Is Militaristic Manly Catholicism Really About Keeping Score?

Saint Barack would not qualify as a militaristic 'manly' Catholic. For that matter neither would the real St. Francis who also attempted dialogue with Islam. I doubt a photo of either one graces the head quarters of Blackwater.

The following excerpt is from an article by Todd Aglialoro entitled "The New Catholic Manliness". It is taken from Deal Hudson's website Inside Catholic.com. These are Todd's concluding paragraphs and I excerpted them because they sparked quite a number of comments on the militaristic bent of Christianity vs Islam.

This militaristic view of Christianity is part of what I see as the dark underbelly of American Christianity in which masculinity seems to be getting mixed up with militarism, and Jesus becomes an excuse to 'flex one's manly muscles' against perceived enemies rather than the Teacher of a way which calls for radical love of one's enemy.

Onward, Christian Soldiers

As I pursued this investigation of the new Catholic manliness, two common threads emerged. The first was the influence of Pope John Paul II, who by all accounts was the inspiration, motivation, and architect of the whole project. First, as a pastor and spiritual father: In him "the orphans of living parents found their Papa," as Bolster puts it. And second, by laying down a theological and philosophical trail for Catholic priests, ministers, and laymen to follow. The late pope's writings on the theology of the body helped us to understand how gender "gets right to the core of who we are," says Monsignor Swetland. Bollman concurs, adding that John Paul took the "impoverished anthropology" that his era had inherited and replaced it with a "Christian anthropology based on the inherent dignity of man and woman." Only from that foundation, he says, could we begin to rebuild an authentic male spirituality.

The second common thread was the martial metaphor. Every one of my sources spoke of a battle against the temptations and obstacles the modern world puts before men, a war against the false, cheap version of manhood it whispers in our ears. Again and again they made use of military imagery in defining male spirituality: Bolster and Monsignor Swetland -- both former naval lieutenants -- stressed the need to adapt the military virtues of discipline, valor, and self-sacrifice to the work of spiritual combat. (Assuming there is such a thing as 'spiritual combat' , one does not engage in said war with muscles, M16's, and Air Craft Carriers--unless your name is Eric Prince.)

It may one day be recognized that the growing use and acceptance of military language to define manhood within the Church turned out to be not just apt but critical. For there is one religion that has no problem attracting and keeping male followers. Its wholly transcendent God doesn't desire spiritual conjugality with His people. Its leaders don't preach mercy, or celibacy, or strength through weakness; they do not have to contend with the paradox of the Cross. And the zealous adherents of Islam do not turn the other cheek.

*************************************************

If the use of military language to define manhood with in the Church--especially the American Church- gains ground and acceptance, it won't be apt. It will much more likely be catastrophic.

One does not solve the paradox of the Cross by purposely ignoring it in favor of militarism.

Buddhism also has no trouble attracting and keeping male members and it is the least militaristic of all spiritualities.

If we were supposed to be worshipping an exclusively transcendent God there would have been no need for an Incarnated Jesus who shared this human condition and gave us His teachings about how we should live our humanity. He did not form an army and did not enforce military discipline. He made no effort to protect Israel from the Romans. Nor did He define Rome as His personal enemy. His 'enemies' were not individuals or groups of individuals, they were the self absorbed attitudes we hold towards ourselves and others. His weapons were truth and love.

It doesn't take much in the way of personal sacrifice, discipline, or valor to blame the ills of the so called 'effeminate' Church on feminism, effete clergy, or unruly heterodox catechises--all of which Todd and his 'experts' use to decry their perceived current lack of manliness in the Church.

Nor do any of them bother to trace the history of the exodus of males from the pews. They make the erroneous assumption this all started post Vatican II. They are only about 300 or so years off, with the world wide exodus accelerating during the reign of Pius IX. Apparently manly men have had nothing to do with the current sad state of affairs. They are all emasculated victims.

I wish these 'manly' men would practice a little honesty. Christianity, with it's call to turn the other cheek, let go of your ego, drop your status objects, learn the self discipline and sacrifice necessary to really love someone, and operate from equality rather than power, is all unappealing to their definition of 'manly' men.

More than that though, Christianity is about internal personal growth, not external personal acquisition. This more than anything does not appeal to most men. Nor is it a notion that appeals to our peacock hierarchy, which is all over the externals at the expense of the internals.

It is very very difficult to keep score when the effort is ordered to internal growth and not external acquisition. It's not easy to quantify love, humility, or spiritual growth.

To me, that's what this pursuit of a militaristic manly Catholicism is really about. It's an attempt to return to a more external quantifiable spirituality, and away from an internal qualitative spirituality.

This dichotomy is not really about gender or the feminizing of the Church. It's more about the fact that Catholic spirituality went internal and qualitative after Vatican II. There was no more enumerating of sins, no more emphasis on indulgences, no more lists of devotional acts like first Fridays or novenas, no more High Masses and low masses. There was no longer any real way to keep an external score in Catholicism. In fact keeping one's grace score no longer mattered because the whole notion of hell didn't matter. Not only was it hard to keep score, but it didn't seem there was anything left to win or lose.

Becoming more Christ like, inclusive, and loving became the goal. Becoming Christ like is a much more difficult enterprise than arbitrarily keeping a sanctifying grace score in order to WIN one's way into heaven. What JPII did with his saint factory was put the winning back into the heavenly equation, while at the same time Cardinal Ratzinger was putting hell back in the heavenly equation. I sometimes see the 'reform of the reform' as a concerted effort to bring back the score board. This manly militarism fits right in with that effort.

To conclude it's no wonder some folks just hate the Spirit of Vatican II. Who wants to play a game where keeping score doesn't matter, and it really is about how well you learn to play the game.