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

[ProVobis]

And, apparently, that involves women stepping aside so that men feel more comfortable.

Fat chance the women running parishes would turn control over to the men.

 

[mjs2001]

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. ?

I think that you start from a false premise: that there is a strong correlation between being an altar boy and a later priestly vocation. What percentage of altar boys become priests? Perhaps you are suggesting that most priests were once an altar boy. That may be true, but all priests were catholic before entering the priesthood. From your logic, we would have more priests if we barred women from the church entirely.

I also disagree with the “gender identity” argument. I don’t see the point of barring girls from being altar servers just to accommodate a few boys that have gender identity issues. I think that rather than affirming and bolstering these gender identity issues, we might be able to help boys deal with them appropriately. Why would we want to have priests with gender identity issues.

I think it’s quite clear that some people have “something against altar girls.” I’m not certain how that statement is ludicrous. It’s the whole point of the discussion.

 

[ProVobis]

…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.

Good point.

At least the tongue-twisting “Suscipiat” in Latin was always a challenge. Among other things, of course.

 

[gracepoole]

Fat chance the women running parishes would turn control over to the men.

It’s not an either/or proposition. I’ve never experienced a parish in which women maintained leadership control with a vise grip. In fact, I’ve never experienced a parish in which leadership was overwhelmingly female to the detriment of men within a parish.

 

[SWolf]

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.

I notice in parishes where they only have male altar servers there are a multitude more who volunteer. They also tend to bend more traditionally, as would be expected.

As for a feminized Mass:

I remember my first time in a Extraordinary Form Mass. An old priest, probably in his seventies, gave the most fiery sermon I ever heard in his life. One line stuck with me:

“I tell you, anyone who takes their faith seriously better be reading the Bible every night.”

It wasn’t a request, or a suggestion, It jarred me from my seat. I now realize the sermon wasn’t that that rough, but sounded brutal compared to the mushy sermons I was so used to, He was like a football coach screaming in my ear I could do better.

Compare this to what you’re more likely to hear in most parishes.

Another priest, a red-headed Scotsman, was talking before the final blessing after an OF Mass about some Joker who was putting anti-Catholic videos on Church goer’s windows.

“To all of you who got this video. I don’t want you to watch it. I want you to destroy it. Also, if anyone knows who this person is, tell me. I want to speak with him PERSONALLY.”

Tough, uncompromising talk appeals to men.

If we get more priest like the above ministering to kids. We will have many more vocations. It’s no coincidence the parishes above have many Seminiarians.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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.)

 

[LisaA]

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.

You keep making these sweeping generalizations without providing either a source or a context. In fact rape IS predominently “heterosexual” in that it is male upon female. Rapists don’t rape because of sex? Really? I know a few psychiatrists, counsellors and policemen who would beg to differ. While indeed more than a few rapists claim they are sexually stimulated by the terror and struggle of their victim, the demonstration of power is necessary to accomplish the goal, **the sexual act. **. If it were simply a desire to have power, why not simply restrict your victim, listen to her scream and then leave her tied up as you search for the next unwilling prey?

It simply makes no sense and that you provide nothing but your opinion makes the statement less credible. Getting back to the priest abuse problem, while you claim it too is “all about power” please do some reading as to the actual process in most of these cases. The youth were not “raped” or assaulted in the usual sense but as was pointed out, in most cases it was a seduction process whereby a youth was singled out, flattered, given gifts or opportunities for “special time” with the priest. At a certain point some sort of fondling ensued and other forms of giving the priest sexual pleasure…I’ll spare the details. Further as the original reporters noted, the predator priests were quite adept at choosing youth who were vulnerable, those without a father figure in the home, a father with a drinking or drug problem, or one that was disengaged from his children. The priest offered himself as a “father figure” to the parents who then didn’t question why Jimmy was going to the swimming pool or on a camping trip with Father or spending the night in the Rectory. Further in the minds of some of these predatory Priests, the youth approached or came on to them!

As to claiming this is not an issue of homosexuality despite the FACT that the vast majority of abusing priests exclusively abused young males…how patently absurd. It is simply the mantra of the PC police who don’t want to demonize the Sacred Cow (Bull?) of the gay activist cohort. As one poster noted, most abusers have a “type” upon which they prey. The idea that a heterosexual male would deliberately choose males because they were “available” is even more absurd. Any port in a storm? Good grief are you kidding?

How many heterosexual males EVER find other males sexually attractive? How many heterosexual males would not be totally repulsed, not only by the idea of abusing minors but by the idea of sexual activity with another male? Sexual orientation may not be genetic and immutable, but once established, it’s very difficult to change. Further while there are those predominently homosexual who will or have had relationships with females. The same cannot be said for heterosexual males who are very unlikely to have even considered engaging in homosexual acts. Even if priests were more likely to have access to males, the idea that a heterosexual male would approach another male for sexual gratification is ridiculous. This was a problem of predatory homosexuals using the priesthood to hide their sexual orientation and taking advantage of the kind of respect and authority given priests at the time, thus allowing them to gratify their desires by abusing vulnerable young men.

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

What solution do you propose?

 

[ProVobis]

It’s not an either/or proposition. I’ve never experienced a parish in which women maintained leadership control with a vise grip. In fact, I’ve never experienced a parish in which leadership was overwhelmingly female to the detriment of men within a parish.

I would say women running parishes are more permanent than the priests or bishops who are appointed to administer them. Try changing anything and you’re sure to get a “That’s not the way we do things around here” response. As someone noted, most parishes are basically “stuck in the 70’s.”

 

[ProVobis]

What solution do you propose?

I don’t know. Find more Cardinal Burkes?

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Another priest, a red-headed Scotsman, was talking before the final blessing after an OF Mass about some Joker who was putting anti-Catholic videos on Church goer’s windows.

“To all of you who got this video. I don’t want you to watch it. I want you to destroy it. Also, if anyone knows who this person is, tell me. I want to speak with him PERSONALLY.”

Tough, uncompromising talk appeals to men.

If we get more priest like the above ministering to kids. We will have many more vocations. It’s no coincidence the parishes above have many Seminiarians.

#priestlyswag #Jesussmackdown

I usually just roll my eyes at that kind of comical bravado. I for one am glad the Catholic Church didn’t embrace the hypermasculine fad that was trendy for a period in some Christian circles.

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t know. Find more Cardinal Burkes?

Do you know what Cardinal Burke is doing to address this problem?

Have any articles been written on how the Cardinals plan to address the situation?

 

[ProVobis]

Do you know what Cardinal Burke is doing to address this problem?

I think last time something serious was tried ended up in some “schismatic” behavior.

 

[SWolf]

#priestlyswag #Jesussmackdown

I usually just roll my eyes at that kind of comical bravado. I for one am glad the Catholic Church didn’t embrace the hypermasculine fad that was trendy for a period in some Christian circles.

If you knew the guy, you would realize that it wasn’t “comical bravado”.

 

[casslean]

You keep making these sweeping generalizations without providing either a source or a context. In fact rape IS predominently “heterosexual” in that it is male upon female. Rapists don’t rape because of sex? Really? I know a few psychiatrists, counsellors and policemen who would beg to differ. While indeed more than a few rapists claim they are sexually stimulated by the terror and struggle of their victim, the demonstration of power is necessary to accomplish the goal, **the sexual act. **. If it were simply a desire to have power, why not simply restrict your victim, listen to her scream and then leave her tied up as you search for the next unwilling prey?

And if it were just about sex, why do married men rape? Why do men in sexually active relationship rape? Because it is about power - it is about domination. Sexual domination is one of the most subjugating things a man can do to a woman. A narrow branch of evolutionary psychologists have attempted to argue that stranger rapes are prompted by sexual gratification, but that theory completely ignores the incidence of date rapes and marital rapes. (Palmer & Thornhill, A Natural History of Rape, Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives, eds. David M. Buss and Neil M. Malamuth.)

Further, it has since been suggested that even the evolutionary psychology studies which offered those initial theories on sexual gratification were responding to a criminal justice system which was more likely to prosecute a certain type of offender (socioeconomically disadvantaged young men). (Barber, “Is rape about control or sex?” Psychology Today, April 2011)

It simply makes no sense and that you provide nothing but your opinion makes the statement less credible. Getting back to the priest abuse problem, while you claim it too is “all about power” please do some reading as to the actual process in most of these cases. The youth were not “raped” or assaulted in the usual sense but as was pointed out, in most cases it was a seduction process whereby a youth was singled out, flattered, given gifts or opportunities for “special time” with the priest. At a certain point some sort of fondling ensued and other forms of giving the priest sexual pleasure…I’ll spare the details. Further as the original reporters noted, the predator priests were quite adept at choosing youth who were vulnerable, those without a father figure in the home, a father with a drinking or drug problem, or one that was disengaged from his children. The priest offered himself as a “father figure” to the parents who then didn’t question why Jimmy was going to the swimming pool or on a camping trip with Father or spending the night in the Rectory. Further in the minds of some of these predatory Priests, the youth approached or came on to them!

Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders . New York : Basic Books. - Since you want my sources, I’d suggest this book. It will make very clear to you that the majority of molesters “groom” their victims in this manner, as a way of gaining power and control over them. That’s why they pick victims based on vulnerability, not attractiveness.

There are easily dozens of other studies which back up that assertion. This isn’t my opinion; it’s accepted fact in the psychiatric and psychological community.

 

[rotlex]

Well, we certainly don’t want the bride of Christ to be feminized.

I think the answer is for women to stop serving funeral dinners, washing altar linens, teaching CCD, singing in choirs, acting as parish secretaries, teaching in Catholic schools for wages much lower than their public-school counterparts. Why confine ourselves to altar servers?

Absolutely. And lets add to that we should remove women’s religious orders. Lets oust the nuns even further. Heck, they played such a small part in the Church for all those decades setting up and running schools, hospitals, shelters and the like. Yeah, who needs them at all!

Yeah, letting girls be alter servers is simply destroying the Church.

 

[Sarcelle]

I have seen this phenomenon no matter the church I go to. Now this is just personal experience but I have seen women outnumber the men in Evangelical churches, Greek Orthodox churches and yes, Catholic churches. I have also seen older people outnumber the younger ones.

The general churchgoing population is usually older and female.

I highly doubt that disallowing altar girls will solve this problem.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In response to no post in particular, I thought it might be useful to note that the old altar boy role wasn’t just a matter of doing what altar servers do now, which is practically nothing.

I don’t know if every former altar boy got the same background information on it than was prevalent where I live, but at the very beginning of our instruction we were told that acolytes of old were semi-clerical and, during the catacomb days served a secondary purpose of providing physical protection to the priest and the Eucharist. We were told (the tellers were undoubtedly a bit amused by this) that if it came to it, we were to resist any attack on the priest and/or altar as a sort of “last line of defense”.

I know it sounds silly to people nowadays, but at the time and as young boys we took both things seriously. We weren’t priests, but we were “acolytes”, not just “altar boys”, and as such we sort of had at least a tiny participation in the clerical state; one from which we could go no further, or could. Also, that “guardian” role was just the sort of thing a young boy could respond to. It amuses me to recall eyeing the congregation to see if any potential attackers might be ready to leap forward. (I particularly kept my eye on a certain bald-headed man who usually sat in the front)

Is that all just silliness? Well, to post-modern Americans, I guess it is. To today’s increasingly cynical and jaded youth it might seem so. But things like that did, and I suspect would now, really have an affect on young boys. Add to that the “Romanness” of the Latin prayers and the almost military precision of the movements (It was a LOT more than just holding cruets) and it did have an attraction. (We actually knew about ancient Romans back then.) Was that attraction peculiar to boys? Many today would debate it, but if we judge by the near absence of boys from the altar now and the near slovenliness and uselessness of the servers now, can one really say its opposite would not?

Were churchmen perhaps more clever once than now? I don’t mean only in priest recruitment, but also in terms of giving life lessons to young boys who, if we are honest with ourselves, are practically born hooligans. As the father of a son and of daughters and the grandfather of many girls and boys, I know boys need discipline in a way girls do not. I further know they are impressed by things to which girls are, more often than not, indifferent.

And commitment? When it was a boy’s duty, it was impressed on boys that it was, in fact, a duty. If you were scheduled to serve at Saturday morning Mass, you were there. You had to be there. It was a commitment. And whether you just woke up or not, you performed with that exacting precision to which you were also committed. Does that kind of thing make any difference in later views of commitment of other kinds? I’m sure some would think not, but i think it did. Was your commitment gender-determined? Yes it was.

And today, when we find that (what is it now?) 40% of young men do not commit themselves to marriage, can we be sure that the absence of serious gender-based commitment early in life makes no difference in later outcomes? Do boys who are never trained to be other than the Huns they would be otherwise, remain Huns for life?

I don’t know, but I think there’s something to that. Today we are so willing, even eager, to toss aside all “wisdoms of the generations”; lessons gained through centuries, even millenia. We know better, we think, in all things, because we can turn an ignition key and use a remote. But are we wiser? I don’t think we are.

 

[SWolf]

I have seen this phenomenon no matter the church I go to. Now this is just personal experience but I have seen women outnumber the men in Evangelical churches, Greek Orthodox churches and yes, Catholic churches. I have also seen older people outnumber the younger ones.

The general churchgoing population is usually older and female.

I highly doubt that disallowing altar girls will solve this problem.

I would recommend reading the full interview if you haven’t already. He goes into much more depth that’s not really possible to put it into a sound bite headline. Even if some disagree, one can’t argue he has thought over this very thoroughly.

 

[SWolf]

I don’t know if every former altar boy got the same background information on it than was prevalent where I live, but at the very beginning of our instruction we were told that acolytes of old were semi-clerical and, during the catacomb days served a secondary purpose of providing physical protection to the priest and the Eucharist. We were told (the tellers were undoubtedly a bit amused by this) that if it came to it, we were to resist any attack on the priest and/or altar as a sort of “last line of defense”.

I know it sounds silly to people nowadays, but at the time and as young boys we took both things seriously. We weren’t priests, but we were “acolytes”, not just “altar boys”, and as such we sort of had at least a tiny participation in the clerical state; one from which we could go no further, or could. Also, that “guardian” role was just the sort of thing a young boy could respond to. It amuses me to recall eyeing the congregation to see if any potential attackers might be ready to leap forward. (I particularly kept my eye on a certain bald-headed man who usually sat in the front)

Adult men respond to it just as well. The Knights of Columbus comes to mind.