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

[lerapt78]

From David Murrow’s book, “Why Men Hate Going to Church” (coloring/bolding mine)
The Problem:

Are men forsaking the church for atheism? Not here in the United States. According to polls, 90 percent of American men claim belief in God. Five out of six call themselves Christians. But just two out of six US men claim to have attended church in the previous week.⁵ Some experts believe the true number is fewer than one in six.⁶ Churches in other countries suffer gender gaps as high as 10 to 1.⁷

For decades those few people who noticed the gender gap have assumed that men are to blame for it. Sometimes they are. **Many men intentionally reject the Christian faith. Some men are proud and want to be their own god. **Men hate to admit weakness or neediness. Millions are captive to sin, unbelief, and other religions that preclude commitment to Christ. Men get distracted by the concerns of this world and lose interest in spiritual matters. Men suffer abuse at the hands of church people and fall away.

But let’s be honest—women grapple with these same issues. Women are just as susceptible to sin, atheism, other religions, and pride. There’s nothing in the Bible to suggest that women are more virtuous or less sinful than men. Women are just as likely to have father issues or suffer abuse in the church.

Men’s disinterest in Christianity is so consistent around the world, it can’t be explained by pride, father issues, sin, or distraction. Neither can we say, “Men are just less religious,” because this is untrue. Male and female participation are roughly equal in Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. In the Islamic world men are publicly and unashamedly religious—often more so than women. Of the planet’s great religions, only Christianity has a consistent, worldwide shortage of male practitioners.

The Catholic Church is having a particularly hard time attracting men. An ABC News/Beliefnet poll found that just 26 percent of US Catholic men attend Mass on a weekly basis, compared to 49 percent of Catholic women.¹⁴ This poll was taken before the worst allegations of sexual abuse by priests came to light.

Church involvement is good for men. But since when do men do what’s good for them? Men regard churchgoing like a prostate exam: it’s something that can save their lives, but it’s so unpleasant and invasive, they put it off. Others see the worship service as their weekly dose of religion, a bitter elixir they must swallow to remain healthy, but not something to look forward to.

So men avoid church—and suffer for it. Men are more likely than women to be arrested, die violently, commit and be victims of crimes, go to jail, and be addicted. They also die more often on the job, have more heart attacks, commit suicide in greater numbers, and live shorter lives than women. I could go on.

If men want to avoid these pathologies, they should go to church. Studies indicated that churchgoers are more likely to be married and express a higher level of satisfaction with life. Church involvement is the most important predictor of marital stability and happiness. It moves people out of poverty. It’s also correlated with less depression, more self-esteem, and greater family and marital happiness.¹ Religious participation leads men to become more engaged husbands and fathers.² Teens with religious fathers are more likely to say that they enjoy spending time with their dads and that they admire them.³

Obviously, men need the church. But does the church need men? Not really. Honestly, men don’t play a large role in the spiritual life of the church. They don’t volunteer or participate as much. If every man (except the pastor) left on a weekend retreat, most churches would probably chug along with women covering a few empty slots. But imagine the chaos if every woman took Sunday off. **So why not leave the church to women? Why even try to get men back? **

Because the church needs men.

 

[lerapt78]

MEN BRING A RISK ORIENTATION

Men are hard-wired for risk taking—particularly young men. The number one killer of fifteen- to twenty-four-year-old males is accidents.⁶ Female investors hold less risky investment portfolios than their male counterparts and generally take fewer chances with their money.⁷
Churches need men because men are natural risk takers—and they bring that orientation into the church. Congregations that do not take risks atrophy. Jesus made it clear that risk taking is necessary to please God. In the parable of the talents, the master praises two servants who risked their assets and produced more, but he curses the servant who played it safe. He who avoids all risk is, in the words of Jesus, “wicked and lazy.”⁸

MEN EXALT THE RULES

Men tend to exalt rules over relationships, whereas women tend to exalt relationships over rules. The great debates that have divided the mainline denominations reflect this dichotomy: conservatives (led by men) believe rules come first; liberals (led by women) believe relationships do. Liberals, out of the purest of motives, want to weaken or reinterpret biblical rules so everyone can feel loved and accepted.⁹ But this is a well-worn trail of tears. Congregations that abandon the rules lose members.¹⁰ Men tend to be more orthodox in belief. Their concern for the rules keeps a congregation from drifting toward mushy moral relativism.

Denominations that have remained doctrinally orthodox have either grown or held steady since the 1990s, but theologically liberal churches have endured steep declines.¹¹ The National Congregations Study found that self-described liberal churches were 14 percent more likely to have a gender gap than conservative ones.¹²

I’d just add some clarification of this part, as I see it: Politically and morally speaking, I don’t find men to be overwhelmingly in the conservative camp, and women in the liberal camp. Voting patterns show only a very slight increase of women voting for Democrats (it’s really almost 50/50). And I don’t think women are inherently more liberal when it comes to issues of morality. I interpret the author as referring to women falling more easily into liberal patterns when it comes to how they relate personally to others, and that this “liberal”, laissez-faire expression usually has roots in not wanting to offend people, despite the existence of actual privately held “conservative” or “harsh” viewpoints.

According to the author, this is what is seen in churches:

**Conflict Is Handled the Feminine Way **

When two church members get crossways, do they settle it like men? Have you ever heard an elder say to a deacon, “Henry, let’s step outside and settle things, mano a mano”? Of course not. Most Christians would view a fistfight among believers as terribly unchristian behavior. Even a sharp public exchange of words is considered a horrible failure, something to be avoided at all costs.

(Think of the numerous posts here on CAF that consist of admonishments to one another – made by both men and women - to be more charitable. Or the requests to have moderators close down threads that veer into uncomfortable territory. Or the reportage of members’ posts that are considered inflammatory)

But conflict always comes, and how does the church handle it 99 percent of the time? The feminine way, allowing it to simmer just below the surface. The battling parties are polite in public but vicious in private. Church battles routinely feature backstabbing, gossip mongering, and revenge. All this takes place in secret, and only church insiders know the details. Publicly, everyone grits his teeth and pretends things are just fine. Eventually, one warring party leaves the church, or in extreme cases the congregation splits.

Men can’t handle this. When a man gets drawn into a church catfight, he’s out of his league. His heart tells him to fight it out, clear the air, and move on. But that’s not how things work in most churches. So men fall away. There are legions of men who have given up on church because it handles conflict the feminine way.

**The Right Choice Is Always the Soft One **

Before he became president of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt was a Sunday school teacher. One day a boy showed up for class with a black eye. He admitted he’d been fighting—on the Sabbath, no less. Another boy was pinching his sister, so he took a swing at the scoundrel.

The future president told the boy he was proud of him and gave him a dollar. When word of this got around the church, Roosevelt was let go. TR was caught between two scriptural imperatives: turn the other cheek and defend the weak. One soft, the other tough. He chose to praise the boy for his tough response but was fired for it, because in most churches the right choice is always the soft one.

Insiders (and women), view softness as an expression of Christian charity. Outsiders (those who wish to attack the Church) view feminine-style conflict as weakness. And they take advantage of it.

My guess is, men are not interested in belonging to something that is perceived as weak.

 

[Yeoman]

About Altar girls, as has been said many times, it makes absolutely no sense. Altar servers are supposed to be seen as possible apprentices for the priesthood. Even the document allowing Altar Girls said as much.

Living in a region of the country where there are no nuns at all, female alter servers do indeed make a great deal of sense.

There would be no way whatsoever for young Catholic women to more deeply interact with the church during their youths but for serving as alter servers in much of the country. Where I live, chances are overwhelming that anyone under 30 has never seen a nun, and I lost saw a nun in a habit about 40 years ago. Young women here volunteer in significant numbers as alter servers, and by my observation they tend to go on to be the same young women who go on to marry in the Church and raise Catholic families.

Without having gone all the way through this thread, which I’ve joined late, I will however concede that a “feminization” of the Church is hurting the church, but I don’t think that’s attributable to women. What I think there is that the entire culture started becoming effeminate in the 1960s, slowly, and it’s really ramped up over time. Men are so much more effeminate now than they were even 30 years ago its stunning, and the recent society wide drive to accept same gender orientation sort of bizarrely reflects that, with a segment of men wanting to appear rather feminine, and a segment of women wanting to act rather male. Traditional males are really out to sea right now, although it seems to me that’s turning around as genetics can’t be kept down forever. But, during the 60s and 70s a drive to make for a more open, softer, church had a negative byproduct it seems to me of making men feel out of place.

As part of that, Priests were part of male life even as late as the 1970s. Are they now? Are you seeing your Priest at the high school football game? Every have one over to watch a sporting event? Have you invited one fishing or hunting? They are Priests, to be sure, but they’re guys too, as were all the Apostles. I’m thinking, perhaps, that in order to have a home for men in the church, and perhaps even to have more manly Priests, we need to have a place for those men outside of their churches.

 

[EIF5A]

Insiders (and women), view softness as an expression of Christian charity. Outsiders (those who wish to attack the Church) view feminine-style conflict as weakness. And they take advantage of it.

My guess is, men are not interested in belonging to something that is perceived as weak.

(I did read the quoted paragraphs but snipped them for brevity.)

So basically, men consider Mass to be an uncomfortable medical experience (“prostate exam” — seriously???) that they bear anyway. Then maybe they need to be catechized again about what Mass means.

And when conflict arises in a parish, men are not allowed to get in a physical altercation. How terrible to not want to cause physical injury and look for peaceful reconciliation instead. Where are we at? A bar? (Were men allowed to punch each other before Vatican II?)

There’s a lot of talk about being “hard-wired” for this and that.

Men like rules, women like social interaction. Even though I don’t consider them to be mutually exclusive and even though I think adults are capable of both following rules and being sociable depending on the situation, I’ll pretend there’s a gender-based dichotomy.

Explain to me how that excuses men from participating in church. If there’s a will and desire, men will find a way to be active. Maybe fix the assumption that church is a men’s social club and that if there aren’t enough men, it’s not worth going.

Men don’t want to attend Mass because there are women readers and cantors? Then participate, bring your friends, and get up there yourself.

 

[EIF5A]

Living in a region of the country where there are no nuns at all, female alter servers do indeed make a great deal of sense.

There would be no way whatsoever for young Catholic women to more deeply interact with the church during their youths but for serving as alter servers in much of the country. Where I live, chances are overwhelming that anyone under 30 has never seen a nun, and I lost saw a nun in a habit about 40 years ago. Young women here volunteer in significant numbers as alter servers, and by my observation they tend to go on to be the same young women who go on to marry in the Church and raise Catholic families.

Without having gone all the way through this thread, which I’ve joined late, I will however concede that a “feminization” of the Church is hurting the church, but I don’t think that’s attributable to women. What I think there is that the entire culture started becoming effeminate in the 1960s, slowly, and it’s really ramped up over time. Men are so much more effeminate now than they were even 30 years ago its stunning, and the recent society wide drive to accept same gender orientation sort of bizarrely reflects that, with a segment of men wanting to appear rather feminine, and a segment of women wanting to act rather male. Traditional males are really out to sea right now, although it seems to me that’s turning around as genetics can’t be kept down forever. But, during the 60s and 70s a drive to make for a more open, softer, church had a negative byproduct it seems to me of making men feel out of place.

As part of that, Priests were part of male life even as late as the 1970s. Are they now? Are you seeing your Priest at the high school football game? Every have one over to watch a sporting event? Have you invited one fishing or hunting? They are Priests, to be sure, but they’re guys too, as were all the Apostles. I’m thinking, perhaps, that in order to have a home for men in the church, and perhaps even to have more manly Priests, we need to have a place for those men outside of their churches.

I generally agree with your post.

Our priest goes to college football games (but he’s also serving at a university). I’m not sure if the Dominican priests down the street ever go though.

As you mention, the problem seems to be modernization more than feminization, per se. Religion is taken out of everyday life, so Church remains contained within a building.

Since people have mentioned rules: perhaps parishes can institute strict fasting and prayer rules for men who are interested. Even if one is not particularly inclined, even with just “blind” practice, perhaps it would incite piety and zeal. We can learn a few things from the Orthodox Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Raymond Burke is raising an excellent point of the absolute importance of fatherhood as being at the center of any vibrant church life.

I think so too. Stats do show that father’s attendance at Mass has a much heavier influence on the kids than the mother’s in terms of their kids making a habit of going to Mass. Why that is is anyone’s guess but if masculinity isn’t restored soon, then other Sunday activities will become the new religion, if they haven’t already.

 

[ProVobis]

Men don’t want to attend Mass because there are women readers and cantors? Then participate, bring your friends, and get up there yourself.

Ah, but that’s the thing. It seems extending such tasks to the laity brought on some unintended consequences. As women were almost exclusively the teachers in grade schools, it seemed almost natural that reading and singing in church would be their task as well. All my opinion, of course.

 

[ProVobis]

Since people have mentioned rules: perhaps parishes can institute strict fasting and prayer rules for men who are interested. Even if one is not particularly inclined, even with just “blind” practice, perhaps it would incite piety and zeal. We can learn a few things from the Orthodox Church.

It’s tempting for me to want to state that wanting everything in the vernacular, wanting the priest facing the people, and wanting fast elimination are more feminine traits, but I wonder if they are more on the wimpy side of Catholicism, to which most succumb to. But I do agree that the Orthodox can provide a model for us, and in other areas as well.

 

[EIF5A]

Ah, but that’s the thing. It seems extending such tasks to the laity brought on some unintended consequences. As women were almost exclusively the teachers in grade schools, it seemed almost natural that reading and singing in church would be their task as well. All my opinion, of course.

Can’t the priest actively asks for participation from men? Ask and ye shall receive.

It’s made to seem as though women are this unstoppable force that cannot be challenged. (OK, sometimes. ) But not during Mass and parish life where pretty much only men are in position of authority.

In any case, perhaps next time I visit the parish containing the earthly remains of Venerable Michael J. McGivney, I’ll pray to him that God may restore an environment more welcoming for men. (Maybe there will then be more Knights to pray for his final canonization. )

 

[LisaA]

learapt78 thank you for taking the time and extracting all of the sections of these reports and books. Honestly I agree completely that the Christian church particularly has been feminized. Excellent point that in other faith practices, males and females participate in at least equal numbers, if not more participation and enthusiam among males…I think of the Jewish, Muslim and Hindu faith particularly as these are more familiar to me.

I do want to re-read these sections and think further on them but again, thank you for doing this work. BTW I was listening to a Christian station yesterday and heard an interview with Tony Evans, writer of Kingdom Man among others (highly recommend it) He talks about the problems within the Evangelical community and offers a number of suggestions, again focused on getting more men to participate. As your first section noted, going to church regularly makes you a better person. So many problems of society could be mitigated if more people did practice a religious faith.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s made to seem as though women are this unstoppable force that cannot be challenged. (OK, sometimes. ) But not during Mass and parish life where pretty much only men are in position of authority.

Is this really true though? Priests are generally transferred from parish to parish so no one (of such authority) will make a long-term impact, other than the ones who put into place all the reforms back in the 60’s and 70’s. It seems the rules and attitudes are pretty much now left to the parishioners.

 

[JackVk]

Women in my life are the ones who got me interested in the Catholic Church, namely a friend and a youth minister. I know many examples of manly men within the Church. So no, I don’t agree. I don’t think the fact that women are allowed to be something more than cooking and cleaning baby machines has been detrimental to the Church.

To those who are romantic about 60 years ago, the supposed moral golden age of “traditional family values”, women who didn’t want to be housewives were considered mentally ill. Not just eccentric. Mentally. Ill.

Granted, none of this assumes women have to be ordained priests (an impossibility) to be anything special. That’s clericalism, the idea that anyone who isn’t a priest is a minor-league Catholic.

Even more disturbing is how “feminization” is the hobgoblin here. It seems to imply that being a woman is inferior.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

That makes perfect sense: just like anything else, parents and adults are called to teach and be good role models for the children in their lives. I’m not suggesting – and I hope no one else is – that we should just shrug our shoulders, bury our heads in the ground, and say “oh well, I’m powerless to do anything here!”

However, since we’re talking about perception, not reality, it still really comes down to what a particular peer group of boys thinks. If, in spite of our best efforts, a group of boys concludes that activity ‘X’ fits their definition of what it means to act like a male and activity ‘Y’ fits their definition of what it means to act in ways that they perceive as more like something that females do, then that will determine how they act toward these activities. We don’t get to make that determination – although, of course, we can do all in our power to demonstrate to them that these perceptions are inaccurate.

One way men could model that is to participate actively in the arenas I mentioned earlier – cooking and serving funeral dinners, washing altar linens

Now you’re hitting upon societal perceptions of certain actions, aren’t you? Would you say that our culture sees “cooking and serving dinners” or “washing linens” in terms of gender?

cleaning the sacristy/sanctuary, teaching in CCD

And certainly there are male sacristans and catechists. At my former parish, when I volunteered to teach CCD, they snatched me up in a New York minute and put me in a classroom with the older students, since they saw value in letting the 7th & 8th graders see that there are men who actually do actively practice their faith lives.

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.

Well, if the problem were that girls and women were the ones who fell away from active participation in the Church, would you say that we shouldn’t try to have public examples that demonstrate that it’s a good thing for women to participate actively? That seems to fly in the face of your suggestion of how to handle poorly-formed perceptions. On one hand, we should model to boys that their perceptions are inaccurate, but on the other hand, we shouldn’t model to men that their perceptions are inaccurate. Doesn’t that lack of consistency bother you? (Or is it really just about making sure that women have visible roles in the Church?)

You seem to be saying that, even though there’s a problem with men participating in the Church, we should ignore the problem because it’s wrong to deny a woman “her right” rolleyes to these forms of service…?

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.

Here’s where we’ll have to “agree to disagree”. If you want to eschew the standard meaning of a word, and take it to mean something else, well… have at it.

 

[Yeoman]

Can’t the priest actively asks for participation from men?

It’s made to seem as though women are this unstoppable force that cannot be challenged. (OK, sometimes. ) But not during Mass and parish life where pretty much only men are in position of authority.

Indeed, changing times call for changing action.

In my over half century experience in the Church, I’ve hardly ever heard a Priest directly approach a male parishioner about something they wanted them to do. I have seen a couple of Priests do it on a selective basis, and when they have, it’s been effective. Indeed, almost every time I’ve seen anyone associated with the Church say “will you?”, they do. But generally, most “will you” petitions are done to the entire parish in an announcement, which is generally ignored.

Indeed, my experience in this sort of stuff in general works this way. For example, I became a lector as another lector approached me with “will you”? I’ve twice been a member of my university’s alumni association when somebody I knew called and personally asked, but I’ve let it lapse every time nobody did.

In this area, this is particularly important as the cultural change that got rolling in the late 60s took the Priest away from his male colleagues. My father recalled playing cards with a collection of men routinely while in the Air Force, one of those men was the Catholic Priest. Would they do that now? An uncle of mine mentioned that back when men commonly belonged to fraternal organizations (which are now dying), he was a Knight of Columbus. The Knights were a bit more like the Elks at that time then they are now, and they had a bar in their clubhouse. The parish priest went through every night at some point just to check on the gang, but that made him part of the gang. Does anything like that happen now? One of my father’s friends when I was a kid was a Parish Priest from the same rural region as my father, and they both were avid bird hunters, which they talked about when together. Would that happen now?

I don’t think it would happen much.

Women’s societies remain, albeit weakened, in the Church. The male ones are extinct, except for the Knights. Part of what needs to occur is that men need to find each other again, including the Priest, in the church. But it won’t just happen, and it won’t happen overnight. Part of what I think needs to happen is that men need to include the Priest, if he’ll go (and some won’t, I’m sure) in things traditionally male that men still do. If you feel awkward doing that, it’s all the more reason to do it.

But Priests ought to invite themselves along or invite men as well, which very few do. In one interview I heard of a Priest he discouraged that, but in another I heard a young Priest, where our best hope is to be found, state that he actually would occasionally go to bars in his college town just to be seen and shake up the young and worldly. There’s no reason that Priest can’t stop a Parishioner and say, “Hey bob, know any good fishing spots, how about you and I go. . .”, or “Joe, going to the air show on Friday, how about you and I go”. Shoot, even “Going to the gun shoe, can I go”. If that gets the old and gossipy rolling, so much the better.

To take this out one step beyond, and go off topic, I’ll also note that I’ve been listening for years and years to “if you feel you have a calling” talks from the ambo, while at the same time I knew that there were teenage men in the audience who likely did, but who were too darned shy or distracted to do anything about it. I once saw a Priest actually say, “what about you” to one, and he later admitted to me that he did feel he should explore it after that. Same sort of thing. Direct action goes a long ways. General audience address often does not.

 

[EIF5A]

OK, so far, the Church has been feminized because:

Priests don’t engage in everyday male activities with parishioners.
Female Altar Servers.
Few male fraternal religious organizations.
Disagreements in the parish are discussed instead of there being physical altercation.
Female-oriented parish activities.
Parish doesn’t operate like Jewish temple, Muslim mosque, or Hindu temple.

Anything else?

 

[EIF5A]

Women in my life are the ones who got me interested in the Catholic Church, namely a friend and a youth minister. I know many examples of manly men within the Church. So no, I don’t agree. I don’t think the fact that women are allowed to be something more than cooking and cleaning baby machines has been detrimental to the Church.

To those who are romantic about 60 years ago, the supposed moral golden age of “traditional family values”, women who didn’t want to be housewives were considered mentally ill. Not just eccentric. Mentally. Ill.

Granted, none of this assumes women have to be ordained priests (an impossibility) to be anything special. That’s clericalism, the idea that anyone who isn’t a priest is a minor-league Catholic.

Even more disturbing is how “feminization” is the hobgoblin here. It seems to imply that being a woman is inferior.

Women did not push men out or contrive to establish a female dominance. Men left, and women took up the empty spots.

Why did men leave? I have a hard time believing it’s this so-called “feminization” of the Church. Maybe the increased stress of modern life. Maybe other secular pursuits.

Did women protest male religious organizations? Did women establish a gender quota for Mass attendance? Recite the Rosary too often at church?

What sort of masculinity puts blame on others for their own faults and failures?

 

[LisaA]

Even more disturbing is how “feminization” is the hobgoblin here. It seems to imply that being a woman is inferior.

No, and there are few, maybe no organizations that honor and lift up women for their special gifts, their importance, their feminine genius at the level of the Catholic Church. Read St Pope John Paul II’s many works on the subject of women. Pope Francis too has stressed the gifts and graces of women that are essential to the Church and its survival. None of them refer to women as scullery maids or baby making machines. How demeaning!

The issue as described by many of the posts and excerpts of writings on the subject note that it is the ever increasing lack of distinction between the sexes as if they are the same. Men and women are equal but not identical. Any suggestion that an activity, a practice, a calling might be more appealing to males than females is immediately attacked as being anti-woman. Baloney. Men and women DO have different natures, different gifts and graces. Don’t interpret this as yet another attack on the sweet female Altar Servers but as an explanation why young men might be uninterested in filling that role.

As one poster noted, our society overall has become more feminized with the obsession over whether or not someone is offended or their feelings hurt. This has pervaded the churches as well. To mention this does not mean that feminine things, gifts, graces and contributions are necessarily inferior but to help explain why we see fewer and fewer men participating. I am old enough to remember the Feminist Movement…Women’s Lib as we called it…and the mantra was “A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle.” Oh so clever aren’t we? I think men heard this and believed it…or in a desire not to offend our feminine sensibilities, they simply exited stage left. The continued “you hate women, you don’t want girls as Altar Servers” only serves to discourage them even further.

I’ve seen a number of suggestions and ideas posted that have the intent if not the effect of getting more men involved. Don’t immediately attack them as somehow being anti-woman or ungrateful for the actual contributions we make.

 

[ProVobis]

Anything else?

“if we can only get men to do this or think like us” attitude

You asked.

 

[on_the_hill]

Why did men leave?

What man looks forward to a prostate exam? I mean, really. Prostate exams are uncomfortable, a little embarrassing, and once in a while painful. Also, men don’t like dropping their trousers in front of strangers. Isn’t that basically what Mass is?

 

[Yeoman]

OK, so far, the Church has been feminized because:

Priests don’t engage in everyday male activities with parishioners.
Female Altar Servers.
Few male fraternal religious organizations.
Disagreements in the parish are discussed instead of there being physical altercation.
Female-oriented parish activities.
Parish doesn’t operate like Jewish temple, Muslim mosque, or Hindu temple.

Anything else?

The entire culture has become more effeminate, not just the church.

As poor of example as it may be, even a walk through a high school or college campus tends to demonstrate that. Or look through annuals from various decades back. A lot of the boys and young men you’ll see there are remarkably more effeminate than in decades past.

I now that some of these are said a bit in jest, but to again note, I don’t think the female alter servers have anything to do with this, and I’m glad that women have that opportunity. And as far as fraternal organizations are concerned, they’re headed for extinction as an institution of the distant past.