Effeminate Priests

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark,

Would you look at the link in post #39 and give me your thoughts? Thanks.

I understand your position here. And I can understand that in extreme cases in which a priest’s behaviors and mannerisms can be alienating to members of a congregation then some behavioral modification is in order. However, I don’t believe that it’s a one-way street. An effeminate priest may unduly exacerbate the prejudices of his congregation, but those prejudices remain prejudices and they must be dealt with. A sensitive priest may seek to alter his behavior. But for a congregation not so stuck on appearances, it would cease to be an issue.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Franciscan]

Grace & Peace!

I understand your position here. And I can understand that in extreme cases in which a priest’s behaviors and mannerisms can be alienating to members of a congregation then some behavioral modification is in order. However, I don’t believe that it’s a one-way street. An effeminate priest may unduly exacerbate the prejudices of his congregation, but those prejudices remain prejudices and they must be dealt with. A sensitive priest may seek to alter his behavior. But for a congregation not so stuck on appearances, it would cease to be an issue.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

One of the main points of this thread when it started was to

1. question whether or not celibacy is a life of sacrifice.
2. whether people realized that the first action of any priest is to offer sacrifice.
3. whether the sacrifice of a man with a normal balanced masculinity is offering more of a sacrifice(when it comes to celibacy) than someone who chooses the priesthood because they have a lack of interest in the opposite sex or are asexual.

For an asexual to give up sex is not as big a deal.
for an effeminate man to give up fatherhood may not be as big a deal.

I think two honest people could legitimately disagree.

 

[dapper]

Grace & Peace!

I understand your position here. And I can understand that in extreme cases in which a priest’s behaviors and mannerisms can be alienating to members of a congregation then some behavioral modification is in order. However, I don’t believe that it’s a one-way street. An effeminate priest may unduly exacerbate the prejudices of his congregation, but those prejudices remain prejudices and they must be dealt with. A sensitive priest may seek to alter his behavior. But for a congregation not so stuck on appearances, it would cease to be an issue.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Both posts well put Mark. Some on here even venture the notion that an effeminate priest cannot possibly be in personna Christi. If that does not provide insight to the shallowness of ones heart, I don’t know what does.

 

[fix]

Grace & Peace!

I understand your position here. And I can understand that in extreme cases in which a priest’s behaviors and mannerisms can be alienating to members of a congregation then some behavioral modification is in order. However, I don’t believe that it’s a one-way street. An effeminate priest may unduly exacerbate the prejudices of his congregation, but those prejudices remain prejudices and they must be dealt with. A sensitive priest may seek to alter his behavior. But for a congregation not so stuck on appearances, it would cease to be an issue.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Is it fair to conlude the problem is one of prejudice? If such behavior is a vice then one cannot properly conclude the persons offended are prejudiced, can they?

I accept there is an element of subjectivity here, but there is an objective part as well.

 

[chotock]

I wonder if we sometimes put so much emphasis on the promise (or vow for religious) of chastity that we fail to remember the other vows or promises. All vows and promises are meant to be a struggle in some way, none more so than any other, though in reality some will have more struggles with one than another.

How many priests struggle with obedience? Is it hard to see how this particular promise/vow has been diminished in the USA? It is the same with all vows and promises.

The role of each promise or vow is not to overshadow another, but to support each other for the betterment and developement of the person. If we fail to emphasive the need of all promises or vows, we will see a failing in the others.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

One of the main points of this thread when it started was to

1. question whether or not celibacy is a life of sacrifice.
2. whether people realized that the first action of any priest is to offer sacrifice.
3. whether the sacrifice of a man with a normal balanced masculinity is offering more of a sacrifice(when it comes to celibacy) than someone who chooses the priesthood because they have a lack of interest in the opposite sex or are asexual.

For an asexual to give up sex is not as big a deal.
for an effeminate man to give up fatherhood may not be as big a deal.

I think two honest people could legitimately disagree.

I think that there have been good and holy priests for whom celibacy was a sacrifice. They did it well and it contributed to their sanctitiy. But I think that there are other priests for whom celibacy was no big deal, ie., they didn’t sacrifice anything because sex and sexuality didn’t play all that great a role in their lives. Anyone who answers the call of God (in any way, but probably especially the priesthood) makes a sacrifice of the entire self. Certain areas (sex, money, power, regard, whatever) are going to be less of a struggle for some or more of a struggle for some, depending on what their life is like. God calls whom He will.

It’s interesting that some have mentioned the Holy Father (and his wearing of Prada shoes, etc.). This is someone who apparently felt that he was called from childhood and according to everything I’ve read, never waivered in that belief. I kind of doubt (though I cannot prove it) giving up the hope of a wife and family was much of a struggle for him. He seems very focused, he was raised by devout parents, his brother also answered the same call, etc. Compared to the old Holy Father, John Paul the Great, a bit of a jock in his day, I think we’ll all agree, Pope Benedict would be regarded as the “school weinie.” But that’s simply because they had different interests: Pope John Paul was an extrovert and an outdoorsman, Pope Benedict very much the scholar, very gentle, a musician of some ability. If anyone thinks Pope Benedict acts a little “light in the loafers,” I’d say that person, regardless of their agenda in the arugment, has bought into a stereotype in a very uncritical way.

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!

I understand your position here. And I can understand that in extreme cases in which a priest’s behaviors and mannerisms can be alienating to members of a congregation then some behavioral modification is in order. However, I don’t believe that it’s a one-way street. An effeminate priest may unduly exacerbate the prejudices of his congregation, but those prejudices remain prejudices and they must be dealt with. A sensitive priest may seek to alter his behavior. But for a congregation not so stuck on appearances, it would cease to be an issue.
Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Who here is talking about prejudices, as in homophobic? I believe that the main jest of this thread, or at least my posting, is that a priest who routinely displays overly effeminate qualities and mannerisms, is more of a distraction (distracted by these obvious over efffeminate features) and has effectively created a disconnect between himself and those majority in the congregation who are secure in ther sexual identity as male or female. This is the common sense expereince and reality, that posters such as yourself appear to be in denial of. The priest is there for the flock first and foremost, and not the other way around. Yes, the presentation of the messenger does impact the message.

I also believe that to suggest that the priest be coached in behavior modification is a band aid on an underlying psychsocial disturbance of some sort and degree, albeit that may be the recommended remedy at a superficial level; and I do not rule out a ‘fake it until you make’ possibility to promoting a more integral grounding in their masculinity/femininity.

 

[setter]

I think that there have been good and holy priests for whom celibacy was a sacrifice. They did it well and it contributed to their sanctitiy. But I think that there are other priests for whom celibacy was no big deal, ie., they didn’t sacrifice anything because sex and sexuality didn’t play all that great a role in their lives. Anyone who answers the call of God (in any way, but probably especially the priesthood) makes a sacrifice of the entire self. Certain areas (sex, money, power, regard, whatever) are going to be less of a struggle for some or more of a struggle for some, depending on what their life is like.

This is alone does not determine fitness for duty for the priesthood.

God calls whom He will.

As the Church is entrusted to discern and decide.

It’s interesting that some have mentioned the Holy Father (and his wearing of Prada shoes, etc.). This is someone who apparently felt that he was called from childhood and according to everything I’ve read, never waivered in that belief. I kind of doubt (though I cannot prove it) giving up the hope of a wife and family was much of a struggle for him. He seems very focused, he was raised by devout parents, his brother also answered the same call, etc. Compared to the old Holy Father, John Paul the Great, a bit of a jock in his day, I think we’ll all agree, Pope Benedict would be regarded as the “school weinie.” But that’s simply because they had different interests: Pope John Paul was an extrovert and an outdoorsman, Pope Benedict very much the scholar, very gentle, a musician of some ability. If anyone thinks Pope Benedict acts a little “light in the loafers,” I’d say that person, regardless of their agenda in the arugment, has bought into a stereotype in a very uncritical way.

A sexually ordered heterosexual priest is in fact giving up/forsaking/sacrificing the good of marriage to answer God’s call to the priesthood. A sexually disordered homosexual priest is in fact not fact giving up/forsaking/sacrificing the good of marriage to answer God’s call to the priesthood. This is a significant difference that cannot be dismissed and qualifies a man uniquely qualified and fit for the priesthood or not.

 

[fix]

This thread is very interesting in that it shows how messed up our society is in that many do not even know what “masculine” is any more. As Catholics we should and must preserve clear cut definitions of the world around us and not fall in to the pit of moral relativism.

I agree.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is alone does not determine fitness for duty for the priesthood.

As the Church is entrusted to discern and decide.

A sexually ordered heterosexual priest is in fact giving up/forsaking/sacrificing the good of marriage to answer God’s call to the priesthood. A sexually disordered homosexual priest is in fact not fact giving up/forsaking/sacrificing the good of marriage to answer God’s call to the priesthood. This is a significant difference that cannot be dismissed and qualifies a man uniquely qualified and fit for the priesthood or not.

A sexually disordered homosexual isn’t supposed to be ordained at ALL. Doesn’t matter wheter the heterosexual is giving anything up or making a sacrifice. It’s apples and oranges.

I’ve encountered somewhat “swishy” men who turned out to be happily married with children. I remember thinking on more than one occasion, “You’ve got to be kidding,” but there it was.

If the Church confirms that a person is called of God, then the person is called of God (I believe that’s Catholic teaching). That’s the best we can do.

 

[setter]

A sexually disordered homosexual isn’t supposed to be ordained at ALL. Doesn’t matter wheter the heterosexual is giving anything up or making a sacrifice. It’s apples and oranges.

I’ve encountered somewhat “swishy” men who turned out to be happily married with children. I remember thinking on more than one occasion, “You’ve got to be kidding,” but there it was.

If the Church confirms that a person is called of God, then the person is called of God (I believe that’s Catholic teaching). That’s the best we can do.

I agree. I also pray that the Church continues its trend toward developing more sophisticated and selective screening of all seminarian candidates, as they already do for other psychological disorderes.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Is it fair to conlude the problem is one of prejudice? If such behavior is a vice then one cannot properly conclude the persons offended are prejudiced, can they?

Fix, I’m not convinced that mere effeminate behaviors or mannerisms (over which the individual may or may not have conscious control) are vices. And I’m not referring to whether or not those behaviors are indicative of a homosexual orientation. I’ve known men who were “effeminate” but who were certainly not homosexuals by any stretch of the imagination. Sexual orientation, then, is not what I’m addressing here. I’m addressing the phenomenon of a priest with effeminate behaviors and mannerisms being rejected by his congregation on the basis of those behaviors and mannerisms. Speculation regarding his sexuality is (or to my thinking, should be) immaterial here, and is (as the word “speculation” suggests), merely speculative. I think it is fair, therefore, to include that the problem is one of prejudice–not in the sense of an attitude against homosexuals (because homosexuality is not part of the discussion here, as I see it), but because it’s indicative of a judgment made on a priest based on nothing more than appearances.

setter:

Who here is talking about prejudices, as in homophobic?

Setter, I said nothing regarding homosexuality or homophobia until I wrote the above response to fix’ question.

setter:

I believe that the main jest of this thread, or at least my posting, is that a priest who routinely displays overly effeminate qualities and mannerisms, is more of a distraction (distracted by these obvious over efffeminate features) and has effectively created a disconnect between himself and those majority in the congregation who are secure in ther sexual identity as male or female.

Are you assuming that a mannerism is indicative of a lack of security in one’s sexual identity? In some, perhaps. But your generalization here is no more than that: a generalization.

And how would such a behavior be distracting to those who are secure in their sexual identity, as you maintain that it is? In what way does it challenge that security? And is this something that someone secure in their sexual identity would really worry about? Is this what keeps someone secure in their sexual identity up at night, “my priest has an effeminate mannerism, what am I to do?” And does security in one’s sexual identity have anything at all to do with this? I would argue it doesn’t. What it has to do with is prejudice, plain and simple–people saying, “I don’t like that behavior,” a behavior, moreover, which is not indicative of sexual orientation, security of sexual identity, dispostion of the soul to sin, presence of vice, or any other thing aside from the presence of the behavior! “I don’t like that behavior. I don’t like how that looks.” And that has nothing whatsover to do with the church or the priest’s role in the church, and everything to do with prejudice, I’m sorry to say.

setter:

This is the common sense expereince and reality, that posters such as yourself appear to be in denial of. The priest is there for the flock first and foremost, and not the other way around. Yes, the presentation of the messenger does impact the message.

Sure the priest is there for the flock, not the flock for the priest. But when will the flock be able to appreciate the ministry of their priest without seeing first this or that mannerism? Is a flock unable to see beyond the mannerism unworthy of the priest, then? Should a flock only be given a priest that shares the flocks prejudices, rather than a priest who challenges them to see beyond them?

Regarding the message and the messenger, you might as well do your best to remove homely priests from their parishes–only physically beautiful people can properly preach the gospel! Only ruggedly handsome priests in our pulpits! More power to the pretty!

“My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?” St. James is speaking regarding preferential treatment of the rich here, but the argument applies.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

setter:

I also believe that to suggest that the priest be coached in behavior modification is a band aid on an underlying psychsocial disturbance of some sort and degree, albeit that may be the recommended remedy at a superficial level; and I do not rule out a ‘fake it until you make’ possibility to promoting a more integral grounding in their masculinity/femininity.

I’m talking about mannerisms. Not psychosocial disturbances, whatever these mental phantoms may be. What psychosocial disturbances? When I mentioned behavior modification, it was not a reference to some sort of lifestyle makeover (which seems to be how you read it) or psycho-sexual self-imporvement. It was with reference to a sensitive priest modifying potentially disruptive behaviors out of love for his flock–not because his flock is right in perceiving these mannerisms as problematic, and not because these mannerisms are in themslves disruptive, but in the hope that one day, the flock will get over valuing appearances more than his ministry. In other words, in his attempt to emulate Paul and be “all things to all people.”

What we’re dealing with here are culturally intuited notions of the interpretation of gender with respect to how people of different genders interact in the world. Masculine and feminine are artificial concepts applied to the realities of biology. Can you point them out and say, “Look, there goes a masculinity”? It is only in the traditional symbolic sense that masculinity and femininity achieve any greater importance as symbols of the active and the passive, the spirit and the soul. But more often than not (and unfortunately), they merely refer to the conditioned and conditioning cultural interpretations of gender. And being conceptual, masculinity and femininity are no real basis for any sort of integral grounding. Someone with an integral grounding in their masculinity is not, for that grounding, a more male person. They are simply more comfortable with how that culture expects him, as a male, to behave. I would rather people have a more integral grounding in the reality of the risen Lord than in the concept of how they’re supposed to behave socially in a given culture, at a given time, given their biology.

What I’m saying, perhaps not so directly, but I’ll say it so now, is that your argument seems to conflate a strong masculine or feminine identification with a whole person, reducing the person merely to whether or not they buy into a particular concept. It’s reductive, and says more about Freudianism in the church than it does about Christianity. And though it may go over well in the Promise Keepers’ camp, I don’t think masculinity or femininity are key to the gospel that knows not jew nor greek, nor male nor female.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[dapper]

Grace & Peace!

Fix, I’m not convinced that mere effeminate behaviors or mannerisms (over which the individual may or may not have conscious control) are vices. And I’m not referring to whether or not those behaviors are indicative of a homosexual orientation. I’ve known men who were “effeminate” but who were certainly not homosexuals by any stretch of the imagination. Sexual orientation, then, is not what I’m addressing here. I’m addressing the phenomenon of a priest with effeminate behaviors and mannerisms being rejected by his congregation on the basis of those behaviors and mannerisms. Speculation regarding his sexuality is (or to my thinking, should be) immaterial here, and is (as the word “speculation” suggests), merely speculative. I think it is fair, therefore, to include that the problem is one of prejudice–not in the sense of an attitude against homosexuals (because homosexuality is not part of the discussion here, as I see it), but because it’s indicative of a judgment made on a priest based on nothing more than appearances.

Setter, I said nothing regarding homosexuality or homophobia until I wrote the above response to fix’ question.

Are you assuming that a mannerism is indicative of a lack of security in one’s sexual identity? In some, perhaps. But your generalization here is no more than that: a generalization.

And how would such a behavior be distracting to those who are secure in their sexual identity, as you maintain that it is? In what way does it challenge that security? And is this something that someone secure in their sexual identity would really worry about? Is this what keeps someone secure in their sexual identity up at night, “my priest has an effeminate mannerism, what am I to do?” And does security in one’s sexual identity have anything at all to do with this? I would argue it doesn’t. What it has to do with is prejudice, plain and simple–people saying, “I don’t like that behavior,” a behavior, moreover, which is not indicative of sexual orientation, security of sexual identity, dispostion of the soul to sin, presence of vice, or any other thing aside from the presence of the behavior! “I don’t like that behavior. I don’t like how that looks.” And that has nothing whatsover to do with the church or the priest’s role in the church, and everything to do with prejudice, I’m sorry to say.

Sure the priest is there for the flock, not the flock for the priest. But when will the flock be able to appreciate the ministry of their priest without seeing first this or that mannerism? Is a flock unable to see beyond the mannerism unworthy of the priest, then? Should a flock only be given a priest that shares the flocks prejudices, rather than a priest who challenges them to see beyond them?

Regarding the message and the messenger, you might as well do your best to remove homely priests from their parishes–only physically beautiful people can properly preach the gospel! Only ruggedly handsome priests in our pulpits! More power to the pretty!

“My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?” St. James is speaking regarding preferential treatment of the rich here, but the argument applies.

(CONTINUED…)

:clapping:

Bravo…these were my points as well. Linking effeminacy to being secure in ones sexuality is all in the eye of the beholder. I too would question the one making the judgement. Good call!

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!
I think it is fair, therefore, to include that the problem is one of prejudice–not in the sense of an attitude against homosexuals (because homosexuality is not part of the discussion here, as I see it), but because it’s indicative of a judgment made on a priest based on nothing more than appearances.

Where do these overly effeminate “appearances” derive from if not developmental (social, pscyhological, sexual identity, …) deficits?

Setter, I said nothing regarding homosexuality or homophobia until I wrote the above response to fix’ question.

You mentioned “discrimination”, and I was curious if by way of extension an unfounded fear. I see that you are defining a new class of folks disciminated based on affective display and mannerisms?

Are you assuming that a mannerism is indicative of a lack of security in one’s sexual identity? In some, perhaps. But your generalization here is no more than that: a generalization.

If not an insecurity, then a maladjustment, lack of consolidation in one’s gender identity.

And how would such a behavior be distracting to those who are secure in their sexual identity, as you maintain that it is? In what way does it challenge that security?

Because it is an aberration display. Period.

And is this something that someone secure in their sexual identity would really worry about?

There is no reason why anyone established in their masculinity/femininity would need to worry or have any insecurity.

Is this what keeps someone secure in their sexual identity up at night, “my priest has an effeminate mannerism, what am I to do?” And does security in one’s sexual identity have anything at all to do with this? I would argue it doesn’t. What it has to do with is prejudice, plain and simple–people saying, “I don’t like that behavior,” a behavior, moreover, which is not indicative of sexual orientation, security of sexual identity, dispostion of the soul to sin, presence of vice, or any other thing aside from the presence of the behavior! “I don’t like that behavior. I don’t like how that looks.” And that has nothing whatsover to do with the church or the priest’s role in the church, and everything to do with prejudice, I’m sorry to say.

I do not get the introduction of discrimination. It is simply a failure to connect and posses a limitation to effectiveness for most folks. Period. Let common sense prevail.

Sure the priest is there for the flock, not the flock for the priest. But when will the flock be able to appreciate the ministry of their priest without seeing first this or that mannerism? Is a flock unable to see beyond the mannerism unworthy of the priest, then? Should a flock only be given a priest that shares the flocks prejudices, rather than a priest who challenges them to see beyond them?

More “prejudice” based on affective display and gender incongruent mannerisms? I stand by that it is a distraction and put off for the common parishioner in the pew, as in something is intra-psychically amiss with the overly effeminate priest.

Regarding the message and the messenger, you might as well do your best to remove homely priests from their parishes–only physically beautiful people can properly preach the gospel! Only ruggedly handsome priests in our pulpits! More power to the pretty!

“My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?” St. James is speaking regarding preferential treatment of the rich here, but the argument applies.

I am simply pointing out the limitations of overly effeminate priests.

 

[setter]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)
I’m talking about mannerisms. Not psychosocial disturbances, whatever these mental phantoms may be. What psychosocial disturbances? When I mentioned behavior modification, it was not a reference to some sort of lifestyle makeover (which seems to be how you read it) or psycho-sexual self-imporvement. It was with reference to a sensitive priest modifying potentially disruptive behaviors out of love for his flock–not because his flock is right in perceiving these mannerisms as problematic, and not because these mannerisms are in themslves disruptive, but in the hope that one day, the flock will get over valuing appearances more than his ministry. In other words, in his attempt to emulate Paul and be “all things to all people.”

Peristent and pervasive overly effeminate behaviors by a priests are evidence of an underlying psychological disturbance. Period.

What we’re dealing with here are culturally intuited notions of the interpretation of gender with respect to how people of different genders interact in the world. Masculine and feminine are artificial concepts applied to the realities of biology. Can you point them out and say, “Look, there goes a masculinity”? It is only in the traditional symbolic sense that masculinity and femininity achieve any greater importance as symbols of the active and the passive, the spirit and the soul. But more often than not (and unfortunately), they merely refer to the conditioned and conditioning cultural interpretations of gender. And being conceptual, masculinity and femininity are no real basis for any sort of integral grounding. Someone with an integral grounding in their masculinity is not, for that grounding, a more male person. They are simply more comfortable with how that culture expects him, as a male, to behave. I would rather people have a more integral grounding in the reality of the risen Lord than in the concept of how they’re supposed to behave socially in a given culture, at a given time, given their biology.

An overly effeminate priests in the Western culture is just that, an overly effeminate male. Period. Common sense and shared acculturation make this plain and simple.

What I’m saying, perhaps not so directly, but I’ll say it so now, is that your argument seems to conflate a strong masculine or feminine identification with a whole person, reducing the person merely to whether or not they buy into a particular concept. It’s reductive, and says more about Freudianism in the church than it does about Christianity. And though it may go over well in the Promise Keepers’ camp, I don’t think masculinity or femininity are key to the gospel that knows not jew nor greek, nor male nor female.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

What I am saying, and speaking for common parishoner sitting in the pews each Sunday, is that a priest not well grounded and balanced in his sense of gender socialization and/or identity will evidence overly effeminate mannerisms and gestures and affective displays. Period. Where do you think that one’s masculinity and femininity derive from?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, in my 55 years, I’ve only met one priest who was
effeminate.

All the others, even one that recently was arrested in Las Vagas for masturbating another male at a adult sex store, was very masculine in his behavior. He was removed from his ministry back here in the East, when it was discovered.

What we want in priest, are men who are holy. However, I think our preception of what a holy man is like, is perhaps distorted.

Jim

 

[chotock]

can someone tell me what exactly are effeminate displays that absolutely prove a maladjusted person, not just gestures or actions specific to any culture or ethnic group.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t know any…

 

[LittleDeb]

As I have been reading this thread I have seen many words given that aren’t really well defined. Masculinity and femininity are two very important ones. Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft has an excellent talk on women and the priesthood that is very applicable here. It is subtitled something like, “Why only boys can be the daddies.” peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

Many people mistakenly believe that masculinity and feminity are defined by society as a result of being male or female. Kreeft clarifies that male and female are the result of the masculinity and femininity of God. To be masculine is to be in the role of giving. To be feminine is to be in the role of recieving. Kreeft points out that we are all feminine in our reception of God.

The important point to those statements is that a man who is in the feminine role of reception is by no means effeminate. The effeminate man is not being feminine. He is lacking masculinity, as God has defined it. I am an extremely feminine female. Effeminate men are not more feminine than I am. They are instead trapped in a more neutered state. They are male yet do not have a healthy balance of their God-given masculinity and femininity.

Kreeft discusses how Jesus is male for a very specific purpose of defining the giving role of masculinity. That God incarnated as a male shows the giving role in His divine masculinity. Effeminate men distract from the role of giving, just as masculinized women detract from the role of receiving. This is further explained by Fr. Corapi in his talks where he repeats the phrase, “Men and women are equal in dignity, but NOT the same,” many times over.

Effeminate priests distract from In persona Christi by their mixed signals of what it means to be masculine. I repeat this is not based on a culture’s loose definition of “male behavior.” Truly effeminate men are lacking God’s definition of masculinity.