Cardinal Raymond Burke: ‘Feminized’ church and altar girls caused priest shortage

[Gorgias]

Fascinating. My response wasn’t actually based in emotion at all. Merely pointing out that it is ironic to complain that the bride of Christ is feminine.

No less fascinating than your characterization of your comment, which completely ignores the emotional part of the post.

Also, it is interesting that ‘feminization’ is being used as a pejorative. Feminine is not negative.

Agreed; ‘feminine’ is not negative. Yet, is ‘feminization’ really a ‘perjorative’, especially when it’s used in a context that is trying to describe the disconnect between men and the Church? It simply says that the perception is that the Church and its rites seem to appeal to women and not men, in a way that’s uncharacteristic of Church history. Is there another way to state that – besides ‘feminization’ – that would make this claim without triggering your irony?

How would you respond if the majority of Catholics (i.e. women) complained that the Church was too ‘masculinized’?

I’d ask them what they meant by it. Or, perhaps, I’d suggest that men retaliate by ceasing to participate in Church activities …

 

[Hodegetria]

Isn’t it rather common informal knowledge that a lot of homosexuals are attracted to younger people and sometimes children? These people weren’t molesting girls in the majority of cases so the ones who target boys are homosexual by definition.

You’d be surprised, Im obviously not but a lot of men go to places like Asia specifically to get younger then legal females.

NO, just because one is homosexual, they are not automatically a pedophile, or even inclined to be a pedophile. That is just not the case, please give a source.

 

[LightBound]

I caught that, too. Just another shot from the media, we should be used to that…

I have made the mistake of ordering TIA materiel and so have read about a lot of so-called prophecy about the Church splitting from within. I later learned about TIA and that they’re kind of a splinter group…nonetheless it sure looks as if they are correct. The Church seems to be imploding from within. Ever since St Pope John Paul the Great died, there have been more and more rumors and scandals at the Vatican. Or maybe I’m just more aware of them…it is hard to tell who the “troublemakers” are.

TIA is sedevacantist leaning, if not outright sede. You’d do well to stay far away from such rubbish. They may appear to be “correct” in what you state, but even a blind pig can find an occasional truffle. Their views are just as dangerous as those of the far-liberal kind of Catholicism. Avoid both and be faithful to the Magisterium and the Holy Father. To do otherwise sets you outside the Church and that’s not where you want to be in this day and age.

 

[Gorgias]

Altar girls caused the priest shortage? Well, if a young man cannot answer God’s call merely because he has something against altar girls, then I think that the Church is much better off–that sort of fellow ought not be a priest anyway.

LOL! Are you trying to lampoon the argument deliberately?

OK: here’s the case that they’re trying to make (I’m not saying I agree with it, but at least I can state the case without horribly mischaracterizing it):

The experience of being an altar boy is something that is strongly correlated with later priestly vocations. Therefore, there’s something that happens in serving as an acolyte as a boy that later helps a young man in his discernment for the priesthood. Now, young boys (who are of the age to be acolytes) are trying to come to terms with their gender identity. As such, they typically don’t want to be associated with activities that are seen as ‘girly’. So, if there’s a mixed-gender activity which takes on the tenor of a “girl’s activity”, a young boy will be less inclined to participate. And, this means that the opportunity to experience something that’s correlated with later priestly discernment (and vocations) is lost.

Now – does this mean that young men who discern the priesthood “have something against altar girls”? Of course not – that’s just ludicrous! But, does this mean that these young men, when they were young boys, would be less likely to serve at the altar if it were seen as “girly”? Yes, this is exactly the case that some make.

If you have a case to make against it, please do. It would help further the discussion. But, please don’t just ridicule and mischaracterize the assertion.

While I don’t believe that altar girls actually dissuade boys from becoming priests

They don’t; however, it’s possible that they might dissuade boys from becoming altar servers.

I do believe that the experience can greatly strengthen the faith of the girls who participate. Some of them might even become nuns!

Interesting thought! Do you have any citations from studies that make a correlation between girls serving at the altar with later religious vocations?

 

[pianistclare]

Brother.

 

[LisaA]

LOL! Are you trying to lampoon the argument deliberately?

OK: here’s the case that they’re trying to make (I’m not saying I agree with it, but at least I can state the case without horribly mischaracterizing it):

The experience of being an altar boy is something that is strongly correlated with later priestly vocations. Therefore, there’s something that happens in serving as an acolyte as a boy that later helps a young man in his discernment for the priesthood. Now, young boys (who are of the age to be acolytes) are trying to come to terms with their gender identity. As such, they typically don’t want to be associated with activities that are seen as ‘girly’. So, if there’s a mixed-gender activity which takes on the tenor of a “girl’s activity”, a young boy will be less inclined to participate. And, this means that the opportunity to experience something that’s correlated with later priestly discernment (and vocations) is lost.

Now – does this mean that young men who discern the priesthood “have something against altar girls”? Of course not – that’s just ludicrous! But, does this mean that these young men, when they were young boys, would be less likely to serve at the altar if it were seen as “girly”? Yes, this is exactly the case that some make.

If you have a case to make against it, please do. It would help further the discussion. But, please don’t just ridicule and mischaracterize the assertion.

They don’t; however, it’s possible that they might dissuade boys from becoming altar servers.

Interesting thought! Do you have any citations from studies that make a correlation between girls serving at the altar with later religious vocations?

My sentiments exactly. I think many are misreading the reference to Altar Girls. At that age they are not interested in girls or in girl oriented activities. In our parish two young men are discerning a vocation. Both were Altar Servers. More than a few priests have said that working with and interacting with great priests had a huge influence on their decision. similarly a Franciscan retreat center has “Franciscan Girls” who served alongside the Sisters, again to demonstrate the joy of their vocation. Somehow “Franciscan Boys” doesn’t have the same impact.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Well merely coincidence that over 80% were boys? I don’t think heterosexual men are attracted to males of ANY age. So you think that the only criteria was that the victim be a minor? That otherwise heterosexual males ignored their chromosomes and their hormones just so they could prey sexually upon a minor of either gender?

Here’s the irony, the same people who are so determined to avoid calling this problem what it is, predatory homosexuality, are the same ones who claim that one cannot change their sexual orientation Sorry that dog don’t hunt.

The Jay Report focuses on abuse and does not address the problems caused by homosexuality in the seminaries, in the priesthood, in monasteries, and with orders, etc. That these abusive priests were caught and prosecuted (as they should have been) for preying upon minors does not mean they were not also engaged in homosexual activity with other men. In fact there were subsequent reports that certain seminaries were a hotbed of homosexual activity and a holy and orthodox candidate need not apply or if he did was quickly voted off the island.

Please explain if you still believe that the abusing priests did not experience SSA but simply went after whatever kid was available, why 80% of the victims were males? Further as the Jay Report did investigate, did this change in later years? IOW the early cases of priest abuse had a far greater incidence of preying upon girls AND boys. But factor in the later years and the huge swing to almost exclusively male victims reduced it to a mere 80%.

As written by Rev McCloskey, featured in Crisis Magazine

One myth that is dispelled in the report’s pages is that there are many pedophiles in the priesthood. Of nearly 6,000 priests accused of abuse over the past half-century (only 5 percent of the total number of priests during that period), less than 4 percent of those could be considered pedophiles — that is, men who prey on children. Any percentage is too high, but clearly pedophilia is statistically very rare in the Catholic priesthood. The researchers also note that celibacy is not the root of the problem, and that priests may be less likely to abuse than men in analogous professions.

However, there is still something strange here: The researchers found no statistical evidence that gay priests were more likely than straight priests to abuse minors. The disproportionate number of adolescent male victims was about opportunity, not preference or pathology, the report concluded. But a very high percentage of the abuse (excepting pedophilia) was of teenage boys, and not teenage girls. Is the report telling us that a majority of the abusers were heterosexual priests abusing teenage boys? This strains credulity. I sense an agenda for the homosexual priesthood is behind this conclusion.

And this from Karl Keating, CAF President, Myth Buster

Myth: Children have been the main victims of priestly sexual abuse.

Fact: Since more than 95 percent of all the victims of priestly sexual abuse, as reported by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, are not prepubescent, that means that adolescents have been the primary victims.

Myth: Pedophile priests have been the problem.

Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.

Myth: The problem is on-going.

Fact: The homosexual scandal took place mostly between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. In the last ten years, the average number of credible accusations made against 40,000 priests is in the single digits.

Myth: The Church’s repressive teachings on sexuality are the problem.

Fact: It was liberals outside the Church who pushed for the sexual revolution, and it was liberals in the Church who abetted the revolution in the seminaries. Moreover, it was liberals who promoted therapy as the way to deal with molesters, instead of using punitive measures.

Italicization mine.
,

 

[Gorgias]

TFirst…he’s not even taking into account that the reason many girls are altar servers is that fewer boys want to do it in the first place, so the churches are trying to fill in the spaces.

The question, though, is whether the decline in numbers of male acolytes preceded or followed the advent of female acolytes. If you can show that it’s the former, then you have a case. If not, then wouldn’t we say that a (relatively) recent decline is at least contemporary with female altar servers?

Second, doesn’t it occur to him that the boys who have, what he calls, “a certain manly discipline" are exactly the kind of boys who don’t like to be in the “serving” position.

Really? Now we’re telling boys that they can’t serve because… they want to act like boys? Hmm…

Third, how could having a handful of altar girls…would it even be 5 percent…have already “feminized" the Catholic church? If that’s all it took, no wonder he’s so afraid.

LOL! 5 percent? You haven’t seen the ranks of altar servers recently… have you?

Moreover, if you re-read the article – heck, if you read its title! – you’d see that the claim isn’t that female altar servers have ‘feminized’ the Church. Rather, his claim is that two distinct things – a ‘feminized’ Church and girl altar servers – have resulted in lower rates of ordination.

Four…he says: “Young boys don’t want to do things with girls. It’s just natural." It would be nice if he actually cited one conversation with a Catholic boy who told him he did not want to be an altar server because girls did it. I’ve heard boys say the opposite.

Pick something that boys perceive as “girl activities”, and ask them if they want to do it, especially if he’ll be doing it in the sight of everyone. I betcha you hear a different story than you expect.

 

[pnewton]

No less fascinating than your characterization of your comment, which completely ignores the emotional part of the post.

When I read her/his post earlier, I did not take it as emotional. As that point has been clarified by the poster, it is not nice to think you would know more of his/her emotional state the he/she does. (or that they are lying)

 

[SMGS127]

Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent.

So you share Mr. Keating’s belief that 9-year-olds are post-pubescent? Because 14% of abused victims were 10 or under and 65% were 14 and under.

Personally, I wouldn’t even remotely consider the beliefs of someone who believed 8 and 9-year-olds, let alone 12-14 year-olds were “post-pubescent.”

 

[pnewton]

So you share Mr. Keating’s belief that 9-year-olds are post-pubescent? Because 14% of abused victims were 10 or under and 65% were 14 and under.

Personally, I wouldn’t even remotely consider the beliefs of someone who believed 8 and 9-year-olds, let alone 12-14 year-olds were “post-pubescent.”

I just looked at the article. No such statements as these are in the article. What are you talking about?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Full transcript:

newemangelization.com/uncategorized/cardinal-raymond-leo-burke-on-the-catholic-man-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it/

 

[lerapt78]

So you share Mr. Keating’s belief that 9-year-olds are post-pubescent? Because 14% of abused victims were 10 or under and 65% were 14 and under.

Personally, I wouldn’t even remotely consider the beliefs of someone who believed 8 and 9-year-olds, let alone 12-14 year-olds were “post-pubescent.”

I agree with others who suggest this has been a predominantly homosexual predation problem, and not a paedophiliac one.

Many 9 year-olds can in fact be post-pubescent.

Many theories exist surrounding the increases in early puberty in young girls and boys, but while the causes are unclear, the rise in numbers is a certainty. Precocious puberty, defined as the onset of signs of puberty before ages 7 or 8 in girls and age 9 in boys, can be physically and emotionally difficult.

Burkhart, L. (May-June 2012). The rise in precocious puberty. Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, pNA.

This source lists the average age of puberty for boys as 11 years:

In contrast, progesterone was higher in girls during the first year of life and again during adolescence. Unlike those 2 hormones, estradiol did not demonstrate significant sex differences during infancy. Therefore, 1 reference interval was considered suitable for both sexes between the ages of 15 days and 1 year. A small spike was evident in both sexes during the first year of life, followed by a plateau lasting until puberty (girls, age 9 years; boys, age 11 years)(Fig. 2A).

Konforte, D., Shea, J.L., Kyriakopoulou, L., et. al. (August 2013). Complex biological pattern of fertility hormones in children and adolescents: a study of healthy children from the CALIPER cohort and establishment of pediatric reference intervals. Clinical Chemistry, v59 i(8), p.1215-16.

And this source lists the average age as 10:

Boys are entering puberty at an average age of 10 among whites and Hispanics, and at an average age of 9 among African-Americans. About a third of boys start to mature sexually up to two years earlier than average.

webmd.com/children/news/20121020/earlier-puberty-age-9-10-average-us-boy

I take into account that because the average age of puberty for both males and females has been decreasing, the victims at the time of molestation (from 20-30 years ago) may have been in the higher-age pubertal bracket. But the average age of puberty before was 12 years old, not older than 14. So even taking that into consideration, according to your post, the 65% (from the 14 and under group) would most likely have been post-pubescent.

 

[AnnArbor]

When I read her/his post earlier, I did not take it as emotional. As that point has been clarified by the poster, it is not nice to think you would know more of his/her emotional state the he/she does. (or that they are lying)

I found that interesting as well. And a little amusing.

 

[AnnArbor]

No less fascinating than your characterization of your comment, which completely ignores the emotional part of the post.

I think PNewton has covered this point already. And correctly.

I’d ask them what they meant by it. Or, perhaps, I’d suggest that men retaliate by ceasing to participate in Church activities …

I’m not suggesting “retaliation.” The cardinal is suggesting that girls’ participation in serving at the altar is somehow responsible for the decline in vocations due to boys not wanting to participate in “girl” activities. If the Church should become more masculine, then the huge number of activities primarily performed by women, some of which I referenced, should perhaps be undertaken by men. And, apparently, that involves women stepping aside so that men feel more comfortable.

 

[casslean]

I agree with others who suggest this has been a predominantly homosexual predation problem, and not a paedophiliac one.

So, by that theory, rape is a predominantly heterosexual predation problem? Even though we know rapists don’t rape because of the sex, but because the sex allows them to dominate?

It is a predation issue, but has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Molesters don’t molest because they are homosexual; they are molesters.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

LOL! Are you trying to lampoon the argument deliberately?

OK: here’s the case that they’re trying to make (I’m not saying I agree with it, but at least I can state the case without horribly mischaracterizing it):

The experience of being an altar boy is something that is strongly correlated with later priestly vocations. Therefore, there’s something that happens in serving as an acolyte as a boy that later helps a young man in his discernment for the priesthood. Now, young boys (who are of the age to be acolytes) are trying to come to terms with their gender identity. As such, they typically don’t want to be associated with activities that are seen as ‘girly’. So, if there’s a mixed-gender activity which takes on the tenor of a “girl’s activity”, a young boy will be less inclined to participate. And, this means that the opportunity to experience something that’s correlated with later priestly discernment (and vocations) is lost.

Now – does this mean that young men who discern the priesthood “have something against altar girls”? Of course not – that’s just ludicrous! But, does this mean that these young men, when they were young boys, would be less likely to serve at the altar if it were seen as “girly”? Yes, this is exactly the case that some make.

If you have a case to make against it, please do. It would help further the discussion. But, please don’t just ridicule and mischaracterize the assertion.

They don’t; however, it’s possible that they might dissuade boys from becoming altar servers.

Interesting thought! Do you have any citations from studies that make a correlation between girls serving at the altar with later religious vocations?

Are boys no longer interested in becoming Congressional Pages because that is now open to girls, too? Are men no longer pursuing law or medicine because those professions are now populated by many women? The distinction may be subtle, but I don’t think the issue is that serving is per se seen as “girly,” but that, at least in the OF, there is just so little left to the server’s role: typically, all a server does is handle the crusts/ lavabo basin, and the processional cross. It’s not that girls are doing it, it’s that there’s no challenge, no real immersion in the liturgy, not much to do except tasks that are essentially marginal. Boys respond to challenges; what’s the challenge in bringing crusts over? So as I have stated in similar posts, the problem isn’t the presence of girls, it’s the fact that there’s no “there, there” in terms of what the task involves. I have trouble seeing how bringing crusts and a basin over to Fathef provides the level of either exposure and motivation that corresponds to the meme that serving is a track to the priesthood.

And I also think that people making that claim overlook the reality that priests are now - and this is a generalization - very reluctant to spend time with boys, for obvious reasons. The influence of such time together on fostering vocations in times past can’t be overstated I think. Now, boys are kept at arm’s length, typically with minimal contact and that only with other people around. Back in the day, I was invited to make short car trips with priests when they ran errands, spend time talking in the rectory, even “baby sitting” the rectory phone when both priests had to be out. Can anyone see such things happening today? I’d argue that those contacts were far more “immersive” and vocation- encouraging than handling cruets. And those contacts are, I would think, a thing of the past. (And by the way, nothing, absolutely nothing, untoward every happened during my many times alone with various priests. Uniformly great guys.)

 

[ProVobis]

A “young man” is 18, 19, 20.

Who says?

Calling someone a “young man” makes both a a 3-yr old and a 61-yr old happy.
Just like calling someone “young lady.” (or “Senorita” if you’re Spanish)

 

[casslean]

And I also think that people making that claim overlook the reality that priests are now - and this is a generalization - very reluctant to spend time with boys, for obvious reasons. The influence of such time together on fostering vocations in times past can’t be overstated I think. Now, boys are kept at arm’s length, typically with minimal contact and that only with other people around. Back in the day, I was invited to make short car trips with priests when they ran errands, spend time talking in the rectory, even “baby sitting” the rectory phone when both priests had to be out. Can anyone see such things happening today? I’d argue that those contacts were far more “immersive” and vocation- encouraging than handling cruets. And those contacts are, I would think, a thing of the past. (And by the way, nothing, absolutely nothing, untoward every happened during my many times alone with various priests. Uniformly great guys.)

I think you’ve hit on a really great point here, and one which doesn’t get enough attention.
Sadly, your comment reminded me of a conversation I had with a (non-Catholic) friend. I was praising both of the priests in our parish because they are so comfortable interacting with the children of the parish. The friend’s reaction was predictable - as if the parents of the parish were somehow risking their children’s welfare by letting them interact with two kind, compassionate professionals who should be an important influence in their lives.

In many professions, people can cite their influences as a key figure from early in their life - a family friend, a mentor, etc. As long as priests are at “arm’s length” from the boys we want to follow in their footsteps, it makes it difficult for those boys to find mentors and role models, and ultimately to see themselves in that role.

 

[ProVobis]

…If the Church should become more masculine, then the huge number of activities primarily performed by women, some of which I referenced, should perhaps be undertaken by men. And, apparently, that involves women stepping aside so that men feel more comfortable.

Banning female servers, readers, extraordinary ministers wouldn’t change much in way of attendance. The whole experience of the liturgy has been feminized to the point of no return. These tasks are now seen as “girly” things. Feminism was in the air before Vatican II; the spirit of Vatican II merely solidified it. IMO.