ireland, I stopped an old gent in Cork asking him if he knew where my cousin lived. He narrowed his eyes, took out his pipe and said “ Now what would you be wantin’ to see her for, I wonder?” The “I wonder” was said with the famous Cork corkscrew tonality as it phonetically spiraled up and up. Such caution was apparently a carry over from the old penal days when the Irish were terribly persecuted by an occupying foreign power. It was a question of always being on your guard! Don’t ever let them know what you really think. Sometimes, paranoia is understandable.

It is somewhat similar in the accepted custom of illegals lying after they have crossed one of our borders, the Southern one, for example. Better to lie because they might use it against you and deport you if you tell the whole story. Is it not common knowledge that the American Indian became highly suspicious and untrusting of white men because of the double speak used against him? ‘White man speak with forked tongue’ was a well used expression in our Western states.

In contemporary society, it is rampant. Recently, in a pubic televised debate between various candidates for nomination to the Presidency, the question was asked of all of them: “What is your view of Roe v. Wade relative to overturning it?” One of the leading candidates, a self confessed Catholic, replied: “If it is overturned, it is O.K. If it is not overturned, it is O.K.” Nowhere did he indicate to the country what he actually thought about Roe v. Wade. The Catholic Faith specifically teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil and that Catholics must do what they can to protect innocent life, for example, the unborn child. This Pol would not take a position and preferred to take the “middle road”, i.e. the Lukewarm one mentioned by the Lord. It was reminiscent of the noted Television commentator who, when asked about the outcome of a troublesome situation, replied: “Well, it might be right and it might be wrong…” He cashed big checks for such intellectual bravery.

Such nauseating evasion obviously covers not only the religious but also the political landscape. Some years ago, a Catholic woman was running for a very high political office but, for election purposes, wiggled a position on abortion whereby she tried to have her feet on both sides. Worse than the evader mentioned above, this woman misrepresented the Church’s teaching and attributed her liberal position to some priest “advisors” who assured her, she said, that her position was truly Catholic. She dismissed the religious leadership of the local Cardinal Archbishop who insisted on publication of true Catholic teaching. She lost the election possibly because of her shocking religious bifurcation.

Such refusal to take a clear Catholic position on the part of “Catholics” is unbelievable and discouraging to the millions of devout believers. To learn that Catholic Senators and Congressmen vote in favor of partial birth abortion utterly confuses moral people. The weaseling practice to append “so-called” to the term partial birth is further confounding. It is eminently clear that this barbarous practice is the dismemberment of a living child. Is it that these people cannot face the fact of this murder themselves? Are they trying to cover it over in their own consciences? One thing we do know. This usage of “so called” falls under the nausea described by Christ! It is a refusal to call something for what it is! Our people have a right to know what God asks. Ambiguity is not helpful. Clarity is.

The recently deceased Federal Court Judge Richard Casey closely questioned an abortionist in an investigation of the legality of partial birth abortion. He asked the man who had performed many of these procedures whether or not the baby felt any pain during the dismemberment. As the limbs are being pulled from the torso of the child, is there any suffering inflicted on the child? The Professional Killer replied that he never thought of it. It never entered his mind. Really? After hundreds of these “procedures”? Or is it that he unconsciously knows what he is doing and even censures himself? Ducking the meaning of one’s actions and their consequences falls under the thundering condemnation of the Lord. Penumbras and emanations are proper material for discussions in the Supreme Court. They do not belong where the sunlit leadership of Jesus illuminates.

The choice demanded by the Lord clearly involves suffering. One cannot take both sides of a fundamental moral issue where there is only one side. To attempt the lukewarm describes the repulsive practice of engaging in the oxymoronic [3] which is implied in the Scripture. Lukewarm means trying to put opposites together so that everyone is content with the result. One of the worst and most dishonest, I have ever seen is the oxymoronic title of “Catholics for a Free choice”, the “organization” with no members, run for years by the now retired Frances Kissling. The use of the word “Catholic” linked with abortion (choice as euphemism) is an intellectual confliction. It was as if one could be a practicing Catholic and simultaneously/acceptably engage in abortion and the like.

I had the privilege of meeting the Lead Bishop of all the Protestant churches of the Church of Ireland when I was Chairing a Graduate Division at Iona college. He was charming and pleasant, extremely nice to be around. He spoke easily, met all of us with grace, gentleness and ease while wearing a huge red Vest-like front for his Clerical collar. No wonder we all liked him so much. But he had a powerful tool to effect this popularity. He never gave a real opinion about anything. No matter what was being discussed or opined, he would reply “I know, I know..” It was done with charm and an engaging smile but no one knew where he stood on difficult matters. Is that the road to political or ecclesiastical success? Don’t ruffle feathers. Be very agreeable. Don’t ever disagree. Smile……. Don’t take strong positions. Go for the gray area in every thing.

It is easy to understand the accurate and careful reporting of many people who hesitate to make statement because they do not have data at hand. But the one who fears to state his views lest he be punished by social isolation or job loss or physical punishment is something else. It is easy to understand the refusal of someone to answer a specious question which is posed, like the Pharisees, to embarrass another. Yet part of the Christian life is to be Courageous and truthful. It is truly difficult so to live yet we believe that the Lord gives the strength to be open and trusting knowing that He is with us always. When we live as He requests, the inner feeling is clean and relaxed. I have nothing to fear. My Lord My God is with me. My God stands by me, I place all my trust in Him. May it come to pass in the modern Catholic. It is desperately needed.

_______________
[1] Some interpretations use the more colorful “I will begin to vomit thee out of My mouth.”
[2] Except Catholicism. See Philip Jenkins on his: “The Last Acceptable Prejudice" (Anti-Catholicism)
[3] oxymoronic: the attempt to reconcile contradictory concepts within the same word or phrase

The Catholic Church, Political Accommodation & Apartheid

2007-06-22T21:17:00.000-07:00

The arm chair pundit in the comfortable and safe Ivory Tower often has quick, neat and easy answers for Catholics who live under iniquitous political systems throughout the world. He will confidently assure persons of our Faith that they simply must stand up, be counted, attack the evil regime, rouse the Faithful and drive full steam ahead. Disregard the cost whatever it might be. There is to be no quarter to error or evil.

It sounds gallant, appealing and slightly romantic but it can also be factually damaging for the Catholic Community in certain world areas. In fact in some situations, to follow the heated advice of the pundit might be imprudent. On the contrary, one might cautiously ask “How far can one go, without compromising one’s own conscience, in “accommodating” to a regime clearly in conflict with Catholic teaching and belief?” Or how far should one go? On my Ordination to the priesthood in 1948, I was such an all knowing pundit. Fresh from a world of protected inexperience, I was assigned to work in the then Union of South Africa where that very year the social policy called Apartheid [1] was enacted into law. I would, I fantasized, be a young St. Athenasius, the Hammer of Bigots, challenging, persuading and changing the social and religious face of that Nation. Ah! The shallowness and arrogance of youth.

Apartheid (the last syllable rhymes, interestingly, with hate) was the brain child of Domne Danie Malan, Prime Minister and Dutch Reformed clergyman. Dr. Malan and his associates were highly intelligent, emotionally tough and highly motivated by fear. There was an unbalanced population ratio. Only 1 out of every 7 South Africans was white. But he usually lived very well, with poorly paid, ever available servants, (the males being called “boys” and females “nannies.”) private tennis courts and the occasional swimming pool. He worked hard but his immediate social persona was “baas” or top level guy in the multi-racial society. This superiority was operational, vis-à-vis the non-white, in all situations.

Apartheid was a total social program in which a specific population categorization was determined. One was either a)European [2] / Caucasian or b) non-European. There was no significant “gray” area. The “separateness” was absolute. Trains, buses, theatre seats, water fountains, Church seating, living areas, schools, hospital sections, markets, shops, swimming pools, beaches, all were separate and off limits from both racial directions. The disgraceful American Jim Crow practice was “Sodality Boy” level compared with Apartheid because South African oppression was Legal. Apartheid’s “taken- for- granted- you –are- inferior” impact on the non-European created massive damage to a whole people’s self concept and self esteem. While the American racist shame was brutally effective, it was illegal. As bad as we were with our history so seriously tainted by our own bigotries and oppressions [3], Apartheid was far worse. It was intentionally and conceptually evil.

Apartheid was a prime example of the false equation between the legal and the moral. For example, Parliament passed an act entitled “The Immorality Act” in which immorality was defined as sexual behavior, in or out of marriage, between persons of different races. Should a white male copulate with a non-white woman [4] it is an “immorality” subject to an immediate punishment usually directed to the Non-European. By some strange mental manipulation the male did not act “immorally.” Only the non-white person did. However, it was widely accepted that “legal” equals “ moral”. Nevertheless, such a political pall hung over the whole country in which the Catholic Church was called to proclaim the love and justice of Jesus Christ. What does the Catholic Church do in such a political climate? How do Catholics protest such injustice and evil? How does the Church balance iniquity against the need to minister to God’s children living under such a regime?

An immediate dilemma surfaced in the matter of Catholic schools which were actually financed by the Apartheid government. Even though the fierce Dutch Reformed white majority (of the total white population) lived as if the St. Bartholomew’s massacre was yesterday and even though they referred to Catholics as “die Roomse Gevaar” ( Trans. the Roman danger), nuns, in full habit, Brothers, Priests-in-collar and lay faculty were paid generous salaries every month. Monies were supplied for maintenance, books and the miscellany of academic life. Catholic teaching was overtly part of the daily instruction. Daily Mass was offered during school hours. (Imagine the ACLU and apoplexy were that scheme to operate here!) The Government clearly recognized the “taming” power of religion in society and hence supported our efforts as subsidiary to theirs. In effect, they left us completely free to do our Godly work except for an annual perfunctory visit from the Regional Department of Education which viewed Catholic schools with awe and admiration. [5]

Similarly, in the Paulist Mission program, we, clearly identified as clerics, freely traveled to different cities, and dorps (towns) preaching “Roman” Catholicism, urging Non-Catholics to join our Religion. We preached to non-Catholics to convert, not to dialogue! No one ever tried to interfere. My one exception was when I preached in Domne Danie Malan’s home village, Graaf Reinett, where young Zealots shouting anti-Catholic epithets, stoned the building in which I was explaining the beauty of the Catholic Faith. Otherwise, I never encountered any legal or social difficulty. The Police expected us to sign in and out of every place we visited. Routinely, we refused but, at every occasion, they looked the other way. We constantly broke the law. They knew it and did nothing about it.

Were we complicit with an evil regime? Were we being cowardly and compromising by working there? Were we being disloyal to Jesus by living under Apartheid? There was many intra-Paulist agonizing discussions on this matter and we always seemed to conclude that it was right that Hecker’s sons were working in that beautiful country so stained by greed and selfishness. Would not Catholics and others be in deficit were we not there? Rationalization or justification? Paulists, overwhelmingly, argued that, granting the negatives, it was right to live and work there!
The positive aspects of our work were too concrete to ignore. Was it Machiavellian? Did the good end justify the problematic means? We worked with consciences, which, though clear, were pained by the suffering of so many of God’s children. Statistically, the overseas Paulists who labored so joyfully and successfully in Southern Africa were pleased that they had devoted those years to the African missions.

Being nauseous from the revolting, insulting treatment of our Catholic “non-Europeans” (including brother priests),on the one hand, and sensing, on the other hand, how valuable we were to our brothers and sisters in their search for God, made for sharp inner angst. How does one handle that problem? Does the Church pack up and leave in a huff, leaving the Catholics (of all hues) without shepherding? Does one mount great demonstrations which, in that country would have involved danger of loss of life, property and freedom to evangelize? One can, as did I whenever possible, preach the loving and just doctrine of Jesus Who sees everyone as loveable and worth dying for! One can write, as did I, in Catholic periodicals about Social Justice and the need to treat everyone as one’s brother. The political effects were immediately negligible, if incrementally, for future impact, useful.

There were little things we could and did do. When we arrived at our new parish in Johannesburg, we found three pews in the rear of the Church marked with signs “for non-Europeans.” We instantly removed the signs indignantly announcing that the Church of Jesus was no place for such blatant bigotry. A few of the devout Catholic parishioners protested our action even though they considered themselves as fine practicing Catholics. When the abundant pleasures of this world are close at hand, few are interested in the nobler things of life. It is only when “Pressure” such as when overwhelming and threatening non-white populations are clearly about to engulf the Privileged Few that people will listen and act.

Barring some French Revolution type uprising, the power of Government with its military, police force and “spy” system, is too strong to overturn. The practical question is how does a believing Catholic function under any iniquitous system? How did Pope Pius VII negotiate with Napoleon? I recall that the Pope forgivingly viewed the Emperor’s injustices as “frenzies of human ambition” and that “the Concordat was a healing act, Christian and heroic.” How did we deal with Hitler? And Concordat? Was it wrong? My visceral reaction, being half Jewish, is powerful. I know that had I lived in Munich, in 1938, I very well might have ended up in Dachau. Yet, a reasonable argument might be made, justifying the Church’s “silence” under the Nazi regime in order to protect and serve as many of our Flock as possible.

Some moralists teach that one goes as far as one can (in some kind of “agreement”) without compromising one’s basic conscience (do we battle what that means?). Obviously, there are limits beyond which no Catholic can travel but, using that nasty word, practically, one must find ways to “accommodate” within the moral Catholic conscience. Otherwise, we keep running away. And Catholics lose. The Ordinary [6] of the Diocese of Johannesburg, the largest and most important in the country, was Bishop Whelan whose father was Irish and mother, Afrikaans [7]. He was highly favored by the Government and was rumored to be sympathetic to Programs coming out of Pretoria, the real Center of the Governing class. Yet, as our Bishop, he did encourage, non-verbally, much of the apathy we found in that Catholic family. Nevertheless, within his ambiguous but protective leadership we were able to do “the job.”

However, is there, apart from the heated ramblings of the uninitiated, any real guideline? We Paulists found our own working principles as outlined above. Others, elsewhere, have not. One thing we do know is that it is probably better not to jump precipitously but rather to work within the system and nudge gradually for change. The Ivory Tower pundit dislikes such talk. But perhaps he might consider that we should not analyze the other’s morality until we, as the Native American axiom goes, have walked in his moccasins.

____________________________________

[1] A clumsy word invented by the Nationalist Party attempting to describe the “equal but separate” development of Caucasian and all other racial groups.
[2] In my early years under Apartheid, I would, with more than a juvenile flair, list myself as non-European since I came, not from Europe but from the United States. My smart alec stance brought me and my work nothing but grief. I stood up not for God nor my Church nor my charges but really for my own egotism.
[3] Can one forget the Dred Scott decision of 1858?
[4] “Non white” could mean colored ( the product of earlier sexual relations between a white man and a black woman), or Native (Full blood African) or Asian (a conundrum for Apartheid since it might involve Indians, Chinese or Lebanonese)
[5] They viewed Catholic hospitals, run by Nuns, in a similar fashion. It was an “in” joke that Apartheid government leaders used these Catholic facilities rather than Government ones.
[6] a term used to describe the ruling Bishop of any Diocese. He has full, ultimate authority and jurisdiction within that Diocese.
[7] Meaning great family influence from the Dutch Reformed Tradition of South Africa. Such influence tended to side with the “volk” of African history who were the Apartheid Afrikaaner people.

Dignity and Courage Compared as Ministries to Homosexual Persons

2007-06-22T21:00:00.000-07:00

Several years ago, in the Paulist Fathers parish in New York City, there were two different groups ministering to Homosexual persons. One was a Dignity-like group sponsored by the parish in the liberal pastoral care mode. The other was Courage founded by Cardinal Cooke and developed by Fr. John Harvey OSFS with the assistance of Fr Benedict Groeschel and Archbishop Edwin O"Brien of the Military Ordinariate. Perplexed by what looked like unnecessary replication , some interested persons wondered 1) why were there two groups ministering to the same population and 2) was there any real difference between the two apparently competing groups.

In fact, there are important and obvious differences. An immediate framework for understanding the differences can be found in the Five Goals of Courage which were formulated by the Same Sex Attracted1 members themselves. The first and most important goal reads as follows:"Live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality."

A member of the Parish Council had asked me, the facilitator of the local Courage chapter, the direct question: What is the difference between the two groups?" My reply created a flurry of activity when I said: "Courage is the Catholic one." The rationale for that statement is, hopefully explained in the following paragraphs.
Dignity was founded by John McNeill, an ex-priest and ex-Jesuit who had been personally involved with a same sex lover for approximately 20 years. His intention (garnered from his own writings) was to create a support system for those Catholics who, like himself, being homosexual and Catholic, wished to maintain active participation in both areas. This meant some kind of selective and subjective Catholicism. However, Catholicism insists that Chastity (as described in Galatians as gift/fruit of the Holy Spirit of God) is the obligation of all, including "Gays."2

They, however, argue that since they usually lack the option of marriage with the opposite sex, they should be "excepted" from this Catholic teaching which, they admit, legitimately applies to everyone else.

Stripped of any possible obscurity, the teaching basically says that human sexual behavior is limited exclusively to a man and a woman united in lawful marriage. Sexual behavior outside of this state of life (which probably encompasses most of the human race) is considered not only inappropriate but sinful, in se. That many persons consistently violate such an ideal does not destroy the teaching and belief of the Catholic Church. It is intact and basic to the Catholic stance. Obviously, there is much dissent on this point. Indeed, Dignity is listed among the dissidents, arguing that God would not impose such a cross as chaste celibacy on those who have strong sexual drives and needs. Yet, two years ago, in Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago stunned a conference of "Gays and Lesbians" with a counter point. He said: "Anyone who says that chastity cannot be practiced, in effect, proclaims that he does not believe in the Resurrection of Christ." He received an applause which was polite but largely muted.

Fr. John Harvey takes a similar position. In a New York Vicariate meeting of priests, I asked him publicly why he thought there was opposition to the teachings of Courage among some clergy. He replied, "Because they don't believe chastity for SSA is possible." The Dignity-like group which previously functioned in the Paulist parish was facilitated by a layman, an attorney. He was quoted in Chelsea-Clinton News, a small newspaper operating in a heavily Gay area, on the West side of Manhattan, as saying that he never surfaced the Catholic position on chastity but preferred to keep the teaching unarticulated. Each member could decide for himself, with some in "relationships"3, and others not. In the face of such a policy, it is interesting to note that the present Pontiff, as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in the PCHP4 that silence, in dealing with Homosexual Persons, is neither pastoral nor caring. He skillfully challenges evasive and non-verbal positions as being "studied ambiguity." Such unarticulated policies are contrary to the very nature of Courage. This contrariety conflicts with the support group as an organization and the very etiology of the word itself. Courage believes that chastity (in the Catholic sense) is all about Love which is open and giving.
The Catholic Church (and, by extension, Courage) holds that only the tendency5 itself is considered to be disordered because it tends towards that which, in itself, is sinful.6 The tendency is towards that which, in itself, is wrong (sex outside of marriage)7 and at least objectively sinful. It is important to note immediately that, in a Catholic view, it is the tendency which is disordered and not the person. Superficial reading or misunderstanding of this point, has, for some people, been translated into a false perception that the Church is saying that homosexual (SSA) persons are disordered. The distinction seems to be difficult for some SSA persons to fathom but, psychologically, the distinction is profoundly comprehensible to many students of the human psyche.

In any event Cardinal O'Connor, the Archbishop of New York, like so many other American Bishops, banned Dignity from his jurrisdiction, forbidding any use of Churches or Church property by that Organization. At the same time, the Cardinal established Courage, publicly, as the only official ministry in his Archdiocese to minister to the Same Sex Attraction Problem. Some Dignity people moved their meetings to welcoming non-Catholic Churches, sometimes attended by priests who motivated either by misplaced compassion or disobedience, conducted underground Masses and the like. Others, unwilling to move out, invented a simple but brilliant solution to their dilemma. They changed the name of the group, dropped the name "Dignity", kept everything else and technically, no one has disobeyed Christ's representative. The word of the Law was kept, if not the Spirit. Hence, McNeill's "vision" can be carried on as "The ministry to gays and lesbians."

It has been my experience of almost 40 years of ministering to SSA persons that most do not want to leave the Catholic Church, their real spiritual home. It is often with bitterness that some leave to join more "inclusive" groups, like the Episcopalian Church which offers them the "Eucharist" asking only a single requirement. Simply the "desire" to receive. Most Dignity people do not want such a switch of religious loyalty. Many are aware of the Catholic hesitancy to accept without qualification the validity of Anglican Orders.8 This conflict means much suffering for these people. Reception of the Eucharist as Catholics requires chastity which, in turn, means foregoing all sexual behavior outside of marriage as defined above. Such a conflict does not exist for Courage members who with clear consciences receive their Divine Lord in Holy Communion, regularly and often. They have submitted to God's will and, by His grace, live lives of peace and good humor. The struggle with temptation is real but manageabble. For the most part, Courage members who work the Program do remarkably well and even achieve high levels of healthy spirituality.

Courage has been accused of damaging human psyches and leading "innocents" into lives of misery. This accusation stems from some kind of wild claim that Courage tries to "rehab" or change people's personality and basic nature. The implication is that the goal of Courage is to make everyone heterosexual. It is difficult to know where such a perception originates since it is totally antithetical to the goals, literature and operation of Courage. The main goal of Courage is a main goal of Catholicism. That is to assist people, with the help of God, to achieve interior chastity. Anything beyond that is not the primary work of Courage. If a member of Courage feels called to Married life, he might well pursue that personal goal. But to hold that Courage tries to change every SSA into OSA [1] is absurd. This Frankensteinian perception must have come from hearsay, ignorance or someone’s personal agenda. The accusation is totally false. Clearly and even clinically, Chastity does not destroy people. It integrates them with themselves. It makes people whole, not splintered.

Courage does not accept the idea that self control or self command is an unhealthy form of repression on anyone’s part, homosexual or otherwise. This is particularly true if the motivation for sexual continence is spiritual. But simply because I desire something does not equate with my right to have “it” whatever it might be. Call it Spiritual exercise or healthy suppression but it is not destroying people’s souls to teach the Virtues of Continence and Chastity. Sigmund Freud used to say that Id behavior (or infantilism) translates into “I want it now. Do not obstruct my desire” but also that adult ego behavior says: “Wait and delay your gratification until the proper time.” It is not unhealthy to re-direct behavior if it is destructive.

Courage believes that homosexual behavior is toxic for the human being and inimical to the Catholic spiritual way of life. Real Adults sense that we cannot have everything we desire because Maturity means adaptation to reality which means some personal limitation for “most people”. So, Courage challenges the trendy notion that because a person has the SSA tendency, he will become neurotic unless he “gives in” to that temptation. The data suggest otherwise. His self esteem rises to the extent that he, the Catholic, can, with God’s great help, fulfill the Christian call to chastity. He, like the Lord, accepts and carries the Redeeming Cross.

In effect, Courage believes that there is a large dimension of the immature and the underdeveloped in the unrestrained SSA person as in any other unrestrained person. Courage believes that re-directing any inappropriate sexual desire into productive and positive channels is psychologically healthy. And perhaps more importantly, spiritually correct. The desire of SSA people for intimacy, friendship and love is normal and right. They, like everyone else, have a right to such riches. However the correctness of their goals, their means to achieve them are highly problematic. Hence Courage strongly encourages friendships which are chaste believing that friendships are not only possible but necessary for fulfilled living. The Courage members of the Paulist Residence group have formulated the term “Platform of Holiness” to describe their growth in holiness and wholeness by working through their “thorn in the flesh” in the Catholic manner. This is done by God’s grace, group support and deep chaste friendships. They have achieved under God, much of the appropriate intimacy and masculine bonding they have sought.

The Catholic “manner” also impacts on anthropology. Specifically on the question: What is a person? Dignity thinking says “I am Gay” as if this were an equation. This implies a personhood deeply colored by “gayness” which views the external world through the homosexual “lens.” The person is defined in terms of “gayness” or sexual terms. The Courage person says more deeply, in a more Gestalt style: “ I am a child of God first. I have a disordered tendency which does not define me as a person. I am more than my sexual drives, desires gonads and tendencies. I am a person –called by God to be holy.”

Still, Dignity people claim to have been "born that way", i.e. homosexual, and hence it would be God's will that they should act in accord with that "destiny.” Rather, says Courage, God’s ideal will is that all people live according to His plan as outlined in Genesis. Obviously, the ideal is not always achieved. So, chaste celibacy is the Catholic resolution of this conflict. Surprising to Dignity people, such a resolution does not annihilate one’s capacity for happiness but enhances it.. There is life after chaste celibacy! [2] Basically, Courage, believes (granting possible predispositional hormonal influence during uterine life), that SSA formation is largely influenced by environmental and familial factors. Any hormonal or genetic factor would have to be triggered by some kind of “other” catalyst for it to become determinative in the formation of an identity.

There have been, up to this time, no credible scientific demonstrations for a biological or constitutional causation of SSA. Many gay researchers have made valiant efforts for such demonstrations but none has succeeded as of now. LeVay, Bailey, Pillard and Hamer all have done extensive studies and trials, none of which is conclusive. It is too simplistic to proclaim that genes, for example, are the sole cause of homosexuality. Neuroscientist, Dennis McFadden of the University of Texas says: “Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if that were not true for homosexuality.” In my opinion, SSA is the result of both nature and nurture but it is largely “nurture” or lack of it which is responsible.
Nevertheless Courage follows the “Sentire cum ecclesia” rule. Go with the Church!

It is highly probable that by following the Catholic church’s teaching, one is following the holy Will of God which means peace of soul in this life and everlasting joy with Him in the next. Catholic interpretations of Scripture in this area are consistent. Every Biblical reference to homosexual behavior is pejorative. See Genesis [3] [4], Judges, Lev., I Tim., I Cor. and Romans. Official Catholic Tradition has always seen homosexuality as a negative. The Magisterium which Courage respects as the teaching mode of the Church uniformly teaches the Homosexuality is a disorder. 2,000 years of the common sense in the Judeo-Christian world has seen the homosexual lifestyle as inimical to holiness and God’s will.
Perhaps, the -most telling factor, from a visceral point of view, is observing the miraculous re-direction of so many of the Courage people’s lives. There is real joy, self respect and inner peace in those who had previously been trapped in the homosexual lifestyle for some years. Their description of life in that drab underworld is anything but “gay” (in the older sense of that word). Indeed, It almost seems that the word was conscripted as a reaction formation (or mental mechanism of defense) from facing the brutal truth of acting “gay.” It strikes one as a kind of tergaversation [5] as the gay tries to convince himself that all it well and life is optimal. Young, angry gays shout how happy they are and how “Gay is beautiful.” Do they really believe that? Robert Stoller, MD of the APA writes in his powerful book “Perversion: the Erotic Form of Hatred”that the gay, way down deep in his psyche, agrees, at least in part, with straight society. After these 40 years of listening to SSA interior pain, I see the Gay world as gray, melancholy, lonely, guilty, angry and pain filled. Courage members report , perhaps as an understandable correlation, a heavy use of alcohol in that world. Understandable at least for those Catholic gays who know that homoerotic acts are characterized by the Catholic Church as “never approved.”

Pragmatically, were there no spiritual dimensions involved, choosing the “Gay” or Dignity lifestyle would appear, prima facie, to be absurd and ultimately self destructive if one listens to the depressing accounts from the “aging gay.” But there is a possible way out. It is the Catholic way and consequently the Courage way. It is the path of Jesus who taught that He is the Way highlighted by His Love. One remembers His insistence: “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” Courage believes that Chastity is commanded and required by the Lord for real love and fulfillment.

However, there is no 100% resolution to the question of Comparing Dignity and Courage. Obviously, people will stoutly embrace their own insights regardless of data. A young gay priest acquaintance tells me that even though he rejects his own Church’s teaching on this matter, he will remain in the priesthood for “prophetic” reasons. He intends to work to “change” Catholic views on homosexual behavior. Reality would clearly tell him that he is bashing his well intentioned head against a “truth” wall. This might exemplify the life of fantasy so rampant in the Gay world.

Jesus said that we could know “them” by their fruits (meaning not sexual orientation but results or lack thereof). In the line of the old theological dictum—“Raro fit cum tigris”[6], rarely can anyone get AIDS by practicing chastity. Anyone who really wishes to see the truth in this matter might visit a Courage meeting to evaluate the work of the Holy Spirit. Beyond that, attacks on Courage are sheer deconstructionism. Of course, Courage has its own stone wall. Hence, both groups might not be able to listen to each other. But instead of scolding and debating, Courage members might use their time more properly by praying for the sad Catholic Gays and for their liberation from the Dignity equivocation into the bright world of His freeing truth. Did He not promise that Truth would make us free?
Does Dignity bring gays closer to the Church? It is highly improbable. Recently, in a large eastern city a group of “Liberal” priests had operated a center for Dignity type Catholic gays who ignored the Church’s teaching on sexuality as irrelevant. The priests, with great Christian compassion (even if misplaced) felt that they were keeping these dissident Catholics close to the Church and in the Faith by tolerating their illicit behavior. When, however, the Center closed for financial reasons, the Gays were urged to continue their Catholic life in the local Cathedral. The suggestion was declined since the Archbishop of that Archdiocese did not support Gay Marriage. They refused to attend any Mass he celebrated. This, in my opinion, is not vibrant and loyal Catholicism. The well meaning priests were analogous to well meaning but ineffectual parents. This is no way to develop Catholic spirituality and freedom.

Courage members believe that the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus, gives the Map to freedom by her teaching. Dissenting from Catholic teaching and practice, in the long run, is, probably, the basic criterion of difference between Dignity and Courage. But the choice is not merely intellectual and logical. It is also obviously emotional. Therefore, only by the Grace of God can one make the correct choice. Ultimately, Prayer and fasting is the prescription for this situation.

________________________________________

1 Same Sex Attraction, abbreviated to SSA, is the term used by Courage in the belief that it is more respectful and accurate than the more activistic term of "Gay. This will be expanded in the body of this paper.
2 Chastity is threefold: 1) chaste celibacy for those under religious vows or profession 2) chaste single life and 3) chaste
married life, obviously non-celibate
3 Relationship in this context means complete sexual behavior
4 Pastoral Care for Homosexual Persons
5 the drive to have sex with persons of the same sex
6 the sex drive between the opposite sexes is not sinful or disordered, in se, but planned by God for marriage whereas sex
between those of the same sex is disordered and counter to God's plan. Identity wires have somehow become crossed
as with all paraphilias.
7 Sex outside of marriage for anyone is sinful. SSA persons are not being singled out
8 Leo XIII decreed on the Invalidity of Anglican Orders leaving a residual of doubt about the Eucharist in the Dignity
person.

[1] Other sex attracted
[2] Courage members invite any priest who has questions about the Courage program to judge for themselves as to the emotional and spiritual health of the members.
[4] Some interpreters claim that that the Lot story is only about inhospitality whereas others claim that it could also mean homosexuality as well as inhospitality. The townsmen may have also sought sex with the attractive male visitors. Inhospitality and homosexuality are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
[5] in reference to “turning things around” or to reverse.
[6] Rarely does this happen with tigers.

Old Priests and the Mass

2007-06-09T16:35:00.000-07:00

Early every morning a group of old priests (usually about 10) meet, in a beautiful little chapel on Manhattan’s West Side to concelebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They range, in age, from a relatively young 72 to a mature 92. They use wheelchairs, walkers, canes or they shuffle, painful step by painful step to worship their God and to confront their mortality. Their infirmities and medical experience include bypass heart surgery, Myocardial infarctions, crippling arthritis, TKR (total knee replacements), cancer, vertigo, rotator cuff repairs and cataract removal. Almost all suffer from some degree of deafness, moderate to severe. More than occasionally, their brain synapses fire improperly. They are white haired and gray haired and very bald. They, laudatores temporis acti,[1] are men living long past their eras which were the Great Depression, the Great War of 1941-45, Bing Crosby and Frances Langford.

The Mass is in silence with no distraction from guitars or nasal rendition of New Age hymnody which most of them find not only unfamiliar but disturbing. Before the Mass, they gather silently in the darkened chapel before the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament reaching for the recommended frame of mind enjoined on them at their Ordination so long ago. “Be like that which you handle.” The sanctuary lamp flickers in the darkness with no sound but the hiss of the radiators which warms in winter or the hum of the A/C in summer which shields them from the brutal New York humidity.

I, myself, am one of these old men. I join them at Mass that I, under God, might draw some strength, resolve and faith from their simple, uncomplicated devotion. I knew them all when they were young and energetic, when they had the proverbial Tiger by the tail. I knew them when they were full of vibrancy and wit. I remember when they were so popular, people would wait for days to see them, as if they were some kind of religious neurosurgeon with incredible skill to heal. Now, for example, one of these, a former clerical “star”, has, after Mass is completed, only three “things to do” to fill his day: Breakfast, lunch and dinner.

No longer do these creaky old clerics receive the wide eyed adulation and admiration of their active younger days. No longer do their phones ring requesting time with the Great Man. No one seeks him out for advice or affirmation or guidance. The applause is gone. There are no longer great crowds hanging on his every utterance making him feel like a King of the Universe. In fact, the lives of these old priests are quiet, sometimes boring and lonely. They watch Television which saturates them with insipid sometimes insulting shows. They read newspapers for hours, carefully noting the obituaries and ultimately the advertisements (with no intent to buy anything). They have, like so many others fellow humans, grown old. This means a loss of power, independence, control, opportunities for mobility and fun. This means peril to their self esteem and their confidence. Always, it can border on depression and unhappiness for the man of God.

One of them who died at 95 used to lament that no one sought his advice about the recruiting process for his Community. He had been an active Director of Vocations in the past, a War Hero, decorated for bravery, and involved in four terrifying invasions in Europe. He, in a fit of pique, once said to me “Why don’t they ever ask me my opinion…” I, now unhappy in retrospect with my words, replied: “Because they don’t care about your opinion….” Though inelegant, this response was probably correct. That is simply the way it is. We are all the same and most probably we acted identically in our own youth.

Against such a sad but realistic background one can appreciate somewhat why these ancients are so faithful and involved in the daily Mass. While it is a formidable and concrete expression of the human need for Community and the yearning for interaction with other congenial human beings, the meaning of the daily meeting is far more profound than the merely natural. Yes, obviously concelebrating the daily Mass is far more bonding than watching late night TV together or even perfunctory breaking bread at a common table. With a kind of Gospel spin[2] on it, we could say that the factual pagan can develop “community” at a sports bar watching the Jets and guzzling beer with the “guys.” Nothing wrong with that but hardly comparable to what happens when a group of priests, old or young, gather to participate in Calvary and the Last Supper. Obviously, these priests “see” Something.

The bonding at the Mass stems from a common belief. These old men, soon to face their God for their personal judgment, believe that they are actually re-presenting Mount Calvary and the crucifixion and death of Jesus, their Master Who, in fact, is God Himself. They believe that they, as Other Christs, ordained as such, are Instruments of something so ineffable that it escapes definition. After years of study, reading, listening, praying, intellectualizing, they cannot really understand but only believe that they instrumentally, as “in persona Christi” priests, bring down Christ Himself on that very altar where they stand. Not in the ordinary sense of Jesus among us by Baptism, prayer or good works, but in this unique Presence of the Lord we call the “Blessed Sacrament.”

A friend of mine, a hard nosed labor negotiator, told me as we were sharing some pasta e fagioli and Italian bread, that should I say the words of Consecration over the bread there, he would get down on his knees in the restaurant—before all other diners—and worship Christ in the “Eucharist.” Without assessing his personal eucharistic theology, he does reflect that sensus fidelium[3] about this Tremendous Mystery which so dominates the lives of old priests. He also reflects how these old priests see the Mass and themselves.

They believe, by their very words, that a change takes place. That which is just bread or wine now becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, Himself. He, the Master is there before these old chaps through their words. Theologians try to explain this by fancy thinking using, for example, the term, Transubstantiation, change of substance and not of externals. But it is the Faith which illumines the heart. Believe it or not. That is what they believe and that is why they are there day after day. Hot days or freezing days. Every day. They are there to meet the Master in a way simply not possible in any other manner. In the Mass, a Sacrifice of the Lord for all of us, the old priests receive consolation and comfort, reassurance of His love for them and His gratitude to them for their years of difficult burdens for His sake. This Mass experience cannot be replaced. I recall the famous Protestant preacher, William Sloane Coffin, remarking “There is no substitute for the Mass…..” Preaching, good works, counseling, teaching, administering, organizing are all good things but none can equal the Mass. Dr. Coffin lamented, however, about Catholic priests, “If those guys could only preach…” He may be right on that but good preaching without the Mass can hardly compete.

But is it only old age that makes these old guys so faithful and loyal every morning? The older priest does notice that apparently his younger confreres do not share his view of the Mass. He asks why don’t the young guys show up for this concelebration? I wonder myself on those cold, cold mornings when my joints ache and I want to stay under the warm covers, why should I, at 86, get up? The young guys don’t. Do they know something I don’t? They are probably smarter and better educated than I, so why don’t they show up? How come they say Mass only when they are obliged to? How come Bishop A. Vaughan, rector of the New York Seminary, instructed his young priests to say Mass every day and not just attend it? How come they say Mass only if there is an assembly present? How come they disagree with Pope John Paul II who in his encyclical De Eucharistia # 31 encourages priests to say Mass daily-even if there is no one else present? How come old priests believe “private” Masses are not private at all but public before the very Court of Heaven with God the Father presiding? With all the Angels and saints? With Our blessed Lady smiling on the priest? Is this a question of catechesis? Or is it a reflection of a different kind of Faith about the Mass?

I don’t know. But I know that these old guys love to say Mass daily because it is the One solid, changeless, meaningful Love we have. Being old is tough enough but to be without the one ultimate support would be, in the words of the kids I knew on the street many years ago, plain “bananas.”

________________________________________
[1] They praise the past. Cyberspace, iPods and "Voice of the Faithful" do not interest them.
[2] Even the pagans do that!
[3] The sense of the Faithful—an instinct for theologic truth. Different from "Voice of the Faithful" which tends more toward political control rather than Catholic devotion.

On Dawn Eden & Chastity

2007-06-09T16:20:00.000-07:00

Written from a woman’s point of view, Dawn Eden’s 212 page analysis of chastity is a block buster. Even the clever title , “The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding fulfillment with your Clothes On” boldly challenges the Sacred Cows of the 2nd avenue bar Crowd. Perhaps, even those of the 3rd avenue bar Crowd. The interpersonal fraudulences, the phony conversations so obviously marked by the roving eye searching for a potential “contact”, the in-authenticities, and most of all, the drab emptiness of the un-chaste life are ruthlessly exposed. Her notion of the “thrilled” life of the chaste is essentially different from the contemporary sad notion of the thrill of the chased.

The “hip” stereotyping of the chaste ones as frigid, sexually frightened, up tight and boring does not square with her present thinking or her own personal past experience in the hip world. While, on the one hand, she had the healthy and profound desire to marry her Prince Charming who hopefully would treat her as a Princess sharing her values, at the same time, she had great fear of rejection as well as intimacy, big time. She had huge urgencies which never seemed to be resolved. She was the one who was always “dumped” (her word). One can wonder and even faintly understand why so many young women, in that painful, confused state, have, in effect, thrown good sense and caution to the winds and “hoped” that a little sex experience would open the doors to marriage and romantic, eternal love.

She, like so many other young women on the modern scene, might hear the biological clock ticking, be desperately lonely with little to do beyond watching television and “getting drunk on weekends.” Insert panic into that scenario and one has a recidivistic and insecure way of life. It looks like an emotional Merry-Go-Round which pattern-like probably ends in the same unfulfilling way. It, also, sounds close to what the Shrink world calls “unconscious depression.” She notes (p. 3) that “the most I could hope for, it seemed, was a man who would treat me with “respect”, but who really wouldn’t have any concern for me once we split the tab for breakfast.” She describes as “pathetic” the old game where it was just one more uncomfortable morning after breakfast with her loveless partner oozing with “respect” (at least what qualifies as respect in the dating world). His “I’ll still respect you” line became more than she could bear.

I wonder how any naïve young woman would feel if she heard the locker room talk among young men discussing the “broads” they recently “Conquered” (they usually use another street term, raunchy and inelegant)? There is little “respect” in the descriptions of their exploits. Again, on the unconscious level, it is rather dis-respect they feel for the girl who gave in! In fact, the Morning after guy is handing out Balderdash![1] It is, on the contrary, goodness which wins real, if grudging, respect. The goodness which vibes out from human beings is powerfully attractive and I suspect that on some level, the “modern” yearns for the nostalgia of his own lost virtue. Let us face it ---in some ways, goodness can be very sexy!

Dawn had thought, incorrectly, that by introducing the sexual component into the relationship, she might “control” her lover and nudge him a tad toward marriage. But, contrary wise, she writes of her feelings of being “trapped” and getting none of the goodies promised by the media and popular wisdom. She had the infantile fantasy that merely having sex with “him” would make him love her. It was once again the age old myth of the famous non-equation: “Sex equals love.”

From my private practice, I recall an interview, with a young woman in her mid-thirties, a graduate of a prestigious Catholic college who enthusiastically “slept around” looking for love, closeness and, most of all, marriage. Her dominant involvement was with a middle aged man who loved to roller blade and go to black tie parties but who required a sexual dimension in his relationship with her. She desperately wanted a baby and assumed that her partner would come around to her mode of thinking, especially after a year’s tossing in the hay! In a painful counseling session with them, I raised the question of marriage which totally surprised the Bon Vivant. Not only did he clear the air by surfacing his hip value system which insisted that sex before marriage is far better than after any ceremony, but, with a straight face, he informed the deluded young woman “I don’t owe you anything—certainly not marriage.” Subsequently she suffered severe emotional reactions, becoming an alcoholic with puffy eyelids and another bewildered Modern. How dopey can a young woman be? Or is common sense irrelevant here?

Dawn is too intelligent to irrevocably follow such a tragic regimen. Her intelligence coupled with a gracious turn of God’s grace led her to become chaste whereby she has found a joy she never even suspected was available.

How many times, both as priest and psychologist, I have urged young women to follow the Law of God and the centuries of healthy human experience. Effectively, that means chastity. Time after time, speaking with some of them, I found it exceedingly difficult to dislodge the notion that chastity is some kind of grim, dour No-No. Some kind of symbolic chastity belt by which all joy is repressed, sexual feelings are inherently evil, affection is taboo and love is an academic word meant only for intellectual dissection. Chastity on 2nd avenue apparently means that life is essentially sad. In other words, the perception “on the street” is a total distortion. Is this simply an extension of the unspoken law that if I desire something, I should have it? And that I will become neurotic if I am denied my wishes? Is it 2nd avenue infantilism?

How does one explain and persuade that chastity is so much more[2] than the adult containment of libidinous drives? How does one illustrate that chastity means feeling interiorly clean and almost electrically alive with the creative juices flowing abundantly? How does one communicate the towering feeling of being on the “right side” of God? How does one sing of the energy and the vigor that comes with the new self respect (the running mate of chastity) making one independent of the approval of 2nd avenue? How does one proclaim the Great Feeling of truly enjoying the world and its beauty and not having to be “on the hunt” for a prospective partner for the night? How does one shout how great it is to jettison the Sad Eyes and the brittle, empty “Wit” of the Hip Crowd? How can one articulate the freedom that chastity gives to “behold” another without attempting possession and suffocation? How can one relate how rejection and intimacy fears have lessened and how self confidence and self respect have burgeoned? How to “teach” the Cross of Christ as a resolution for absurdity?

Dawn Eden can answer those questions. And better than most that I have ever read.

But, clearly, this is not just a question of good sense, data, experience and logic. The un-chastity problem stems from fantasy, archaic feelings, rampant urgent longings and biology run amok. If one reviews the reality, women, like Dawn, don’t have to be unchaste. The urge to marry is good and holy as planned by the Loving Creator, God Himself. Males and females are drawn to each other in the marvelous design of God. We surely can say “Vive les XX and XY chromosomes.” The Plan is meant for union, not only for the procreation of the human species (not nature’s trick to ensure survival) but also for complementarity. The Plan is not meant for Dead End one night stands, with the No Strings Attached Baloney, nor for eunicoids and unisexuals. Nor for the absurdity of Same-Sex Unions. Only Men and women can complete each other and, specifically, help each other to reach Holiness in the marital union. This is a good and beautiful Plan to which the overwhelming majority of the human race, at least in terms of completion, can subscribe.

Dawn saw that chastity, in fact, improved her chances for a happy marriage, not jeopardize it. She is a petite, pretty, intelligent, witty woman with a slight but charming stammer. She sees now through the lens of chastity that there is no need for her to flirt or bat her eyelashes at some attractive man or to say whatever she thinks he wants to hear. She knows that she is God’s own child Who loves her and is with her each second of her life. She is a free person. She didn’t need a physical make-over, in the fashion of some female politicos who trade horn rimmed glasses for contact lenses, who exchange dowdy clothes and frowsy hairdos for an expensive and relatively acceptable public persona. Dawn needed a spiritual make-over to rescue her from her “duping” by the ir-real![3]

I heard her discuss her book in a crowded hall recently where young people listened in rapture as she presented chastity--- straight, non-sugarcoated, replete with Scripture quotes, theological insights and thoroughly in sync with Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body. She spoke (as she writes) of closeness with God, through chastity, and its consequent reward of inner peace and self esteem. In a private discussion with her, she opined that should she write the book over she would make a greater point of promoting chastity as an end—for itself. As valid and powerful as is her thesis that chastity is THE way to find one’s mate, her expanded point is even more fundamental. Chastity is the integrating virtue that makes sense out of life. It is a key to inner peace and to that elusive treasure: contentment.

Her book is in my consulting office where I have already recommended it to patients, men as well as women, young and old, hip and square. As stated above, it is a blockbuster.

________________________________________
[1] There is a more colorful street term which accurately describes such behavior which I hesitate to use—in the name of good taste.
[2] Chastity certainly does “contain” sexual behavior as such , but does believe that full, passionate, joyful, physical expression belong only in marriage between a man and united lawfully so. There are no exceptions. In Marriage, sexual expression is holy and highly to be encouraged. Vatican II taught the two purposes of sex are 1)procreation—obvious and 2) “consolation” of the couple. God smiles on their sexual love.
[3] Not un-real, but ir-real or counter reality.

Yes, I Am a Catholic and I Did Not Vote for John F. Kennedy

2007-05-17T17:45:00.000-07:00

After nearly 47 years of political observation, I am delighted that I "boycotted" JFK—even though I came from a tightly knit Catholic "ghetto." In 1960 there was an almost cosmic adoration of "Jack" which was sprawling across the Nation. He was an idol who drew a huge Catholic vote. However, these voters had no real way of knowing or assessing what his election would mean, not only to Catholicism in this country but also to the spiritual nerve of the Nation. By some kind of unconscious peasant instinct of mine, I voted against my whole family's political tradition. I, a Catholic, voted Republican.

I knew that Jack was a very bright, self assured, handsome, extremely rich young fellow who went to exclusive educational establishments. He played rough and tumble touch football at his family's "upper crustt" Cape Cod home. He sailed classy yachts off the Massachusetts coast. He was a World War II hero in the South Pacific and had (I thought) a beautiful wife. He was telegenic (which quality would eventually win him the Presidency) and was a polished public speaker.

My own little world in the tenement area of Manhattan's west side resounded with the battle cry: "He is Irish and Catholic. How can we not vote for him? We, the downtrodden, despised, undereducated, dumb Irish will be lifted up as a class—once Jack is elected—to great new levels. New respect. New opportunities. New horizons, We can stand very tall. We will have finally really made it. Don't think any further. Just vote for one of our own."

Still, I smelled some kind of "rat."

We had all heard of the Protestant fear that a Catholic President would trash the First Amendment, establish some kind of Romish state Church and probably have some kind of Vatican ammunition dump in the basement of the White House. There were lOmillion homes receiving anti-Catholic tracts in 1960. The nine-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, among others, launched big anti-Kennedy campaigns. Protestants were asked to stand up and be counted on Reformation Sunday, October 30,1960. It recalled for me the bitter, vitriolic anti-Catholic election year when Al Smith, an open and vigorous Catholic, was the Democratic candidate for President. In his case, his Catholicism played a significant but not exclusive part in his defeat to Herbert Hoover. Although I was seven years old, I learned very early about religious discrimination—which was not only anti-Semitic but viruulently anti-Catholic. Consequently, in spite of my discomfort with Jack, I did identify with him to some degree.

However, Colleen Carroll Campbell, a Fellow of the Ethics and Public Forum writes in the Catholic World Report (Feb. '07) that Kennedy was anything but a devout and vigorous Catholic like Smith. He had poor catechesis, gave "not a whit for theology", never mentioned any view of man's relationship with God. Cardinal Gushing openly acknowledged that Jack was never very religious. His own wife, Jackie Kennedy, claimed to be mystified by the religious controversy about her husband because she said "Jack is such a poor Catholic." Episcopalian Bishop Jim Pike saw Jack's position aas that of a "thorough going secularist who really believes that a man's religion and his decision -making can be kept in two watertight compartments..." Robert McAfee Brown saw JFK as "…a rather irregular Christian." Martin Marty, Lutheran theologian, saw him ..."as "spiritually rootless and, politically, almost disturbingly secular."

Although I did not know all this in 1960,1 did read his talk at Houston about Church-State Separation on September 12th of that year. Before an audience of several hundred Protestant clergy, he made his case for disavowing the influence of his Catholic Faith on his political choices. Basically, he said." I will make my decisions in accordance with what my conscience"1 tells me....and without regard to outside religious pressures....no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise..." Campbell writes that many Catholic Bishops feared JFK as President because of his hard line positions against Church policies.

JFK's speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, claimed that the Jesuit priest, Fr. J.C. Murray was a consultant for the composition of the speech. But, Campbell claims that Murray disapproved of Jack's strident separationism since the Constitution does not call for a Public Square" stripped of all religious rhetoric. This stripping is what Fr. R.J. Neuhaus has called "the Naked Public Square." The Constitution does allow politicians and voters to engage in faith-based social activism and to defend their religiously derived principles...in that very Public Square. Yet, JFK made a pledge to "expunge" all traces of religious influence from his governing decisions.2 It was interesting to me that at a recent luncheon, a priest-friend, a respected and older Jesuit informed me with great confidence that Murray dictated that speech to JFK over the phone".

In any event, it was that speech that alarmed me and formed my resolve not to back Handsome Jack, but holding my nose, to vote for tricky Dick. It is only with hindsight that my visceral instinct or psychologist's nose makes sense. Kennedy was, de facto, more of a Deist than Catholic. Though he attended Mass regularly, his Catholicism was more cultural and familial than anything else. His thinking didn't reflect any involvement of God with His creatures. Jack's God kept His distance from them. They were on their own. Once He created them, they were "...masters of their fates and captains of their souls." Jack said: "Our problems are man-made—therefore they can be solved by man...."

Where does one see in his thinking any reference to the fallen world through Original sin3 or reliance on and trust in the power and grace so emphasized in Christian life views?

Those who have followed him, politically, have absorbed his separationism and hence have departed from the notion of public religion. When one studies the American beginnings, it is obvious that the Founding Fathers believed in the separation of any established (or particular) Church and the State. They did not believe in the separation of religion and state. This is a substantive and essential distinction. Yet, in modern thinking (read: JFK) religion, as such, should be kept out of sight. Perhaps, in the home. Or in the Church. Or in one's own soul. But not in Public discourse or decision making. Does not this ultimately lead to moral relativism? Such a possibility leads someone like me, a Jew, to become afraid.

We dread that relativism finally means Dachau! This terrorizes me and others like me because then it is consensus that matters, not eternal fixed truth.4 Yet, this practical relativism (or Kennedy logic) finds a congenial home in the modern American political world (and probably elsewhere). This is appalling to me. But it is even more appalling when it is mouthed by some alleged Catholic politicians. This is particularly appalling because the public debate often touches on core meanings of life, such as embryonic stem cell research, physician assisted suicide, abortion/partial birth abortion, same sex marriages—on the very value of life itself. At, least, the Catholic notion of life! To exclude religion from such debate is not only un-American but dumb.

Mario Cuomo, a brilliant speaker and thinker, in a series of tortured intellectual maneuvers set out (using the Kennedy relativistic thinking) to make a case for the Pro-choice9 Catholic politicians. New York's Cardinal, JJ O'Connor, himself extremely bright and political science literate, had bluntly stated that he did not believe a Catholic in good conscience could support legal abortion. His statement created a huge turbulence in the world of politics. Geraldine Ferraro, the defeated candidate for the Vice Presidency (a declared Catholic as well as a Pro Choice or Pro abortion supporter) was, in my opinion, furious with the then Archbishop who was doing nothing more than his basic job in pointing out the evil of complicity.

Cuomo stipulated in a startling speech at Notre Dame University, 24 years after Kennedy's Houston speech, that there are "no final truths". I, personally, became very disappointed in Cuomo— particularly with this statement. He had written in his Diaries how much he valued his soul—more than anything else. He wrote how much he admired St. Thomas More who stood against the government when it was against his Faith. More who was prepared to be decapitated rather than compromise his Catholic conscience. This was the More who said: "I love my King but I love my God even more..."

In my disappointment, I felt that Cuomo, instead of loyalty to God, used the Kennedy bifurcation to trumpet what to me was one of the more intellectually insulting stances of modern times. He argued that not only are Catholics not betraying their consciences by supporting abortion but they are, in accord with good American tradition, not imposing their view on anyone else6. This has a kind of "patriotic" tinge to it.7 This can be done, he said, in effect, by interiorly holding that abortion is intrinsically evil but exteriorly supporting those who wish legally to abort babies. This could apply similarly to the barbarism of partial birth abortion. In effect, there is ultimately no moral principle which can determine or effect what our political conduct should be.

Cuomo incorrectly used the Bernadin schema of "seamless garment" as background insisting that abortion is just a single issue among many and has "no preemptive significance". This would surprise our Pope who, in 2004, as Cardinal Ratzinger, clearly points out that abortion has greater moral weight than war and capital punishment in which there is much room for dialogue. With an abortion there is none. Further, Cuomo argues that Government should simply carry out the will of the people Therefore, if the will of the people is for abortion, it should be done. On consensus. The interior belief of the government leader is, in a sense, irrelevant.

However, I was deeply disappointed with my fallen hero when Mario, in effect, says that it is legitimate to try to influence or even impose in other issues except abortion. Some concept of "consensus." It becomes most confusing when I recall that Governor Cuomo used his power of Veto against a strong popular desire to re-instate the Death Penalty. His Veto was a function of his personal disagreement with the essence of capital punishment.

It seems to me that contradiction is woven into these positions. In 2004 John Kerry had a 100% voting score from the National Abortion Rights Action League which he defended based on his Catholic "conscience" defined, he says, by Pius XXIII (who never existed) and Paul VI in his Vatican Council. Paul did not convene the Council. John did. Following his poorly formed conscience is no way to be a "good" Catholic. There are American Bishops who bravely point out, regardless of political pressures, that social leaders who knowingly depart from Church teaching pay a price. By scandalizing the Church-going Faithful in such a public way, they forfeit their right to receive the Eucharist. Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, for example, incurred the wrath of liberal personalities, including some Catholic religious for such brazen statements. He has been called "ineffectual" in his position implying, apparently, that silence in the face of evil is a better course to follow. Yet the "tolerant" stance seems demographically to do nothing but reinforce the slide away from the practice of the Catholic faith. Can some of contemporary "lukewarm-ness" of certain Catholics be linked to this style?

Yet as inexplicable as is the bifurcation stance in laity, the twist in the minds of clergy is even more astounding. One of the worst appears to be the Jesuit ex-Congressman (D. Mass.) Robert Drinan. His fellow congressman, Robert Dornan, himself a spiritual/religious/political storm center, wrote "I fear for his immortal soul." Fr. Drinan was a strong advocate of abortion campaigns who approved of President Clinton's veto on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. We learn that Drinan appeared as a character witness for Clinton during the impeachment hearings, advised Pro-abortion John Kerry during the 2004 election year and turned a Mass in January, 2007 into anti American politics. He called the Amendment to ban Federal funds for abortion "uncharitable." Fortunately, he was forced to leave politics by the Pope himself. But, more sadly, how could this happen to a priest of God? Sexual molestations by priests are bad enough, even if done from weakness or psychological distortion. But Drinan was an intellectual and his plans were calculated and thought out. And much more evil in the long run. Again, is there some kind of linkage with the thought of John F. Kennedy?

The present Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is the ultimate (hyperbolically predictable) outcome. She is called by Dornan "....maybe the most dangerous leader in the long campaign by anti-Catholics within the Church who mislead Americans, get elected and advance the culture of death..."8 In a personal conversation with her in which Dornan urged her to follow the Church's teaching, she replied (with a laugh): "Oh, come on, Bob. What would you do if one of your daughters was raped by a black man?" Does Racism justify slaughter of little human fetuses? Nothing will deter her from being an accessory to every type of abortion according to public record. This year she promised: “I will continue to work to ensure a woman's right to choose..." This means her energy will be directed to death goals—as her leading the charge to kill the defenseless embryonic persons in ESCR. She makes the unscientific statement that "…this research has the biblical power to cure..." For fuller discussion on the falsity of this statement, the reader is referred to my lengthy article "The Catholic Church Supports Stem Cell Research.”

It is encouraging to read that her own Pastor in San Francisco, Fr. John Malloy SDB released an open letter to Nancy urging her to cease calling herself "Catholic" and refrain from receiving the Eucharist because he said "you are fooling yourself and many good Catholics..." Would that other Catholic leaders had his courage and Faith. The battle lines are drawn between life and death. I trust that John Kennedy was not fully responsible for what he set up. Perhaps in God's mercy his "ignorance" will be his salvation. Nevertheless, the consequences of his thought have been enormously negative for the Nation. In my own mind, I am content that I did not vote for him. Scripture does teach that we are to choose life. Not death. I am content to pray for Jack and Mario and Kerry and Nancy and Ted and Biden and Daschle and Fr Drinan and Leahy and other "Catholics" who refuse to follow their Church's Teaching (Read: the Lord's) and who opt rather to destroy.

St. Michael, Archangel, lead us in the Battle for Light and Truth and Life.

1 Catholic system, conscience must be informed by God's revelation and the teachings of Christ's church. Deciding for one's self means moral relativism—each man for himself. One might consult the writings of Pope John Paul II on conscience formation and the 1998 statement of US bishops on gospel of life.

2 Jack opposed federal aid to parochial schools and the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican, positions he h ad previously held. Why did he reverse his positions?

3 Peggy Noonan reports that an agnostic friend of hers explains the existence of war (and presumably other manmade evils) by saying "...because there is something wrong within us." JFK didn't seem to understand this.

4 “Inalienable” in the Declaration of Independence means “from God". It can not be taken away by a majority vote.

5 Many commentators consider that the term pro-choice is a kind of “cop-out” or euphemism to avoid the blunt and more truthful term pro-abortion.

6 Do not all politicians and lobbyists try to influence others to their point of view? Is this imposing? catholics use moral suasion, to try to alert others the revealed will of the lord. this is not imposition.

7 Supreme Court Judge John Noonan (calif.) has, in the past, seriously questionned the validity of such janus-like, two headed, cogn itive behavior as have many other serious thinkers.

8 Celebrate Life March-April 2007 (p. 2)

Can One Be Homosexual and a Practicing Catholic at the Same Time?

2007-05-17T17:22:00.000-07:00

In 1945 while studying for a degree in Thomistic Philosophy at the Catholic University in Washington, D.C, I had the incredible privilege of sharing the wisdom of such greats as Fulton. J. Sheen, Ignatius Smith, the scholarly Dominican priest (who was my mentor), Fr.Robert Slavin, the Silver Tongued Cosmologist, , Fr. Charles Hart, the international Ontologist and so many others. They opened our minds to the great thinkers of History and to the consequences of such thinking. We learned of Occam’s Razor and Categorical Imperatives and Principles of Non-contradiction. But throughout all our studies there was the omnipresence of the Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, whose spirit seemed to dominate everything we read and assessed.

While I have forgotten most of what I heard from those days, I have incorporated a cognitive “Thomistic piece” which might be a mutation of his thinking (or even a “rumor”). However, it has made much sense to me. He reputedly [1] said: “Never deny. Seldom affirm. Always distinguish.” Rumor or not, using this little schema allows one to attempt to answer the question: “Can one be a homosexual and a practicing Catholic the same time?” I think that one can use the “distinction” element for even rudimentary insight into the “truth” of the question and the answer.

For example, what does homosexual in this question mean? Does it mean merely the tendency [2] to same sex attraction? Does it mean actively practicing same sex behavior as a pattern? Does it mean an intellectual, political, psychological, even religious acceptance of the whole “Gay” [3] agenda? Does it speak of homosexuals living in a same sex union?

If then one distinguishes here and holds that the question asks only about a tendency which is recognized as such and which is controlled by healthy spiritual and psychological specifics, then ,of course, such a person can be, has been and will be a “good” practicing Catholic. There is no obstacle. In fact, there have been innumerable instances of Catholics with the tendency to Same Sex Attraction (SSA) who have become not only admirable Catholics but have attained high levels of sanctity. The Members of the Catholic group called Courage [4] have coined their own phrase, “The platform of Holiness” which embodies their belief that their struggle for chastity (in the Catholic sense) has allowed them a closeness to God, previously not experienced by them. Interestingly, while their success stems from many sources, one such source is the use of the mechanism called Suppression. This is substantively different from repression which stems from fear and is basically unconscious. The suppression usage is conscious and follows a courageous confrontation with sexual drives. It looks directly at sexual compulsions and deviations and makes a conscious choice to opt for interior chastity. It nourishes the chaste external lifestyle so strongly demanded by the loving Lord.

Fairly recently, a Manhattan group of dissident homosexual Catholics met for monthly meetings in which they supported each others’ active gay life. They encouraged each other to continue partaking of the Catholic life and insisted that it was appropriate to simultaneously carry the persona of the “Good Catholic.” The layman leader of the Group testified in a local newspaper article that they never actually raised the Catholic position. He liked keeping it all “ ambiguous.” He preferred to “leave it to the person.” There was no confrontation with the actual teaching of the Church. Here was deliberate suppression with a negative choice. One might predict like a hyperbolic curve that the group would become chaotic and dissolve. It did. Both the present Pope, Benedict XVI (when he was Prefect of the Defense of the Faith) and Cardinal Trujilllo (when he was with the Family Council of the Vatican,) supported the notion that to be silent about the teaching of the Church in this instance is “ neither pastoral nor caring.” This can be analogously applicable to the alleged “love” of the all permissive parent who watches his child disintegrate while he protests how accepting he is. Perhaps, we should label such parental behavior for what it is—basic hostility with a mask!

There can be, in fact, a contradiction in the question itself unless one makes the necessary distinction. Oxymoronic means a basic inner contradiction of terms, within a word or phrase or sentence. “Practicing Catholic and active homosexual” is clearly oxymoronic.

The Catholic Church definitely teaches that homosexual acts are always wrong. Always sinful. Always abominable in God’s sight. Such behavior can never be approved. With this distinction, the answer to the question is also patent. Such persons are in direct opposition to the Catholic teaching and in no way could be considered as good or practicing Catholics. So, should a questioner fail to make such a distinction and hold, a la the theology of inclusion, that homosexual sexual behavior between two men or women is acceptable to the Church and that such persons might approach the Communion line or rail, he would be obviously acting out of order. Logically, any behavior could otherwise be justified, couldn’t it? Adulterers. Thieves. Arsonists. Perverts. Character assassins. Fornicators. Anything? The only requirement, then, is a desire to join the Church. Don‘t ask questions. Don’t have criteria for admission. God will understand. A reductio ad absurdum! [5] Realistically, the Catholic Church is not meant to be a warm, fuzzy place which makes you feel good. It is rather a place of transformation, sacrifice and Cross carrying.

There are some within the Church (alas, including even some naïve clerics) who, with loving but misplaced compassion, opt to overlook Catholic wisdom and centuries old experience and, in effect, say that we will disregard the teachings (ultimately) of Christ’s own Church. Recently, a prestigious Religious Order announced that because of financial strictures, it would close a Center in a large city which was dedicated to Gay persons. In the announcement, it was stated that many persons (presumably homosexuals) have been kept in the Church because of the accepting style of the Center. Yet when the Members (homosexuals) were advised that they could continue their religious lives by attending the local Cathedral, they refused because the local Bishop would not support same sex marriages! Yet, in the minds of the well intentioned clerics, these Homosexuals were being kept in the Church!

It was particularly upsetting, at a public meeting, to hear a “searching” Catholic lesbian lament that in a recent confession, the confessor gave her advice which was utterly contrary to Catholic teaching and practice. “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.. so it is O.K”. “Don’t be too hasty in shelving your gay relationship..” The Church will change in time and will publicly accept gay living into Catholic life…” An old priest present at the meeting in some kind of semi-tragic need to appear chic and “today,” suggested that the confessor was just being kind. The lesbian replied with a terse remark that Jesus did say something about those who mislead His little ones and the attendant millstone tied around the neck of the disloyal one [6].

Such clerical malfeasance, especially in the Confessional, does nothing in the long run but confuse and hurt God’s people. It almost appears that these clerics are obsessed with the need for others to love and approve them. This is quite distant from the Lord’s rule: we are to serve and not be served. To a psychologist much of the all giving and all loving stance of these clerics is really a mask for deep unconscious hostility which is difficult to face consciously. It is a similar dynamic one finds in the all permissive parent, mentioned above, who unconsciously says: “Go cut your throat. Don’t bother me. Do whatever you want…” True love is tough and other oriented. Priests are called “Father” and are expected to act as loving surrogate parents not as buddies for their teenage charges.

When once I asked a liberal homosexual priest why he stayed in the priesthood when he blatantly disagreed with his own Church’s teaching on homosexual behavior, he assured me that despite his interior angst, he believed that he was functioning as a prophet. He intended with this prophetic dimension of the priesthood to change the Church’s teaching by working from within. There was little I could do to enlighten him that his ambition was similar to butting his head against the wall. God’s commandments were not for one era only or to end in April of 2007. They are forever and unchangeable.

The threat by active homosexual Catholics that they will leave the Church unless they get what they want is analogous to children threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue unless their desires are met. Spiritual blackmail cannot change God’s Will. Interestingly, the stance of other religious groups which fully accept homosexual demands is unappealing to these people. They still wish to remain Catholics but find it very difficult to live up the Catholic ethic. But that is the challenge of the Cross which realistically cannot be dismissed. Sometimes in my vulnerable and tired moments, I find myself hoping they will join another group, take their demands elsewhere and leave us alone! But we have the obligation to seek all lost sheep which is exactly what the Church does in insisting on the observance of the law of God. And it is important to note that keeping God’s law is not unjust oppression or discrimination. It is a concrete expression of the Love of the Lord for us all. One might recall His admonition: “If you love Me, keep My commandments…” Love, after all, does serve!

There is the constant and beautiful picture of Christ presented as loving everyone and forgiving everyone. And everything. The woman caught in adultery is a favorite image presented by some all loving, all forgiving and all accepting liberal Catholics. God understands, they say, and besides everyone has a right to love and be loved. Therefore, gay people have every right to live their sexual lives however they wish and still have every right to the Eucharist. Put some big bucks in the basket on Sunday – and Voila!--- homosexuals can be good Catholics. Cynical? Perhaps, but that was one aspect of the rationale presented once by an angry gay Pastor for admitting active Gays into full communion in his parish.

Where is the rest of the story of the adulterous woman? Most of us know that Christ did indeed forgive but clearly ordered the woman to amend her life and “Sin no more.” Atonement is expected, even required. Forgiveness has its own painful price. This is understood by those of good faith. A retired top NYPD official (whom I have known for 40 years) after a bitter divorce, entered an illicit relationship with a divorced person. In spite of his deep desire to receive the Eucharist, he refrains because he has faced a harsh truth. The Church regards his present arrangement as “sinful”--- at least objectively. While only God knows his real moral status, he is still barred from Holy Communion, a consequence he accepts with sadness. But he is ruthlessly honest and knows that Mary Poppins resolutions are not necessarily Catholic. Patronizing pats on the head are for children. Adults face reality and own their responsibility.

Obviously, another distinction must be made. What does one mean by the Church? Are legitimate discussion debate, dissent and dialogue included in the notion of Church? One would think so as long as challengers (like me) believe and accept the teachings of the Lord as taught in Catholicism. Those who wish to turn the Catholic Church into a long range image of the Episcopalian church which is so obviously imploding or, even, into Unitarians, are not, in my opinion, of the Church. It is an old and solid principle that one can tell the loyal Catholic by how he follows the axiom: Sentire cum ecclesia [7]. And that means, clearly, the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church.

Like almost every living psychologist, I answer the question with a cautious “ It all depends”.

Yes. The Catholic with SSA who strives for a chaste life and accepts the teaching that sexual expression is only for a man and a woman in lawful marriage, is to be encouraged to practice the Faith in all its privileges.

No. The Catholic with SSA who rejects the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, both as a personal practice and as a belief is out of order.. Until and unless he accepts Christ in the fullness of Catholicism, he cannot be considered a “good” Catholic. He can and should attend Mass, refraining from the Eucharist and should pray daily for the grace of conversion .

Hence, to prepare to answer the question of this essay, one might gainfully understand the value of distinctions. Then make your answer.

[1] Up to now, I have never been able to track down any attribution in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. It might have been Duns Scotus after all.
[2] Tendency is used rather than “orientation” which implies total almost innate pervasion. Tendency avoids this mistake by seeing the drive as secondary rather than primary as do the Gay Activists.
[3] Gay basically means a political stance whereby everything is assessed in terms of homosexual values and goals. This means same sex marriage, gay adoption, equivalence of homosexual practices with the usual historical norms of society.

[4] Courage, founded by Cardinal Cooke and Fr John Harvey, articulates the Catholic view that licit sex expression is exclusively for a man and a woman in lawful marriage. All else including homosexual behavior is not only inappropriate but sinful.

[5] This refers to the reduction of a proposition to such an intellectual position that the mind involuntarily rejects it as irrational and totally unacceptable.

[6] Does one need to be reminded of the horrific consequences noted by the Master?

[7] Loosely translated, “…..to feel with the Church..” Or vibrate or believe