Francis Is Telling The Truth on Today's Marriages

Aidan’s mother is Presbyterian but has consistently attended Saturday evening Mass with her husband, Pat, in the thirty-two years of their marriage.  In fact she directed the children’s choir in their parish while Aidan and his sister, Aile were in their middle-and high-school years.  Aidan and Aile each were altar servers in their seventh and eighth grade years and graduated, after Confirmation, into being lectors.  Aidan went to the local Jesuit prep-school; Aile to the “Madames” of the Sacred Heart Day School.  During his college years at the University of Delaware, however, Aidan drifted away from regular Mass attendance.  He also met Katie, like him from the D.C. suburbs, and they began dating.

Katie was also from a devout Catholic home.  She is an only child.  Her parents belong to the Cathedral parish of Saint Matthew in Washington where her mother is an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist.  Katie graduated from Georgetown Visitation before going to the University of Delaware.  When she began dating Aidan she got him back to Sunday Mass.  They dated in Sophomore and Junior year, but Aidan broke it off over the summer between Junior and Senior year.  He was concerned that Katie was overly dependent on her mother, Frances.  Frances would drive two hours every Tuesday to have lunch with Katie at the University and insisted that Katie come home every weekend. 

During their senior year Aidan and Katie slowly rebuilt their relationship and when Aidan decided to go to Law School in Boston, Katie followed to do her Masters in Math at Boston College.  Katie became very involved at the Paulist Center in Boston where she and Aidan regularly attended Mass every Sunday.  Katie was also on the RCIA team and Aidan became involved in fundraising for the center.  In Aidan’s final year of Law School they became engaged to be married.  They moved in together after they were engaged.  Frances flew up to Boston every-other-weekend.   Pat and Joan (Aidan’s mother) were concerned about Frances’ “apron-strings” but Aidan assured them that he could handle it.   They were also concerned that Aidan seemed unable to make up his own mind with determination and worried that the reconciliation between them in their senior year was little more than Aidan’s tendency to “be a nice guy.”  But in the end they felt they had to respect Aidan’s choices. 

Aidan graduated and passed the Bar for Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.  Pat and Joan hoped “the kids” would move back to Fairfax but Katie had found a job teaching Math and Physics in a Boston High School and didn’t want to move back.  Aidan, on the other hand, was having trouble finding a position with a Law Firm in Boston though through family connections there were a number of positions available in the D.C. area.

They were married that July after graduation in the Cathedral of Saint Matthew in Washington.  Aidan’s uncle, a religious order priest teaching at Catholic U, said the Mass and presided over the marriage.  A reception for 150 followed at the Washington Country Club.  The two families split the cost of the reception based on the proportion of guests each had invited.  By September Aidan and Katie were back in Boston with Katie teaching and Aidan continuing to do interviews for a position in a law firm.  Meanwhile, Aidan took a position in a foreign currency exchange upstart company.  All seemed to be well though when they came back to the DC area at Christmas Aidan spent most nights at his parents in Fairfax, Katie with her family in Chevy-Chase.  They both spent Christmas Eve with Katie’s family and Christmas Day with Aidan’s. 

It was only in April that Aidan told his parents that Katie had left him in January and moved in with Maggie, the girls’ gym teacher in her Boston High School.   Maggie is gay and the exact nature of her relationship with Katie was never clearly defined.  Aidan felt, however, that Maggie had undermined their marriage from when she and Katie had first met and had told Katie that she (Katie) could move in with her if she ever left Aidan.   Katie stayed with Maggie for six months before moving out and getting an apartment of her own.  She told Aidan she wanted a divorce.

Aidan had been seeing a counselor since the breakup and he repeatedly asked Katie to see a marriage counselor with him but she refused.  He went to Katie’s parents to enlist their help—they too told their daughter to get counseling, but Katie refused.  The marriage was over and there was no room, according to Katie, to negotiate.  Pat and Joan were concerned that Aidan may have done something wrong.  Was their any violence?  Was he dealing with any issues?  Substance abuse?  Pornography addiction?  Aile put out what feelers she could among various friends and acquaintances she shared with Katie but could find no reason for Katie leaving Aidan other than “he wasn’t on the career track that would take them where she thought they should go.”  Aidan’s friends all assured his family that he never was abusive in any way and Katie has never alleged that he was.    

Pat and Joan told Aidan that since the marriage had lasted such a short time, wedding gifts should be returned and this led to an interesting revelation.  Aidan agreed; Katie refused.  But it turned out that Aidan had kept the gifts from his family and friends and Katie had kept hers.  They never established joint finances but each had their own bank accounts.  It turned out that Katie’s parents always had separate finances as well and Katie had refused the idea of joint accounts.  The divorce became final eighteen months after the breakup.

This is a true story.  Some particulars—names and places—have been changed but it is a story from within my own family.  I tell it because I believe Pope Francis is dead on when he says that the idea of permanent commitment escapes the understanding of many—if not most—people today.  Key to this is that I have not exaggerated the Catholicity of either family or the Catholic backgrounds of Katie and Aidan or Katie’s commitment to the Church through her College and Boston years, but note that it was Aidan who fought to keep the marriage.   If these happen when the wood is green, what will happen to the dry? 

Pope Francis’ comments on the instability of modern marriage—and its impact on the validity of the sacrament—stirred up a hornet’s nest among the krazies on the blogosphere, but it is totally consistent with what most of my priest-friends have been saying for years.  Some priests in my acquaintance even say that the Church “should get out of the marrying business.”  I think that would be a sad mistake but there is no doubt that we have a culture problem that is probably beyond the Church’s ability to fix.  I am not sure what the answer is but denial is not part of the solution.  Perhaps the Pope needs to speak out in more detail on this issue so that it is not as easy to retreat into denial.  It certainly explains why he is trying to chart a different course for the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried as the implicit nullity of so many contemporary marriages severely complicates the issue.  

Francis Does It Again!

Last week Pope Francis entered the fray (yet again) with a statement suggesting that contraceptives might be used to prevent the spread of the Zika virus or to avoid a pregnancy that might be endangered by the mother’s suffering from the virus.  When asked if contraception might, in this case, be “the lesser of two evils” the Pope first drew the line on abortion, which he declared to be “an absolute evil,” even comparing the saving of the life of the mother over the child to “the way the Mafia acts.”  (A bit strong, but point taken.)  The Pope went on then to say that avoiding a pregnancy, on the other hand, is not an absolute evil, implying there might be some room here to use contraceptives both to avoid spread of the disease and to justify contraception where the virus is a threat to mother and potential child.  

Pope Francis then went on to cite the story that Pope Paul VI had agreed that nuns in the then Belgian Congo might take a drug that suppresses ovulation to avoid pregnancy consequent on rape.  The Congo, then a Belgian colony struggling for Independence in a particularly vile war, was torn by brutal warfare in the first half of the 60’s.  The Church—because of its ties to the Belgian colonizers, was a special target of the rebels and there were numerous martyrdoms of clergy, religious and Catholic laity by the Simba forces.  Religious women were particularly victimized by rape.  A fictionalized account of the violence of the time—and a stinging indictment of American involvement in what would become a most savage war—is the novel The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver.  Again, this book is fiction but Ms. Kingsolver did a superb job in providing the historical setting for the novel and explaining the socio-political-economic status of the Congo on the outbreak of the war as well as what was at stake for the United States politically. 

Well, back to Pope Francis.  The Krazies are screaming heresy and are up in arms over Francis’ failure to condemn contraception in any and all cases.  The hive is swarming with angry wasps.  Even Michael Voris—who is usually somewhat trepid about a direct attack on the Pope—finds this a bridge too far.    One Loon wrote on her website “How long can the see of bishops let this go on for before they pull the plug on this shit show?”  I am not sure what “the see of bishops” refers to, but it sounds like Pope Francis might have a Simba Rebellion of his own. 

The Krazies are arguing that the claim that Paul VI authorized the nuns to take an ovulation suppressing drug to avoid pregnancy is urban legend and not true.  I don’t know what Pope Paul VI said at the time and despite my efforts at research I can’t come up with a reliable source to tell me.  But I am old enough to remember that it was reported at the time (and so it is no “urban legend”) that the Pope had authorized the nuns to take steps to avoid pregnancy.  He may have been misquoted—I don’t know—but it is, as I say, no urban legend. 

At the end of the day, the Holy Father is saying nothing different than the vast majority of parish priests would tell their parishioners.  Pope Benedict is a noted theologian.  Pope John Paul II was a philosopher.  Pope Francis is a pastor who can cut through the over-intellectualized crap for common sense solutions.  Sometimes, like the Scribes and the Pharisees in the Gospels, we take a very simple thing and build it up into a burden, heavy on others’ shoulders, and make no effort to help bear the weight.  But as Pope Francis consistently reminds us: Compassionless Christianity is no Christianity at all. 

Autopsying the Brain of the American Loon

 There was an interesting show on NPR the other day in which people would call in and the host would ask: who are you and what are you angry about.  The show was in response to an NBC/Esquire report analyzing the various reasons people in America today are angry.  I think we can see in the success of Donald Trump’s strategy of targeting Latinos, immigrants, and Muslims in an effort to secure his adopted party’s nomination that anger plays well to a significant part of the American audience.  I am not sure that does not spill over into the Church(es) today and is not a considerable factor in the growing tension in the pews.  As is President Obama in the realm of politics, Pope Francis in particular is a flashpoint for many conservatives who find that his focus on the challenges to the environment, on income inequality, his opposition to the death penalty, and his support for immigrants has made them feel not at home any more in the Catholic Church.  As we look at “FrankieB’s” flood of comments to my site I think we can see that sort of anger and how, while it may be a bit more extreme than most, it is typical of the Katholik Krazie mentality. 

1. the reactive (as opposed to responsive) tone of FrankieB’s comments. 

Frankie doesn’t engage the issues—or even seem to notice them but jumps right to a reactive comment.  Ideas (and people who hold them) are “stupid” but the flaw in the argument is never laid out and a counter-argument is never proposed.  You simply have “garbage on the left” differentiated from a vague reference to what “loyal Catholics” (presumably like Frankie herself/himself) hold.  At the end of the day we really don’t know what Frankie believes, only what s/he rejects. 

2.    The amount of unfocused anger that underlies these comments.

Ok, we are clearly dealing with a rageaholic here.  People like Frankie have found that anger releases certain endorphins that give them satisfaction and even pleasure.  Some studies have shown that the endorphins released by anger are the same as those released by sexual excitement and offered that as at least a partial explanation for the connection between anger and rape.  In other words, you might want to steer clear of including people given to rage in your list of friends and acquaintances.  Not saying that you don’t want to invite Frankie to your next birthday party, but you might want to make sure there is always a crowd around.  But then would you really want somebody at your party who tells everyone with whom they disagree—which is most people—that they should “get out…” or questions whether they are as “stupid” as they appear, or that your Protestant guests are “apostate retreads.”  Again, to express such fury without engaging the issues is a sign that someone is off their meds, or in this case, found the combination to get them out of the psych ward.  But then they get their energy from hating.  You can be sure that Frankie B hates President Obama, Robin Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, The Disney Corporation, the French, The New York Times, Catholic Charities USA, the United Nations, and signs that say “No Turn on Red.”  Some people hate just because it is so satisfying and, unlike its endorphin equivalent, masturbation, you don’t have to confess it (though you should.)

3.    The frequent recourse to ad hominem attacks rather than engaging the issues at hand. 

Ok, so I’m stupid.  And I am a pseudo-Catholic Intellectual. And I am one of the most arrogant know-it-alls commenting on things Catholic. And I’m not too smart.  And I am a liberal retread.  And I have far too much time on my hands which is demonstrated by my having a “degree in religion.”  (Actually it is theology.)  And Cardinal Wuerl has been appeasing anti-Catholic liberals.  And the Pope is half-assed.  And Georgetown is an apostate heretical institution supporting a whats-what of anti-Catholic Left wing garbage.  But at the end of the day, what are you arguing for?  What specifically am I (and the Pope and Cardinal Wuerl and Georgetown and whoever else pisses you off) wrong about?  OK, you did mention the Holy Father’s efforts at ecumenism, so why are they wrong?  You rant but in the end you have nothing to say.  But only goes to reinforce my point about your being a rageaholic.  You’re angry but you can’t articulate a reason. 

4.  The lack of knowledge of Catholic teaching

FrankieB clearly has a limited knowledge of his/her Catholic faith.  S/he clearly rejects the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on Ecumenism and on non-Christian religions.  Social Justice issues being “bogus nonsense, s/he is unfamiliar with the social teaching of the Church found in Mater et Magistra, Populorum Progressio, Gaudium et Spes, Octogesima Adveniens, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Centesimus Annus, Caritas in Veritate, and—of course and probably most of all, Laudato Si.  If FrankieB knew her/his faith s/he would understand that far from the American Religious of the LCWR being not “quite content to undermine Church teachings to pursue their non-Catholic liberal political agenda,” but were, in fact, standing true to the magisterium while our silk and lace begowned clowns in San Francisco and Malta-on-the-Aventine were busy denying the sacraments those less worthy than themselves.  Fortunately Pope Francis cleared up that scandal over the Sisters and gave them a clean bill of health. 

5.    The lack of actual knowledge about events, people, or how things work in the Church. 

FrankieB honestly thinks that letters from krazies like her/him/whatever set off the campaign about the Religious Congregations comprising the Leadership Conference of Women Religious?  Honeychile, I have to tell you about reliable sources of Vatican gossip: CRUX and Whispers in the Loggia, and even—I hesitate to say it—the inimitable Father Z. Their work demonstrates that it could help you get traction in your revival of the Spanish Inquisition if you know some desk jockeys in the Curia.  But Honeychile, I can all but guarantee your li’l ol’ letters were all but unread before (and even if) they got a pro forma acknowledgment and then used to wipe up the morning cappuccino that some Monsignore spilt on his desk.  No, no, no.  The attack on the nuns was a well-orchestrated attack by the evil Cardinal Law, the sartorially confused Cardinal Burke, and creepy Archbishop Lori who owed his rise to the peculiarities of a sycophantic relationship with the late Cardinal Hickey whom he served as “secretary.” They were aided and abetted by Carl Anderson, Grand Poobah of the Knights of Columbus and donor of millions of K of C Dollars to the Vatican (where much of that money was recently found stuffed in desk drawers where auditors were meant never to find them). It was nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to discredit the Sisters in favor of the (far) more subservient good Sisters of the various Congregations associated with the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious.  With a little education, some of the nuns were getting a little uppity, you see, like Sisters Joan Chittester, Elizabeth Johnson, and Sandra Schneiders.  Due respect and kowtowing to their Episcopal Lordships was sometimes being overlooked and embarrassing questions were being posed that hinted that the women questioning might be brighter than the mitered men being questioned and we couldn’t have that, could we? But fortunately Pope Francis came along and quashed the inquisition, giving the Sisters a clean bill of orthodoxy.  So y’all, plug into the Vatican Gossip mill and learn how things really run (despite Pope Francis’ attempts to clean out the barn.)

6.    The anger at Church teaching and polity to the point of rejecting magisterial authority. 

To a great extent this matter was covered in issue 4 which dealt with the ignorance of Church teaching.  Catholics have, for the most part, never been well catechized and I am amazed (not to mention distressed) at how many priests still preach the faith learned at their mothers’ knees as children rather than the magisterial Tradition they (hopefully) were taught in seminary.   But the fact of the matter is that many Catholics agree with the teaching authority of the Church when the teaching authority agrees with them.  The liberals were often in dissent during the previous two papacies and conservatives often stand in dissent during this one.  As I have often observed in this blog, all us Catholics, liberal and conservative, innovationist and neo-traditionalist, are dining in the cafeteria these days.  But FrankieB goes over the line when s/he refers to the Holy Father’s “half-assed attempts to appease the anti-Catholic liberals.”  His contempt, not only for the person and the office of the Pope, but for the heritage of socially conscious papal teaching regarding the rights of labor, of the poor, of the disenfranchised in society—a heritage that extends back almost a century and a quarter and which is rooted in the teachings of the Fathers of the Church—is not ignorance but is a rejection of the magisterium.  Ironically for all his contempt of his fellow-Christians who are Protestant, FrankieB has fallen into the root heresy that enabled Protestantism to develop, the heresy that each believer is his own Pope to define what Christian orthodoxy is.  Move over Martin Luther, there is a new guy in town with his own 95 theses challenging the Catholic Church. 

7. The racist and religious prejudices underlying many of the remarks.

Just look at what this person writes:

“to support the political agenda of anti-Catholic Leftists (including left-wing WASPs, Jews, and blacks)  … The Church is FAR too obsessed with social programs and taking money from white, middle-class Catholics and giving it to black anti-Catholic bigots from the Congressional Black Caucus … apostate Protestant retreads … If Catholics wanted spineless and gutless and effeminate leadership, we would have become Episcopalians … Reminds me of the loser who came to our office with a degree in "Black Studies" whatever the hell that is.” 

‘nuff said!  I think I need to go take a shower and make sure this filth is all washed off.

8.The inaccurate reading of the original article and thus wrong conclusions that result. 

Let me give you just one example.  I never said I was a student of Monika Hellwig.  I wasn’t.  I said I was a friend of hers.  In fact I was a “church-friend” of hers when we both worshipped at the same parish in Gaithersburg MD.  I didn’t know her through Georgetown at all. And in fact I knew her for several years simply as Monika and had no idea she was the famous theologian.  And, despite FrankieB’s inference, I did not study at Georgetown, though for both high-school and undergraduate work I was privileged to study under the Society of Jesus.  As FrankieB never seems to have quite grasped my points in the various postings, s/he seems only to given them a quick read before reacting.  In fact, in some of the postings I think there are some things FrankieB might have agreed with had s/he given them enough attention to actually see what the arguments were. 

9.    Lack of confidence in current papal leadership

Well, lets just refer back to the Holy Father and his “half-assed attempts to appease anti-Catholic liberals.”  And then there was “Only in your warped world-view of moral equivalences can key moral issues regarding divorce/marriage/sexuality be cheapened by supporting bogus "social justice" nonsense as if increasing Food Stamp monies offsets butchering an unborn babies head. But for all I know, PF thinks the same thing.”

10.An anti-intellectualism that betrays a contempt for education  

Well, there is that remark about people who have a degree in “religion” having too much time on their hands.  And then there is the remark about “pseudo Catholic intellectual(s) and “one of those theologians at a ‘Catholic’ college’.”  And then there is the thing about “how many 70-IQ liberals do you think actually know what this (Scholastic positivism leading to semi-Pelagianism) means?”  Unfortunately intellectual life is not a level playing field and it depends on both natural ability and educational levels.  Natural ability can—in those of exceptional intelligence—compensate for access to formal education but it obviously fails to do so for FrankieB and so s/he has a need to dismiss it to keep up the self-delusion that his/her ideas are of equal merit to their intellectual betters.  But I bet s/he can beat me at beer pong. 

Well, I have had more comments from FrankieB and now his or her several aliases over the days since I had originally composed this posting  but they are just more of the same rant: LCWR are dissidents, deviants and lesbians preaching heresy who should be excommunicated and denied Catholic burial; Republicans are the Catholic Party and Democrats hate the Catholic Church; bastardized Protestant retread denominations; and my personal favorite “What the f*** is your (my) problem?”  I gather that most evenings somewhere around 9 pm (Central Standard Time) I am going to be treated to a flood of vituperative (look that one up in your Funk and Wagnall’s, Frankie girl) ignorance.  Sounds like someone has just come home from an unhappy happy hour in a futile attempt to wipe away the loneliness and insignificance of his/her life, but this is the end of the FrankieB show.  I have other topics to move on to and as long as I know that I am rattling a few cages, I am content to keep posting.  I don’t always like being the cheery idealist or the devout goody-two-shoes, sometimes that arrogant know-it-all side of me just has to be let out to have some fun rampaging around the Krazie Palace.   My confessor doesn’t approve but then he is a saintly man and I am still getting detoured while I am finding my way to the Kingdom.  So, FrankieB, Jim H, Joe L*******, et al good night and good luck to you and don’t forget your meds.    

Well, anyway, the above is what I wrote about a month ago, before I started hearing from JimH.  And then Joe L.  One of the skills one learns while teaching under-grads over a period of 25+ years is how to recognize people by their writing styles—how they punctuate a sentence, consistent misspellings, repeated themes, idiosyncrasies in capitalization or vocabulary etc.   As I said, I have been warned that FrankieB has multiple personalities and so next may be SuzyQ, JohnnyBGood, and Pasadena pole dancer, D.D. Melons.  But under whatever nom de plume he/she writes, the comments aren’t going to be posted, not because I don’t post responses that I disagree with but because Frankie’s responses aren’t up to publishing standards.  And it is my blog.  Frankie can get her or his own blog and publish whatever she or he wants.  It’s a free country, Frankie.  Go get ‘em, Tiger.  You might want to join the Katholik Media League: they have a wonderful summer retreat at Loon Lake.