Ross Douthat has a column at the New York Times today which ponders the priestess of pop religion: Oprah Winfrey.

In the fall of 2014, Oprah Winfrey ran a “transformative two-day live event,” a traveling roadshow that was held in eight cities around the country. For this interactive revival-tent experience, she was joined by her “handpicked life trailblazers,” authors and personalities whose work she considered essential for the theme of the roadshow, “The Life You Want.”

The trailblazers included, among others, Iyanla Vanzant, a spiritual teacher of New Thought, a 19th-century movement with links to Christian Science that emphasizes the idea of God as “infinite intelligence” and the human capacity to think our way toward godlike power … Rob Bell, an erstwhile evangelical megachurch pastor who has reinvented himself as an itinerant preacher of the vaguest sort of Christianity … Elizabeth Gilbert, author of “Eat Pray Love,” the megaselling memoir about finding religious ecstasy in India (as well as great pasta in Italy and a hot romance in Bali) … Mark Nepo, the poet-philosopher author of “The Book of Awakening” and other tracts on the spirituality of the everyday … and of course Deepak Chopra, the aging prince of the New Age.

I list these figures and their theologies because in all the thousands of words that the political press has written about Oprah since her Golden Globes speech on Sunday night invited 2020 presidential speculation, there has not been nearly enough focus on the most important aspect of Oprah’s public persona, the crucial and fascinating role she really occupies in American life.

Given the absolute craziness of American culture, politics and religion, Oprah Winfrey as a candidate would not surprise me at all. In fact, if the American people really want to elect a billionaire, self made TV star in their four or eight year popularity contest, Oprah would have been a far more viable and likable candidate than Hilary Clinton.

That doesn’t mean I like her or her wacky religion, but it would sure be interesting, and if Donald Trump, why not Oprah Winfrey, and if Oprah Winfrey why not well…most anybody?

Douthat points out that if anybody has captured the current wave of religious feeling in America it is Oprah. The evangelical big box churches are Oprah with a little bit of Jesus. The mainstream Protestant churches are Oprah with a reverend. The big African American churches are Oprah with gospel music. The trendy Catholic churches are Oprah with incense (except they don’t use incense)

If anybody has capitalized on religion as the opium of the people it’s Oprah.

Her touchy feely New Age religion pushes all the buttons: it’s sweet and sentimental. It’s non judgmental. It promises prosperity, happiness and peace. It is hugely popular. It makes no real demands.

In short it is just about everything a false religion might ever aspire to be.

It is easy enough to joke about Oprah’s candidacy. Don’t.

Just remember how easy it was to joke about the Donald.

Douthat goes on to ponder what kind of POTUS the Pope of Pop Religion would make:

It could be that Oprah would cease to be a figure of the spiritual center the instant she assumed a partisan mantle, that in entering in the political fray she would automatically lose her papal tiara. Or it could be that her religious authority would make the Democratic Party far more popular and powerful, more a pan-racial party of the cultural center and less a party defined by its secular and anticlerical left wing.

It could be that she would be extremely effective in the increasingly imperial role that our presidency plays, effectively uniting throne and altar and presiding over our divisions with a kind of spirituality-drenched “mass empathy,” to quote Business Insider’s Josh Barro, that our present partisans conspicuously lack. Or it could be that by turning the spiritual center to partisan ends she would hasten its collapse, heightening polarization and hustling us deeper into metaphysical civil war.

All of these scenarios seem possible, even as the most plausible scenario remains the one where she decides being a prophetess is better than being a president and declines to run at all. But either way, the Oprah boomlet is a chance to recognize her real importance in our culture — and the sheer unpredictable weirdness, perhaps eclipsing even Donald Trump’s ascent, that might follow if our most important religious leader tries to lay claim to temporal power as well.

Read Douthat’s whole column here.

Image Creative Commons

Today is the feast day of St Joseph of Cupertino. To learn about his life go here.

Joseph was born into a poor family in Cupertino, Italy in 1603. His father was a poor carpenter who died before he was born, and his impoverished mother gave birth to him in a stable.

The poor boy started out with no advantages and his misfortune continued. To put it bluntly, he was stupid to the point of being unteachable. Everything he attempted he failed. His ecstasies began early in life and he would suddenly stop and stand and stare–totally distracted as if in a trance.

He got the idea that if he was good for nothing he might make it as a friar, but his lack of education meant the friars wouldn’t have him.  Finally he was accepted only to fail and be rejected and went wandering as a beggar. Eventually he returned and offered to be a servant at the friary and look after the mule. Somehow by God’s providence he made it through to ordination as a priest.

His ecstasies, visions and mystical experiences were legendary. He heard heavenly music, went into such a complete trance that he could be dragged about, pierced with needles and burnt with candles and it would have no effect. Most famously he is said to have levitated while in the trance state. Elaborate legends about him flying developed: he flew up into a tree to talk with birds, he flew up to help workmen place a memorial cross into the ground, he flew around the church during Mass.

Whaat??!! The doubters will scoff, “Tell me about it. What is this some sort of Peter Pan story? The saint could fly away to Neverland? Never.” Or they might laugh, “This sounds like Superman. Up, up and awaaaay!” The materialist will shake his head, “There is such a thing as gravity you know. People don’t levitate. It’s impossible.”

Well maybe or maybe not. We have take the more exaggerated stories of St Joseph’s flight with a pinch of salt. In the face of supernatural phenomena the church expects us to take a position that is neither gullible nor cynical. In other words, we must look first for every natural explanation, but on the other hand we must not rule out the possibility of miracles and the supernatural.

In today’s world Joseph of Cupertino would probably be regarded as severely mentally retarded. He was a misfit mystic. Quite apart from his mystical experiences his life of asceticism was so extreme that some people would say he had an eating disorder, that he was emotionally or mentally ill. During his lifetime he was accused of witchcraft and reported to the Inquisition.

Did he fly about the church or up into the trees? If so, what can we learn from this wonder?

The basis of these stories is that he probably did levitate.  Certainly levitation is not unknown as one of the aspects of mystical experience. This article discusses the paranormal phenomenon more completely. Levitation of objects and people has been associated with demonic and poltergeist activity and a good number of other saints were known to levitate: St Teresa of Avila, St Padre Pio, St Martin de Porres, St Francis, St Alphonsus Ligouri and the Russian Orthodox St Seraphim of Sarov.

The lesson we take from the life of St Joseph of Cupertino is that the mystical life unlocks the truth that this physical world is stranger and more unpredictable than we can imagine. Reality is rubbery. It is not a closed system. “There are more things in heaven and earth than our philosophy has dreamt of.” This post explains that Weird things happen. If the world is not as predictable as we thought and there is an open ended aspect to it, then prayer, the sacraments and all that we believe as Catholics regarding the supernatural are valid possibilities.

Secondly, we learn not to take life (and especially ourselves too seriously). G.K.Chesterton said “The angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.” The same can be said of St Joseph. He took himself lightly. He was humble therefore he was not heavy. He defied gravity because he was not grave. He levitated because of levity. I’m thinking of that scene in Mary Poppins where they visit Uncle Albert and float to the ceiling because they are laughing so much.

Thirdly, we learn once again through St Joseph of Cupertino that God uses the weak things of the world to confound the mighty. The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man. In worldly terms St Joseph of Cupertino was a fool, a failure and a flop. He was a nobody. He spent most of his life locked in a cell, moved from one religious house to another and suspected of being a fraud and even a witch. He made it to ordination by a mistake and seemed even as a priest to be useless.

God used his dedication and love. If he was mentally retarded or even mentally ill, God used that too. Did he fly? Most certainly.

Even if he had never levitated he flew. He was raised up because that’s the gospel principle: God raises up the lowly.

And with that thought I am inspired because God might just use a failure like me.

Image Creative Commons via Bing

From time to time one hears from the progressives that “doctrine is divisive”. We’re to have “a pastoral approach” and not speak about doctrine and discipline in the church.

This is a lie, and not even a very smart one, and yet it is amazing how many people fall for it.

Rather than doctrine and discipline being divisive they are actually unifying, and you can see how they are unifying with a simple analogy.

What is doctrine and discipline anyway? Doctrine and discipline make distinctions. It is Christ’s church saying, “We believe this and not that. We expect this behavior and reject that behavior.”

Think of it like this: if you are playing football you have a set of rules and regulation. There is a rule book. In order to play the game you not only need the rule book, but everybody involved in the game needs to know the rules and agree to abide by them. Both teams agree to the rules. The individual players agree to the rules. The referees and coaches agree to the rules and the audience in the bleachers know and agree to the rules.

The rules of the game do not divide. They unify. They unify everyone who wants to play the game. Do the rules of football exclude people who are playing lacrosse? Sure. Do they exclude people who are playing a tuba in an orchestra? They have nothing to do with music.

You get my drift. Therefore, when people say that Catholic doctrine and discipline divides, they only divide people who don’t really want to play the Catholic game.

What really divides the church is dissent. But why do people not point this out? Dissenting groups are just loved by progressives, but no one points out that they are divisive, and yet the whole purpose of their existence is to cause division and dissent in the church.

Doctrine divides? No. It unites Catholics around a shared belief. Discipline divides? No. It unites Catholics around a shared practice and shared expectations

We should be clear. What divides is dissent.

It is a lie of the Father of lies to turn this around and say that doctrine divides.

While we’re thinking about it, why does no one every call out the hypocrisy of the dissenters. Let’s take the notorious case of politicians who call themselves Catholic, but support abortion.

Take Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden–who has conducted gay weddings–everybody celebrates them? They’re open and public hypocrites saying they are good and faithful Catholics but blatantly contradicting the clear teaching of the church by their behavior and their public stance.

Instead the world says, “Gee, aren’t they brave? Aren’t they courageous? Aren’t they strong to stand up to the big, nasty old Catholic Church.

Geesh!

Doctrine seems to be the church’s bad boy these days.

We hear progressives play the victim and say, “But doctrine is so divisive! We need a pastoral approach! We need to reach out to the marginalized who have been alienated by strict doctrine and discipline!”

To go off on a tangent for a moment, this is one of those pouting moments from the progressives which just doesn’t ring true to experience in the American Catholic Church.

When was the last time you ever met a priest who was a doctrinal hard liner? When was the last time you met any Catholic at all (apart from some looney Traditionalist extremists) who was bashing people over the head with doctrine? In fact if there is a problem it is just the opposite–that so many Catholics–priests and people both–who are totally wishy washy fluffernutter Catholics.

Sorry. Did you never hear of the fluffernutter? That was a sandwich made with peanut butter and marshmallow Fluff. Marshmallow Fluff for those who don’t remember–was a confection in a jar which can best be described as spreadable marshmallows. A Fluffernutter Catholic is one who combines sweet fluffy sentimentality with a certain nutty-ness in their opinions….

Doctrine cuts through that cloying–stick to the roof of your mouth kind of Catholicism.

Is the problem too much doctrine? In fact it is the opposite. In my experience there is very little doctrine either known or taught or preached in the American Catholic Church.

They don’t know or live by doctrine at all! Strict and harsh Catholics who are sticklers for doctrine? I haven’t met many

So to get back to the positive point. What is the point of doctrine?

Doctrine provides the rules for the game, the score of the music, the law of the land.

Doctrine provides the framework, the guidelines and the distinctions necessary for the spiritual life. Doctrine of itself can be dull and dead. It can lead to dull legalism, but understood correctly, doctrine is necessary and without it we are adrift or taken hostage by the dictatorship of relativism.

Doctrine needs to be stated clearly and dogmatically. That’s the whole point. It is like the rule book for the game. It needs to be stated clearly and unambiguously for it to be worth anything at all.

Of course every pastor knows that one can’t apply doctrine strictly at all times and in all places. Life is too complicated and too sweet to do that. However, without clear doctrine there is no way to do pastoral work at all.

The spiritual life without doctrine is like playing tennis without the net.

Think of it like this: doctrine is the score for the music. Take Rachmaninov’s third piano concerto. The notes, the rhythm, the score is all written down. It’s there in black and white.

If you want to play that concerto you better read the notes. If you want to conduct that concerto you’d better know the score. If you want to perform that concerto you cannot do so without the printed notes on the page.

But when the pianist walks out on stage, bows and sits down to play the concerto the music soars and sings. The doctrine is forgotten in the experience and thrill of the music.

But the thrill of the music could never have happened without the doctrine.

So the use of doctrine? It is the ladder you climb on, but it is the climb which is important. It is the trellis the vine grows on but it is the vine and the wine which matters more. It is the map for your pilgrimage, but it is the pilgrimage and the destination that matters more.

But could you , pray on the pilgrimage, climb the ladder or drink the wine without the structure and form and doctrine?

No.

So let’s not denigrate doctrine, sneer at the theologians or put down those who insist on clarification when well meaning people muddy the water with their pastoral initiatives.

Doctrine corrects vague sentimentality, Fozzy Bear theology and fluffernutter Catholicism.

Doctrine is hard and clear and necessary and beautiful…

…like diamonds.

Image Creative Commons via Bing