Ascension Thursday

Today is Ascension Thursday, the 40th day of Easter. In some European countries, today is celebrated as a public civic holiday, as well as a holy day. In the U.S., sadly, today is for most Catholics a workday like any other. Still, Ascension remains one of the five greatest festivals of the Christian calendar (along with Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost). Prior to the occupation of Rome by the Kingdom of Italy in 1870, the papal blessing urbi et orbi was sometimes given on this day at the Lateran Basilica. In some places, either the Easter Candle or a statue of the Risen Christ would be hoisted up to the church’s ceiling until it disappeared though an opening of the roof, often to be replaced by a shower of roses as a sign of Christ’s parting promise to give the Holy Spirit to the Church. A variant of that tradition still continues at the Pantheon in Rome (the Basilica of Santa Maria ad Martyres) on Pentecost Sunday, when thousands of red rose petals are dropped from a height of 140 feet through the Pantheon's oculus to symbolize the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, the Risen and Ascended Christ's parting gift to his Church.

In his Sermon 1 on the Ascension, Pope Saint Leo the Great said "it was a great and unspeakable cause for rejoicing, when in the sight of a holy multitude, human nature ascended above the dignity of all celestial creatures, to pass above the ranks of the angels, to be raised above the heights of the archangels, and not to have any degree of loftiness set as a limit to its advancement, short of the right hand of the eternal Father, where it would be associated with his royal glory, to whose nature it was united in God."

Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost all go together. The first highlights Christ's actual resurrection; the second his glorification at the Father's right hand; the third his continued presence in his Church through the gift of the Hoy Spirit. That interconnection is expressed in the concluding words of today's gospel: behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20).

Photo: Watercolor Ceiling Painting of the Ascension, c. 1913, Immaculate Conception Church, Knoxville, TN.

Mothers Day

 

Today is Mothers Day. I will dutifully remember my mother (and my grandmother) at the commemoration of the dead at Mass this morning. That, however, will likely be the extent of my observance of Mothers Day. 

When I was a pastor, I made a point of having our parish May Crowning on the first Sunday of May - to avoid confusing it with the very commercialized, secular celebration that is the American Mothers Day holiday. It is one of those historical coincidences that this very secular American holiday occurs in the month Catholic tradition dedicates in a special way to Mary, the Mother of God and Mother of the Church.

One of the rare occasions when the 1969 post-conciliar calendar improved upon its predecessor has been the relocation of the feast of the Visitation to May 31. Unfortunately, because it occurs on Trinity Sunday, the Visitation will be omitted this year, which is a good excuse to "christianize" Mothers Day by reflecting on the Visitation. (On the "plus" side, since Pentecost occurs in May this year, so will the feast of Mary, Mother of the Church, celebrated on the following day.)

The second Joyful Mystery, the Visitation is recounted in Luke 1:39-56. That gospel was traditionally read on the Ember Friday of Advent as part of the Church's proximate preparation for Christmas. As a full-fledged liturgical feast, however, it is a relative latecomer, inserted into the Roman Calendar by Pope Urban VI in 1389. It was originally assigned to July 2, the day after the octave of the Birth of Saint John the Baptist, who "leapt" in his mother Elizabeth's womb on the occasion of Mary's Visitation. The feast was retained in both the Anglican and Lutheran calendars, and is still observed in Germany both by Catholics and by Lutherans on July 2.

The image of the meeting of the two pregnant mothers, Mary and Elizabeth, has been much meditated upon throughout the centuries, as well as being a frequent subject of works of art. One beautiful 14th-century gilt wooden image (photo) includes crystal cabochons, suggesting the presence of the babies in their mothers' wombs (and it is thought may once have highlighted images of the holy infants).

The Golden Legend (c. 1260) by the Dominican Friar Blessed Jacopo de Voragine (c.1230-1298) was written before the introduction of the feast. It does, however, describe the Visitation in its entry for the Birth of Saint John the Baptist: "In Elizabeth's sixth month Mary, who had already conceived, came to her, the fruitful virgin to the woman relieved of sterility, feeling sympathy for her in her old age. When she greeted her cousin, blessed John, already filled with the Holy Spirit, sensed the Son of God coming to him and leapt for joy in his mother's womb, and danced, saluting by his movements the one he could not greet with his voice. He leapt as one wishing to greet his Lord and to stand up in his presence." (The Golden Legend: Reading on the Saints, tr. William Granger Ryan, Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 330.)

Referring to this unique encounter of the two infants in their mothers' wombs, the Catechism calls the Visitation "a visit from God to his people" (CCC 717). It is, what the U.S. Bishops have called "a cherished American Catholic custom" to refer to Mary as "our Blessed Mother" (Behold Your Mother: A Pastoral Letter on the Blessed Virgin Mary [1973], 70). Mary's motherhood remains especially timely today when religion is so easily manipulated. When that happens, one response is to abstract from actual Christian faith in some sort of de-natured, non-religious "spirituality." Abstractions, Karl Rahner famously warned, have no need for mothers (cf. Leon Cardinal Suenens, "Mary and the World of Today," L'Osservatore Romano [English Ediiton] June 15, 1972).

Photo: The Visitation (c. 1310-1320), attributed to Master Heinrich of Constance, Metropolitan Museum of Art, gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917.

Pope Leo's First Year

One year ago today, that traditional announcement of ecclesiastical good news, Habemus Papam ("We have a Pope"), resounded in Saint Peter's square, followed immediately by the surprising - shocking even - announcement of the election of the first American-born pope. While Robert Cardinal Prevost was certainly a plausible papabile, I think most run-of-the mill observers (myself included) adhered to the conventional wisdom that no American would be elected - until, of course, one was!

Suffice it to say that Cardinal Prevost was - as was commonly observed - "the least American" of the American cardinals. Indeed, had he just been a typical American cardinal, he would almost certainly not have been elected. Unlike a typical American cardinal, however, for much of his priesthood Prevost had been a missionary priest and later a diocesan bishop in Peru. He is thus legitimately seen as "the second Latin American pope." He is also a Religious, a former Prior General of the Augustinians, with world-wide pastoral experience, as well as being, at the time of his election, the head of the very important Dicastery for Bishops. So the election of the first American pope must certainly be interpreted more broadly, more universally, than through any primary preoccupation with particularly American issues (either American intra-Church issues or American political issues). Personally, I think it unlikely that he was elected primarily to be a counterweight to President Trump. That said, it is significant that the two most prominent Americans on the world stage now are Trump and Leo, and that Leo inevitably projects an alternative image of America, very different from that projected by its President.

The early impressions of Pope Leo - from the very first impressions when he appeared on the loggia dressed traditionally as a pope - have been of a return to normalcy. He seemed to be fulfilling a widespread desire for some continuity with his predecessor's more popular initiatives, but without his predecessor's polarizing and divisive personal style. He has celebrated public Masses frequently, returned to the traditional papal residence and to Castel Gandolfo, brought the cardinals together for consultation in consistory, and highlighted the unifying functions of the papacy, emphasizing the office over the office-holder's personality. He seems to appreciate the requirements of the role and the constraints it imposes on the holder of the office. His Augustinian spirituality of service in unity and community has been constantly evident in illuminating his fundamental spiritual orientation. Obviously the unity of the Church - something we cannot take for granted these days - is his high priority.

In his first address from the loggia, Pope Leo recalled that May 8 is the commemoration of Our Lady of Pompeii. Today, one year later, he is at the shrine of Our Lady of Pompeii, 155 miles southeast of Rome, whose founder, Saint Bartolo Longo (1841-1926), Pope Leo canonized last October.

Leo inherited the 2025 Jubilee Year with its already elaborately planned programming. With the Jubilee finished and Francis' commitments (e.g., the trip to Turkey and Lebanon) fulfilled, Leo in 2026 has more and more pursued his own path. His 10-day trip to four countries in Africa, for example, has highlighted his longer term priorities moving forward. So will his first encyclical, expected later this month.

Inevitably, however, he cannot escape the expectations that arise from his U.S. origin. After all, he speaks English! He addresses Americans in our own language and sensibility, and cannot be easily dismissed as a foreigner who doesn't understand American religion or American politics. Even so, Pope Leo has been wisely reserved on some of the issues that have dominated too much of recent Catholic life, especially in the U.S. Thus, in a recent in-flight conversation with the press, he said, "First of all, I think it's very important that the unity or division of the church should not revolve around sexual matters. We tend to think that when the church is talking about morality that the only issue of morality is sexual. And in reality, I believe there are greater and more important issues such as justice, equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion that would all take priority before that particular issue." What long-term effects Leo's words will have on the priorities of the U.S. Bishops, of prominent lay Catholic converts (like Vice President JD Vance), and of the politically polarized U.S. Catholic community, all remain to be seen.

On a very practical level, one of the most important things that modern popes do is the appointment of bishops. In his first year, Pope Leo has appointed several American bishops - both ordinaries and auxiliaries - including, perhaps most prominently, fellow Chicagoan Ronald Hicks as the new Archbishop of New York. What stands out about some of his other appointments, however, is that they have been immigrants to the U.S.  - in other words, they are the sorts of people that the Trump Administration might prefer were not in the U.S. at all, let alone serving as prominent religious leaders in the nation's largest denomination. His very first episcopal appointment was San Diego's Bishop Michael Pham, who came to the U.S. as a young Vietnamese refugee. Later last year, he appointed Bishop Manuel de Jesús Rodríguez to the Diocese of Palm Beach, which includes Mar-a-Lago. Both bishops have been pro-immigrant advocates. Pham has accompanied immigrants to court hearings. Rodríguez has challenged Trump’s immigration policies and recently denounced the criticisms of the Pope as "disrespectful and violent." Then, a week ago, he appointed Washington Auxiliary Evelio Menjivar to be Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston. One of the reddest states now has as its Bishop someone who came to America as an undocumented immigrant teenager from El Salvador (supposedly smuggled into the United States in a car trunk).  Clearly, the Pope is letting the U.S. know where he stands on the issue of immigration, what may be the great moral crisis of this contentious period in American history. If any doubt remains on where the Pope positions himself on the immigration issue, that should certainly become clear on July 4, when he plans to spend the 250th anniversary of American independence on the Italian island of Lampedusa, the symbolic epicenter of the Mediterranean migrant crisis, an obvious and pointed statement.

Beyond any immediate relevance to present Administration policies, the relevant fact is, of course, that the Pope is inherently a global figure. He is the leader of a global institution, whose members are in spiritual communion with one another on every continent all over the world. This is in conspicuous contrast to the increasingly insular, anti-globalist orientation being emphasized at present in the United States, especially among those for whom President Trump is more like a spiritual leader than a mere politician.

My sense, however, is that even those who imagined Leo's papacy as primarily a counterweight to Trump probably did not anticipate the recent, very public attacks on him by the American President. Popes and Presidents frequently disagree, but usually politely and respectfully. Trump's criticism of the Pope has been unprecedented in his expression of personal animosity, including the absurd claim that Leo endorses Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons! Presumably, all this is yet another deplorable consequence of Trump's unfortunate - and, maybe more to the point, unpopular - Iranian war, which hardly anyone would have anticipated a year ago. Ordinarily, public papal interventions in international relations tend not to have a lot of direct effect. The practical effect we should be on the lookout for will be whatever impact the contretemps between President and Pope has on American Catholics. (No one should ever forget that 55% of American Catholic voters in 2024 voted for Trump, and 64% of white American Catholic voters did so.) 

That said, Pope Leo obviously takes to heart Saint Augustine's admonition in his Rule: you would be at fault if by your silence you allow your brothers to meet their downfall, when by speaking you could set them on the right path (4:8).

 

Sigmund Freud at 170

 

Charles Darwin, it is sometimes said, eliminated God from nature; Karl Marx expelled God from history; and Sigmund Freud drove him from the human mind. The unholy Trinity of Darwin, Marx, and Freud are rightly remembered as the great disrupters, whose problematic legacy we now have to live with, whether for better or for worse. Definitely for the worse, the ideas of all three have been bowdlerized in socially harmful ways, such as Spencerian Social Darwinism and eugenics, in Darwin's case, and the Communism of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, in the case of Marx.

And what of Freud (1856-1939), who was born 170 years ago today in what is now the Czech Republic but was then still the gloriously reigning Hapsburg Empire? Freud was a product of the golden twilight decades of the Hapsburg Empire. That empire was both the symbolic heir of the old Holy Roman Empire (and hence heir to the ambitions, both political and religious, of Charlemagne) and also at the same time a glittering home for much of what was most memorable in turn-of-the-century central European civilization. Freud was very much an Austrian old-world scholar (one reason for his discomfort with America!) For Jews like Freud, Franz Josef's Austria was a good place to be. While Vienna had an anti-semitic mayor, none of that stopped Viennese Jews from being leaders in the arts and sciences. Freud's strong attachment to imperial Austria also helps explain his famous dislike of Woodrow Wilson, who Freud believed (with good reason) had contributed to the unfortunate demise of the Austrian Empire - a political, economic, and cultural disaster from which the successor states of the old empire have as yet never fully recovered.

Freud, of course, created psychoanalysis - both as an explanation of the human predicament and as a method of treatment for those in acute pain from struggling with the social civilizational challenges of that human predicament. As an explanation, Freud's theories shocked the world with what he purported to reveal about humanity and its unconscious desires. (Of course, anyone who believes in original sin should hardly find Freud's analysis of the human condition ultimately all that shocking.) As a method of therapeutic treatment, classic Freudian psychoanalysis is time-consuming, expensive, emotionally demanding, and increasingly dismissed as lacking in scientific credibility. The more modest types of talk psychotherapy many of my generation experienced - shorter, cheaper, and less demanding than psychoanalysis - were derivative adaptations, obviously inspired by Freud's methods and in that sense a major component of Freud's longer-term legacy. Freud himself recognized that, when it comes to the practical question of treatment, what he called "more convenient methods of healing" than psychoanalysis might be turned to just as successfully, which is what contemporary modes of therapy have done - largely with drugs of various sorts.

Psychoanalysis, moreover, does not cure, which more contemporary therapeutic approaches may sometimes dubiously aspire to do. Rather, it tries to free the suffering soul to cope - to cope minimally, to cope better, maybe even to cope well. It seeks a secularized version of Christian liberty, the freedom Christ brings from sin and guilt, which doesn't necessarily make life all that much easier, but does allow it to make sense.

Freud assumed (with more confidence than history may have warranted) that in our modern world no traditional moral system could continue to compel elite belief. He offered an alternative to religion that paradoxically vindicates humanity's original religious impulse, which rationalistic modernity refuses to acknowledge and cannot abide. Unlike our contemporary therapeutic culture of individualistic self-fulfillment, however, Freud offered a secular, pseudo-scientific alternative to religion that repeated religion's warning against the individual pursuit of transitory happiness and modernity's erroneous equation of individual happiness with ultimate meaning. 

Even as he undermined it, however, Freud affirmed the civilizational necessity of a system of moral demands upon the individual. He emphasized the sublimation of instinctual desire as indispensable to civilization and the fulfillment of humanity's communal purposes. His psychoanalytic therapy tried to help fill in the gap created by the modern collapse of moral community and consequently the individual's increasing need to go it alone. Freud tried to replace older and (to him) historically discredited means of making sense of life (like religion) with newly strengthened individual inner resources.

As Philip Rieff famously observed in his classic The Triumph of the Therapeutic (1966): "A man can be made healthier without being made better - rather, morally worse. Not the good life but better living is the therapeutic standard."

May Day

Today is May Day, although a chilly 44 degrees in the city at the start of the day belies the inherited image of May Day as a herald of summer.

May Day is a curious combination of, on the one hand, an ancient spring festival, midway between the spring equinox and the summer solstice, traditionally marked by rituals to ensure fertility for crops and livestock, and, on the other, a modern International Workers' Day, originating in the late 19th-century U.S. labor movement and adopted as an international socialist holiday. Those of us old enough to remember the Cold War will recall how May Day was one of the days when big parades would be held in Moscow and other communist capitals (the other one, of course, being November 7, the anniversary of the October Revolution).

May Day was highlighted in the 1960s musical Camelot. ("Those dreary vows that everyone makes, everyone breaks, in the merry month of May"). Apart from such theatrical evocations, however, in our de-natured, disenchanted, post-industrial, technological world, the change of seasons obviously matters much less than it did for all of previous human history. Such seasonal celebrations as May Day survive only marginally as folkloric occasions, the stuff of romantic nostalgia. Maybe some group erects a maypole somewhere, but its original meaning no longer has any operational significance in the lives of those play-acting dancing around a maypole. 

Likewise, with the fall of communism, the political salience of May Day has receded. International Workers' Day still resonates in labor and left-wing political circles, of course, but labor unions, social democratic political parties, and workers' and "left" causes in general have fared poorly in our present politics of neo-liberalism and populism. On the other hand, we now have an acknowledged social democrat as mayor of New York, whose election may infuse some new vitality into that troubled movement. The more fundamental problem, however, is that much of what passes for the progressive left represents society's winners, those whom the system has favored and who have benefited so much from it, not those left behind, who tend to look elsewhere for a focus for their political allegiance.

As Pope Benedict XVI famously wrote back in 2006: "Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness." ("Europe and Its Discontents," First Things, January 2006).

That said, the Church's mid-20th-century attempt to co-op May Day hasn't fared much better than the day's secular iterations. In 1955, Pope Pius XII established a religious analogue to International Workers' Day, the feast of Saint Joseph the Worker, which acknowledged the dignity of labor and celebrated Saint Joseph (himself referred to in scripture as a carpenter) as a patron of workers. Saint Joseph the Worker replaced the feast of the Patronage of Saint Joseph (formerly celebrated on the third Wednesday after Easter). Liturgists, however, seem not to have taken to the new feast, for in the problematic post-conciliar 1969 calendar, Saint Joseph the Worker was reduced from the highest ranking liturgical day to the lowest ranking ("optional memorial"). It is perhaps pointless to try to make sense of the post-conciliar calendar reform. Personally, however, given the abiding religious resonance of at least some aspects of democratic socialism, I find the feast of Saint Joseph the Worker worth keeping.

The Gospel reading for today (Matthew 13:54-58) recalls the famous incident in the Nazareth Synagogue where the people took offense at Jesus. Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter's son? That's as good an account as any of the lack of respect accorded to work, of our failure to appreciate the contribution of those whose labor is in fact essential to society's successful functioning.

Photo: Saint Joseph Altar, Saint Paul the Apostle Church, NY.