Infidelity

I have always written about my relationship with the Church as a marriage. When I "walked down the aisle" at the age of eighteen to be wed to the Bride of Christ, I knew even then that it was for life, for better or for worse. Receiving the Eucharist for the first time in that sleepy Byzantine church in the country was a sweet virgin consummation of that union. When I have betrayed the Lord and defiled the spirit of God within me, he always took me back as a Gomer to his breast in the Sacrament of Penance and forgiven my sins. I have told countless people about my love for the Bride, how She helped me to live my best life and made me want to be a better person. And not just a better person, but a saint.

I've been in this marriage for over twenty five years now and I have to tell you, it's not always an easy one. I never thought I'd get to a point in my relationship with the Church where I feel like a battered spouse who has been lied to, beaten, gaslighted and infected with an STD while still remaining faithful. My shame when I go to market, where I hear secondhand of yet another instance of disgrace, has become something I have sadly become numb to and now expect. 

This can't go on much longer. Lord, how long? (Ps 13:1). I have been faithful. I have maintained my joy even in my shame. I have told everyone about you and where your Truth may be found. I have not thought of leaving or trading up. But I'm getting worn down. And yet leaving is not an option. Til death do us part.

One of my favorite parts of being a father is seeing the innocence of my kids maintained. Sure, they have their own sins and shortcomings, but like Christ to Nathaniel, I can look at them and say, "behold, a child in which there is no guile" (Jn 1:47). How I long to say the same about my bride, my Church. And yet I cannot. Day after day, morning after morning, I am faced with a new revealing and uncovering--of guile, of deceit, of duplicity, or perversity, of things done in the dark when I have been out in the fields laboring and extoling the virtue of my spiritual spouse. Remaining faithful has become not an impetus of desire, but a sheer act of the will through gritted teeth. I remain faithful not because I am beaming with pride with regards to my first love, but because I am willing love and fidelity when it does not come naturally. I have even wondered at times if I am fitting that definition of insanity, to do things over and over again expecting a different result--that my spouse will change.

But I know I cannot change the Church; I can only change myself. I feel like that abandoned husband who takes his kids to Mass every Sunday while his wife spits vitriol at me on the way out the door. Sitting in the pew, week after week, expecting to hear from the pulpit of Rome a different message, an encouragement, a modicum of authentic repentance for her sins, that I am not alone or a fool for remaining faithful. But I do not. What I do, to stay faithful to my vows, is seek out other abandoned spouses trying to make sense of their marriage to the Church and grinding it out. I even try to be a cheerleader at times for my brethren, telling them to tie themselves to the mast of their faith, stay faithful, offer their bodies up in prayer and pious deference and sacrifice, tithe their hard earned pay to the family checking account even while their spouse squanders it all in dissolution and sordid payoffs. What else can I do but be that smiling spouse--knowing what is happening but trying to hold it all together for the sake of the family, telling the kids their Mother will be home soon while knowing full well where She is. "I may be faithful, but don't take me for a fool." 

When I was dropping my son off to basketball practice around 5:30 last night, all was dark. This is typical for the long, cold month of January of course, but it always takes a degree of endurance to gear up for the months ahead where it is more of the same, day after day. It becomes harder to get up day after day and keep your spirits up, so maybe this post is as much a reflection of the season as it is of my spirit. 

Last week I was chatting with a young man who had decided to give up on his marriage and had separated from his wife, the mother of his three children. It was sidewalk-counseling for marriage, and as anyone who has done pro-life counseling knows, it is a real, heartbreaking grind, and the definition of "work." 

He had his reasons, some valid and some questionable. But what it came down to was a typical settling response: "I don't love her anymore. And I want out." He saw himself as better off without her than with her. The thought of enduring what seemed like insurmountable obstacles for years was nothing but darkness, with no light at the end of the tunnel. Never mind the effect such a divorce would have on his children, or the financial consequences, or the betraying of vows. He did not want to be a part of this team anymore, and there seemed to be nothing I could tell him otherwise to get him to reconsider.

Because what does that reconsideration mean? It means a lot of work, a lot of faith in someone who has betrayed your trust, and a lot of trust that that flame of "first love" was still there somewhere, flickering and struggling not to be extinguished. When you have not only lost faith in your spouse, but faith in the institution and sacramental power of marriage, there's not much keeping that thread from snapping and cutting your lifeboat free from the ship. 

To answer the question, "Why should I stay married?" is not too different from "Why should I remain in the Church?" Was I crazy, misinformed, blinded when I first made those vows? If I would have known what was in store, would I still have made them? And so you start to think, by way of wily temptation, that you have been tricked, the terms of the contract withheld from you. "You deceived me, LORD, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me. Whenever I speak, I cry out proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the LORD has brought me insult and reproach all day long" (Jer 20:7-8). Your faith has done an inter-departmental transfer to preserve the company: I no longer have faith in you, but I have put my faith in those vows if nothing else. Even though you have been unfaithful and appear to no longer stand for what you once stood for, I will remain faithful. I will honor those vows.

The Catholic can not divorce Christ from his Bride, the Church--such a faith is nonsensical. And yet it demands an incredible amount of trust and fortitude that they are mystically intertwined and to divorce one is to divorce the other. For Christ is the innocent, the first love, the pure intention, the immovable rock at the heart of the Church. And though we are wed as Catholics to the Church, we are also the cells that comprise Her Body--which is consummated to Christ. We have Her sins held up to our face day after day, have our noses rubbed in it by the world and by her vicars alike, all while enduring her abuse. We look at the floor and burn with shame at the dishonor brought into this marriage, struggling to hold our heads up. The worst part is not the sins and failing, or the lack of remorse--the worst part is that She seems to not even believe in her first love anymore.

And yet the power of this mystical sacramentality, this grace of pure faith, allows us to see through her stained veil, through the soot of her many sins defacing the purity of her mantle, to Christ who remains hidden in her folds. For Christ and his Church, like man and wife, are indeed "one flesh" that can endure no separation. Each day, we recommit our faith to Christ pure and undefiled, hidden and besmirched under such sordid sheets, to consummate ourselves to his sacred heart. Even when the Bride no longer reflects the glory of the Bridegroom, we trust that he will make all things new if we remain faithful and endure to the end. As in a marriage, because we do not have a legitimate out, but only rationalizations for unfaithfulness, we are forced to find a way through even when we are brought to the brink of not having any options. "If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, since he cannot deny himself" (2 Tim 2:13). 

Christ has called us "friends," friends he has laid his life down for. But we are not friends with the Church, for friendship is always conditional. Our lives as Catholics and our relationship to the Church is one of spousal union, marriage, even when she has disfigured herself.  The Church will hurt you. But to cut ourselves free from this union is to set ourselves adrift, like a man who leaves his wife and enjoys a short-lived reprieve from suffering and shame in perceived bachelorhood. But the apostate, the man who abandons his spouse, will always be a haunted man. And so we stay. And suffer. And endure the shame of infidelity. Praying for the grace to be faithful...til death do us part. 

A Catholic Venn Diagram

 Just having a little fun last night thinking about the relationship between the three "types" of Catholics in the Church today and the curious overlaps between them. Not sure if it works well, since I don't have a mathematical/statistical brain so it was the best I could do.

Comments are open, and I'm happy to engage!

Faith Seeking Understanding

One thing I think a lot of people in the normie Catholic world fail to recognize is that the Holy Father Pope Francis did not emerge from a vacuum. One can point to him being a Latin American from Argentina, or a post-conciliar modernist, a classic "progressive," or a religious sympathetic to socialism or Liberation Theology as to why we have the pontificate we do. While all these things are true, you are in for a world of hurt and massive frustration if you fail to recognize that understanding the political ideology of Peronism is essential to understanding the machinations coming forth from the chair of Peter from 2014 to present. 

I think what's also helpful to mention is that in doing so, you may find a sense of relief akin to someone suffering from ADHD or autism or borderline personality disorder receiving a diagnosis from a psychiatrist--"finally," you may say to yourself, "my life up to now finally makes sense." Indeed, to be quite honest, I think understanding the current pontificate in general and Pope Francis in particular in the light of Peronism is the only thing that makes sense over the past ten years of leadership in the Catholic Church. 

Juan Domingo Perón served as President of Argentina from 1946 until his overthrow in 1955. When he took office running on a Labour party ticket (though he eventually formed his own "Peronist Party" which replaced it in 1947), Perón's two stated goals were social justice and economic independence. Theologian Herold Weiss recalled, that 

"Perón opposed the universities, which questioned his methods and his goals. A well-remembered slogan was, Alpargatas sí, libros no ("Shoes? Yes! Books? No!")"

Political commentators have noted that the rule of Perón was a kind of Italian fascism baptized in the waters of Latin America. Perón ruled by violence and various forms of dictatorship. He faced opposition from the Socialist Party; Perón called employers and unions to a Productivity Congress to regulate social conflict through dialogue (sound familiar?)

There is a degree of hubris as well, since on 20 August 1948--less than two years after taking office--he sought to articulate his self-named political ideology in a speech.  He starts right out of the gate:

"Perónism is not learned, nor just talked about: one feels it or else disagrees. Perónism is a question of the heart rather than of the head. Fortunately I am not one of those Presidents who live a life apart, but on the contrary I live among my people, just as I have always lived; so that I share all the ups and downs, all their successes and all their disappointments with my working class people."

In Argentina there should not be more than one single class of men: men who work together for the welfare of the nation, without any discrimination whatever." 

Likewise, on 17 October 1950 in a speech at the Plaza de Mayo, he outlined his “Twenty Truths of the Perónist Justicialism” (particular emphasis mine, in bold)

1. True democracy is the system where the Government carries out the will of the people defending a single objective: the interests of the people.

2. Perónism is an eminently popular movement. Every political clique is opposed to the popular interests and, therefore, it cannot be a Perónist organization.

3. A Perónist must be at the service of the cause. He who invoking the name of this cause is really at the service of a political clique or a “caudillo” (local political leader) is only a Perónist by name.

4. There is only one class of men for the Perónist cause: the workers.

5. In the New Argentina, work is a right which dignifies man and a duty, because it is only fair that each one should produce at least what he consumes.

6. There can be nothing better for a Perónist than another Perónist.

7. No Perónist should presume to be more than he really is, nor should he adopt a position inferior to what his social status should be. When a Perónist starts to think that he is more important than he really is, he is about to become one of the oligarchy.

8. With reference to political action the scale of values for all Perónists is as follows: First, the Homeland; afterwards the cause, and then, the men themselves.

9. Politics do not constitute for us a definite objective but only a means of achieving the Homeland’s welfare represented by the happiness of the people and the greatness of the nation.

10. The two main branches of Perónism are the Social Justice and the Social Welfare. With these we envelop the people in an embrace of justice and love.

11. Perónism desires the establishment of national unity and the abolition of civil strife. It welcomes heroes but does not want martyrs.

12. In the New Argentina the only privileged ones are the children.

13. A Government without a doctrine is a body without a soul. That is why Perónism has established its own political, economic and social doctrines: Justicialism.

14. Justicialism is a new philosophical school of life. It is simple, practical, popular and endowed with deeply Christian and humanitarian sentiments.

15. As a political doctrine, Justicialism establishes a fair balance between the rights of the individual and those of the community.

16. As an economic doctrine, Justicialism achieves a true form of social economy by placing capital at the service of the national economy and this at the service of social welfare.

17. As a social doctrine, Justicialism presides over an adequate distribution of Social Justice giving to each person the social rights he is entitled to.

18. We want a socially just, an economically free and a politically independent Argentina.

19. We are an organized State and a free people ruled by a centralized government.

20. The best of this land of ours is its people.

We are all products of our time and environment. John Paul II grew up under Communist rule in Poland, Benedict XVI in Nazi Germany. Pope Francis was ten years old when Perón became President in his home of Argentina. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he was steeped in and influenced by Peronist thought. 

A few parallels I teased out between Perón's "Twenty Truths" and some examples of Peronist-influenced examples under the current pontificate:

--Some of Pope Francis' messages (for example, to the World Economic Forum as an agenda contributor in 2014 and 2018): The (one-world) government carries out the will of the people (point 1), there is one only one class of men (point 4) rooted in fairness. (point 5)

--He rewards his friends and punishes his enemies.(point 6)

--He is popular in the media, welcoming atheists (while maintaining that "atheists can still be redeemed", praising pro-abortion economists (while simultaneously condemning abortion as killing), and ushering globalists into his audience. At the same time, he is merciless with Traditionalists (what he sees as "cliques") and mute to the persecuted Church in China. (point 2)

--Politics (ie; doctrine) is not objective, but a means to the happiness of the people (the spiritual status quo) (point 9, point 14)

--The anti-doctrine is the new doctrine, which is why it is necessary to create "it's own doctrines"  (point 13)

These are just a few, and I'm sure there are more. 

My point here is to at least give a modicum of solace to those who may not be steeped in Church news but have felt themselves going crazy over the "messy" past decade, thinking, "this seems...off" or "Why is he doing and saying these things?" or "It sure is hard to pin him down!" 

If you see Pope Francis as being influenced by the political ideology of Juan Domingo Perón and Peronist political ideology, then what is coming out of the Vatican starts to make a lot more sense. Wait, I take that back. It still doesn't make sense, but it does help to explain it, like a diagnosis for a mental disorder at least gives a sense of explaining various neuroses and crazy behavior. 

I simply outline it here for those who may be otherwise confused or ignorant, through no fault of their own, to let you know that everything comes from somewhere. If you try to make sense of the current pontificate apart from Peronism, you risk going mad in the process; and I don't want to see anyone go mad on account of being Catholic. 

A Golden Age

I was talking with a buddy yesterday who was discontent in his work in finance, and considering looking for another job.  When I asked him why, he said it was mostly due to not seeing eye to eye with his manager. "We just don't get a long," he said. I think there was a small part of him, as a believer coming back to the faith, that was also overly-spiritualizing his work. "People don't quit jobs, they quit bosses," I told him. 

During a conversation by text earlier in the day with another friend, she had reached the point where she was questioning whether Pope Francis was really the true Pope, and made reference to the present "ape" of the Church in its current state.

I've had my share of living through an almost trauma-inducing dysfunction within my own place of work. I've had six different directors during that time, lived through union-lawyer questioning, and had to report to someone who was essentially an incompetent fraud, not to mention the day in, day out anxiety of an unstable workplace and leadership. But I really enjoyed what I do, and I had great co-workers. I joked with my co-worker (we started on the same day ten years ago) that we are like brother-and-sister orphans holding each other at the top of the stairs while our foster parents were throwing dishes at each other across the kitchen. 

Eventually we got a new Dean, a new director, and some of the toxic staff peeled off. During those tumultuous years, I mostly just put my head down and stuck it out. Now, I am finally able to do my work without the unnecessary drama, and I still enjoy what I am doing. Things are good for now.

For Catholics today, (and I imagine many priests and prelates, especially) there can be that feeling that we are working for a dysfunctional company with toxic management. Orthodox, Inc. or Sedevacantist Corp. may look like tempting start-ups, a greener grass that may allay our dissatisfaction with how things currently are in the Church. 

A few years ago I wrote an article about the phenomenon of "gray divorce," which has more than doubled for those over the age of 50 since the 1990's. The great tragedy of people who are abandoning their vows after twenty, thirty, or even forty years is that they will never experience the possibility of those "golden years" of marriage by cutting ship and drifting out to sea on a lifeboat alone. Rather than sitting on the porch together or walking in the park holding hands as a wrinkled old couple, they will have no one to do so with. 

Sometimes we need to leave a job because it's not healthy to stay. There is no sin in that, and sometimes it is even a good move for the sake of opportunity or salary. But we should also recognize that bad bosses come and go, and if everything else about a job gives us satisfaction, there's also no sin in putting your head down and grinding it out for a period, recognizing that nothing is always going to be smooth sailing whether that's a job, a marriage, or a religious faith. 

Personally, I have great hope in what's to come for Catholics, for those who remain faithful, don't cut ship, and put on their gloves ready to get to work. God is stripping us of graces to prepare our cups to be filled to overflowing. He is stripping us of identity and comforts and even purpose to get us down to the foundations of our faith. What do we really believe in? What are we willing to live, stay, and die for? What are our idols that need smashing? What are the essentials of faith? 

I truly believe God is trimming the fat and peeling away the dross of believers today with all the dysfunction to make it abundantly clear that you have only two choices as a Catholic in the present age: you can be hot, or you can be cold (Rev 3:16). How do you expect to earn the crown when you forfeit the race? If your first love--Christ and by extension, his Bride--has lost her luster, will you be like one of those fifty year old mid-managers trying to reinvigorate that love by what...starting up a relationship with your secretary? Cutting your spouse of twenty, thirty, forty years out to drift so you can what..."live your own life?" "have some peace?" Give me a break. 

Bad bosses come and go. Ride it out--plenty of work to do here on the home front. The race is only getting started, and we're just getting warmed up. Are you going to peel off at mile 25 because you're doubting why you are running a marathon at all? Don't be crazy. That last mile is where races are won or lost. But even if you're not running to win, run at least to finish. Endure the bad boss, hold on in the dark night of doubt, have hope. We are entering a golden age of faith. The saints God is raising up in this wicked and confused era for those who persevere are going to be ones that will be unrivaled because they are believing and enduring not because of the leadership in the hierarchy, but in spite of it. But you have to be a grinder. That you are given everything you need and invited to be counted among them....no year-end bonus will be able to compare to what God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor 2:9). 

Innocence and Sophistry

 

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me." (Jn 14:1)

While I was made aware of it dropping like a nuke in Rockefeller center yesterday, I'm not going to join the chorus and write about Fiducia Supplicans here. All I will say is that the DDF and the Holy Father's timing is impeccable. One has to give credit where credit is due.

I should also say that yesterday was one of the worst days I had had in a while for various but unrelated reasons. When I texted my friend Kevin Wells: "Got time for a pep talk?" I was unaware that he thought I was referring to the aforementioned document that was released just in time for Christmas. So getting the run down on what was going on in the world was kind of the shiny bow on an especially dour twenty four hours.

Truth be told, this time of year I always long to be in a cave somewhere rather than working, scuttling between stores, or being immersed in the overall frantic spirit around me. But the news of the document--which gives explicit approval for priest's to impart a blessing on same-sex couples and those in "irregular situations"--was, ironically, just what I needed to snap me out of the depressed and frazzled state I found myself in.  

As a father, I feel that one of my primary jobs is guarding and preserving the innocence of my children for as long as I am able, to give them an innocent childhood and a solid foundation for when they do go out into a world full of wolves. When my five year old lays down next to my wife and I in bed and falls asleep, I find myself just looking at him, kissing his head while he sleeps and running the back of my hand along his cheeks as he breathes quietly between us. These are the moments that day by day slip away, until they inevitably one day become a memory; and so I try to spend those late-night hours just listening, watching, and gazing over him as he sleeps.

And so I was especially repulsed when my inadvertent naivety of yesterday's current events popped my bubble. Not only because of the distraction from what should be an anticipatory spiritual season of waiting and gazing with this nefarious pastoral pronouncement, but because of the nature--the subject matter--inherent in the pronouncement itself. While "the Heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps 19:2), and the Virgin Mother's Magnificat magnifies the Lord who looks down on His lowly servant (Lk 1:46-55), the sins that cry to Heaven (Gen 18:20-21) instead mute with such crude force what should be a quiet, guarded innocence of gazing on the Christ child in his manger among the Holy Family and the shepherds that had come to worship him. They were amazed (Lk 2:18), while Mary treasured all these things and and pondered them in her heart (Lk 2:19).

In the stable, awe and innocence--of Mary, Joseph, the Christ child, and the shepherds--is replete in that Holy Night. There is no news, no communication from outside that setting, that defiles that scene. And yet, here we are in late December of 2023 and the defecation of impurity has resounded not from the pagan nation of Herod's Rome, but from the throne of the Christ Child's future Bride, the Church. Simply defined, sophistry is the "use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." Can any description of what came out of Rome yesterday be more fitting? And just days before Christians worldwide seek to sit at the foot of the manger and simply gaze, worship, and be filled with awe that a child--God himself made incarnate in innocence--would redeem us from this fallen world. For "He has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up the lowly" and has scattered the proud in their conceit (Lk 1:52, 51). 

If I am urging you to keep your gaze focused on the innocent Christ lying helpless in a manger this season, it is only because it is taking everything in myself to do the same. Just when you think your back can't bear anymore weight, that your spirit will collapse under the weight of sin from our shepherds, the hand of the Church adds another kilo to the stack. It's enough to make one buckle.

Which is why the timing of the Ember days this week are opportune as well--to bring us back in a focused spirit of poverty, hunger, and penance. While we should not let them go to waste, and recognize as those in the Christian East do that "Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first," also let yourself grieve for the death of innocence that the Vatican has subjected us to during this season at the most inopportune time. Feel it, be disgusted by its disgrace, and realize at this point it is almost impossible to bear this weight of sorrow under your own strength. 

It is a weight too strong for even the most stoic of men most days--but for the babe in the manger before you who will bear the weight of sin and the world on his shoulders--"he will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone" (Ps 91:12).  And remember the true nature of blessing in the Canticle of the Three Youths in the book of Daniel:

Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord;

Praise and exalt him above all forever.

Angels of the Lord, bless the Lord;

You heavens, bless the Lord;

All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord.

All you hosts of the Lord; bless the Lord.

Sun and moon, bless the Lord;

Stars of heaven, bless the Lord.

Every shower and dew, bless the Lord;

All you winds, bless the Lord.

Fire and heat, bless the Lord;

Cold and chill, bless the Lord.

Dew and rain, bless the Lord;

Frost and cold, bless the Lord.

Ice and snow, bless the Lord;

Nights and days, bless the Lord.

Light and darkness bless the Lord;

Lightning and clouds, bless the Lord.

Let the earth bless the Lord;

Praise and exalt him above all forever.

Mountains and hills, bless the Lord

Everything growing from the earth, bless the Lord.

You springs, bless the Lord;

Seas and rivers, bless the Lord.

You dolphins and all water creatures, bless the Lord;

All you birds of the air, bless the Lord.

All you beasts, wild and tame, bless the Lord;

Praise and exalt him above all forever.

You sons of men, bless the Lord;

O Israel, bless the Lord.

Priests of the Lord, bless the Lord;

Servants of the Lord, bless the Lord.

Spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord;

Holy men of humble heart, bless the Lord.

Ananias, Azarias, Misael, bless the Lord;

Praise and exalt him above all forever.

Let us bless the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost;

Let us praise and exalt God above all forever.

Blessed are you in the firmament of heaven;

Praiseworthy and glorious forever.

The Third Way

Call me crazy, but I have a vision of the church --a mental portrait of the renewal that will have to take place to recapture the essence of what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century. It will require boots on the ground and in the field, lots of hard work, a willingness to take risks, look foolish, and get one's hands dirty, creativity and out of the box thinking, deep lives of prayer and service, a docility to the Spirit, associating with sinners, a thirst for souls, and a willingness to suffer. This is not a program, nor an apostolate or religious order--it is simply people embracing the "both/and" ethos of Catholicism and refusing to settle for anything less than full-throated "lives fully lived" for Christ. I don't want to be a cafeteria Catholic; I want the whole buffet.

But because this is a tall order, I'm taking as a mission statement the adage, "be the change you wish to see in the world." We can only change ourselves and live authentically as God calls us. Since we are called as disciples to put our hands to the plow and not look backwards, there's no way of knowing who is following us when our eyes are forward-looking, focused on Christ. And that's a good thing--movements come and go; but Christ remains. 

Why is this important? St. Paul sought the unification of the Church when dealing with factions, those who say "I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos" (1 Cor 1:12; cf. 1 Cor 3:4). The early Christians were also identified in the public square by their love (Jn 13:35)--not because they wore a chapel veil or had ashes on their forehead on Ash Wednesday. They were also willing to go to their martyrdoms singing joyfully, knowing their reward was in Heaven. They were not SJWs, but shared what they had cheerfully with the poor and those in need. Many worked miracles by faith, and tended to the sick and dying. In short, they believed and lived out that belief in the pagan streets of Rome and beyond.  

When I see factions in the Church today, I see weakness; a missing the forest for the trees, and a forgetting of one's first love. The potential for a formidable bloc of believers which transforms our fallen world is vetoed in favor of a comfortable country club of card-carrying dues-payers, or a degenerate squabble-fest, fiefdom against fiefdom. We pour into these little projects and kingdoms rather than deferring our wages to the Divine Architect to fund his master piece. 

Tradition is the best kept secret in the Church today. What I see is people being fed and fortified by it in their liturgical lives, having found a vessel worthy to hold their offerings of worship. It may be branded as "Traditional Catholicism" but really it is simply authentic Catholicism believed and lived out. I also see people wary and suspicious of this "brand" and instead of embracing it, hold it at arm's length and not giving it a chance. Or finding their first experience or two were negative ones and so refusing to return. I see caricatures, avatars of "trads" invoked as the rationale for keeping distance from this authentic Catholicism--sometimes valid, other times not.  

But Tradition is not the end goal, our raison-d'etre. It is a formidable means to an end to fortify us, but not the end itself. For in the New Covenant there are not one, but two Great Commandments: “'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. ' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ' There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31). While the ornate chasubles rustle and the sun reflects off golden candlesticks on the altar, the more muted orders of charity sit outside the sanctuary door waiting to be filled: to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit the sick and prisoners, bury the dead. The doubtful await counseling, sinners need admonishing, our enemies demand forgiveness, the ignorant live in darkness. While traditional Catholics are busy griping about liturgical abuses and turning down their nose at the Novus Ordo ad nauseum, their counterparts in their local suburban parishes are carrying out these works of mercy day in and day out in anticipation of their judgment: "I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink (Mt. 25: 35-40). 

Take as way of example these two vocation trailers: the first for the Discalced Carmelites, the second for the CFRs. Both are powerful and moving; both inspire devotion and service to Christ. One order is traditional and contemplative; the other, more charismatic and active. Both are authentically Catholic.

And so, like a naive babe or a misguided fool, I see these two seemingly disparate blocs of Catholics and think to myself, "Why not both/and?" If lex orandi lex credendi is a proven law (and it is), and if we will be judged on our charity, why are we shutting down one lung in the body of Christ to breathe with the other? Is a joyful, evangelical traditionalism that is committed to being the hands and feet of Christ in the world a contradiction in terms--or is it a third way forward that leaves nothing on the table and no room to doubt that we are, in fact, Catholic Christians through and through, known by our love?

Yes, I see a Third Way of living out my life as a Christian...but not as much around me. This is the change I want to see in the church and in the world. I am not interested in movements or factions or joining a tribe; I am a laborer, and I want the whole package. If I'm alone, I'm content to be alone. But if there are others, I would welcome the company. Call me crazy...but call me hopeful as well. 

"Worse Than A Thousand Karens": Why Your Office Administrator Is Crucial To Your Parish's Success

I'm taking a lunch break after a morning conducting interviews for an open position in our office. This is probably the sixth or seventh search committee I've served on and while it can be a lot of work, I've always appreciated the opportunity to be on the "other side" of the interviewing table. I was never great in interviews, and it's a wonder how I even got a job at all. But being on the hiring side, you get a valuable perspective of what managers are looking for in candidates, what annoys them, and what makes one stand out.

It can also be trying to find a needle in a haystack for some positions that require that people wear a lot of "different hats" in the role. Sure, you want someone who is technologically adept and can interpret data and reports...but you also need them to be a people person, willing to travel, be a good team player but also able to work independently, has the right background and experience, etc etc...and willing to work for less than they can make elsewhere. 

The parish office administrator (or to use the old-school nomenclature, the "church secretary") is one of those positions. They wear a lot of different hats--they do administrative work, sure, but it's not all bulletins and church envelope mailing. It's fielding calls from a dizzyingly wide array of issues from "What time is Christmas Eve Mass?" to "I need a priest, my father is dying!" to "I'm considering becoming Catholic and don't know where to start." It's being a dependable confidant to the pastor. It's organizing church and social functions, it's accounting, it's bookkeeping...the list goes on and on. And all this for typically a low to modest salary. 

The most important aspect of their position, however, is that they are the first point of contact for many people to the parish particularly, and the Church as a whole. As someone who recruits for a living, I'm always cognizant that I am the "face" of the institution I work for. If I come off as condescending, ignorant, uninterested, or fail to return correspondence in a timely manner, I'm not only not doing my job effectively--I'm communicating to that prospective applicant that this is what people at XYZ Organization are like. They have other options, and if I make a bad impression, there is no shortage of other competitors who will give them the royal treatment and welcome them to learn more. First impressions go a long way, for good and for bad. 

I told our pastor recently after our parish Trunk or Treat: "Make sure you take care of M___ (our parish administrator); she's a diamond in the rough." And she is. She's warm, welcoming, responsive, empathetic, organized, hard-working, faithful, social, and loyal. She's everything we could ask for, and our pastor knows it. We have been growing as a parish, and I know she plays a part in that. 

On the flip side, I remember having a conversation with a woman I supervise one day and we were talking about kids, family, etc. She mentioned that when her kids were younger, she took them to the parish office to have them enrolled in Catholic school. When she encountered the church secretary and inquired, she was curtly told "we don't do enrollments this day. You'll have to come back tomorrow on the day we do them," or something that effect. Understandable. And it was also understandable that my Catholic co-worker immediately exited with her kids, enrolled her kids at the local public school, and never darkened the door of that particular church again. 

Like it or not, the parish office administrator/secretary is the GATEKEEPER to your church. She can be a door of welcome, or a complete barrier to keeping the lights on. Getting the person in that position right is probably more crucial than the youth minister, the DRE, the sacristan, the finance council, the parish council, and probably any other employee of that parish. 

So, though I am not a pastor and I do not work for the Church, I would offer the following advice for those who are or do to ensure that you don't put up needless barriers to current or potential parishioners when hiring for this position:

Pay them as much as you can

It is a worthwhile investment. We communicate value, for better or worse, through compensation. This doesn't always have to be in W-2 fashion, but even modestly increasing a secretarial salary by an extra $2,000-$3,000/yr can go a long way in retention and attracting the right candidate. If that is not possible for whatever reason, taking her out to lunch, giving a kind of monetary or non-monetary bonus, giving her extra days off--whatever it takes to keep or hire a good administrator will pay dividends for you. Pay her compliments and reward incentive and initiative, provided it is in line with the parish and pastor's mission.

Train them in customer service

We don't usually equate customer service with anything related to the Church; it's corporate lingo. But believe me, it goes a long way, and it doesn't take much. Encouraging little things like greeting people, being friendly, smiling, being flexible and accommodating, returning calls and emails promptly, and going above and beyond is not at odds with the function of an office administrator. If anything, it's the most important thing; again, because they are the "face" of the Church. It sets the tone for who you are as a parish and what you want to become. There is also the second-hand effects of evangelizing those with whom they come into (first) contact with. The church secretary may be the only person from the Church a non-believer encounters in a phone call, and that can set a trajectory for life. It's no small thing!

Encourage them in their prayer life

I think it was St. Catherine who said, "I'd rather have a trained spiritual director than a holy one." The parish secretary should be a practicing Catholic, obviously, but I would venture to say the non-religious aspects of their personality and temperaments related to the job should outweigh their piety. But you also don't want to hire someone who doesn't exude the love of Christ and live in alignment with Church teaching. Again, this can feel like a needle in a haystack, but the more you set the example of holiness and virtue as a pastor (and lead your flock in that way), the more you inspire those who work for you to do the same. Prayer has a way of changing us, increasing virtue and patience, kindness, love, understanding, etc...all the kinds of qualities you want in the front-facing staff member answering the phone and meeting people at the door. 

Treat them as part of a team and give them a voice

When we have buy-in in an organization, we tend to believe in the mission and even put in extra work because we feel a part of something, valued, appreciated...that we belong there. This means having a clear vision and mission for your parish, and communicating that to potential applicants so that their own values align with that of the church or organization. That, in turn, will ensure they want to come to work, want to do their best, want to go above and beyond in their position. Treat the custodian, the office administrator, the sacristan not as less-than-important in relation to other members, but as vital to the overall goal of leading people to Christ, giving glory to God in worship, bringing in more revenue...whatever. How you treat those "beneath" you is not only a reflection of good servant-leadership, but how you live your life of faith. As St. Benedict said in his Rule, "Welcome all guests as Christ." 

Be willing to let someone go

A parish like any organization should be true to its mission, and the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If you have a toxic or apathetic office administrator, this may call for taking a hard look at whether it is helping or hurting your parish. It is not uncommon for organizations to "clean house" when a new administration comes in; of course this takes prudence and discernment. But you need to think hard about keeping someone on just because they have been there a long time, or their family member is a donor, or they are a long time member of such-and-such parish. This smacks of corporate coldness, but sometimes you need to think with a different hat and make hard choices. The Church has suffered enough with kick-the-can syndrome, cover ups, ecclesial cronyism, and a business-as-usual mentality. 

We are all familiar with the pejorative term "Karen," someone who gets themselves in a tizzy or acts entitled or angry. I don't know of a similar term for an off-putting church secretary, but I've encountered my share of them in real life, and I can say I don't blame people like my co-worker for saying, "Well, thanks anyway." It's one thing to have a Karen-esqe individual in your pews...it's another to have them being the literal gatekeeper of your parish. 

If you have a good parish office administrator on your staff, count your blessings and tell them you appreciate them. A little goes a long way. Hold on to them as long as you can, and realize it's a small but dividend-paying investment in your parish. They will probably be there long after you've been reassigned, but your parishioners and your predecessor will thank you. If you are looking to fill this position, do it mindfully and don't underestimate how important this "gatekeeper" role is for the sake of the Good News of Christ, not to mention your financial bottom line. The more attractive you can make the position, and the more clear you can be about the expectations, the more trouble will spare yourself later.  

Keep Your Focus

I sometimes have a vision, a kind of visual locution in meditation concerning the Holy Spirit.

I am sitting in a grove, or even sometimes a park bench. A white dove flutters in and lands near where I am seated. I don't move, am completely still. Even my breath--in, out, in out--is measured and my racing thoughts settle down to a clear, quiet whisper. 

The dove looks around, then inches slowly closer, ever closer until it is on the bench, then my knee--I cup my hands in my lap, and it cautiously inches in to make a home. I don't dare move, I hardly breathe. I am completely in the moment, this awareness of something special happening.

But then my mind flits and wanders. My motivation shifts from one of accepting this rare moment to possessing it. I think "wouldn't this make a cool shot?" and a brief thought of reaching for my phone pops in my head. Or I think, "wow, I must have some sanctity vibes going off." It's at those moments that the dove, previously docile and calm, gets spooked and is gone in a flash.

Lest this smack of any kind of 'mindfulness,' rest assured it applies to our life of faith as well. God abhors sin, and can not stand in its presence. But because Christ "became sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21), he can enmesh himself in the lives of sinners, though he knew no sin himself. This is the mystery of the incarnation, God subjecting himself to our human state, to enter into time and space and history to redeem us. 

But the 'wave-length' of the Holy Spirit is sometimes very subtle, very hard to tune into due to our concupiscence, our attachments, and our distracted nature. Even when we are in a state of grace and not steeped in mortal sin, we still have imperfections and venial attachments that makes it difficult for the dove of Peace to rest in our hands. The slightest vibration of sin, selfishness, and impure motivations can keep the environment for Him hostile to make a home. 

Take for example this snippet I wrote in "You Are Being Used":

"The same goes for Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) companies. I'll never forget my wife being approached by a friendly young woman our age at our former parish who wanted to "connect." We were new to the parish and were happy to make some friends; that is, until we realized she was connecting with us as part of her network to sell essential oils. 

The same thing happened to us when a man from my bible study invited my wife and I out to coffee with him and his wife. So friendly, took an interest in us, asked us questions about our faith and family. After the second meeting (which we had gotten a baby sitter for, and driven half an hour to meet them), I surmised from the vagueness of his talk about his "mentor" and "opportunities for growth" and "financial security," that something was off. It turned out to be an Amway pyramid-scheme pitch. I felt completely used, and foolish. 

The same thing happened again with another long time friend from college who was recently out of work and approached me with a similar "good opportunity" pitch. It took me a good while to forgive, though I should have been more understanding that he was more or less a victim, not a perpetrator."

I remember that innocent feeling in the second paragraph of thinking, "oh nice, someone wants to be friends," and then later my subtle feelings of unease creeping in when I realized this couple's intentions were not pure. I was attuned enough to feel like 'flight' was the correct response, as I always try to trust my gut and listen to that inner voice. 

I think sometimes the Holy Spirit responds in the same way, and we miss opportunities for grace when our motivations are not humble and pure, like that of Mary at the Annunciation. She is our model here. The Holy Spirit came upon her because of that home, that disposition, which had no guile, no pride and no ulterior motives or selfishness. 

I say this because so many people today have their focus on the church, the world, and their self-image that they often lose the grace of faith and instead are tempted to despair. Gaslighting can come from the Church (especially for victims of abuse), but it can also come from those same victims themselves who have been victimized and so hold in contempt the Church and anyone who remains Catholic. It is an unhealed wound that lashes out to find a home. It is a hard road to healing.

When we focus on the Church as the savior, or politics as our solution, or the reduction of suffering as the answer to our prayer, or for someone rather than ourselves to change, we must often admit that we have lost our focus. At these times, the nervous energy and signals of disquiet spook the Spirit from finding a home and resting in our laps. It is not easy to get to these contemplative states, and let's admit it, most of us only have rare moments of them in our entire lifetime. But this is the wavelength the saints spent the majority of their time--focused on Christ, aided by grace, docile to the Holy Spirit, humble in prayer. This is our model in real-time, just as Paul imitated Christ and Christ showed us the Father. Not to copy, but to guide. 

We are driven to distraction. "See, here is the Christ or there he is!" it says in scripture. This is how we act, both for divine saviors and the "devil under every rock." Meanwhile Christ is asleep on a pillow in the stern, and Peter sinks in the sea. 

Keep your focus not on the Church, but on Christ. Not on clerical martyrs, but on Mary. Not on your parish, but on individuals both inside and outside the walls. Not on programs or initiatives or bullet-point solutions, but on your prayer life. Not on your fear, but on your faith.

The yoke of Christ is easy, his burden light. The Holy Spirit rests where he finds faith and humility. If you find yourself unforgiving, unquiet of mind, pre-occupied with yourself or the opinion of others, or fearful of the state of the world...don't forget to check your focus. 

Lessons From the Titanic for the Synodal Church

In Why Did The Titanic Sink?, writer Sarah Pruitt puts forth seven possible reasons why this tragedy took place in April of 1912. I'd like to briefly outline these seven reasons and offer a corresponding analogous warning for each one as it pertains to the "synodal Church" preparing to set sail from the port of Rome currently. 

It was traveling too fast. The Titanic was traveling at 22 knots through iceberg-heavy waters; some speculate the skipper was trying to best a speed record.

The wireless radio operator dismissed a key iceberg warning. When a nearby ship (the Californian) radioed the Titanic to warn the crew about the ice, they dismissed the warning because they considered it "non-urgent" and did not necessitate a direct acknowledgment because it lacked the prefix MSG (Master's Service Gram).

It may have taken a fatal wrong turn. One of the crew members became confused--perhaps owing to the fact that ships at the time operated on two different steering order systems--when told to turn the ship starboard and instead of turning away from the iceberg, went directly into it

The Titanic’s builders tried to cut costs. The more than 3 million rivets holding the hull's steel plates together contained a high concentration of low-grade "slag," causing the hull to break apart on impact.

Mirages and hazy horizons were created by weather conditions. One British historian claims that an atmospheric condition known as "super refraction" took place on the night of the Titanic sinking, creating mirages or optical illusions that prevented the lookouts from seeing the iceberg clearly.

The lookouts had no binoculars with which to see icebergs; a simple but overlooked precaution.

There weren’t enough lifeboats. The civil servant who inspected the Titanic felt that the ship needed at least 50% more lifeboats than it had, but gave the ship the go ahead anyway for fear of losing his job should he have delayed the go-ahead.

Regarding the speed at which the Titanic was traveling as it relates to the synodal Church, it is a common cry from so-called "reformers" that change cannot happen fast enough. Whether that is women's ordination, a blessing of same-sex unions, or even defining what the mission of the Church is, what we see during this ram-shod Synod on Synodality convening is an eschewing of Tradition, and racing towards a new horizon. Whether this is motivated by the Holy Father's own desire to exact this change in his lifetime, or those of his inner-circle I cannot speculate on.

Regarding the dismissal of warnings, we can look to the dubia questions presented to the Holy Father by Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Zen Ze-Kiun, Sandoval Íñiguez, and Sarah as the concerns for the direction the Church is heading under the guise of "synodality." While the Holy Father did respond to the dubia (somewhat nebulously) put forth by these prelates, their "conservative" reputation and outlier status seems to be grounds for not taking their concerns to heart, much like the lack of the "MSG" prefix that accompanied the warning from the Californian to the Titanic.

Regarding the confusion of the crewmembers with which direction to steer the ship, one may point to the perception of "two parallel liturgical rites" within the Roman Church--the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary" form of the Mass, as Pope Benedict XVI referred to them. Many bishops--acting as crew members--are being ordered to celebrate one and suppress the other, causing confusion for their priests. When all signs point to a renewal in the Church by way of a return to tradition to dodge the icebergs of modernity, many are being ordered (or are simply confused) to turn the other direction--away from the "rigidity" of traditional practices and towards the novel and nouveu in the wake of Traditionis Custodes.

Regarding the cutting of costs and the use of low-grade "slag," the de-emphasis of the vertical axis of worship in favor of the horizontal/anthropological has broken apart the hull of faith for countless Catholics. Is the Church the Barque of true faith? Or is it merely a charitable religious NGO? Faith is not always dismantled in one fatal crash; but the cheaping-out on millions of rivits (with the watering down of divine truth) will over time weaken the vessel and make it susceptible to destruction. 

Regarding the mirages caused by super-refraction, we can see this all around us: the mirage of a global utopia and "bending" of truth by Satan himself roaming to and fro on the earth to convince Catholics that an adherence to the law of God is optional, or that those who believe what the Church teaches or do adhere to this divine law are somehow "rigid" and "backwards looking." 

Regarding the lack of binoculars, traditional Catholics know the power of sacramentals--the brown scapular, the Miraculous Medal and St. Benedict medal, blessed and exorcised salt and holy water, relics, etc. These are accessible to anyone who wants more tools in their spiritual toolbox to navigate the minefield of demonic icebergs in the sea, but as sacramentals they only have spiritual effect when activated by faith. There is no emphasis or elevation of such things in a synodal Church--in fact, the de-emphasis of such "superstitions" is more the norm. Instead, we have traded our spiritual binoculars for "dialogue" and "inclusivity."

Regarding the lack of lifeboats, the Church, like the Titanic, is thought to be "unsinkable." Of course we know the promise of our Lord that the gates of Hell will not prevail against Her--but that doesn't mean She can't run aground. And that seems to be precisely what the Church (and those steering the vessel) under this guise of "synodality" is seeking to do. Catholics who care about their faith and seek to preserve it and save their children from this wicked generation are building their own lifeboats when the Church fails to stock them--intentional communities, vibrant traditional parishes (or alternative enclaves of refuge, when those communities have been stripped away by their bishops), faithful priests delivering meaty exhortations from the pulpit, and solid sources of catechesis are just a few examples. They are not finding these life-saving measures stocked in the storerooms of the nouveu-Church. So they are banding together to chip in to buy (or build) their own.

When the Titanic struck a massive iceberg on that fateful April night, these seven factors may have caused it's demise. Many perished that night, but it would have been much more were it not for the valiant and determined deployment of the RMS Carpathia to rescue those who had not succumbed yet to hypothermia or drowning. It was not an opulent ship (there were no first-class accommodations), but when the distress call came in from the Titanic on April 15th, Captain Arthur Henry Rostron (a pious man of faith and devout Christian believer) pushed the vessel at 17 knots through ice-berg choked waters and rescued 705 passengers from the Titanic. Asked later how he performed such a feat, he simply replied, "I can only conclude another hand than mine was on the helm."   

The unfolding story of the Church in our epoch cannot be told apart from the story of the Carpathia. For every prelate cloaked in a blanket of corruption and every lukewarm priest and unbelieving bishop, there is a faithful lay Catholic man and woman eschewing the hubris of titanic overconfidence and quietly preparing his lifeboat. For the icebergs of destruction on the horizon are emerging into full view, and they know they must suffer in cold and hunger, and cling to their faith in the black sea of faithlessness. They are laborers, evangelists, hold-outs pulling each other aboard as rescuers. They are diligently getting up at dawn, day after day, to pull in the harvest before it rots on the vine while the landowner dialogues with his friends miles away. They draw their strength to do so not from perishable provisions, but from deep wells of faith and the fine manna of trust. For their faith is in Christ, the Rock of salvation; anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces and anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.

While the call goes out for more "involvement" of the laity, they don't happen to hear it because they are immersed in work--seeds to sow, children to rear, lessons to teach, faith to transmit, churches to build, bodies to carry. The harvest is great, and the workers are few. And so they pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out more workers to join them in the rescue, pulling bodies from the sea one by one; not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. 

What Is A Bishop?

 My latest article at Crisis, What Is A Bishop?

The Shifting Axis

 Eric Sammons had a great podcast a couple weeks ago titled The Death of Catholic Apologetics? He says "the apologetics movement is losing steam...and their impact has been greatly neutered" and points to three main reasons why: 

1. An increased apathy towards religion 

    -If you don't care--aka apathy--about religion, you're not going to spend any time trying to determine what is true.

2. The Church has lost her witness

    -People may have hated the Catholic Church a hundred years ago--but people respected it. You knew what you got with it. She is now weak, with a scandalous pope that makes things that much more difficult for apologists. 

3. The fracturing of Catholicism 

    -What Catholicism do you represent? "Just Catholic" doesn't exist anymore. 

I wrote to Eric and commended him for the podcast, and also sent him my post The Time For Preaching and Teaching Are Over that I wrote three years ago, essentially saying the same thing (he declined to publish it for Crisis, although he said he enjoyed it, since it would have been too much overlap given his recent podcast on the topic). 

It's interesting times we are living in. While a spark to the powder keg of civil unrest has France burning, I'm reminded of another perceptive insight from Marine Le Pen (who lost the French presidential race to Emmanuel Macron, who was re-elected in 2022):

“There is no more left and right. The real cleavage is between the patriots and the globalists.” Macron makes the same claim: “The new political split is between those who are afraid of globalisation and those who see globalisation as an opportunity.” 

And on U.S. soil, Trump, for all his flaws, perceived this changing landscape as a political dark horse: “The future does not belong to the globalists. The future belongs to the patriots,” he told the U.N.

 

If you're a Weigelian neo-conservative still acting like it's 2003, and we're duking it out for souls with Protestants or inquiring Atheists in the internet comboxes, I'm sorry to say that ship has left the harbor. Traditionalists are the 'new kid on the block' (though, arguably, the longest-standing), the "patriots" of the Church who are willing to fight for their patrimony. They still compromise a small but growing percentage of those in the pews, but that doesn't mean they are inconsequential. They want the Faith--the TRUE Faith, not some watered-down version of it--and they live by it, the way a patriotic American would still hold to the ideals of the Constitution and believe that America is still a great country founded on noble (and proven) ideals. They need to be taken into account in the shifting landscape of the Catholic world, because they are not going away (as much as people like Michael Lofton would like them to)

Meanwhile, it would be a misnomer to tag any Pope as a "globalist," since this political nomenclature doesn't overlay on the Church very well--the Church is, by nature, global in scope and reach; she has a global dimension and mission. But it does seem that Pope Francis has more sympathies with the mindset of those in the globalist camp. 

In the aforementioned blog post, I wrote:

"What did this religious mean, "the time for preaching and teaching is over?" My first reaction when my friend mentioned it was YES. But then, why? 

Haven't the Word on Fire videos brought many spiritually curious people to intellectual assent of the faith? Haven't we been learning to make "intentional disciples" in parishes and through workshops and conferences and retreats? Haven't we been DOING something to address the "failure of catechesis"by LEARNING more about what the Church professes, TEACHING more about the truths of the Faith, EVANGELIZING by having discussions on social media with non-believers? Haven't we been preaching the good news to the poor, the imprisoned, as a kind of spiritual product to be considered to improve one's life, gain eternal life, attain peace?

I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm in a bit of a stripped down state of being right now. The words my friend shared by the erudite religious--the time of preaching and teaching is over--point to a harsh and unsettling reality we are faced with as followers of Christ in war.

In fighting off demons of despair shooting arrows in my back, another wise friend also sent me a scripture that made me exclaim, once again, "Wow":

"And the places that have been desolate for ages shall be built in thee: thou shalt raise up the foundations of generation and generation: and thou shalt be called the repairer of the fences, turning the paths into rest" (Is 58:12).

But we are not in this state yet either, I suspect. We are in an in between. The well-produced teaching and catechetical materials, the preaching to a pagan culture--I have lived through these endeavors and been a part of them myself. I don't know how effective they are, or if they are making wrong assumptions about things. I do have a friend who makes rosaries and plants them for people with instructions on how to pray it; he does is clandestinely. Someone he knew even picked one up and considered it a sign to come back to the faith. So you never know. 

But we are not saving masses here, we are pulling stray bodies on the ark who, I'm sure, are ultimately grateful to be there. Like writing a book these days, it is, I'm afraid, ultimately futile. Not to those who have been saved, who would consider it anything but. And there is it's place--of course, we need to preach and teach when called for, one on one. But we are not going to convert the world by well-produced series on the history of Catholicism, or using any of the tools of the modern age. Those going to the front lines are getting mowed down by the culture because they are ultimately going alone with no shepherds to have their back, no critical mass to support them long term. The Steubenville degree and Thomistic defenses of Natural Law in a disordered society, I'm afraid, may not hold their weight against the breaches." 

The left-right paradigm is falling away. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same corrupt coin. Liberal Catholicism is a sterile ecclesialastical vasectomy of course, but even Neocons are becoming increasingly irrelevant post JP2. Traditional Catholics may have more in common with Orthodox Jews and fired up Muslim parents in the culture war than with lukewarm CINO's. 

The 18th century American "experiment" worked because people believed in the ideals and fought for them. But it wasn't a guarantee, as we are seeing that an immoral society divorced from virtue has no claim to its fruit. Alexis de Tocqueville, the French political thinker and historian, traveled to America in 1831 on behalf of the French government to examine the penal system and report back on what he learned. Tocqueville marveled at the flourishing American democracy at that time, recognizing that the uniqueness of such a system depended on a liberty "which cannot be established without morality, nor without faith." 

I used to think globalism was a made-up thing, until the World Economic Forum basically laid it all out in the open: You will own nothing and be happy. In other words, the Great Reset is not some Orwellian fiction: IT'S RIGHT THERE (HERE). Read them. If these ideals seem at odd with the freedom of the Christian and fill you with dread, you may not be a globalist in your heart of hearts. And if you oppose the ideals of globalism or if you think to yourself "this doesn't seem right," prepare to be humiliated, the way LGBT activists will humiliate those who oppose their ideology, the way Communist governments seek to humiliate those who oppose it. Prepare to be called a "far-right nationalist" or something similar. The incisive words of Theodore Dalrymple should then sear into your subconscious to draw on when the gaslighting gets especially bad and you start to second-guess yourself:

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

 Just as those who truly believe in the tenants of the Faith of our fathers, Tradition, the depositum fidei, and live by it will be the future rebuilding of the Church from the ashes, as prophesied by Cardinal Ratzinger. It betrays the contempt those within the Church who are lukewarm or who do not believe as to why they hate traditionalists. The axis has shifted...as it has throughout history, and I'm not sure how long this center can hold both in the nation and in the Church herself before the Antichrist comes. 

Getting On Base

 

I re-watched MoneyBall the other night. It's based on a true story of a former ball player-turned-MLB scout and General Manager of the Oakland A's, Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt), who attempts to rebuild the "runt of the litter" A's on a limited budget. He recognizes major league baseball is an "unfair game" where there are rich teams and poor teams, and they are the poorest of the poor. 

Billy knows it's either business as usual of managing the decline and keeping things status quo, or "thinking differently" with an unconventional approach. He takes a chance on Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill), a young statistician with a degree in Economics from Yale and pilfers him from the unappreciative Cleveland Indians so he can run numbers for him. "Baseball thinking is medieval," Brand tells Billy, "They are asking all the wrong questions. And if I say it to anyone, I'm ostracized, I'm a leper." It takes a lot of calculated risk on Billy's part, putting his faith in a different way of doing things (statistical analysis) and in Pete himself. If Billy fails, he fails big and can be easily written off with his "little experiment." But in reality, he has little to lose...because they are losing already.

You can see this "medieval thinking" in a great scene with Billy in the board room with all the scouts trying to replace three of their top players. As his managers go around the table trading their insights about players and potential, Billy knows nothing is going to change because his old-school colleagues are acting as if it's business as usual. In fact, they don't even see the problem.

"You guys are just talking. Talking. Lalalala. Like this is business as usual. It's not."

"We're trying to solve the problem, Billy."

"Not like this you're not. You're not even looking at the problem."

"Okay, what's the problem?"

"Look Billy, we all understand what the problem is, we..."

"Okay, good. What's the problem?"

"The problem is we have to replace three key players in our lineup..."

"Nope. What's the problem?" 

"Same as it's ever been. We've got to replace with what we have existing...."

"Nope. What's the problem?"

"We need 38 home runs, 120 RBIs, and...."

"Wrong. The problem we are trying to solve is there are rich teams and there are poor teams. Then there's 50 feet of crap. And then there's us. It's an unfair game. And now we've been gutted, organ donors for the rich. Boston's taken our kidneys, Yankee's taken our heart, and you guys are sitting around talking the same old good body nonsense like we're selling jeans, like we're looking for Fabio. We've got to think differently." 

Billy sees the potential to rebuild in "cheap players;" that is, undervalued players with various defects who have been passed over by everyone else who nevertheless have potential to do one thing: Get on base. He doesn't care if they are walked or whatever; their on-base percentage is all that matters to him. Getting on base eventually translates to runs, which means wins...and Billy wants to win, not just manage a mediocre decline to maintain the status quo. 

He meets resistance from his managers, scouts, and team at every turn, and for a while their initial losing streak seems to prove the inevitable: that the experiment has failed. But Billy sticks to his plan while he's "taking it in the teeth" from everyone, and little by little, base by base, things start to turn around. It's a big gamble...but it pays off in the end, and fundamentally changed the game of baseball.

In a way, the Church--from the individual parish to the KOC to the Bishops themselves--is like those old guys in the board room: they might recognize but can't answer the question "what's the problem?", and when they try to, they use the same line of thinking that worked fifty years ago.

The Church today is like the Oakland A's in MoneyBall. There have been a few players willing to "try something new." One is Church of the Nativity in Timoninum, Maryland, where the pastor there took a playbook from Rick Warren and attempted to overlay what worked with Protestant pastoral initiatives on a Catholic framework. Whether that is appropriate or not to do is up for debate. My family and I were curious about it a number of years ago after reading the book Rebuilt, which details the parish's transformation. It was kind of a Protestant-Catholic fusion which was unconventional to say the least. It was a novel "success" in the sense of bringing more people into an otherwise dying parish in an bold manner, and I at least give the pastor and his team credit for at least doing something beyond "business as usual." 

We see the Holy Father taking initiatives to "make a mess" of things. We see a Synod on Synodality trying to democratize the Church. We see the Knights re-doing their regalia. All in the hopes of "bringing people in." 

I'm just a guy on the ground. But I have to be honest, I think they are are not seeing the problem in it's entirety, because they are not asking the right questions. And if they are, we must admit, many are not willing to break out of the mold to address it because "business as usual" is not working--but anything else is simply too risky to "how we have always done things." And so it is Band-Aids on a nicked aorta. 

So, what is the problem? 

Is it we don't have enough parish programs? That we need more youth ministry?

Nope. What's the problem?

Is it the laity need more of a voice? More participation of women? 

Nope. What's the problem?

Is it culture? That we need to "get with the times" and be more inclusive?

Nope. What's the problem?

Is it that people are leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy, or their local mega church? Are we not hardcore enough? Not welcoming enough?

Nope. What's the problem?

What's the problem?

What. Is. The. Problem.

We're asking the wrong questions, and I believe the problem is we have lost faith. We have lost faith in the Church, Her apostles, and the hierarchy. We have lost faith in the supernatural, in grace, in miracles. We have lost faith in the ability to transform the culture, because we are losing the battle for culture. 

But here's the thing--we have everything we need; the solution to "the problem" is right under our noses. 

We have the Truth. We have the promises of Christ to never abandon his Church. We know how the story ends, that He conquered death by death. We have the power of the sacraments, and the example of the saints--who were the moneyballers throughout history, who thought differently and were willing to suffer and labor and be ostracized because of their unfailing faith in the promises of the savior (Lk 9:1-25). 

Our Lord sent the disciples out one by one to "get on base." He didn't discount Saul because he was persecuting the Church, but chose him as His appointed messenger (Acts 9:1-25). We can see Paul opposing Peter's reticence to eat with the uncircumcised (Gal 2:11-14), which was a radical departure from everything Peter ever knew. But the New Covenant does not work while still holding on to the Old, for no one puts new wine in old wineskins (Lk 5:37). For the Lord Christ is "doing a new thing" (Is 43:19).

In order to get base runs, we need to do the hard, risky work of thinking differently. We can't be saying to ourselves, "I'm a good Catholic," or "I go to Mass on Sundays," or "I write checks and volunteer at my local parish." These are all good things, but they are the wrong questions. The question we should be asking is, "Why am I not a saint? Why am I not trusting the Lord when he promises we will work miracles in his name?" (Lk 10:9). 

We do not think big because we do not have faith. And even if we have faith, we must be willing to go out into the vineyard and do the work. Otherwise we become like the brother who says to the father  "I will go" and does not (Mt 21:28-32).

At the end of MoneyBall, Billy is recruited to be the new General Manager of the Boston Redsox, because their owner believes in what Beane is doing and that the "business as usual" dinosaur of MLB thinking needs to change. While tempted, Billy ultimately declines the $12.5M offer (and the chance to become the highest paid GM in history), and stays with the A's. The Sox ultimately go on to win big that season using Billy's "Moneyball" approach, but Billy has no regrets. He has already won the ultimate game. But he didn't get there with a "business as usual" approach.

We can often feel like we're on a losing team remaining in the Church. We are a laughing stock to the world, and the hierarchy is full of hypocrisy and cronyism. We are hemorrhaging believers from the pew, and our priests are aging out. We might be tempted towards Eastern Orthodoxy, or non-demoninationalism, or atheism, or something altogether. For those who remain, it can sometimes feel like the band of misfit players on the Oakland A's. But as the story ends, those players know the wins are in them; they just need someone to inspire them to dig deep and find them.

Wars are won battle by battle. And as any general knows, you have to think differently to win. Runs are scored base by base. It doesn't matter if you get on base by a walk or a home run. We need to start thinking differently as Catholics--we need to do the work of becoming saints not to be an all-star, but because by doing so we inspire our teammates to greatness, to be their best selves--who God made them to be. Some are pitchers, some are catchers, some play left-field. Some are lefties, some are righties. But we get to Heaven together as Catholics--every player matters.

As a Church, we need to get on base. We need to take the risk of looking like fools, of getting out of our comfort zones, of believing with everything we have, and of sacrificing for those who are lost. We get on base, we score runs. We score runs, we win. Maybe not in the eyes of the world, but we're not playing for them. We must think big, not mediocre. We are competing for the crown which never fades.  And we must run our race to win (1 Cor 9:24). 

The Hundred Flowers Synod

A couple of years ago I was invited to take part in our diocesan "listening session" to solicit feedback from the faithful in a spirit of "dialog" and "journeying together" in preparation for the upcoming Synod of Synodality. As both a generally naive person and as someone who worships in the usus antiquior, I felt reluctantly spurred to give a voice to the traditionalist community who probably compromise less than 1% of the diocese, but who adhere to Catholic teaching and desire to transmit the faith to their children. I wasn't expecting much, but figured I at least had to show up, make the case for Tradition, and try to keep my inner-cringe from getting the best of me.

We were presented with intellectually probing questions such as: "How is “journeying together” happening today in your local Church?" and "What steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow in our “journeying together”?" and were assured our responses would be summarized and sent to Rome. The session was everything you would expect: much listening, much "dialoguing," much sharing. From the fonts used in the handouts to the colorful pre-pubescent imagery and effeminate ethos, it was if the Church was doing its damnedest to drive every last self-respecting man from the pews once and for all.  

It didn't take too many ounces of cynicism to concur that this absurdly titled "Synod on Synodality" was a complete farce meant to underscore the involvement of the laity in the post-conciliar Church and highlight Pope Francis' spirit of "going to the margins" so that All Are Welcome, but accomplish very little. When I reviewed the "synodal mission" during these participatory sessions, the theme was "communion, participation, mission."

What struck me as I was re-reading an essay I had published about the Hundred Flowers Campaign proposed by General Zedong Mao between 1956-1957 was the similarities between the approach of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Vatican "on the correct handling of contradictions among the people" (to borrow the term from Mao's kick-off Hundred Flowers speech) The intent of the campaign was purported by Mao as "the policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science." 

Some historians are of the school of thought that Mao was sincere in his intentions at discourse for the strengthening of the Party. But others felt it was a ruse meant to expose political rightists and counter-revolutionaries from the start to "flush the snakes out of their cave". Author Jung Chang maintains that "Mao was setting a trap, and...was inviting people to speak out so that he could use what they said as an excuse to victimize them" (Jung Chang; Jon Halliday. Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape. p. 435). 

One of the differences, I believe, between the CCP's approach under Mao and the Vatican's approach under Pope Francis is that traditionalists were not the main focus of the synod, as the Chinese intellectuals and rightists were for Mao, and most traditionalists (at least in my experience) had no desire or intention to take part in this farcical lay pre-synod, antithetical as it was to traditionalist sensibilities. The Pre-synodal listening sessions were primarily comprised of your average lay, sixty-something-year-old Catholics from the local diocesan parishes. Traditionalists in the Church are more or less out in the open (at least for now), "snakes" in the field, as it were.

Like many who are skeptical of (and turned off by) this effete process of faux-democratization of the Church across a horizontal axis, it seems it is simply a way of justifying pre-contrived outcomes as the "will of the church" to justify the crushing of "dissidents" when it ensues. We've already experienced precursors of this in the past few years with Traditionis Custodes and its initial implementation at the diocesan level.

Maybe more is to come, or maybe by some grace we will be spared. To what degree resistance can be offered is debatable. And far be it from me to know the mind of Pope Francis. What is certain, though, is that very little will come of this "synod" this coming October that has not already been predetermined.