Catholicism – Too Feminized?

[ShadowBoxer]

That actually doesn’t sound that different from a mother protecting and caring for her children. (Even the last part - ever hear of mama bear instinct?)

I don’t know that the example is entirely appropriate to humans since father bears don’t stick around. Now, if a mother is put in a situation where she has to protect her children from some kind of threat then it would be wrong for her not to. However, as long as a man is around it is his responsibility to fight so that the women and children can get to safety. It’s also natural for him to do so. A man’s strongest instinct is to protect. A woman’s strongest instinct is to nurture. This difference is even reflected in the way in which God designed the male and female bodies.

Modern progressive society constantly tells us (either implicitly or explicitly) that gender differences are nothing more than social constructs propagated by patriarchal organizations in order to oppress women. Traditionally the Church has taught that the gender differences are a good thing because they allow men and women to complement each other and that this complimentary union is the foundation upon which the family, and by extension society, is built upon.

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t know that the example is entirely appropriate to humans since father bears don’t stick around. Now, if a mother is put in a situation where she has to protect her children from some kind of threat then it would be wrong for her not to. However, as long as a man is around it is his responsibility to fight so that the women and children can get to safety. It’s also natural for him to do so. A man’s strongest instinct is to protect. A woman’s strongest instinct is to nurture. This difference is even reflected in the way in which God designed the male and female bodies.

Modern progressive society constantly tells us (either implicitly or explicitly) that gender differences are nothing more than social constructs propagated by patriarchal organizations in order to oppress women. Traditionally the Church has taught that the gender differences are a good thing because they allow men and women to complement each other and that this complimentary union is the foundation upon which the family, and by extension society, is built upon.

Is it your assertion that this is no longer the case?
Really?
I think the Church is STILL very much about traditional roles.

 

[Sarcelle]

No, my understanding of “feminized” in the context of Church is an overall sense of passivity, over-concern with an approach to vesture that can be summed-up by the old phrase “more lace, more grace,” insufficient emphasis on action-oriented activities vs. things like study groups and video watching, devotion to women saints to the exclusion of male saints known for heroic stands – things like that. An aura of “softness.” No reasonable person is saying that “women don’t belong in church.” To take that view is to avoid dealing with genuine concerns.

What is an aura of softness? Care to explain further?

Aren’t you free to start a devotion to a male Saint or start your own activity for men in your church? So why don’t you?

 

[Xantippe]

What’s really offensive is making a big pile of everything you don’t like in the Church today and proclaiming the bad stuff “feminized.”

That really makes it sound like the people saying that haven’t graduated from the school yard stage where girls have girl cooties. Also, it often doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I also am not very impressed by hypothetical statements about how one would lay down one’s life for one’s wife and child when one is very unlikely to have the opportunity.

Bear in mind that the normal female life cycle is biologically VERY dangerous and glitchy. A lot of women face life and death issues quite routinely, just by virtue of child-bearing, not to mention often permanently disabling childbirth injuries. Heck, even something as seemingly innocent as breastfeeding can be dangerous–mastitis can cause life-threatening infections.

So it’s really offensive to hear the guys preen about all the hypothetical heroic stuff they’re probably never going to do, while mothers face death and injury with every pregnancy.

 

[Sarcelle]

No, my understanding of “feminized” in the context of Church is an overall sense of passivity, over-concern with an approach to vesture that can be summed-up by the old phrase “more lace, more grace,” insufficient emphasis on action-oriented activities vs. things like study groups and video watching, devotion to women saints to the exclusion of male saints known for heroic stands – things like that. An aura of “softness.” No reasonable person is saying that “women don’t belong in church.” To take that view is to avoid dealing with genuine concerns.

Passivity, softness?

Is this what feminine means to you?

All too often when people say feminization, it is often as an insult.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t know that the example is entirely appropriate to humans since father bears don’t stick around. Now, if a mother is put in a situation where she has to protect her children from some kind of threat then it would be wrong for her not to. However, as long as a man is around it is his responsibility to fight so that the women and children can get to safety. It’s also natural for him to do so. A man’s strongest instinct is to protect. A woman’s strongest instinct is to nurture. This difference is even reflected in the way in which God designed the male and female bodies.

Modern progressive society constantly tells us (either implicitly or explicitly) that gender differences are nothing more than social constructs propagated by patriarchal organizations in order to oppress women. Traditionally the Church has taught that the gender differences are a good thing because they allow men and women to complement each other and that this complimentary union is the foundation upon which the family, and by extension society, is built upon.

I think what you’re not getting is that protecting is nurturing and nurturing is protecting. (If you stop feeding children, they’ll die.)

Also, bear in mind that in a typical SAHM/working dad household, dad is away from home probably 80% of the time. During that 80% of the time, even according to your schema, mom has to protect the children. The wife and kids do not blink out of existence when dad isn’t home.

 

[pensmama87]

I think what you’re not getting is that protecting is nurturing and nurturing is protecting. (If you stop feeding children, they’ll die.)

Also, bear in mind that in a typical SAHM/working dad household, dad is away from home probably 80% of the time. During that 80% of the time, even according to your schema, mom has to protect the children. The wife and kids do not blink out of existence when dad isn’t home.

I think it’s really misunderstanding the differences between the sexes to say that one is about protection and sacrifice and the other is not. It belittles both.

 

[marymary1975]

Well, hasn’t it pretty much always been the case that the practice of the Catholic faith has been primarily a woman thing? Think of all the stories of married female saints we’ve all heard of where mom was devout and dad was not.

And it’s not just Catholics. There’s a famous 1959 Norman Rockwell painting entitled “Easter Sunday” showing mom marching the children off to church in Easter Sunday best, while dad in a bathrobe enjoys the Sunday paper and a cigarette.

saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/02/24/art-entertainment/rockwell-50s-part-iii-iii.html

Likewise, who is the stereotypical Russian Orthodox believer? It’s an old lady in a head scarf.

Beating up on women for showing up and doing stuff is dumb and demoralizing. It’s like those sermons about people not coming to Mass–given at Mass to the people that actually showed up.

^^^ This! Historically it has been always the women who have been involved in parish life and string practicing Catholics. This has been happening way before feminism. I remember my Godfather , who since being a teenager was a devout Catholic saying that even in 1930 he was the only young man actively involved in the church. He said that they would have rosary groups and he would be the only man. So if we are going to that, culturally going to church was seen as a woman’s thing while what was seen as manly was precisely the opposite.

Now definitely radical feminist and the secular movement has had a terrible.impact in the family which impact has caused a diminished number in vocations. This obvious because if you don’t.have devout families raising children the number of.vocations will go down. But beating up women because they are living their religion is dumb. In fact, if we think about what open a door for radical feminism was the fact that culturally there were double standard for men and women. Women were expected to follow the religion while it was culturally acceptable for men not to be religious.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

The church is for all, man, woman and child.
Christ set it up that way. He spoke about it all the time.
If one has a gender axe to grind, it shouldn’t be in the universal Church.

So if a parent begins to favor one child over the rest, the other children should just suck it up? Neither Cardinal Burke nor myself is saying that men should enjoy preferential treatment. What Burke is saying (and I agree with him) is that radical feminism has affected the Church and this in turn is severely hampering the development of masculine, Catholic men to the detriment of the Church, the family, and society.

Apparently I have no business being a member of a universal church simply because I raise my hand and say “I think we have a problem.” Obviously, I must be trying to advance some kind of male agenda which is meant to subjugate women to the wants of men. If the Church is indeed universal it should not be overlooking the needs and proper development of either gender, including men.

 

[pianistclare]

So if a parent begins to favor one child over the rest, the other children should just suck it up? Neither Cardinal Burke nor myself is saying that men should enjoy preferential treatment. What Burke is saying (and I agree with him) is that radical feminism has affected the Church and this in turn is severely hampering the development of masculine, Catholic men to the detriment of the Church, the family, and society.

Apparently I have no business being a member of a universal church simply because I raise my hand and say “I think we have a problem.” Obviously, I must be trying to advance some kind of male agenda which is meant to subjugate women to the wants of men. If the Church is indeed universal it should not be overlooking the needs and proper development of either gender, including men.

OK. You keep saying this.
HOW?
HOW?

Examples please.

 

[Xantippe]

I think it’s really misunderstanding the differences between the sexes to say that one is about protection and sacrifice and the other is not. It belittles both.

Right.

It makes both less than a full person.

According to that view, if mom or dad were to die, what is to happen to the children? Are they to live without nurture if their mother dies or to live without protection if their father dies? Does the surviving parent need to quickly remarry eek in order to fill the missing role?

Both parents should (ideally) be capable of nurture and protection.

 

[marymary1975]

edwest2:
Thank you for those book references. There are two common errors out there: Vatican II caused something bad. Not true. I was there before and after Vatican II.

Catholics weren’t “absorbed” into secular culture. Secular culture was designed to attack traditional family values, and the Church was attacked from within by dissidents. I was there in the late 1960s and when the radicals appeared in our neighborhoods, they abused our more trusting natures. “Try these pills.” “Smoke dope.” “Live with your girlfriend.” Morality? The Church? Who needs that? It’s old. Listen to us! We are going to lead you to a Woodstock Nation. The infiltration was going on. It’s documented. The Church had to be attacked. The traditional family had to be destroyed. Universities going away from their Catholic identity because they were convinced by someone(s) that Freedom was needed.

1967 catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

1968 Pope Paul VI issues Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the Church’s constant teaching against artificial birth control. This was the reaction:

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

1969 National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Dissidents inside the Church laying the groundwork for the issues we face today.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

The following book notes certain trends but the core one is this: our neighborhoods, our communities, were polluted by those who were 100% against our values, who preached their anti-moral values and lived them. They gradually became the dominant voice in the media that once shared our values. For the most part, today, the media is against our values.

amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046

But, there are places where our values still live. Where people recognized the lies and didn’t change. I’ve been there. We who were affected need to turn away from decades of really bad example. We need to be together as Christians committed to worship and associating with each other. No, not everyone in my neighborhood was Catholic but we shared common values, which led to stability and encouragement and good, clean fun. Today? Why not be together? Work together. Enjoy life together.

Ed

Ed, I insist that you need to write a book! People.have been affected by popular amnesia and everybody needs to.be reminded of.all.This, specially Catholics so they can open their eyes.

 

[EasterJoy]

Can we at least admit that unfortunate innovations like liturgical dance involving a bunch of dancers in leotards dramatically waving scarves like rhythmic gymnasts, processions that include super-size puppets, and un-singable “hymns” that sound like they were taken from the free-verse love song of a Broadway musical were not something thought up from the sensibility of the average Catholic man? This is the kind of thing that showed up at a Portland “boycott” of Sunday Mass by Catholic feminists some time ago. The general reaction of those not taking part in the boycott, whether male or female, was: “If you feel as if that kind of ‘contribution to liturgy’ is being rejected, you are absolutely right! Heaven forbid it!”

The only thing that would be worse than men *not *wanting to get involved with liturgical dance and these other awful innovations is if there were a substantial number of men who wanted to! Yes, most men are reluctant to get involved with that. Their reluctance is not a bad thing. It is a good thing!

 

[Xantippe]

So if a parent begins to favor one child over the rest, the other children should just suck it up? Neither Cardinal Burke nor myself is saying that men should enjoy preferential treatment. What Burke is saying (and I agree with him) is that radical feminism has affected the Church and this in turn is severely hampering the development of masculine, Catholic men to the detriment of the Church, the family, and society.

Apparently I have no business being a member of a universal church simply because I raise my hand and say “I think we have a problem.” Obviously, I must be trying to advance some kind of male agenda which is meant to subjugate women to the wants of men. If the Church is indeed universal it should not be overlooking the needs and proper development of either gender, including men.

What do you need?

(And “For the Church to take stuff away from women” is the wrong answer.)

 

[EasterJoy]

Well, hasn’t it pretty much always been the case that the practice of the Catholic faith has been primarily a woman thing? Think of all the stories of married female saints we’ve all heard of where mom was devout and dad was not.

And it’s not just Catholics. There’s a famous 1959 Norman Rockwell painting entitled “Easter Sunday” showing mom marching the children off to church in Easter Sunday best, while dad in a bathrobe enjoys the Sunday paper and a cigarette.

saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/02/24/art-entertainment/rockwell-50s-part-iii-iii.html

Likewise, who is the stereotypical Russian Orthodox believer? It’s an old lady in a head scarf.

Beating up on women for showing up and doing stuff is dumb and demoralizing. It’s like those sermons about people not coming to Mass–given at Mass to the people that actually showed up.

When the men do not participate in the liturgical life of the Church fully and do not consider attention to piety one of the marks of mature manhood, that is a symptom of spiritual disease, not “business as usual.”

I grew up with men who prayed the Rosary, and lead their families in praying the Rosary. They bore the canopy in processions of the Blessed Sacrament, and there were no fewer fathers at Sunday Mass than mothers. That is what the Church looks like when it is healthy. When the mother is devout and her husband is lax, that is not business as usual! That is a cross for her to bear and a sign that the children are being short-changed by their father!

If the aesthetics surrounding the liturgical life of the Church are tailored specifically to a feminine sensibility to the exclusion of a masculine sensibility, it makes sacred rituals that should be a consolation into a penance for the men. That is wrong. No, you do not beat up on the women for showing up, but you’d better have a good talk to whoever is doing choreography that could hardly be better-designed to drive men away if that had been the goal. I am not saying it is intended to have that effect, but this is what happens when someone comes into liturgy with a social engineering agenda. That is what radical feminists bring to liturgy, and that is what taints “over-feminized” liturgical planning.

 

[Xantippe]

Can we at least admit that unfortunate innovations like liturgical dance involving a bunch of dancers in leotards dramatically waving scarves like rhythmic gymnasts, processions that include super-size puppets, and un-singable “hymns” that sound like they were taken from the free-verse love song of a Broadway musical were not something thought up from the sensibility of the average Catholic man?

They’re also not part of the sensibilities of the average Catholic woman.

If that sort of thing shows up in a parish (and I’ve never seen it), it’s because that’s what Father likes.

 

[on_the_hill]

Yea, apathy on the part of men is a huge part of the problem.

It’s not that I’m apathetic. It’s just that I’m not motivated.

 

[Xantippe]

When the men do not participate in the liturgical life of the Church fully and do not consider attention to piety one of the marks of mature manhood, that is a symptom of spiritual disease, not “business as usual.”

I grew up with men who prayed the Rosary, and lead their families in praying the Rosary. They bore the canopy in processions of the Blessed Sacrament, and there were no fewer fathers at Sunday Mass than mothers. That is what the Church looks like when it is healthy. When the mother is devout and her husband is lax, that is not business as usual! That is a cross for her to bear and a sign that the children are being short-changed by their father!

If the aesthetics surrounding the liturgical life of the Church are tailored specifically to a feminine sensibility to the exclusion of a masculine sensibility, it makes sacred rituals that should be a consolation into a penance for the men. That is wrong. No, you do not beat up on the women for showing up, but you’d better have a good talk to whoever is doing choreography that could hardly be better-designed to drive men away if that had been the goal. I am not saying it is intended to have that effect, but this is what happens when someone comes into liturgy with a social engineering agenda. That is what radical feminists bring to liturgy, and that is what taints “over-feminized” liturgical planning.

1. I’m questioning the idea that the absence or non-involvement of men is a novelty caused by specifically modern ills. It seems like it is very much an age-old traditional problem so blaming feminism for something that has always been a problem seems just as misplaced as blaming feminism for athlete’s foot.
2. Aren’t a lot of the people guilty of “over-feminized” liturgical planning actually MALE?

Aren’t a lot of the authors of treacly hymns MALE? Haven’t they always been?

martyhaugen.net/

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for those book references. There are two common errors out there: Vatican II caused something bad. Not true. I was there before and after Vatican II.

Catholics weren’t “absorbed” into secular culture. Secular culture was designed to attack traditional family values, and the Church was attacked from within by dissidents. I was there in the late 1960s and when the radicals appeared in our neighborhoods, they abused our more trusting natures. “Try these pills.” “Smoke dope.” “Live with your girlfriend.” Morality? The Church? Who needs that? It’s old. Listen to us! We are going to lead you to a Woodstock Nation. The infiltration was going on. It’s documented. The Church had to be attacked. The traditional family had to be destroyed. Universities going away from their Catholic identity because they were convinced by someone(s) that Freedom was needed.

1967 catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

1968 Pope Paul VI issues Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the Church’s constant teaching against artificial birth control. This was the reaction:

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

1969 National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Dissidents inside the Church laying the groundwork for the issues we face today.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

The following book notes certain trends but the core one is this: our neighborhoods, our communities, were polluted by those who were 100% against our values, who preached their anti-moral values and lived them. They gradually became the dominant voice in the media that once shared our values. For the most part, today, the media is against our values.

amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046

But, there are places where our values still live. Where people recognized the lies and didn’t change. I’ve been there. We who were affected need to turn away from decades of really bad example. We need to be together as Christians committed to worship and associating with each other. No, not everyone in my neighborhood was Catholic but we shared common values, which led to stability and encouragement and good, clean fun. Today? Why not be together? Work together. Enjoy life together.

Ed

Ed, I insist that you need to write a book! People.have been affected by popular amnesia and everybody needs to.be reminded of.all.This, specially Catholics so they can open their eyes.

Thank you. I have been considering writing a book about this.

Ed

 

[pianistclare]

1. I’m questioning the idea that the absence or non-involvement of men is a novelty caused by specifically modern ills. It seems like it is very much an age-old traditional problem so blaming feminism for something that has always been a problem seems just as misplaced as blaming feminism for athlete’s foot.
2. Aren’t a lot of the people guilty of “over-feminized” liturgical planning actually MALE?

Aren’t a lot of the authors of treacly hymns MALE? Haven’t they always been?

martyhaugen.net/

Right. There are really only 2 major women composers of hymns, and they are pretty well bashed out of use.

Our most progressive and odd liturgies were under the direction of a past pastor who just had to change things.
For ex:
Everyone walking up to the altar to give their tithe, no baskets, everyone up out of the pew
Washing EVERYONE’s feet on Holy Thursday (yuck)
Standing during communion until the Blessed Sacrament is reposed and then little or no time for personal reflection and prayer
The insertion of an “official prayer of this parish” before Mass begins
Many announcements of birthdays and anniversaries, milestones before the final blessing, etc.

None of these were the innovations of women on committees.