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

[Gorgias]

When I read her/his post earlier, I did not take it as emotional.

In response to the suggestion that young boys might not wish to partake in activities which they perceive as ‘girly’, Ann suggested that women withdraw from completely distinct ministries in which they participate. Does this strike you as logical? If so, what’s the linkage that you’re asserting? If not, then how would you characterize her suggestion?

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)

Suggesting that I’m accusing Ann of lying – and the anachronism inherent in your suggestion – isn’t ‘nice’, either. Ann responded to my post without responding to the portion of her post which I characterized as ‘emotional’, and I simply pointed out that fact. To then accuse me of suggesting she’s lying, is hardly charitable. Pot… meet kettle.

There are many valid points to be discussed in the context of this thread, many of which are contentious and generate heated responses. Attempting to throttle discussion, by making unfounded or unfair accusations, hardly moves this discussion forward.

 

[pnewton]

Attempting to throttle discussion, by making unfounded or unfair accusations, hardly moves this discussion forward

Pot… meet kettle.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

No. Priests did not have anywhere remotely near as much access to young women as they did to young men. There are other, much more simpler reasons for the priest scandal. As the John Jay Report said, homosexuality/homosexual priests was/were not, in any way whatsoever, a contributing factor to the priestly abuse scandal.

The JJ report was not that emphatic, but that homosexuality was not an important factor in the sex-abuse crisis.

According to the report, homosexuality was not an important factor in the sex-abuse crisis. But that conclusion seems to be clearly at odds with the evidence presented in the text. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who has treated many troubled priests, commented that that “analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males.”

The John Jay report confirms that more than 80% of the victims of abusive priests were males. Most other studies of sexual abuse in the general population have shown that female victims easily outnumber males. Yet in this particular study, the largest group of victims was composed of adolescent males.

Although the sex-abuse crisis has often been characterized as a problem of pedophilia, the John Jay report rightly dismisses that characterization as inaccurate. Only about 5% of the abusive priests were true pedophiles, preying on small children, the report says. While true pedophiles generally molest boys or girls indiscriminately, the priests who abused young people showed a marked preference for boys.

Moreover, the John Jay report mentions that among the priests who were placed in treatment centers for evaluation, 80% admitted to violations of chastity, and “most sexual behavior was with adults.” Most of those who abused children also had adult partners, the report disclosed. Although the report does not differentiate between male and female adult partners—an enormous omission—one might speculate that adult homosexual affairs were common among the molesters. Dr. Fitzgibbons has commented in the past that he has never treated a priest who abused children who did not also have adult male sexual partners.

With all that evidence suggesting a strong role for homosexuality, how did the John Jay study avoid the conclusion? The report offers two anemic explanations.

First, the John Jay study notes that the incidence of sexual abuse by priests peaked in the 1960s and 1970s, and then subsided. From interviews with priests, seminarians, and seminary instructors, the authors of the report conclude that active homosexuals became an important influence on seminary life and priestly training in the mid-1970s. “There was no evidence of any significant level of sexual activity among seminaries before the mid-1970s,” the report says. Yet the priests who were ordained after the mid-1970s—that is, after homosexuals became a major influence–were statistically less likely to have abused children.

As an argument that homosexuality was not a factor in priestly abuse, this is a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: the assumption that because something happened after a given event, it must have been caused by that event. There may be many different reasons for the decline in the incidence of priestly abuse; the John Jay report presents a variety of possible explanations. But there is no evidence to suggest that homosexual priests were less likely to be abusers. It is at least equally plausible to speculate that priests trained in the 1970s and thereafter found it easier to identify adult homosexual partners—for relationships that would still be abusive, even if they did not involve children.

Second, the John Jay report offers the generalization that priests had more access to young men than to young women, and that difference would account for the prevalence of male victims. But that explanation is credible only if priests saw young men and young women as equally desirable sexual objects. In my line of work, I have more access to old magazines than to T-bone steaks. Still I never eat magazines, because I do not think of magazines as food. Yes, priests had more access to altar boys than to girls of a similar age. But that access would have been a determining factor only for priests who saw young men as potential sex objects. The John Jay report fails to provide an honest exploration of the role of homosexuality, and thus neglects another key factor in this scandal.

 

[pnewton]

Or, perhaps, it’s more accurate to conclude that you equate the emotional states of boys with those of men? On the face of it, that’s an assertion that’s completely illogical; one might, instead, conclude that your assertions proceed from something other than rationality…

They do have one thing in common. Neither are “uncomfortable” being with the opposite sex. This may come as a great surprise to those out of touch with the secular world, but we have had co-ed primary schools for years. They work fine. Boys and girls participate in many activities together. The idea that a boy would not serve the altar of God because of icky girls is thin. An excuse is not a reason. Training boys to bail for such petty reasons hardly teaches them they should give their whole life for God.

Oh, and I regret that you think I suggested you were lying (which I did not). I will attempt to use simpler grammar to clarify such points.

 

[pnewton]

Cardinal Burke does expand “feminized” to priests: to quote from the article:

We have to be very clear with men about purity, chastity, modesty and even the way men dress and present themselves

In light of the altar girl issue, I was thinking about what makes a man. While I agree with the later, I do not think I can accept the former. “Present themselves” is too external. How can this be measured? The pitch of the voice? (no tenors) Too much lilt? (no Irish) I mean, is it the external appearance that makes a man, or what is on the inside. Therefore, I will take the opposite position that if we are to teach boys to be men, then catering to those who do not want to do anything a girl might do is counterproductive. Such boys should be told to buck it up and not find excuses to avoid service to God. That is being a man. Men do not turn tail because of some little discomfort. Boys need godly exposure to girls to know how to treat them with equal dignity. This can never occur too early.

Oh, and the “dress themselves” part, I find funny (ha ha, funny. Really!) since we put the altar boys in white dresses to serve.

 

[Gorgias]

Oh, and I regret that you think I suggested you were lying (which I did not). I will attempt to use simpler grammar to clarify such points.

Yes, please do. If it’s that difficult to think charitably about me – that perhaps it was an error on my part, posting as I was at 2am – then simpler grammar would be a blessing.

(Of course, perhaps that means that there’s something even more egregious that would legitimately give you something to regret – since your clarification implies that you suggested, without cause, that I’m calling Ann a liar! :sad_yes

 

[NeedsMercy]

Wow. Burke has really outdone himself. The next thing you know, he’ll be blaming us for world hunger, cancer, terrorism and climate change too. The great **feminine **saints like Teresa of Avila, Gertrude, Joan of Arc and Catherine of Siena should come down from Heaven and beat him with a wet noodle…

 

[AnnArbor]

Interesting segue. Since young boys might feel uncomfortable “participating in ‘girl’ activities”, you suggest that an appropriate response is that “women should step aside so that men feel more comfortable.”

Tell me… do you really think that men are uncomfortable around women? Or, perhaps, it’s more accurate to conclude that you equate the emotional states of boys with those of men? On the face of it, that’s an assertion that’s completely illogical; one might, instead, conclude that your assertions proceed from something other than rationality…

You seem to have an unusually high interest in insisting that my statements are rooted in a motion and not in logic. Or perhaps it is just a misunderstanding of irony.

Obviously, I am not suggesting that women step aside. I am pointing out that the bulk of work and parishes is, in fact, performed by women. If we want the church to become more manly, that men need to step up and serve as launderers of altar linens, cleaners of the sacristy, teachers of children, arrangers of flowers, servers at funeral dinners, etc. none of these tasks are in anyway inherently feminine.

If boys do not wish to participate in service at the altar because it is perceived as “girlie,” the solution is not to bar girls from alter service. The solution is to teach boys that a) there is nothing inherently “girlie” about serving at the altar and there is nothing wrong with participating in an activity with girls and b) it is wrong to use “girlie” as a pejorative term.

 

[Gorgias]

If boys do not wish to participate in service at the altar because it is perceived as “girlie,” the solution is not to bar girls from alter service. The solution is to teach boys that a) there is nothing inherently “girlie” about serving at the altar and there is nothing wrong with participating in an activity with girls

This is true. Yet, we’re not talking about whether altar serving is inherently ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, but rather, a child’s perception about whether it is something that girls do or boys do (or that both boys and girls do).

Here’s a question for you: do you agree that children tend to form social groups by gender, such that boys generally socialize with boys, and girls with girls? If so, have you ever seen what happens when a boy steps out of his group and its activities and into an activity that the group perceives as something that boys do not do? The group’s negative reaction – or, even just the boy’s perception of what the reaction will be – drives the boy back into more ‘accepted’ roles. It’s not a matter of whether the action is perceived culturally as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, but rather, what the boy’s social group perceives. The reaction is swift and harsh, and the normative response by the individual is to retreat back into the ‘safety’ of the group.

Now, I don’t think the assertion is that all groups of little boys view altar serving as a feminine activity. But, it’s equally silly to assert that no groups do. For these groups, then, there’s the loss of the possibility of participating in an activity that positively correlates to priestly vocations, later in life. That’s a negative outcome, wouldn’t you agree? That’s all that’s being asserted, I would suggest.

and b) it is wrong to use “girlie” as a pejorative term.

Pejorative: expressing contempt.

I don’t see anyone expressing contempt here. On the other hand, a simple recognition that some activities are considered ‘masculine’ and others ‘feminine’ (a.k.a., ‘girly’) by various groups of people is an objective observation. I recognize that you take it as a pejorative, though. Projecting that perception on others, though, is hardly fair.

 

[EIF5A]

I’ve only (semi)-regularly attended 3 Catholic parishes in my life. Can someone tell me what a “masculine” parish would be like? Weren’t there women deacons in the way past and some even given the honorific title of being Equal-to-the-Apostles?

 

[sallybutler]

Wow. Burke has really outdone himself. The next thing you know, he’ll be blaming us for world hunger, cancer, terrorism and climate change too. The great **feminine **saints like Teresa of Avila, Gertrude, Joan of Arc and Catherine of Siena should come down from Heaven and beat him with a wet noodle…

Well, we have been blamed for everything else since the Garden of Eden, why not this.

 

[AnnArbor]

This is true. Yet, we’re not talking about whether altar serving is inherently ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, but rather, a child’s perception about whether it is something that girls do or boys do (or that both boys and girls do).

Here’s a question for you: do you agree that children tend to form social groups by gender, such that boys generally socialize with boys, and girls with girls? If so, have you ever seen what happens when a boy steps out of his group and its activities and into an activity that the group perceives as something that boys do not do? The group’s negative reaction – or, even just the boy’s perception of what the reaction will be – drives the boy back into more ‘accepted’ roles. It’s not a matter of whether the action is perceived culturally as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, but rather, what the boy’s social group perceives. The reaction is swift and harsh, and the normative response by the individual is to retreat back into the ‘safety’ of the group.

Now, I don’t think the assertion is that all groups of little boys view altar serving as a feminine activity. But, it’s equally silly to assert that no groups do. For these groups, then, there’s the loss of the possibility of participating in an activity that positively correlates to priestly vocations, later in life. That’s a negative outcome, wouldn’t you agree? That’s all that’s being asserted, I would suggest.

Pejorative: expressing contempt.

I don’t see anyone expressing contempt here. On the other hand, a simple recognition that some activities are considered ‘masculine’ and others ‘feminine’ (a.k.a., ‘girly’) by various groups of people is an objective observation. I recognize that you take it as a pejorative, though. Projecting that perception on others, though, is hardly fair.

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If your assessment of the group dynamics of boys is correct, then the solution is to teach them that they are wrong, not to enable behavior by excluding girls from a role that is neither inherently masculine nor feminine.

One way men could model that is to participate actively in the arenas I mentioned earlier – cooking and serving funeral dinners, washing altar linens, cleaning the sacristy/sanctuary, teaching in CCD. It often seems in these threads that people who want to increase male involvement in the Church are mostly talking about public, visible roles for men. Often at the expense of allowing women to participate in those roles.

Regarding ‘girlie’: any time a term is used as a negative – for example, as a reason that boys would not want to participate in an activity by that description (even though the activity is not feminine), then it could safely be said it is being used as a pejorative.

 

[LisaA]

The JJ report was not that emphatic, but that homosexuality was not an important factor in the sex-abuse crisis.

**Second, the John Jay report offers the generalization that priests had more access to young men than to young women, and that difference would account for the prevalence of male victims. But that explanation is credible only if priests saw young men and young women as equally desirable sexual objects. In my line of work, I have more access to old magazines than to T-bone steaks. Still I never eat magazines, because I do not think of magazines as food. Yes, priests had more access to altar boys than to girls of a similar age. But that access would have been a determining factor only for priests who saw young men as potential sex objects. The John Jay report fails to provide an honest exploration of the role of homosexuality, and thus neglects another key factor in this scandal. **__________________

Thank you for continuing to provide credible and thoughtful writings to this discussion. It is so specious to pretend that homosexuality was not a significant cause for the abuse and the scandal. It might be PC to dance around the reality by nuanced comments but here are facts:

100% of the priests were males
81% of the victims were males
the vast majority of victims were NOT pre-pubescent children. They had secondary sex characteristics. (Aside from that even a small child has distinct genitalia)
The abuse was SEXUAL. The offending priests were not verbally or physically abusing their victims. There was a SEXUAL component.
Our Church while offering compassion from those with SSA supports that these desires are deep seated and difficult to change

The priests would not have sexually abused males if they did not find males sexually attractive. Further, while I believe female sexuality is far more fluid and subject to change, those who claim this was not based on SSA should ask themselves honestly if they think heterosexual males even think of sexual relationships with other males. For most there is an almost instinctive and immediate revulsion at the thought. To claim that adolescent males were simply more convenient victims is to ignore very deep seated and strong responses to the idea that the gender of the victim didn’t matter. It does.

I do think the Jay report danced around this, trying NOT to demonize all priests who have SSA as a cross to bear. There are many holy priests who face this just as heterosexual priests must also fight their natural sexual desires and urges. In an effort not to paint all priests as potential predators, the report failed to clarify the source of the problem…predatory homosexuals who betrayed Christ, their vows, their Bishops, their flocks and most of all their victims.

 

[SWolf]

Wow. Burke has really outdone himself. The next thing you know, he’ll be blaming us for world hunger, cancer, terrorism and climate change too. The great **feminine **saints like Teresa of Avila, Gertrude, Joan of Arc and Catherine of Siena should come down from Heaven and beat him with a wet noodle…

Read the interview.

 

[SWolf]

Last takes, then I’ll move to the sidelines. Homosexual conduct in the clergy has been a problem off and on for at least 1000 years. One should look up the famous letter written by St Peter Damian to the Pope in the year 1049. A real eye opener, that. In any case, the positive that has come from this is that incoming seminarians are hopefully more closely vetted for their chastity, hence the hope is that we’ll see fewer occurrences (and just maybe fewer effeminate priests) as time goes on. But it will take a couple of generations of new priests to really rid the upper levels of the homosexual influence though I think the effeminate but chaste priests will always be with us.

There truly is nothing new under the sun.

 

[robertkchacon]

I’ve only (semi)-regularly attended 3 Catholic parishes in my life. Can someone tell me what a “masculine” parish would be like? Weren’t there women deacons in the way past and some even given the honorific title of being Equal-to-the-Apostles?

NO. Thats revisionist history. There were at times women called deaconess but they were never the norm and they were not ordained positions. It was purely an anomaly and anomalies do NOt make doctrine. And there has never been an understanding that anyone other than the Apostles, including Paul, were 'Equal to the Apostles" . No, I have never heard of anyone receiving such a title , even men.

 

[EIF5A]

NO. Thats revisionist history. There were at times women called deaconess but they were never the norm and they were not ordained positions. It was purely an anomaly and anomalies do NOt make doctrine. And there has never been an understanding that anyone other than the Apostles, including Paul, were 'Equal to the Apostles" . No, I have never heard of anyone receiving such a title , even men.

Sorry, I meant deaconesses. But altar servers are not ordained either, right?

If there’s a perception that serving at the altar is “girly”, then shouldn’t it be corrected, instead of saying, “Girls are the problem”?

Since the Church allows female altar servers, it’s clearly not doctrinal in and of itself. If it were, it never would have been allowed, like not allowing female priests.

“Equal to the Apostles” is an honorific title granted by the Orthodox Church. One example being St. Lydia mentioned in the New Testament. (The Orthodox are pretty strict about tradition and not deviating, so I’m guessing such a title is not heretical.)

But I have yet to fully understand what makes a parish “masculine”.

It seems odd that there’s sort of a gender competition (i.e.: too many women at this and this parish). The only “soft and effeminate” attitude I can see is the blaming of women for men being inattentive to spiritual matters and Church attendance. Maybe it’s because the few parish I’ve been to, there was a pretty good representation of men in the pews.

 

[ProVobis]

Tell me… do you really think that men are uncomfortable around women?

What’s that saying? Women feel like women around men. But men feel like men around other men.

Do you not think there may be a little truth to that?

 

[LisaA]

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If your assessment of the group dynamics of boys is correct, then the solution is to teach them that they are wrong, not to enable behavior by excluding girls from a role that is neither inherently masculine nor feminine.

One way men could model that is to participate actively in the arenas I mentioned earlier – cooking and serving funeral dinners, washing altar linens, cleaning the sacristy/sanctuary, teaching in CCD. It often seems in these threads that people who want to increase male involvement in the Church are mostly talking about public, visible roles for men. Often at the expense of allowing women to participate in those roles.

Regarding ‘girlie’: any time a term is used as a negative – for example, as a reason that boys would not want to participate in an activity by that description (even though the activity is not feminine), then it could safely be said it is being used as a pejorative.

Ann I think your intent is good but your suggestions are unrealistic. You cannot “teach” someone they are wrong about perceived gender roles and activities when their nature, culture and their environment are in opposition. There are numerous attempts to raise gender neutral children or to make gender neutral classrooms but nature is stronger that theories. Give boys dolls and they will turn them into projectiles or guns. Give girls trucks and they will put them down for a nap. Ditto with classrooms where there is a veritable war on boys and boyish behavior. Children who do not comply with the ideal which is a quiet, compliant child, are disciplined or drugged. There is a secular fight against our innate nature that has manifested itself in the media, education and unfortunately the Church.

I believe it was Gorgias who mentioned that at the age children are started as Altar Servers, there is very little interaction between sexes and few common areas of interest. Once an activity is perceived as girly, it becomes less interesting to boys. In all fairness though, the role of the Altar Server has diminished to the point that it may well be hard to interest many boys who do not naturally wish to be quiet, reverent, compliant and wear a “dress.”

What might work better is to make the role more active and more challenging. For example we have a parish that is “RadTrad” as we call it. Altar BOYS only and a lot of them. They have a very challenging, muscular and active role. They have to move with precision, with efficiency and with reverence. The accompany the priest to the Altar Rail to distribute Communion (on the tongue) and they are to in effect “guard” the host lest it be dropped or accidentally broken and drop onto the floor. They kneel for significant periods of time, on the floor, no cushy padded kneelers for those young men. Contrast this with our Altar Servers. They carry the Crucifix and then sit by the priest until it’s time to do a reading. Their only role during Communion is to bring the washbasin and finger towel. Further the training is done by one of the moms, not the priest so they have no real understanding of the importance of their role. In other words, there is no reason to exclude or discourage girls but instead make it more interesting to boys.

As to men washing the linens and the vessels, since this is basically done out of sight of parishioners (I do both) I am not sure what purpose would be served by insisting on some male Sacristans (we have them but very few). Ditto with having them cook food for a funeral reception.

As to a great role model for young men, the Knights in our Parish are exemplary! They are very visible with necessary maintenance and upgrades at our parish, fundraising for a variety of causes including the sponsoring of a Seminarian, SVdP food pantry, Andre Bessette House and other efforts to assist the poor. We also have a hot meal program and have a variety of men and women who assist in this effort (admittedly more of the women are cooks and the men are servers, clean up and peacekeepers). Many of the parents make this a family effort with the children also helping. IOW we don’t need to force men into traditional female roles in an effort to make them more palatable to boys. Instead look to activities that can utilize their assets and abilities…something active, challenging and interesting will inspire more boys than trying to push them into areas that don’t utilize and take advantage of their nature and strengths.

 

[EIF5A]

What might work better is to make the role more active and more challenging. For example we have a parish that is “RadTrad” as we call it. Altar BOYS only and a lot of them. They have a very challenging, muscular and active role. They have to move with precision, with efficiency and with reverence. The accompany the priest to the Altar Rail to distribute Communion (on the tongue) and they are to in effect “guard” the host lest it be dropped or accidentally broken and drop onto the floor. They kneel for significant periods of time, on the floor, no cushy padded kneelers for those young men. Contrast this with our Altar Servers. They carry the Crucifix and then sit by the priest until it’s time to do a reading. Their only role during Communion is to bring the washbasin and finger towel. Further the training is done by one of the moms, not the priest so they have no real understanding of the importance of their role. In other words, there is no reason to exclude or discourage girls but instead make it more interesting to boys.

So is the difference “boys vs. boys + girls” or “traditional vs. ordinary”?

I don’t see how what you describe is “muscular”… Also, precision, efficiency, and reverence are not male-only traits.

Your words can be perceived as being condescending, praising those who you deem to be more ascetic in practice while diminishing others with their “only role” during Communion. They may not be priests, but they are still serving God.